Animals Australia Inc and Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
[2008] AATA 1122
•17 December 2008
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2008] AATA 1122
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2008/2159
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re ANIMALS AUSTRALIA INC Applicant
And
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES & FORESTRY
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal The Hon R J Groom (Deputy President) Date17 December 2008
PlaceHobart
Decision The decision under review is varied. Access is granted to the relevant documents but with deletions as specified in the reasons for decision.
[Sgd The Hon R J Groom]
Deputy President
CATCHWORDS
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION - Department grants access to documents but with deletions - whether unreasonable adverse effect on business or commercial affairs - whether prejudice to future supply of information to agency - decision varied
Freedom of Information Act 1982, ss 43(1)(c)(i), 43(1)(c)(ii), 61
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, ss35(2)(c), 37
Searle Australia Pty Ltd v Public Interest Advocacy Centre and Another (1992) 108 ALR 163
Colakovski v Australian Telecommunications Corporation (1991) 100 ALR 111
REASONS FOR DECISION
17 December 2008 The Hon R J Groom (Deputy President) Introduction:
1. Animals Australia Inc, an animal welfare organisation, sought access under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 ("the Act") to documents relating to a January 2006 shipment of goats from Geraldton to Malaysia.
2. An officer of the Department decided that some information in the documents should be deleted because that information was exempt under the Act. Edited versions of the documents were provided but with a significant number of deletions.
3. Following a request from the applicant an internal review was conducted into the decision. Although some further information was released a large number of deletions remained.
4. Animals Australia Inc now seeks a review of the decision to delete that information from the documents provided.
Background:
5. Ms Glenys Oogjes, the Executive Director of Animals Australia Inc, became aware of the relevant shipment of live goats when she read a report to Parliament on "Livestock Mortalities for Export by Sea".
6. Ms Oogjes then sought access, pursuant to the Act, to an Investigation Report into that particular shipment of goats. That report was provided. There was a reference in the report to several documents which had been considered in carrying out the investigation. Animals Australia Inc then decided to seek access to those documents.
7. The Freedom of Information request was dated 26 October 2007. It sought access to documents relating to two separate shipments of live animals, however it is agreed by the parties that this application is confined to information about the January 2006 shipment of goats from Geraldton to Malaysia.
8. On 25 January 2008 the National Manager of the relevant branch of the Australian Quarantine and Inspections Services ("AQIS") wrote to Animals Australia Inc advising that a decision had been made about access to the documents sought but adding that they could not be released until the third party consultation process required by section 27 of the Act had been completed.
9. Following the conclusion of the section 27 consultation process the applicant was granted access to the edited copies of the documents.
10. The relevant documents are as follows:
(a) End of Voyage Report (6 pages) dated 20 January 2006
(b) Email from exporter dated 7 February 2006
(c) Masters Report of Carriage of Livestock dated 16 January 2006
(d) Correspondence from master of ship (undated)
(e) Nine daily voyage reports, dated 5 January 2006 to 13 January 2006
(f) Email from AQIS veterinary officer dated 12 January 2006
(g) Audit report lead sheets (3 pages) dated 23 February 2006
(h) Two permits to export animals dated 4 January 2006
(i) Comments on possible causes of mortalities (undated)
(j) Daily sickness/mortality report (undated)
(k) Observations on the mortalities dated 30 January 2006
11. Animals Australia Inc then sought an internal review of the decision to delete information from the documents. The internal review was conducted by Mr Robert Murphy, General Manager of the Fisheries and Forestry Division of the Department of Agricultural Fisheries and Forestry. Mr Murphy is an authorised officer for the purposes of section 54 of the Act.
12. In his decision dated 15 May 2008, Mr Murphy affirmed the decision to delete some of the information but also agreed that other information, which had previously been deleted, could be released.
13. By an application also dated 15 May 2008, Animals Australia Inc sought a review of Mr Murphy's decision. It stated in that application that:
"The decision to make deletions in documents released to Animals Australia should not have been made ...".
14. In his internal review decision of 15 May 2008, Mr Murphy cites four separate reasons for his decision to delete particular information from the released documents. Those reasons are as follows:
(a) Some of the deleted information is exempt under section 43(1)(c)(i) in that it is information "that would or could reasonably be expected to adversely affect the business affairs of an organisation".
