Royal Commission Legal Team Cost and Breakdown
Dear Department of Veterans' Affairs,
I've heard DVA has a DVA Royal Commission Legal Team of about 25 people working in DVA's General Counsel Division.
There is interest in the community as to what the purpose of this DVA Royal Commission Legal Team is, what it does, what law firms have seconded their staff to it, and how much this is all costing the taxpayer.
I seek copy of the following documents (it is likely to be easier for DVA to do as a table rather than provide copy of the source documents as it will mean a lot less work for DVA in redaction/consideration):
* the cost of all contractors employed within the DVA Royal Commission Legal Team, broken down by law firm/personnel agency seconded from (with number of contractors from that law firm/personnel agency) - cost may be at fortnightly, monthly, or yearly basis as suits DVA
* the cost of all APS staff employed within the DVA Royal Commission Legal Team, broken down by classification - cost may be at fortnightly, monthly, or yearly basis as suits DVA
* copy of any position/duty statement for the positions within the DVA Royal Commission Legal Team
* any other document directly relevant to what the purpose of this DVA Royal Commission Legal Team is, what it does, what law firms have seconded their staff to it, and how much this is all costing the taxpayer, that DVA reasonably believes gives such context
Yours faithfully,
Verity Pane
Dear Verity Pane,
Freedom of Information Request: FOI 47338
I refer to your request for access to documents held by the Department of
Veterans’ Affairs (department) under the Freedom of Information Act 1982
(FOI Act). Your request was received by the department on 23 December 2021
and was made in the following terms:
‘ … I've heard DVA has a DVA Royal Commission Legal Team of about 25
people working in DVA's General Counsel Division.
There is interest in the community as to what the purpose of this DVA
Royal Commission Legal Team is, what it does, what law firms have seconded
their staff to it, and how much this is all costing the taxpayer.
I seek copy of the following documents (it is likely to be easier for DVA
to do as a table rather than provide copy of the source documents as it
will mean a lot less work for DVA in redaction/consideration):
* the cost of all contractors employed within the DVA Royal Commission
Legal Team, broken down by law firm/personnel agency seconded from (with
number of contractors from that law firm/personnel agency) - cost may be
at fortnightly, monthly, or yearly basis as suits DVA
* the cost of all APS staff employed within the DVA Royal Commission Legal
Team, broken down by classification - cost may be at fortnightly, monthly,
or yearly basis as suits DVA
* copy of any position/duty statement for the positions within the DVA
Royal Commission Legal Team
* any other document directly relevant to what the purpose of this DVA
Royal Commission Legal Team is, what it does, what law firms have seconded
their staff to it, and how much this is all costing the taxpayer, that DVA
reasonably believes gives such context....’
In accordance with section 15(5)(b) of the FOI Act, the due date for a
decision on your request is 22 January 2022.
When the processing period may be extended or suspended
The current due date may be extended by up to 30 days if agreed by you
(section 15AA of the FOI Act). Also, the due date may be extended by an
additional 30 days in each instance, if your request is considered
voluminous or complex (section 15AB of the FOI Act) or if the department
is required to undertake a third party consultation (sections 26A, 27 or
27A of the FOI Act). If any of these extensions apply, the department will
notify you.
Additionally, there are occasions where the time to process your request
may be suspended. This will usually take place if a practical refusal
consultation process takes place (section 24AB of the FOI Act) or if a
charges notice is issued to process your request (section 29 of the FOI
Act). If the department decides that either of these apply to your
request, the department will notify you.
We will write again when the department has more information. Further
information on FOI processing can be found at the website of the Office of
the Australian Information Commissioner at [1]https://www.oaic.gov.au/.
Publication of documents
Please note that information released under the FOI Act may later be
published online on our disclosure log at
[2]https://www.dva.gov.au/about-dva/freedom...
subject to certain exceptions, such as if the documents relate to your own
personal information. The Department will advise you in its decision
whether details of your request will be published on the disclosure log or
not.
Contacting us about your request
We will contact you using the email address you have provided. Please
advise if you would prefer us to use an alternative means of contact.
