Fewster and Director-General, National Archives of Australia (Freedom of information)

This matter concerned an application for freedom of information before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, with the Deputy President, The Hon. John Pascoe AC CVO, presiding. The applicant sought access to certain records held by the National Archives of Australia, which had been partially exempted from disclosure by the Director-General. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the exemptions, primarily based on the potential for damage to the security, defence, or international relations of the Commonwealth, were correctly applied and whether any discretion should be exercised to release parts of the records.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the information withheld by the Director-General was properly exempt under section 33(1)(a) of the *Freedom of Information Act 1982* (Cth), which protects information or matter the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause damage to the security, defence, or international relations of the Commonwealth. A further issue was whether, even if exempt, the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to allow the release of any part of the records.

The Tribunal's reasoning was heavily influenced by detailed evidence provided in closed session by deponents such as Mr Lowe, who possessed extensive expertise in intelligence matters, including the operations of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS). Mr Lowe's evidence, accepted without reservation, established that he had approached the task of assessing exemptions with a view to releasing as much material as possible while safeguarding Australia's security. He provided compelling reasons for the necessity of secrecy in ASIS operations, including the protection of staff, agents, and confidential liaison relationships, and explained how disclosure could compromise these elements and damage Australia's international standing. The Tribunal found that the evidence, including that of other deponents and corroboration, consistently supported the claims for exemption, and that any information that might be released without context would be trivial. The Tribunal concluded that the exemption under section 33(1)(a) was properly claimed in each instance, noting the critical importance of protecting those engaged in Australia's security and the enduring relevance of secrecy to intelligence gathering and international relationships, even for aged information.