FOI-2023-10082 - emails or other communications directed at all staff about the Royal Commission on the Robo-debt Scheme
Dear Commonwealth Ombudsman,
According to the Commonwealth Ombudsman Disclosure Log, on 3 November 2023, the Ombudsman granted access to emails or other communications directed at all staff about the Royal Commission on the Robo-debt Scheme. The Commonwealth Ombudsman reference is FOI-2023-10082. A full disclosure was made of 3 documents and a partial disclosure was made of 10 documents.
Please grant access to the disclosed documents (3 fully disclosed and 10 partially disclosed) under the FOI Act by reply email.
Yours faithfully,
AJB
OFFICIAL
Our ref: FOI-2024-10017
20 February 2024
AJB
Emailed to: [1][FOI #11044 email]
Dear AJB
Freedom of Information request – Acknowledgment
My sincere apologies for the delay in acknowledging your correspondence
dated 21 January 2024 to the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman (the
Office), in which you requested access to documents under the Freedom of
Information Act 1982 (FOI Act). As result of human error, your request was
not registered on our record-keeping software, and re-identified yesterday
through an audit of our Information Access inbox. I apologise for this
delay. Your request for documents was in the following terms:
“According to the Commonwealth Ombudsman Disclosure Log, on 3 November
2023, the Ombudsman granted access to emails or other communications
directed at all staff about the Royal Commission on the Robo-debt Scheme.
The Commonwealth Ombudsman reference is FOI-2023-10082. A full disclosure
was made of 3 documents and a partial disclosure was made of 10 documents.
Please grant access to the disclosed documents (3 fully disclosed and 10
partially disclosed) under the FOI Act by reply email.”
I confirm I have identified the documents you have referred to in your
request. I can also confirm that we are making arrangements for 12 of the
relevant documents to be uploaded on the disclosure log. I can separately
provide those documents to you in response to your request.
However, one document has been determined as not appropriate for uploading
on the disclosure log as it is an autogenerated transcript of a recording
of an all-staff discussion, which due to misinterpretation of the words
spoken by the auto-generation technology, there are a significant number
of errors which are, in sections, quite distorting of the original
recording. The disclosure log requirement does not apply if publication of
that information would be ‘unreasonable’ (ss 11C(1)(c) and 11C(2) of the
FOI Act) including information covered by the Information Commissioner’s
Freedom of Information (Disclosure Log – Exempt Documents) Determination
2018. The Explanatory Statement accompanying the Information
Commissioner’s Determination says:
The Commissioner … recognises that an agency or Minister may decide that
it is appropriate to provide access to an exempt document to
a particular FOI applicant but that it would be unreasonable to publish
the document more widely. For example, an agency may have released an
exempt document to a particular FOI applicant in connection with a
research project, in connection with legal proceedings in which
the FOI applicant is involved, or because the confidential nature of
information in a document would not be jeopardised by selective release to
a particular FOI applicant. In these circumstances, the agency or Minister
may decide that it is unreasonable to publish this information more widely
in a disclosure log.
I made the decision not to exempt the transcript in full, noting the
applicant’s identity in FOI-2023-10082. However, at the time, I was of the
view publishing the documents more widely would be unreasonable, noting
its errors and candid nature. For this reason, I will need to consult
internally the Ombudsman on the release of this document, noting the
decision for your request will be published widely on the Right to Know
website.
Timeframes
Under s 15AA of the FOI Act, the time for processing your application may
be extended up to 30 days with your agreement. I request a further 30 days
to process your request to allow consultation on the transcript. This
would mean the new date for us to provide you with a decision on your FOI
request will be 23 March 2024. Please confirm if you agree to this
extension by COB tomorrow, Wednesday 21 February 2024. You can do this by
replying to this email with ‘AGREE’. Alternatively, you may refine the
scope of your request to exclude this document if it is not necessary to
the purposes of your request. In this scenario, I will have the rest of
the disclosed documents ready for release by the original due date of
Thursday 22 February 2024. If you choose to refine scope to exclude the
transcript it is still open for you to request the transcript via a new
request which will allow us sufficient time to consult on its release.
In the event you do not agree to the request for s 15AA extension or
refinement of scope, I am of the view that our Office will be required to
seek an extension of time from the OAIC under s 15AB of the FOI Act.
If you have any questions, you may contact me via email
at [2][email address]
Kind regards,
Sophia
Legal Officer
Defence, Investigations, ACT & Legal Branch
Proud to be working on the lands of the Gadigal
people of the Eora Nation.