If you have any questions, please contact us using the following details:
Post: Information Law Section, Legal Services & Audit
Branch
GPO Box 9998 CANBERRA ACT 2601
Facsimile: (02) 6289 6337
Email: [3][email address]
Yours sincerely,
Sneha (Position number: 62315639)
Information Access Officer
Information Law Section
Legal Services and Audit Branch
Department of Veterans’ Affairs
t 1800 838 372 | e [4][email address] | [5]www.dva.gov.au
p GPO Box 9998, Canberra ACT 2601
[6]cid:image001.png@01D0027A.1DAB84F0
P Please consider the environment before printing this email
IMPORTANT: This document contains legal advice and may be subject to legal
professional privilege. Unless it is waived or lost, legal professional
privilege is a rule of law that, in part, provides that the client need
not disclose confidential communications between a legal practitioner and
client. To keep this privilege, the purpose and content of this advice
must only be disclosed to persons who have a need to know and on the basis
that those persons also keep it confidential.
You should consider this advice and take it into account when forming a
decision on how best to proceed. If you decide to adopt a position that
does not align with this advice, you should not state that DVA Legal
Services & Audit Branch has cleared or endorsed a particular position.
References
Visible links
1. https://www.oaic.gov.au/
2. https://www.dva.gov.au/about-dva/freedom...
3. mailto:[email address]
4. mailto:[email address]
5. http://www.dva.gov.au/
Dear Ms Pane,
I have received an error message so I am resending the email below and
attached.
Regards
Chantal (Position Number 62212962)
Senior Legal Officer
Information Law Section
Legal Services and Audit Branch
Department of Veterans’ Affairs
e [1][email address]
From: INFORMATION.LAW <[email address]>
Sent: Monday, 24 January 2022 5:05 PM
To: [email address]
Cc: INFORMATION.LAW <[email address]>
Subject: LEX 47338 - Primary Decision [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Dear Ms Pane,
Please find attached our decision of even date.
Regards
Chantal (Position Number 62212962)
Senior Legal Officer
Information Law Section
Legal Services and Audit Branch
Department of Veterans’ Affairs
e [2][email address]
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[email address]
Dear Department of Veterans' Affairs,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Department of Veterans' Affairs's handling of my FOI request 'Royal Commission Legal Team Cost and Breakdown'.
There are three issues with this decision - the first is with the contractor s 17 document, the second is with APS s 17 document, and the third is in documents in scope not included.
The redaction of contractor numbers makes no sense on the basis claimed unless only one contractor from that firm is involved. If more than one contractor from the same firm is involved, then the actual rate of an individual contractor cannot be revealed by providing head count, because each contractor will have their own different rates. The intention is how many contractors and from where - very basic information.
The APS s 17 document redacted position numbers - there is no legitimate basis to do so.
This FOI was for fairly basic information - what was the composition of this new task force working solely on management of the Royal Commission by DVA, what external companies were involved, and how much was this reputational management task force all costing the tax payer. I allowed for s 17 tables where that achieved this objective and reduced the amount of consideration needed, not to undermine that scope of the FOI.
So the third issue is that it is clear documents in scope should have been provided given the lack of coverage by the s 17 tables of the FOI scope - there must be a brief to the Secretary or equivalent on the creation or need for this new DVA Royal Commission Legal Team of about 25 people working in DVA's General Counsel Division that would cover all this so that document should have been provided as it was in scope and necessary given what your s 17 tables did not address. That is to be provided. A s 17 position tree listing for the new DVA Royal Commission Legal Team should have also been provided.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/r...
Yours faithfully,
Verity Pane
Dear Ms. Pane,
I refer to your request, received by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs
(the department) on 29 January 2022, for an internal review of the access
decision made in regards to FOI Request 47338.
Your internal review request is as follows:
There are three issues with this decision - the first is with the
contractor s 17 document, the second is with APS s 17 document, and the
third is in documents in scope not included.
The redaction of contractor numbers makes no sense on the basis claimed
unless only one contractor from that firm is involved. If more than one
contractor from the same firm is involved, then the actual rate of an
individual contractor cannot be revealed by providing head count, because
each contractor will have their own different rates. The intention is how
many contractors and from where - very basic information.
The APS s 17 document redacted position numbers - there is no legitimate
basis to do so.
This FOI was for fairly basic information - what was the composition of
this new task force working solely on management of the Royal Commission
by DVA, what external companies were involved, and how much was this
reputational management task force all costing the tax payer. I allowed
for s 17 tables where that achieved this objective and reduced the amount
of consideration needed, not to undermine that scope of the FOI.
