Procurement process by which the Copenhagen Consensus Centre received funding of $640,000.
Dear Department of Education,
On Saturday 24 September 2016, the Australian edition of The Guardian online reportsed that the Copenhagen Consensus Centre (CCC) received $640,000 to produce a report which an unnamed spkesman for your department stated "represented the Australian government contribution to the CCC for the Smarter UN Post-2015 Development Goals project.
I would like to know:
a) whether the procurement processes were consistent with Government procurement requirements as detailed in Chapter 15 of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement;
b) the details of the procurement process the department used to select the CCC as the provider for this service as detailed in he Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement;(open tendering procedures; selective tendering procedures; or limited tendering procedures)
c) the terms of reference for the services as provided to prospective service providers.
Yours faithfully
John Lumb
40 Swanson St
Erskineville NSW 2043
0422 641 062
For Official Use Only
Dear Mr Lumb
Thank you for your email below. As you are seeking answers to questions
rather than documents, we are dealing with your enquiry outside of formal
FOI processes. Your enquiry has been passed on to the Research Funding
and Policy Branch, who will respond to your enquiry in the near future.
Kind regards,
FOI Team
Department of Education and Training
From: John Lumb [[1]mailto:[FOI #2289 email]]
Sent: Saturday, 24 September 2016 8:07 PM
To: Education - FOI
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Procurement process by which the
Copenhagen Consensus Centre received funding of $640,000.
Dear Department of Education,
On Saturday 24 September 2016, the Australian edition of The Guardian
online reportsed that the Copenhagen Consensus Centre (CCC) received
$640,000 to produce a report which an unnamed spkesman for your department
stated "represented the Australian government contribution to the CCC for
the Smarter UN Post-2015 Development Goals project.
I would like to know:
a) whether the procurement processes were consistent with Government
procurement requirements as detailed in Chapter 15 of the Australia-United
States Free Trade Agreement;
b) the details of the procurement process the department used to select
the CCC as the provider for this service as detailed in he
Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement;(open tendering procedures;
selective tendering procedures; or limited tendering procedures)
c) the terms of reference for the services as provided to prospective
service providers.
Yours faithfully
John Lumb
40 Swanson St
Erskineville NSW 2043
0422 641 062
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 566 046 during business hours (8am - 5pm Local time)
and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[FOI #2289 email]
Dear Education - FOI,
Updating this request - Oddly enough, I'd like to see the documentation associated with the contract between the Department of Education and the Copenhagen Consensus Center (CCC) which led to a report apparently presenting policy options for addressing climate change. One presumes the CCC and other potential tenders were provided with Terms of Reference for the proposed study, that a proposal was submitted and assessed, that some sort contract was drawn up and, and that, as with any high value service provision, that Ministerial approval was provided in writing. At least that was how things functioned over the 25 years I was involved in the management of research projects for the Australian Government.
You'll note that I've requested an internal review, because quite frankly, I don't quite understand how my original request could be interpreted as only wanting "answers to the questions rather than documents".
Yours sincerely,
John Lumb
Dear Mr Lumb
Thank you for your email below confirming your intention in your email
dated 24 September 2016 was to request documents. We had thought to
assist by providing answers to your questions outside the formalities of
the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act), as it appeared to us that
you were seeking answers to questions rather than making a request for
specific documents, and the FOI Act is a scheme for access to documents
rather than responses to questions. In addition, the FOI Act imposes
specific requirements for a request for access to be valid which your
correspondence did not meet.
Valid FOI Request
Section 15 of the FOI Act sets out the following requirements in order to
make a valid request:
• be in writing;
• state that it is an application for the purposes of the FOI
Act;
• provide information concerning the document as is reasonably
necessary to identify the document; and
• provide an address (eg an email address) for the purposes of
correspondence.
In addition, requests must be sent to the address specified by the agency.
At this stage, your correspondence has not stated that your request was
for the purposes of the FOI Act and you have not provided information
concerning the documents as is reasonably necessary to identify the
documents. For example, it is not clear whether you are requesting a
copy of all documentation associated with the contract between the
Department of Education and the Copenhagen Consensus Center (CCC) which
led to the report referred to, including the contract and documents
associated with the implementation of the contract.
