Department Reference: FOI 2917
Mr James Nugent
via email:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
Dear Mr Nugent
NOTICE OF DECISION
I refer to your request received by the Freedom of Information (FOI) Unit in the
Department of Health (the department) on 23 August 2021 seeking access under
the
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) (the FOI Act) to the following:
Could you please provide any information on the probabilities that were
considered in formulating the updated recommendation on 24 July that 'All
individuals aged 18 years and above in greater Sydney, including adults
under 60 years of age, should strongly consider getting vaccinated with any
available vaccine including COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca.'
In particular, what information did ATAGI consider in relation to the
probability of:
- developing TTS,
- death after developing TTS,
- catching covid before being vaccinated with AstraZeneca,
- catching covid after being vaccinated with AstraZeneca, and
- death after catching covid?
FOI decision
I am authorised under subsection 23(1) of the FOI Act to make decisions in
relation to Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. I am writing to notify you of
my decision in response to your request.
I have identified 23 documents falling within the scope of your request (see
Attachment A). I have decided to:
• grant full access to 13 documents
• grant partial access to nine documents with exempt and irrelevant
material removed, and
Freedom of Information Unit (MDP 516) GPO Box 9848 Canberra ACT 2601
Telephone: (02) 6289 1666 ABN: 83 605 426 759
2
• refuse access to the remaining document on the basis that they are
exempt.
My reasons for this decision are set out further at Attachment B.
Charges
The department has decided not to impose charges in relation to this request.
FOI review rights
If you are dissatisfied with my decision, you may apply for a review.
Internal review
Under section 54 of the FOI Act, you may apply for internal review of this
decision.
In accordance with section 54B of the FOI Act, an application for internal review
must be made in writing within 30 days after the day you are notified of this
decision (or such further period as the department allows). To assist in the
internal review process, please provide reasons you consider the review of my
decision is necessary.
The internal review will be carried out by another officer of this department
within 30 days of receipt of your application.
An application for an internal review should be addressed to:
Email:
xxx@xxxxxx.xxx.xx
Mail:
FOI Unit (MDP 516)
Department of Health
GPO Box 9848
CANBERRA ACT 2601
Information Commissioner review
Alternatively, under section 54L of the FOI Act, you may apply to the Office of
the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) for review of my decision by
the Information Commissioner (IC).
In accordance with subsection 54S(1) of the FOI Act, an IC review application in
relation to a decision covered by subsection 54L(2) (access refusal decisions)
must be made in writing within 60 days after the day you are notified of this
decision (if you do not request an internal review).
3
More information about IC review is available on the OAIC website at:
https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-information/reviews/
The OAIC can be contacted by:
Email:
xxxxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx
Phone:
1300 363 992
Complaints
If you are dissatisfied with action taken by the department, you may also make
a complaint.
Complaint to the department
Complaints to the department are covered by the department’s privacy policy.
A form for lodging a complaint directly to the department is available on the
department’s website:
https://www.health.gov.au/about-us/contact-us/complaints
Complaint to the IC
Information about making a complaint to the IC about action taken by the
department is available on the OAIC website:
https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-information/reviews-and-
complaints/make-an-foi-complaint/
Relevant provisions of the FOI Act
The FOI Act, including the provisions referred to in this letter, can be accessed
from the Federal Register of Legislation website:
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2021C00382
Publication
You should be aware that where I have decided to release documents to you,
the department may also publish the released material on its Disclosure Log.
The department will however, not publish information (such as personal or
business information) where it would be unreasonable to do so.
For your reference the department’s Disclosure Log can be found at:
https://www.health.gov.au/resources/foi-disclosure-log
4
Contacts
If you require clarification of any of the matters discussed in this letter you
should contact the department’s Freedom of Information Unit at
xxx@xxxxxx.xxx.xx.