1300 362 072
[3]A black and white [4][email address]
logo Description
automatically generated [5]ombudsman.gov.au
Level 5, 14 Childers St Canberra ACT 2600
The Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman acknowledges the Traditional
Owners of country throughout Australia and their continuing connection to
land, culture and community. We pay our respects to Elders past and
present.
Artwork by Kevin Bynder, Whadjuk Nyungar Badimia Yamatji Artist.
The Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman acknowledges the traditional
owners of country throughout Australia and their continuing connection to
land, culture and community. We pay our respects to elders past and
present.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[FOI #11044 email]
mailto:[FOI #11044 email]
2. mailto:[email address]
mailto:[email address]
4. mailto:[email address]
5. http://www.ombudsman.gov.au/
Dear Sophia,
I do not agree to an extension of time. I have an alternative proposal.
Please send 12 of the 13 documents to me via Right to Know by 22 February 2024, and please send all 13 documents, including the transcript, to my private email address, which is [email address], by 22 February 2024.
I think that course accommodates both of our interests.
Yours sincerely,
AJB
OFFICIAL
Dear AJB,
Please see attached the following documents in relation to your Freedom of Information Request, FOI-2024-10017:
* Decision Letter - Part Access
* Documents for Release
Warm regards,
Sophia
Legal Officer
Defence, Investigations, ACT & Legal Branch
Proud to be working on the lands of the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation.
1300 362 072
[email address]
ombudsman.gov.au
Level 5, 14 Childers St Canberra ACT 2600
The Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman acknowledges the Traditional Owners of country throughout Australia and their continuing connection to land, culture and community. We pay our respects to Elders past and present.
Artwork by Kevin Bynder, Whadjuk Nyungar Badimia Yamatji Artist.
Dear Sophia Murray-Walker,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request a complete internal review of Commonwealth Ombudsman's handling of my FOI request 'FOI-2023-10082 - emails or other communications directed at all staff about the Royal Commission on the Robo-debt Scheme'.
You have set out several untenable claims in respect of exemptions in your decision letter, which I will draw attention to. I will also draw you attention to the sloppy manner in which you have applied yourself to handling my FOI request.
Trade secrets
You have redacted material on the basis of trade secrets. All of those redactions are without lawful basis.
On pages 26 and 34 of the released documents, you have redacted details in respect of the OCO’s client management systems.
It is public knowledge that the OCO uses platforms known as Objective and Resolve. The names of these platforms are not trade secrets. It is public knowledge because that information is:
a) published on the Austender website, where procurement contracts for licenses for Resolve and Objective are set out; and
b) published in the OCO’s operational materials.
On pages 35 – 37, you have redacted references to Microsoft Teams. Microsoft Teams is as much a trade secret as Outlook 365 is a trade secret. You haven’t redacted the contents of the emails yet they betray the fact that Outlook 365 is used in the OCO.
You have obviously not read the judgments of the Federal Court or the decisions of the AAT on the correct interpretation of s 47 of the FOI Act, and its application to documents held by a government agency.
Personal information
You have redacted material on the basis of personal privacy. Many of those redactions are without lawful basis.
Document 8 is described as “Weekly exec meeting – possible discussion between Ombudsman, Deputy Ombudsman and Senior Assistant Ombudsmans (sic) about the report.”
You have redacted the names of the Assistant Ombudsmen. That is without lawful basis.
The names of the Assistant Ombudsmen are published on the OCO’s website: e.g. https://www.ombudsman.gov.au/__data/asse....
The names, pictures, biographies and remuneration details of the Assistant Ombudsmen are published in the OCO’s annual reports: e.g. https://www.ombudsman.gov.au/__data/asse... https://www.ombudsman.gov.au/__data/asse... https://www.ombudsman.gov.au/__data/asse....
Their names are also published in Hansard when they appear before the Senate for Estimates.
There is no basis for claiming that s 47F of the FOI Act applies to their names.
The names you have redacted on document 8 are:
a) Lisa Collett;
b) David Fintan;
c) Rebecca Vonthethoff;
d) Joanne Mulder;
e) Emma Cotterill;
f) Julia Galluccio.
You have also redacted the name of Katrina Dwyer, who, according to Hansard for the most recent round of Estimates, is currently acting in David Fintan’s capacity and is, ordinarily, responsible for strategic insights.
