Non Employment Income Data Matching (NEIDM) Project program protocol
Justin Warren made this Freedom of Information request to Services Australia
This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.
Dear Department of Human Services,
I request a copy of the Non Employment Income Data Matching (NEIDM) project's program protocol that is mentioned in the Commonwealth Gazette dated August 2016. I quote:
The Australian Government Department of Human Services
NOTICE OF A DATA MATCHING PROJECT
The Non Employment Income Data Matching (NEIDM) project is a data matching process which will enable the Department of Human Services (department) to match income data it collects from customers with tax return related data reported to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). The Taxation Administration Act 1953 authorises the ATO to provide relevant data to the department.
The NEIDM project will assist the department to identify social welfare recipients who may not have disclosed income and assets to the department. Data received from the ATO will be electronically matched with certain departmental records to identify non-compliance with income or other reporting obligations.
The department expects to match each of the approximately 7 million unique records held in its Centrelink database. Based on non-compliance criteria, the department anticipates it will examine approximately 20,000 records in the first phase of the project.
The department will use customers’ information in the context of the NEIDM project to:
- verify the information reported to it by customers;
- identify social welfare recipients who may not have disclosed income to the department;
- match and validate the Tax Return and the Pay As You Go data sets;
- identify discrepancies in the income declared to the department by the customer; and
- consider whether the department will initiate relevant compliance action in relation to a particular customer (including debt recovery or a referral to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions).
The class of people who may be affected by the NEIDM project will include welfare recipients who have lodged a Tax Return with the ATO during 2011 to 2014.
The department’s NEIDM project has been informed by the Office of the Australian Commissioner’s Guidelines on Data Matching in Australian Government Administration. Those Guidelines include standards for data matching activities to protect the privacy of individuals. The department has prepared a program protocol which describes the NEIDM project, in accordance with those Guidelines. Copies of the protocol are available from:
Case Selection Section
Level 2
Louisa Lawson Building
25 Cowlishaw Street
Greenway ACT 2900
Yours faithfully,
Justin Warren
Dear Mr Warren,
Please see the attached correspondence in relation to your freedom of
information request.
Kind regards,
Freedom of Information Team
FOI and Litigation Branch | Legal Services Division
Department of Human Services
Email: [1][email address]
[2]cid:image002.png@01CE578F.EEB98AC0
**********************************************************************
IMPORTANT: This e-mail is for the use of the intended recipient only and
may contain information that is confidential, commercially valuable and/or
subject to legal or parliamentary privilege. If you are not the intended
recipient you are notified that any review, re-transmission, disclosure,
dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon,
this information is prohibited and may result in severe penalties. If you
have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender immediately
and delete all electronic and hard copies of this transmission together
with any attachments. Please consider the environment before printing this
e-mail
**********************************************************************
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
Dear Mr Warren
Please see the attached correspondence in relation to your freedom of
information request.
Kind regards
Freedom of Information Team
FOI and Litigation Branch | Legal Services Division
Department of Human Services
Email: [1][email address]
[2]cid:image002.png@01CE578F.EEB98AC0
**********************************************************************
IMPORTANT: This e-mail is for the use of the intended recipient only and
may contain information that is confidential, commercially valuable and/or
subject to legal or parliamentary privilege. If you are not the intended
recipient you are notified that any review, re-transmission, disclosure,
dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon,
this information is prohibited and may result in severe penalties. If you
have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender immediately
and delete all electronic and hard copies of this transmission together
with any attachments. Please consider the environment before printing this
e-mail
**********************************************************************
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
Dear FOI.LEGAL.TEAM,
This is a curious response.
A notice of this data matching project was published in the Gazette (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C...) and the notice very clearly states that a copy of this protocol is available from a physical Department building.
This strongly suggests that this protocol is available to a member of the public if they were to physically attend the site.
Are you suggesting that if a person were to physically arrive at
Case Selection Section
Level 2
Louisa Lawson Building
25 Cowlishaw Street
Greenway ACT 2900
that they would need to wait 30 days while you consult with third parties?
Why was the offer to provide a copy of the protocol made in the Gazette if it possibly contains information that should not be available to the general public?
I note that the ATO publish their data matching protocols online: https://www.ato.gov.au/General/Gen/Data-... which is in accordance with the OAIC guidelines on data matching protocols: https://www.oaic.gov.au/agencies-and-org...
Does DHS not follow these guidelines?
Yours sincerely,
Justin Warren
Justin Warren left an annotation ()
No, a decision has not yet been made. This is a notification that the time to make a decision has been extended because DHS is consulting with third parties, as per s27 of the FOI Act: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/c...
Whether it is reasonable that DHS believes the third party/parties "might reasonably wish to make a contention (the exemption contention)" is a different question.
