Download original attachment
(PDF file)

This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Records relating to RQ20/04150 (Veterans' Affairs FOI reference: FOI 39042)'.

DVA - Department of Veterans' Affairs | Julie
Page 1 of 3
FOIREQ21/00002   001
RQ20/04150
Selvarajah, Avanithah
12-Jan-2021 3:26 PM
Title
DVA - Department of Veterans' Affairs | Julie
Receipt Details
File Type:
Extension of time
Received Date:
10-Dec-2020 12:00 AM
Case Type:
Extension of time
Received By:
Nirmaleswaran, 
Poorvaja
How Received:
Registered Date:
11-Dec-2020 6:47 PM
Owned By:
Selvarajah, Avanithah
Registered By:
Selvarajah, Avanithah
Closed Date:
15-Dec-2020 2:10 PM
Closed By:
Selvarajah, Avanithah
Case Details
How Received:
Email
Agency Reference 
FOI 39042
Number:
Request Decision:
Granted
Extension Date:
10-Jan-2021
Primary Client Group:
Agency
Represented By Client 
Individual
Group:
Parent Case Entity 
IC Request
Code:
Case PrimaryPerson:
DVA - Department of Veterans' Affairs
Case Respondent:
Julie
Extension days:
30
Original Decision Date:
10-Dec-2020
Request from:
Agency
Request Sub Type:
s15AB - complex or voluminous
Agency Request 
5-Nov-2020
Received Date:
Retention Class:
OAIC RA 61986 (D2)
Previous Case Owner 
134501
ID:
Case Parties - 2
Requestor Client:
DVA - Department of Veterans' Affairs
Request Relating To 
Julie
Client:
Summary
note 24AB issued.
Received via email
Complexity / Volume
Please include to R:
Please note for future use, that the OAIC’s preference is to receive extension of time applications via its 
smartform here.
about:blank
12/01/21
DVA - Department of Veterans' Affairs | Julie
Page 2 of 3
FOIREQ21/00002   002
Actions - 13 (All Completed)
Action
Owner
Due
Completed
Record Request details 
FOI - EOT
14-Dec-2020
11-Dec-2020, Nirmaleswaran, Poorvaja
and attach docs 
(Agency)
Ownership Reassigned
Nirmaleswaran, 
11-Dec-2020
11-Dec-2020
Poorvaja
Assigned to 'FOI - EOT' by 'Nirmaleswaran, Poorvaja'
File Note
Selvarajah, 
15-Dec-2020
15-Dec-2020
Avanithah
Dear Avi Please proceed. Thanks SN (15/12) ___________ Thanks Shelley noted. _____ FYI - draft grants. 
SN (15/12) ____________ Dear Shelley Please see updated decision letters for your review. Thanks AS 
(15/12) _____________ Dear Avi Please see corro from FOIA saved in Docs tab. Sent in response to a CP 
matter but includes subs on this matter. Thanks SN (14/12) ____________ Dear Shelley Please see draft 
decision letters saved for your review. Thanks AS (14/12) ______ hi Avi - please assess and progress. Thanks 
Irene
Ownership Reassigned
Nicolaou, Irene
14-Dec-2020
14-Dec-2020
Reassigned from 'FOI - EOT' to 'Selvarajah, Avanithah' by 'Nicolaou, Irene'
Record Request details 
Selvarajah, 
15-Dec-2020
14-Dec-2020, Napper, Shelley
and attach docs 
Avanithah
(Agency)
Send EOT 
FOI - Triage
15-Dec-2020
15-Dec-2020, Selvarajah, Avanithah: Not 
acknowledgement 
required
(Agency)
Move to Triage basket
Selvarajah, 
15-Dec-2020
14-Dec-2020, Napper, Shelley
Avanithah
Allocate to Triage 
FOI - Triage
15-Dec-2020
14-Dec-2020, Napper, Shelley
Officer (REQ)
Ownership Reassigned
Napper, Shelley
14-Dec-2020
14-Dec-2020
Assigned to 'FOI - Triage' by 'Napper, Shelley'
Ownership Reassigned
Napper, Shelley
14-Dec-2020
14-Dec-2020
Assigned to 'Selvarajah, Avanithah' by 'Napper, Shelley'
Assess EOT Request
Selvarajah, 
15-Dec-2020
15-Dec-2020: Don’t escalate
Avanithah
Notify Parties of 
Selvarajah, 
16-Dec-2020
15-Dec-2020
Decision (REQ EOT)
Avanithah
Close Request
Selvarajah, 
16-Dec-2020
15-Dec-2020
Avanithah
Documents - 7
Title
Date Added
By
Section 15AB request — DVA — FOI 39042 
10-Dec-2020 7:12 PM
Nirmaleswaran, 
[SEC=OFFICIAL]
Poorvaja
15AB - letter to A - RQ20-04150.docx
14-Dec-2020 12:47 PM
Selvarajah, Avanithah
15AB - letter to R - RQ20-04150.docx
14-Dec-2020 12:47 PM
Selvarajah, Avanithah
about:blank
12/01/21

