Transparency Denied: FOI Request on Informed Consent During COVID Mandates

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Australians were repeatedly told that vaccination was a matter of personal choice. But for many, including myself, that “choice” came with conditions, employment, education, travel, and participation in everyday life. 👇

https://video.wixstatic.com/video/c4fcb0_993d269f9eb84805810894e578dfd672/720p/mp4/file.mp4

A recent Victorian Supreme Court ruling has now confirmed what many suspected: when care or access is made conditional on a medical procedure, consent may not be free at all.

As a Christian, a father, and a grandfather, I felt a responsibility to explore that question, not from a place of outrage, but from a commitment to truth, accountability, and the protection of the vulnerable.

Why I Lodged an FOI Request about Informed Consent

My concerns were not formed in isolation. They were shaped in part by the persistent investigative work of Elizabeth Hart (vaccinationispolitical.net and elizabethhart.substack.com). For years Hart has examined, through open letters, submissions and her own FOI requests, how government policy, regulatory settings and public messaging may have undermined genuine informed consent in Australia.

I explored these issues further in discussion with Hart and former military doctor Dr Bruce Paix in a 2025 podcast on informed consent.

Dr Paix’s own experience, including professional consequences for refusing to compromise on ethical standards, reinforced for me that this was not an abstract debate, but a real and ongoing issue.

Over time, I wrote to state and federal representatives, health departments, and regulators. My focus remained consistent:

• the importance of genuine informed consent,

• the protection of vulnerable individuals, especially children,

• and the need for open, good-faith scientific and ethical debate.

In February 2026, I decided to take a more formal step. I lodged a Freedom of Information request with the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing (FOI 26-2668), seeking clarity on how the Department itself defined and applied the key concepts of voluntary consent, informed consent, free consent, valid consent, and un-coerced consent — particularly in the context of public health policy between 2020 and 2023.

I was not seeking vast quantities of raw data. I was asking a far more modest question: What were the Department’s final policy positions, legal interpretations, and senior-level understandings of consent during this period?

Timeline of FOI 26-2668 3 February 2026

I submitted the request, carefully scoped to avoid unnecessary burden — excluding personal medical records and Cabinet materials, and focusing only on relevant policy, legal, and communications divisions.

5–6 February 2026 The Department acknowledged the request and sought reasonable refinements, which I agreed to, including limiting staff identifiers and narrowing scope.

11 March 2026 I received a “practical refusal” notice. The Department estimated over 100,000 documents and thousands of processing hours, largely driven by broad search parameters.

19 March 2026 In response, I significantly narrowed the request to final policy and briefing documents, summarised or final legal advice, and senior-level correspondence with key regulatory bodies on consent and voluntariness.

8 April 2026 The Department refused the request in full under section 24 of the FOI Act. Despite the narrowed scope, they argued that processing even this reduced request would involve 620 documents and constitute an unreasonable diversion of resources.

No attempt was made to offer partial access, staged release, or extraction of clearly identifiable final documents.

13 April 2026 I lodged an internal review, noting that the Department had not demonstrated that it took all reasonable steps to assist the request or consider practical alternatives. A decision is expected by 13 May 2026.

What I Am Actually Seeking

This is not about overwhelming the system. It is about transparency at the level that matters: final policy positions, legal reasoning, and senior-level briefings that shaped how the Australian Government understood and communicated the concept of consent during one of the most significant public health interventions in modern history.

These are not trivial questions. They go to the heart of bodily autonomy, medical ethics, and the integrity of public trust.

Why the Recent Court Ruling Matters

On 27 March 2026, just days before the Department’s refusal, the Supreme Court of Victoria delivered judgment in Gawthrop v Bendigo Health [2026] VSC 157.

Screenshot of excerpt for Supreme Court of Victoria Gawthrop v Bendigo Health [2026] VSC 157 (27 March 2026) ruling

In that case, a hospital required a patient to undergo a vaginal examination as a condition of admission, access to pain relief, and support from her chosen midwife. The Court found that her “consent” was not freely given. It was, in effect, mere submission under pressure. The hospital was held liable for battery and negligence.

The principles affirmed by the Court are clear:

• Consent must be free and voluntary.

• Conditional access to care can undermine that freedom.

• Institutional power imbalances must be recognised.

• “Standard practice” cannot override an individual’s explicit refusal.

These are foundational to medical ethics. Their timing, arriving while my FOI request was still active, makes the Department’s refusal to release its own internal thinking even more significant.

Beyond COVID: A Broader Principle

The issues raised here do not end with pandemic policy. They extend to any area of medicine where consent, vulnerability, and institutional authority intersect, including current debates around child and adolescent medical care.

Whether the context is public health, emerging treatments, or care involving children, the principle remains the same: consent must be genuine, not shaped by pressure, fear, or conditional access to essential aspects of life.

True protection of the vulnerable requires more than good intentions. It requires clarity, transparency, and the willingness to allow open examination of policy decisions.

A Matter of Trust

This is, ultimately, not just about documents, it is about trust.

Public trust in institutions is not built through withholding information. It is built through openness, accountability, and the willingness to allow decisions to be examined.

Transparency is not a threat to public health. It is the foundation of it.

And without that foundation, consent risks becoming something else entirely.

“And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” — John 8:32