Jenkinson v Department of Education and Communities

[2013] NSWADT 280

Administrative Decisions Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Jenkinson v Department of Education and Communities [2013] NSWADT 280
Hearing dates:	On the papers
Decision date:	04 December 2013
Jurisdiction:	General Division
Before:	Judicial Member Naida Isenberg
Decision:	The decision under review in respect of the access application is set aside.
Catchwords:	Government information - staff representative - selection process - complaint
Legislation Cited:	Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009
Cases Cited:	Commissioner of Police v Camilleri [2012] NSWADTAP 19 Leech v Sydney Water Corporation [2010] NSWADT 198 Flack v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2011] NSWADT 286 Roy v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2012] NSWADT 120 Black v Hunter New England Local Health District [2011] NSWADT 295 Hurst v Wagga Wagga City Council [2011] NSWADT 307 Department of Education and Training v GJ (GD) [2009] NSWADTAP 33 Macquarie University v Howell (No. 2) (GD) [2009] NSWADTAP 19
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Chris Jenkinson (Applicant) Department of Education and Communities (Respondent)
Representation:	C Jenkinson (Applicant in person) E Stathis (Respondent)
File Number(s):	133105

reasons for decision

1. Chris Jenkinson, the Applicant applied to the Respondent for access under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 ('GIPA Act') to:

Documents in relation to a letter (DOC121439995) sent to the Applicant by Dr Sylvia Corish School Education Director, Sydney Region (14 December 2012).

1(a) The log of calls made to Dr Sylvia Corish's office phone on Friday 30th November 2012 (specifically 4:30pm - 5:30pm);

1(b) The log of calls made to the DEC issued mobile phone held by Dr Corish on Friday 30th November 2012 (4:30pm - 5:30pm);

1(c) Contemporaneous notes taken by Dr Corish of the phone discussion with Ms Michelle Rosicky NSW Teachers Federation, relating to the matter raised in DOC121439995;

2 The written correspondence from Mrs Heather Emerson, Principal, Randwick Girls High School referred to in DOCl2/439995;

3 The written correspondence from Mrs Dianne Posener, Deputy Principal Randwick Girls High School referred to in DOC121439995;

4 Contemporaneous notes of the advice from Staffing Services referred to in DOC121439995 and the name of the Staffing Services officer who provided the advice; and

5 The voting sheets retained by Mrs Emerson, Principal Randwick Girls High School, referred to in DOC121439995.

1. The application was refused by the Respondent and also on internal review. The applicant now seeks review by the Tribunal.

Background

1. The applicant has been a teacher since 1977 and has taught English and History at Randwick Girls High School ('RGHS') since 2003. He was formerly a NSW Teachers Federation Representative for about 27 years and in that capacity had been a member of Merit Selection Panels. He has concerns about the circumstances of a vote conducted at RGHS to elect a staff representative on a Merit Selection Panel convened to select a Head Teacher, Technical and Applied Studies ('TAS'). On 1 December 2012 he wrote to Dr Corish, the School Education Director, Botany Bay Network, expressing concern about the transparency of the process. He seeks correspondence between Mrs Emerson, the Principal of RGHS, and Mrs Posener, the Deputy Principal of RGHS and Dr Corish as a result of his letter to Dr Corish.

Relevant Legislation

1. The objects of the GIPA Act are set out in s. 3, which provides:

3 Object of Act

(1) In order to maintain and advance a system of responsible and representative democratic Government that is open, accountable, fair and effective, the object of this Act is to open government information to the public by:

(a) authorising and encouraging the proactive public release of government information by agencies, and

(b)giving members of the public an enforceable right to access government information, and

(c)providing that access to government information is restricted only when there is an overriding public interest against disclosure.

(2) It is the intention of Parliament:

(a)that this Act be interpreted and applied so as to further the object of this Act, and

(b)that the discretions conferred by this Act be exercised, as far as possible, so as to facilitate and encourage, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost, access to government information.

1. It was not disputed that the information the subject of this application is government information that is held by an agency: s 4(1) of the GIPA Act.

1. There is a presumption in favour of the disclosure of government information unless there is an 'overriding public interest against disclosure': s.5 of the GIPA Act.

