Robinson v Department of Health

[2002] NSWADT 222

CITATION:	Robinson -v- Director General, Department of Health [2002] NSWADT 222
DIVISION:	General Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Adrian Robinson RESPONDENT Director General, Department of Health
FILE NUMBER:	013078
HEARING DATES:	08/11/2001, 02/04/2002
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	04/02/2002
DATE OF DECISION:	11/05/2002
BEFORE:	Hennessy N (Deputy President)
APPLICATION:	access to documents - legal professional privilege - access to documents - operation of agencies - access to documents - personal affairs - Freedom of Information Act - access to documents - legal professional privilege - Freedom of Information Act - access to documents - operation of agencies - Freedom of Information Act - access to documents - personal affairs
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
LEGISLATION CITED:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) Freedom of Information Act 1989 Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988
CASES CITED:	Mangoplah Pastoral Co Pty Ltd v Great Southern Energy [1999] NSWADT 93 Esso Australia Resources Ltd v The Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 168 ALR 123 Waterford v The Commonwealth (1987) 163 CLR 54 Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1999) 168 ALR 123 Walden & Toni v Leichhardt Municipal Council [2001] NSWADT 81 Re Theis and Department of Aviation (1986) 5 AAR 27 Colakovski v Australian Telecommunications Corporation (1991) 29 FCR 429 Re Associated Minerals Consolidated Ltd and Secretary, Department of Transport and Communications (1990) 11 AAR 324 Re Mann and Australian Taxation Office (1985) 7ALD 698 Director General, Department of Education & Training -v- Mullett & anor (GD) [2002] NSWADTAP 13 revised Mullett -v- Director General, Department of Education and Training [2001] NSWADT 119 Searle Australia Pty Limited v Public Interest Advocacy Centre and Another (1992) 108 ALR 163 Re "B" and Brisbane North Regional Health Authority (1994) 1 QAR 279 Harris v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1983) 78 FLR 236 Director General, Department of Education and Training -v- Mullett and Randazzo (No. 2) [2002] NSWADTAP 29 Re Booker and Department of Social Security (unreported, AAT, 13 September 1990 Re Thomas and Royal Woman’s Hospital and Director-General of Community Services (1988) 2VAR 618 Re Chandra and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1984) 6 ALD 257 University of Melbourne v Robinson [1993] 2 VR 177 State of Queensland v Albietz [1996] 1 Qd R 215 Commissioner of Police v District Court of New South Wales (1993) 31 NSWLR 606 (Perrin's Case) Young v Wicks (1986) 13 FCR 85Department of Social Security v Dyrenfurth (1988) 80 ALR 533 Wiseman v Commonwealth of Australia (unreported, Federal Court, 24 October 1989 Hutchinson and Department of Human Services (1997) 12 VAR 422
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT In person RESPONDENT K Thomas, solicitor
ORDERS:	1. That part of the agency's decision which relies on Clause 10 of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 1989 (legal professional privilege) is affirmed; 2. That part of the agency's decision which relies on Clause 20(d) to Schedule 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 1989 (protected disclosures) is affirmed ; 3. That part of the agency's decision which relies on Clause 16(a)(iv) of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 1989 (operations of an agency) is affirmed; 4. That part of the agency's decision which relies on Clause 6 of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 1989 (personal affairs) is dealt with as follows:; a) I affirm that part of the agency's decision not to release documents or parts of documents containing information relating to the personal affairs of clients, to the extent that the agency relies on Clause 6 of Schedule 1 (personal affairs) in relation to those documents or parts of documents ; b) I remit that part of the agency's decision not to release documents or parts of documents 249 and 251-259, to the extent that the agency relies on Clause 6 of Schedule 1 (personal affairs) in relation to those documents or parts of documents; c) I remit that part of the agency's decision not to release documents or parts of documents containing views or opinions about people other than Mr Robinson, to the extent that the agency relies on Clause 6 to Schedule 1 (personal affairs) in relation to those documents or parts of documents; d) I set aside that part of the agency's decision not to release documents or parts of documents containing views or opinions about Mr Robinson, to the extent that the agency relies on Clause 6 to Schedule 1 (personal affairs) in relation to those documents or parts of documents

1 On 19 January 1998, Mr Robinson sought access under the Freedom of Information Act 1989 (FOI Act) to certain documents held by the NSW Health Department (the agency). He requested:

"all notes, reports, documents, tapes, correspondence and other materials which were collected as part of the investigation process, were the result of the investigation process or in any way pertain to the investigation process."

