Dear Department of Veterans' Affairs,

A copy of a submission made by DVA to the OAIC regarding delays to responding to the more than 1,657 enquiries about the MATES privacy breaches, seeking access to copies of disclosures made by DVA to UniSA, stated the delays were because of internal communications over how to extract and “best present” that information had to take place first.

It stated that the Department had to seek the approval of both the Secretary and the Minister first as to how to present this information, contributing to these delays.

As these discussions and approvals have now finalised I seek copy of these records of communications and approvals as to how the data of these disclosures of personal information from DVA to UniSA would be extracted and “best present”ed.

Given the reference to internal communications by the Department about this matter it is likely these records are held in the Department’s MS Teams, email, TRIM, PDMS, and group drives in electronic form.

As the Minister and Secretary were mentioned as having to approve how this would happen and in what form it is likely DVA’s Ministerial and Parliamentary Support (MaPS) section, the Information Law section, and Research area are were these records can be found within the Department.

Yours faithfully,

Jenny

Dear INFORMATION.ACCESS,

I vary my FOI slightly as based on a FOI release today it appears that the research area of the Department is not likely to be an area with those records.

So I change the part of my scope that said:

“it is likely DVA's Ministerial and Parliamentary Support (MaPS) section, the Information Law section, and Research area are where these records can be found within the Department.”

to:

“it is likely DVA's Ministerial and Parliamentary Support (MaPS) section, the Information Law section, and the Pharmacy Programs and Operations Section are where these records can be found within the Department.”

Yours sincerely,

Jenny

Dear INFORMATION.ACCESS,

My FOI of 27 January 2024, which the Department acknowledged on 1 February 2024, was required by section 15(5)(b) of the FOI Act to have received a decision today.

Yet again the Department of Veterans’ Affairs has forced another FOI to received a deemed refusal response, as a way of unlawfully preventing access to official documents. I still have not received a decision to my FOI of 17 November 2023, despite your Assistant Director Joshua saying on 19 January that a decision was imminent. This is the third deemed refusal response in as as many weeks.

It is no surprise there is a Royal Commission investigating DVA, with such unethical inappropriate behaviour of the Department that it has displayed here.

Yours sincerely,

Jenny

Dear INFORMATION.ACCESS,

I still have not received any apology or explanation as to why, yet again, DVA has intentionally forced a deemed refusal decision and withheld statement of reasons.

Yours sincerely,

Jenny

Dear INFORMATION.ACCESS,

Another month and still no response or decision.

Is there a reason you have still not responded to the notice of your failure to provide a decision, even though weeks have passed?

Is this just rudeness on your part, or something more sinister?

These multiple failures by DVA to give decisions in the times specified by the FOI Act is a deliberate and intentional strategy it now is demonstrated. Is flouting your statutory obligations just how DVA operates? The Royal Commission was long overdue it seems.

Yours sincerely,

Jenny

Dear INFORMATION.ACCESS,

Two months overdue and all I get is a poor quality response refusing… disgraceful.

Review underway.

Yours sincerely,

Jenny

Dear INFORMATION.ACCESS,

I request copy of the record of administration of this FOI you registered as LEX 64798, which I can see from other FOIs here you can produce from LEX, to see why such an unreasonable and excessive delay occurred to not give access.

Yours sincerely,

Jenny

Dear Zoey of INFORMATION.ACCESS,

Section 24 of the FOI Act requires an agency to undertake a requestion consultation
process if they are satisfied, when dealing with a request, that a practical refusal reason
exists. This means that it was appropriate to commence a request consultation process only
if a practical refusal reason existed in relation to the request.

Section 24AA(1)(b) of the FOI Act provides that a practical refusal reason exists in
relation to a request if the request does not satisfy the requirement in section 15(2)(b) of the
FOI Act to include such information as is reasonably necessary to enable a responsible
officer of the agency to identify the documents requested.

The Guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner under section
93A of the FOI Act (the Guidelines) provide the following guidance to agencies at
paragraphs 3.109 and 3.110 when dealing with requests that are considered unclear:

A formal requirement of making an FOI request is that the request must provide such
information as is reasonably necessary to enable a responsible officer of the agency
or the minister to identify the document that is requested (s 15(2)(b)). This differs
from other formal requirements, in that a failure to comply with this requirement is
classified by the Act as a ‘practical refusal reason’ for which a request consultation
process is required.

An agency should not wait until the practical refusal stage to help an applicant to
clarify their request. The following considerations should also be borne in mind
before a request consultation process is commenced:

• A request can be described quite broadly and must be read fairly by an agency or
minister, being mindful not to take a narrow or pedantic approach to its
construction.

• An applicant may not know exactly what documents exist and may describe a
class of documents, for example: all documents relating to a particular person or
subject matter; or all documents of a specified class that contain information of a
particular kind; or all documents held in a particular place relating to a subject
or person. Where the applicant has requested a class of documents, it may be
useful for the agency to explain to the applicant the information that is contained
in those documents, as this may assist the applicant to narrow the scope of his or
her request to a specific set of documents, resulting in less time spent on
processing irrelevant material.

• Although a request under the FOI Act must be for ‘documents’, rather than for
‘information’, a request may be phrased by reference to the information that a
document contains. This may in fact be an effective and concise way for an FOI
applicant to identify documents.

• A request does not need to quote a file or folio number.

Paragraph 3.128 of the Guidelines also provides:

Before commencing a formal request consultation process, agencies and ministers’
offices are encouraged to discuss the request with the applicant. This is often a more
efficient way of obtaining further information from the applicant and helping them
to refine a request that is too large or vague. However, if the applicant cannot be
contacted promptly, or the discussion does not elicit information that allows
relevant documents to be identified, the request consultation process should be
commenced.

FINDINGS

A request consultation process should not have been undertaken, as the Department
could not have been reasonably satisfied that a practical refusal reason existed in
relation to the request. Although the applicant’s request included the phrase “record of administration”, it appeared within the phrase “the record of administration of this FOI … which I can see from other FOIs here you can produce from LEX”, which was not vague and the documents the applicant was seeking were clear.

As stated in paragraph 3.110 of the Guidelines, a request can be described
broadly and for a class of documents, in this case for documents that can produced using LEX regarding how this FOI was administered.

Examples of such documents are, as the FOI request stated, been previously released on Right to Know by the Department such as in LEX 50625 which in the first 15 pages of the bundle released shows the LEX report that can be produced under s 17 to provide a record of the administration of a FOI made to the Department.

The FOI therefore did provide sufficient information to enable the Department to locate the documents sought, contrary to the Department’s claim.

Section 24AB(6) states that I must elect to either withdraw, vary or indicate I do not wish to vary my FOI. Section 24AB(8) states that once I do any of those three options, the request consultation period ends and no further extension of time applies.

I give response that I do not wish to vary my FOI (nor do I wish to bundle separately made FOIs) as the scope of the FOI does satisfy s 15(2)(b) in that it identified the documents in scope where those documents that can be produced in LEX for that FOI that records how the Department processed that FOI and referred you to the examples available on Right to Know of such LEX reports. As such, the FOI scope was within s 15(2)(b) and the Information Commissioner Guidelines.

As the practical refusal consultation notice was issued today, and the practical refusal consultation extension of time period only commences the day after such a notice is given, my section 24AB(6)(c) response today means that no extension of time applies to this FOI.

This FOI still is due for decision no later than 23 May 2024.

Yours sincerely,

Jenny