1. Section 13 of the GIPA Act sets out the test that is to be applied in determining whether there is an overriding public interest against disclosure. That test is in the following terms:

13 Public interest test

There is an overriding public interest against disclosure of government information for the purposes of this Act if (and only if) there are public interests considerations against disclosure and, on balance, those considerations outweigh the public interest considerations in favour of disclosure

1. The public interest considerations against disclosure are set out in s.14 of the GIPA Act, and are discussed below.

1. Section 15 sets out the principles that are to be applied when determining whether there is an overriding public interest against disclosure. It provides:

15 Principles that apply to public interest determination

A determination as to whether there is an overriding public interest against disclosure of government information is to be made in accordance with the following principles:

(a)Agencies must exercise their functions so as to promote the object of this Act.

(b)Agencies must have regard to any relevant guidelines issued by the Information Commissioner.

(c)The fact that disclosure of information might cause embarrassment to, or a loss of confidence in, the Government is irrelevant and must not be taken into account.

(d)The fact that disclosure of information might be misinterpreted or misunderstood by any person is irrelevant and must not be taken into account.

(e)In the case of disclosure in response to an access application, it is relevant to consider that disclosure cannot be made subject to any conditions on the use or disclosure of information.

1. On an application for review to the Tribunal, the onus is on the agency to establish that the decision the subject of review is justified: s 105(1) GIPA Act.

CONSIDERATION

Scope of this review

1. At the planning meeting on 21 May 2013, the Applicant agreed not to press for release of the voting sheets (Item 5) on the Respondent's undertaking to provide him with a new record showing anonymised distribution of the other three unsuccessful candidates. This was subsequently provided to the applicant. The applicant also indicated that he accepted that the Respondent holds no information which would answer his request at Items 1 and 4.

1. The remaining aspects of the applicant's access application referred to the written correspondence from Mrs Emerson and Mrs Posener, referred to in Dr Corish's letter of 14 December 2012. Mrs Emerson's response contained a number of attachments which the Respondent claimed had been obtained in confidence and contained personal information, as defined in Schedule 4 of the GIPA Act, about third parties. For the reasons discussed below I have come to a different view about the attachments to the primary documents sought by the applicant which consist of:

• an email from Mrs Emerson to Dr Corish dated 6 December 2012

• a document headed "Response to Letter to Dr Sylvia Corish, Dec 1st, 2102", attached to the above email,

• undated (but referring to the applicant's letter of 1 December 2012) memorandum from Mrs Posener to Dr Corish ('the primary documents')

1. Later, in the applicant's statement he wrote that he was "not interested in the extraneous documents provided by third parties" and it was clear he was of the understanding that the documents from "third parties" had been generated so as to provide Dr Corish with a response. In contrast, the applicant also asked that the documents either "be made known to [me] or totally ignored by the Tribunal as being both irrelevant to the matter and an attempt to obfuscate a very simple matter".

1. From his submission it appears that the applicant also contends that this information is prejudicial and for that reason had been deliberately provided. I do not agree with this characterisation of the Respondent's provision of the attachments to the Tribunal. To do so was entirely proper because, until the applicant indicated his disinterest in the "third party" material, those documents, as attachments to the correspondence he sought, were properly included. Further, because they fall within the scope of the access application, and because of the applicant's equivocal statement of professed disinterest in the documents I am obliged to consider whether access should be granted to them.

Tribunal process

1. In deciding whether to release information, the Tribunal must decide whether or not an overriding public interest against disclosure applies to the information. As noted above, s. 13 of the GIPA Act requires the Tribunal to undertake the following steps:

• identify the relevant public interest considerations in favour of disclosure

• identify the relevant public interest considerations against disclosure.

• determine the weight of the public interest considerations in favour of and against disclosure and where the balance between those interests lies.

Public interest considerations in favour of disclosure

1. Section 12 of the GIPA Act reiterates the general presumption in favour of disclosure of government information, and lists examples of public interest considerations that favour disclosure.

1. It is useful to put in context the information sought. In his letter of 1 December to Dr Corish the applicant referred to the 'Selection Panel Procedures for School Teachers 2009' (apparently superseded by the 2102 version but unaltered in respect of the relevant portions) which relates to the process by which a teacher representative is on a selection panel. From the extract quoted the policy sets out an election process whereby all teachers elect one or more of their number to participate in the selection panel. The election process involves a meeting at which nominees can be voted for either by way of show of hands or secret ballot, as the meeting decides. If the meeting decides there is to be a secret ballot, how the secret ballot is to be managed is also to be decided at the meeting.

