Skip to main content
Skip to secondary navigation
Menu
Australian Government - Office of the Australian Information Commissioner - Home

Part 10 — Review by the Information Commissioner (v1.4)

Archived Document — This document is no longer in use. Read the current FOI guidelines.

pdfPrintable version418.6 KB

Version 1.4, October 2014

On this page

  1. What decisions can the Information Commissioner review?
    1. Who can seek review?
  2. Principles of the Information Commissioner review process
    1. Merit review
    2. An informal process
    3. Non-adversarial
    4. Timely
  3. Procedures in an Information Commissioner review
    1. Parties to an IC review
    2. Making an application
    3. General procedure
    4. When the reasons for a decision are inadequate
    5. Hearings
    6. Varying a decision in the applicant’s favour before a review is finalised
    7. Protections when information is supplied
    8. Evidence by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security
    9. Onus
  4. The Information Commissioner’s options
    1. Preliminary inquiries
    2. Who conducts the review?
    3. Timeframe for a review
    4. When the Information Commissioner will not review a matter
  5. The Information Commissioner’s powers to gather information
    1. Producing information and documents
    2. Producing documents claimed to be exempt: general
    3. Producing documents claimed to be exempt: national security, Cabinet and Parliamentary Budget Office matters
    4. Further searches for documents
    5. Attending to answer questions
  6. Steps in the Information Commissioner review process
    1. On receiving a review application
    2. Preliminary assessment by an IC review officer
    3. Next steps
    4. Providing documents to the Information Commissioner
  7. The Information Commissioner’s decision
    1. Where the review parties reach agreement
    2. Where the review parties do not reach agreement
    3. Written reasons to be given
    4. Exempt documents
    5. Requiring records to be amended
    6. Enforcement of the Information Commissioner’s decision
    7. Correcting errors in the Information Commissioner’s decision
  8. Federal Court proceedings
    1. Referring questions of law
    2. Appeal to the Federal Court
  9. Review by the AAT
    1. When can a person apply to the AAT?
    2. Time limit
    3. Parties to the AAT proceedings
  10. Footnotes

10.1 Part VII of the FOI Act sets out the Information Commissioner’s functions and powers in relation to review of decisions under the FOI Act. These functions and powers can also be exercised by the FOI Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner, who also have the ‘freedom of information functions’ (ss 8, 11 and 12 of the Australian Information Commissioner Act 2010 (AIC Act)).

What decisions can the Information Commissioner review?

10.2 A person who disagrees with an agency’s or minister’s decision following a request for access to a document may apply to the Information Commissioner for review under Part VII (IC review). It is not necessary to go through the agency’s internal review process first before applying for an IC review. However, the Commissioner is of the view that it is usually better for a person to seek internal review of an agency decision before applying for an IC review. An agency’s internal review process gives the agency an opportunity to reconsider the initial decision, usually at a more senior level, and the result may well meet the applicant’s needs in a shorter timeframe than is available in the IC review process. Internal review is not available if the decision was made by a minister or personally by the principal officer of an agency. For detailed advice about internal review, see Part 9 of these Guidelines.

10.3 The Information Commissioner can review the following decisions by an agency or minister:

  • an ‘access refusal decision’ (s 54L(2)(a), discussed below at [10.6])
  • an ‘access grant decision’ (s 54M(2)(a), discussed below at [10.7])
  • a refusal to extend the period for applying for internal review under s 54B (s 54L(2)(c))
  • an agency internal review decision made under s 54C (ss 54L(2)(b) and 54M(2)(b)).

10.4 The Information Commissioner may also review decisions that are deemed to have been made by an agency or minister where the statutory timeframe was not met. This may happen:

  • at first instance (following a request for access to information (s 15AC) or for amendment to a personal record (s 51DA)), or
  • following an application for internal review (where the original decision is taken to have been affirmed under s 54D).

10.5 Where a decision is deemed and the Information Commissioner has allowed the agency or minister further time to make an actual decision, and the agency or minister complies with the extension, the actual decision is substituted for the deemed decision for the purposes of the IC review (s 54Y(2)).

10.6 An ‘access refusal decision’ encompasses more than a simple refusal to grant access to a document. It is defined in s 53A to mean:

  1. a decision refusing to give access to a document in accordance with a request
  2. a decision giving access to a document, but not all the documents, to which the request relates
  3. a decision purporting to give access to all documents to which a request relates, but not actually giving that access
  4. a decision to defer access to a document for a specified period under s 21 (see Part 3 of these Guidelines) (other than a document covered by s 21(1)(d), that is, where Parliament should be informed)
  5. a decision under s 29 relating to the imposition or amount of a charge (see Part 4 of these Guidelines)
  6. a decision to give access to a document to a ‘qualified person’ under s 47F(5) (where disclosing the information to the applicant might be detrimental to the applicant’s physical or mental health or well-being — see Part 6 of these Guidelines)
  7. a decision refusing to amend a record of personal information in accordance with an application under s 48 (see Part 7 of these Guidelines)
  8. a decision refusing to annotate a record of personal information in accordance with an application under s 48.

10.7 An ‘access grant decision’ is defined in s 53B to mean a decision to grant access to a document where there is a requirement to consult with a third party under ss 26A, 26AA, 27 or 27A. The agency or minister will have decided that the document:

  • is not exempt under s 47 (trade secrets or commercially valuable information)
  • is not conditionally exempt under s 47B (Commonwealth-State relations), s 47G (business documents) or s 47F (personal privacy), or
  • is conditionally exempt under ss 47B, 47G or 47F, but access would not be contrary to the public interest (see Part 6 of these Guidelines).

10.8 A decision that an applicant’s FOI request falls outside the FOI Act (for example, a decision that a document is not an ‘official document of a minister’) may be reviewed by the Information Commissioner (see [10.86]).

Who can seek review?

10.9 Depending on the type of decision, the following people may apply for an IC review:

  • where the agency’s or minister’s decision was an access refusal decision (including a decision on charges and a refusal to amend or annotate a record of personal information) — the person who made the FOI request (that is, the FOI applicant) (s 54L(3))
  • where the decision was to grant access — a third party who was consulted under ss 26A(2) or 26AA(2) (s 54M(3)(a))
  • where the decision was to grant access — a third party who was invited to make a submission in support of an exemption contention under ss 27 or 27A and did so (s 54M(3)(a))
  • where the decision was made after internal review of the original access refusal decision — the person who made the request for internal review (that is, the original FOI applicant) (s 54L(3))
  • where the agency's decision on internal review was an access refusal decision — the person who made the FOI request (that is, the FOI applicant (s 54L(2)(b))
  • where the agency's decision on internal review was an access grant decision — a third party who was invited to make a submission in support of an exemption contention and did so (s 54M(3)(b))
  • where the decision was to refuse to extend the period for applying for internal review of an access refusal decision (under s 54B) — the person who was seeking internal review (that is, the original FOI applicant).

