Right to Information Decision RTI202324-500

Right to Information Decision

Right to Information No.: RTI202324-500

Date of Decision:          2 August 2024 

Information Requested

An application made pursuant to the Right to Information Act 2009 (‘the Act’), received the Department of Health (“the public authority”) on 11 June 2024 and accepted on 13 June 2024. 

The applicant, pursuant to s15(4)(a) of the Act, agreed to grant an extension on the application for assessed disclosure.

The information requested:

For the period 26 May to the 31 December 2023 – correspondence referring to meeting the efficiency dividend.

Decision and Statement of Reasons

I have decided to release 50 pages of information to you, subject to exemptions under the Act. 

Section 36 – Personal Information

Section 33 Public interest test

Section 33 provides

Public interest test

(1) In this Division, information is exempt information if the principal officer of the public authority or Minister considers, after taking into account all relevant matters, that it is contrary to the public interest to disclose the information.

(2) The matters which must be considered in deciding if the disclosure of the information is contrary to the public interest are specified in Schedule 1 but are not limited to those matters.

The section sets out how the decision maker determines if the disclosure of information is contrary to the public interest. For this the following matters of Schedule 1 have been applied in relation to the public interest test as required by section 33:

Section 36 Personal Information

Section 36 provides:

Personal information of person

(1) Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would involve the disclosure of the personal information of a person other than the person making an application under section 13.

The definition of personal information in s5 of the Act includes …any information or opinion in any recorded format about an individual whose identity is apparent or reasonably ascertainable from the information or opinion and who is alive, or has not been dead for more than 25 years.

Personal information can include a person’s name, address, telephone number,[1] date of birth, medical records, bank account details, taxation information[2] and signature.[3] It is generally considered that the names and related information of State Service employees acting in the course of their duties and who are publicly identifiable will be disclosed if the person is not placed at risk by disclosure.[4]

Under the Act, disclosure to an applicant of the information is considered to be, in effect, disclosure to the world at large because no restrictions can be placed on the use that may be made of the information to which access is given.[5] This is also the case if decisions and associated information are to be published on the public authorities website for members of the public. The public authority should be entitled to having direct contact from the public via the appropriately established channels.[6] For this reason I am satisfied the direct contact information of officers and other parties is personal information and exempt information.

Public Interest

Public interest has been variously described as the sum of special interests, the sum of all private interests, the net result of individuals pursuing their self-interest, the broad shared interests of society, and the shared or collective values of the community – the goals or values on which there is consensus. 

The public interest test requires a balancing of the public interest in citizens being informed of the processes of their government and its agencies on the one hand against the public interest in the proper workings of government and its agencies on the other.[7]

Schedule 1 

The (a), (m), and (q) matters of Schedule 1 have been applied in relation to the Public Interest Test as required by section 33 to the personal information of the information custodian.

I accept that the disclosure of the information reflects public interest with the community having an understanding of and an involvement in the democratic processes. I am satisfied the information held by the public authority should be accessible (a).

However, as to matter (m), I consider disclosure would harm the interests of third parties. Staff of the public authority, as well as other third parties, should be entitled to expect that contact with the public authority will be through appropriate channels. The Ombudsman has also emphasised these points in recent decisions. The disclosure of direct contact points or personal contact information is not in the public interest.[8] Staff of the public authority may be concerned by the potential for harassment or unsolicited contact, which is enough to render disclosure unreasonable.[9]

I consider that for (q), disclosure would have an adverse effect on the industrial relations of the public authority. Industrial relations cover the operation of the public authority. The public authority maintains specific channels for the public at large to make contact. The disclosing of names and other details would enable members of the public to contact individual public authority officers directly outside the public authority’s preferred contact points.

In my view, it is contrary to the public interest to disclose the direct contact information relating to third parties. 

Section 26 – Cabinet Information

The information includes memos and correspondence from the Department of Treasury and Finance to the public authority. It provides direction as to the preparation of the 2024-25 State Budget, and how the public authority is to prepare its budget submissions for the purposes of deliberations by Treasury and Budget Committee. The information also includes the public authority’s internal notes and speaking points for the purposes of briefing Budget Committee.

The memos and correspondence include reference to decisions or deliberations of Budget Committee. Budget Committee is a committee of Cabinet and therefore captured by the meaning of ‘the Cabinet’ in section 26 of the Act. 

Where information references a decision of ‘the Government’ or ‘Budget Committee’, or it is information that derives from a decision of Cabinet where it would disclose that decision or deliberation, I consider this to satisfy section 26(1)(d) of the Act. While it is not a Cabinet record, it would involve the disclosure of a deliberation or decision of the Cabinet and it is therefore exempt. I am satisfied that the information is not more than 10 years old and therefore not caught by section 26(2). 

Cabinet Information is exempt information not subject to the public interest test. 

Section 27 – Internal Briefing Information of a Minister

The information includes a Minute to the Minister for Health, Mental Health and Wellbeing outlining the proposed 2024-25 Budget savings measures. The purpose of this Minute was to inform the Minister of these measures prior to submission to Budget Committee. The information includes recommendations, opinions, and options proposed by the public authority for the purposes of the Minster’s consideration and approval. I am satisfied that this information was prepared by an officer of the public authority for the sole purpose of briefing the Minister on official business of the public authority and is connected to the Minister’s parliamentary duty. 

I am satisfied that this information is not more than ten years old. The information is almost entirely based upon estimates and opinions and therefore does not fall into purely factual information. 

The information is exempt pursuant to section 27 of the Act and is not subject to the public interest test. 

[1] See Re Green and Australian and Overseas Telecommunications Corporation [1992] AATA 252.

[2] See Re Murtagh and Commissioner of Taxation [1984] AATA 249 and Re Jones and Commissioner of Taxation [2008] AATA 834

[3] See Re Corkin and Department of Immigration & Ethnic Affairs [1984] AATA 448.

[4] See http://www.directory.tas.gov.au/cgi/access.pl

[5] See Re Australia First Party (NSW) Inc. and Department of Commerce [2010] WAICmr 32.

[6] T v Department of Health 12 March 2024 [Ombudsman Tasmania R2311-023], [28].

[7] Harris v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1983) 5 ALD 54S

[8] T v Department of Health 12 March 2024 [Ombudsman Tasmania R2311-023], [28].

[9] Akers v Victoria Police (No 1) [2003] VCAT 397; Koch v Swinburne University [2004] VCAT 1513 at [28].

See the full Right to Information Disclosure Log