Aguirre and Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs - [2002] AATA 481

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2002] AATA 481

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No N2001/1163

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION       )
           Re      ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ AGUIRRE
  Applicant
           And    DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
  Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr M J Sassella Senior Member

Date20 June 2002
PlaceSydney

Decision      1. The tribunal extends the time within which the applicant could lodge an application for review to 8 August 2001. 2. The tribunal consents to the respondent making the alteration to the reviewable decision which resulted in the provision of copies of folios 61 and 77 to the applicant. 3. The tribunal affirms the decision under review in relation to folios 79 and 83. 4. The tribunal varies the decision under review in relation to folios 60, 78, 80 and 81 and decides that these documents are partially exempt rather than completely exempt. 5. The tribunal decides that edited copies of folios 60, 78, 80 and 81 are to be provided to the applicant as an attachment to this decision and reasons for decision. 6. The tribunal orders, in accordance with s 35(2)(b) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, that the copy documents referred to in paragraph 5 of this decision are not to be published or made available to any person other than officers of the tribunal in the course of performing their tribunal duties, staff in the offices of the respondent and the respondent's solicitors in the course of performing their duties in relation to the applicant, and the applicant and any person he elects to have see the documents.
   [SGD] M J SASSELLA
  Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION – request for copies of file notes and letters of denunciation of applicant – disclosure of document would involve unreasonable disclosure of personal information about another person – disclosure of document would or could reasonably disclose identity of confidential source of information in relation to administration of law – edited copies of some documents provided.
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL – extension of time for lodgement of application for review – consent to alteration of decision under review.

Freedom of Information Act 1982 ss 4(1) ("document", "edited copy", "exempt document", "personal information", "request"), 14, 15, 18, 22, 27A, 37(1)(b), 41(1), 54(1)(a), (b), (1A), 55(1)(a), (4)(a), 58(1), 61(1), 64(1), (2).

REASONS FOR DECISION

20 June 2002 Mr M J Sassella Senior Member

HISTORY OF APPLICATION

On 8 February 2001 a partner in Gadens Lawyers, a law firm acting for Mr Roberto Rodriguez Aguirre ("the applicant"), wrote (T12) to the manager of the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Section of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs ("the respondent") ("the department") seeking access to the applicant's file in relation to an appeal to the Migration Review Tribunal ("the MRT"). Attached was a departmental form of FOI request, form 424. This was received by the respondent on 12 February 2001 (T13).
On 8 March 2001 an officer in the respondent agency wrote (T16) stating that the relevant file bore a certain number and contained 119 folios. Exemptions were claimed as follows:

Completely exempt under s 41(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 ("the Act"): folios 5-8, 16-18, 20-27, 62 and 100-101 (that is 18 folios in total).
Completely exempt under s 37(1)(b) of the Act: folios 60-61 and 77-81 (that is seven folios in total).

On 13 March 2001, Ms J Harrhy, a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs within the respondent department, issued a certificate under s 375A of the Migration Act 1958 ("the Migration Act") (T17) limiting disclosure of material in the applicant's files to the MRT, as follows:
"…
I certify that the disclosure, otherwise than to the Migration Review Tribunal, of any matter or information contained in Folios 60 to 61 and 77 to 81 (inclusive) of Departmental file N98/118960 would be contrary to the public interest.
The information contained in these folios was provided in confidence and the provider has not consented to the disclosure of the information to the applicant.
The document or information referred to in the paragraphs above must only be disclosed to the Migration Review Tribunal.
…"
On 19 March 2001 Gadens wrote (T20) commenting on the resort to ss 37 and 41 in the decision letter (T16).

As regards s 41 of the Act, this exempts a document from disclosure if its disclosure would involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about any person. To the extent that any material might be disclosed in the exempt documents about Ms A S Suarez, the applicant's wife, Ms Suarez had authorised the release of any personal information about herself. Such material should therefore be released. If that material related to third parties, Gadens asked that the respondent "clarify on what basis the third party documents were included on this file".
As regards s 37(1)(b) of the Act, this exempts a document from disclosure if its disclosure would, or could reasonably be expected to 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. Gadens wrote in relation to these documents:
"…our client is gravely concerned by the unsubstantiated allegations made against him as summarised in the Decision Record dated 30 January 2001. These allegations, not only impune [sic] our client's integrity, but further cast dispersions [sic] on his wife and the bona fides of their marriage. Based on these allegations, the decision-maker determined that the marriage was not a genuine one to the exclusion of all others. …
"…if our client is to properly answer those allegations, he should be accorded natural justice and be given adequate information to enable him to properly refute the allegations".