There is no basis for claiming that s 47F applies to Alexandra Feo’s name. It is public knowledge that she is the Executive Assistant to the Ombudsman and the Deputy Ombudsman. Her name, job title, work address and contact details are published on the Australian Government’s directory of names and telephone numbers: www.directory.gov.au/people/alexandra-feo.
You have also left her details unredacted on pages 37, 40 and 45 of the document that you released, which tends to show that you applied yourself sloppily to dealing with my FOI request.
You have obviously not read the judgments of the Federal Court, or the decisions of the AAT or the Information Commissioner, on the correct interpretation of s 47F of the FOI Act, and its application to documents held by a government agency.
Transcript (document 4)
I also want access to the transcript that you have withheld i.e. document 4.
In respect of paragraph 43 of your decision, you should carefully read s 11B(4) of the FOI Act. Your reason is untenable in the light of the law.
Your reasons also beg the question why the details you claim are secret and were obtained as part of Ombudsman investigations were the subject of discussion at a “town hall” meeting. Is that what complainants should expect?
It's bad enough that, as the Ombudsman has been forced to admit, Robodebt occurred because officials in the OCO failed in their duties to identify a program that the Federal Court and a Royal Commission labelled as "obviously unlawful" (apparently obvious to all except those who claim their remit it to advance good public administration). Are you honestly claiming that sensitive information about those people the OCO is tasked with protecting from unlawful administration in Government was thrown around, willy-nilly, at a plenary "town hall" meeting of staff? Is it the case that every man and his dog at the OCO is privy to sensitive information provided through official channels?
I’m not convinced that your reasons will withstand objective scrutiny according to the law.
Sloppy work and complete review
Given the sloppy nature of your handling of my FOI request and the obviously untenable reliance on exemptions, I request a complete review of your FOI decision. That means I request an internal review on all grounds, including the purported s 47E and s 22 claims that you have advanced.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/f...
Yours faithfully,
AJB
OFFICIAL
Good afternoon AJB,
Please find attached my internal review decision in this matter.
Sincerely,
Matt Jackson (he/him)
Assistant Director – Legal
Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman
[1]A black and white logo [email address]
Description automatically
generated [2]ombudsman.gov.au
Proud to be working on the lands of the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin
Nation. The Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman acknowledges the
Traditional Owners of country throughout Australia and their continuing
connection to land, culture and community. We pay our respects to Elders
past and present.
The Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman acknowledges the traditional
owners of country throughout Australia and their continuing connection to
land, culture and community. We pay our respects to elders past and
present.
References
Visible links
2. http://www.ombudsman.gov.au/
[1]Office of the Australian Information Reference Code:
Commissioner ICR_10-56547844-4534
You submitted a form called: FOI Review_
Your form reference code is: ICR_10-56547844-4534
To check the progress of your submission and/or confirm it has been
received you should contact the agency that provides the form. These
details are displayed below.
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
[2]http://www.oaic.gov.au | [3]1300 363 992 | [4][email address]
GPO Box 5218, Sydney NSW 2001
Note: Please do not reply to this auto-generated email.
References
Visible links
2. http://www.oaic.gov.au/
3. file:///tmp/tel:1300 363 992
4. mailto:[email address]
Our reference: MR24/00487
By email: [FOI #11044 email]
Receipt of your IC review application
Thank you for your application for Information Commissioner Review (IC
review).
The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) is
considering your application.
If you wish to advise the OAIC of any changes to your circumstances,
including your contact details or if your FOI request has been resolved,
please write to [email address] and quote MR24/00487.
Yours sincerely
Freedom of Information Regulatory Group
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
Notice:
The information contained in this email message and any attached files may
be confidential information, and may also be the subject of legal
professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use,
disclosure or copying of this email is unauthorised. If you received this
email in error, please notify the sender by contacting the department's
switchboard on 1300 488 064 during business hours (8:30am - 5pm Canberra
time) and delete all copies of this transmission together with any
attachments.
Dear Commonwealth Ombudsman,
According to the Commonwealth Ombudsman Disclosure Log, on 3 November 2023, the Ombudsman granted access to emails or other communications directed at all staff about the Royal Commission on the Robo-debt Scheme. The Commonwealth Ombudsman reference is FOI-2023-10082. A full disclosure was made of 3 documents and a partial disclosure was made of 10 documents.
Please grant access to the UNREDACTED VERSIONS of disclosed documents under the FOI Act by reply email.
