Documents Relating to the Sharing of DVA Client Information
Dear FOI Officer,
I am making this request for access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth).
I seek access to any and all documents, records, data, and supporting material held by [Name of Agency] concerning the sharing of personal information originating from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) over the last ten years. This includes any data transfers from or to the DVA, whether they were one-off exchanges or ongoing, systematic transfers of DVA client information, including personal, medical, financial, or service-related details concerning veterans or their dependents.
I am interested in obtaining a comprehensive understanding of what DVA client information [Authority name] has received or accessed and for what purposes. Specifically, I request:
All records of data sharing arrangements between DVA and [Authority name], including but not limited to memoranda of understanding, service-level agreements, emails, letters, meeting minutes, file transfer logs, internal reports, and instructions that outline what data was shared, when it was shared, and the format or system used for the transfer.
Any policies, procedures, guidelines, or frameworks that govern how [Authority name] requests, obtains, stores, handles, or uses DVA client information. This includes documents that detail the criteria for approving access to such data, any consent or authorization processes, security controls, and retention or destruction policies.
Copies of any ethics committee approvals, privacy impact assessments, internal review board decisions, or other documents that reflect deliberations or authorizations for obtaining DVA client information. This includes records that show the agency considered the ethical, legal, or privacy implications of receiving or using DVA client data.
Documents that outline the intended uses or practical applications of the DVA client data, such as project proposals, business cases, internal strategy papers, or briefings that explain why [Authority name] sought access to this information, how it was intended to be integrated into the agency’s operations, and any expected outcomes or benefits.
A representative sample (in a suitably de-identified or redacted form) of the data or data fields received, so long as providing this sample does not breach any exemption under the FOI Act. The purpose is to understand the nature and granularity of the information shared, without disclosing identifiable personal details.
If the only data [Authority name] received pertains solely to data linked to the Centrelink Confirmation eServices (CCeS) arrangements as described at https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/cen..., and there were no other forms of DVA data shared, then no CCeS-related data needs to be provided under this request.
I emphasize that I am not authorizing the transfer of this FOI request to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs or any other agency. If [Authority name] holds the requested information, it should provide it directly. If there are parts of this request that [Name of Agency] does not understand or believes are not held, I invite you to contact me to clarify or refine the scope under section 24AB of the FOI Act, rather than initiating a transfer. However, I do not consent to the transfer of this request to another entity. The FOI Act places the onus on agencies to process requests for documents they hold, and I expect [Authority name] to meet its responsibilities in this regard.
I note that the statutory timeframe for processing FOI requests is 30 days from the date of receipt. I do not consent to any extension of time due to internal reduced activity periods, holiday stand-down periods, or other internal operational issues. If [Authority name] considers that it cannot meet the 30-day timeframe, it may seek an extension from the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner as provided under section 15AB of the FOI Act. I request to be notified if such an application is made.
If you consider any part of this request too broad or complex, please contact me promptly to discuss refining its scope. I remain willing to consider adjustments that will assist efficient processing, provided that they occur within the statutory timeframe and do not undermine the substance of what I am seeking.
I believe that disclosure of these documents is in the public interest, as it promotes transparency and accountability in how government agencies access and use sensitive personal information about veterans. Should you consider charges applicable, I request that you exercise your discretion to reduce or waive them, given the importance of the matter and its alignment with the principles of open government and public accountability.
I look forward to receiving your acknowledgment and decision within the statutory timeframe. Please contact me at the details below if you require further clarification.
Yours sincerely,
Nosey
Dear Nosey Rosey
Acknowledgement of your Freedom of Information Request
I refer to your request for access to documents under the Freedom of
Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) made in the following terms (paraphrased):
I seek access to any and all documents, records, data, and
supporting material held by [Name of Agency] concerning the sharing of
personal information originating from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs
(DVA) over the last ten years. This includes any data
transfers from or to the DVA, whether they were one-off exchanges or
ongoing, systematic transfers of DVA client information, including
personal, medical, financial, or service-related details concerning
veterans or their dependents.
...
