eHealth MOU
Dear Department of Health and Ageing,
Under the provisions of the FOI Act I request a copy of the eHealth Memorandum of Understanding which replaces the National Partnership on E-Health which expired at end of June 2012.
Yours faithfully,
Red
Dear Department of Health and Ageing,
Further to my earlier email I also make the application that all costs for the processing of this request be waived on the grounds that the release of this
information is in the public interest.
Yours faithfully,
Red
Attention: Red
Please see attached decision in relation to FOI Request 258-1213.
(See attached file: Decision.pdf)
Dear Department of Health and Ageing,
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 and Ageing's handling of my FOI request 'eHealth MOU'.
The decision maker has not made a decision based on the law.
The department claims that the document is conditionally exempt under section 47B. But it is not correct. Section 47B of the Act says that a document is conditional exempt if disclosure of the document "would or could reasonably be expected to, cause damage to relations between the Commonwealth and a State", but the department does not say that. The department say (in Appendix A): "the release of the document ... may cause damage to relations between the Commonwealth and a State". "May cause damage" is not the same as ""would, or could reasonably be expected to, cause damage". It is not the same thing at all. Have a look at the guidelines issued by the Information Commissioner at http://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-inform... ... You should read carefully the paragraph "Damage to be reasonably expected."
It is also a silly suggestion that it would not promote debate if the document was given to me. The time for debate is before an agreement is reached, not afterwards!
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/eh...
Yours faithfully,
Red
Attention: Red
Please see attached correspondence in relation to Internal Review Request
258-1213.
(See attached file: Acknowledgment Internal Review.pdf)
Red <foi
+request-
117-d54c5 To
054@right FOI requests at Health
toknow.or <[Health request email]>,
g.au> cc
24/06/201 Subject
3 19:30 Internal review of Freedom of
Information request - eHealth MOU
[SEC=No Protective Marking]
Dear Department of Health and Ageing,
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
and Ageing's handling of my FOI request 'eHealth MOU'.
The decision maker has not made a decision based on the law.
The department claims that the document is conditionally exempt
under section 47B. But it is not correct. Section 47B of the Act
says that a document is conditional exempt if disclosure of the
document "would or could reasonably be expected to, cause damage to
relations between the Commonwealth and a State", but the department
does not say that. The department say (in Appendix A): "the release
of the document ... may cause damage to relations between the
Commonwealth and a State". "May cause damage" is not the same as
""would, or could reasonably be expected to, cause damage". It is
not the same thing at all. Have a look at the guidelines issued by
the Information Commissioner at
http://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-inform... ... You should read
carefully the paragraph "Damage to be reasonably expected."
It is also a silly suggestion that it would not promote debate if
the document was given to me. The time for debate is before an
agreement is reached, not afterwards!
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/eh...
Yours faithfully,
Red
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #117 email]
Write your response as plain text. Only send PDF documents as a
last resort. Government guidelines make it clear that PDF is not an
acceptable format for you to use in the delivery of government
information.
http://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offic...
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be
published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
http://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offic...
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your
web manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
Dear Red
I write with reference to your request of 24 June 2013 to the Department of
Health and Ageing seeking an internal review of the decision on your
Freedom of Information request (ref: 258-1213) in which you sought access
to a copy of the eHealth Memorandum of Understanding (eHealth MOU). The
eHealth MOU has now been signed by all parties and can be accessed on the
Department of Health and Ageing's website at:
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/p...
On the basis that the document to which you sought access to in your
original FOI request of 24 May 2013 has now been made publicly available
could you please advise the Department by 5pm AEST Thursday 11 July 2013
whether you wish to continue with your request for an internal review.
Should the Department not hear from you by this time it will be considered
that your request has been withdrawn.
Dear Department of Health and Ageing,
Thank you for your email of 4 July. On the basis that the eHealth MOU can now be accessed via the website you have indicated I wish to withdraw my request for an internal review of your original FOI decision.
Yours faithfully,
Red
Locutus Sum left an annotation ()
I make comments the same as my comments elsewhere (http://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/th... should request an internal review. The decision maker has not made a decision based on the law.
The department claims that the document is conditionally exempt under section 47B. But it is not correct. Section 47B of the Act says that a document is conditional exempt if disclosure of the document "would or could reasonably be expected to, cause damage to relations between the Commonwealth and a State", but the department does not say that. The department say (in Appendix A): "the release of the document ... may cause damage to relations between the Commonwealth and a State". "May cause damage" is not the same as ""would, or could reasonably be expected to, cause damage". It is not the same thing at all. Have a look at the guidelines issued by the Information Commissioner at http://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-inform... ... You should read carefully the paragraph "Damage to be reasonably expected." You could also argue against the silly suggestion that it would not promote debate if the document was given to you. The time for debate is before an agreement is reached, not afterwards!
Held og lykke!!