Yours faithfully,
AJB
Our reference: MR24/00487
Agency reference: FOI-2024-10017
By email: [1][FOI #11044 email]
Your Information Commissioner review application—request for information
Dear AJB RTK,
I am writing to confirm the basis for your Information Commissioner (IC)
review application.
In your application, you asked the OAIC to review the Agency’s Freedom of
Information (FOI) decision of 24 March 2024 (decision FOI-2024-10017). I
have attached your application and the Agency’s decision.
Your FOI request was for access to 13 documents disclosed under FOI
reference FOI-2023-10082. In decision FOI-2024-10017, the Agency provided
you 12 of the 13 documents requested without applying any exemptions. It
refused access to one document (document 4) in full under section 47E of
the FOI Act.
Please note, this IC review cannot review the merits of the Agency’s
decision in FOI-2023-10082, only the decision to exempt document 4 in
decision FOI-2024-10017. The decision to refuse access to document 4 will
be the basis of this IC review application.
Should you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me at
[email address].
Regards,
Heath
[2][IMG] Heath Baker (He/him)
Director | FOI Branch
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
GPO Box 5288 Sydney NSW 2001 | oaic.gov.au
The OAIC acknowledges Traditional Custodians of Country across Australia
and their continuing connection to land, waters and communities. We pay
our respect to First Nations people, cultures and Elders past and
present.
[3]Subscribe to Information Matters
Notice:
The information contained in this email message and any attached files may
be confidential information, and may also be the subject of legal
professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use,
disclosure or copying of this email is unauthorised. If you received this
email in error, please notify the sender by contacting the department's
switchboard on 1300 488 064 during business hours (8:30am - 5pm Canberra
time) and delete all copies of this transmission together with any
attachments.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[FOI #11044 email]
2. https://www.oaic.gov.au/
3. https://www.oaic.gov.au/engage-with-us/n...
OFFICIAL: Sensitive
Our ref: FOI-2024-10052
Dear AJB,
Freedom of Information request – Acknowledgment
I acknowledge receipt of your correspondence dated 13 May 2024 to the
Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman (the Office), in which you requested
access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act).
Your request for documents was in the following terms:
“According to the Commonwealth Ombudsman Disclosure Log, on 3 November
2023, the Ombudsman granted access to emails or other communications
directed at all staff about the Royal Commission on the Robo-debt Scheme.
The Commonwealth Ombudsman reference is FOI-2023-10082. A full disclosure
was made of 3 documents and a partial disclosure was made of 10 documents.
Please grant access to the UNREDACTED VERSIONS of disclosed documents
under the FOI Act by reply email.”
I note that you are requesting access to documents on our disclosure log
but we will be treating your request as an FOI request because you have
asked for unredacted versions of documents.
Timeframes
The FOI Act requires us to provide notice of a decision on your request
within 30 days from the date we received a valid FOI request, that is, on
or before 12 June 2024. This 30 day period may be extended if we need to
consult third parties, or for other reasons. We will let you know if this
happens.
If you have any questions, you may contact me via email at
[1][email address]
Kind regards,
Laura
Legal Officer
Defence, Investigations, ACT & Legal Branch
1300 362 072
[2]A black and white logo [3][email address]
Description automatically
generated [4]ombudsman.gov.au
Level 5, 14 Childers St Canberra ACT 2600
The Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman acknowledges the Traditional
Owners of country throughout Australia and their continuing connection to
land, culture and community. We pay our respects to Elders past and
present.
Artwork by Kevin Bynder, Whadjuk Nyungar Badimia Yamatji Artist.
The Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman acknowledges the traditional
owners of country throughout Australia and their continuing connection to
land, culture and community. We pay our respects to elders past and
present.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
3. mailto:[email address]
4. http://www.ombudsman.gov.au/
Our reference: MR24/00487
Agency reference: FOI-2024-10017
AJB RTK
By email: [1][FOI #11044 email]
Notice of commencement of IC review application and request for documents
Dear AJB RTK,
Thank you for your application for review. We have today informed the
Commonwealth Ombudsman that the Information Commissioner will undertake an
IC review and requested information to assist with progressing the review.
We will provide you with an update when we have heard from the
Commonwealth Ombudsman.
