Re Nitas and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
[2001] AATA 392
•10 May 2001
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2001] AATA 392
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No N2000/1208
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )
Re NICKOLAS NITAS
Applicant
And MINISTER, DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal THE HON RNJ PURVIS QC, DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Date10 May 2001
PlaceSydney
Decision Direction The decisions under review are affirmed. Findings in relation to the claimed exempt documents are as in the annexure. Being satisfied that it is desirable to do so the Tribunal directs pursuant to subsection 35(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975: (a) until further direction the matter set out in the schedule below be prohibited from publication or disclosure to all persons other than the members of the Tribunal and the staff of the Tribunal in the course of the performance of their duties, officers of the Respondent and the Respondent's legal advisers; (b) that part of the proceedings identified by the Tribunal as being closed session and any documents tendered by the Respondent in closed session shall take place in private in the presence only of the members of the Tribunal and staff of the Tribunal in the course of the performance of their duties, officers of the Respondent and the Respondent's legal advisers. Schedule 1) the affidavit sworn on 10 April 2001 which is relied upon by the Respondent in these proceedings; 2) copies of the folios in dispute in these proceedings; 3) the oral evidence given by the deponent of the affidavit referred to above, which is given in closed session.
………………………………..
The Hon RNJ Purvis, QC
Deputy President
CATCHWORDS
Freedom of information – whether access has been granted to all documents entitled under the Act – documents that cannot be found or do not exist – internal working documents – whether disclosure of information would affect national security, defence or international relations, enforcement of the law and protection of public safety, or affect personal privacy – test of 'reasonableness' of the claimed exemptions – confidential source of information – ascertaining the identity of a confidential source by inference – whether documents contain material obtained in confidence – false allegations in documents
Freedom of Information Act 1982 – ss 24A, 33(1), 33A(1), 36(1), 37(1)(c), 37(2)(b), 41(1), 45(1)
Attorney General's Department v Cockcroft (1986) 10 FCR 180; 12 ALD 468
Arnold v Queensland and Anor (1987) 13 ALD 195; 73 ALR 607
Re McKnight and Australian Archives (1992) 28 ALD 95
Re Milliss and National Archives of Australia [2000] AATA 565
REASONS FOR DECISION
THE HON RNJ PURVIS, QC DEPUTY PRESIDENT
the application
This is an application made by Nickolas Nitas ("the Applicant") pursuant to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 ("the Act") under dates 18 February and 22 February 2000, seeking access to "arrivals 1986 and visa application – application in 1995 and all documents required to establish rights and my immigration files and access legal documents to photocopy and take a record of all files concerning me Nickolas Nitas". In a document appointing Ms Andreanna Comes to act as his agent the Applicant extended his application to include "any documents from all departments".
By a letter dated 29 February 2000 (T6) the Applicant's request was clarified namely:
"…Nick had a case officer the first time he arrived in australia in 1986 and lodged documentation with your office in 1987 for permanent resident (sic), under a spouse sponsered by wife Samantha Jones-Nitas. I now request this information under the Freedoms (sic) Act 1982 your office posses (sic) this information and if your organisation has misplace (sic) this file this is a problem for your department, my de facto husband has been hard done by and he has rights in this country my country australia (sic) and I ask you and the department not to discriminate my husband Nickolas nitas and allow the law and justice be served."
Over a period of time folios of documents were accessed and on 9 June 2000 Ms Dawn Gardiner, the officer of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ("the Respondent") delegated to act on its behalf, gave her decision. However the Applicant was not satisfied as to the extent of such access and the decision, and on 21 June 2000 (T14) wrote to Ms Gardiner stating inter alia:
"…I thank you for forwarding the following document folios.
FOLIOS FILE STATE/OFFICE
1-182 A94/004387 CANBERRA
1-96 N94/000010 NSW
1-163 N95/520844 NSW
1-45 N95/000210 NSW
1-259 CLF2000/9931 NSW
I am now requesting a formal review in pursuant (sic) to section 23 of the FOI act, were (sic) you have decided to grant access in part.
I am not satisfied of the decision that you have made under the act, and once again ask for a formal review.