2 These documents relate to an investigation conducted by the agency’s Audit Branch into allegations that Mr Robinson had engaged in corrupt conduct. The nature of the alleged conduct concerned the manner in which Mr Robinson, a psychologist employed in the public sector, operated a private practice from his rooms. The investigation was conducted at the request of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC).

3 Between 15 and 20 people provided information to the Audit Branch and a Confidential Investigation Report was produced. Mr Robinson has consistently denied that he engaged in corrupt conduct or that the Audit Branch’s findings support such a view. As I understand it, no disciplinary or other action was taken against Mr Robinson as a result of the investigation.

4 On 26 February 1998, the agency gave Mr Robinson access to some of the documents covered by his application. The number of documents in dispute has been narrowed considerably following internal review, a complaint to the Ombudsman and discussions between the agency and the applicant. The documents which remain in dispute are listed in the Schedule at the end of these reasons, together with the grounds for objection to their release.

Statutory framework

5 Under s 25(1)(a) of the FOI Act, an agency has a discretion to refuse access to a document if it is an exempt document. Exempt documents include those documents falling within the provisions of Schedule 1 to the FOI Act. The provisions on which the agency relies in refusing to grant access to certain documents, or parts of documents, are: Clause 10 (legal professional privilege); Clause 20(d) (protected disclosures); Clause 16(a)(iv) (operations of an agency); and Clause 6 (personal affairs). These provisions are set out below.

Clause 10
A document is an exempt document if it contains matter that would be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

Clause 20(d)
A document is an exempt document if it contains matter the disclosure of which would disclose:
(d) matter relating to a protected disclosure within the meaning of the Protected Disclosures Act 1994.

Clause 16(a)(iv)
A document is an exempt document if it contains matter the disclosure of which
(a) could reasonably be expected:
(iv) to have a substantial adverse effect on the effective performance by an agency of the agency’s functions; . . . and
(b) would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest.

Clause 6
A document is an exempt document if it contains matter the disclosure of which would involve the unreasonable disclosure of information concerning the personal affairs of any person (whether living or deceased).
A document is not an exempt document by virtue of this clause merely because it contains information concerning the person by or on whose behalf an application for access to the document is being made.

6 Under s 61 of the FOI Act, the burden of establishing that the determination is justified lies on the agency. Section 25(4) of the FOI Act requires the Tribunal to consider whether access should be granted to exempt documents in a form in which exempt matter is deleted, if that is practicable and that is what the applicant would wish.

Overriding discretion

7 Even if the Tribunal finds that a document is an exempt document, there is a line of authority beginning with Mangoplah Pastoral Co Pty Ltd v Great Southern Energy [1999] NSWADT 93, suggesting that the Tribunal may nevertheless exercise the discretion given to agencies by s 25 of the FOI Act to disclose that document. At [91] of Mangoplah, the Tribunal defined the Tribunal’s overriding discretion in the following terms:

Framing the question in this way produces a need to locate special or overriding circumstances or interests before an exempt document is released, but only in the sense that some reason particular to the circumstances should be found for not claiming the exemption.

8 Mr John White, Senior Management Analyst with the Audit Branch of the agency, investigated the complaints of possible corrupt conduct concerning Mr Robinson. In his affidavit dated 24 October 2001, Mr White stated that he has engaged in numerous investigations into allegations of corrupt conduct in both small and large communities. He has conducted interviews with people from country centres and is aware of confidentiality concerns raised by complainants and interviewees.