It might just be a delaying tactic so DHS can avoid releasing any information for as long as possible.
Dear FOI.LEGAL.TEAM,
Your response to this Freedom of Information request is now overdue.
Yours sincerely,
Justin Warren
Dear Mr Warren
Thank you for your email.
I apologise for our delay in providing a decision to you. Although the
department is deemed to have refused your request by operation of the FOI
Act, we are nevertheless working to provide you with a decision as soon as
possible.
Kind regards
Freedom of Information Team
FOI and Litigation Branch | Legal Services Division
Department of Human Services
Email: [1][email address]
[2]cid:image002.png@01CE578F.EEB98AC0
-----Original Message-----
From: Justin Warren [mailto:[FOI #3231 email]]
Sent: Tuesday, 16 May 2017 6:35 AM
To: FOI.LEGAL.TEAM <[email address]>
Subject: Re: LEX28337 - Communication - Your freedom of information
request
Dear FOI.LEGAL.TEAM,
Your response to this Freedom of Information request is now overdue.
Yours sincerely,
Justin Warren
-----Original Message-----
Dear Mr Warren
Please see the attached correspondence in relation to your freedom of
information request.
Kind regards
Freedom of Information Team
FOI and Litigation Branch | Legal Services Division Department of Human
Services
Email: [1][email address]
[2][3]cid:image002.png@01CE578F.EEB98AC0
References
Visible links
1. [4]mailto:[email address]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[5][FOI #3231 email]
This request has been made by an individual using Right to Know. This
message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet.
More information on how Right to Know works can be found at:
[6]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
**********************************************************************
IMPORTANT: This e-mail is for the use of the intended recipient only and
may contain information that is confidential, commercially valuable and/or
subject to legal or parliamentary privilege. If you are not the intended
recipient you are notified that any review, re-transmission, disclosure,
dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon,
this information is prohibited and may result in severe penalties. If you
have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender immediately
and delete all electronic and hard copies of this transmission together
with any attachments. Please consider the environment before printing this
e-mail
**********************************************************************
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
3. file:///tmp/cid:image002.png@01CE578F.EEB98AC0
4. mailto:[email
5. mailto:[FOI #3231 email]
6. https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...
Dear Department of Human Services,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Department of Human Services's handling of my FOI request 'Non Employment Income Data Matching (NEIDM) Project program protocol'.
This document was supposedly publicly available, according to a notice published in the Government Gazette. And yet the Department said it needed to consult with third parties about providing access to this allegedly publicly available document.
I want to know:
- Why was a notice placed in the Government Gazette alleging this document was publicly available if it was not?
- Why did the Department need to consult with third parties over a document that was allegedly publicly available?
- Why did the Department fail to provide a decision within the timeframe specified by the FOI Act? This created a deemed refused decision.
- Is the document publicly available, or not?
- If not, why not?
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/n...
Yours faithfully,
Justin Warren
Dear Mr Warren
Please see the attached correspondence in relation to your freedom of
information request.
Kind regards
Freedom of Information Team
FOI and Litigation Branch | Legal Services Division
Department of Human Services
Email: [1][email address]
[2]cid:image002.png@01CE578F.EEB98AC0
**********************************************************************
IMPORTANT: This e-mail is for the use of the intended recipient only and
may contain information that is confidential, commercially valuable and/or
subject to legal or parliamentary privilege. If you are not the intended
recipient you are notified that any review, re-transmission, disclosure,
dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon,
this information is prohibited and may result in severe penalties. If you
have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender immediately
and delete all electronic and hard copies of this transmission together
with any attachments. Please consider the environment before printing this
e-mail
**********************************************************************
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
Locutus Sum left an annotation ()
The applicant mentions that the response is "curious". To me, it is also an interesting response from a legal viewpoint. I ask "Does the response give a reviewable decision to the applicant?" I do not know the correct answer to this question but I have an argument. After the argument, I make a suggestion.
Here is the argument. An "access refusal decision" is reviewable. Section 53A of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) explains the meaning of "access refusal decision". It says "An access refusal decision is any of the following decisions: ... (d) a decision to defer the provision of access to a document
(other than a document covered by paragraph 21(1)(d)". The question is now whether the agency has made a decision to defer the provision of access to a document, or have they just deferred a decision? I think (but you must remember that the girl is not yet a lawyer) that it is a decision and also the decision is to defer access until the agency knows the result of the consultation. So in my opinion this response from the agency gives an access refusal decision and is reviewable; therefore the applicant can request an internal review.
Now I have said my argument, I do not think that I would ask for an internal review but this is only because (i) the agency might argue this is not an access refusal decision and then the applicant has to write more responses, (ii) the agency might review the decision (to defer access) but then refuse access and then there would be another request for review. For me it would be too much trouble but I think that the legal matter is interesting anyway.