Under the act we have the right to view all documents relating to this matter and to grant access in full, the law is documented for all to follow and I ask why do the department hold these documents on file, and why are we denied access in full when there are law (sic) to govern all.
I request you grant complete disclosure of these files in full, including data-base and computer records.
I did request all files in the above matter and files from 1986 are not present or have not even been mentioned as you can understand that my request is an inquire (sic) that should be granted…"Acknowledging receipt of the application for review, Ms Gardiner on 23 June 2000 (T15) in a letter to the Applicant inter alia stated:
"With regard to your statement that you did not receive a copy of all your files from 1986 until the present, if you peruse some of the documents released to you, you will note that although they under the cover of one file number they actually have another file number endorsed somewhere on them. It was a practise of this Department until the introduction of a new database last year, that earlier files were combined with later files. This has been the case with N94/520844 which has papers of two previous files incorporated into it. These files were Q88/008678 and N90/010127. Copies of all database/computer records can be found on all files in various places…."
Having reviewed the earlier decision, on 18 July 2000 (T20) the Respondent wrote to the Applicant stating:
"…After consideration of your application and the decision made by Dawn Gardiner on 9 June 2000 as an officer authorised to do so under the FOI Act, I agree that the original decision was correct.
Enclosed please find a copy of the Decision Record in relation to my decision on your application for an internal review…"The decision record referred to files numbered A94/4387, N94/520844, CLF2000/9931, N94/0010, N95/0210 and numerous folios in each of such files variously relaying upon the provisions of sections 33(1)(a)(iii), 36(1), 37(1)(c), 37(2)(b), 41(1) and 45(1) of the Act, in support of the folios being exempt documents.
On or about the 27 June 2000 the Applicant made a further request under the Act for access to documents held by the Respondent in his name. On 22 August 2000 access was granted to documents in whole or with deletions (T25). The deletions were made and documents were stated to be exempt pursuant to the provisions of sections 24A, 37(2)(b), 41(1) and 45(1) of the Act.
On the 4 August 2000 the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the relevant decisions (T1), contending:
"The decision is wrong.
The incorrect time frames have been applied (sic)
correct sections of the Act have not been applied correctly in expecting (sic) documents"Upon request of the Applicant a further search for files and documents was conducted by the Respondent and on 5 December 2000 access to additional documents in whole or in part was provided. This occurred again on 6 April 2001 (Exhibit 3).
The Respondent contends that access has now been granted to all documents to which the Applicant is entitled under the Act.
At the commencement of the hearing before the Tribunal it was contended on behalf of the Applicant, that files numbered N87/026582, Q88/008678, N90/010127, N94/520844, N89/101460, N93/100652, N96/520631, N92/1000699 and N93/100909 had not been produced. It was further contended that the Applicant's passport had not been returned to him and that detrimental false allegations appeared on exempt files that might have to be corrected. It was said generally that he had "not received all documents".
the hearing
At the hearing of the application all of the various requests for documents made by the Applicant were dealt with together. The Applicant was represented by Ms A Comes, the Applicant's wife, and the Respondent by Mr P Salem, solicitor.
Introduced into evidence were the documents lodged with the Tribunal by the Respondent pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 marked T1 to T35 and S1. The following material was tendered on behalf of the parties and marked accordingly:
Exhibit No Description DateSchedule of exempt documents
Letter from Ms D Gardiner to Mr Nitas 5 December 2000
Letter from Ms D Gardiner to Mr Nitas 6 April 2001
A Document marked 116
B Document marked 126
C Document marked 18
C1 Affidavit of Ms D Gardiner 10 April 2001
C2 Amended schedule of exempt documents
Mr Jannis Daras-Wells was called to give evidence on behalf of the Applicant on which he was cross-examined. Ms Dawn Gardiner, the delegated officer of the Respondent, gave her evidence by affidavit and orally, and she was cross-examined.
