Brindabella Christian Education Limited and Minister for Education and Youth

In the matter of *Brindabella Christian Education Limited and Minister for Education and Youth*, heard by Senior Member Damien O'Donovan SM of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the applicant challenged the respondent's decision to lodge a modified set of documents, specifically a T48 document, with certain information, including highlighting and internal comments, excluded. The core of the dispute revolved around the extent to which information lodged with the Tribunal should be kept confidential, particularly concerning the names and positions of public servants involved in the decision-making process.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether confidentiality orders should be made under section 35 of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth) to protect the names and positions of public servants. This determination was to be made in light of the statutory principle that it is desirable for the contents of documents lodged with the Tribunal to be made available to all parties. The Tribunal also had to consider whether the respondent had provided sufficient reasons to justify any departure from this principle of disclosure.

The Senior Member reasoned that the starting point under section 35 of the *AAT Act* is the desirability of making documents lodged with the Tribunal available to the parties. While the Tribunal may make orders restricting disclosure, it must give due regard to reasons favouring such directions, including the confidential nature of information. However, in this instance, the respondent's assertion that redacted individuals were entitled to confidentiality over their names, positions, and contact details lacked elaboration. The Senior Member found that disclosure to the other party, who is subject to an implied undertaking to use information solely for the proceedings, was appropriate. Public servants involved in decision-making exercising public powers should not presume their identities will be hidden from affected parties, and the structure of the *AAT Act* suggests the opposite expectation.

The Senior Member concluded that the names and details of the public servants should be disclosed to the other party to the proceedings, as there was no sufficient justification for withholding this information given the principles of transparency and party access to lodged documents.