Morris and Director-General, National Archives of Australia

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application by Mr. Morris for review of a decision made by the Director-General of the National Archives of Australia. Mr. Morris sought access to records he believed existed concerning his activities at university in 1977, asserting that these records had not been provided to him. The Director-General’s decision, following an internal reconsideration, had determined that the applicant’s record was partially released, with certain material exempt under the *Archives Act 1983* (Cth). Mr. Morris contended that the decision was incorrect because it failed to address records of his university activities in 1977, which he believed should have been released consistently with records from previous years.

The primary legal issue before the AAT was whether it possessed the jurisdiction to review the Director-General's decision. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the *Archives Act 1983* conferred jurisdiction to review a decision where the applicant claims the existence of records not included in the file that was the subject of the decision. The Tribunal's power to review decisions is derived from specific enactments, and it can only exercise such power if the relevant enactment grants it jurisdiction to review the particular type of decision in question.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the scope of its review powers under section 43 of the *Archives Act 1983*. Section 43(1) outlines the specific types of decisions made under the Act that are reviewable by the AAT, including decisions refusing access to a record on various grounds related to exemptions or withholding. The Tribunal found that the Director-General's decision, as it related to the applicant's belief in the existence of unreleased records not contained within the provided file, did not fall within the categories of decisions specified in section 43(1) as being reviewable. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction to review the decision.

Consequently, the application was dismissed under section 42A(4) of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth) without a substantive review of the decision. The Tribunal was satisfied that the decision under review was not one over which it had jurisdiction. The Director-General suggested that if Mr. Morris believed further records existed, he should make a new request for access to those specific files under section 40 of the *Archives Act 1983*.