At the request of the Respondent, directions were made by the Tribunal namely:
Being satisfied that it is desirable to do so the Tribunal directs pursuant to subsection 35(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975:
(c) until further direction the matter set out in the schedule below be prohibited from publication or disclosure to all persons other than the members of the Tribunal and the staff of the Tribunal in the course of the performance of their duties, officers of the Respondent and the Respondent's legal advisers;
(d) that part of the proceedings identified by the Tribunal as being closed session and any documents tendered by the Respondent in closed session shall take place in private in the presence only of the members of the Tribunal and staff of the Tribunal in the course of the performance of their duties, officers of the Respondent and the Respondent's legal advisers.
Schedule
the affidavit sworn on 10 April 2001 which is relied upon by the Respondent in these proceedings;
copies of the folios in dispute in these proceedings;
the oral evidence given by the deponent of the affidavit referred to above, which is given in closed session.
the relevant legislation
The provisions of the Act relevant to this decision are:
"Requests may be refused if documents cannot be found or do not exist
24A An agency or Minister may refuse a request for access to a document if:
(a) all reasonable steps have been taken to find the document; and
(b) the agency or Minister is satisfied that the document:
(i) is in the agency's or Minister's possession but cannot be found; or
(ii) does not exist.
…
Documents affecting national security, defence or international relations
33(1) A document is an exempt document if disclosure of the document under this Act:
(a) would, or could reasonably be expected to, cause damage to:
(i) the security of the Commonwealth;
(ii) the defence of the Commonwealth; or
(iii) the international relations of the Commonwealth; or
…
Documents affecting relations with States
33A(1) Subject to subsection (5) a document is an exempt document if disclosure of the document under this Act:…
(b) would divulge information or matter communicated in confidence by or on behalf of the Government of a State or an authority of a State, to the Government of the Commonwealth, to an authority of the Commonwealth or to a person receiving the communication on behalf of the Commonwealth or of an authority of the Commonwealth.
…
Internal working documents
36(1) Subject to this section, a document is an exempt document if it is a document the disclosure of which under this Act:(a) would disclose matter in the nature of, or relating to, opinion, advice or recommendation obtained, prepared or recorded, or consultation or deliberation that has taken place, in the course of, or for the purposes of, the deliberative processes involved in the functions of an agency or Minister or of the Government of the Commonwealth; and
(b) would be contrary to the public interest.
…
Documents affecting enforcement of law and protection of public safety
37(1) A document is an exempt document if its disclosure under this Act would, or could reasonably be expected to:
…
(c) endanger the life or physical safety of any person.
…
37(2) A document is an exempt document if its disclosure under this Act would, or could reasonably be expected to:
…
(b) disclose lawful methods or procedures for preventing, detecting, investigating, or dealing with matters arising out of, breaches or evasions of the law the disclosure of which would, or would be reasonably likely to, prejudice the effectiveness of those methods or procedures; or
…
Documents affecting personal privacy
41(1) A document is an exempt document if its disclosure under this Act would involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about any person (including a deceased person).
…
Documents containing material obtained in confidence
45(1) A document is an exempt document if its disclosure under this Act would found an action, by a person other than the Commonwealth, for breach of confidence.
…"
A finding of "could reasonably be expected" is one that calls for expectation that is not irrational, absurd or ridiculous, fanciful, imaginary or contrived (Attorney General's Department v Cockcroft (1986) 10 FCR 180; 12 ALD 468; Arnold v Queensland and Anor (1987) 13 ALD 195; 73 ALR 607 at 616-628; Re McKnight and Australian Archives (1992) 28 ALD 95 at 111; Re Milliss and National Archives of Australia [2000] AATA 565). A source is to be seen as confidential or not confidential and there is no question of balancing one interest against another, public or private. If a source is confidential it is entitled to the benefit and protection afforded to it by the Act.
Where the Act refers to disclosure of information or matter which would or could reasonably be expected to disclose or enable a person to ascertain the existence or identity of a confidential source of information, in relation to the enforcement or administration of the law, then in order to attract the operation of the provision it is the source that must be confidential, regardless of whether or not the information provided by the source is or was confidential. The status of the information does not affect the confidentiality issue as to the source.
