Gothe-Snape; Chief Executive Officer, Services Australia and

This case concerned a review of a decision by the Australian Information Commissioner (the Commissioner) regarding a Freedom of Information (FOI) request made by Mr Gothe-Snape (the Applicant) for material relating to the implementation of Taskforce Integrity. The Chief Executive Officer, Services Australia (the Respondent) had initially refused access to the document in question, asserting it was exempt under section 34(1)(c) and/or section 34(3) of the *Freedom of Information Act 1982* (Cth). The Commissioner subsequently set aside the original decision, finding that the document was not exempt under sections 34(1)(c), 34(3), or 47C of the FOI Act. The Applicant sought review of the Commissioner's decision before the Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the document was exempt under section 34 of the FOI Act, or conditionally exempt under section 47C, and if the latter, whether disclosure would be contrary to the public interest. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the document was brought into existence for the dominant purpose of briefing a Minister on a document submitted to Cabinet, or if it contained information revealing Cabinet deliberations or decisions that had not been officially disclosed. The Tribunal also considered whether any purely factual material within the document was exempt.

The Tribunal found that the document was exempt under section 34(1)(c) of the FOI Act because it was brought into existence for the dominant purpose of briefing a Minister on a document that was subsequently submitted to Cabinet. The Tribunal reasoned that the exemption under section 34(1)(c) is designed to protect the confidentiality of the Cabinet process, and that a document prepared to brief a Minister on material for Cabinet submission falls within this purpose. Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the exception in section 34(6) did not apply because the information within the document was not purely factual and its disclosure would reveal Cabinet deliberations or decisions, the existence of which had not been officially disclosed in a manner that would negate the exemption.

Consequently, the Tribunal varied the Commissioner's decision, finding that the document was exempt under section 34(1)(c) of the FOI Act.