FOIREQ21/00002   004
From:
INFORMATION.LAW
To:
FOIDR
Cc:
INFORMATION.LAW
Subject:
Section 15AB request — DVA — FOI 39042 [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Date:
Thursday, December 10, 2020 7:12:27 PM
Attachments:
image001.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear OAIC
DVA – FOI 39042
 
I am writing to request a s 15AB extension for an FOI request made by applicant, Julie, contactable at
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx.
Details of the access request
Julie lodged their FOI access request (complying with s 15) with DVA on 5 November 2020. 
 
The request seeks access to the following:
‘…For the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act, I request copy of the following
document/s, and any such discrete document does not exist but the official
information does, I request the Department to produce a written document
containing the information in discrete form by use of computer and other equipment
to retrieve and collate the stored official information sought:
 
* A list of all briefs that were signed by the Secretary during October 2020; and
 
* Copy of the first page only of each brief signed by the Secretary during October
2020.
 
Severability: If one part of the scope is intended to be delayed by the Department, or
made subject to consultation, but the other part can proceed, then the Department is
to either give staged access to that part or treat the FOI as two separate requests
made on 5 November…’
 
Taking into account an extension to the processing period to allow us to carry out a request
consultation process, DVA is due to make a decision on the applicant's request by 10 December
2020.
Section 15AA extension refused
On 10 December 2020, DVA sought Julie's agreement to a 30 day extension under s 15AA. We did
not receive a response to that email.
Period of s 15AB extension sought
DVA requests a 30 day extension under s 15AB. This would make the new due date for a decision 10
January 2021.
FOIREQ21/00002   005
Reasons
·        Taking into account Julie’s feedback to the request consultation process, the Department would
like to continue working with Julie to try and achieve a satisfactory resolution to this matter.
·        Julie is seeking a list of briefs signed by the Secretary in October and a copy of the first page of
each brief. This request is considered complex and voluminous for the following reasons:
Although most briefs to be signed by the Secretary are received through the
Parliamentary Document Management System (PDMS), briefs are also received by
other channels including in hard copy and via email. There is no central system to track
briefs received outside of PDMS, meaning that a manual search of records and
consultation with all Divisions is required to ensure that all briefs in scope are captured.
These searches will be very time consuming and pose a resource burden to all areas of
the Department.
Briefs are not necessarily signed by the Secretary in the same month that they are
received meaning that each record will need to be individually reviewed to determine
whether it was in fact signed in October 2020. This will also mean that briefs received
by the Secretary’s Office prior to October will need to be reviewed to determine when
they were signed and if they fall in scope. For the same reasons outlined above, this will
require all areas of the Department to undertake a manual review of briefs sent to the
Secretary’s office as PDMS does not record the date a brief was signed. This poses a
significant resource burden to the Department.
Julie has also requested a copy of the first page of each brief signed by the Secretary in
October 2020. Due to the broad range of issues the Secretary is briefed on, many of
which are highly sensitive (including Protected and Cabinet-In-Confidence material),
significant time will be required to consult with business areas on sensitivities and to
review and apply potential redactions to each page.
A preliminary estimate of the time required to process this matter was 65 hours.
·        The Department has undertaken a request consultation process with the applicant and explained
the challenges in processing the request. The Department suggested a number of ways the scope
may be revised to reduce the time required to process the request including the following:
o   Limiting the scope of the request to briefs received by the Secretary’s Office for the
Secretary’s signature in October 2020 via PDMS only.
o   Removing the request for a copy of the first page of each brief that contains the Secretary’s
signature.
o   Limiting the scope of the request to briefs signed by the Secretary in October 2020 on a
particular topic.
 