In seeking to obtain access to material, a searcher may seek or be enabled to – with the smallest particle of intelligence, even though such particle may be innocuous standing alone, when used in conjunction with other pieces of intelligence – build up a picture, the like of which the searcher was seeking to construct (Milliss and National Archives of Australia (supra) at paragraph 21).
Thus, information on its face or in conjunction with other material might, depending on the evidence, enable a person to ascertain by process of inference, induction or deduction, the identity of a source in question (Re McKnight (supra) at 112; Re Milliss (supra) at paragraph 22). It is possible that the information that would or could be called in aid to ground an inference as to the identity of a source, would or could be available to a seeker. It is trite to say that disclosure under the Act is a general disclosure and any interested researcher could, if so motivated, use material to identify a source. It is a question as to whether the disclosure of the material could reasonably be expected to have the designated effect, that is of disclosing or enabling a person to ascertain the identity or existence of a confidential source of information in relation to the enforcement or administration of the law.
The above principles are thus to be applied in determining whether disclosure would affect national security, defence or international relations, enforcement of the law and protection of public safety, or affect personal privacy. Likewise, they are to be applied in determining whether documents contain material obtained in confidence. The existence of internal working documents should be apparent on their face. Issues as to whether documents can or cannot be found or do or do not exist are matters of fact.
the evidence
as to the matter generally, false allegations and files not produced
Evidence given by Mr Daras-Wells, one time an officer of the Respondent attached to the compliance branch, was to the effect that several files referable to the Applicant did at one time exist, this in 1987, 1988 and 1993. He also said that there was "a Queensland file". However, other than for the purpose of these proceedings, he had not had contact with the Applicant since 1995. Ms Gardiner, in her evidence, detailed the procedures that she had followed in endeavouring to locate relevant documents and the nature of the searches that she had conducted. She made mention of changes that had occurred of recent time in the retaining of files and folios and the consolidation of files.
More specifically with reference to the files designated by the Applicant as not having been produced, Ms Gardiner stated:
" – as to files N93/100909 and N92/100699 she had been advised that these files had been destroyed by the NSW branch management section. The destruction had taken place in September 2000." She stated "it is believed that the box containing file N92/100699 which was to be destroyed under the same disposal schedule has been destroyed as this box also can not be located. Given the time spent trying to locate both of these files (N93/100909 and N92/100699) and the extent to which the search has been carried out without locating them, I have decided to refuse access under section 24A of the FOI Act".
The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Ms Gardiner, uncontradicted as it was and not the subject of cross-examination, as to the destruction of these two files.
As to file N87/026582 Ms Gardiner said that a record of this file had been found, but that she had been unable to locate it and there was no record of the file on the new database. In a letter of 22 August 2000 to the Applicant (T25), Ms Gardiner inter alia stated:
"A record of a further file in your name, number N87/026582 has also been located, however, after an extensive search I am not able to locate this file either at the Department's archives or within the Department. As a result, I have to refuse access to this file under section 24A of the FOI Act…"
The Tribunal on the same basis as above accepts the evidence of Ms Gardiner as to this file.
As to files Q88/008678 and N90/010127 Ms Gardiner stated that these files were incorporated in file N94/520844, which had been released in part to the Applicant in June 2000.
As to files N89/101460 and N93/100652 Ms Gardiner said that the latter was a bulk file and that neither file disclosed the Applicant's name. Letters placed on the file did not bear his name. As to file N96/520631 Ms Gardiner stated that the file did not refer to the Applicant nor did it contain any documents relating to him. Discovery would have involved the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about other persons.
The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Ms Gardiner in relation to the various files alleged not to have been produced. Ms Gardiner impressed the Tribunal as a diligent and well informed officer of the Respondent, who had expended considerable time and effort in locating documents referable to the Applicant and making appropriate decisions in relation to them.
With reference to any notations detailing allegations against the Applicant, where appropriate these had been corrected. In instances where information allegedly false had been provided to the Respondent by the police, the Applicant had been advised that it was necessary in such circumstances to have the initial error rectified prior to any alteration being made to the Respondent's own records.
No evidence was forthcoming from or on behalf of the Applicant as to the whereabouts of a passport.