1. From the letter it appears there was no meeting to decide the election process in respect of the selection of the Head Teacher, TAS at RGHS. Instead the Principal, Mrs Emerson asked for those seeking selection as the teacher representative on the panel to notify her. A secret ballot was conducted, with teachers asked to number their votes 1-4, as presumably there were 4 candidates. Ballots were to be placed in the ballot box in the office area and Mrs Emerson and one of the Deputy Principals, Mrs Posener, counted the votes.

1. I do not understand the Respondent to dispute this version of events.

1. The applicant expressed concern that there was no meeting to determine the process and, as described in somewhat pejorative terms, that Mrs Emerson ('the person representative of the employer') and her 'loyal deputy' (Mrs Posener) had counted the votes, in the absence of scrutineers. For reasons which are unclear, he also appeared to take exception to the preferential voting system.

1. He also expressed concerns that when 2 other teachers, Ms Baker and Mr Sims enquired of Mrs Posener about the count, Mrs Posener referred them to Mrs Emerson.

1. The applicant described the process of selection of a staff representative as having been 'hopelessly compromised' and sought Dr Corish's intervention.

1. Dr Corish, wrote to the applicant on 14 December 2012 in response to his letter of 1 December 2012. It was clear from the letter that Dr Corish had consulted Mrs Emerson and Mrs Posener before responding.

1. She noted that Mrs Emerson had mentioned the election process to her and to Ms Rosicky of the NSW Teachers Federation on 28 November 2012 and Dr Corish had discussed it with Ms Rosicky on 30 November 2012. It was unclear from the letter whether Ms Rosicky had any objection to the process, which had previously been undertaken on 6 prior occasions.

1. Dr Corish informed the applicant that the voting sheets had been retained and a recount was undertaken by Mrs Posener and another Deputy Principal, Mr Raskall and the outcome was the same as before. As there was a concern that the selection (of the head teacher) should not be delayed, she had directed Mrs Emerson to proceed with the composition of the panel in accordance with the ballot outcome. She acknowledged that as the process had been in place for 4 years it was appropriate for the school to revisit its selection panel process and she had asked Mrs Emerson to hold a staff meeting in the new year to determine, by secret ballot, if the procedure was to be changed.

1. The applicant was clearly dissatisfied with Dr Corish's response. He appears to be concerned about the departure from the Department's policy and the transparency of the process. I accept that this consideration applies as a public interest consideration in favour of disclosure.

Public interest considerations against disclosure

1. The public interest considerations against disclosure are limited to those set out in the Table to s 14 of the GIPA Act.

1. In Commissioner of Police v Camilleri [2012] NSWADTAP 19 ('Camilleri') the Appeal Panel (at [26]) considered that the s.14 considerations need to be examined at a broad operational level and that those considerations "are concerned with systemic features of the operation of government".

1. Because the Respondent bears the onus of justifying its decision to refuse the Applicant access to the information, it has the burden of establishing that the public interest considerations against disclosure it relies on apply. It also bears the burden of establishing that, on balance, they outweigh the public interest considerations in favour of disclosure.

1. The Respondent submitted that there were a number of bases upon which it claimed there were public interest considerations against disclosure in relation to the documents in issue:

• Disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the supply to the Department of confidential information that facilitates the effective exercise of the Department 's functions: 1(d)

• Disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the effective exercise by an agency of the agency's functions: 1(f)

• Disclosure is one that could be reasonably expected to reveal an individual's personal information: 3(a)

• Disclosure is one that could be reasonably expected to contravene an information protection principle under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 or a Health Privacy Principle under the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002: 3(b)

• Disclosure is one that could be reasonably expected to expose a person to a risk of harm or of serious harassment or serious intimidation: 3(f)

1. To raise these as relevant considerations in the application of the public interest test the Respondent must establish that the disclosure of the information "... could reasonably be expected to have .... the effect" outlined in the Table. "Could reasonably be expected to" has been held to mean "something which is more than a mere, risk or chance. It must be based on real and substantial grounds, and it must not be purely speculative, fanciful, imaginary or contrived": Leech v Sydney Water Corporation [2010] NSWADT 198 at [28], adopted in Flack v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2011] NSWADT 286 ('Flack') and cited in Roy v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2012] NSWADT 120 at [28].