10.10 Another person may apply on behalf of the person who made the FOI request or the affected third party (ss 54L(3) and 54M(3)). The Information Commissioner must be satisfied that the other person has authority to act on behalf of the FOI applicant or third party.

Back to Contents

Principles of the Information Commissioner review process

10.11 Review by the Information Commissioner of decisions about access to government documents is designed around several key principles:

  • it is a merit review process
  • it is intended to be as informal as possible
  • it is intended to be non-adversarial
  • it is intended to be timely.

Merit review

10.12 Review by the Information Commissioner is a merit review process. The Commissioner does not simply review the reasons given by the agency or minister, but determines the correct or preferable decision in the circumstances. The Commissioner can access all relevant material, including material that the agency or minister claims is exempt. The Commissioner can also consider additional material or submissions not considered by the original decision maker, including relevant new material that has arisen since the decision was made. For example, for the purpose of deciding whether a document requested by an applicant is conditionally exempt, the Commissioner can take account of contemporary developments that shed light on whether disclosure would be contrary to the public interest. However, the Commissioner cannot determine the exempt status of documents that have become documents of an agency or minister after the date of the applicant’s FOI request.[1]

10.13 If the Information Commissioner finds that the original decision was not correct in law or not the preferable decision, the decision can be varied or set aside and a new decision substituted. For example, the Commissioner may decide that a document is not an exempt document under the FOI Act or that an access charge was not correctly applied.

An informal process

10.14 IC reviews are intended to be a simple, practical and cost efficient method of external merit review. Most matters will be reviewed on the papers rather than through formal hearings. This is consistent with the objects of the FOI Act, which provides that functions and powers are to be performed and exercised, as far as possible, to facilitate and promote public access to information, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost (s 3(4)). The Information Commissioner will also provide appropriate assistance to IC review applicants to make their applications (s 54N(2)). This would not mean helping an applicant to frame their argument but could mean explaining, for example, what particulars they must give in their application for review.

Non-adversarial

10.15 Agencies and ministers must use their best endeavours to assist the Information Commissioner to make the correct or preferable decision in relation to access to information held by the Government (s 55DA). This duty is consistent with the obligation on the Commonwealth and its agencies to act as model litigants — that is, with complete propriety, fairly and in accordance with the highest professional standards as a party to proceedings, including tribunal proceedings.

10.16 All parties are also encouraged to minimise their use of legal representation in IC review proceedings, to reduce formality and costs. The Information Commissioner expects to receive responses from the relevant agency rather than a legal representative, even where the agency chooses to seek legal advice on particular issues.

Timely

10.17 The IC review process is intended to be efficient and lead to resolution as quickly as possible. An early evaluation of the merits of the decision under review will be facilitated through IC review officers considering the primary material and making relevant preliminary inquiries of agencies and ministers.

Back to Contents

Procedures in an Information Commissioner review

Parties to an IC review

10.18 The parties to an IC review (as specified in s 55A) are:

  1. the IC review applicant (see [10.9] above)
  2. the principal officer of the agency, or the minister, to whom the FOI access request was made
  3. an affected third party required to be notified of an IC review application under s 54P (discussed below at [10.33])
  4. a person who is joined by the Information Commissioner to the review proceedings as a person whose interests are affected (discussed below at [10.35]).

10.19 Where a minister is party to an IC review and there is a change of minister in the course of the review, the new minister is the respondent. If the requested document is not in the possession of the new minister, the FOI Act will not apply and the IC review cannot continue as the document is no longer an ‘official document of a minister’.[2]

Making an application

10.20 An application for Information Commissioner review must be in writing (s 54N), which includes email. It must:

  • give details of how notices may be sent to the applicant (for example, by providing an email address)
  • include a copy of the notice of the decision given by the agency or minister under s 26.

10.21 Including a copy of the s 26 notice enables the Information Commissioner to readily identify the agency or minister and the matters in dispute. A person will not have received a copy of the decision where notice of a decision is deemed to have been given. In that case, the application should include details of the agency or minister to whom the request was made and state whether the request was an application for an initial decision or for internal review of an agency decision. An IC review applicant who is a third party seeking review of an access grant decision may also not have received a copy of the s 26 statement of reasons given to the FOI applicant. The third party should, however, have been given a written notice of the access grant decision (see Part 3 of these Guidelines), and should provide a copy of that notice with their application.

10.22 The application should also contain particulars of the basis on which the applicant disputes the reviewable decision (s 54N(2)). It will assist prompt handling of the matter if the applicant sets out the following matters:

  • any grounds on which the applicant disputes the reasons given for a claim that a document is exempt or conditionally exempt
  • any grounds on which the applicant considers that the public interest in giving access overrides the reasons given for not granting access
  • if a request has been refused on the ground that it would unreasonably impact on an agency’s resources or a minister’s functions (ss 24 and 24AA) — any reasons why the applicant believes the request would not have that impact.

10.23 The OAIC must provide ‘appropriate assistance’ where an applicant needs help to prepare the review application (s 54N(3)). This may arise, for example, where the applicant has language or literacy difficulties or other factors affect their capacity to prepare an application.

10.24 The application must be delivered to the OAIC (to the address listed in the telephone directory) or sent by prepaid postage or by electronic communication (fax or email) (s 54N(4)).

Time for applying

10.25 An application for IC review must be made within 60 days of notice being given of an access refusal decision (s 54S(1)) or 30 days of notice being given of an access grant decision (s 54S(2)). Further details are below.

10.26 An FOI applicant may apply for IC review of an access refusal decision within 60 days after the day notice of the decision was given under s 26 (s 54S(1)). This time limit also applies to deemed refusals, as notice is deemed to have been given under s 26 on the last day of the initial decision period (s 15AC(3) — see Part 3 of these Guidelines). Where the FOI applicant sought internal review and the agency did not make a decision within 30 days and no extension was granted, the original decision to refuse access is taken to have been affirmed (s 54D — see Part 9 of these Guidelines).

10.27 An affected third party may apply for IC review of an access grant decision within 30 days after the day they were given notice — either under ss 26A(3), 26AA(3), 27(6) or 27A(5), or if the agency decision to grant access was made after internal review of the original decision, under s 54C. If the affected third party does not apply for IC review within 30 days, the agency or minister can provide access to the document, unless the Information Commissioner has granted an extension to the affected third party (ss 26A(4), 26AA(4), 27(7) and 27A(6)). The Commissioner will notify an agency or minister if an affected third party has applied for an extension of time. The Commissioner will provide a further notice after making a decision on that application (as noted in [10.28]–[10.31] below, it may take more than two weeks for the Commissioner to make a decision). To minimise the possibility of dispute about the propriety or timing of a decision to release information where a third party objects, agencies and ministers are advised to check first with the Commissioner as to whether there are any review proceedings in progress.