(b) Also that some of the deleted information is exempt under section 43(1)(c)(ii) in that it is information "... the disclosure of which ... would or could reasonably be expected to prejudice the future supply of information to the department ...".
(c) Further that other parts of the deleted information are exempt under section 41(1) in that its disclosure "... would involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about any person ...".
(d) Mr Murphy further stated that some of the deleted information was irrelevant or "beyond scope" in that it did not relate to the January 2006 shipment of live goats from Geraldton to Malaysia but to other species of livestock transported on the same ship or to another unrelated voyage.
The Issues:
15. The principal issue to be determined by this Tribunal is whether the deleted information is exempt under the Act or need not be provided as it is irrelevant to, or beyond the scope, of the FOI request.
16. At the hearing Dr Caulfied helpfully confined the issues in contention by indicating that deleted information relating to the identification of individuals, the ship, companies or businesses was "not of any interest ..." to the applicant and was not sought. He indicated to the Tribunal that if the applicant wished to seek any identifying information it would make a further application under the Act. (Transcript pages 11 and 12).
17. In addition Dr Caulfied quite properly conceded that Animals Australia Inc, in this application, was only interested in information relating specifically to goats being shipped on the relevant voyage and to "no other species". (Transcript page 76).
18. The Tribunal notes in passing that the name of the exporter was already available to the applicant. It is mentioned in "Annexure 1" of the Proof of Evidence of Ms Oogjes (Exhibit A1).
19. The Tribunal calculates the total number of deletions in the documents to be approximately 685. Of that total some 156 deletions relate to identification and 138 to species other than goats. As the applicant is now not pressing for information relating to identification of individuals, companies or businesses or to other species of livestock the number of deletions remaining in contention is substantially reduced.
The Evidence:
20. The Tribunal received into evidence the "T Documents" produced pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 together with a number of other documentary exhibits. Mr Robert Murphy gave oral evidence and his affidavit of 22 October 2008 became part of the material before the Tribunal. (Exhibit R3).
21. In addition an unedited version of the relevant documents (R2) were received into evidence. Also an unedited version of Annexure C to the affidavit of Mr Murphy became part of the material before the Tribunal. Because of their confidential nature those documents were made subject to a Confidentiality Order under section 35(2)(c) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.
Consideration of the Issues:
22. Section 22 of the Act obliges a department, in certain circumstances, to create an edited version of a document with any exempt information deleted. Section 22(1) of the Act provides as follows:
"(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".
23. In the present case the Department determined that it should provide edited versions of the documents. This occurred even though it would have taken a considerable amount of time and effort to consider each deletion and then produce the edited copies of the documents.
24. The Tribunal notes that through the FOI process initiated by the applicant, and with the cooperation of the Department, a substantial amount of information about the particular shipment of goats has already been made available to the applicant. Although there are many deletions in the relevant documents a great deal of information remains accessible. In addition the "Investigation Report" annexed to Ms Oogjes proof of evidence (Exhibit A1) was provided to the applicant. Although there are a number of deletions in that report it also provides a substantial amount of information about the January 2006 shipments of goats.
25. As the deletions relating to identification and relevance or scope are no longer in issue the Tribunal must now consider whether the remaining deletions are of exempt information. The respondent contends that the remaining deletions are exempt under either section 43(1)(c)(i) or section 43(1)(c)(ii) of the Act.
26. Section 43(1)(c)(i) relevantly provides as follows:
"43(1) A document is an exempt document if its disclosure under this Act would disclose:
(a) ...
(b) ...
(c) information (other than trade secrets or information to which paragraph (b) applies) concerning a person in respect of his or her business or professional affairs or concerning the business, commercial or financial affairs of an organization or undertaking, being information:
(i) the disclosure of which would, or could reasonably be expected to, unreasonably affect that person adversely in respect of his or her lawful business or professional affairs or that organization or undertaking in respect of its lawful business, commercial or financial affairs ..."
27. It has been held that the word "unreasonably" in (i) above requires a consideration of any relevant "public interest". In Searle Australia v PIAC (1992) 108 ALR 163, the Full Federal Court said at 178:
"However, the word 'unreasonably' should be given its ordinary meaning. Section 43(1)(c)(i) poses the issue whether disclosure of the information would unreasonably affect a person adversely. The issue is not whether "the effect is of substance rather than incidental or trivial", as stated by the Tribunal in para 67.