All records of data sharing arrangements between DVA and
[Authority name], including but not limited to memoranda of understanding,
service-level agreements, emails, letters, meeting minutes, file transfer
logs, internal reports, and instructions that outline what data was
shared, when it was shared, and the format or system used for the
transfer.
...
Any policies, procedures, guidelines, or frameworks that
govern how [Authority name] requests, obtains, stores, handles, or uses
DVA client information. This includes documents that detail the criteria
for approving access to such data, any consent or authorization processes,
security controls, and retention or destruction policies.
...
Copies of any ethics committee approvals, privacy impact
assessments, internal review board decisions, or other documents that
reflect deliberations or authorizations for obtaining DVA client
information. This includes records that show the agency
considered the ethical, legal, or privacy implications of receiving or
using DVA client data.
...
Documents that outline the intended uses or practical
applications of the DVA client data, such as project proposals, business
cases, internal strategy papers, or briefings that explain why [Authority
name] sought access to this information, how it was intended to be
integrated into the agency’s operations, and any expected outcomes or
benefits.
I understand your request for documents to exclude:
• duplicate and draft versions of documents
• personal information of Australian Electoral Commission
(AEC) staff.
Timeframe to process your request
Your request was received by the AEC on 14 December 2024, and the 30-day
statutory timeframe for processing your request commenced from the day
after that date. Ordinarily, you should expect to receive a decision from
us by 13 January 2025. However, please see below details for the request
for consultation process which affects the decision period.
Section 24AB consultation
I am an officer authorised under section 23 of the FOI Act to make
decisions in relation to FOI requests.
The Australian Electoral Commission (the AEC) believes that work involved
in processing your FOI request in its current form would substantially and
unreasonably divert the resources of the AEC from its other operations due
to its broad scope and the inability to reasonably identify documents for
the AEC to commence retrieval from the relevant business areas.
This is called a ‘practical refusal reason' under section 24AA of the FOI
Act. On the basis of the practical refusal reason, I intend to refuse
access to the documents you requested. However, before I make a final
decision, you have the opportunity to revise your FOI request. This is
called a 'request consultation process', and is set out in section 24AB of
the FOI Act. You have 14 days to respond to this notice in one of the
ways set out below.
Why your request may be refused
I have decided that a practical refusal reason may exist because:
• the scope of the request is so broad that it is difficult to
reasonably identify what documents you are seeking and which business
areas within the agency would likely hold the documents you are seeking,
and/or
• the request does not satisfy the requirements under
s15(2)(b) of the FOI Act because the information provided in the request
concerning the documents is so broad that the responsible officer of the
agency is unable to identify the documents you are after and the business
area within the agency that would likely hold the documents you are
seeking.
Request consultation process
You now have the opportunity to revise your request so that it may
proceed. You may wish to revise your request to narrow the scope of
documents, or explain in detail the specific documents that you wish to
access. Below are some ways may narrow the scope of your request:
• Limiting the request to a particular date range.
• Limiting the request to a particular subject matter – for
example requesting specific documents between the AEC and DVA for the
management of the electoral roll.
• Limiting the request to a particular business area within
the agency that may hold documents you are seeking.
• Identifying documents to which the AEC hold or are likely to
hold.
• Identifying the identity of the person/business area known
as “[authority name]” within your request.
Before the end of the 14 day consultation period, you must write to the
AEC and either:
• withdraw your request;
• make a revised request; or
• tell us that you do not wish to revise your request.
The 14 day consultation period will start on the day after you receive
this notice. During this period, you are welcome to seek assistance from
AEC to revise your request. If you revise your request to adequately
address the practical refusal reasons outlined above, the AEC will
recommence processing it.
The time taken to consult you regarding the scope of your request is not
taken into account for the purposes of the 30 day time limit for
processing your request.
If you do not do one of the three things listed above during the
consultation period or you do not contact the AEC to discuss your request
during this period, your request will be taken to have been withdrawn.
Charges
We will advise you if any charge is payable to process your request and
the amount of any charge as soon as practicable. No charge is payable for
providing a person with their own personal information.