Extension of time for applying

10.28 An FOI applicant or an affected third party may ask the Information Commissioner for an extension of time to apply for IC review (s 54T(1)). The Commissioner may extend the time if satisfied that it is reasonable in all the circumstances to do so, even if the application period has expired (ss 54T(2) and (3)). The applicant should set out the reasons for the delay as part of their application. As a practical matter, an affected third party will not be able to apply for an extension of time if the agency or minister has already given the FOI applicant access to the documents after the time for applying for internal review or IC review expired (see previous paragraph).

10.29 There may be a delay between when an FOI applicant receives notice of an access grant decision and when they receive access to documents. The Information Commissioner can consider granting an extension to apply for IC review if the applicant does not receive access to documents before the 30-day limit in s 54S(2) runs out. (The applicant can also apply for internal review within 15 days of receiving access — for more information, see Part 9 of these Guidelines.)

10.30 Before granting an extension, the Information Commissioner may require the applicant to give notice of the application to any person the Commissioner considers is affected (s 54T(4)). For example, the Commissioner may require the applicant to notify the agency or an affected third party. That person may in turn notify the Commissioner in writing that the agency or affected third party opposes the application, and must do so within the time the Commissioner specifies (s 54T(5)). Unless there are special reasons to the contrary, the Commissioner will allow 14 days for a response.

10.31 The Information Commissioner must give the applicant for the extension and any person opposing the extension a reasonable opportunity to present their cases before determining the extension application (s 54T(6)).

Agency or minister must notify third parties

10.32 The agency or minister must notify an affected third party where an FOI applicant has applied for IC review of a decision to refuse access to a document to which a consultation requirement applies (s 54P). This obligation applies whether the third party made a submission or was invited to make a submission but did not under s 26A (documents affecting Commonwealth–State relations), s 26AA (documents affecting Norfolk Island intergovernmental relations), s 27 (business documents) or s 27A (personal privacy) (s 54P(1) — see Part 6 of these Guidelines). The third party has a right to be a party in the IC review proceedings. The third party would be seeking to support the agency’s or minister’s contention that access should be refused to a document that affects them.

10.33 The agency or minister is required as soon as practicable to take all reasonable steps to provide this notice (s 54P(2)). They must also give a copy of the notice to the Information Commissioner as soon as practicable (s 54P(3)).

10.34 Section 54Q provides that the Information Commissioner may order on the agency’s or minister’s application that this notice requirement does not apply to business documents (s 27) or documents affecting personal privacy (s 27A). This may be done if the Commissioner is satisfied that notification of the IC review would not be appropriate as it could reasonably be expected to:

  1. prejudice the conduct of an investigation of a breach of the law or a failure to comply with a law relating to taxation (for example, if the person who would otherwise be notified is under investigation)
  2. prejudice the enforcement or proper administration of the law in a particular instance
  3. disclose or allow someone to ascertain the existence, identity or non-existence of a confidential source of information, in relation to the enforcement or administration of the law
  4. endanger anyone’s life or physical safety
  5. damage the security, defence or international relations of the Commonwealth (s 54Q(3)).

Joining other parties to the review

10.35 The Information Commissioner may join a person whose interests are affected as a party to an IC review application (s 55A(3)) if that person applies in writing (s 55A(2)).

10.36 This could arise, for example, in a case where the IC review applicant is an affected third party who disagrees with an agency’s or minister’s decision to grant access to a document. In that case, the Information Commissioner may join the original FOI applicant to the review.

10.37 Another example is where an affected third party is not given notice of an IC review application because one of the reasons in s 54Q applies (see [10.34]). If the Information Commissioner, on considering the review application, is not satisfied that the information concerning that person is exempt, the Commissioner may decide to join the person to the review under s 55A(1)(d).

10.38 In some cases, the FOI access decision may have included documents that involve more than one agency. An agency has the option of transferring an access request to another agency under s 16 where appropriate if the other agency agrees. If the agency decides not to transfer the request, the agency is responsible for consulting relevant agencies, both before making a decision and throughout the IC review process. In exceptional circumstances where an agency other than the decision maker applies to be joined as a party to an IC review, the Information Commissioner may decide to grant the application.

Withdrawing an application

10.39 An applicant may withdraw an application for review at any time before the Information Commissioner makes a decision (s 54R(1)). A withdrawn application is taken never to have been made (s 54R(2)). If an application is withdrawn, the Commissioner will notify the agency or minister.

The decision under review

10.40 If after an applicant applied for IC review of a deemed decision where the Information Commissioner allowed the agency or minister further time to make an actual decision, and the agency or minister did so, the actual decision is substituted for the deemed decision for the purposes of the IC review (s 54Y(2)). At any time during an IC review, an agency or minister may also substitute a deemed or an actual access refusal decision with a decision that is in the applicant’s favour (see [10.52]–[10.53]).

General procedure

10.41 IC reviews are intended to provide a simple, practical and cost efficient system for external merit review. To achieve this aim, the Information Commissioner may conduct a review in whatever way the Commissioner considers appropriate (s 55(2)(a)), and must use as little formality and technicality as possible (s 55(4)(a)). It is intended that most applications will be determined on the basis of the documents and submissions (see [10.47]).

Using alternative dispute resolution methods

10.42 To help resolve applications promptly, the Information Commissioner may use alternative dispute resolution methods or any other appropriate technique (s 55(2)(b)). Alternative dispute resolution methods and early appraisal can clarify at an early stage the issues to be resolved or the information to be provided by either party in support of their claims or submissions.

Participation by various means

10.43 The Information Commissioner may allow a person to participate by any means of communication (s 55(2)(c)). For example, a person may be allowed to participate in a hearing by telephone or video conference, or to provide a written submission. Appropriate arrangements may also be made to assist a person with a disability, such as a hearing impairment.

Obtaining information

10.44 The Information Commissioner may obtain any information from any person and make any inquiries that the Commissioner considers appropriate (s 55(2)(d)). For example, the Commissioner may request information about the agency’s decision early in the review process. Those inquiries may help the Commissioner in forming a preliminary view about the issues to be addressed or the merit of a decision. The Commissioner also has a specific power to make preliminary inquiries in order to determine whether to undertake a review (discussed below at [10.63]) and compulsory information gathering powers (discussed at [10.71]–[10.79]). The Commissioner could also seek expert assistance from agency staff or another party where documents involve complex or technical issues.