The Tribunal is satisfied, on the basis of the evidence placed before it, that the Respondent has produced all documents and has taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the existence of such documents. Whilst there was a change in procedure since Mr Daras-Wells was an officer of the Respondent, the Tribunal is satisfied that the files referred to by him either do not now exist or have been consolidated with other material. As has already been mentioned, the evidence of Ms Gardiner in this regard is accepted by the Tribunal. There was nothing put by, or on behalf of, the Applicant to contradict it. Ms Gardiner gave explanations, which were reasonable as to the alleged files not being produced, her evidence was not challenged and there was not anything that contradicted her evidence placed before the Tribunal.
It is true that documents were destroyed in September 2000 after the present application was made. Regret was expressed on behalf of the Respondent as to such destruction, but the Tribunal is satisfied that the same was not deliberate or carried out due to lack of due diligence.
schedule of exempt documents
The reviewable decisions as they relate to documents held by the Respondent are ones that maintain that the same are exempt documents, as defined by the various sections of the Act earlier identified, and hence not to be made available for public access as otherwise required. The Respondent maintains that, as to the relevant documents:
some of them cannot be found or do not exist;
some of the documents affect national security, defence or international relations;
some of the documents reflect the internal working of the Respondent;
various of the documents affect enforcement of law and protection of public safety;
various of the documents affect personal privacy;
some of the documents contain material obtained in confidence.
In her evidence given in closed session and in her confidential affidavit, Ms Gardiner discussed the relevant statutory provisions and gave her explanation as to why the documents, designated in the annexure to these reasons, were exempt. Submissions were made to the effect that some documents bare evidence of investigations which may still be pursued, access to which may compromise inquiries and further investigation and reveal activities under surveillance. The test is as to the reasonableness of the claimed exemption, consistent with the principles earlier detailed in these reasons.
The Tribunal has, in the light of the evidence, the statutory provisions and the principles earlier enumerated, examined each of the folios claimed to be exempt and made findings in relation to them, as set forth in the annexure to these reasons.
Findings in relation to the matters generally raised by, and on behalf of, the Applicant have been set forth above. Consistent with the findings so made and in accord with the reasons earlier set forth the decisions under review are affirmed.
I certify that the 31 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of THE HON RNJ PURVIS QC, DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Signed: .....................................................................................
AssociateDate/s of Hearing 18 April 2001
Date of Decision 10 May 2001
Counsel for the Applicant Self- represented
Solicitor for the Respondent Mr P SalemANNEXURE
FILE FOLIO NO DESCRIPTION OF EXEMPT MATERIAL TRIBUNAL DECISION
A94/004387 57-60 Undated departmental advice from DIMA Country Information Service Consists of sources of information referable to public safety: exempt under section 37(2)(b)
61 File note 5/5/1995 Consists of sources of information referable to public safety: exempt under section 37(2)(b)
62 Restricted cable 23/3/1992 Consists of information disclosure which may be contrary to the public interest and/or damage international relations: exempt under sections 33(1)(a)(iii), 37(2)(b) and 36(1)
106 Compliance system person details 20/3/2000 Consists of information referable to integrity of investigation methods and information about a third person: exempt under sections 37(2)(b) and 41(1)
N95/520844 103 Departmental facsimile message 20/10/1994 Consists of sources of information referable to investigations: exempt under section 37(2)(b)111 Departmental movement database Consists of unreasonable disclosure of personal information about a person: exempt under section 41(1)
114 Departmental memo 10/11/1995 Consists of material that may compromise investigations: exempt under section 37(2)(b)
116 Part of departmental memo, undated Material disclosure may compromise ongoing investigations, and unreasonable disclosure of personal information about a person: exempt under sections 37(2)(b) and 41(1)
126 Part of compliance system database report, undated Unreasonable disclosure of personal information about a person: exempt under section 41(1)
127 Compliance system database report 26 /3/1997 Disclosure may prejudice ability to maintain investigative practices, and unreasonable disclosure of personal information about a person: exempt under sections 37(2)(b) and 41(1)