On 12 April 2001 the respondent acknowledged receipt of the request for a review of the decision and the review fee (T21).
On 23 April 2001, Mr P Lovell, executive officer of the respondent's Public Access Unit, decided (T22) as follows:
"… to release folio 18 and part of folio 61 but I have decided to maintain the decision to exempt folios 60, part of 61, and 77-81. I have also decided to maintain the decision to exempt part of folio 83. …"
Mr Lovell gave as reasons for his decision:
"…
11. Following the further release of documents by Mr Marston on 16 March 2001, only folio 18 remains exempted under section 41(1) and part of folio 83. Folio 18 is the death certificate of Ms Alba Sonia Suarez's former husband which I have decided to release. Folio 83 is a file search of records in the name of Roberto Rodriguez. The entry showing the match with your client has already been released but the folio also records all other persons with the name Roberto Rodriguez who have different dates of birth and nationalities. I agree with [the primary decision] that the identities of these persons should be exempted under section 41(1).
12. I have examined folios 60-61 and 77-81 and have decided to maintain the exemption from release of these folios except for folio 61 which is released in part. The reason for my decision is to support the right of persons to provide information to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs in confidence. While I appreciate your view in your letter of 19 March 2001 that your client should be appraised [sic] as to the basis of allegations against him, I am satisfied that the substance of the allegations was put to him for comment by the case officer (folios 104-105 previously released …) before the application was decided.
…"
Copies of folios 5-8, 16-18, 20-27, 62 and 100-101 appear to have been released to the applicant and it is unclear when this occurred and on what basis. The matter was not raised during the hearing so the tribunal can say no more on the issue.
On 18 June 2001 Gadens wrote asking Mr Lovell to further review his decision (ex TD2/160). Mr Lovell responded (ex TD2/160) on 22 June 2001 directing Gadens towards the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the tribunal") should they wish to take the matter further.
On 8 August 2001, Gadens, on behalf of Mr Rodriguez Aguirre filed with the tribunal an application for review (ex TD2/157-158). That application stated that the reviewable decision (presumably Mr Lovell's letter in paragraph 8 above) was made on 22 June 2001 and was received on 28 June 2001. The applicant said in his reasons for his application that he did not believe he had been given all the information to which he was entitled under the Act concerning allegations that were made against him. This would severely jeopardise his chances to lodge subsequent applications with the MRT.
RELEVANT LEGISLATION
The following provisions from the Act are relevant: ss 4(1) ("document", "edited copy", "exempt document", "personal information", "request"), 14, 15, 18, 22, 27A, 37(1)(b), 41(1), 54(1)(a), (b), (1A), 55(1)(a), (4)(a), 58(1), 61(1), 64(1), (2).
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
Interpretation
4. (1) In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears:
…
"document" includes:
(a) any of, or any part of any of, the following things:
(i) any paper or other material on which there is writing;
(ii) a map, plan, drawing or photograph;
(iii) any paper or other material on which there are marks, figures, symbols or perforations having a meaning for persons qualified to interpret them;
(iv) any article or material from which sounds, images or writings are capable of being reproduced with or without the aid of any other article or device;
(v) any article on which information has been stored or recorded, either mechanically or electronically;
(vi) any other record of information; or
(b) any copy, reproduction or duplicate of such a thing; or
(c) any part of such a copy, reproduction or duplicate;
but does not include:
(d) library material maintained for reference purposes; or
(e) Cabinet notebooks;
…
"edited copy", in relation to a document, means a copy of the document from which deletions have been made under section 22;
…
"exempt document" means:
(a) a document which, by virtue of a provision of Part IV, is an exempt document;
(b) a document in respect of which, by virtue of section 7, an agency is exempt from the operation of this Act; or
(c) an official document of a Minister that contains some matter that does not relate to the affairs of an agency or of a Department of State;
…
"personal information" means information or an opinion (including information forming part of a database), whether true or not, and whether recorded in a material form or not, about an individual whose identity is apparent, or can reasonably be ascertained, from the information or opinion;
…
"request" means an application made in accordance with subsection 15 (1);
…
Access to documents apart from Act
14. Nothing in this Act is intended to prevent or discourage Ministers and agencies from publishing or giving access to documents (including exempt documents), otherwise than as required by this Act, where they can properly do so or are required by law to do so.
Requests for access
15. (1) Subject to section 15A, a person who wishes to obtain access to a document of an agency or an official document of a Minister may request access to the document.
(2) The request must:
(a) be in writing; and
(b) provide such information concerning the document as is reasonably necessary to enable a responsible officer of the agency, or the Minister, to identify it; and
(c) specify an address in Australia at which notices under this Act may be sent to the applicant; and
(d) be sent by post to the agency or Minister, or delivered to an officer of the agency or a member of the staff of the Minister, at the address of any central or regional office of the agency or Minister specified in a current telephone directory; and
(e) be accompanied by the fee payable under the regulations in respect of the request.
(3) Where a person:
(a) wishes to make a request to an agency; or