1. The Respondent relied on statements by Dr Corish, Mrs Emerson and Mrs Posener. Each also provided a confidential statement. (Where I refer to a statement, it is the open statement, unless otherwise specified.) The Respondent also provided both open and confidential submissions. It seemed to me that the Respondent, in its confidential evidence and submissions, had adopted a very narrow view of s.107 of the GIPA Act. I observe that, had the matter been heard other than on the papers, some robust discussion may have occurred in relation to its claim for confidentially in respect of the statements and submissions. I note the discussion of s.107 in Black v Hunter New England Local Health District [2011] NSWADT 295. Ultimately the outcome has been unaffected, but I have for the present purposes, and in fairness to the Respondent, accepted the Respondent's claim of confidentiality in respect of its evidence and submissions for the purposes of these reasons.

Disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the supply to the Department of confidential information that facilitates the effective exercise of the Department 's functions: 1(d)

Disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the effective exercise by an agency of the agency's functions: 1(f)

1. "Prejudice" under the GIPA Act has been held to have its ordinary meaning, that is, "to cause detriment or disadvantage" or "to impede or derogate from": Hurst v Wagga Wagga City Council [2011] NSWADT 307 at [60].

1. In determining whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the supply of information, the test is whether information of the kind in question facilitates the exercise of the Respondent's functions and, whether the disclosure of such information could reasonably be expected to prejudice the supply of such information: Flack at [52].

1. In Camilleri the Appeal Panel considered that the question of whether information supplied was 'confidential information' should be examined "primarily at least, by reference to the agency's evidence as to the conditions under which it conducts the service within which the information was received": at [33].

1. The Respondent submitted that disclosure of the information would amount to the disclosure of information provided in confidence to the Respondent. The Respondent further submitted that some of the information contained sensitive personal information that is inherently of a confidential nature. Although confidentiality cannot be guaranteed in all circumstances at all times, the Respondent submitted that it is obligated to use its best endeavours to maintain confidentiality over such information and this principle is emphasised in the Department's Code of Conduct and its complaints-handling policies and procedures.

1. 'Confidentiality' is defined in the Respondent's policy as "Information provided by a person on a confidential basis which is not to be disclosed e.g. the identity of the provider and/or the details of the information are not to be disclosed except as agreed to by the provider". An undertaking of confidentiality can, it was submitted, encourage people to provide intimate details and people within the Department have an understanding that information provided in response to complaints will be kept confidential, where possible. [Not for publication] However there was no evidence that any assurances were given by Dr Corish to Mrs Emerson or Mrs Posener that the information they provided in response to her enquiry would be treated confidentially.

1. Dr Corish and Mrs Emerson in their statements confirmed that in order to respond to the applicant's complaint, Dr Corish had requested Mrs Emerson to provide her with information. Dr Corish said that the information, which included a two-page response from Mrs Posener, was provided to her in confidence.

1. Mrs Posener wrote that she provided the information to Dr Corish on the understanding that it was confidential. She claimed it contains her personal information and disclosing it to the applicant would reveal that personal information.

1. Dr Corish considered that disclosing the information to the applicant was very likely, to be perceived as a breach of trust, although it was unclear if this view related to the "third party" material or also applied to Mrs Emerson and Mrs Posener. Dr Corish considered disclosure of the information would impact on the reputation of the Department in the context of being able to offer staff an undertaking of confidentiality to the maximum extent allowable by law to encourage people to participate in assessments of complaints. Mrs Emerson also believed that there is a strong public interest against disclosing the information, although her remarks appeared to relate to the "third party" material.

1. The Respondent further submitted that disclosing this confidential information could reasonably be expected to prejudice the future supply of such information: Department of Education and Training v GJ (GD) [2009] NSWADTAP 33 at [70] and [80]. There was no evidence however about whether or not Mrs Emerson and Mrs Posener were obliged to respond to an enquiry by Dr Corish, who appears to have been their superior. Commonsense would suggest that they were. Consequently there was no evidence as to how the future supply of information of the kind supplied by persons in Mrs Emerson and Mrs Posener's positions in response to a request from a superior, might be affected.

1. The Respondent submitted that there is a strong public interest in the Department continuing to receive voluntary assistance and information from its employees and others. Similarly it is important for the Department, it was submitted, to be able to maintain its ability to exercise its personnel management functions effectively.

1. [Not for publication]

1. Both Dr Corish and Mrs Emerson considered that if the information is disclosed to the applicant it will significantly prejudice the management of RGHS and disrupt the efficient functioning of the school. [Not for publication]

1. I accept that there is some reliance by the Respondent on the co-operation of employees in investigating complaints and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the supply to the Department of confidential information that facilitates the effective exercise of its functions.