Written directions

10.45 The Information Commissioner may give written directions about the conduct of review proceedings, both generally and in particular reviews (s 55(2)(e)). For example, the Commissioner could direct that the publication of certain evidence in a particular case be prohibited or restricted if satisfied the evidence should be kept confidential. More generally, the Commissioner could require a decision maker to lodge certain information for the purpose of the review proceedings.

When the reasons for a decision are inadequate

10.46 The Information Commissioner can require an agency or minister to give reasons for their decision if the Commissioner believes the reasons given were inadequate or if no reasons were provided (s 55E). This includes where a decision is deemed to be made and no s 26 statement was prepared. The Commissioner can specify when an agency or minister must provide reasons. If no time period is specified, the agency or minister must provide reasons within 28 days (s 55E(3)). For guidance on preparing good reasons for decisions, see Part 3 of these Guidelines.

Hearings

10.47 Hearings are not intended to be a common part of Information Commissioner reviews, since they can increase contestability, introduce more formality to the process and prolong the matter. Section 55(1) provides that review can be carried out on the documents or other available material if:

  • the Information Commissioner considers the matter can be adequately determined
  • the Information Commissioner is satisfied that there are no unusual circumstances that warrant a hearing
  • none of the parties has applied for a hearing.

10.48 Implicit in that procedure is a presumption that an IC review will be conducted on the papers unless there is a special reason to warrant a hearing.

10.49 Any party may apply to the Information Commissioner for a hearing at any time before a decision is made (s 55B(1)). The Commissioner will only decide to hold a hearing if satisfied that there is a special reason to warrant a hearing.[3]

10.50 The Information Commissioner must conduct hearings in public unless satisfied there are reasons to hold a hearing (in whole or part) in private (s 55(5)(a)). This means that part of a hearing may be held in the absence of one or more of the review parties and their representatives where the Commissioner considers it necessary to prevent the disclosure of confidential matters.

10.51 A party may be represented by another person at a hearing (s 55C), including a legal representative. For example, an applicant who is disabled or from a non-English speaking background may wish to be represented by an advocate, friend or family member.

Varying a decision in the applicant’s favour before a review is finalised

10.52 After an application is made to the Information Commissioner for review, an agency or minister may vary or substitute an access refusal decision to favour the applicant, whether by giving access to a document, removing the liability to pay a charge or amending a personal record (s 55G(1)). A new decision involving access to documents must release more information to the applicant than the original decision.[4]

10.53 The agency or minister must notify the Information Commissioner in writing of the new decision (s 55G(2)(a)). If the variation does not fully resolve the matter to the applicant’s satisfaction, the Commissioner must deal with the new decision as though it is the decision for review (s 55G(2)(b)).

Protections when information is supplied

10.54 A claim for legal professional privilege can still apply to a document or information produced for the purpose of an IC review. The act of producing the document does not of itself constitute a waiver of the privilege (s 55Y).

10.55 A person is immune from civil proceedings and any criminal or civil penalty if the person gives information, produces a document or answers a question in good faith for an IC review (s 55Z). The immunity applies whether the information was supplied voluntarily or under a compulsory process (for example, under s 55(2)(d) — see [10.71]).

Evidence by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security

10.56 Before deciding that a document an agency or minister claims falls under the national security exemption (s 33) is not exempt, the Information Commissioner must ask the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (Inspector-General) to give evidence on the likely damage if access were granted (ss 55ZA–55ZD — for guidance about s 33, see Part 5 of these Guidelines). There are similar provisions in relation to AAT proceedings (s 60A). The Inspector-General must comply with the Commissioner’s request unless the Inspector-General believes they are not appropriately qualified to give evidence on those matters (s 55ZC).

10.57 This requirement is to assist the Information Commissioner to make a decision through the provision of expert advice. Because the Inspector-General is an independent statutory office holder, the evidence given is not evidence by the agency or minister who made the exemption decision. The Commissioner and the Inspector-General have entered into a memorandum of understanding establishing agreed procedures for the exercise of this discretion.[5]

10.58 Before hearing evidence from the Inspector-General, the Information Commissioner must hear any evidence or submissions from the agency or minister (s 55ZB(3)). The Commissioner is not bound by the Inspector-General’s opinion (s 55ZB(4)).

10.59 The requirement does not apply if the Information Commissioner considers there is sufficient material to affirm the agency’s or minister’s decision to exempt the document.

Onus

10.60 In an IC review in relation to an FOI request (s 15) or an application to have personal records amended (s 48), the agency or minister has the onus of establishing that the decision is justified or that the Information Commissioner should give a decision adverse to the IC review applicant (s 55D(1)). The agency or minister must also bear in mind their obligation to use their best endeavours to assist the Commissioner to make the correct or preferable decision (see [10.15]).

10.61 In an IC review of an access grant decision, the affected third party has the onus of establishing that a decision refusing the request is justified or that the Information Commissioner should give a decision adverse to the person who made the request (s 55D(2)).

Back to Contents

The Information Commissioner’s options

10.62 After receiving an application for review, the Information Commissioner has two options:

  • to review the decision if satisfied it is a decision that is reviewable
  • not to review the decision if satisfied on certain grounds (discussed at [10.66] below).

Preliminary inquiries

10.63 The Information Commissioner may make preliminary inquiries of the parties to help in determining whether to undertake a review (s 54V). Such inquiries might be made to clarify that the review decision falls within the Commissioner’s jurisdiction, for example, or that the application is not frivolous or misconceived.

Who conducts the review?

10.64 An IC review officer will manage the application for review, including undertaking the preliminary assessment (see [10.80]–[10.97]). However, only the Information Commissioner, FOI Commissioner or Privacy Commissioner can make the final decision on a review (AIC Act ss 10, 11, 12 and 25(e)).

Timeframe for a review

10.65 The Act does not specify a time for completion of an IC review. The time taken will depend on a number of factors, including:

  • the type and range of issues involved in the review
  • the number and type of documents involved
  • whether there is a need to refine the scope of the issues the applicant has raised
  • whether the agency or minister needs to undertake further searches for documents
  • whether parties other than the agency and the applicant need to be consulted or joined to the review
  • any new issues the parties have introduced during the review
  • the time parties take to respond to requests for information or other issues raised by the IC review officer
  • the extent to which the parties are willing to engage in informal resolution processes (where appropriate).

When the Information Commissioner will not review a matter

10.66 The Information Commissioner has the discretion not to undertake a review, or not to continue a review, if:

  1. the applicant fails to comply with a direction by the Information Commissioner (s 54W(c)), or
  2. if the Information Commissioner is satisfied:
    1. the review application is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived, lacking in substance or not made in good faith
    2. the review applicant has failed to cooperate in progressing the application or review without reasonable excuse
    3. the Information Commissioner cannot contact the applicant after making reasonable attempts (s 54W(a))
  3. if the Information Commissioner is satisfied the decision should be considered by the AAT (s 54W(b) — see [10.69] below).