(b) has made to an agency a request that does not comply with this section;
it is the duty of the agency to take reasonable steps to assist the person to make the request in a manner that complies with this section.
(4) Where a person has directed to an agency a request that should have been directed to another agency or to a Minister, it is the duty of the first-mentioned agency to take reasonable steps to assist the person to direct the request to the appropriate agency or Minister.
(5) On receiving a request, the agency or Minister must:
(a) as soon as practicable but in any case not later than 14 days after the day on which the request is received by or on behalf of the agency or Minister, take all reasonable steps to enable the applicant to be notified that the request has been received; and
(b) as soon as practicable but in any case not later than the end of the period of 30 days after the day on which the request is received by or on behalf of the agency or Minister, take all reasonable steps to enable the applicant to be notified of a decision on the request (including a decision under section 21 to defer the provision of access to a document).
(6) Where, in relation to a request, the agency or Minister determines in writing that the requirements of section 26A, 27 or 27A make it appropriate to extend the period referred to in paragraph (5) (b):
(a) the period is to be taken to be extended by a further period of 30 days; and
(b) the agency or Minister must, as soon as practicable, inform the applicant that the period has been so extended.
…
Access to documents to be given on request
18. (1) Subject to this Act, where:
(a) a request is made in accordance with the requirements of subsection 15(2) by a person to an agency or Minister for access to a document of the agency or an official document of the Minister; and
(b) any charge that, under the regulations, is required to be paid before access is granted has been paid;
the person shall be given access to the document in accordance with this Act.
(2) An agency or Minister is not required by this Act to give access to a document at a time when the document is an exempt document.
…
Deletion of exempt matter or irrelevant material
22. (1) Where: (a) an agency or Minister decides:
(i) not to grant a request for access to a document on the ground that it is an exempt document; or
(ii) that to grant a request for access to a document would disclose information that would reasonably be regarded as irrelevant to that request; and
(b) it is possible for the agency or Minister to make a copy of the document with such deletions that the copy:
(i) would not be an exempt document; and
(ii) would not disclose such information; and
(c) it is reasonably practicable for the agency or Minister, having regard to the nature and extent of the work involved in deciding on and making those deletions and the resources available for that work, to make such a copy;
the agency or Minister shall, unless it is apparent from the request or as a result of consultation by the agency or Minister with the applicant, that the applicant would not wish to have access to such a copy, make, and grant access to, such a copy.
(2) Where access is granted to a copy of a document in accordance with subsection (1):
(a) the applicant must be informed:
(i) that it is such a copy; and
(ii) of the ground for the deletions; and
(iii) if any matter deleted is exempt matter because of a provision of this Act - that the matter deleted is exempt matter because of that provision; and
(b) section 26 does not apply to the decision that the applicant is not entitled to access to the whole of the document unless the applicant requests the agency or Minister to furnish to him or her a notice in writing in accordance with that section.
…
Procedure on request in respect of documents containing personal information
27A. (1AA) This section applies if:
(a) a request is received by an agency or Minister in respect of a document containing personal information about a person (including a person who has died); and
(b) it appears to:
(i) the officer or Minister dealing with the request; or
(ii) a person (the "reviewer") reviewing under section 54 a decision refusing the request;
that the person referred to in paragraph (a) or, if that person has died, the legal personal representative of that person, might reasonably wish to contend that the document, so far as it contains that information, is an exempt document under section 41.
(1) A decision to grant access under this Act to the document or an edited copy of the document, so far as it contains that information, must not be made unless, where it is reasonably practicable to do so having regard to all the circumstances (including the application of subsections 15 (5) and (6)):
(a) the agency or Minister has given to the person or the legal personal representative of the person, as the case may be, a reasonable opportunity of making submissions in support of a contention that the document or edited copy, so far as it contains that information, is an exempt document under section 41; and
(b) the person making the decision has had regard to any submissions so made.
(1A) In determining, for the purposes of subsection (1AA), whether a person might reasonably wish to contend that a document, so far as it contains personal information, is an exempt document under section 41, the officer, Minister or reviewer, as the case requires, must have regard to the following matters:
(a) the extent to which the personal information is well known;
(b) whether the person to whom the personal information relates is known to be associated with the matters dealt with in the document;
(c) the availability of the personal information from publicly accessible sources;
(d) such other matters as the officer, Minister or reviewer, as the case requires, considers relevant.
(2) Where, after any submissions have been made in accordance with subsection (1), a decision is made that the document or edited copy, so far as it contains the information referred to in paragraph (1) (a), is not an exempt document under section 41:
(a) the agency or Minister shall cause notice in writing of the decision to be given to the person who made the submissions, as well as to the person who made the request; and