9 Mr White asserts that the investigation process of the Special Projects Unit relies on persons volunteering information and coming forward with concerns about potential corruption. In his view, without this reporting system, fewer potentially corrupt activities would be reported and ultimately investigated. Mr White stated that investigations in rural communities would inevitably be hindered if potential interviewees knew that their identity could be disclosed later, as this knowledge could reasonably be expected to affect the candour of the interviewee during the interview process as well as undermine public confidence in such investigations.

10 The agency submitted that much of the information contained within the working documents and interview notes of the Special Projects Unit has been provided to Mr Robinson. Those parts that have not been disclosed contain evidence that would either directly of indirectly lead to the identification of the complainants and/or those persons who provided information throughout the investigation.

Agency’s submissions on legal professional privilege

11 The agency submitted that a confidential communication will be protected by legal professional privilege if it was created for the dominant purpose of obtaining or giving legal advice or assistance, or for use in actual or pending legal proceedings. (See Esso Australia Resources Ltd v The Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 168 ALR 123.)

12 The agency submitted that the availability of legal professional privilege to protect communications of government legal officers was considered in Waterford v The Commonwealth (1987) 163 CLR 54. Where a lawyer is employed by the public service, communications between the lawyer and others in the public service made for the purpose of giving or receiving legal advice or giving or receiving litigation services will be privileged.

13 The agency claimed that four documents are exempt pursuant to the legal professional privilege exemption. The documents and a summary of the agency’s submissions are set out below:

Document 48 was produced for the sole purpose of obtaining legal advice from the Legal Branch of the agency and contains confidential communications between the agency and a solicitor employed by the agency.
Document 51 contains a confidential communication from an officer in the Legal Branch to various officers including the Director-General of the agency.
Parts of Documents 55 and 56 contain the legal advice referred to in Document 51. This advice has been used in confidential communications to other government agencies and are marked "confidential".

14 The agency submitted that, in accordance with the principles in Re Dwyer and the Department of Finance (1985) 8 ALD 474, an agency will not be taken to have waived its privilege in a document by providing it to another agency on a confidential basis.

Applicant’s submissions on legal professional privilege

15 Mr Robinson relied on the Ombudsman’s preliminary determination in support of his submission that documents 48, 51, 55 and 56 are not protected by the exemption relating to legal professional privilege. According to that determination, the Legal Branch of the agency was integral to the investigation process because they read the information provided by the Audit Branch investigators and the information which Mr Robinson provided in response, and determined whether or not he was guilty of corrupt conduct. According to the Ombudsman (and Mr Robinson) the Legal Branch’s advice to the Director General was not principally legal advice obtained in relation to pending legal proceedings. It was, they say, created for the purpose of determining the outcome of the investigation process.

Tribunal’s findings on legal professional privilege

16 Following the decision of the High Court in Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1999) 168 ALR 123, the law in Australia is that legal professional privilege will attach to a confidential communication, oral or in writing, made for the dominant purpose of obtaining or giving legal advice or assistance, or for use in legal proceedings. Having examined each of the documents, it is my view that they all contain confidential communications created for the dominant purpose of obtaining or giving legal advice or assistance.

17 Document 48 requests that the Director, Legal and Legislative Services Branch of the agency, provide advice to the Director General in accordance with recommendation 3 of the Investigation Report. That recommendation stated that:

The findings of this investigation, including Mr A Robinson’s reply . . . be referred to the Department of Health, Director, Legal and Legislative Services for advice to the Director-General of Health as to what disciplinary and/or other actions should be taken in regard to Mr A Robinson . . .

18 I do not agree with Mr Robinson’s submission (adopting the Ombudsman’s preliminary view) that Documents 48 and 51 may have been prepared, not for the dominant purpose of providing legal advice, but for the dominant purpose of determining the outcome of the investigation process. Document 48 is a request for legal advice. Document 51 is the Legal and Legislative Services’ response to the request for advice. The document evaluates the evidence and the findings of the Audit Branch and makes recommendations as to what disciplinary action, if any, should be taken. The advice was necessary in order to determine the appropriate outcome once the investigation had been completed. It was created for the dominant purpose of providing legal advice or assistance.

