Robertson v Deputy Secretary, Local Government, Planning and Policy

The case of Robertson v Deputy Secretary, Local Government, Planning and Policy was heard by the Federal Court of Australia, where the primary issue was whether the Deputy Secretary's decision to deny a request for information under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (GIPA) was lawful. The applicant, Robertson, sought information regarding the handling of a complaint against the Office of Local Government, seeking transparency on the complaint handling and investigative functions of the office. The Deputy Secretary refused the request on the grounds that the information was excluded under section 19A of the GIPA Act because it related to the handling of a complaint, which was considered part of the office's investigative functions.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the information requested by Robertson was excluded from public access under section 19A of the GIPA Act, which exempts information that relates to the handling of a complaint. The court had to interpret the scope of the term "relates to" in the context of complaint handling and investigative functions, and determine if the information sought by Robertson was covered by this exclusion. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the Deputy Secretary's decision to deny the information request was made in accordance with the law and whether the decision was reasonable.

The court found that the Deputy Secretary's decision to deny Robertson's request for information was lawful. The Federal Court held that the term "relates to" in section 19A of the GIPA Act was broad enough to encompass information about the handling of a complaint, which is integral to the investigative functions of the Office of Local Government. The court concluded that the information sought by Robertson was indeed excluded from public access under the Act, as it pertained to the core activities of complaint handling and investigation. Therefore, the Deputy Secretary's decision to deny the request was upheld as it was in accordance with the law and was a reasonable exercise of discretion. The court affirmed the Deputy Secretary's decision of 8 March 2021.