(b) access shall not be given to the document or edited copy, so far as it contains the information referred to in paragraph (1) (a), unless:
(i) the time for an application to the Tribunal in accordance with section 59A by the person who made the submissions has expired and such an application (other than an application that has subsequently been withdrawn) has not been made; or
(ia) such an application has been made but the Tribunal has dismissed the application under section 42A of the Administrative Appeals
Tribunal Act 1975; or
(ii) such an application has been made and the Tribunal has confirmed the decision.
(3) Nothing in paragraph (2) (b) prevents access being given to a document of a kind referred to in that paragraph if a further request has been made for access to the document and there is no failure to comply with this section in dealing with the further request.
…
Documents affecting enforcement of law and protection of public safety
37. (1) A document is an exempt document if its disclosure under this Act would, or could reasonably be expected to:
(a) prejudice the conduct of an investigation of a breach, or possible breach, of the law, or a failure, or possible failure, to comply with a law relating to taxation or prejudice the enforcement or proper administration of the law in a particular instance;
(b) 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; or
…
Documents affecting personal privacy
41. (1) A document is an exempt document if its disclosure under this Act would involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about any person (including a deceased person).
…
Internal review
54. (1) Subject to subsection (1A), where a decision has been made, in relation to a request to an agency, otherwise than by the responsible Minister or principal officer of the agency, being:
(a) a decision refusing to grant access to a document in accordance with a
request; or
(b) a decision granting access to a document but not granting, in accordance
with the request, access to all documents to which the request relates; or
…
(1A) The application must be made:
(a) in the case of a decision of a kind mentioned in paragraphs (1) (a), (c), (d), (e), (g) and (h) - within 30 days, or such further period as the agency allows, after the day on which the decision is notified to the applicant; or
(b) in the case of a decision of a kind mentioned in paragraph (1) (b), (ba) or (f):
(i) within 30 days, or such further period as the agency allows, after the day on which the decision is notified to the applicant; or
(ii) within 15 days after the day on which the access referred to in that paragraph was granted;
whichever period is longer.
…
Applications to Administrative Appeals Tribunal
55. (1) Subject to this section, an application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of:
(a) a decision refusing to grant access to a document in accordance with a request; or (aa) a decision granting access to a document but not granting, in accordance with a request, access to all documents to which the request relates; or
…
(4) Notwithstanding section 29 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the period within which (subject to any extension granted by the Tribunal) an application under subsection (1) of this section is to be made in respect of a decision is:
(a) except where paragraph (b) or (c) applies - the period commencing on the day on which notice of the decision was given to the applicant in accordance with section 26 and ending on the sixtieth day after that day;
…
Powers of Tribunal
58. (1) Subject to this section, in proceedings under this Part, the Tribunal has power, in addition to any other power, to review any decision that has been made by an agency or Minister in respect of the request and to decide any matter in relation to the request that, under this Act, could have been or could be decided by an agency or Minister, and any decision of the Tribunal under this section has the same effect as a decision of the agency or Minister.
…
Onus
61. (1) Subject to subsection (2), in proceedings under this Part, the agency or Minister to which or to whom the request was made has the onus of establishing that a decision given in respect of the request was justified or that the Tribunal should give a decision adverse to the applicant.
…
Production of exempt documents
64. (1) Where there are proceedings before the Tribunal under this Act in relation to a document that is claimed to be an exempt document, section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 does not apply in relation to the document but the Tribunal, for the purpose of deciding whether the document is an exempt document, may require the document to be produced for inspection by members of the Tribunal only and if, upon the inspection, the Tribunal is satisfied that the document is an exempt document, the Tribunal shall return the document to the person by whom it was produced without permitting any person other than a member of the Tribunal as constituted for the purposes of the proceeding, or a member of the staff of the Tribunal in the course of the performance of his or her duties as a member of that staff, to have access to the document or disclosing the contents of the document to any such person.
(2) The Tribunal may require the production, for inspection by members of the Tribunal only, of an exempt document for the purpose of determining whether it is practicable for an agency or a Minister to grant access to a copy of the document with such deletions as to make the copy not an exempt document and, where an exempt document is produced by reason of such a requirement, the Tribunal shall, after inspection of the document by the members of the Tribunal as constituted for the purposes of the proceeding, return the document to the person by whom it was produced without permitting any person other than such a member of the Tribunal, or a member of the staff of the Tribunal in the course of the performance of his or her duties as a member of that staff, to have access to the document or disclosing the contents of the document to any such person.
…

