Dear Department of Health,

I seek access to the all documents including correspondence, briefings file notes and telephone records of communications made between 1 January 2013 and 30 September 2013 between:

- the Department (including Mr Richard Eccles and his staff) and Prime Minister and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet;

- the Department (including Mr Richard Eccles and his staff) and the Minister for Sport; and

- - the Department (including Mr Richard Eccles and his staff) and the Minister and Department for Justice;

- the Department (including Mr Richard Eccles and his staff) and the Australian Sports Anti Doping Authority; and

- the Department (including Mr Richard Eccles and his staff) and the Australian Football League, including its Commissioners (in either their private or official capacities); and

- the Department (including Mr Richard Eccles and his staff) and the Australian Sports Commission, including its Board members (in either their private or official capacities); and

- the Department (including Mr Richard Eccles and his staff) and the Australian Crime Commission;

in relation to the proposed or actual investigation by ASADA into the Essendon Football Club, including the joint press conference held on 7 February 2013, and the arrangements for the AFL ASADA joint investigation.

Yours faithfully,

Martin Hardie

Dear Charine,

Thanks for your reply, I look forward to heating from you.

Yours faithfully,

Martin Hardie

Dear Andrew,

I wish to lodge a contention that the charge should be reduced or not imposed on the basis that giving access to the documents is in the general public interest or in the interest of a substantial section of the public.

There is a clear public interest in the upholding of the law and to ensure that public authorities remain within the boundaries of their statutory power. There is also clearly a public interest in maitaining the independence of ASADA and in this regard you are no doubt aware of the public commentary on this in recent days, in particular the concern expressed by Mr John Fahey, former Presdient of WADA.

As you are no doubt aware prior to 1 August 2014 the Department had no statutory or other power to receive NAD Scheme personal information as defined in the ASADA Act. You are also aware that ASADA was established with the view that it would act independently of government and sporting authorities. It seems apparent from the evidence tendered by ASADA at the recent Federal Court proceedings and the oral evidence of Ms Andruska that this independence was compromised. From that evidence the involvement of Mr Eccles, amongst others, appears central to this.

Given the clear public interest in these matters generally, which extend beyond the interest of the sporting public and thus touch upon matters that go to the heart of the rule of law I submit that it would be appropriate for the Department to not impose any charge in respect of my application.

I am happy to provide you with more detailed submissions on this point if you so require. However, i order to lessen the burden on you I am happy to confine my request to documents that mention ASADA and/or Essendon Football Club are mentioned.

Finally, I must say that in any event I would not be in any position to pay such an amount personally and that it would cause significant financial hardship if I was to pay the amount you seek and hence contend that the charge should be waived on that basis as well.

Yours faithfully,

Martin Hardie

Dear Department of Health,

Further to my email of 19 August I wish to note that my contention that fees should be waived is consistent with the law on section 29(5) of the Act.

In this instance the waiver of fees would allow the release of the information to flow to the public given that I am an academic researcher writing scholarly articles and a book on the topic.

The release of the information would actually be something of benefit to the public in so far as the facts concerning any alleged political and departmental involvement in the case would be better understood.

This will go to better informing the public as to the need for anti-doping processes to remain independent of any such political involvement.

Furthermore in assessing these factors it is clear I will not and do not seek any commercial benefit that may outweigh the public interest and negate the need to waive fees.

Yours faithfully,

Martin Hardie

Dear Department of Health,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Department of Health's handling of my FOI request 'Documents relating to ASADA AFL Investigation'.

I wish to have this reviewed on the ground that the fees should be waived as dislcosure is in the public interest.

The reasons for decision provided to me state "You have submitted that ' [t]here is a clear public interest in the upholding of the law and to
ensure that public authorities remain within the boundaries of their statutory power.' While I
would agree with this generally, it is not evident to me that giving access to documents within
your request would add anything materially to consideration of this than is being considered
in the context of the current Federal Court matter."

Last Friday 19 September the Federal Court handed down its decision at fist instance. In doing so it stated:

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT

[79] For the purposes of these proceedings, I do not need to consider or comment on the propriety of the intervention made by the then Federal Government during the course of the investigation. Section 24 of the Act provides that the relevant minister may, by legislative instrument, give directions to the CEO in relation to the performance of his or her functions and the exercise of his or her powers. However, such a direction must not relate to a particular athlete, or a particular support person, who is subject to the NAD Scheme, or relate to the testing of a particular athlete under an anti-doping testing service, or safety checking service, being provided by the CEO under contract on behalf of the Commonwealth.

[80] ASADA is to be independent from the influence of government, save for the power of the relevant Minister to give directions, by legislative instrument, as contemplated by s 24 of the Act. The Act does not empower the Minister to override the exercise of the CEO’s statutory powers in relation to a specific athlete, and requires any direction to be made by legislative instrument. Ministerial direction outside the specific permission given by the Act would normally be treated as impliedly forbidden.

[81] This is not to say that the CEO may not discuss matters with the relevant Federal Government department, for instance in relation to financial resources and the general operation of ASADA. Further, one of the functions of the CEO is to advise the relevant minister about matters relating to any of his or her other functions referred to in s 21 of the Act: see s 21(1)(n).

It is clear that the Federal Court did not feel that the matters raised in my request were relevant to its particular decision. However, this is not to say that the matters are not of public interest. The question of the extent and nature of any political involvement in the case that may have compromised ASADA's independence is still a live issue that is of concern. On this basis I submit that it disclosure remains a matter of public interest and I request the fees be waived.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/d...

Yours faithfully,

Martin Hardie