Fresh Fields Aged Care Pty Ltd and Secretary, Department of Health (Social services)

This matter concerned an application by Fresh Fields Aged Care Pty Ltd (the Applicant) and the Secretary, Department of Health (the Respondent) before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The dispute arose from the Respondent's attempt to restrict the publication or disclosure of a document, PD-1, and a redacted version of it, PD-1R, which had been lodged with the Tribunal. The Respondent sought orders under section 35(4) of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth) to prevent disclosure of the document and its existence to the Applicant and its representatives, with a limited exception for the Applicant's legal team.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether to grant the confidentiality orders sought by the Respondent in relation to document PD-1 and its redacted version, PD-1R. This involved determining the relevance of the document to the Tribunal's review function and considering the implications for the principle of open justice. The Tribunal also considered an alternative application by the Respondent under section 33 of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth) to be relieved of the obligation to lodge irrelevant portions of PD-1.

The Tribunal reasoned that its role was to conduct a de novo assessment and determine the correct or preferable decision based on the material before it, rather than reviewing the decision-making process of the original decision-maker. Consequently, the Tribunal found that document PD-1, which contained examples of previous decisions regarding extensions of provisional allocation periods under the *Aged Care Act 1997* (Cth), had only marginal relevance to its task. Both parties appeared to agree on this limited relevance. The Tribunal concluded that if the document was not relevant to its review function, it should not have been lodged under section 37(1)(b) of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth), which mandates the lodgement of documents relevant to the review.

Given the marginal relevance of PD-1 and PD-1R to the Tribunal's task, the Tribunal found that the public interest in open justice was not significantly impacted by the requested confidentiality orders. However, the Tribunal ultimately agreed with the parties that the document's relevance was marginal and therefore it was not a document that should have been lodged under section 37(1)(b) of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth). The orders sought by the Respondent were refused.