Your address
The FOI Act requires that you provide us with an address to which we can
send notices. You have advised that your electronic address is
[1][FOI #12579 email]. We will send all
notices and correspondence to this address. Please advise us as soon as
possible if you wish for notices and correspondence to be sent to a
different address. If you do not advise us of changes to your address,
notices and correspondence will continue to be sent to the address
specified above.
Administrative release of documents
The AEC has administrative access arrangements for the release of certain
documents without the need for a formal freedom of information request.
Where appropriate we may offer you documents via the administrative access
scheme in lieu of processing under the FOI Act. Information relating to
third parties cannot be released via administrative access. You will be
notified when documents are released to you on an administrative access
basis.
Disclosure log
Documents released under the FOI Act may be published in a disclosure log
on the AEC's website. Section 11C of the FOI Act requires this
publication, however it is subject to certain exceptions, including where
publication of personal, business, professional or commercial information
would be unreasonable.
Further assistance
If you have any questions please email [2][email address], or contact our
enquiries line on 13 23 26.
Yours sincerely
Justine (888-51108)
Senior Government Lawyer
Australian Electoral Commission
Dear Justine,
Thank you for your correspondence dated 24 December 2024, regarding my Freedom of Information (FOI) request. I acknowledge your assertion of a practical refusal reason under section 24AA of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) (FOI Act). However, I do not accept that this reason is valid in the circumstances of my request.
The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) has a statutory responsibility for the management of the electoral roll. It is inconceivable that the AEC would lack clarity on the data it receives from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) or how this data is integrated into its processes. My request is specific in seeking records related to data sharing arrangements, including formal agreements, policies, communications, and intended uses of DVA information within the AEC’s systems.
Section 15(2)(b) of the FOI Act requires requests to provide sufficient information to enable documents to be identified. My request satisfies this requirement by specifying the type of documents, the subject matter (data sharing with the DVA), and the timeframe (ten years). If there are particular difficulties in locating or retrieving documents, I expect the AEC to detail these issues rather than asserting that the scope is too broad.
I remind you that section 24AB(2)(c) of the FOI Act requires agencies to provide genuine assistance to applicants in refining requests where necessary. However, your suggestion to limit the request to specific business areas or narrowly defined subject matters disregards the scope and purpose of my application, which seeks a comprehensive understanding of the AEC’s handling of DVA client data.
Responses to Your Questions
To address the specific questions raised in your notice:
Limiting Date Range: No changes to the original request. The requested timeframe of ten years is essential to understanding long-term data sharing arrangements.
Specific Subject Matter: The subject matter remains data sharing between the AEC and the DVA. This includes all uses of DVA data within the electoral roll and related systems, as clearly outlined in the original request.
Business Area: No limitation to specific business areas within the AEC is necessary. The request seeks all documents related to data sharing, and it is the AEC’s responsibility to identify relevant areas holding such records.
Exclusions: I consent to exclude duplicate and draft versions of documents, as well as personal information of AEC staff (other than Senior Executives), to streamline processing without impacting the substance of the request.
Accordingly, I do not consent to revise the scope of my request. I expect the AEC to meet its obligations under the FOI Act and process my application within the statutory timeframe. If the AEC chooses to proceed with a refusal, I require a formal decision, including a detailed explanation of the basis for refusal under the relevant provisions of the FOI Act.
I look forward to your response and expect that my original request will be actioned promptly.
Yours sincerely,
Nosey
Dear Nosey Rosey,
Please find attached documents regarding your FOI request.
Regards
Lucas
FOI Team
Australian Electoral Commission
T: 13 23 26
This email may contain legal advice that is subject to legal professional
privilege. Care should be taken to avoid unintended waiver of that
privilege. The Australian Electoral Commission’s Chief Legal Officer
should be consulted prior to any decision to disclose the existence or
content of any advice contained in this email to a third party.
Dear Megan,
I am writing to request an internal review of the decision made on my Freedom of Information (FOI) request (LEX 6865). I contest the decision to refuse access on the grounds of practical refusal under sections 24AA(1)(a) and (b) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act). The decision to refuse my request fails to adequately consider the legislative framework and principles established under the FOI Act, as outlined below.