19 Document 55 is a letter marked "Private and Confidential" from NSW Health to the Mid Western Health Service. Part of this document summarises the legal advice contained in Document 51. Mr Robinson has been given access to the document with that part of the document which summarises the legal advice deleted.

20 Document 56 is a letter from NSW Health to ICAC dated 12 January 1998. Part of this document summarises the legal advice contained in Document 51. Mr Robinson has been given access to the document with that part of the document which summarises the legal advice deleted.

21 Mr Robinson did not submit that the agency had waived any claim they may have to legal professional privilege in relation to documents 55 and 56. Legal professional privilege can be waived by express or implied conduct (for example through disclosure); or waiver may be imputed from conduct as a matter of fairness. (See generally Walden & Toni v Leichhardt Municipal Council [2001] NSWADT 81.)

22 The fact that a summary of the legal advice was given to the Mid Western Health Service and ICAC is not sufficient to establish that the privilege has been impliedly waived. Documents were only sent to officers outside the agency for the necessary and specific purpose of informing them of the outcome of the investigation.

Application of overriding discretion in relation to legal professional privilege

23 There are no special or overriding circumstances or interests that I can identify, or that have been brought to my attention, which would justify the Tribunal exercising its overriding discretion to release the documents. Consequently, that part of the agency’s decision which relies on Clause 10 of Schedule 1 to the FOI Act (legal professional privilege) is affirmed.

Agency’s submission on the protected disclosures exemption

24 Under Clause 20(d) to Schedule 1 of the FOI Act a document is an exempt document if it contains matter the disclosure of which would disclose matter relating to a protected disclosure within the meaning of the Protected Disclosures Act 1994.

25 A disclosure must meet certain requirements if it is to be regarded as a "protected disclosure" under the Protected Disclosures Act 1994. Firstly, under s 8, the disclosure "must be made by a public official to an investigating authority." Under s 4, an investigating authority includes ICAC and a public official includes "a person employed under the Public Sector Management Act 1988." A disclosure is also protected, pursuant to s 15, if it is made by a public official to an investigating authority and is referred by the investigating authority to another investigating authority or to a public official or public authority. Section 3(a) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 (ICAC Act) defines a public authority as including "a Government Department . . . "

26 According to the agency, the matter before the Tribunal arose from a disclosure made to the ICAC, an investigating authority, by a public official, an employee employed under the Public Sector Management Act 1988, satisfying clause 8(1)(a) of the Protected Disclosures Act 1994. The issues disclosed were then referred by the ICAC to the agency (a "public authority" under s 3) for investigation, attracting protection pursuant to s 15 of the Protected Disclosures Act 1994.

27 Secondly, under section 9, a disclosure must be made voluntarily. A disclosure "is not made voluntarily . . . if it is made by a public official in the exercise of a duty imposed on the public official by or under an Act." According to the agency, the disclosure was voluntary, and was not made by the public official in the exercise of their duty imposed by or under any Act, satisfying s 9 of the Protected Disclosures Act 1994.

28 Thirdly, under s 10, any disclosure made to ICAC must be made "in accordance with the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988" and "be a disclosure of information that shows or tends to show that a public authority or another public official has engaged, is engaged, or proposes to engage in corrupt conduct." Section 8(1) of the ICAC Act defines corrupt conduct, in part, as:

(a) any conduct of any person (whether or not a public official) that adversely affects, or that could adversely affect, either directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial exercise of official functions by any public official, any group or body of public officials or any public authority, or
(b) any conduct of a public official that constitutes or involves the dishonest or partial exercise of any of his or her official functions,
or
(c) any conduct of a public official or former public official that constitutes or involves a breach of public trust, or
(d) ......

29 According to the agency, the disclosure was made in accordance with the ICAC Act. The disclosure of information showed that a public official may have dishonestly exercised his official functions, satisfying s 10 of the Protected Disclosures Act 1994.