Yours sincerely
Hope Peisley
Acting First Assistant Secretary
Program, Policy and Design Division, Executive Branch
National COVID Vaccine Taskforce
12 October 2021
link to page 5
5
ATTACHMENT A
SCHEDULE OF DOCUMENTS – FOI 2917
Document
Date
Number
Description
Decision
Exemption/s applied
No.
of pages
on
access1
1
17 June 21
3
ATAGI statement
R
Statement available on
17 June 2021
department’s website
2
13 July 21
3
ATAGI statement
R
Statement available on
13 July 2021
department’s website
3
24 July 21
2
ATAGI statement
R
Statement available on
24 July 2021
department’s website
4
23 June 21
2
ATAGI statement
R
Statement available on
23 June 2021
department’s website
5
30 June 21
2
ATAGI statement
R
Statement available on
30 June 2021
department’s website
6
07 July 21
2
ATAGI statement
R
Statement available on
7 July 2021
department’s website
7
14 July 21
2
ATAGI statement
R
Statement available on
14 July 2021
department’s website
8
21 July 21
2
ATAGI statement
R
Statement available on
21 July 2021
department’s website
9
24 June 21
5
TGA weekly safety
R
Statement available on
report
department’s website
24 June 2021
10
01 July 21
5
TGA weekly safety
R
Statement available on
report
department’s website
01 July 2021
11
08 July 21
6
TGA weekly safety
R
Statement available on
report
department’s website
08 July 2021
12
15 July 21
7
TGA weekly safety
R
Statement available on
report
department’s website
15 July 2021
13
22 July 21
6
TGA weekly safety
R
Statement available on
report
department’s website
22 July 2021
14
16 June 21
4
ATAGI TTS meeting
REI
section 22 – part
outcomes
section 47C – part
16 June 2021
section 47E – part
section 47F – part
15
16 June 21
12
ATAGI TTS meeting chat
E
section 47C – full
log
section 47F - part
16 June 2021
1 E = Exempt in full, R = Release in full, REI = Release with exempt and irrelevant material
removed.
6
16
23 June 21
2
ATAGI TTS meeting
REI
section 22 – part
outcomes
section 47C – part
23 June 2021
section 47F - part
17
30 June 21
2
ATAGI TTS meeting
REI
section 22 – part
outcomes
section 47F - part
30 June 2021
18
07 July 21
2
ATAGI TTS meeting
REI
section 22 – part
outcomes
section 47C – part
07 July 2021
section 47F – part
section 47G - part
19
14 July 21
2
ATAGI TTS meeting
REI
section 22 – part
outcomes
section 47C – part
14 July 2021
section 47F – part
section 47G - part
20
21 July 21
3
ATAGI TTS meeting
REI
section 22 – part
outcomes
section 47F - part
21 July 2021
21
10 June 21
2
SG3 meeting outcomes
REI
section 22 – part
10 June 2021
section 47F - part
22
01 July 21
2
SG3 meeting outcomes
REI
section 22 – part
01 July 2021
section 47F - part
23
15 July 21
2
SG3 meeting outcomes
REI
section 22 – part
15 July 2021
section 47F - part
7
ATTACHMENT B
REASONS FOR DECISION – FOI 2917
Material taken into account
In making my decision, I had regard to the following:
• the scope of your request
• the content of the documents sought
• advice from departmental officers with responsibility for matters relating
to the documents sought
• the relevant provisions of the FOI Act, and
• guidelines issued by the OAIC under section 93A of the FOI Act (the FOI
Guidelines).
My reasons for applying the identified exemptions are set out below.
Section 22 – Deletion of irrelevant and/or exempt material
Section 22 of the FOI Act applies to documents containing exempt material
(subparagraph 22(1)(a)(i)) and irrelevant information (subparagraph 22(1)(a)(ii))
and allows an agency to delete such material from a document.
I have deleted irrelevant information from the documents as set out in the
Schedule in accordance with the department’s redaction policy as advised to
you on 8 September 2021. Irrelevant material deleted from those documents
include Commonwealth employee names and contact details below Senior
Executive Service (SES) level and information not related to the scope of your
request.
I have also deleted exempt material from the documents as set out in the
Schedule. Additional information about the exemptions applied to the
documents is set out below.
Section 47C – Deliberative matter
Subsection 47C(1) of the FOI Act conditionally exempts a document if its
disclosure would reveal deliberative matter in the nature of, or relating to,
opinion, advice or recommendation obtained, prepared or recorded, or
consultation or deliberation that has taken place, in the course of, or for the
purposes of, the deliberative processes involved in the functions of an agency.
8
Deliberative processes
Paragraphs 6.58 to 6.59 of the FOI Guidelines provide that a deliberative
process involves the exercise of judgment in developing and making a selection
from different options, and generally refers to the process of weighing up or
evaluating competing arguments or considerations that may have a bearing
upon a course of action. It has been articulated as the ’thinking process’ of an
agency.