1. Insufficient Identification of Documents (s 24AA(1)(b))
The refusal under section 24AA(1)(b) asserts that my request does not sufficiently identify the documents sought. However, section 15(2)(b) of the FOI Act only requires applicants to "provide such information concerning the document as is reasonably necessary to enable a responsible officer of the agency...to identify it." My request is sufficiently specific, as it clearly:
Identifies the subject matter (sharing of personal information originating from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA)).
Defines the types of documents sought, including memoranda of understanding, service-level agreements, emails, meeting minutes, and privacy impact assessments.
Specifies a timeframe (10 years) for the documents.
The decision-maker’s conclusion that my request spans "five different subject matter areas" and "11 different classes of documents" appears to conflate specificity with comprehensiveness. The FOI Act does not require applicants to narrow requests to a single subject or document type. In Miskelly and Department of Transport and Regional Services [2007] AATA 1791, the Tribunal found that a request is valid if it identifies documents by reference to subject matter, even if the number of documents is extensive.
Further, the FOI Guidelines issued by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) under section 93A of the FOI Act state at paragraph [3.54] that agencies "should adopt a common sense approach" and, where necessary, consult with the applicant to clarify ambiguities. My request does not present ambiguities but outlines specific parameters that reasonably enable identification of relevant documents.
2. Practical Refusal Reason – Substantial and Unreasonable Resource Impact (s 24AA(1)(a))
The decision under section 24AA(1)(a) claims that processing my request would unreasonably divert resources due to the volume of documents, consultations, and redactions required. While I acknowledge that compliance with the FOI Act may involve significant work, the threshold of "substantial and unreasonable" must be satisfied under section 24AA(1)(a).
Agency’s Responsibilities Under s 24AB
Section 24AB(2)(c) of the FOI Act requires agencies to "assist the applicant to revise the request" in order to remove practical refusal grounds. The consultation letter provided did not adequately assist me to refine my request. The suggestion to "exclude duplicate and draft versions" and "personal information of staff" did not substantively reduce the scope. For example:
The agency failed to propose more specific parameters, such as narrowing the request to certain document types (e.g., memoranda of understanding or privacy impact assessments) or a shorter timeframe.
The agency also did not engage in a meaningful dialogue to clarify how its retrieval systems could better align with my request.
Paragraph [3.117] of the FOI Guidelines states that the "impact on resources" should consider staffing availability and operational impact, and requires agencies to demonstrate how these factors create an unreasonable diversion of resources. The decision fails to quantify or substantiate how resources would be substantially and unreasonably diverted. In Australian Associated Press Pty Ltd and Department of Health (Freedom of information) [2021] AICmr 37, the OAIC highlighted that agencies must provide sufficient detail to justify claims of resource impact.
3. Significant Public Interest
The decision-maker’s assertion that "it is unclear what significant public interest would be derived from the documents sought" contradicts the FOI Act’s presumption of disclosure. Section 3(2) of the FOI Act emphasizes that the legislation exists to increase scrutiny, transparency, and accountability in government operations. The documents sought relate to the handling of personal information concerning veterans and their dependents, a matter of substantial public interest given the sensitive nature of such information.
The FOI Guidelines at paragraph [6.9] further state that agencies should take into account the public interest in transparency when considering the impact of an FOI request. Veterans and their dependents represent a vulnerable demographic whose data management practices warrant public scrutiny. My request aligns with these principles.
4. Suggested Refinements to Scope
To address any remaining practical refusal concerns, I propose the following refinements:
Timeframe: Limit the scope to documents created between 2019–2024.
Document Types: Narrow the request to the following:
Memoranda of understanding, service-level agreements, or contracts governing data sharing between the AEC and DVA.
Privacy impact assessments or equivalent documents relating to the handling of DVA client data.
Policies or guidelines on how the AEC manages DVA client information, including retention, destruction, and security protocols.