10.67 The circumstances in which an FOI application can be described as ‘frivolous or vexatious’ have been examined in various cases. The circumstances include where it is open to conclude that a series of FOI applications were made to annoy or harass agency staff and none of the applications is capable of conferring a practical benefit on the applicant.[6] See Part 12 of these Guidelines for information about vexatious applicant declarations.

Reviewing part of a matter

10.68 The Information Commissioner may decide to review only part of an IC reviewable decision (see s 54U).

AAT review as an alternative to IC review

10.69 The Information Commissioner can decline to undertake a review if satisfied ‘that the interests of the administration of the [FOI] Act make it desirable’ that the AAT consider the review application (s 54W(b)). It is intended that the Commissioner will resolve most applications. Circumstances in which the Commissioner may decide that it is desirable for the AAT to consider a matter include:[7] the IC review is linked to ongoing proceedings before the AAT or a court; there is an apparent inconsistency between earlier IC review decisions and AAT decisions; an IC ruling is likely to be taken on appeal to the AAT on a disputed issue of fact; and the FOI request under review is complex or voluminous, resolving the IC review matter would require a substantial allocation of OAIC resources, and the matter could appropriately be handled through the procedures of the AAT. The OAIC will consult the parties involved in a matter before making a decision under s 54W(b) to conclude an IC review.

Written notice to the parties

10.70 If the Information Commissioner decides not to undertake a review, the Commissioner must give the parties written notice of the decision (s 54X(2)). Where the Commissioner has decided it would be desirable for the AAT to undertake the review, the notice must state that the applicant may apply to the AAT for review (s 54X(3)(b)).

Back to Contents

The Information Commissioner’s powers to gather information

10.71 The Information Commissioner has a range of compulsory powers to gather the information needed to properly review the merits of a decision. In addition to the power to require an agency or minister to give adequate reasons for a decision (discussed at [10.46]), the Information Commissioner has the power to:

  • require a person to produce information and documents
  • require a minister or the principal officer of an agency to produce a document claimed to be exempt (with some qualification where the claimed exemption relates to national security, Cabinet or Parliamentary Budget Office matters)
  • order an agency or minister to undertake further searches for documents
  • require a person to attend to answer questions and to take an oath or affirmation that the answers given will be true.

10.72 Each of these is discussed below. The Information Commissioner’s information gathering powers are similar to those of the AAT, as discussed below.

Producing information and documents

10.73 The Information Commissioner can issue a notice requiring a person to produce information and documents if the Commissioner reasonably believes it is relevant to an IC review (s 55R(3)). Failure to comply with a notice to produce is an offence punishable by six months imprisonment (s 55R(5)). There is a similar offence to fail to comply with a summons to produce issued by the AAT (Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act) ss 40 and 61). The Commissioner may take, copy and take extracts from those documents and hold them as long as necessary (s 55S(1)).

Producing documents claimed to be exempt: general

10.74 The Information Commissioner may require the principal officer of an agency or a minister to produce a document claimed to be exempt, other than a document claimed to be covered by the national security, Cabinet or Parliamentary Budget Office documents exemption (s 55T(1)). As a general rule, the Commissioner will require an agency to provide a copy of all documents that are claimed to be exempt, to enable the Commissioner to undertake merit review of the decision to refuse access (see [10.81]–[10.99]). If satisfied the document is exempt, the Information Commissioner must return the document to the agency or minister (s 55T(3)).

10.75 No person other than the Information Commissioner, the FOI Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner or a member of the Commissioner’s staff may have access to a document that is claimed to be exempt (s 55T(5)). (The Commissioner must take all reasonable steps to ensure members of staff are given appropriate security clearances (s 89P)). The AAT has a similar production power for its proceedings (s 64).

Producing documents claimed to be exempt: national security, Cabinet and Parliamentary Budget Office matters

10.76 The Information Commissioner may only require the principal officer of an agency or a minister to produce a document they claim is exempt under the national security exemption (s 33), Cabinet documents exemption (s 34) or Parliamentary Budget Office documents exemption (s 45A) if the Commissioner is not satisfied by affidavit or other evidence that the document is exempt (s 55U(3)). There is a similar provision in s 58E(2) relating to AAT review proceedings. These provisions protect against unnecessary disclosure of sensitive information.

Further searches for documents

10.77 The Information Commissioner may order an agency or minister to undertake further searches for documents, including where access to a document has been granted but not actually given (s 55V(2)). This replicates the powers given to the AAT under s 58A(2).

Attending to answer questions

10.78 The Information Commissioner may require a person to attend to answer questions for the purposes of an IC review (s 55W(1)). The Commissioner must give the person a written notice that specifies the time and place when the person must attend, with the time to be not less than 14 days after the person is given the notice (s 55W(2)). Failure to comply wiht the notice is an offence punishable by six months imprisonment (s 55W(3)). There is a similar offence of failing to comply with a summons to appear to give evidence in AAT proceedings (AAT Act ss 40 and 61).

10.79 The Information Commissioner may also require a person who appears before the Commissioner pursuant to a notice to take an oath or affirmation that the answer the person will give will be true (s 55X). Breaching that requirement (for example, if the person refuses to take the oath or affirmation, or knowingly gives false answers) is an offence punishable by six months imprisonment (s 55X(3)).

Back to Contents

Steps in the Information Commissioner review process

On receiving a review application

10.80 When an IC review application is received, the IC review officer will check that it is a valid application (see [10.20]). Before undertaking an IC review, the IC review officer will inform the person, agency or minister who made the decision, or if the IC review application concerns an access grant decision, the FOI applicant (s 54Z). The IC review officer will then contact the relevant agency or minister advising them of the review and seeking relevant information (as set out below). Ordinarily the IC review officer will give the agency a copy of the application for IC review. The IC review officer will also enquire whether the agency is currently undertaking an internal review of the matter under Part VI of the Act. Where the agency advises that an internal review is under way, the IC review officer will ordinarily await the outcome before taking further steps in the IC review process.

Access refusal decision in relation to documents claimed to be exempt (other than a deemed refusal or deemed affirmation)

10.81 When notifying the agency or minister of an IC review application, the IC review officer will ask them to provide within 10 working days a schedule of documents for which exemption is claimed, including those documents claimed to be exempt under s 25. This 10 day period will not be extended other than in exceptional cases, as an agency or minister should normally have prepared such a schedule when making a decision on the FOI access request or notifying the FOI applicant of the decision.