·        The Department also suggested the following revised scope to assist the applicant:
A list of all briefs, excluding briefs classified as Protected or Cabinet in Confidence, registered
in PDMS in October 2020 received by the Secretary Coordinating area for which the Secretary
was the final signatory.
 
·       Julie declined to revise the scope of their request but did agree again to a staged release.

FOIREQ21/00002   006
 
Further consultation with the Secretary’s office and Divisional coordination points to ensure that this
request is processed in a timely manner is planned for the week beginning 14 December 2020.
These consultations will also assist the Department to determine whether a staged release, as
requested by Julie, is possible. Following this, the request will be finalised as quickly as possible and
with the aim of a decision being provided to Julie before 10 January 2020.
 
Please let me know if you have any questions or would like further information.
Kind regards
Jo
Jo (Position Number 62210326)
Assistant Director
Information Law Section
Legal Services and Audit Branch
Department of Veterans’ Affairs
t 1800 555 254 | e xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx@xxx.xxx.xx  | www.dva.gov.au
p GPO Box 9998, Canberra ACT 2601
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.
 
IMPORTANT
1. Before opening any attachments, please check for viruses. 
2. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential information 
for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, 
please contact the sender and delete all copies of this email. 
3. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are not 
a statement of Australian Government Policy unless otherwise stated. 
4. Electronic addresses published in this email are not conspicuous publications and DVA
does not consent to the receipt of commercial electronic messages. 
5. To unsubscribe from emails from the Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA) please go to 
http://www.dva.gov.au/contact_us/Pages/feedback.aspx
, and advise which mailing list you would like to unsubscribe from. 
6. Finally, please do not remove this notice.

FOIREQ21/00002   007
From:
Julie A.
To:
Shelley Napper
Subject:
Re: CP20/02546 - FOI complaint - Update [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Date:
Monday, December 14, 2020 12:35:09 PM
Attachments:
image011.jpg
image007.png
image010.png
image008.png
image009.png
image006.jpg
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Shelley,
As you rightly infer, it is not possible to request an IC Review until such time as an access refusal decision exists, and even though the request consultation period closed and
the processing period lapsed, the Department on the final day of processing ridiculously claimed to seek a section 15AA extension (which lapsed given it was requested late
evening on day of final processing day, and thus was no real request at all)
I would normally proceed with a deemed refusal challenge, but the Department's last minute missive also states that it would seek a section 15AB extension from the
Information Commissioner retrospectively (despite the legality of this being unsound)
If any section 15AB application has been made for FOI 39042, of which I have received no notice from the OAIC about, I submit it should not be given because:
* The Department mislead and made false statements to the Information Commissioner in its submission for section 15AB extension in RQ20/02874 (for FOI 36929), claiming
over 200 pages of complex material was in scope to review, when it only reviewed and considered 3 single summary powerpoint slides in its decision for FOI 36929; 
* The Department has already flagged that it intends to refuse access so there is no purpose in giving the Department additional time; and
* The Department has already received the benefit of additional time due to its misuse of the request consultation process, claimed only a few days before the original
processing period was to expire
In closing, as you would be aware an IC Review is a merits review of a decision and as such issues which go to conduct but which are not part of the reasons of the decision are
outside the scope of any IC Review  Similarly, where a section 70 complaint is made, a possible future access refusal decision is outside the scope of section 70 as a legal
ground for refusal to investigate (just as matters outside any such future decision would only be able to be dealt with by section 70)
I think we can agree that the most efficient path right now is for the Information Commissioner to encourage and give guidance to the Department to do the right and legal
thing, through preliminary enquiries, so that neither a prolonged investigation nor IC Review is required
The FOI is straightforward and the Department has been dishonest and misleading in making claims that the Department does not have any idea (or any central point in the
Secretary's Office) or register of briefs that went to/thru the Secretary's Office that month, solely to exaggerate and overclaim the processing requirements of this FOI
(especially given the OAIC just did one fairly similar, over a whole year, just recently without any delays or extensions, and has even fewer FOI staff than the Department)
Sincerely
Julie
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 11:50 am, Shelley Napper <shelley napper@oaic gov au> wrote:
Our reference: CP20/02546
 
Dear Julie
 
I refer to previous correspondence in relation to this FOI complaint matter regarding the Department of Veterans’ Affairs’ (the Department).
 