30 According to the agency, the identity of the individual or individuals who made the protected disclosure should remain confidential. Those persons disclosing sensitive information to an investigating body like the ICAC must be assured that the legislative assurance of confidentiality is honoured. Further, any information which could lead a person to ascertain the identity of the complainant should not be disclosed.

31 The agency submitted that the basis for the protection offered under the Protected Disclosures Act 1994 is to ensure that complainants are protected from harassment and threats. This is particularly important for people who live in small communities.

Applicant’s submissions on the protected disclosures exemption

32 Mr Robinson accepted that a person can choose to make allegations which come within the Protected Disclosures Act 1994. In that case their anonymity is protected by the legislation, but that protection is not absolute. Section 22 provides certain exceptions to the obligation not to disclose information that might identify a person who has made a protected disclosure. Section 22 states that:

An investigating authority or public authority (or officer of an investigating authority or public authority) or public official to whom a protected disclosure is made or referred is not to disclose information that might identify or tend to identify a person who has made the protected disclosure unless:
(a) the person consents in writing to the disclosure of that information, or
(b) it is essential, having regard to the principles of natural justice, that the identifying information be disclosed to a person whom the information provided by the disclosure may concern, or
(c) the investigating authority, public authority, officer or public official is of the opinion that disclosure of the identifying information is necessary to investigate the matter effectively or it is otherwise in the public interest to do so.

33 Mr Robinson submitted that the first two exceptions apply to him. He believes that if the people concerned had been consulted they would have consented to the release of the information. He also believes that disclosure to him is essential, having regard to the principles of natural justice.

Tribunal’s findings on the protected disclosure exemption

34 I am satisfied, on the basis of the evidence and all the submissions, that a complainant or complainants made "protected disclosure/s" to ICAC. By virtue of Clause 20(d) of the FOI Act any documents, disclosure of which "would disclose matter relating to a protected disclosure within the meaning of the Protected Disclosures Act 1994" are exempt.

35 It is not relevant that Mr Robinson knows the identity of a complainant. Release of documents identifying that complainant’s name is release to the whole world, not just to Mr Robinson. (See eg: Colakovski v Australian Telecommunications Corporation (1991) 29 FCR 429 per Jenkinson J at 440.)

36 Because they are in a separate Act, the exceptions in s 22 of the Protected Disclosures Act 1994, do not qualify the exemption in Clause 20(d) to Schedule 1 of the FOI Act.

37 The issue for consideration is which, if any, of the disputed documents discloses matters "relating to" a protected disclosure within the meaning of the Protected Disclosure Act 1994? As far as I am aware, s 20(d) has not been the subject of any discussion by this Tribunal or any court.

38 The words "relating to" are broad. At least any document which, either directly or indirectly, identifies a person as the person who has made a protected disclosure would come within the ambit of a document "relating to" a protected disclosure. The agency has relied on this exemption in relation to documents which identify the complainant/s. While the protected disclosures exemption may have a broader application than this, I am satisfied that it incorporates those documents or parts of documents identified by the agency at the hearing and referred to in the schedule at the end of these reasons.

Overriding discretion in relation to the protected disclosures exemption

39 The Tribunal must consider whether, despite the fact that the exemption in Cl 20(d) applies to numerous documents, or parts of documents, it should nevertheless disclose all or some of those documents because there are special or overriding circumstances or interests relating to this case.

40 Section 22 of the Protected Disclosure Act 1994 provides an indication of the kinds of circumstances where it may be in the interests of a person concerned, or in the public interest, to disclose documents which would identify or tend to identify a person who has made the protected disclosure.

41 Mr Robinson believes that if the people concerned had been consulted, they would have consented to the release of the information. While Mr White gave general evidence about the effect of disclosing the documents, there was no direct evidence that the complainant/s have been consulted about whether they consented to the information being disclosed to Mr Robinson.

42 Mr Robinson also believes that disclosure to him is essential, having regard to the principles of natural justice. He did not point to any other considerations favouring the disclosure of the material.

