.png)
Update on my FOI Request: Why the Department of Health’s refusal on consent documents matters
- Mark Neugebauer - FCP Australia
- May 14
- 3 min read
A timeline of transparency denied by Department of Health, and what it reveals about medical governance in Australia
In February 2026 I lodged a Freedom of Information request with the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing. As I detailed in my earlier article, “Transparency Denied: FOI Request on Informed Consent During COVID Mandates” , I sought the Department’s own internal documents from 2020–2023 explaining how they understood and applied the fundamental concepts of voluntary, informed, free, valid, and un-coerced consent in the context of public health measures and COVID-19 vaccination policy.
Even the Department’s own Australian Immunisation Handbook, the official national clinical guideline, states that:
“valid consent is the voluntary agreement by an individual to a proposed procedure, which is given after sufficient, appropriate and reliable information… in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation.”
Yet, as per my previous article, in late 2021, Dr Chris Perry, then President of AMA Queensland, publicly stated that unvaccinated people would have a “miserable life” and that doctors issuing exemptions could be struck off.
Dr Chris Perry had zero legal authority to threaten doctors with being struck off or to declare that unvaccinated Australians would live ‘miserable lives’.
This was not regulation, it was advocacy dressed up as enforcement. In my opinion, it amounted to an abuse of his influential platform, and the media’s amplification of such messaging helped create the very coercive environment that undermined genuine voluntary consent.
The Nuremberg Code (1947), Principle 1, the foundational international ethical standard on voluntary consent, states:
“The voluntary consent of the human subject is essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.”
Have a quick listen to former Minister for Health and Aged Care from 2017 to 2022, Greg Hunt, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer for Pfizer, Albert Bourla, and Dr Chris Perry and discern for yourself if informed consent could ever truly be given in the context of the Immunisation Handbook and Principle 1. of the Nuremberg Code.
If you want a reminder of more of that type of messaging, you might like to punish yourself by watching this state by state fly around:
The documents I sought were the Department’s own interpretive and policy-level records on the meaning of these same principles during one of the most significant public-health interventions in Australian history.
As mentioned previously, the Victorian Supreme Court judgment handed down on 27 March 2026, Gawthrop v Bendigo Health [2026] VSC 157, has since confirmed that consent obtained under institutional pressure or conditional access is not free and voluntary.
When a government department refuses (twice) to release its own understanding of these foundational concepts, it raises legitimate questions about transparency and accountability in medical governance.
The matter is now before the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. I have offered further reasonable narrowing or staged release if it would assist. I remain committed to publicly pursuing this through lawful, transparent channels.
For those interested, here is the OAIC submission:
May 2026 (lodged) — Application for Information Commissioner Review (OAIC) submitted via Web Mail
May 2026 (emailed) — Application for Information Commissioner Review (OAIC) sent via email.
All correspondence can be found on this drive.
Some may dismiss this as re-litigating the past.
I and many other Australians see it as the pursuit of genuine accountability for decisions and actions that affected millions of lives and the bodily autonomy of every citizen, particularly our children.
It is about ensuring that the sacred principles of genuine consent — freely given, fully informed, and un-coerced, are never again treated as optional in medical practice.
I owe a great deal of my own drive for accountability to fellow South Australian vaccine policy researcher Elizabeth Hart. For years she has fearlessly held decision-makers to account through her work at Vaccination is Political.
This is why I will not remain silent. I will continue to press for truth, transparency, and accountability above institutional convenience.
I will provide further updates as the OAIC review progresses. Thank you to everyone who has prayed and supported this work, including those who read and shared my earlier article on FCP Australia.
In Christ,
Mark Neugebauer
God Bless you Mark. Thank you for your tireless work.