Kind Regards
[2][IMG] Lisa (pronouns she/her)
Assistant Director Freedom of Information
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
Sydney| GPO Box 5288 Sydney NSW 2001
P 1300 362 992 E [3][email address]
The OAIC acknowledges Traditional Custodians of Country across
Australia and their continuing connection to land, waters and
communities. We pay our respect to First Nations people,
cultures and Elders past and present.
[4]Subscribe to Information Matters
Notice:
The information contained in this email message and any attached files may
be confidential information, and may also be the subject of legal
professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use,
disclosure or copying of this email is unauthorised. If you received this
email in error, please notify the sender by contacting the department's
switchboard on 1300 488 064 during business hours (8:30am - 5pm Canberra
time) and delete all copies of this transmission together with any
attachments.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[FOI #11044 email]
2. https://www.oaic.gov.au/
3. mailto:[email address]
4. https://www.oaic.gov.au/engage-with-us/n...
OFFICIAL: Sensitive
Dear AJB,
Please find attached:
* the decision letter regarding your Freedom of Information request
* the documents for release
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me via email at [email address]
Kind regards,
Laura
Legal Officer
Defence, Investigations, ACT & Legal Branch
1300 362 072
[email address]
ombudsman.gov.au
Level 5, 14 Childers St Canberra ACT 2600
The Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman acknowledges the Traditional Owners of country throughout Australia and their continuing connection to land, culture and community. We pay our respects to Elders past and present.
Artwork by Kevin Bynder, Whadjuk Nyungar Badimia Yamatji Artist.
OFFICIAL
Dear AJB,
I am contacting you in relation to our FOI decision of IC review matter
(REF). The new Information Commissioner review processes encourage
agencies to engage directly with applicants, and so we would like to give
you the opportunity to informally discuss your request, and see if we can
resolve your concerns, or at least narrow the issues in dispute before the
IC review proceeds.
In this case it may be particularly helpful. I think it might assist you
if I talk you through our thinking in relation to Document 4. I am open
to being pursuaded and it is possible that with additional context, you
will be able to provide more information about your circumstances that
changes how we assess the public interest criteria. This may allow us to
release more information to you.
I think an informal chat by telephone would be the easiest way to
proceed. I understand that you have sought to remain anonymous during
this request process, and I respect your right to engage with FOI
anonymously. I encourage you to take whatever steps you feel needed to
protect your identity. You are welome to call me from a blocked number or
pay phone. I will not attempt to identify you unless you choose to
identify yourself.
If you would like to engage with us informally, just let me know a time
during business hours that it would suit you to discuss and I will ensure
I’m availiable. You’ve previously shared a private email address, and if
you are happy for me to use that, I can send you my direct contact number
so you don’t have to wait on hold. I can be availiable to take your call
anytime Monday to Thursday.
If you don’t wish to engage informally, that is also completely fine. We
will be provide our submissions to the IC review shortly, and will copy
you in when we do so.
Sincerely,
Matt
Matt Jackson (he/him)
Assistant Director – Legal
Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman
[1]A black and white logo [2][email address]
Description automatically
generated [3]ombudsman.gov.au
Proud to be working on the lands of the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin
Nation. The Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman acknowledges the
Traditional Owners of country throughout Australia and their continuing
connection to land, culture and community. We pay our respects to Elders
past and present.
The Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman acknowledges the traditional
owners of country throughout Australia and their continuing connection to
land, culture and community. We pay our respects to elders past and
present.
References
Visible links
2. mailto:[email address]
3. http://www.ombudsman.gov.au/
OFFICIAL
Dear AJB,
Please find attached our submission to the IC in this matter. As
outlined in my email yestereday, if you would like to engage with us about
this matter informally please let me know and we would be happy to
discuss.
Sincerely,
Matt Jackson (he/him)
Assistant Director – Legal
Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman
[1]A black and white logo [2][email address]
Description automatically
generated [3]ombudsman.gov.au
Proud to be working on the lands of the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin
Nation. The Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman acknowledges the
Traditional Owners of country throughout Australia and their continuing
connection to land, culture and community. We pay our respects to Elders
past and present.
The Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman acknowledges the traditional
owners of country throughout Australia and their continuing connection to
land, culture and community. We pay our respects to elders past and
present.
References
Visible links
2. mailto:[email address]
3. http://www.ombudsman.gov.au/
Dear Matthew Jackson,
Please accept this email as my contribution to a direct engagement with the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman in relation to my FOI request for access to documents.
