Knight and Commonwealth Ombudsman (Freedom of information)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a review of decisions made by the Commonwealth Ombudsman concerning a Freedom of Information request. The applicant sought access to documents, parts of which had been redacted by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman had determined that the withheld information was conditionally exempt under sections 47F and 47E(d) of the *Freedom of Information Act 1982* (Cth), arguing that disclosure would involve an unreasonable disclosure of personal information and have a substantial adverse effect on the operations of the agency.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the documents were conditionally exempt and, if so, whether disclosure would be contrary to the public interest. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider the applicant's arguments that disclosure was in the public interest for the purposes of informing public debate, academic research, and supporting potential legal claims, and whether the Ombudsman had an obligation under section 27A of the Act to consult with the individuals whose personal information was contained within the documents.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's contention that section 27A imposed an obligation on the Ombudsman to consult with the authors of the documents, finding that this section only applied when an agency proposed to grant access, which was not the case here. The Tribunal accepted the Ombudsman's argument that disclosure would have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of its operations, particularly concerning the administration of the Defence Force Ombudsman's functions and the maintenance of confidentiality essential for the Defence Abuse Response Program. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that while the applicant argued for disclosure in the public interest, these factors were outweighed by the public interest against disclosure, including the express obligation of confidentiality, the sensitive nature of the information, and the potential distress to the complainants. The Tribunal concluded that there was already considerable public information available regarding abuse within the defence force, and the applicant could rely on this general information without invading the privacy of complainants.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the Ombudsman's decision, finding that the information sought was conditionally exempt under sections 47E(d) and 47F of the *Freedom of Information Act 1982* (Cth) and that its disclosure would be contrary to the public interest.