Do the documents contain deliberative matter?
Paragraph 6.61 of the FOI Guidelines states that a deliberative process may
include the recording or exchange of opinions, advice, recommendations, a
collection of facts or opinions, including the pattern of facts or opinions
considered, and interim decisions.
In the Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision
of Wood; Secretary, Department
of the Prime Minister & Cabinet and (Freedom of Information) [2015] AATA 945,
Forgie DP explained that the words ‘opinion’, ‘advice’ and ‘recommendation’
all involve consideration, followed by the formation of a view either about a
certain subject or about a course of action and the subsequent transmission of
that view.
As such, it is my view that Documents 14, 15, 16, 18 and 19 contain deliberative
matter in the form of advice and recommendations deliberated upon by the
Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) in relation to
the COVID-19 vaccination.
ATAGI is a ministerially appointed advisory group, comprised of
representatives with a mix of research, clinical and implementation expertise.
The role of ATAGI is to:
• provide technical advice to the Minister for Health on the medical
administration of vaccines available in Australia, including those on the
National Immunisation Program
• through the department, provide advice to research funding bodies
regarding the status of current immunisation research and areas where
additional research is required
• advise the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee on matters
relating to the ongoing strength of evidence pertaining to existing, new
and emerging vaccines in relation to their effectiveness and use in
Australian populations
• produce the Australian Immunisation Handbook for the approval of the
National Health and Medical Research Council
9
• consult with the National Immunisation Committee (NIC) on the content
and format of the Australian Immunisation Handbook and associated
implementation strategies, and
• consult with the Communicable Diseases Network Australia and the
Advisory Committee on Vaccines on matters relating to the
implementation of immunisation policies, procedures and vaccine safety.
ATAGI undertakes this role with technical support from the:
• National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS),
which is ATAGI’s Technical Secretariat particularly focused on the
Australian Immunisation Handbook, for policy advice to Government,
and ATAGI’s publications and statements, and
• vaccine evaluation groups, which provide technical support for the
development of advices to the PBAC and companies.
The discussions at ATAGI meetings when making decisions and developing
recommendations reflect an important part of their ‘thinking process’. This
process is consistent with the definition of a deliberative process as described
above and under the FOI Act.
Do the documents contain purely factual material?
Subsection 47C(2) of the FOI Act provides that deliberative matter does not
include ‘purely factual material’. Accordingly, I have considered whether the
identified information in the documents is ‘purely factual’ within the meaning
of subsection 47C(2).
Paragraph 6.73 of the FOI Guidelines provides that ‘purely factual material’
does not extend to factual material that is an integral part of the deliberative
content and purpose of a document or is embedded or intertwined with the
deliberative content such that it is impractical to excise it.
I have determined that while Documents 14, 15, 16, 18 and 19 contain some
‘purely factual material’, that information is central to the content and purpose
of the deliberative processes captured within those documents. Further, I
consider that the factual material in those documents is inextricably linked to
deliberations in the process of determining the advice for the allocations and
recommendations of COVID 19 vaccines.
Relevantly, paragraph 6.74 of the FOI Guidelines advises that ‘where a decision
maker finds it difficult to separate the purely factual material from the
deliberative matter, both the elements may be exempt.’
10
I am satisfied the factual material in Documents 14, 15, 16, 18 and 19 is central to
the content and purpose of the deliberative material and that it would be
difficult to separate it. I am therefore satisfied that the relevant material in those
documents meets the requirements of section 47C of the FOI Act, and is
conditionally exempt under section 47C.
Public interest test
Section 47C of the FOI Act is a conditional exemption. Pursuant to
subsection 11A(5) of the FOI Act, the department is required to give access to a
conditionally exempt document unless access to the document would, on
balance, be contrary to the public interest.
When weighing up the public interest factors in favour of disclosure, I have
taken into account the extent to which disclosure would:
• promote the objects of the FOI Act by providing the Australian
community with access to information held by the Commonwealth
Government
• inform debate on matters of public importance, and
• enhance the scrutiny of government decision making.
I have also considered the following factors against disclosure:
• there is a public interest in protecting opinions and recommendations by
keeping this information confidential to ensure matters can be openly
considered before final decisions are made,
• disclosure of interim considerations could reasonably be expected to
inhibit ATAGI’s ability to provide candid advice ,
• disclosure of information not otherwise publicly available would
diminish the quality and usefulness of the advice received and
recommendations made, and
• disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the continued level
of trust and cooperation between the department and third parties,
which is crucial for maintaining the effective and equitable use of
COVID-19 vaccines.