These revisions maintain the substantive focus of the original request while reducing the processing burden on the agency.
5. Procedural Irregularities in Refusal
Finally, the refusal decision appears to have overlooked procedural fairness requirements under section 24AA(2) of the FOI Act, which requires agencies to exhaust all reasonable alternatives to practical refusal before denying access. In WL v Department of Defence [2021] AICmr 10, the OAIC emphasized that agencies must ensure refusal decisions are proportional and consider applicants’ willingness to cooperate in refining requests.
Conclusion
I respectfully request that the AEC reconsider its decision and process the revised scope outlined above. I remain willing to engage further to address any remaining concerns. If this review does not result in a favorable outcome, I will exercise my rights to seek external review by the OAIC.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
Nosey Rosey
Dear Nosey Rosey
Acknowledgement of Your Internal Review Request
I refer to your request for internal review of a decision made under the
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) on 17 January 2025. This
decision was made in response to your FOI request of 14 December 2024.
Your request for internal review is made in the following terms:
I am writing to request an internal review of the decision made on my
Freedom of Information (FOI) request (LEX 6865). I contest the decision to
refuse access on the grounds of practical refusal under sections
24AA(1)(a) and (b) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act). The
decision to refuse my request fails to adequately consider the legislative
framework and principles established under the FOI Act, as outlined below.
1. Insufficient Identification of Documents (s 24AA(1)(b))
The refusal under section 24AA(1)(b) asserts that my request does not
sufficiently identify the documents sought. However, section 15(2)(b) of
the FOI Act only requires applicants to "provide such information
concerning the document as is reasonably necessary to enable a responsible
officer of the agency...to identify it." My request is sufficiently
specific, as it clearly:
Identifies the subject matter (sharing of personal information originating
from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA)).
Defines the types of documents sought, including memoranda of
understanding, service-level agreements, emails, meeting minutes, and
privacy impact assessments.
Specifies a timeframe (10 years) for the documents.
The decision-maker’s conclusion that my request spans "five different
subject matter areas" and "11 different classes of documents" appears to
conflate specificity with comprehensiveness. The FOI Act does not require
applicants to narrow requests to a single subject or document type. In
Miskelly and Department of Transport and Regional Services [2007] AATA
1791, the Tribunal found that a request is valid if it identifies
documents by reference to subject matter, even if the number of documents
is extensive.
Further, the FOI Guidelines issued by the Office of the Australian
Information Commissioner (OAIC) under section 93A of the FOI Act state at
paragraph [3.54] that agencies "should adopt a common sense approach" and,
where necessary, consult with the applicant to clarify ambiguities. My
request does not present ambiguities but outlines specific parameters that
reasonably enable identification of relevant documents.
2. Practical Refusal Reason – Substantial and Unreasonable Resource Impact
(s 24AA(1)(a))
The decision under section 24AA(1)(a) claims that processing my request
would unreasonably divert resources due to the volume of documents,
consultations, and redactions required. While I acknowledge that
compliance with the FOI Act may involve significant work, the threshold of
"substantial and unreasonable" must be satisfied under section 24AA(1)(a).
Agency’s Responsibilities Under s 24AB
Section 24AB(2)(c) of the FOI Act requires agencies to "assist the
applicant to revise the request" in order to remove practical refusal
grounds. The consultation letter provided did not adequately assist me to
refine my request. The suggestion to "exclude duplicate and draft
versions" and "personal information of staff" did not substantively reduce
the scope. For example:
The agency failed to propose more specific parameters, such as narrowing
the request to certain document types (e.g., memoranda of understanding or
privacy impact assessments) or a shorter timeframe.
The agency also did not engage in a meaningful dialogue to clarify how its
retrieval systems could better align with my request.
Paragraph [3.117] of the FOI Guidelines states that the "impact on
resources" should consider staffing availability and operational impact,
and requires agencies to demonstrate how these factors create an
unreasonable diversion of resources. The decision fails to quantify or
substantiate how resources would be substantially and unreasonably
diverted. In Australian Associated Press Pty Ltd and Department of Health
(Freedom of information) [2021] AICmr 37, the OAIC highlighted that
agencies must provide sufficient detail to justify claims of resource
impact.