The OAIC is currently undertaking preliminary inquiries with the Department under s 74 of the FOI Act.
 
I note that the copy of the Department’s  request consultation notice dated 2 December 2020 you provided, requires a response from you to the Department by 15
December 2020 (attached). Once a decision has been issued, you may wish to seek IC review of the decision here.
 
I note that some of the allegations you have raised regarding the request consultation process would be more appropriately dealt with as an IC review (see FOI
Guidelines [11.4]), such as your allegation that:
* While such estimates are required to be made on a sample of 10% to 15% of documents in scope, it does not appear any such sampling took place (no evidence of any is given by the delegate
beyond "initial enquiries" having been alleged), but the estimates given appear based solely on 'guesstimates' by the delegate for what the might believe any such sample may show.
 
* The delegate also estimates another 37 hours to search and create a list of all briefs in scope for October 2020, which again is figure without evidence, and which appears excessively overinflated
by the delegate, for the reasons mentioned above.
 
The OAIC will contact you further in relation to this FOI complaint matter in the new year.
 
Kind regards
 
  Shelley Napper  |  Assistant Director
Freedom of Information
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner







FOIREQ21/00002   008
GPO Box 5218 Sydney NSW 2001  |  oaic.gov.au
+61 2 9284 9721  |  shelley napper@oaic gov au
|
|
|  
Subscribe to Information Matters
 
 
From: FOIDR 
Sent: Thursday, 10 December 2020 12:31 PM
To: 'Julie A ' <julie oaic emails@protonmail com>
Subject: CP20/02546 - Your complaint about an FOI decision by the Department of Veterans' Affairs [SEC=OFFICIAL]
 
Our reference: CP20/02546
Agency reference: FOI 39042
 
Julie
By email: xxxxx.xxxx.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx
Your complaint about an FOI decision by the Department of Veterans' Affairs
Dear Julie
We acknowledge your complaint about the Department of Veterans' Affairs in relation to your FOI request.
Please note:
·         Once your application has been assessed, you will be advised by an investigations and review officer about the next steps in our complaints handling process
·         If your circumstances change in the interim, or your matter has been resolved directly with the Department of Veterans' Affairs please advise us by email as
soon as practicable
·         Information about the way we handle your personal information is available in our privacy policy.
Should you wish to follow up on this matter, please contact the OAIC enquiries line on 1300 363 992 or email xxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx and quote the reference number at
the top of this email.
Yours sincerely
Poorvaja Nirmaleswaran
 
  Intake and Early Resolution Team
Freedom of Information
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
GPO Box 5218 Sydney NSW 2001  |  oaic.gov.au
1300 363 992  |  xxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx
|
|
|  
Subscribe to OAICnet newsletter
 
From: Julie A  <julie oaic emails@protonmail com> 
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 2:22 AM
To: FOIDR <foidr@oaic gov au>
Subject: Section 70 FOI Act Complaint - Department of Veterans' Affairs - Request Consultation Decision Issued 2 December 2020
 
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
 
Dear Madam/Sir,
 
I am a person, and for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act I am making a section 70(1) complaint, in writing, in respect of the Department of Veterans'
Affairs Request Consultation Decision of 2 December 2020
 
While I note the Information Commissioner is of the view that a section 70(1) complaint is not desired by her when an IC Review of an FOI decision is available,
no IC Review is available of a Request Consultation decision under the FOI Act (as it is not an access grant or access refusal decision or deemed decision), so the
only appropriate avenue is a section 70 complaint regarding the actions of the Department in respect to this FOI request (and the pattern of practice it reveals, when
assessed against a repeated practice by the Department to make Request Consultation decisions within only a few days of the expiry of the processing deadline,
contrary to the obligation under the Guidelines for the Department to identify any intention to seek request consultation as soon as is practicable and not to use
request consultations as an artificial means to otherwise circumvent the 30 day processing period by impeding timely access)
 
FOIREQ21/00002   009
The Request Consultation decision the subject of this complaint is available
here https://www righttoknow org au/request/6870/response/19391/attach/4/FOI%2039042%20Practical%20Refusal%20Consultation%20Notice%20section%2024AB pdf
 