10.82 A senior member of the minister’s staff or a senior agency officer (that is, an officer equivalent to an Executive Level or Senior Executive Service officer) must sign the schedule. Requiring a senior officer to approve the schedule gives an early opportunity for the agency or minister to reconsider the access refusal decision and, if it is considered appropriate, to vary the decision in the applicant’s favour (as permitted by s 55G). This will be a particularly important step where the IC review applicant has not sought internal review, or where the initial access decision was not made by a senior agency officer.

10.83 The schedule must list the documents numbered sequentially and include the following details:

  • the date of the document
  • the creator of the document (where known)
  • a brief description of the contents of the document
  • a brief statement of the ground of exemption or conditional exemption claimed for the document
  • where the claim of exemption relates to only part of a document, indicating the part or parts involved.

10.84 Where only a small number of documents are involved, the agency or minister may choose to supply copies of the documents at this first stage. This will help to expedite the review process. In the case of documents from which information has been deleted before release, the agency should supply to the IC review officer copies of both the original document and the edited copy that was released.

10.85 The schedule of documents will be made available to the IC review applicant, and to other parties as considered appropriate. If the agency or minister believes this should not occur in relation to particular documents, the reasons should be spelt out clearly. Any documents that fall within the definition of s 25 (that is, where it would not be appropriate to reveal the existence or non-existence of a document — see Part 3 of these Guidelines) should be listed in a separate schedule clearly marked as confidential.

10.86 A modified review process will be followed if the threshold question to be resolved is whether the applicant’s request falls within the FOI Act. In a straightforward case, the Information Commissioner may be able to decide, without contacting an agency or minister, that the FOI request was made to an agency or for a document to which the FOI Act does not apply. On the other hand, it may be necessary for an IC review officer to contact an agency or minister to seek information about the nature of a document or the agency’s or minister’s response to the applicant. This may be necessary, for example, if the FOI applicant disagrees with a minister’s decision that the document requested is not an official document of the minister, or is a ‘defence intelligence document’.

Access grant decision

10.87 Where an affected third party seeks IC review of an access grant decision, the IC review officer will ask the agency or minister to provide within 10 working days copies of correspondence with the third party, including the documents in dispute if the third party has already seen them. If the documents have not yet been shown to the third party, the agency or minister will be asked to provide a schedule of documents proposed for release. The agency or minister must also explain the reasons for the decision to release the documents despite the third party’s objections, if those reasons have not been spelt out fully in correspondence to the third party.

10.88 The minister or agency cannot vary the access grant decision once the matter is under IC review (that is, there is no equivalent to s 55G, which applies only to access refusal decisions).

Decision on charges

10.89 Where the decision for which review is sought relates to the imposition of a charge or the amount of a charge (s 53A(e)), the IC review officer will request the agency or minister to provide within 10 working days:

  • a copy of the letter to the FOI applicant notifying the charge
  • any further explanation the agency or minister wishes to provide as to why the charge was imposed or how it was calculated, as the case may be.

Refusal to amend or annotate a record of personal information

10.90 If the IC review application concerns a decision refusing to amend or annotate a record of personal information, the IC review officer will have certain information from the applicant about the documents and the reasons the applicant disagrees with the decision. The IC review officer will request the agency or minister to provide within 10 working days:

  • a copy of the documents that were given to the FOI applicant
  • the reasons why the agency or minister considers that no amendment should be made under s 50, or the reasons why the requested annotation of records was not made under s 51, as the case may be. Those reasons should have been provided in the notice to the applicant, but the agency or minister may wish to provide additional information in support of its decision.

10.91 The IC review officer may also ask to see associated personal records of the applicant, such as the applicant’s personal file, where that may assist consideration of the applicant’s request.

Failure to provide all documents

10.92 Where the IC review applicant claims that the agency or minister has failed to provide access to all relevant documents (s 53A(c)), the IC review officer may ask the agency or minister to provide within 10 working days details of the searches undertaken.

Deemed refusal or deemed affirmation of original decision

10.93 A person may apply for IC review when there is a deemed refusal of an FOI access request. This will occur when the agency or minister has not made a decision within 30 days of the FOI request or within the relevant period if it has been extended (s 15AC). After a deemed refusal, the agency or minister should consider applying in writing to the Information Commissioner for further time to consider the matter (s 15AC(4)). This avenue is available only once. The Commissioner may then grant an appropriate extension, subject to any conditions considered appropriate (ss 15AC(5)–(6)).

10.94 The Information Commissioner may also ask the agency or minister to provide reasons (s 55E). A third option that the Commissioner may employ, if no extension of time was sought or granted, is to ask the agency or minister to outline in writing the number of documents potentially within the scope of the FOI request, a description of the type of documents, the reason for the delay and an indication of how long it might take to come to a position on which documents are claimed to be exempt.

10.95 The same considerations apply when there has been a deemed affirmation of an agency’s decision following the expiration of time to complete an internal review. The agency should consider whether to seek an extension of time from the Information Commissioner to complete the internal review (s 54D(3)). Where the agency does not do so, or the Commissioner declines to grant an extension, the processes outlined in paragraphs [10.81]–[10.92] above will apply.

Preliminary assessment by an IC review officer

10.96 The IC review officer will consider the IC review application and the material supplied by the agency or minister. If the FOI applicant is applying for IC review of an access refusal decision, the IC review officer will also check that the agency or minister has notified any affected third parties (unless otherwise ordered under s 54Q) and has provided a copy of the notice (s 54P).

10.97 The IC review officer will consider whether any parties should be joined to the review. After considering the particulars given by the IC review applicant, the review officer may seek more information from the applicant if necessary, for example, by discussing any relevant background matters or clarifying issues in dispute. The IC review officer will also consider the decision maker’s statement of reasons under s 26. If the statement is inadequate, the Information Commissioner may ask the agency or minister to provide an adequate statement of reasons under s 55E (see [10.46] above). Contact will often be by telephone rather than formal correspondence, with the aim of keeping the process as informal and quick as possible.

Next steps

10.98 After preliminary assessment by the IC review officer, the OAIC's possible next steps include:

  • requiring the agency or minister to provide documents for which an exemption claim has been made, if these have not been provided to the IC review officer earlier (ss 55T and 55U — see [10.74]–[10.76])
  • issuing a notice requiring any person to provide information or documents that are relevant to an IC review (s 55R — see [10.73])
  • requiring the agency or minister to conduct a further search for documents (s 55V)
  • inviting or requesting the agency or IC review applicant to provide further oral or written submissions on an issue, particularly where new material has become available
  • by written notice requiring a person to appear to answer questions (s 55W), and to provide answers on oath or affirmation (s 55X)
  • making a non-binding appraisal to vary the agency’s decision in favour of the IC review applicant: the agency or minister will ordinarily be given 10 working days to consider whether to vary the agency decision in the applicant’s favour under s 55G
  • giving effect to an agreement between the parties (s 55F — see [10.100])
  • holding a hearing at which the parties will have an opportunity to present further evidence or submissions (see [10.47]–[10.51])
  • proceeding to make a final decision (s 55K).