3. Significant Public Interest
The decision-maker’s assertion that "it is unclear what significant public
interest would be derived from the documents sought" contradicts the FOI
Act’s presumption of disclosure. Section 3(2) of the FOI Act emphasizes
that the legislation exists to increase scrutiny, transparency, and
accountability in government operations. The documents sought relate to
the handling of personal information concerning veterans and their
dependents, a matter of substantial public interest given the sensitive
nature of such information.
The FOI Guidelines at paragraph [6.9] further state that agencies should
take into account the public interest in transparency when considering the
impact of an FOI request. Veterans and their dependents represent a
vulnerable demographic whose data management practices warrant public
scrutiny. My request aligns with these principles.
4. Suggested Refinements to Scope
To address any remaining practical refusal concerns, I propose the
following refinements:
Timeframe: Limit the scope to documents created between 2019–2024.
Document Types: Narrow the request to the following:
Memoranda of understanding, service-level agreements, or contracts
governing data sharing between the AEC and DVA.
Privacy impact assessments or equivalent documents relating to the
handling of DVA client data.
Policies or guidelines on how the AEC manages DVA client information,
including retention, destruction, and security protocols.
These revisions maintain the substantive focus of the original request
while reducing the processing burden on the agency.
5. Procedural Irregularities in Refusal
Finally, the refusal decision appears to have overlooked procedural
fairness requirements under section 24AA(2) of the FOI Act, which requires
agencies to exhaust all reasonable alternatives to practical refusal
before denying access. In WL v Department of Defence [2021] AICmr 10, the
OAIC emphasized that agencies must ensure refusal decisions are
proportional and consider applicants’ willingness to cooperate in refining
requests.
Conclusion
I respectfully request that the AEC reconsider its decision and process
the revised scope outlined above. I remain willing to engage further to
address any remaining concerns. If this review does not result in a
favorable outcome, I will exercise my rights to seek external review by
the OAIC.
Timeframe to process your request
Your request was received by the AEC on 19 January 2025, and the 30-day
statutory timeframe for processing your request commenced from the day
after that date. You should expect to receive a decision from us by 18
February 2025.
This 30-day processing period may only be extended by the Information
Commissioner. If the processing period is extended, you will be informed
of the extension and the reasons for it.
Your address
The FOI Act requires that you provide us with an address to which we can
send notices. The address that you have provided is
[1][FOI #12579 email]. We will send all notices
and correspondence to this address. Please advise us as soon as possible
if you wish for notices and correspondence to be sent to a different
address. If you do not advise us of changes to your address, notices and
correspondence will continue to be sent to the address specified above.
Disclosure log
Documents released under the FOI Act may be published in a disclosure log
on the AEC/s website. Section 11C of the FOI Act requires this
publication, however it is subject to certain exceptions, including where
publication of personal, business, professional or commercial information
would be unreasonable.
Further assistance
If you have any questions please email [2][email address], or contact our
enquiries line on 13 23 26.
Kind regards
Jade
Australian Electoral Commission
Dear Nosey Rosey
Please see attached correspondence relating to your internal review
request.
Kind regards,
Jade
Australian Electoral Commission
Dear Nosey Rosey
Please see the attached correspondence relating to your internal review
request of FOI decision LEX6865.
Yours sincerely,
Jade
Australian Electoral Commission
noseyrosey left an annotation ()
Request Submitted: 14 December 2024
The statutory 30-day timeframe starts the following day.
Statutory Clock Begins: 15 December 2024
Original Deadline: 13 January 2025.
Section 24AB Practical Refusal Notice Issued: 24 December 2024
Statutory clock paused with 9 days elapsed and 21 days remaining.
Consultation Period Ends: 7 January 2025 (14 days after notice).
Statutory clock resumes 8 January 2025.
Remaining Days on the Clock:
21 days remaining from 8 January 2025.
New Deadline:
29 January 2025 (21 days after 8 January 2025).