If it be in the public interest that certain information be disclosed, that would be a factor to be taken into account in deciding whether a person would be unreasonably affected by the disclosure; the effect, though great, may be reasonable under the circumstances. To give two examples: if the relevant information showed that a business practice or product posed a threat to public safety or involved serious criminality, a judgement might be made that it was not unreasonable to inflict that result though the effect on the person concerned would be serious. Of course, the extent and nature of the effect will always be relevant, often decisive. Whether the effect of the disclosure is unreasonable cannot be assessed without taking into account all relevant factors".
28. Also Heerey J said in Colakovski v Australian Telecommunications Corporation (1991) 100 ALR 111 at 123:
"Turning to the criterion of unreasonableness prescribed by the s41(1) exclusion, it seems to me that attention is directed, amongst other things, to whether or not the proposed disclosure would serve the public interest purpose of the legislation, which is to open to public access information about government which about government holds, this being information which in truth is held on behalf of the public. I do not think it is necessary in order to make out the s41(1) exclusion that there is some particular unfairness, embarrassment or hardship which would enure to a person by reason of the disclosure. Such matters, if present, would doubtless weigh in favour of exclusion. But if the information disclosed were of no demonstrable relevance to the affairs of government and was likely to do no more than excite or satisfy the curiosity of people about the person whose personal affairs were disclosed, I think disclosure would be unreasonable".
29. Both private and public interests are therefore required to be considered when deciding whether information concerning the business, commercial or financial affairs of an organisation should be disclosed.
30. Mr Murphy said in his affidavit dated 22 October 2008 as follows:
"I considered that the release of information in respect of the name of the organisation preparing the report, the name of the vessel chartered by the exporter to move the shipment of goats, the name of the exporter, details of the stowage plan for the goats on the vessel, details of the type and number of decks of the vessel, information in relation to the supply of the livestock (including information such as the location and supplier from which the goats were sourced), details of the type, quantity and source of the feed carried on the vessel and records of communications between those involved in the voyage, would allow the exporter to be identified and to provide key information as to how it conducts its business. In my opinion this is information which could be used by competitors of the exporter to gain a competitive advantage in a small but competitive industry.
Accordingly, if this information were to be disclosed, it could reasonably be expected to compromise the commercial position of the exporter and it could reasonably be accepted that competitors (or other third parties) could interfere with the lawful daily business of the exporter. I considered that this would constitute an unreasonable adverse effect on the business, commercial or financial affairs of the third party and that this information should be exempt under section 43(1)(c)(i) of the FOI Act".
31. In oral evidence Mr Murphy stated:
"... how they managed the assignment, that is gained with many years of experience, and someone new to the industry would find that very interesting and, in my view, of commercial value. And it's this sort of material about how you manage feeds, loading, managing the consignment on board, is all important experience and therefore has commercial value when you are exporting livestock. That's my view".
(Transcript page 42, 43)
and further
"... as an organisation we are very sensitive about how we manage information, because a lot of what we see and do is of relevance to importers and exporters commercial operations. And it’s given to us in good faith and we put a lot of effort into maintaining, you know, not only what we are required to do, but that relationship with importers and exporters is extraordinarily important, so we can in fact work cooperatively with all the import and export industries we deal with, not only to ensure they comply with the legislation, but to basically ensure we do that in a manner that sees us all benefit"
(Transcript page 50)
Mr Murphy later said in evidence:
"... there’s a whole lot of experience which is brought to bear to effectively manage these consignments, the loading, the unloading, the management of these consignments en route, about feeding regimes, temperature, water, moving the stock around, looking at the sort of numbers that you have in pens. There’s a whole range of experience that stockmen and operators bring to bear, and you know, farmers manage these sort of issues on a daily basis and when you manage them in a confined space on a vessel, sometimes in difficult environmental conditions, it is, it’s really how you run the business".