I confirm I have not had any regard to any of the irrelevant factors under
subsection 11B(4) of the FOI Act.
On balance, I consider that disclosure of the relevant information in
Documents 14, 15, 16, 18 and 19 would be contrary to the public interest for the
reasons outlined above.
11
I am satisfied that Document 15 is exempt from disclosure in full under
section 47C of the FOI Act. Accordingly, Document 15 has not been provided to
you.
I am satisfied that the relevant material in Documents 14, 16, 18 and 19 is
exempt from disclosure under section 47C of the FOI Act. In accordance with
subsection 22(2) of the FOI Act, you have been provided with an edited copy of
Documents 14, 16, 18 and 19 with the exempt material removed.
Section 47E – operations of an agency
Paragraph 47E(d) of the FOI Act conditionally exempts a document if its
disclosure would, or could reasonably be expected to, have a substantial
adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of the operations of an
agency.
Substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of an agency
Paragraph 6.120 of the FOI Guidelines provides that the exemption does not
apply if disclosure would, or could reasonably be expected to, lead to a change
in the agency’s processes that would enable those processes to be more efficient.
Paragraph 6.123 of the FOI Guidelines provides that the effect must bear on the
agency’s ‘proper and efficient’ operations.
Document 14 contains information necessary to ensure the department can
manage and support the COVID-19 vaccine roll out, including specific
information about the voting process associated with gauging support, the
processes associated with obtaining prospective arrangements for COVID-19
rollouts, and internal operations associated with organising and releasing
proposed medical statements.
Disclosure of the relevant information could reasonably be expected to have a
substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of the department
in evaluating and managing the delivery of the COVID-19 vaccines. The
substantial adverse effect in this instance would be jeopardising the
department’s ability to communicate and deliberate on proposed methods of
delivery of the roll out. Disclosure could also affect the department’s ability to
engage with other third parties that play important roles in the implementation
of the COVID-19 vaccine strategy.
On that basis, I am satisfied that disclosure of the relevant material in
Document 14 would have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and
efficient conduct of the operations of an agency within the meaning of
subsection 47E(d) of the FOI Act and is therefore conditionally exempt.
12
Public Interest Test
Section 47E is a conditional exemption. Pursuant to subsection 11A(5) of the
FOI Act, the department is required to give access to a conditionally exempt
document unless access to the document at the time would, on balance, be
contrary to the public interest.
I have considered the following factors in favour of disclosure to the extent
disclosure would:
• promote the objects of the FOI Act by providing the Australian public
insight into the Commonwealth’s funding expenditure, and
• inform debate on matters of public importance.
I have also considered the following factors against disclosure, to the extent that
disclosure would:
• disclose sensitive delivery details that would prejudice the department’s
ability to deliver proper and efficient management of the COVID-19
vaccine roll out
• undermine the genuine exercise of official functions of the department in
informing the decision-making processes of the Government
• disclose information that would discourage the ongoing and future
ability of the department to engage with current and future stakeholders,
and
• prejudice the department’s ability to frankly discuss the operational
activities for the purposes of the COVID-19 vaccine strategy.
I confirm that I have not had regard to the irrelevant factors set out in
subsection 11B(4) of the FOI Act when making my decision.
On balance, I consider the factors set out above against disclosure outweigh the
relevant factors in favour of disclosure. On that basis, I am satisfied that
disclosure of the relevant information in Document 14 would be contrary to the
public interest.
I am satisfied that Document 14 is exempt from disclosure in part under
section 47E of the FOI Act. In accordance with subsection 22(2) of the FOI Act,
you have been provided with an edited copy of Document 14 with the exempt
material removed.
Section 47F – Personal privacy
Section 47F of the FOI Act conditionally exempts a document if its disclosure
would involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about any
person.
13
Paragraph 6.130 of the FOI Guidelines provides:
Personal information can include a person’s name, address, telephone number,
date of birth, medical records, bank account details, taxation information and
signature.
Documents 14 to 20, and 21 to 23 contain the names of third party individuals.