43 One of the objects of the Protected Disclosures Act 1994, as set out in s 3(1)(b), is "protecting persons from reprisals that might otherwise be inflicted on them because of those disclosures." I accept the agency’s submission that the basis for protection from disclosure under the Protected Disclosures Act 1994 is to ensure that complainants are protected from harassment and threats. The exemption provided in Cl 20(d) of the FOI Act reflects the same concern.

44 Given the terms of s 22 of the Protected Disclosures Act 1994 and its objects, and the objects of the FOI Act, the agency could have asked the complainant/s whether he or she consented to the disclosure of the relevant information. While it is not mandatory for an agency to request the consent of a complainant before relying on Clause 20(d), it would have been desirable to do so. If this person/s consented in writing, then there would no longer be any basis for claiming the exemption and withholding the documents would not be "reasonably necessary for the proper administration of the Government." (See s 5(2)(b) of the FOI Act.)

45 I am not persuaded by Mr Robinson’s submission that it is essential, having regard to the principles of natural justice, that the identifying information be disclosed to him. There was no suggestion that the allegations were not put fairly and completely to Mr Robinson. In those circumstances the failure to disclose the name/s of a complainant/s does not constitute a breach of natural justice.

46 While there are no special or overriding circumstances or interests in favour of releasing the documents, I recommend that the agency consult the complainant/s and ask them whether or not they consent to their identity and the information they provided being disclosed. If they do consent to one or both of those courses of action, then I recommend that the relevant documents or parts of documents be disclosed to the applicant, unless the relevant material is covered by another exemption upheld in this decision. These recommendations are not binding on the agency, consequently, that part of the agency’s decision which relies on Clause 20(d) to Schedule 1 of the FOI Act (protected disclosures) is affirmed.

Agency’s submission on operations of an agency

47 The agency submitted that some of the excluded material falls into the "operations of agencies" exemption, as release could reasonably be expected to have a substantial adverse effect on the effective performance of the functions of the Audit Branch. In support of its submission relating to this exemption, the agency stated that it has responsibility for the provision of a wide range of health care services to the community. This involves providing both the resources and the support needed to enable staff to effectively fulfil their roles. One of the functions of the agency is assisting staff to ensure that the conduct of those who work within the public health system does not adversely affect the honest or impartial exercise of the administration of health resources and services.

48 The agency’s Special Projects Unit within the Audit Branch, is specifically empowered, among other things, to investigate matters referred to the agency from the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). Matters referred to the Audit Branch include allegations of possible corrupt conduct involving employees of NSW Health organisations.

49 The agency submitted that in order to undertake its investigative function, the Audit Branch relies on people volunteering information, both as complainants and during the investigation process, in an open, frank and fearless manner. Those persons who raise allegations of NSW Health employees possibly engaging in corrupt conduct, and those who assist the resulting investigations, must be able to do so without fear of reprisal. It was said that in this case, this can only be achieved through exercising strict confidentiality in relation to those persons’ identities.

50 According to Mr White, the risk of potential reprisals arising from assisting such an investigation is particularly important in small or rural communities, where persons involved may be work colleagues as well as neighbours.

51 The agency submitted that any documents through which the identity, location, or personal details of either the complainant or those who are interviewed could be ascertained, either directly or indirectly, should not be disseminated to the public, nor provided to the person about whom the allegation has been made. It was said to be irrelevant that the allegation may ultimately be unsubstantiated, as long as the allegation is not malicious or vexatious.

52 The agency concluded that knowledge that a complainant’s or witness’s name or identifying details may be disclosed would lead to fewer complaints being made. Fewer investigations into possibly corrupt conduct would lead, it was said, to an increase in corrupt activities within the NSW Government Service. This comes within the category of a "substantial adverse effect", as the potential for an increase in corrupt activities within Government is sufficiently serious to cause concern to a properly informed reasonable person. (See: Re Theis and Department of Aviation (1986) 5 AAR 27).