You proposed that I contact you by telephone during business hours but I work during business hours. It is more convenient for me to communicate to you outside business hours. It is also more prudent, in my opinion, to put my view to you in writing so that there is a clear record of exactly what it is that I have noted (as opposed to general notes following a telephone call, that might miss essential issues).
You noted that you are “open to being persuaded” by me about the application of the public interest in granting access to document 4. I begin by noting that I have no legislated obligation to persuade you. My only obligation is to issue you with a lawful request under the FOI Act. On the other hand, you have a statutory obligation to grant access to any and all documents that the Ombudsman is in possession of, unless there is a lawful reason not to. If it is against the public interest to grant access to document 4, then that is the case. If there is not against the public interest to grant access to document 4, then you must grant access. It’s quite simple as I see it.
Even though I have no obligation to persuade you to grant access to document 4, I will explain why I think that the document should be granted access to by referring to your submissions to the OAIC.
You state that document 4 is conditionally exempt, because “disclosure of the transcript … would have a substantial adverse effect on the operations of the Office”: submission, [7]. In other words, you are claiming that s 47E(d) of the FOI Act applies to the entire document.
You then state that document 4, which is a transcript of a meeting “to allow a candid discussion of the outcomes of the [Robodebt] Royal Commission among staff, and for staff to freely ask questions of the executive about the topic” (submissions, [8]), is exempt under s 47E(2) because the “knowledge that a transcript of such discussions might be publicly disclosed would be reasonably likely to inhibit the willingness of the executive to speak with full candour … as well as inhibiting [staff participation] is such discussions in the future”: submissions, [10].
That is nonsense, because the transcript was disclosed under the FOI Act. I know that because the disclosure of the transcript was notified on the Office’s disclosure log. The management knows that the document has been disclosed. The staff knows that the document was disclosed. All public servants know that documents may be released under FOI legislation, and in this case, it was. The submission has no legs and, as such, the claim that s 47E(d) applies is unsupported.
You then go on to say that release of documents 4 would “inhibit the willingness [of the public] to share complaints with out Office and [affect] the persuasiveness of out conclusions”: submissions, [14]. That is nonsense. The willingness of the public to approach the Ombudsman will not be affected by the release of document 4. Nor will the persuasiveness of the Ombudsman’s conclusions be affected by the release of document 4.
The factors that affect the persuasiveness of the Ombudsman’s decisions are:
a) the Commonwealth Ombudsman deliberately failing to use compulsory investigative powers available to him under the Ombudsman Act to investigate multiple complaints about the recovery of unlawfully generated debts, even though those compulsory investigative powers have explicitly been provided by the Parliament to be used during investigations and the use of those powers was warranted in the light of responses provided to the Ombudsman during his first own motion investigation (Royal Commission into Robodebt Scheme, pg 581);
b) the Ombudsman actively undermining the independence of his office by allowing those he is investigating to effectively write swathes of the “independent” investigation report into the illegal and unlawful scheme;
c) the Ombudsman, knowing that the report was effectively part written by the people he was investigating, allowing public servants and Ministers of the Crown to use the compromised report as “proof” of the legality of the Robodebt scheme.
The ship has long since sailed on any member of the public genuinely holding to conviction that the Ombudsman’s “conclusions” are “persuasive” because those “conclusions” are based on lies that a nominally independent integrity official permitted to be incorporated into his agency’s investigation and subsequent investigation report.
If anything, the release of document 4 might demonstrate that there are people in the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman who have shown contrition, or have confronted their “leaders” about undermining the very offices they hold, or have voiced their disapproval about how their chronic failures led to the most sordid affair in public administration in generations. To that end, the release of the document would benefit the public and the Office because it might help rekindle faith in the rank and file of the Office.
In your submissions, you claim that the “Ombudsman has published a statement in response to the findings of the royal commission, which provides far better public visibility of his views on the outcome [of the Royal Commission]” for refusing to grant access to document 4. But document 4 is not a polished document about the Ombudsman’s view of the outcomes of the Royal Commission. Document 4 sets out “a candid discussion of the outcomes of the Royal Commission among staff”: submission, [8]. The fact there are infelicities in the record does not detract from the essential characteristics of document 4. Claiming that there is a statement by the Ombudsman setting out his views on the outcomes of the Robodebt Royal Commission is of no relevance to refusing to grant access to a document that sets out the views of staff members in the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. The views of an agency head are not the views of 200 or so staff members.