Providing documents to the Information Commissioner

10.99 Ordinarily, the Information Commissioner will require agencies to provide copies of documents in hard copy or in scanned form as PDF documents. Where there is a large number of documents or in other appropriate circumstances, the OAIC may arrange for its staff to attend the agency’s premises to view and make copies of the documents as required.

Back to Contents

The Information Commissioner’s decision

Where the review parties reach agreement

10.100 At any stage during an IC review, the Information Commissioner may resolve an application in whole or in part by giving effect to an agreement between the parties (s 55F). Before making the decision, the Commissioner must be satisfied that the terms of the written agreement would be within the powers of the Commissioner and that all parties have agreed to the terms.

Where the review parties do not reach agreement

10.101 If the parties do not reach an agreement, and unless the IC review applicant withdraws their application under s 54R, the Information Commissioner must make a decision after reviewing the matter. The Commissioner has three options:

  • to affirm the decision of the agency or minister (s 55K(1))
  • to vary the decision of the agency or minister (s 55K(2))
  • to set aside the decision of the agency or minister and make a fresh decision (s 55K(3)).

10.102 These are full merit review powers.

Written reasons to be given

10.103 The Information Commissioner must give written reasons of the decision to all the parties to the review (ss 55K(1) and (4)) and must publish the decision in a manner that makes it publicly available (s 55K(8)). The statements of reasons for OAIC decisions are published on the OAIC website at www.oaic.gov.au. The OAIC’s published decisions will not include any exempt material or information about the existence or non-existence of a document that would be exempt under s 33, 37(1) or 45A (ss 55K(5) and 25(1). In addition, where appropriate to protect against the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about an applicant or third party, including details of their identity, the Commissioner will not include such personal information in the decision published on the website.

Exempt documents

10.104 If the Information Commissioner finds a document to be exempt, the Commissioner cannot order that access be given to the exempt material (s 55L). This includes a document which:

  • has been found to be exempt because a specific exemption under Part IV Division 2 of the Act applies
  • is conditionally exempt (under Part IV Division 3) and access to the document would be contrary to the public interest
  • is a document of a person, body or agency exempted under the Act (s 7 — see Part 2 of these Guidelines).

10.105 A similar restriction is placed on the AAT under s 58(2).

Requiring records to be amended

10.106 Part V of the FOI Act enables a person to apply for amendment or annotation of incorrect personal information that an agency uses for administrative purposes (see Part 7 of these Guidelines).

10.107 The Information Commissioner’s decision can include a recommendation that an amendment be made to a record of personal information (subject to two limitations):

  1. Opinions — The Information Commissioner may only recommend amendment of a record that relates to an opinion if satisfied:
    1. the opinion was based on a mistake of fact
    2. the author of the opinion was biased, unqualified to form the opinion or acted improperly in conducting the factual inquiries that led to the formation of the opinion (s 55M(1)).
  2. Court or tribunal decision — The Information Commissioner cannot recommend that a record of a decision under an enactment by a court, tribunal, authority or person be amended (s 55M(2)(a)). Nor can the Commissioner recommend that a record be amended if that would involve determining an issue that a person either is, or could be, entitled to have decided in another process — by an agency (on internal review), the Commissioner, a court or tribunal (s 55M(2)(b)). While the scope of that limitation is not entirely clear, it would include, for example, where the Commissioner must make another decision first (such as deciding a request for access to the relevant documents), or where an agency must first determine a person’s eligibility for a benefit.

10.108 The AAT is similarly limited in its power to recommend or require amendments of personal records (s 58AA).

Enforcement of the Information Commissioner’s decision

10.109 An agency or minister must comply with an IC review decision (s 55N). If an agency or minister fails to comply, the Information Commissioner or the review applicant may apply to the Federal Court for an order directing them to comply (s 55P(1)). The application can only be made after the period an agency or minister has to apply to the AAT for review of the Commissioner’s decision has expired, that is, 28 days (AAT Act s 29(2)). There is a similar scheme for enforcing determinations of the Privacy Commissioner (Privacy Act ss 58 and 62).

Correcting errors in the Information Commissioner’s decision

10.110 The Information Commissioner has a discretionary power to correct obvious errors in his or her decision, either on his or her own initiative or on application by a review party (s 55Q).

Back to Contents

Federal Court proceedings

10.111 The Federal Court may determine matters in two situations:

  • deciding questions of law referred by the Information Commissioner (s 55H)
  • on appeal on a question of law from the Information Commissioner’s decision (s 56).

10.112 The Federal Court may also direct an agency or minister to comply with the Information Commissioner’s decision (see [10.109]).

Referring questions of law

10.113 The Information Commissioner may refer a question of law to the Federal Court at any time during the review (s 55H), and must act consistently with the Federal Court’s decision (s 55H(5)). This power is intended to ensure that the Commissioner makes decisions which are correct in law and that his or her decisions can finally resolve a matter. The AAT has a similar power under s 45 of the AAT Act.

10.114 If a reference is made to the Federal Court, the Information Commissioner must send all relevant documents and information in his or her possession to the Court (s 55J).

Appeal to the Federal Court

10.115 A review party has the right to appeal to the Federal Court on a question of law from a decision of the Information Commissioner (s 56). A party to an AAT proceeding has a similar right (AAT Act s 44).

10.116 A party may choose to apply to the Federal Court rather than seek merit review in the AAT if, for example, the party believes the Information Commissioner wrongly interpreted and applied the FOI Act. If the Federal Court remits a decision to the Commissioner for reconsideration, a party could later apply to the AAT for review of the Commissioner’s subsequent decision.

10.117 Section 56A(1)(b) provides that in determining the matter, the Federal Court may make findings of fact if its findings of fact are not inconsistent with findings of fact made by the Information Commissioner (other than findings resulting from an error of law), and it appears to the Court to be convenient. In determining whether it is convenient, the Court must have regard to all the following factors:

  1. the extent to which it is necessary for facts to be found
  2. the means of establishing those facts
  3. the expeditious and efficient resolution of the whole of the matter to which the IC review relates
  4. the relative expense to the parties if the Court, rather than the Information Commissioner, makes the findings of fact
  5. the relative delay to the parties if the Court, rather than the Information Commissioner, makes the findings of fact
  6. whether any of the parties considers that it is appropriate for the Court, rather than the Information Commissioner, to make the findings of fact
  7. such other matters (if any) as the Court considers relevant.

10.118 There are similar provisions where Federal Court proceedings arise from an appeal from an AAT decision (AAT Act s 44).