It relates to an FOI request made to the Department on 5 November 2020, which was due for decision on Monday 7 December 2020  As mentioned, the Request
Consultation Decision (which was not flagged informally beforehand as is recommended by the Guidelines) was only issued late evening on 2 December 2020
(five calendar days before expiry of the processing period)  As mentioned, this is inconsistent with the obligation to give timely notice of any request consultation -
as a guideline of acceptable practice followed at other agencies: 
[2020] AICmr 58 (Consultation request decision on Day 18); 
[2020] AICmr 53 (Consultation request decision on Day 11);  
[2020] AICmr 51 (Consultation request decision on Day 18);  
[2020] AICmr 39 (Consultation request decision on Day 15);  
[2020] AICmr 28 (Consultation request decision on Day 14);    
[2020] AICmr 26 (Consultation request decision on Day 19); 
[2020] AICmr 25 (Consultation request decision on Day 1);
[2020] AICmr 20 (Consultation request decision on Day 9); 
[2020] AICmr 12 (Consultation request decision on Day 4); and
[2020] AICmr 11 (Consultation request decision on Day 6); 
 
This is to contrasted to a recent history of the Department's request consultation decision timings from those published on Right to Know:
On Day 27 https://www righttoknow org au/request/briefs_that_the_secretary_signed#incoming-19391 
On Day 23 https://www righttoknow org au/request/terms_of_agreement_purchase_orde_2#incoming-19406
On Day 23 https://www righttoknow org au/request/tender_guidelines#incoming-18810
On Day 23 https://www righttoknow org au/request/contract_lapel_pins#incoming-18805
On Day 23 https://www righttoknow org au/request/contracts_mous_tenders#incoming-18799
On Day 23 https://www righttoknow org au/request/cn3528664#incoming-18807
On Day 26 https://www righttoknow org au/request/external_legal_costs_in_201819_f#comment-2682
 
This former highlights the reasonable expectation that any request consultation intention be identified by the agency around a fortnight after it receives an FOI
request, and the latter indicates the degree of deviation by the Department to this principle  Last minute request consultation requests create a real risk that an
agency is using request consultations as a unfair barrier to access than for any real operational need (as the Department's history here shows)
 
It is inevitable that the Department will, like in past pseudo-consultation claims, seek a extension from the Information Commissioner after the consultation period
expires (and the Department will use all of the consultation period to delay processing, even if scope was reduced to one page tonight - in violation of section
24AB(6)(b) as it has done previously) or claim third party consultation, to intentionally cause even more prolonged delay (as the Department's FOI statistics bear
out)
 
So, for the reasons given above, it is appropriate to make a section 70(1) complaint at this point, rather than let this improper practice be compounded further by
more improper practice by the Department  It is readily apparent that the Department has not intended to seek request consultation co-operatively and in good faith
as required (refer [37] at Warren and Dept of Human Services [2019] AICmr 22)
 
Apart from the late deployment of the Request Consultation Decision (intended solely to interfere with the obligation to facilitate and promote public access to
official documents, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost as set out by section 3(4) of the Act), the Request Consultation Decision made by the Department
raises the following issues relevant to a section 70 investigation:
 
* Despite clearly stating the scope of the FOI (see below) as including any brief signed or initialed by the Secretary herself (in any form or way) during October
2020 as being within scope, the delegate at paragraph 7 ignores this and redefines the scope without my consent as being for "briefs in which the Secretary was the
final signatory" despite this clearly being contrary to the scope defined by me with the delegate
 
"...a brief is a summary document prepared by agency staff for an office holder, that seeks to provide an overview of one or more issues, and that often seeks
consent for a course of action to be approved, or presents options to be endorsed by that office holder (but sometimes can simply be advisory only, with no action
required other than to "note" the contents of the brief).
 
A brief signed by the Secretary would, in terms of an FOI scope, include any brief signed by the Secretary regardless of the mechanism of that signature (physical,
electronic, etc). To avoid all doubt, any document which received the Secretary's signature during the scope period (regardless of whether a physical or electronic
signature), that had for that document (whether stamped on, stapled to, digitally attached, or in the document itself) a specific box or area for the Secretary's
signature or initials (whether physical or electronic), and which had such a signature or initials, and was a document that sought the Secretary to either "note",
"approve", "agree", "endorse" or "discuss" (or other similar verbs) as an action requested, is a document in scope in the scope period..."
 