53 In Re Associated Minerals Consolidated Ltd and Secretary, Department of Transport and Communications (1990) 11 AAR 324, documents were denied to an applicant by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The AAT said that:

The release of a statement leads to the Department being unable to continue full cooperation on a voluntary basis from industry members in the conducting of preliminary investigations. This would have a "substantial adverse effect" on the proper and efficient conduct of the operations of the agency.

54 The agency submitted that the public interest test requirement for this exception rests on the effect on the public if investigations were adversely affected. In Re Mann and Australian Taxation Office (1985) 7ALD 698, the AAT stated that it is prima facie against the public interest to disclose documents which fall into this exemption.

55 According to the agency, it is in the public interest that the government operates free from corruption, and provides a reporting system where members of the public can disclose sensitive information without fear. Further, it is also in the public interest for allegations of corruption to be conducted in an efficient and effective manner.

56 During the course of the hearing, the agency disclosed that it has changed its policy in relation to the confidentiality of information provided to the Audit Branch. People providing information are now asked whether they agree to the notes of their interview being disclosed or whether they wish them to remain confidential.

Applicant’s submissions in relation to operations of an agency

57 Mr Robinson submitted that he has no intention of taking any action against anyone, so there is no justification for fearing reprisals. Mr Robinson added that apart from the complainant, none of the people interviewed took any action against him so there can be no question of reprisal. Mr Robinson added that he bears no malice against the complainant and, as the agency is aware, he knows the identity of the complainant and has not taken any retaliatory action against that person.

58 Mr Robinson believes that if the people concerned were consulted, they would have no objection to him having a record of their interview. According to Mr Robinson, people who are interviewed should not be protected unless they make a disclosure under the Protected Disclosures Act 1994 or they specifically request confidentiality.

59 Mr Robinson also rejects the proposition that retaliation for making allegations against others is more likely in a rural community. He says that the location of an investigation is an irrelevant consideration and should not be taken into account.

60 Mr Robinson agreed that it was important that people feel free to come forward with allegations of corrupt conduct but does not feel that having access to the disputed documents would discourage a person from complaining if they felt they had information which requires investigation. In Mr Robinson’s view it is equally important that a person against whom allegations are made to be given every opportunity to address such allegations and for there to be transparency in the investigation process. Mr Robinson is content to respect the rights of protected witnesses but maintains that he has a right to see information gathered from others about him in the process of the investigation.

61 Finally, Mr Robinson submitted that the nexus between him knowing who was interviewed and a substantial adverse effect on the effective performance by an agency of its functions or operations has not been established.

Tribunal’s findings on "operations of an agency" exemption

62 Before considering the parties’ submissions, I note that the Appeal Panel has recently decided a case which is similar in some respects to the present case. In Director General, Department of Education & Training -v- Mullett & anor (GD) [2002] NSWADTAP 13 revised - 11/06/2002, the Appeal Panel set aside certain aspects of the Tribunal’s decision in Mullett -v- Director General, Department of Education and Training [2001] NSWADT 119 (18 July 2001). The case concerned access to a report which was prepared for the Department of Education as a result of allegations made by Mr Mullett. The allegations related to the fairness and propriety of a selection process for principal at a country primary school. Mr Mullett was a member of the selection panel in his capacity as President of the School Council. Mr Randazzo, the first party joined, was an unsuccessful candidate for the position. Mr Mullett had supported Mr Randazzo.

63 Clause 16(a)(iv) (operations of an agency) was not invoked in Mullett, however the Appeal Panel made it clear that when considering the exemptions in Clause 16 the focus must be on the future effect on a function of the agency, not on the effect of disclosure in the present controversy. (See [62] to [64] and [84].)

64 Many of Mr Robinsons’s submissions in relation to Clause 16(a)(iv) must be rejected because they relate to the effect disclosure would have in the present case, not the effect it would have in the future on the functions of the agency.

65 There are four elements which need to be proved in order to make out this exemption. They are that disclosure:

• "could reasonably be expected";
• "to have a substantial adverse effect";
• "on the effective performance by an agency of the agency’s functions"; and
• disclosure would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest.