Back to Contents

Review by the AAT

When can a person apply to the AAT?

10.119 A person can apply to the AAT for review of:

  • the Information Commissioner’s decision to affirm, vary or set aside a decision after the Commissioner has undertaken a review (ss 55K and 57A(1)(a))
  • the agency’s or minister’s decision where the Information Commissioner has decided not to undertake a review on the basis that it is desirable that the AAT undertakes the review (s 57A(1)(b))
  • the Information Commissioner’s declaration of the person as a vexatious applicant (s 89N).

10.120 A person cannot apply to the AAT for review of the Information Commissioner’s decision not to undertake or continue a review. A complaint may be made to the Commonwealth Ombudsman under the Ombudsman Act 1976.

Time limit

10.121 A person must apply to the AAT within 28 days after the day they receive the Information Commissioner’s decision (AAT Act s 29(2)). The same time limit applies where the Commissioner declines to consider the matter on the grounds that it would be better dealt with by the AAT (s 57A(2)).

Parties to the AAT proceedings

10.122 The parties to an AAT review application are:

  • the person who applies to the AAT for review (s 60(3)(a))
  • the original FOI applicant, that is, the person who made the request for access to documents or for amendment or annotation of a personal record (s 60(3)(b))
  • the principal officer of the agency or the minister to whom the request was made (s 60(3)(c))
  • any other person who is made a party to the proceeding by the AAT (s 60(3)(d)). The AAT has a discretionary power under s 30(1A) of the AAT Act to join a person whose interests are affected by the decision.

10.123 The Information Commissioner is not a party to the proceedings in the AAT, except in relation to review under s 89N of a declaration that a person is a vexatious applicant. Consequently the Commissioner does not play any role in the proceedings in defending his or her decision. In deciding the correct or preferable decision, the AAT will be guided by the submissions of the parties, who will ordinarily be the FOI applicant and the agency or minister who made the IC reviewable decision. As noted below in [10.131], s 61A of the FOI Act modifies relevant provisions of the AAT Act to spell out the role in the proceedings of the agency or minister who made the IC reviewable decision. Further, s 58(1) of the FOI Act provides that the AAT may decide any matter in relation to the FOI request that could be decided by the agency or minister.

10.124 In relation to review of a declaration that a person is a vexatious applicant (see Part 12 of these Guidelines), note 3 to s 89N expressly refers to s 30 of the AAT Act, which sets out the parties to AAT proceedings. Section 30 states that the decision maker (in this case, the Information Commissioner) will be a party to the proceedings. The Commissioner’s role would be to assist the AAT and not to be a protagonist in the proceedings.[8] An agency or minister could also apply to the AAT to be made a party to those proceedings (AAT Act s 30(1A)).

Notifying third parties

10.125 An agency or minister must notify affected third parties if an FOI applicant seeks AAT review of a decision to refuse access to third party information (s 60AA). This is the same as the notice requirement where an application is made for an IC review. An affected third party may apply to become a party to the AAT proceedings under s 30(1A) of the AAT Act (s 60(3)(d)).

10.126 The AAT may order that an agency or minister does not need to give notice to an affected third party of an AAT review application if it would not be appropriate to do so in the circumstances (s 60AB). An agency or minister must apply to the AAT for an order to be excused from the requirement to give notice (s 60AB(2)).

10.127 Section 60AB(3) provides the circumstances to which the AAT must have regard when determining if the requirement to give notice is not appropriate. Those circumstances are whether notifying the affected third party would or could reasonably be expected to:

  1. prejudice the conduct of an investigation of a breach of the law, or a failure to comply with a law relating to taxation (for example, if a document includes information about a person under criminal investigation)
  2. prejudice the enforcement or proper administration of the law in a particular instance
  3. disclose, or enable a person to ascertain, the existence or identity of a confidential source of information, or the non-existence of a confidential source of information, in relation to the enforcement or administration of the law
  4. endanger the life or physical safety of any person
  5. cause damage to the security, defence or international relations of the Commonwealth.

Onus

10.128 In AAT proceedings to review an FOI decision, the agency or minister who received the access request or the application for amendment of personal records has the onus of establishing that a decision that is adverse to the FOI applicant should be given. The agency or minister has that onus when:

  • the agency or minister seeks review of the Information Commissioner’s decision (for example that access should be given to a document because an exemption does not apply) — in this case the AAT will review a decision of the Commissioner (s 61(1)(a))
  • the FOI applicant seeks review of a decision made by the Information Commissioner (for example, affirming that an exemption applies to a document and that access may be refused) — in this case the AAT will review a decision of the Commissioner (s 61(1)(b))
  • the FOI applicant applies for IC review of a decision and the Information Commissioner declines on the ground that it is desirable that the AAT undertake review — in this case the AAT will review a decision of the agency or minister (s 61(1)(b)).

10.129 The FOI applicant does not bear an onus in either IC review or AAT review.

10.130 If an affected third party is a party to the proceeding, the third party has the onus of establishing that a decision refusing to give access to the document is justified, or the AAT should give a decision adverse to the person who made the request (s 61(2)).

Modifications to references in the AAT Act

10.131 Because agency and ministerial FOI access decisions are now reviewed by the Information Commissioner and the AAT’s role is to review decisions by the Commissioner, various provisions of the AAT Act that referred to ‘the person who made the decision’ are now taken to mean either the agency, minister or the person who made the IC reviewable decision, or each of the review parties, as the context requires. These modifications are listed in s 61A.

Back to Contents

Footnotes

[1] Lobo and Department of Immigration and Citizenship [2010] AATA 583.

[2] Philip Morris Ltd and Treasurer [2013] AICmr 88; Thomas and Prime Minister [2014] AICmr 18.

[3] A hearing was refused in McKinnon and Department of Immigration and Citizenship [2012] AICmr 34.

[4] Thomas and Australian Federal Police [2013] AICmr 83 [12].

[5] The memorandum of understanding is available at www.oaic.gov.au.

[6] Ford v Child Support Registrar [2009] FCA 328, applying Attorney-General (Vic) v Wentworth (1998) 14 NSWLR 481.

[7] See also McKinnon and Department of Immigration and Citizenship [2012] AICmr 34. The Information Commissioner adopted a more liberal approach to exercising the discretion to conclude an IC review under s 54W(b), following the Government’s Budget announcement that the OAIC would be disbanded from 31 December 2014: see ‘How the OAIC will deal with IC reviews and FOI complaints until 31 December 2014’ at www.oaic.gov.au.

[8] In line with the view expressed in R v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; ex parte Hardiman [1980] HCA 13; (1980) 144 CLR 13 at [54]. See also AAT Act s 33(1AA).

Back to Contents