Dear Department of Health and Ageing,

Please provide a copy of the eHealth Memorandum of Understanding which replaces the National Partnership on E-Health which expired on end of June 2012.

The department has advised the Senate Estimates Community Affairs committee that the eHealth MOU, governing future ehealth arrangements between the commonwealth, state and territory governments, was agreed by COAG's Standing Council on Health on November 9, 2012.

The document has not been published, as is customary, on COAG's Agreements and Reporting web pages.

Thank you for your assistance.

Yours faithfully,

Karen Dearne, Sydney NSW

Dear Mr Schreiber

Thank you for your response to my FOI Request No 175-1213.

However I am at a loss over your decision to impose substantial charges to access a document that should already be in the public domain.

The Commonwealth Department of Health has advised the Senate Community Affairs Committee that the Memorandum of Understanding on eHealth replaces the expired National Partnership Agreement on E-Health.

The expired E-Health Agreement is to be found among all such publications on the Federal Financial Relations website (http://www.federalfinancialrelations.gov...)

This is the one I am referring to: http://www.federalfinancialrelations.gov...

It details the legal and financial arrangements, plus performance reporting requirements, agreed between the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments on E-Health, under the provisions of the Intergovernmental Agreement of Federal Financial Relations and related schedules.

Under the Agreement, each party has specific roles and responsibilities with regard to supplying financial contributions and undertaking actions to support the aims of a nationwide e-health system, via the foundation efforts of the National E-Health Transition Authority - a not-for-profit body previously established by all the parties for that purpose.

It was originally signed on December 7, 2009, at a Council of Australian Government meeting, by the then prime minister, Kevin Rudd, and all state and territory premiers/chief ministers; it expired on June 30, 2012.

I understand that the MOU I am seeking was agreed in place of a renewed formal NPA on eHealth.

If so, the MOU should be available either on the above site, or on the DoHA site. Indeed, it appears there are some 38 MOUs available on the Federal Financial Relations site related to various initiatives.

Here are some general examples of current MOU publications:

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/p...

http://www.cmd.act.gov.au/__data/assets/...

http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/our-responsibi...

The financial details of the eHealth MOU - effectively, the funding arrangements for NEHTA - will in any event be reported to the public via Budget statements, annual reports and other statutory financial disclosures, as has been the case in previous years.

NEHTA's most recent Annual Report discloses total "member" contributions of more than $237 million for the 2011-12 financial year; "members" being each of the commonwealth, state and territory governments.

In the most recent federal Budget, the Commonwealth allocated $233.7 million for the continuation of the National e-Health program over two years to the end of 2013-14, including $67.4 million being the Commonwealth's share of NEHTA's core funding.

Other state governments have disclosed their commitments, for example, the South Australian Health Budget 2012-13 reports an allocation of $4.9 million over two years as the state's contribution to NEHTA's work program, while the Victorian Government has allocated $16 million to NEHTA over the same period.

In short, these financial details are either already in the public domain, or will be reported in the agencies' next annual reports.

And since the parties have already agreed their commitments - presumably in a binding, legal fashion - to NEHTA and its work program over the next two years, I cannot see any reason why the information should not be made available; nor why it might require extensive consultation with individual participants before release.

Therefore I request that this request for access proceed forthwith, in line with the normal expectation of general public interest grounds for disclosure.

Regards

Karen Dearne

Dear Department of Health and Ageing,

Can you please advise when I may expect a response to my March 18 request for the provision of the MOU without fees, on the grounds of public interest?

Yours faithfully,

Karen Dearne

Dear Ms Zygadio

Can you please advise why I am yet to receive a decision on my request to waiver charges, which was due by April 17?

In the interim, I have noticed that Senator Sue Boyce has requested the same document through the Senate Estimates process.

See Community Affairs committee questions on notice to the Department of Health and Ageing, index number 165:

"In an answer to a written question on notice from the Estimates of October last year [WQON 361] regarding what will replace the expired National Partnership on E-Health DOHA stated that an ; "eHealth Memorandum of Understanding was agreed by the Standing Council on Health at its meeting on November 9, 2012. However, the communiqué released after that meeting stated that the Ministers had only "noted progress on the eHealth MOU."a) Can you explain this apparent inconsistency between your answer and the stated actions of the Standing Council on eHealth? b) If, as you claim a new 'eHealth MOU' is in existence could you please provide me with a copy of it?"

If the department provides a public copy of the MOU Agreement on eHealth through the Estimates process, then I shall not need to pursue this request.

But I note that responses to the Estimates QoNs were due by April 5, so the department is well overdue in responding to this issue.

I also note that Senator Boyce expresses some doubt as to the existence of the MOU agreement.

I am aware that no such agreement has been published, as required, on the Federal Financial Relations website.

Can you please advise whether the document will be made public via Estimates responses?

If not, I will pursue this request. In that event, could you please advise when I will receive a decision on the fees waiver.

Yours faithfully,

Karen Dearne

Dear case officer

Thank you for responding quickly. And please give Ms Forman my thanks for granting a fees waiver on public interest grounds.

However, I can confirm that I did not receive any notification of this decision on April 8 or subsequently; in any event, such a communication would be recorded on this website.

I look forward to receipt of the decision on my FOI request by May 15.

Yours faithfully,

Karen Dearne

Dear Ms Forman

I refer to your decision that the MoU on eHealth is an exempt document under section 47B(a) of the FOI Act.

I note that you say: "As the MoU is not yet signed by all parties and is considered not to commence until this has happened, the release of the document may pre-empt jurisdictional agreement and may cause damage to relations between the Commonwealth and a State (including a Territory)".

This is surprising news, as the previous National Partnership Agreement on E-Health, constituting joint commonwealth-state funding arrangements for the National E-Health Transition Authority's work program, expired at the end of June 2012.

A renegotiated e-health agreement was identified as a key priority for the Health Minister when Ms Plibersek took that role.

The Department of Health and Ageing advised the Senate Community Affairs committee that "the eHealth MoU, which replaces the National Partnership on E-Health, was agreed by the Standing Council on Health on 9 November 2012".

Are you advising that there is currently NO funding agreement between the parties for this purpose?

If so, on what basis is NEHTA's ongoing program being funded, and by whom?

Can NEHTA legally operate in the absence of a binding agreement between the parties?

While you say the decision to refuse the document's release is due to "the interest in preserving the efficient and proper functioning of government" - clearly this condition cannot apply, as without a signed agreement there is no "efficient and proper functioning" between the parties on the national e-health program.

Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that this agreement could go unsigned for so long - unless there are significant objections to its content by one or more of the parties.

Since hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent by Australian governments on NEHTA and various commonwealth and state e-health projects, I would suggest, quite strongly, that release "of the document in its draft state" is essential to help "inform debate on a matter of public importance" and "promote effective oversight of public expenditure".

I would appreciate a prompt response to these questions.

Regards

Karen Dearne