Hay; The Australian Statistician, Australian Bureau of Statistics and (Freedom of information)

This matter concerned an appeal from a decision of the Office of the Information Commissioner regarding a Freedom of Information request. The applicant sought access to certain material, and the Australian Statistician, representing the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), opposed disclosure on the grounds of personal privacy under section 47F of the *Freedom of Information Act 1982* (Cth). The core dispute revolved around whether the disclosure of the information would constitute an unreasonable disclosure of personal information and whether disclosure would be contrary to the public interest.

The court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the information in question concerned a reasonably identifiable individual, and if so, whether its disclosure would constitute an unreasonable disclosure of that individual's personal information, having regard to the factors set out in section 47F(2) of the Act. Secondly, the court had to consider whether disclosure of the material would be contrary to the public interest, assessing factors favouring release under sections 11A and 11B of the Act.

In its reasoning, the court first confirmed that the information related to an identifiable individual, Ms Sanders. It then considered whether disclosure would be unreasonable, examining submissions regarding whether the information was publicly known or accessible. The court noted that the focus for assessing public knowledge under section 47F(2)(b) is the public generally, not the specific applicant. Ultimately, the court found that the outstanding material consisted of "ill-informed speculation" and that its release would not advance the public interest in government transparency and integrity. The court concluded that disclosure would be an unreasonable disclosure of personal information.

The Tribunal set aside the decision under review with respect to the outstanding material. It found that while the respondent had raised fair points regarding the potential utility of the material for her claim, the material itself was speculative and its release would not materially assist her. Furthermore, the court was not satisfied that the release of the material would inform public debate or promote oversight of public expenditure, weighing against disclosure in the public interest.