1. Dr Corish and Mrs Emerson both wrote that the Department has a responsibility to protect the safety and wellbeing of employees and the workplace health and safety responsibilities for all the staff at RGHS. Both believed that disclosing the information would impact on the health and wellbeing of staff and that disclosure would compromise the capacity for the Department to exercise its responsibilities in respect of workplace health and safety. I accept that disclosure of information of this type of information could reasonably be expected to prejudice the effective exercise by the Respondent of its functions in respect of the health and wellbeing of staff.

Could disclosure be reasonably expected to reveal personal information? Table 3(a)

Could disclosure be reasonably expected to contravene an information protection principle under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 or a Health Privacy Principle under the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002?: 3(b)

1. The names and opinions of Mrs Emerson and Mrs Posener and information about their health and wellbeing is contained with the documents. This is personal information, as defined in Schedule 4 of the GIPA Act. From examination of the attachments these also contain the names and opinions of "third parties" and information about their health and wellbeing is contained with the documents.

1. The Respondent submitted that disclosing the personal information without their consent is likely to contravene the Information Protection Principle at section 18 of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998. It is also likely to contravene a Health Privacy Principle of the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002, because the information was provided to the Department for a specific purpose, namely to provide details in respect of events and the effect of such events on the health or wellbeing of individuals.

1. The Respondent also submitted that to grant access under the GIPA Act is not' in line' with the purpose for which the information was collected. I reject this assertion as it is a mis-statement of the the purpose of the GIPA Act and the consideration to be given to personal and health information in accordance with the GIPA Act.

1. The Respondent noted that disclosure could result in such information being available to the world at large, as it is not possible to impose any conditions on the disclosure. The applicant takes umbrage if it were suggested that he might improperly use the information he has sought. The fact remains that, once information is released under the GIPA Act, there is no way to protect the information from wider disclosure.

1. I accept that disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal personal information and could reasonably be expected to contravene an information protection principle under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 or a Health Privacy Principle under the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002.

Is the disclosure one that could be reasonably expected to expose a person to a risk of harm or of serious harassment or serious intimidation?: Table 3(f)

1. Dr Corish wrote that, based on her experience as a former school principal and as a School Education Director, and on the information she had about this matter, she believed that there is harm in providing the applicant with the information which has been withheld. The applicant objected to the 'veiled suggestion' by Dr Corish that he was a dangerous individual.

1. Based on her experience as Deputy Principal of RGHS Mrs Posener believed that if the information that she provided to Dr Corish to respond to the applicant's complaint were released to him, it will have an (unspecified) "negative impact" on her, on the Principal and on other staff members at RGHS. The applicant, who has known Mrs Posener for about 10 years, was surprised at Mrs Posener's view. He thought she and Mrs Emerson may feel they would be compromised if the information demonstrated their unprofessional conduct.

1. I accept that release of the information to the applicant may create some discomfort and tensions amongst some of the staff at RGHS. Inevitably some people will react better than others to a difficult work environment, and their response is necessarily subjective. However the test for this factor is whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to expose a person to a risk of harm or of serious harassment or serious intimidation. I have reviewed the evidence in the confidential material provided to me including the confidential evidence of Mrs Emerson and Mrs Posener, much of which was extraneous to the matter at hand. I consider there to be no objective evidence that the disclosure could be reasonably expected to expose a person the very high level of risk of harm or harassment or intimidation anticipated by this factor.

Balancing the public interest test

1. I understand that Mr Jenkinson was dissatisfied with Dr Corish's response to his complaint about the selection process. However, the adequacy or otherwise of that selection process is not a matter for me. The Tribunal's only task is to determine whether there is an overriding public interest against disclosure of the withheld information, paying due regard to the principles in s.16 of the GIPA Act. This requires me only to consider whether, on balance, the public interest considerations against disclosure outweigh those in favour of disclosure: see Flack at [19] and Hurst v Wagga Wagga City Council at [47].

1. The GIPA Act does not provide a formula for working out the weight of public interest considerations for or against disclosure, or deciding if one set of considerations outweighs the other. Each matter is different. The balancing of competing interests "is a question of fact and degree, requiring the weighing of competing matters, and is a task that is not amenable to mathematical calculation: Hurst v Wagga Wagga City Council: at [70].

