EQ v Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (Freedom of Information)

This matter concerned an application by EQ against the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) regarding a decision to award compensation for an interference with privacy. The dispute arose from the disclosure of personal information by Commonwealth officers to third parties. The Deputy President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine the legal issues surrounding the interpretation of section 61AFA of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 (Cth) and its application to the facts of the case, as well as the appropriate amount of compensation.

The Tribunal considered whether section 61AFA(1)(c) of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 (Cth) permitted the publication of the fact and quantum of a payment made in respect of an infringement notice offence, even where no conviction had occurred. It also examined whether the payment of an infringement notice penalty discharged liability for such a disclosure, and whether the lack of a formal delegation to the officer who made the publication rendered the disclosure invalid for the purposes of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). The Tribunal applied principles of statutory interpretation, including the primacy of the text of the legislation and the object of the Act, as well as High Court authority on the effect of irregularities in the exercise of statutory powers.

The Deputy President reasoned that section 61AFA(1)(c) was capable of independent operation and was not limited to circumstances where a conviction had been recorded, particularly when read in light of the Act's object of environmental protection and deterrence. The Tribunal found that paying an infringement notice did not nullify the offence for all purposes and that disclosure under section 61AFA was an administrative step distinct from criminal liability. Furthermore, applying section 8(1) of the Privacy Act, the Tribunal held that an act done by an employee in the performance of their duties was to be treated as an act of the agency, even if there was an internal irregularity regarding delegations, unless a clear legislative intention to invalidate such acts was present. The Tribunal affirmed the OAIC's decision regarding the three alleged breaches but varied the compensation awarded for one breach.