159 Departmental file note 20/3/1998 Not in public interest for information to be placed in public arena, ongoing investigation, and unreasonable disclosure of information about a person: exempt under sections 36(1) and 41(1)
160 Letter from DIMA to AFP 26/05/1998 Disclosure would reveal information as to departmental methods and procedures: exempt under section 37(2)/(b)
161 Department e-mail 16/6/1998 Disclosure would be contrary to the public interest: exempt under section 36(1)
162 Departmental file note 29/5/1998 Unreasonable disclosure of personal information of third parties and information inherently confidential: exempt under sections 41(1) and 45(1)
163 Undated copy of promotional invitation Information provided on confidential basis and may disclose matters of proceedings for investigation or dealing with breaches of the Migration Act 1958: exempt under sections 37(2)(b) and 45(1)
CLF2000/9931 17 Part of undated shift log report Possible disclosure of identity of source of information: exempt under sections 37(1), 41(1) and 45(1)18 Part of undated compliance officer's field notebook Information could prejudice ability to maintain investigative practice and procedure, and unreasonable disclosure of personal information of individuals: exempt under sections 37(2)(b) and 41(1)
152, 153 and 154 Departmental file notes 19/9/1994, 16/4/1994 and 20/9/1994 Disclosure of informants, information may involve risks to informants, disclosure of identity of informants, material inherently confidential: exempt under sections 37(1)(c), 37(2)(b), 41(1) and 45(1)155 AFP information report 29/9/1994 Material contains information about other persons conveyed in confidence, unreasonable disclosure of personal information, possible compromise of investigations: exempt under sections 37(1)(c), 37(2)(b), 41(1), 45(1)
156 Part of white pages listing undated Confidential information: exempt under sections 37(2)(b) and 41(1)
157 Information request 5/2/1997 Information about another person provided in confidence, referable to integrity of administration of Migration Act 1958, possible prejudice to ability to maintain its practices in future investigations: exempt under sections 33A(1)(b), 37(2)(b), 41(1)
158, 159, 160, 161 Visitor's application forms 6/12/1996 and 13/12/1996, 23/11/1994 and 24/11/1996, 24/11/1996, 25/11/1996 and 26/11/1996 Unreasonable disclosure of personal details as to another person: exempt under sections 37(2)(b), 41(1)
162-164 Undated departmental movement details Unreasonable disclosure of personal details as to another person: exempt under sections 37(2)(b), 41(1)
165-166 Undated client application and status reports Unreasonable disclosure of personal details as to another person: exempt under sections 37(2)(b), 41(1)167 Visitors application forms 26/11/1996 Unreasonable disclosure of personal details as to other person: exempt under sections 37(2)(b), 41(1)
168 Undated departmental movement details Unreasonable disclosure of personal details as to another person: exempt under sections 37(2)(b), 41(1)
169, 170, 171, 172 Visitors application forms 27/11/1996 and 29/11/1996, 29/11/1996 and 1/12/1996, 1/12/1996 and 3/12/1996, 16/12/1996 Unreasonable disclosure of personal details as to another person: exempt under sections 37(2)(b), 41(1)173 Undated department print-out Unreasonable disclosure of personal details as to another person: exempt under sections 37(2)(b), 41(1)
174 Undated departmental movement details Unreasonable disclosure of personal details as to another person: exempt under sections 37(2)(b), 41(1)
175 Citizenship enquiry system print-out 17/12/1996 Unreasonable disclosure of personal details as to another person: exempt under sections 37(2)(b), 41(1)
176 Undated registry database print-out Confidential information and unreasonable disclosure of personal details as to another person: exempt under sections 37(2)(b), 41(1)
177, 178 Undated file notes Confidential information and unreasonable disclosure of personal details as to another person, sections 37(2)(b), 41(1), 45(1)179 Departmental minute 6/2/1997 Confidential information and unreasonable disclosure of personal details as to another person: exempt under sections 37(2)(b), 41(1), 45(1)
180 File note 16/4/1997 Confidential information and unreasonable disclosure of personal details as to another person: exempt under sections 37(2)(b), 41(1), 45(1)
181 Undated file note Confidential information, unreasonable disclosure of personal details as to another person: exempt under sections 37(2)(b), 41(1), 45(1)
182, 183 File notes 15/4/1997 and 3/7/1997 Unreasonable disclosure of personal details as to another person and as to departmental methods and procedures: exempt under sections 37A(1)(b),37(1)(c), 37(2)(b), 41(1)184 Undated envelope with 11 folios enclosed Consists of protected information and information provided in confidence, information and address disclosures would be unreasonable to another person: exempt under sections 33(1)(b), 36(1), 37(2)(b), 45(1)