I should also note that the views of the Commonwealth Ombudsman are somewhat disturbing. In a message to staff (see document 12, which was released on pages 43-44 here: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/1...), Iain Anderson made comments trivialising the failures of staff members in the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
He claimed that the fact that the Office failed to comment of the illegality of the Robodebt scheme “is not a reflection on the Office’s staff who carried out those investigations”. I beg to differ. So too do the Royal Commissioner and, dare I say, most Australians.
Mr Anderson then went on to claim that “his predecessors made difficult discretionary decisions as to what should have been in the final report.” Really? The fact that the acting Commonwealth Ombudsman allowed officials he was investigating to rewrite aspects of the report that they found objectionable to cast them in a positive light is not a “discretion” available to the Ombudsman under the Ombudsman Act 1976 (Cth).
Refusing to grant access to document 4 because there is some licked document in which Mr Anderson, the current Ombudsman, who appears perfectly happy to trivialise the failures of his staff and predecessors, sets out his views is unwarranted because it proceeds on the fallacy that the views of a man who is happy to trivialise the failures of his officials adequately and comprehensively captures the views set out in document 4. That is, according to your own submissions, not so.
Your submissions to the OAIC do not stack up in my opinion.
You said that you wanted to share your “thinking in relation to Document 4” with me. I encourage you to do so via Right to Know, so that there is a readable record of it. I also encourage you to address my criticisms of your submissions, which is to say that I ask you to engage with my criticisms rather than sidestep them.
Yours sincerely,
AJB
Dear Matthew Jackson,
Please acknowledge receipt of my email of 28 July 2024.
Please also engage with the substance of that email.
Yours sincerely,
AJB
Dear Information Access,
I refer to IC review MR24/00487.
On 28 July 2024, I sent an email to Matt Jackson of the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman setting out my contribution to a process of engagement attempting to resolve my concerns about Office's refusal to grant access to document 4 (a transcript of a town hall meeting).
Mr Jackson has not, to date, engaged in a substantive exchange with a view to resolving the issue of refusing access to the transcript document.
In good faith, I draw this failure to your attention.
Yours sincerely,
AJB
Dear OAIC - FOI DR,
I refer to IC review MR24/00487. The IC review is limited to a single document - document 4, which is a transcript of a "town hall" meeting.
In response to an email from Matt Jackson at the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, I provided a substantive contribution on 28 July 2024 to resolve the outstanding issues associated with the decision to refuse access to the document requested.
Despite providing a substantive submission with a view to resolution of the outstanding issues, officers in the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman have failed to reciprocate.
I draw this to your attention to keep you apprised of my good faith attempts to engage with the agency and the default of the agency's staff.
Yours sincerely,
AJB
Dear OAIC - FOI DR,
Reference: MR24/00487
I refer to document that were released on 3 November 2023 by the Ombudsman's office. The reference on the Ombudsman's FOI disclosure log is FOI-2023-10082. A full disclosure was made of 3 documents and a partial disclosure was made of 10 documents. There is a note on the disclosure log which provides that people who would like to review the 13 documents associated with disclosure FOI-2023-10082 should send and email to the Ombudsman's office.
On 23 January 2024, I applied for access to the 13 documents associated with FOI-2023-10082 on the Commonwealth Ombudsman's disclosure log (https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/f...).
I was denied access to one of the documents in question - document 4.
Paragraph 14.13 of the FOI Guidelines states:
Agencies and ministers must publish information on the disclosure log within 10 working days
of giving the FOI applicant access to the document (s 11C(6)) (see [14.30] below). Where a
person requests access to information not published on an agency’s disclosure log (s 11C(3)(c)),
the agency or minister should provide access to the information within a reasonable period,
which should be no more than 5 working days after receiving the request.
I do not want to wait 5 years for the Information Commissioner to conduct an IC review in respect of document 4 when I should have been given access to that document 5 days after I made a request for documents noted on the Ombudsman's disclosure log.
I have seen that the OAIC is now processing complaints within one year of receiving them, which is a much better timeframe compared to the OAIC's processing times for IC review applications.
I would like to know the following: if I were to submit a complaint to the OAIC about the Ombudsman's refusal to provide access to a document that is noted on its disclosure log, in the light of the current backlog processing IC review applications, would the OAIC get to the complaint sooner?
All I want is to access a document that has been referred to on the Ombudsman's disclosure log and which should have, upon my request for access, been provided to me within 5 days according to the OAIC's FOI Guidelines.
Yours sincerely,
AJB