Dear Department of Veterans' Affairs,

I request copy of all signed Deeds of Agreement (excluding drafts) between the Department and the University of South Australia for the provision of programs utilising health care data between 2003 and 2024, including all Statement of Requirements (or similar titled documents) defining and describing the services to be provided for those programs.

I also request copy of all notices given by the Department to its clients between 2003 and 2024 that state that the Department will routinely disclose their health data to the University of South Australia for use in these programs. Where a template notice is used only copy of the template is in scope (duplicates of the same notice are irrelevant).

As these programs have been the subject of multiple media reports regarding breaches of privacy and failures to obtain consent, there is a public interest in this information so please make sure these documents are accessible to everyone when responding.

Yours faithfully,

Jenny

Dear INFORMATION.ACCESS,

I vary my request to cover only 300 pages (excluding blank and redacted in full pages) of material to be released, with priority in the order listed below:

Priority One - Copy of the Statement of Requirements (SOR) (or equivalent) for each Deed of Agreement executed between the University of South Australia and the Department between 2003 and 2024 inclusive, excluding as irrelevant those pages that disclose fees to be paid and the manner in which payments are to be requested;

Priority Two - Copy of the rest of the each Deed of Agreement executed between the University of South Australia and the Department between 2003 and 2024 inclusive;

Priority Three - copy of all notices given by the Department to its clients between 2003 and 2024 inclusive that state that the Department will routinely disclose their health data to the University of South Australia for use in these programs. Where a template notice is used only copy of the template is in scope (duplicates of the same notice are irrelevant).

I see that the Department has previously released a 23 December 2015 - 30 June 2018 Deed of Agreement between the University and the Department under FOI in 2018, which does not require reconsidering again as it was published online by the Department. It does provide a guide as size (around 40 pages) and what was in the public interest to release. As I have a copy of that Deed I exclude that 23 December 2015 - 30 June 2018 Deed of Agreement between the University and the Department as irrelevant.

Yours sincerely,

Jenny

Dear INFORMATION.ACCESS,

My FOI of 27 January 2024, which the Department acknowledged on 1 February 2024, was required by section 15(5)(b) of the FOI Act to have received a decision today.

Yet again the Department of Veterans’ Affairs has forced another FOI to received a deemed refusal response, as a way of unlawfully preventing access to official documents. I still have not received a decision to my FOI of 17 November 2023, despite your Assistant Director Joshua saying on 19 January that a decision was imminent.

It is no surprise there is a Royal Commission investigating DVA, with such unethical inappropriate behaviour of the Department that it has displayed here.

Yours sincerely,

Jenny

Dear INFORMATION.ACCESS,

I still have not received any apology or explanation as to why, yet again, DVA has intentionally forced a deemed refusal decision and withheld statement of reasons.

Yours sincerely,

Jenny

Dear INFORMATION.ACCESS,

Another month and still no response or decision.

Is there a reason you have still not responded to the notice of your failure to provide a decision, even though weeks have passed?

Is this just rudeness on your part, or something more sinister?

These multiple failures by DVA to give decisions in the times specified by the FOI Act is a deliberate and intentional strategy it now is demonstrated. Is flouting your statutory obligations just how DVA operates? The Royal Commission was long overdue it seems.

Yours sincerely,

Jenny

Dear INFORMATION.ACCESS,

I request copy of the record of administration of this FOI made on 27 January 2024, which I can see from other FOIs here you can produce from LEX, to see why such an unreasonable and excessive delay has occurred.

Yours sincerely,

Jenny

Dear Zoey of INFORMATION.ACCESS,

Section 24 of the FOI Act requires an agency to undertake a requestion consultation
process if they are satisfied, when dealing with a request, that a practical refusal reason
exists. This means that it was appropriate to commence a request consultation process only
if a practical refusal reason existed in relation to the request.

Section 24AA(1)(b) of the FOI Act provides that a practical refusal reason exists in
relation to a request if the request does not satisfy the requirement in section 15(2)(b) of the
FOI Act to include such information as is reasonably necessary to enable a responsible
officer of the agency to identify the documents requested.

The Guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner under section
93A of the FOI Act (the Guidelines) provide the following guidance to agencies at
paragraphs 3.109 and 3.110 when dealing with requests that are considered unclear:

A formal requirement of making an FOI request is that the request must provide such
information as is reasonably necessary to enable a responsible officer of the agency
or the minister to identify the document that is requested (s 15(2)(b)). This differs
from other formal requirements, in that a failure to comply with this requirement is
classified by the Act as a ‘practical refusal reason’ for which a request consultation
process is required.

An agency should not wait until the practical refusal stage to help an applicant to
clarify their request. The following considerations should also be borne in mind
before a request consultation process is commenced:

• A request can be described quite broadly and must be read fairly by an agency or
minister, being mindful not to take a narrow or pedantic approach to its
construction.

• An applicant may not know exactly what documents exist and may describe a
class of documents, for example: all documents relating to a particular person or
subject matter; or all documents of a specified class that contain information of a
particular kind; or all documents held in a particular place relating to a subject
or person. Where the applicant has requested a class of documents, it may be
useful for the agency to explain to the applicant the information that is contained
in those documents, as this may assist the applicant to narrow the scope of his or
her request to a specific set of documents, resulting in less time spent on
processing irrelevant material.

• Although a request under the FOI Act must be for ‘documents’, rather than for
‘information’, a request may be phrased by reference to the information that a
document contains. This may in fact be an effective and concise way for an FOI
applicant to identify documents.

• A request does not need to quote a file or folio number.

Paragraph 3.128 of the Guidelines also provides:

Before commencing a formal request consultation process, agencies and ministers’
offices are encouraged to discuss the request with the applicant. This is often a more
efficient way of obtaining further information from the applicant and helping them
to refine a request that is too large or vague. However, if the applicant cannot be
contacted promptly, or the discussion does not elicit information that allows
relevant documents to be identified, the request consultation process should be
commenced.

FINDINGS

A request consultation process should not have been undertaken, as the Department
could not have been reasonably satisfied that a practical refusal reason existed in
relation to the request. Although the applicant’s request included the phrase “record of administration”, it appeared within the phrase “the record of administration of this FOI … which I can see from other FOIs here you can produce from LEX”, which was not vague and the documents the applicant was seeking were clear.

As stated in paragraph 3.110 of the Guidelines, a request can be described
broadly and for a class of documents, in this case for documents that can produced using LEX regarding how this FOI was administered.

Examples of such documents are, as the FOI request stated, been previously released on Right to Know by the Department such as in LEX 50625 which in the first 15 pages of the bundle released shows the LEX report that can be produced under s 17 to provide a record of the administration of a FOI made to the Department.

The FOI therefore did provide sufficient information to enable the Department to locate the documents sought, contrary to the Department’s claim.

Section 24AB(6) states that I must elect to either withdraw, vary or indicate I do not wish to vary my FOI. Section 24AB(8) states that once I do any of those three options, the request consultation period ends and no further extension of time applies.

I give response that I do not wish to vary my FOI (nor do I wish to bundle separately made FOIs) as the scope of the FOI does satisfy s 15(2)(b) in that it identified the documents in scope where those documents that can be produced in LEX for that FOI that records how the Department processed that FOI and referred you to the examples available on Right to Know of such LEX reports. As such, the FOI scope was within s 15(2)(b) and the Information Commissioner Guidelines.

As the practical refusal consultation notice was issued today, and the practical refusal consultation extension of time period only commences the day after such a notice is given, my section 24AB(6)(c) response today means that no extension of time applies to this FOI.

This FOI still is due for decision no later than 23 May 2024.

Yours sincerely,

Jenny