* The scope is only for any brief processed through the Secretary's office (as all briefs to a Department Secretary would be required to be submitted through), for
the Secretary's signature or initials - it is inconceivable that the Department is so grossly mismanaged that the Secretary's Office has no register of such internal or
external briefs being processed through them and/or that a copy of any such signed or initialed brief would not be recorded/captured digitally in TRIM or other
FOIREQ21/00002   010
electronic database by the Department and the Secretary's Office (otherwise these important documents would go missing, have unknown statuses, etc grinding
Departmental processes to a halt repeatedly)  There is no Departmental Secretary's office that is run in such a manner - briefs to or thru the Secretary are significant
Department documents, which the Archives Act requires solid records to be kept of, including registers and more advanced recording keeping than other
transactional Department documents
 
* The Department claims (paragraph 15, page 5) that the Secretary received over 111 briefs through PDMS alone "for the Secretary's signature in October 2020" -
firstly, the scope of the FOI was for briefs signed or initialed by the Secretary in October 2020, not received, and this claim should be evaluated with regard to the
Department's previous fraudulent section 15AB claim of 31 July 2020 (RQ20/02874) which claimed that there were over 200 pages of documents in scope for FOI
36929, only for the FOI decision released on 2 September to identify only 3 pages of documents in scope (and those being very summary power point slides), for
what was a multi-million dollar Departmental program  Both the former and the latter indicate that this claim by the Department should be treated with upmost
caution, given their repeated propensity to misrepresent key facts
 
* The Department has claimed (also paragraph 15, page 5) in its Request Consultation that to review the first page (as only the first page of briefs within scope are
requested) of briefs in scope would take 10 minutes per page to just review the first page of each brief (and another additional 11 hours on top of this to
consider exemptions, redact, and prepare any subsequent FOI decision) - this is grossly excessive to the review time considered appropriate and defendable by
the Information Commissioner for such documents (30 seconds for review alone, but up to 5 minutes if assessing, reviewing and redacting for release - unless the
document required specialist technical knowledge to assess or contained an overwhelming amount of sensitive information that would require redaction), and is
directly contrary to the Information Commissioner's finding in 'GD' and DPMC [2015] AICmr 46 [at 21]  It is relevant that the documents in scope are briefs either
for the Secretary or the Minister (passing through the Secretary) and as such will be written in plain English and written for accessibility (given the Minister and the
Secretary are not technical specialists, but general management executives), as is the expectation and format for such briefs (so use of dot point summary style
presentation), and that the first page of any such brief is typically an executive summary, so written for easily readability
 
* While such estimates are required to be made on a sample of 10% to 15% of documents in scope, it does not appear any such sampling took place (no evidence of
any is given by the delegate beyond "initial enquiries" having been alleged), but the estimates given appear based solely on 'guesstimates' by the delegate for what
the might believe any such sample may show
 
* The delegate also estimates another 37 hours to search and create a list of all briefs in scope for October 2020, which again is figure without evidence, and which
appears excessively overinflated by the delegate, for the reasons mentioned above
 
* Despite the Department claiming COVID impacts (paragraph 19-20), the areas responsible for the documents in scope of the request are based in Canberra and
Brisbane (and unlike Melbourne) neither location is subject to COVID workplace reduction restrictions  Despite the Department repeatedly claiming all year that
its FOI operations have been impacted by COVID, it has repeatedly resisted requests (including FOI -
see https://www righttoknow org au/request/staffing_levels_for_information#outgoing-13848 ) for evidence of any such impact on the Information Law area
(which is based in Brisbane) that is tasked for all such FOI activity for the Department  Brisbane and Canberra, unlike Sydney, have had no real COVID workplace
restrictions and Department staff in Information Law are provided with full facilities to work from home remotely in any case  Notably the Information Law area
within the Department has no COVID related duties and claims of it being impacted by 'redeployment' activities are untenable (as these are carried out by another
Division at the Department - by health policy officers, not lawyers)
 
* The claim (paragraph 20) by the Department that they are the "third highest recipient of FOI requests" and inferring that this reduces their responsibilities as a
result under FOI law is outrageous and contrary to the Guidelines which state that there is an expectation that agencies will sufficiently staff their FOI areas to meet
their obligations under the FOI Act, given it is their inherent non-derogable responsibility to do so
 