Internal Review
Section 52 of the FOI Act provides for internal review of certain
decisions by agencies. As discussed above, your request does not satisfy
the requirements of section 15 of the FOI Act and is therefore not a valid
FOI request. Therefore no reviewable decision under the FOI Act has taken
place.
Response to your questions
In response to the questions you raised in your email date 24 September
2016, the Research Funding and Policy Branch have advised the following:
It was a government decision to bring the Copenhagen Consensus Center
methodology to Australia. The grant to the Copenhagen Consensus Center
was not subject to the provisions of the Australia-United States Free
Trade Agreement (the AUSFTA). This is because the AUSFTA does not apply to
grants policy or processes subject to the Public Governance, Performance
and Accountability Act 2013 and the Commonwealth Grants Rules and
Guidelines which establish the Commonwealth’s grants policy framework.
As the grant was the result of a Government decision, your question about
specific Terms of Reference for prospective service providers is not
applicable. However, the Government’s Grant Agreement with the Copenhagen
Consensus Centre specified objectives and milestones for the project.
We trust you find this information helpful. However, if you would still
like to make a valid request for documents under the FOI Act please let us
know, responding with an email that satisfies the request for access
requirements under section 15 of the FOI Act, as outlined above.
Kind regards
FOI Team
Department of Education and Training
[1][email address]
-----Original Message-----
From: John Lumb [[2]mailto:[FOI #2289 email]]
Sent: Monday, 10 October 2016 2:43 PM
To: Education - FOI
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Procurement
process by which the Copenhagen Consensus Centre received funding of
$640,000.
Dear Education - FOI,
Updating this request - Oddly enough, I'd like to see the documentation
associated with the contract between the Department of Education and the
Copenhagen Consensus Center (CCC) which led to a report apparently
presenting policy options for addressing climate change. One presumes the
CCC and other potential tenders were provided with Terms of Reference for
the proposed study, that a proposal was submitted and assessed, that some
sort contract was drawn up and, and that, as with any high value service
provision, that Ministerial approval was provided in writing. At least
that was how things functioned over the 25 years I was involved in the
management of research projects for the Australian Government.
You'll note that I've requested an internal review, because quite frankly,
I don't quite understand how my original request could be interpreted as
only wanting "answers to the questions rather than documents".
Yours sincerely,
John Lumb
-----Original Message-----
For Official Use Only
Dear Mr Lumb
Thank you for your email below. As you are seeking answers to questions
rather than documents, we are dealing with your enquiry outside of formal
FOI processes. Your enquiry has been passed on to the Research Funding
and Policy Branch, who will respond to your enquiry in the near future.
Kind regards,
FOI Team
Department of Education and Training
From: John Lumb [[1][3]mailto:[FOI #2289 email]]
Sent: Saturday, 24 September 2016 8:07 PM
To: Education - FOI
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Procurement process by which
the Copenhagen Consensus Centre received funding of $640,000.
Dear Department of Education,
On Saturday 24 September 2016, the Australian edition of The Guardian
online reportsed that the Copenhagen Consensus Centre (CCC) received
$640,000 to produce a report which an unnamed spkesman for your
department stated "represented the Australian government contribution to
the CCC for the Smarter UN Post-2015 Development Goals project.
I would like to know:
a) whether the procurement processes were consistent with Government
procurement requirements as detailed in Chapter 15 of the
Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement;
b) the details of the procurement process the department used to select
the CCC as the provider for this service as detailed in he
Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement;(open tendering procedures;
selective tendering procedures; or limited tendering procedures)
c) the terms of reference for the services as provided to prospective
service providers.
Yours faithfully
John Lumb
40 Swanson St
Erskineville NSW 2043
0422 641 062
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 566 046 during business hours (8am - 5pm Local time)
and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments.
References
Visible links
1. [4]mailto:[FOI #2289 email]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[5][FOI #2289 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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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 566 046 during business hours (8am - 5pm Local time)
and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[FOI #2289 email]
3. mailto:[foi
4. mailto:[foi
5. mailto:[FOI #2289 email]
6. https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...