(Transcript page 50
32. Mr Murphy is a senior departmental officer and not someone directly involved in the business of exporting. There is no direct evidence from any person directly involved in the export of goats indicating the impact that disclosure would have on the business of exporting. Also Mr Murphy's evidence is of a general nature. He does not explain the specific effect the disclosure of particular information would have on the commercial, business or financial affairs of the organisation concerned. It is noted than when the Department consulted with the exporter the concern of the exporter appeared to mainly be confined to issues of identification.
33. "Public interest" is an often used phrase but is one which is most difficult to define. There can be public interest in a range of competing objectives. Upholding the rule of law and achieving justice are two matters in which there is plainly a public interest. This would include upholding the essential intent of the FOI legislation including the exemption provisions of the Act. It is also recognised that there is a public interest in pursuing animal welfare objectives. Indeed there is evidence before the Tribunal of public interest in that issue. But it must be recognised that as well as concern for the public interest the intention of section 43(1)(c)(i) is to provide some degree of protection for private business, commercial and financial interests.
34. The Tribunal has therefore endeavoured to balance all of the varied private and public interests in determining whether deleted information is exempt information under section 43(1)(c)(i) of the Act.
35. After weighing up the competing interests the Tribunal has concluded that some of the deletions are justified in that disclosure of the information would, or could, reasonably be expected to unreasonably affect adversely the organisation in respect of its lawful business, commercial or financial affairs. In respect to those deletions the onus borne by the respondent has been satisfied. (see section 61 of the Act)
36. The Tribunal agrees with Mr Murphy's opinion that such information is sensitive commercial information which, if disclosed, could be used by a competitor causing serious harm to the exporter or indeed to other businesses involved.
37. However in respect to other information the Tribunal, after careful consideration, concludes on the evidence that its release could not reasonably be expected to adversely affect the organisation to the extent envisaged by the Act. Deck numbers are included in this category. It is not difficult to deduce how many decks there are on the ship from the other information already provided. Also in the T Documents at page 71 the deck which was used to ship the goats is referred to and remains undeleted. The Tribunal concludes that some other information is of no great commercial significance and should also be disclosed as it does not satisfy the test in section 43(1)(c)(i) of the Act bearing in mind the onus which the respondent carries. That information includes some details in the daily voyage reports which the Tribunal considers to be of insufficient significance to satisfy the requirements of section 43(1)(c)(i).
38. The Schedule incorporated in this decision identifies those deletions which the Tribunal finds are exempt under sections 43(1)c)(i) the Act and so should remain and those which it finds are not exempt and are to be disclosed. All of the previously deleted information which is now to be disclosed is to be disclosed because it does not satisfy the test in section 43(1(c)(i) and is not otherwise exempt information.
39. The respondent also contends that some of the deleted material is exempt under section 43(1)(c)(ii) of the Act.
40. Information concerning the lawful business, commercial or financial affairs of an organisation is exempt under section 43(1)(c)(ii) if its disclosure "... could reasonably be expected to prejudice the future supply of information to the Commonwealth or an agency ...".
41. The respondent has only claimed exemption under (ii) for deletions in page 6 of "End of Voyage Report". Those deletions are of communications of a kind which are obviously not strictly required by law but which may nevertheless prove helpful to the agency in its supervision and administration of the live animal export industry. In the Tribunal's view disclosure of this information is likely to inhibit the flow of information to the department and possibly other agencies of the Commonwealth. It is therefore satisfied that those deletions are of information which is exempt under section 43(1)(c)(ii) of the Act.
42. The deletions to which section 43(1)(c)(ii) applies are also identified in the schedule incorporated in this decision.
Conclusion:
43. The Tribunal agrees with the original decision maker that many of the deletions in the relevant documents are justified because they are of exempt information or are beyond the relevance or scope of the applicant's FOI request. However, the Tribunal also finds that some other deletions do not satisfy the exemption provisions of the Act. The following schedule details the information which is to remain deleted and that which is to be disclosed.