HEARING AND APPEARANCES

The tribunal convened a hearing in this matter in Sydney on 1 March 2002. Mr Rodriguez Aguirre represented himself. Ms S Hanstein, solicitor, represented the respondent. The applicant was very ably assisted by Spanish interpreter, Mr V J Stevenson.
The tribunal had access to the following documentary material which was taken into evidence and marked with the following exhibit numbers:

Exhibit TD1 – Section 37 Statement and associated documents (T1 – T22) provided by the respondent on 10 September 2001.
Exhibit TD2 – Supplementary Section 37 documents (pages 156-160) provided by the respondent on 28 February 2002.
Exhibit A1 – Applicant's statement of facts and contentions dated 19 November 2001.
Exhibit R1 – Respondents statement of facts and contentions dated 14 December 2001.
Exhibit R2 – Schedule of exempt documents provided on 25 February 2002.
Exhibit R3 – Affidavit of Mr P J Lovell dated 28 February 2002.
Exhibit R4 – Copies of exempt documents.

At the hearing, on a basis that will become clear later in these reasons, Ms Hanstein undertook to provide "edited copies" (in the sense used in the Act) of certain of the exempt documents so that they could be given to Mr Rodriguez Aguirre. These were received by the tribunal on 19 March 2002 and are ex AH1.
The respondent, when providing the edited copies, requested that consideration be given to the making of several additional deletions. The tribunal resumed the hearing on 19 June 2002 to discuss this request with the applicant. He was again assisted by interpreter Mr Stevenson. Ms S Goodman, solicitor represented the respondent.
FINDINGS ON MATERIAL QUESTIONS OF FACT WITH REFERENCE TO THE EVIDENCE AND OTHER MATERIALS IN SUPPORT OF THOSE FINDINGS
The tribunal finds that on 8 February 2001 the applicant made a valid FOI request under s 15(2) of the Act (T12).
The tribunal finds that the respondent on 8 March 2001 made a decision within 30 days, as required in s 15(5)(b) of the Act (T16).
The tribunal finds that, within the terms of the respondent's decision, the applicant was accorded access in accordance with s 18 of the Act to documents other than those considered exempt (T16).
The tribunal finds that the respondent conducted an internal review under s 54 of the Act which resulted in a reviewable decision on 23 April 2001 (T22).
The tribunal finds that the applicant filed with the tribunal an application for review under s 55 of the Act on 8 August 2001 (ex TD2/157-158). This application was not filed within the 60 days of the giving of notice to the applicant of the making of the reviewable decision, the time frame permitted in s 55(4) of the Act. However, as a component of the decision to be made by the tribunal in this matter an extension of time will be granted in accordance with s 29(7) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 ('the AAT Act").
The tribunal has only to find whether the respondent's decision to claim exemptions in respect of certain documents was the correct or preferable decision.
Ms Hanstein informed the tribunal that the respondent had decided to release two additional documents to Mr Rodriguez Aguirre. This decision had been reflected in ex R2. Folios 61 and 77 were the folios in question. The tribunal notes that s 26 of the AAT Act restricts the respondent in this respect. However, the tribunal is prepared to consent to the respondent making the alteration to the reviewable decision in accordance with s 26(1)(b) of the AAT Act. This is on the basis that the respondent clearly consents to the alteration and it can be assumed that the applicant consents to an alteration that goes some way towards giving him what he has requested in his application for review.
Mr Lovell was called to give evidence as the maker of the reviewable decision. He had sworn an affidavit (ex R3). His main points were:

