SA Health Conduct since November 2021
SA Health’s conduct has been abominable from the very first moment I entered 11 Hindmarsh Sq to lodge the FOI Application, as per Freedom of Information Act 1991, Section 13 (f).
Upon entering the building I was greeted by two security guards who acted as if they had never heard of a Freedom of Information Application. They got on their telephone to see what to do. After about 10 minutes I was informed that there was no one in the building who could come and accept the application and I was directed to fill out the courier’s delivery book and leave the application with the security guards,
It was not possible to make payment for the application at 11 Hindmarsh Sq.
It was mid afternoon when I left the paperwork with the security guards. I missed a phone call from Vanessa Brecknell and she left a message on my phone. I still have it, it reads “Hi Roman, it’s Vanessa from Freedom of Information SA Health. Just to let you know I’ve received your application and I’ll start processing it today. And I’ll sort that..”
That was all that was converted to text.
However, Vanessa’s follow up phone call suggests that she was saying something like, “I will sort that payment for you.”
Vanessa Brecknell rang me on the morning of 18/11/21. In that phone call she told me that the payment was temporarily waived until The Department had decided what parts of the Application The Department could deal with.
Such a phone call is totally illegitimate in light of the relevant FOI Act. According to The Act, all communications are to be written notices (see Sections 14A(3); 18(5); 25(c); 26(3)(c); 27(3)(c); 28(3)(c); 36(1); 37(2)). Phone calls are totally illegitimate and a sign of SA Health’s disregard for proper process (ie, SA Health is an agency which conducts itself with immense impropriety – see Ombudsmans Act 1972, Sect 4(2)(b).
It is unfortunately the case that I was, at that time (ie, November 2021) displaying some naivety and ignorance regarding The Act. Vanessa was obviously playing with that reality and I suspect SA Health does that with all FOI applications which pose questions they find uncomfortable.
I emailed Vanessa again on 22/11/21 to set a time limit for when payment could be made. Ms Brecknell replied on 24/11/21, following a phone conversation. The emails are in the document titled ‘Letter to SA Ombudsman’.
Please note that Vanessa Brecknell then assumed the lodgment date for The FOI application to be 23/11/21, despite her message on 16/11/21 where she states that “I will start processing it today”.
I sent an email to Ms Brecknell on 14/12/21 asking if she was going to honor her word and reply to the FOI application within 30 days from that time. I did not hear from Ms Brecknell until 23/12/21 when Ms Brecknell again called me (disregarding proper process) and left me with the impression that “the initial assessment of your application will not be completed by this afternoon”. At this stage I was still somewhat ignorant of the relevant Act.
It is a repugnant reality that SA Health treat the general public with disdain. It is an unfortunate fact that the general public allow this to be the case.
There was no further communication until 10/1/22 when I lodged the application for an Internal Review. The agency has 14 days to reply to an Internal Review (FOI Act 1991, Section (38)(4)). SA Health completely ignored the Internal Review application – there were no phone calls, nor emails from The Department in that time period.
Consequently, application was made to The South Australian Ombudsman, Mr Wayne Lines, for an external review of the FOI Application.
You will note that The Department for Health and Wellbeing sent a confirmation of their original determination, an invalid response to the Internal Review, the day after they were notified by The Ombudsman that an External Review had been requested.
Not only was The Department’s response to the Internal Review invalid due to the fact that it was given beyond the time limits set in The Act, The Ombudsman made it clear in paragraphs 25-27 of his Provisional Determination that the response was absurd (ie, logically inconsistent).
As noted by The Ombudsman in his Provisional Determination (paragraphs 47, 48 etc), The Department followed his direction to communicate with me regarding amendment of the FOI Application. I replied in kind that I would be most willing to engage in amending the scope of the application, and even presented The Department with a possible amendment. There were no further communications from SA Health after that email was sent.
An email was sent to The Ombudsman by myself, notifying him of The Department’s silence. There were further emails sent back and forth.
Then, on 25/7/22 I received some documents from The Department. An outrageous reply to the initial FOI Application.
I received an A4 envelope in my letterbox which contained 4 publically available PDF’s from ATAGI and one 21 page document from SAHMRI which was all about face mask effectiveness. Please note, the FOI application had nothing to do with face-masks, yet the failed reply of The Department, 8 months after the application was lodged, contained 21 out of 40 pages which were about face masks!!
None of the documents received on 25/7/22 contained any of the information sought.
Please note the first request in the original FOI Application:
1. Are these claims/assertions made on the basis of peer-reviewed scientific
studies/research/datasets published on, or before, October 7th, 2021?
– (a) If so, the FOI Applicant requests a complete list of authorities and citations relied upon in this
prime-time TV Commercial for the SA Chief Medical Officer to make this declaration. In particular on what
basis SA Health has commitment to using the phrase “90% effective”.
Further failings of SA Health are summarised in my communications with The Ombudsman since 25/7/22.
In any event, the conclusion is thus: SA Health has confessed that they have no documents relating to and showing evidence which the “Get the Facts. Get the Vax” campaign was based on. It is therefore the case that SA Health, and specifically, former CEO Dr Chris McGowan and current CHO Nicola Spurrier, have engaged in misrepresentation and/or deception in overseeing an information campaign, which claims to be factual, whilst all the time knowing that no such facts existed and that The Department was in no possession of such “facts”.
Letter to SA Ombudsman
Second Letter to Ombudsman
Provisional Determination
Ombudsman Final Determination
Agency Response Bricely
