Dear Department of Veterans' Affairs,

Under FOI, I seek copy for any document (including emails) received or sent by any SES level officer in the period 1 January 2018 - 30 April 2018 that relates to the replacement of delegate names in official correspondence with position number instead.

It is likely that such a document was sent to the Secretary for approval and also involved a Department brief for the Minister, but I provide this merely as pointers to where such documents in scope may be found.

TRIM and the G: drive of the Legal Services & Assurance branch should also be searched for such documents, in addition to the Department’s email server (but again may be limited to SES level officers only).

Yours faithfully,

Verity Pane

Dear Department of Veterans' Affairs,

Since you have difficulty adhering to the statutory response dates, your ready reckoner for this FOI is:
s 15(5)(a) Statutory Acknowledgement Deadline Friday 14th September 2018
s 15(5)(b) Statutory Due Date: Monday 1st October 2018 for decision (due to 30th day falling on the Sunday)

Yours faithfully,

Verity Pane

Dear Unnamed Officer,

Surprise, surprise - DVA stalls yet again. This time claiming no such documents exist for a rather significant change in FOI practice. It is untenable and fanciful that this significant change occurred with absolutely no documents implementing it.

I seek internal review on the grounds that the search was inadequate, and clearly did exclude relevant documents.

Yours sincerely,

Verity Pane

Dear Unnamed Officer,

Further to the internal review grounds raised, I understand that the OAIC’s ICON circular to agencies (Friday, 8 June 2018 edition) explicitly stated:

Where the decision relates to a document of an agency, the decision notice needs to include the name and designation of the person making the decision, including the decision maker’s first name, surname and title, to clearly explain their authority to make the decision [FOI Guidelines 3.181]

I find it hard to believe that the OAIC explicitly telling agencies, including DVA, the requirements for FOI delegate identification, which DVA had been in absolute breach of, didn’t generate any document within DVA.

I guess this raises the question why DVA is flagrantly breaching FOI law with the use of pseudonyms in its FOI decisions, even when the OAIC has told DVA this is in breach.

Yours sincerely,

Verity Pane

Attn DVA Internal Reviewer,

In the impugned decision notice on which this review is sought, Position Number 62210358 of DVA Information Law claimed no documents existed that referred to DVA’s impugned practice of hiding the names of delegates and decision makers behind the pseudonyms of position numbers (of which only DVA knows the occupant).

However, I have been forwarded a copy of DVA Departmental record by my source, that was drafted to brief the Minister in relation to questions from then Senator Jacqui Lambie, and the writer of that document comes from the same area as you FOI delegate’s (the Legal Services and Assurance Branch).

The document in question advises the Minister that DVA has implemented the use of pseudonyms to hide the identity of Departmental employees, citing the ‘Work Health & Safety Act 2011’ (citing the external legal services opinion DVA contracted to obtain, which you also claim doesn’t exist).

Although that document says DVA will use first names, position numbers and title, which DVA claimed was required to enable clients to identify the relevant decision maker and provide the minimum transparency, instead of just the position numbers that DVA uses now to be completely opaque.

Is there a reason why DVA repeatly lies through its teeth, in a corrupt bad faith manner?

Ms Pane

Attn INFORMATION.LAW,

Even when your own Departmental responses to Questions On Notices in Parliament directly contradict the false claims that no documents exist, you still continue to lie.

It’s the extent of corruption that DVA officers like George have, that should be of great concern to the integrity of the public service.

I also note, yet again, an invalid decision has been issued.

The FOI decision notice is invalid, as it does not meet the requirements of s 26(1)(b) and FOI Guideline 3.181, as it does not include the required information to identify the decision maker (without further research), which as per the OAIC ICON circular of 8 June 2018 (which was circulated to agencies including DVA), states “where the decision relates to a document of an agency, the decision notice needs to include the name and designation of the person making the decision, including the decision maker’s first name, surname and title, to clearly explain their authority to make the decision”.

This required information is not merely incidental to an FOI decision but integral - it is provided so the receiver knows who to contact about the decision, and to determine whether the person who issued it is in fact authorised to do so (such as by independently checking the agency’s FOI delegations/authorisations list). It is simply not enough to assert that the agency knows who issued the decision, or is confident they are authorised to do so - it is not a question for the agency alone to determine.

I also note that your Minister, in response to Question on notice 369, stated to Parliament that DVA would not use less than first name, position number and title, in decisions (despite that also falling below s 26(1)(b)), so as to not fall below identification and transparency requirements, but since then title and first name has been dropped and now the opaque position number is used alone routinely. Has your Minister deliberately misled Parliament?

IC Review will be applied for based on the above.

Ms Pane