As this decision raises multiple systemic conduct issues, especially when assessed against a repeated pattern of improper use of request consultation periods by the
Department, it is appropriate for investigation by the Information Commissioner under section 70
 
Sincerely
 
Julie
 
***********************************************************************
WARNING: The information contained in this email may be confidential
If you are not the intended recipient, any use or copying of any part
of this information is unauthorised  If you have received this email in
error, we apologise for any inconvenience and request that you notify
the sender immediately and delete all copies of this email, together
with any attachments
***********************************************************************





FOIREQ21/00002   011
From:
Avanithah Selvarajah
To:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
Subject:
RQ20/04150 - Extension of time under s 15AB - Decision [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Date:
Tuesday, December 15, 2020 2:03:00 PM
Attachments:
20201215- RQ20-04150 - letter to A.pdf
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Our reference: RQ20/04150
Agency reference: FOI 39042
Julie
 
Sent by email: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
Extension of time under s 15AB
Dear Julie
Please find attached a decision of today’s date.
 
Kind regards,
 
  Avanithah Selvarajah  |  Review and Investigations Adviser (Legal) (A/g)
Freedom of information
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
GPO Box 5218 Sydney NSW 2001  |  oaic.gov.au
+61 2 9284 9625 |  xxxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx
|
|
|  
Subscribe to Information Matters
 
 


FOIREQ21/00002   013
 
I have decided to grant the Department an extension of time under s 15AB(2) of the FOI Act 
to 10 January 2020 . I am satisfied that the Department’s application for an extension of 
time is justified, because the request is complex and voluminous. My reasons and 
considerations follow: 
•  The Department advised that they have undertaken a request consultation process 
with you and explained the challenges in processing the request. Whilst you did not 
agree to revising the scope of the request, you have agreed to a staged release. 
 
•  The Department have advised that a manual search of records and consultation with 
all Divisions is required to ensure that al  briefs in scope are captured. These 
searches will be very time consuming and pose a resource burden to all areas of the 
Department. 
 
•  The Department have advised that briefs are not necessarily signed by the Secretary 
in the same month that they are received meaning that each record will need to be 
individually reviewed to determine whether it was in fact signed in October 2020. 
This will also mean that briefs received by the Secretary’s Office prior to October will 
need to be reviewed to determine when they were signed and if they fall in scope. 
•  Due to the sensitive nature of the request, consultations will need to be carried out 
prior to providing you with an outcome. 
•  The Department advises that it will endeavour to release documents as early as 
practicable in a staged format as they are finalised for release. 
Contact 
If you have any questions about this email, please contact me on 02 9284 9625 or via email 
xxxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx. In all correspondence please include OAIC reference 
number at the top of this letter. 
Yours sincerely 
 
Avanithah Selvarajah 
Review and Investigations Adviser 
Freedom of Information   
15 December 2020   
 
 
2 
 
FOIREQ21/00002   014
 
Review rights 
If you disagree with the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner’s (OAIC) decision 
you can apply to the Federal Court of Australia or the Federal Circuit Court for a review of a 
decision of the Information Commissioner if you think that a decision by the Information 
Commissioner to grant an extension of time is not legally correct. You can make this 
application under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. 
 
The Court wil  not review the merits of your case but it may refer the matter back to the 
Information Commissioner for further consideration if it finds the decision was wrong in law 
or the Information Commissioner’s powers were not exercised properly. 
 
An application for review must be made to the Court within 28 days of the OAIC sending the 
decision to you. You may wish to seek legal advice as the process can involve fees and costs. 
Please contact the Federal Court registry in your state or territory for more information, or 
visit the Federal Court website at http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/. 
Further information 
Further information about how applications to extend the timeframe to process an FOI 
request are handled by the OAIC can be found published on our website: 
For FOI applicants: How to make an FOI request: Extensions of time 
For agencies and ministers: Guidance and advice: Extension of time for processing 
requests 
The OAIC has the power to investigate complaints about an agency’s actions under the 
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act). This is a separate process from asking for an 
Information Commissioner review following a decision made under the FOI Act. Complaints 
usually focus on how an agency has handled your FOI request or complied with other 
obligations under the FOI Act, rather than the decision itself. 
In some cases, the Information Commissioner's investigation of a complaint may lead to the 
agency addressing the issues that you have complained about. In other cases, the 
Information Commissioner may make suggestions or recommendations that the agency 
should implement. The Information Commissioner can only make non-binding 
recommendations as a result of a complaint. You and the agency wil  be notified of the 
outcome of the investigation. 
FOI complaints to the OAIC must be made in writing. Our preference is for you to use 
the online FOI complaint form if at all possible. 
Further information about how to make a complaint can be found published on our website: 
https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-information/reviews-and-complaints/make-an-foi-
complaint/ . 
3 
 