Disclosure of this information could unreasonably affect those individuals’
personal privacy, as a reasonable person would not expect such personal
information to be released in the public domain without consent. Disclosure is
also unreasonable, as it would allow individual members of the public to
contact that individual and potentially harass them.
In considering whether disclosure of the relevant personal information would
be unreasonable, subsection 47F(2) of the FOI Act requires me to take into
account:
• the extent to which the information is well known
• whether the person to whom the information relates is known to be (or
to have been) associated with the matters dealt with in the document
• the availability of the information from publicly accessible sources, and
• any other matters I consider relevant.
I am satisfied from the nature of the information and my own enquiries that the
relevant individuals are not known to be involved with the matter, and the
information is not otherwise publicly available.
Public Interest Test
Section 47F of the FOI Act is a conditional exemption. Pursuant to
subsection 11A(5) of the FOI Act, the department is required to give access to a
conditionally exempt document unless access to the document at the time
would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest.
I have considered the following factors in favour of disclosure to the extent
disclosure would promote the objects of the FOI Act by providing the
Australian community with access to government held information.
I have also considered the following factors against disclosure:
• There is a public interest in protecting the privacy of an individual’s
personal information. The specific harm in disclosing an individual’s
name and other personal details without agreement, and where this
information has not been previously disclosed, would be an
unreasonable interference with an individual’s right to privacy.
14
• Release of this personal information would not add any substance to the
information being provided under the request and there would be no
public purpose achieved through the release of the personal information.
• The information is not publicly available in full or in part.
I confirm I have not had regard to any of the irrelevant factors under
subsection 11B(4) of the FOI Act.
After consideration of all relevant factors, I find that, on balance, the benefits of
protecting the individuals’ privacy must be given greater weight. I am satisfied
that personal information of third party individuals is exempt from disclosure
under section 47F of the FOI Act. Therefore, in accordance with subsection 22(2)
of the FOI Act, I have provided you with edited copies of Documents 14 to 20,
and 21 to 23 with the exempt material removed.
Section 47G – Business information
A document is conditionally exempt under section 47G of the FOI Act if it
contains information concerning the business or professional affairs of an
individual, or the commercial, business or financial affairs of an organisation,
and its disclosure:
• would or could reasonably be expected to, have an unreasonable effect
on the individual’s business or professional affairs or on the
organisations commercial, business or financial affairs, or
• could reasonably be expected to prejudice the future supply of
information to the Commonwealth or an agency for the purpose of a law
of the Commonwealth or of matters administered by an agency.
Documents 18 and 19 contain business information pertaining to AstraZeneca
that has not been published and is not publicly available. Specifically, the
information provides insight into the department’s ongoing discussion with
AstraZeneca on information regarding the vaccine supply. Disclosure of this
information could adversely affect the continual operations of services and
supply of critical information to the department to improve the vaccine
program delivery.
Public interest test
Section 47G of the FOI Act is a conditional exemption. Pursuant to
subsection 11A(5) of the FOI Act, the department is required to give access to a
conditionally exempt document at a particular time unless access to the
document at that time would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest.
15
I have considered the following factors in favour of disclosure to the extent
disclosure would:
• promote the objects of the FOI Act, and
• inform debate on matters of public health care.
I have also considered the following factors against disclosure:
• The information, if released, may disclose commercially sensitive
information concerning the business operations of AstraZenca including
their business relationship with the department.
• Disclosure may materially compromise the further supply of
information relating to the delivery of vaccine services.
• The documents were prepared for internal discussions and to help
improve processes, not for distribution or publication.
• The successful operation of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout requires
ongoing, sensitive dialogue and negotiations between the department
and third parties such as AstraZeneca, which may be restrained or
discouraged if the relevant information in the documents is disclosed.
• Disclosure may adversely impact future engagements and negotiations
between AstraZeneca and other external parties.
• Disclosure may also unreasonably harm the commercial interests of
suppliers to the Commonwealth.
• The information is not available in full or in part in publicly available
sources.
I confirm I have not taken any of the irrelevant factors in subsection 11B(4) of
the FOI Act into account when making my decision.
On balance, I consider that disclosure of the relevant material in Documents 18
and 19 would be contrary to the public interest. I am therefore satisfied that the
relevant information in Documents 18 and 19 is exempt under section 47G of
the FOI Act. Therefore, in accordance with subsection 22(2) of the FOI Act, I
have provided you with edited copies of Documents 18 and 19 with the exempt
material removed.