So the third issue is that it is clear documents in scope should have been
provided given the lack of coverage by the s 17 tables of the FOI scope -
there must be a brief to the Secretary or equivalent on the creation or
need for this new DVA Royal Commission Legal Team of about 25 people
working in DVA's General Counsel Division that would cover all this so
that document should have been provided as it was in scope and necessary
given what your s 17 tables did not address. That is to be provided. A s
17 position tree listing for the new DVA Royal Commission Legal Team
should have also been provided.
Your request was received by the department on 29 January 2022 and the 30
day statutory period for processing your request commenced from the day
after that date. The period of 30 days may be extended if we need to
consult third parties or for other reasons permitted under the FOI Act. We
will advise you if this happens.
With regards to your third issue, your initial FOI request was for a copy
of any position/duty statement for the positions within the DVA Royal
Commission Legal Team as well as any other document directly relevant to
what the purpose of this DVA Royal Commission Legal Team is and what it
does. Both the previously provided position descriptions for EL1 Senior
Legal Officers and AP6 Legal Officers outline the purpose and goals of the
Royal Commission Legal Team.
Your requests for a brief to the Secretary or equivalent in addition to a
s17 position tree listing for the DVA Royal Commission Legal Team were not
included in your initial FOI request. As a result, if you require this
information, this will need to be specified in a new FOI request.
Your address
The FOI Act requires that you provide us with an address that we can send
notices to. You have advised your electronic address is
[1][FOI #8225 email]. Unless you tell us
otherwise, we will send all notices and correspondence to this address.
Exclusion of employee details
To the extent the department has documents in its possession that fall
within the scope of your request, we will treat the names, signatures,
position titles and direct contact details of Commonwealth employees as
irrelevant in accordance with section 22 of the FOI Act, unless you tell
us otherwise by 16 February 2022.
Further assistance
If you have any questions about your request, please email
[email address].
Yours sincerely,
Zak (Position Number 62329533)
Information Access Officer
Information Law Section
Legal Services and Audit Branch
Department of Veterans’ Affairs
e [2][email address]
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[FOI #8225 email]
2. mailto:[email address]
Dear Ms. Pane,
Please find attached our decision letter of even date in relation to your
internal review application (LEX 47814).
Sincerely yours,
Zak (Position Number 62329533)
Information Access Officer
Information Law Section
Legal Services and Audit Branch
Department of Veterans’ Affairs
e [1][email address]
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
Dear Ms Pane,
I refer to LEX 47338 and LEX 47814 (Internal Review of LEX 47338), which
you sought an Office of the Australian Information Commissioner review of.
The Department of Veterans’ Affairs has decided to make a substituted
decision on these requests under section 55G of the Freedom of Information
Act 1982 (Cth).
Please find the Department’s substituted decision and documents for
release attached.
Kind regards
Ramona | Assistant Director
Position Number: 62336362
Information Access Unit I Client Access and Rehabilitation Branch
Client Engagement and Support Services Division
Department of Veterans’ Affairs
Tel 1800 838 372 (1800 VETERAN)
e [1][email address]
[2]www.dva.gov.au
[3]cid:image002.png@01D7B6E3.69D49590[4]cid:image003.png@01D7B6E3.69D49590[5]cid:image004.png@01D7B6E3.69D49590[6]cid:image005.png@01D7B6E3.69D49590
[7]cid:image009.jpg@01D8EDC8.743A0070
[8]cid:image010.jpg@01D8EDC8.743A0070
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.dva.gov.au/
3. https://www.facebook.com/DVAAus
4. https://twitter.com/DVAAus
5. https://au.linkedin.com/company/australi...
6. https://www.youtube.com/DVATVAus
Julie left an annotation ()
Veterans' Affairs appears wrong to claim a new FOI is required, because the FOI scope was;
* the cost of all contractors employed within the DVA Royal Commission Legal Team, broken down by law firm/personnel agency seconded from (with number of contractors from that law firm/personnel agency) - cost may be at fortnightly, monthly, or yearly basis as suits DVA
* the cost of all APS staff employed within the DVA Royal Commission Legal Team, broken down by classification - cost may be at fortnightly, monthly, or yearly basis as suits DVA
* copy of any position/duty statement for the positions within the DVA Royal Commission Legal Team
* any other document directly relevant to what the purpose of this DVA Royal Commission Legal Team is, what it does, what law firms have seconded their staff to it, and how much this is all costing the taxpayer, that DVA reasonably believes gives such context
It does appear a briefing document to the Secretary, that including any of the above, would be in scope and should have been considered by the delegate.