FOIREQ21/00002   015
From:
Avanithah Selvarajah
To:
INFORMATION.LAW
Subject:
RQ20/04150 - Extension of time under s 15AB - Decision [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Date:
Tuesday, December 15, 2020 2:05:00 PM
Attachments:
20201215- RQ20-04150 - letter to R.pdf
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Our reference: RQ20/04150
Your reference: FOI 39042
Jo
Department of Veterans’ Affairs
By email: xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx@xxx.xxx.xx
Extension of time under s 15AB
Dear Jo
Please find attached a decision of today’s date.
 
Kind regards,
 
  Avanithah Selvarajah  |  Review and Investigations Adviser (Legal) (A/g)
Freedom of information
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
GPO Box 5218 Sydney NSW 2001  |  oaic.gov.au
+61 2 9284 9625 |  xxxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx
|
|
|  
Subscribe to Information Matters
 
 


FOIREQ21/00002   017
 
•  A manual search of records and consultation with all Divisions is required to ensure 
that all briefs in scope are captured. These searches will be very time consuming and 
pose a resource burden to al  areas of the Department. 
 
•  Briefs are not necessarily signed by the Secretary in the same month that they are 
received meaning that each record will need to be individual y reviewed to 
determine whether it was in fact signed in October 2020. This will also mean that 
briefs received by the Secretary’s Office prior to October will need to be reviewed to 
determine when they were signed and if they fall in scope. 
•  Due to the sensitive nature of the request, consultations will need to be carried prior 
to providing Julie with an outcome. 
•  The Department will endeavour to release documents as early as practicable in a 
staged format as they are finalised for release. 
By granting an extension of time it is anticipated that the Department will provide a well-
reasoned and better managed decision. 
Further information 
Further information about how applications to extend the timeframe to process an FOI 
request are handled by the OAIC can be found published on our website: 
For FOI applicants: How to make an FOI request: Extensions of time 
For agencies and ministers: Guidance and advice: Extension of time for processing 
requests 
 Julie will be notified of this decision. 
Contact 
If you have any questions about this email, please contact me on 02 9284 9625 or via email 
xxxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx. In all correspondence please include OAIC reference 
number at the top of this letter. 
Yours sincerely 
 
Avanithah Selvarajah 
Review and Investigations Adviser 
Freedom of Information  
2 
 
FOIREQ21/00002   018
 
15 December 2020   
3 
 
FOIREQ21/00002   019
From:
INFORMATION.LAW
To:
Avanithah Selvarajah
Subject:
Automatic reply: RQ20/04150 - Extension of time under s 15AB - Decision [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Date:
Tuesday, December 15, 2020 2:06:04 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
** This is an automated response. Please do not reply to this email **
IMPORTANT INFORMATION
Thank you for your email. The Department will take all reasonable efforts to respond to your email and process your
request.
Please note that due the threat of COVID-19 (Coronavirus), the Department is experiencing a diversion of resources
that are critical to managing Australia’s response. This means we may not be able to process your request within the
expected timeframe and where needed, will be seeking extensions of time to manage requests and may need to
consult with you if your request is not clear or is for a large and unmanageable number of documents. The
Department remains committed to ensuring it can process as many information access requests as it can during the
pandemic. We ask for your assistance by only making requests where they are of a priority and to ensure those
requests are as specific as possible.
We apologise for the inconvenience and appreciate your understanding, cooperation and patience during this
difficult time for all Australians.
More detailed messaging can be found on the Department’s website at https://www.dva.gov.au/newsroom/latest-
news-veterans/information-access-requests-and-covid-19.
Kind regards,
Information Law Section
Department of Veterans' Affairs