Folio 60 is a report by a departmental officer of statements made in a telephone conversation about Mr Rodriguez Aguirre and bears the words "received in confidence". The informant was said to be "concerned for confidentiality". Such information was described as of assistance to the respondent in administering the Migration Act and can be relevant to whether a visa applicant meets relevant criteria or whether an offence has been committed under the Migration Act. If the identity of such informants were not protected, they would be deterred from giving information of this nature and the department would lose a resource in administering the Migration Act. Disclosure of the contents of the document would be reasonably expected to disclose the source of the information as knowledge of the details would indicate the source.
Folio 78 is a letter containing information about the applicant. It states that the information "should be treated with the utmost confidence". Such letters are said to be useful to the respondent for the same reasons and to raise similar issues as the telephone advice in folio 60.
Folios 79-81 are a letter similar in type to the letter in folio 78. Folio 79 is the envelope which bears a handwritten address which may disclose the identity of the writer of the envelope and the letter.
Folio 83 is a printout from the respondent's computer system. It lists all persons named Roberto Rodriguez who are known to the department. The part relating to the applicant was released to him. The remainder of the names and associated details were deleted because "[d]isclosure of the parts of the document that relate to other persons would be unreasonable as it would divulge personal information about persons not related to [the applicant's] application, and which those persons would expect would not be disclosed in these circumstances".

Mr Lovell had nothing to add to the above in examination in chief. He was cross-examined by Mr Rodriguez Aguirre. He asked Mr Lovell why the department acts on denunciations such as those in folios 60 and 78-81. Mr Lovell, who explained that this area of departmental activity is not really part of his responsibilities, answered that the department is obliged to act on any information received. The information may be incorrect so the substance of such information is put to a visa applicant who can respond, correcting the record if it is wrong.
Mr Rodriguez Aguirre was concerned that it had been alleged that he had made payments to Ms Suarez whom he then married. He said that he did not buy a car for her as alleged. He had no money with which to do that. He had also not brought a partner out from South America to Sydney.
Mr Rodriguez Aguirre wanted the names of the department's informants so that he could ensure that justice was done and that appropriate investigations were completed.
The tribunal decided to discuss with Mr Lovell and Ms Hanstein the potential for provision of some or all of folios 60 and 78-81 to Mr Rodriguez Aguirre with appropriate deletions. The tribunal view was that Mr Rodriguez Aguirre may be better satisfied if he could see at least a part of the relevant documents rather than take on trust that the allegations against him had been accurately represented in the versions given to him by the department. Mr Rodriguez Aguirre and Mr Stevenson absented themselves while this phase of the hearing took place.
Agreement was reached as to the edited copies that should be provided to Mr Rodriguez Aguirre. Ms Hanstein undertook to prepare and supply the edited copies. This process means that the tribunal made the following findings:

aThe respondent's decision to provide an edited copy of folio 83 was the correct or preferable decision. Folio 83 is the document containing the list of nine persons on the department's files named Roberto Rodriguez. Disclosure of the list to the applicant in an unedited form would provide him with the names and other details (such as departmental file numbers) of other persons when disclosure of such personal information would be an unreasonable disclosure about those persons.
bThe respondent's decision not to provide any part of folio 60 was made for a valid reason, even if, in the tribunal's view, the preferable decision was to provide an edited copy of folio 60. The tribunal agrees with the respondent that providing access to an unedited copy of that folio would, or could reasonably be expected to disclose, or enable Mr Rodriguez Aguirre to ascertain, the identity of a confidential source of information in relation to the administration of the law.
cThe respondent's decision not to provide any part of folio 78 was made for a valid reason, even if, in the tribunal's view, the preferable decision was to provide an edited copy of folio 78. The tribunal agrees with the respondent that providing access to an unedited copy of that folio would, or could reasonably be expected to disclose, or enable Mr Rodriguez Aguirre to ascertain, the identity of a confidential source of information in relation to the administration of the law.
dThe tribunal considers that the handwritten envelope, folio 79, should not be released. The department's decision in that respect is therefore affirmed by the tribunal. Providing access to that folio would, or could reasonably be expected to disclose, or enable Mr Rodriguez Aguirre to ascertain, the identity of a confidential source of information in relation to the administration of the law. Consideration was given to providing an edited copy but the tribunal view was that it would achieve no more than provide Mr Rodriguez Aguirre with a document containing the respondent's postal address and the postmark.
eThe respondent's decision not to provide any part of folios 80-81 was made for a valid reason, even if, in the tribunal's view, the preferable decision was to provide an edited copy of folios 80-81. The tribunal agrees with the respondent that providing access to an unedited copy of those folios would, or could reasonably be expected to disclose, or enable Mr Rodriguez Aguirre to ascertain, the identity of a confidential source of information in relation to the administration of the law.