The Schedule:
SCHEDULE
| Description of document | Person(s) who created document | Person(s) to whom document directed | Deletion(s) | Tribunal Decision |
| End End of Voyage Rep Report - page 1 | Consulted third party | Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) | The first deletion (two lines immediately before the title "End of Voyage Report") contains the name of the organisation that prepared the report for the exporter. | Remains deleted (identification not sought) |
| The second deletion (the line immediately after the title "End of Voyage Report") contains the name of the vessel that transported the livestock. | Remains deleted (identification not sought) | |||
| The third, fourth, fifth and sixth deletions contain references to livestock other than goats that were transported on the voyage. | Remain deleted (beyond scope) | |||
| The seventh and eighth deletions includes the name of the exporter. | Remain deleted (identification not sought) | |||
| The seventh and eighth deletions includes the name of the contact officer within the exporter's organisation. | Remain deleted (identification not sought) | |||
| The ninth deletion is the signature of the officer who received the report. | Remains deleted (identification not sought) | |||
| Page 2 (T documents page 46) | Consulted third party | AQIS | The first, second, fifth, seventh, ninth, tenth, eleventh, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth and eighteenth deletions contain references to livestock other than goats that were transported on the voyage. | Remain deleted (beyond scope) |
| The third, fourth, sixteenth and seventeenth deletions include details of the decks of the vessel. | To be disclosed | |||
| The sixth deletion contains details of the stowage plan for the voyage. | Remains deleted (section 43(1)(c)(i)) | |||
| The eighth and twelfth deletions contain details of the supply of the livestock on board the vessel, including goats. | Remain deleted (section 43(1)(c)(i)) | |||
| Page 3 (T documents page 47) | Consulted third party | AQIS | The first, second, eighth, eleventh and twelfth deletions refer to the decks of the vessel. | To be disclosed |
| The third deletion includes information regarding the travel plans for the attending Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) vet. | To be disclosed | |||
| The fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, ninth, tenth, thirteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth deletions contain references to livestock other than goats that were transported on the voyage. | Remain deleted (beyond scope) | |||
| The fourteenth deletion contains details of the feed carried on the voyage. | Remains deleted (section 43(1)(c)(i)) | |||
| The eighteenth and nineteenth deletions are the name of the vessel. | Remains deleted (identification not sought) | |||
| Page 4 (T documents page 48) | Consulted third party | AQIS | The first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh deletions contain details of the decks of the vessel. | To be disclosed |
| The second deletion is the name of the vessel. | Remains deleted (identification not sought) | |||
| The eighth and ninth deletions contain references to livestock other than goats that were transported on the voyage. | Remains deleted (beyond scope) | |||
| Page 5 (T documents page 49) | Consulted third party | AQIS | The first deletion contains details of the decks of the vessel. | To be disclosed |
| The remaining deletions contain references to livestock other than goats that were transported on the voyage. | Remain deleted (beyond scope) | |||
| Page 6 (T documents page 50) | Consulted third party | AQIS | The first deletion contains details regarding communication between the receivers of the cargo from the vessel. | Remains deleted (section 43(1)(c)(ii)) |
| The second and third deletions contain references to livestock other than goats that were transported on the voyage. | Remain deleted (beyond scope) | |||
| The fourth deletion contains details of the decks of the vessel. | To be disclosed | |||
| The fifth deletion contains the report's author's thoughts in relation to the voyage. | Remains deleted (section 43(1)(c)(ii) | |||
| The sixth deletion contains details of communications between the report's author and the exporter. | Remains deleted (section 43 (1)(c)(ii) | |||
| The seventh deletion is the name of the author of the report. | Remains deleted (identification not sought) | |||
| The eighth deletion is the name of the organisation that prepared the report. | Remains deleted (identification not sought) | |||
| Email from exporter | Exporter | Exporter’s agent | The first, second, third and sixth deletions contain information regarding the exporter's agent. | Remain deleted (identification not sought) |
| The fourth and fifth deletions contain details of the exporter and the relevant contact at the exporter. | Remain deleted (identification not sought) | |||
| The seventh and eighth deletions are the name of the vessel. | Remain deleted (identification not sought) | |||
| The ninth deletion contains information in respect of the travel arrangements of an employee/agent of the exporter. | Remains deleted (section 43(1)(c)(i)) | |||