185 Part of white pages listings undated Unreasonable disclosure of personal details as to another person: exempt under section 41(1)
186 File note 2/1/1998 Information relates to other persons, prejudicial to Respondent's ability to maintain its practices in investigations of breaches of the Migration Act 1958: exempt under sections 36(1), 37(2)(b), 41(1), 45(1)
187 Undated file note Unreasonable disclosure of personal details as to another person, departmental methods and procedures and prejudicial to maintaining the integrity of administration of the Migration Act 1958: exempt under sections 37(2)(b) and 41(1)
188 File note 19/1/1998 Consists of information as to methods and procedures, detection and investigation, disclosure would be prejudicial to the Respondent's ability to maintain practices in the future and relates to another person: exempt under sections 36(1), 37(2)(b), 41(1), 45(1)
253, 258 Parts of departmental e-mails 30/3/2000 Unreasonable disclosure of personal details as to another person: exempt under section 41(1)
N94/0010 9 Visitors application forms 8/7/1993 Consists of information involving the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about a person: exempt under section 41(1)11 Property receipt 8/7/1993 Consists of information involving the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about a person: exempt under section 41(1)
13-16 Visitors application forms 9/7/1993 and 10/7/1993 Consists of information involving the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about a person: exempt under section 41(1)
18-20 Visitors application forms 11/7/1993 Consists of information involving the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about a person: exempt under section 41(1)
24-26 Visitors application forms 14/7/1993 and 15/7/1993 Consists of information involving the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about a person: exempt under section 41(1)29 Visitors application form 15/7/1993 Consists of information involving the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about a person: exempt under section 41(1)
31-33 Visitors application forms 17/7/1993 Consists of information involving the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about a person: exempt under section 41(1)35 Visitors application form 20/7/1993 Consists of information involving the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about a person: exempt under section 41(1)
37-39 Visitors application forms 21/7/1993 Consists of information involving the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about a person: exempt under section 41(1)
41-46 Visitors application forms 23, 24, 26, 27 and 29/7/1993 Consists of information involving the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about a person: exempt under section 41(1)48 Property receipt form 29/7/1993 Consists of information involving the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about a person: exempt under section 41(1)
49-56 Visitors application forms 30 and 31/7/1993, 1, 3 and 5/8/1993 Consists of information involving the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about a person: exempt under section 41(1)58 Visitors application form 6/8/1993 and 29/11/1996 Consists of information involving the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about a person: exempt under section 41(1)
60, 61 Visitors application forms 7 and 9/8/1993 Consists of information involving the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about a person: exempt under section 41(1)
63, 64 Visitors application forms 10/8/1993 Consists of information involving the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about a person: exempt under section 41(1)67 Visitors application form 13/8/1993 Consists of information involving the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about a person: exempt under section 41(1)
72 Visitors application form 15/8/1993 Consists of information involving the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about a person: exempt under section 41(1)
77 Visitors application form 16/8/1993 Consists of information involving the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about a person: exempt under section 41(1)
N95/0210 13 Property receipt 26/8/1994 Consists of information involving the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about a person: exempt under section 41(1)
14-17 Visitors application forms 26, 28 and 31/8/1994 Consists of information involving the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about a person: exempt under section 41(1)
19-23 Visitors application forms 1 and 2/9/1994 Consists of information involving the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about a person: exempt under section 41(1)
25-28 Visitors application forms 7 and 9/9/1994 Consists of information involving the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about a person: exempt under section 41(1)
32-34 Visitors application forms 11/9/1994 Involving the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about a person: exempt under section 41(1)
1
2
0