1. Section 54 of the GIPA Act contains a requirement that an agency is to take steps, which are reasonably practicable, to consult with specified persons before providing access to information such as personal information. Under s. 54(5) of the GIPA Act any objection must be taken into account when balancing the public interest. Dr Corish, Mrs Emerson and Ms Posener have provided statements that object to the release of the information. The Respondent proceeded on the basis that the "third parties" would object to release of their personal information. From careful perusal of the attachments I accept that this was a reasonable assumption.

1. The Applicant's motive in making the application for documents is a further factor that may be considered under s. 55(1)(b) of the GIPA Act. The applicant wrote in his submissions that he sought the documents to discover how Dr Corish came to a decision she made concerning the ballot held at RGHS. He wrote of her failure to follow the clearly articulated policy and observed that there was no evidence that the policy was optional. From his submissions it was clear that the applicant considers that disclosing the information could possibly be expected to reveal that there had been some impropriety in the election process. This is a fairly serious allegation and I would attach significant weight to such an assertion if it were borne out.

1. Mrs Emerson wrote in her statement that the applicant was not a candidate for the election of a staff representative to the selection panel. To that extent the applicant could be said to have no personal stake in the outcome of the ballot. The evidence submitted by the Respondent indicates that the majority of staff at the school are content with the current election processes and were satisfied with the outcome of the election in December 2012. Mrs Emerson wrote that the majority of the staff at RGHS supports the current system of elections; at a staff meeting earlier this year staff voted - 63 votes in favour and five votes against - to use a secret ballot for elections. I note the representative of the NSW Teachers Federation had been consulted, although it was unclear as to her view.

1. The Respondent submitted that although the information may be of interest to the Applicant and possibly to Mr Sims and Ms Baker, releasing the information will contribute in a limited way to the general public interest whereas it would likely have a substantial negative impact on the management of the school.

1. I have found disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the supply to the Department of confidential information that facilitates the effective exercise of its functions in respect of the health and wellbeing of staff. I have also found that disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal personal information and could reasonably be expected to contravene an information protection principle under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 or a Health Privacy Principle under the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002. I have attached significant weight to these matters, in relation to the "third pary" material, but less in respect of the primary documents.

1. The Respondent considered that those factors, to protect confidentiality of information and effectively manage personnel, outweigh the considerations in favour of disclosing the records to the Applicant.

1. In weighing up the public interest considerations for and against disclosure outlined above, I find the Respondent's submissions are not sufficiently persuasive for it to have discharged its onus under s. 105 of the GIPA Act in respect of the primary documents. I find that overall with the exception of the matters addressed below, the public interest considerations against disclosure, on balance, do not outweigh the public interest considerations in favour of disclosure in respect of the majority of the information in the primary documents - the email from Mrs Emerson to Dr Corish dated 6 December 2012, a document headed "Response to Letter to Dr Sylvia Corish, Dec 1st, 2102" attached to the email and the undated memorandum from Mrs Posener to Dr Corish: s. 13 of the GIPA Act. In respect of the attachments I find that the Respondent has discharged its onus.

1. The following redactions are required in the primary documents because, in respect of the redacted material, and after consideration of all the evidence, I find the public interest considerations against disclosure, on balance, outweigh the public interest considerations in favour of disclosure:

Email: paragraph 1 - redact after "1.12.12" to end of paragraph.

Response to Letter to Dr Corish:

Page 2, under heading "HOWEVER"

first point - redact after "Federation Rep" to end of point.

4th point - redact after "the staff" to end of point

Page 2, under heading "THE RGHS VOTING PROCESS"

Final paragraph - redact words in brackets after "few individuals"

Page 3, under heading "The 2012 HT TAS Process"

2nd point - redact after "for the position" to end of point

7th point - redact after "counted votes" to end of point

Page 3, under heading "BUT"

1st point - redact after "The following week" to end of point

2nd point - redact after "DP Dianne Posener reported" to end of point

3rd point - redact whole point

Page 4, under heading "NOTE"

1st point - redact whole point

Undated memorandum from Mrs Posener to Dr Corish

2)Redact words in brackets

4)Redact words after "however"

6)Redact the words after "Mr Sims insistence"

8)Redact the words before "I said"

DECISION

1. The decision under review in respect of the access application, is set aside.

ORDERS

1. The applicant is granted access to the information described in paragraph 12 as the "primary documents" after the redactions noted in paragraph 64 above.

**********

Decision last updated: 04 December 2013