| The tenth deletion contains information in relation to the financial affairs of the exporter organisation. | Remains deleted (section 43(1)(c)(i)) | |||
| The eleventh, twelfth, nineteenth, twentieth and twenty-first deletions contain the names of various employees/agents of the exporter. | Remain deleted (identification not sought) | |||
| The thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth deletions contain details of the destination, source and nature of the goats. | Remain deleted (section 43(1)(c)(i)) | |||
| The seventeenth and eighteenth deletions contain information in relation to the business arrangements of the exporter. | Remain deleted (section 43(1)(c)(i)) | |||
| The eighteenth deletion also contains references to livestock other than goats and recommendations made by employees and agents of the exporter. | Remains deleted (beyond scope) | |||
| Master’s Report of Carriage of Livestock | Master of the vessel | Australian Maritime and Safety Authority (AMSA) | The deletions under the heading "Ship Details" contain information relating to the identification of the ship, the shipowner and the exporter. | Remain deleted (identification not sought) |
| The deletions under the heading "Person in Charge of Livestock" and the master's signature contain the name and qualifications of the person in charge and the signature of the master of the vessel transporting the goats. | Remain deleted (identification not sought) | |||
| The deletions under "Loading and Discharge Details" (with the exception of the deletions in respect of feed and water) contains information in relation to livestock other than goats transported on the vessel. | Remains deleted (beyond scope) | |||
| The deletions under the heading "Amount of Feed and Water in Board at Departure" contain information in relation to the feed and water carried on the vessel. | Remains deleted (section 43(1)(c)(i)) | |||
| The deletions under the heading "Daily Mortality and Environmental Conditions" contain information in relation to livestock other than goats transported on the vessel. | Remains deleted (beyond scope) | |||
| Correspondence from the Master of the ship | Master of the vessel | Chief Marine Surveyor, AMSA | The first deletion is the name of the vessel. | Remains deleted (identification not sought) |
| The second deletion is the name of the exporter. | Remains deleted (identification not sought) | |||
| The third, sixth, seventh and eight deletions contain references to the decks of the vessels. | To be disclosed | |||
| The fourth and fifth deletions contain references to livestock other than goats that were transported on the vessel. | Remains deleted (beyond scope) | |||
| The ninth deletion contains the name of and identifying details in relation to vessel. | Remains deleted (identification not sought) | |||
| The ninth deletion contains the name and signature of the vessel's captain. | Remains deleted (identification not sought) | |||
| Daily voyage reports for livestock at sea | Ship’s stockman | AQIS | The first deletion on each report contains the name of the vessel. | Remains deleted (identification not sought) |
| The deletions in respect of the number of head of livestock, feed consumption, humidity, ventilation performance, deck temperature and extreme temperature contain references to the decks of the vessels. | To be disclosed | |||
| The deletions in respect of total head of livestock, water consumption and livestock health and welfare contain information in respect of the livestock other than goats. | Remains deleted (beyond scope) | |||
| The deletions under "mortalities" in respect of goats contains information regarding the nature of the goats on board the vessel and the remaining deletions under this heading contain information in respect of livestock other than goats. | To be disclosed | |||
| The deletions under "deck conditions" relate to business meetings on board the vessel. | To be disclosed | |||
| The deletion above "ship's stockman" contains the name of the stockman on board the vessel. | Remains deleted (identification not sought) | |||
| In addition, the final deletion in respect of livestock health and welfare in the daily voyage report for Day 5 (T Documents, page 59) contains information in relation to the decks of the vessel. | To be disclosed | |||
| The deletions in relation to deck conditions in the daily voyage report for Day 6 (T Documents, page 60) contain information in relation to the decks of the vessel. | To be disclosed | |||
| The deletions in relation to livestock health and welfare in the daily voyage report for Day 8 (T Documents, page 62) contains information in relation to the decks of the vessel. | To be disclosed | |||
| The deletions in relation to livestock health and welfare in the daily voyage report for Day 8 (T Documents, page 62) contains information in relation to livestock other than goats. | Remain deleted (beyond scope) | |||
| Email from AQIS veterinary officer | AQIS veterinary officer | AQIS | The first, second, third, fifth and seventh to fourteenth deletions contain the names and contact details for AQIS officers. | Remains deleted (Identification not sought) |
| The fourth deletion contains the name of the vessel. | Remains deleted (identification not sought) | |||
