Dear Department of Veterans' Affairs,

According to ANAO, DVA retains corporate documents in TRIM (otherwise called HPE Content Manager or Micro Focus Content Manager), which contains an automated audit log function, recording access, modification and other metadata.

Under s 17, I apply under FOI for the audit log entries for the two below word documents (that’s word documents, not the final PDF versions), to be printed from the audit log function in TRIM and copy provided to me.

FOI 23863 Decision and Statement of Reasons Word Document

FOI 23863 section 17 document (Word Document)

Yours faithfully,

Verity Pane

Dear Department of Veterans' Affairs,

Addendum: If the title of the two Word documents does not match the actual documents, then I seek those reports for the referred to documents, which can be identified by searching for FOI reference 23863.

Yours faithfully,

Verity Pane

Position Number 62212962, Legal Officer, Information Law Section,

Another outright unethical, corrupt and fraudulent high handed and dismissive non-compliant response.

You deny that records you have previously released now don’t exist in TRIM, your record management system. You really don’t care how bald faced the lie is, do you.

It is a matter of record that DVA’s records management system is HP TRIM Content Manager, and it is a matter of record that this system keeps an audit log for each file in the system.

But then again, outright lying is the only thing you actually seem to do, so I should not be surprised your ongoing corrupt conduct continues - no wonder you hide your name George.

Internal Review is a merit review process. A delegate, other than the original decision maker, must not simply review the reasons given by the original decision maker, but must determine the correct or preferable decision in the circumstances afresh.

I seek internal review on the following grounds:
* invalid decision notice - The FOI decision notice is invalid, as it does not meet the requirements of s 26(1)(b) and FOI Guideline 3.181, as it does not include the required information to identify the decision maker (without further research), which as per the OAIC ICON circular of 8 June 2018 (which was circulated to agencies including DVA), states “where the decision relates to a document of an agency, the decision notice needs to include the name and designation of the person making the decision, including the decision maker’s first name, surname and title, to clearly explain their authority to make the decision”.

This required information is not merely incidental to an FOI decision but integral - it is provided so the receiver knows who to contact about the decision, and to determine whether the person who issued it is in fact authorised to do so (such as by independently checking the agency’s FOI delegations/authorisations list). It is simply not enough to assert that the agency knows who issued the decision, or is confident they are authorised to do so - it is not a question for the agency alone to determine.

I also note that your Minister, in response to Question on notice 369, stated to Parliament that DVA would not use less than first name, position number and title, in decisions (despite that also falling below s 26(1)(b)), so as to not fall below identification and transparency requirements, but since then title and first name has been dropped and now the opaque position number is used alone routinely. Has your Minister deliberately misled Parliament?

* Inadequete search - the records sought do exist, you’ll continue to deny, it goes to review (which you are well aware of, because your modus operandi is to just keep causing delays so you can put access of for as long as possible). Section 24A requires an agency to take ‘all reasonable steps’ to find a requested document before refusing access to it on the basis that it cannot be found or does not exist, but I find it more likely that given that the Information Law area don’t want to release this information, it is more likely that no search has taken place at all.

While the history of DVA is that another ridiculous Internal Review decision will follow, providing you this opportunity to no doubt squander any chance your actions can be seen as accidental (and not part of systemic corrupt practice), is useful for IC Review.

Ms Pane

Attn INFORMATION.LAW,

For your records management information system, TRIM/Content Manager, the steps required to produce an audit log are as follows (from your own paperwork provided to me by your whistleblower):

To view the audit log of a request, follow these steps:

Click Request Fulfillment > Search Requests, enter your search criteria, and then click Search.
Open your desired request record.
Click More, and then select View Audit Log.

Only requires an authorised user to run it, and in three seconds, *bam* surprise, surprise, you find it!

Any chance you’ll stop engaging in intentional bad faith now?

Ms Pane

Attn INFORMATION.LAW,

It is no secret TRIM/Content Manager has an integrated audit log function, as stated by this reviewer, who published his review at https://www.itcentralstation.com/product...

“The online audit log is part of the reason people buy and use TRIM, as there is a requirement to have an audit trail. The audit trail is very handy, though, to be able to see exactly what has occurred when there is a problem or issue. The audit trail does not lie. Also, when sending out information in emails, I attach a TRIM reference in the email to the actual information, which is in TRIM. I can then see who has actually looked at the information via the online audit log rather than wonder who has actually read it.”

You can pretend all you like you don’t have one, but the identity of your ECM system is no secret and your own policies and procedures confirm its audit log function, so please stop the outright lying.

Ms Pane

Attn INFORMATION.LAW,

Failing that, activity logging is set on the audit tab of each record type, so no excuses.

Ms Pane

IC Review it is then