Messrs Rodriguez Aguirre and Stevenson were invited to rejoin the hearing and the above approach was explained to them.
The tribunal has decided to grant Mr Rodriguez Aguirre the necessary extension of time for the lodging of his application for review. Section 29(7) of the AAT Act gives the tribunal an unfettered discretion to grant such extensions if it wishes to do so. In the present case it was Mr Lovell who referred Mr Rodriguez Aguirre to the tribunal. The respondent and its representatives at no time raised any objection to the tribunal entertaining the application for review. The tribunal takes this to mean that the respondent has no objection to the grant of an extension of time.
CONCLUSION
The tribunal agrees with the respondent as regards the grounds of exemption it has claimed in relation to the various documents. However, in the interests of doing as much as possible to provide the applicant with lawful access to the documents he has requested, the tribunal has decided to provide access to edited copies of three of the six folios in question. In one case (folio 83) the editing has been done to protect personal information about other persons which is information that the applicant has no need to know nor any legitimate interest in knowing. In another case (folio 79) the document is suppressed to protect the identity of an informant. The content of the writing on that document, an envelope, is no more than the postmark and address of the respondent. The other documents have been provided in edited form to protect confidential sources of information for reasons of the administration of legislation explained earlier in these reasons (paragraph 34 b, c and e above) while providing the applicant with as much information as possible from the documents.
The conclusion is conscious that its decisions are distributed widely and are available on the Internet. In the view of the tribunal there is nothing to be achieved by making the edited documents an attachment to the decision for the purposes of its publication. The contents of those documents traverse matters extremely personal to Mr Rodriguez-Aguirre. The tribunal will therefore issue a confidentiality order in accordance with s 35 of the AAT Act as a part of its decision in this matter.
DECISION
The tribunal extends the time within which the applicant could lodge an application for review to 8 August 2001.
The tribunal consents to the respondent making the alteration to the reviewable decision which resulted in the provision of copies of folios 61 and 77 to the applicant.
The tribunal affirms the decision under review in relation to folios 79 and 83.
The tribunal varies the decision under review in relation to folios 60, 78, 80 and 81 and decides that these documents are partially exempt rather than completely exempt.
The tribunal decides that edited copies of folios 60, 78, 80 and 81 are to be provided to the applicant as an attachment to this decision and reasons for decision.
The tribunal orders, in accordance with s 35(2)(b) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, that the copy documents referred to in paragraph 5 of this decision are not to be published or made available to any person other than officers of the tribunal in the course of performing their tribunal duties, staff in the offices of the respondent and the respondent's solicitors in the course of performing their duties in relation to the applicant, and the applicant and any person he elects to have see the documents.
I certify that the 44 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr M J Sassella
Senior Member
Signed:         .....................................................................................
  Associate
Dates of Hearing  1 March and 19 June 2002
Date of Decision  20 June 2002
Advocate for the Applicant      Self
Solicitor for the Applicant         N/a
Advocate for the Respondent Ms S Hanstein, solicitor (1 March); Ms S Goodman (19 June)
Solicitor for the Respondent    Blake Dawson Waldron, Lawyers

Actions

Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Citations

Aguirre and Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] AATA 481

Most Recent Citation

Radar Investments Pty Ltd and Ors and Health Insurance Commission [2004] AATA 166

Cases Citing This Decision

1

Radar Investments Pty Ltd and Ors and Health Insurance Commission [2004] AATA 166

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0