| The sixth deletion contains information in relation to the source of the animals. | Remains deleted (identification not sought) | |||
| Audit report lead sheets – page 1 (T documents, page 65) | AQIS | Exporter | The deletions include the name and contact details of the exporter. | Remains deleted (identification not sought) |
| The deletions in include the name of an employee/agent of the exporter. | Remains deleted (identification not sought) | |||
| Page 2 (T documents, page 66) | AQIS | Exporter | The deletions include the name of an employee/agent of the exporter. | Remains deleted (identification not sought) |
| The deletions include details of voyages audited. | Remains deleted (section 43(1)(c)(i)) | |||
| The deletions include the name and signature of the lead auditor. | Remains deleted (identification not sought) | |||
| Page 3 (T documents, page 67) | AQIS | Exporter | The deletions include the name and signature of the lead auditor. | Remains deleted (identification not sought) |
| The deletions include details of the audited voyage. | Remains deleted (section 43(1)(c)(i)) | |||
| Permits to export animals or Animal Reproductive Material | AQIS | Exporter | The deleted information in these permits include the permit number issued to the exporter, the health certificate number issued to the exporter, the name and address of the exporter and importer and the name of the vessel. | Remains deleted (identification not sought and section 43(1)(c)(i)) |
| The deleted information in these permits includes descriptions of livestock other than goats. | Remains deleted (beyond scope) | |||
| The deleted information includes the name, identification number and signature of the authorised AQIS officer. | Remains deleted (identification not sought) | |||
| AAV comments on possible causes – page 1 (T documents, page 71) | AQIS Accredited Veterinarian | AQIS | The first deletion contains internal AQIS contact details. | Remains deleted (identification not sought) |
| The second, fourth, ninth, sixteenth and nineteenth deletions contain the name of the vessel. | Remain deleted (identification not sought) | |||
| The third deletion contains the name of the exporter. | Remains deleted (identification not sought) | |||
| The fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, thirtieth and thirty-first deletions contain the names of employees or agents of the exporter. | Remain deleted (identification not sought) | |||
| The tenth deletion contains the location of the premises from which the livestock was sourced. | Remains deleted (identification not sought) | |||
| The eleventh deletion contains the name of the transport company used to transport the livestock. | Remains deleted (identification not sought) | |||
| The twelfth, twentieth and twenty-first deletions contain information regarding the financial affairs of the exporter and the arrangements for loading livestock. | Remain deleted (section 43(1)(c)(i)) | |||
| The thirteenth, seventeenth, twenty-third, twenty-seventh, twenty-eighth and twenty-ninth deletions contain information in relation to livestock other than goats. | Remain deleted (beyond scope) | |||
| The fourteenth and fifteenth deletions contain information regarding the source of the livestock. | Remain deleted (identification not sought) | |||
| The eighteenth deletion contains the name of the hay provider. | Remains deleted (identification not sought) | |||
| The twenty-second deletion contains the name of the AQIS officer. | Remains deleted (identification not sought) | |||
| The twenty-fourth, twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth deletions contain information in respect of the decks of the vessel. | To be disclosed | |||
| Page 2 (T documents, page 72) | AQIS Accredited Veterinarian | AQIS | The first deletion contains internal AQIS contact details. | Remains deleted (identification not sought) |
| The second, third and sixth deletions contain information about livestock other than goats. | Remains deleted ( beyond scope) | |||
| The fourth and fifth deletions contain information about the source of the livestock. | Remain deleted (identification not sought) | |||
| Page 3 (T documents, page 73) | AQIS Accredited Veterinarian | AQIS | The first deletion contains internal AQIS contact details. | Remains deleted (identification not sought) |
| The second deletion contains information regarding the location where post-mortems are conducted. | Remains deleted (identification not sought and section 43(1)(c)(i)) | |||
| The third deletion contains information in relation to the decks of the vessel. | To be disclosed | |||
| The fourth deletion refers to the name of the vessel. | Remains deleted (identification not sought) |
Decision:
44. The decision under review is varied. Access is granted to the relevant documents but with the deletions as specified in the reasons for decision.
I certify that the 44 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of The Hon R J Groom (Deputy President)
Signed: ...........................
R Hunt (Administrative Assistant)Date/s of Hearing 31 October 2008
Date of Decision 17 December 2008
Solicitor for the Applicant Dr M Caulfield
Counsel for the Respondent Ms S Arthur
Solicitor for the Respondent Ms S Sivell, Blake Dawson
0
4
0