Goodwin v NSW Treasury - [2021] NSWCATAD 176

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Goodwin v NSW Treasury [2021] NSWCATAD 176
Hearing dates: 14 April 2021
Date of orders: 22 June 2021
Decision date: 22 June 2021
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: C Ludlow, Senior Member
Decision:
The decision under review is set aside and in substitution a decision is made providing access to the information sought by the applicant within 28 days of the date of publication of these reasons.

Catchwords:
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION – government information – remuneration of senior executives – personal information – prejudice to professional or financial interests – prejudice to agency’s functions

Legislation Cited:
Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Hurst v Wagga Wagga City Council [2011] NSWADT 307
HV and Department of Finance [2015] AICmr 84
Lower Burdekin Newspaper Company Pty Ltd v Lower Burdekin Shire Council [2004] QICmr 2
McLennan v University of New England [2013] NSWADT 113

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Alison Goodwin (Applicant)
NSW Treasury (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Health Services Union (Applicant)
NSW Treasury (Self-Represented) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2020/00310520
Publication restriction: Pursuant to s 64(1)(c) and (d) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, the publication of the contents of the confidential statement of Andrew Hubrechson-Yung dated 24 February 2021, and its disclosure to the applicant in these proceedings, is prohibited.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

Ms Alison Goodwin applied on 9 September 2020 under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (GIPA Act) for access to:

“…the full details of the Total Remuneration Package (TRP), broken down by all components, including all discretionary payments awarded and those awarded as an outcome to a job/role evaluation, in dollar terms and as a percentage increase on the previous year, in Financial Years (FY) 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 of
1. Sam Walker, Executive Director, Budget Division
2. Stephen Walters, Chief Economist, and
3. Joann Wilkie, Deputy Secretary, Economic Strategy and Productivity.”

On 20 August 2020 the respondent determined to refuse the request but provided the applicant with the ranges of remuneration which applied to the bands of the senior executive service in which the three officers were employed.
On internal review, the respondent affirmed this decision. It confirmed that the remuneration of the three officers was within the bands of remuneration provided.
The applicant has requested review of the decision by this Tribunal. The respondent maintains that there are public interest considerations against disclosure which outweigh the public interest considerations in favour of disclosure.

Legislative context

Section 63 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1998 provides:

“63 Determination of administrative review by Tribunal
(1) In determining an application for an administrative review under this Act of an administratively reviewable decision, the Tribunal is to decide what the correct and preferable decision is having regard to the material then before it, including the following:
(a) any relevant factual material,
(b) any applicable written or…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Goodwin v NSW Treasury

Details

AGLC: Goodwin v NSW Treasury [2021] NSWCATAD 176
Case: [2021] NSWCATAD 176
Decision Date: 22 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Federal Court involved an applicant, Mr. Goodwin, seeking access to government information under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth). The information sought pertained to the remuneration of senior executives within the NSW Treasury. The dispute centred on the disclosure of this information, with the respondent arguing that such disclosure would prejudice the professional or financial interests of the executives involved and could impair the functions of the agency. The case was heard by the Federal Court, which was tasked with determining whether the information should be withheld under the relevant exemptions.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address were whether the disclosure of the remuneration information would cause substantial prejudice to the professional or financial interests of the executives and whether such disclosure would interfere with the functions of the agency. The court needed to carefully balance the public interest in transparency and access to information against the potential harm that might result from the disclosure. It had to assess the degree of prejudice and the likelihood of the claimed harm materialising. The court also needed to consider whether there were any alternative means of disclosing the information that would mitigate the potential prejudice.

The Federal Court found that the respondent had not sufficiently demonstrated that the disclosure of the remuneration information would result in substantial prejudice to the professional or financial interests of the executives or impair the functions of the agency. The court concluded that the information sought by the applicant was of significant public interest and that the potential harm was not compelling enough to justify withholding the information. The court ordered that the decision to withhold the information be set aside, and it mandated that the information be provided to the applicant within 28 days of the publication of the reasons. This decision underscored the importance of transparency in government operations and the right of the public to access information that is pertinent to the functioning of public agencies.

The final orders of the court mandated that the decision to withhold the information be set aside, and in its place, a new decision was made that required the respondent to provide the sought information to the applicant within 28 days of the date of publication of the court's reasons. This ruling reinforced the principle that, in the absence of substantial evidence of harm, government information should be made accessible to the public to uphold the principles of transparency and accountability.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision under review is set aside and in substitution a decision is made providing access to the information sought by the applicant within 28 days of the date of publication of these reasons.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Goodwin v NSW Treasury [2021] NSWCATAD 176
Hearing dates:	14 April 2021
Date of orders:	22 June 2021
Decision date:	22 June 2021
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	C Ludlow, Senior Member
Decision:	The decision under review is set aside and in substitution a decision is made providing access to the information sought by the applicant within 28 days of the date of publication of these reasons.
Catchwords:	FREEDOM OF INFORMATION – government information – remuneration of senior executives – personal information – prejudice to professional or financial interests – prejudice to agency’s functions
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Hurst v Wagga Wagga City Council [2011] NSWADT 307 HV and Department of Finance [2015] AICmr 84 Lower Burdekin Newspaper Company Pty Ltd v Lower Burdekin Shire Council [2004] QICmr 2 McLennan v University of New England [2013] NSWADT 113
Texts Cited:	Nil
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Alison Goodwin (Applicant) NSW Treasury (Respondent)
Representation:	Solicitors: Health Services Union (Applicant) NSW Treasury (Self-Represented) (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2020/00310520
Publication restriction:	Pursuant to s 64(1)(c) and (d) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, the publication of the contents of the confidential statement of Andrew Hubrechson-Yung dated 24 February 2021, and its disclosure to the applicant in these proceedings, is prohibited.