66 The words "could reasonably be expected" refer to an expectation that is based on reason, that is to say one for which real and substantial grounds exist when looked at objectively. (Searle Australia Pty Limited v Public Interest Advocacy Centre and Another (1992) 108 ALR 163 at 176.) The words call for the decision-maker to discriminate between unreasonable expectations and reasonable expectations, between what is merely possible (eg merely speculative/conjectural ‘expectations’) and expectations which are reasonably based, ie expectations for the occurrence of which real and substantial grounds exist." (Re "B" and Brisbane North Regional Health Authority (1994) 1 QAR 279 at p 340 to 341.)

67 The Federal Court in Harris v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1983) 78 FLR 236 considered the meaning of the words "substantial adverse effect" in s 40(b) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth). Beaumont J said, at p 249:

In my view, the insertion of a requirement that the adverse effect be "substantial" is an indication of the degree of gravity that must exist before this exemption can be made out.

68 The Appeal Panel of this Tribunal discussed the words "substantial adverse effect" in Director General, Department of Education and Training -v- Mullett and Randazzo (No. 2) [2002] NSWADTAP 29 at [97] where it said that:

'Substantial adverse effect' involves a higher test than, for example, mere 'prejudice' as referred to in (a)(i) and (ii): see Re James and Australian National University (1984) 6 ALD 687. The effect must be sufficiently serious to cause concern to a properly informed reasonable person: Re Thies and Dept of Aviation (1986) 9 ALD 454; it must not be irrational or absurd: see Attorney General (Comm) v Cockcroft (1986) 64 ALR 97. We agree with the following comments in Australian Administrative Law (Butterworths, Australian Administrative Law Library, June 2002) at [741]:
'Prejudice or substantial adverse effect must arise from the disclosure of the particular information in the particular documents but also from the disclosure of documents of a particular kind. The vice of such disclosure lies in the breach of confidential properties, a breach which can for that reason lead to the cessation or diminution of the future flow of information to the agency in question: Department of Social Security v Dyrenfurth (1988) 15 ALD 232; 80 ALR 533; Re Fryar and Australian Federal Police (1988) 17 ALD 25.'

69 Under Clause 16(a)(iv), the substantial adverse effect must be on the "effective performance by an agency of the agency’s functions." "Agency’s functions" are not defined in the FOI Act. In Re Booker and Department of Social Security (unreported, AAT, 13 September 1990) the equivalent provision in the federal legislation, s 40(1)(d) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982(Cth), was discussed. In that case the AAT decided that documents relating to the investigation of an allegation of sexual harassment made against the applicant did not relate to the agency’s "operations" or functions.

70 Under s 53 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, ICAC may refer a matter for investigation to any appropriate body, including a government department. I am satisfied that one of the agency’s functions is to investigate matters referred to it by ICAC. Matters referred to the Audit Branch include allegations of possible corrupt conduct involving employees of NSW Health organisations.

71 I am also satisfied that the "effective performance" of this function depends, to a large extent, on the co-operation of those who have information relevant to the investigation. The co-operation of some people will depend on the information they provide being kept confidential, if that is legally possible. If information obtained confidentially is provided to an applicant under the FOI Act, then that disclosure could reasonably be expected to have a substantial adverse effect on the effective performance by an agency of the agency’s functions.

72 I have rejected any claim by Mr Robinson that procedural fairness requires that the information be made available to him at this stage. No other public interest considerations satisfy me that the information should be provided. Similarly, there is no special or overriding circumstances or interests in favour of releasing the documents.

73 The agency has now changed its policy so that interviewees are given the choice of making the contents of any interview public, or keeping those contents confidential. In my view this is a positive development because where a person has consented to the contents of documents being made public, generally access would be granted to those documents under the FOI Act. In the light of this development, I recommend that the agency consult with the individual’s concerned and ask them whether or not they consent to their identity and the information they provided being disclosed. While lack of consent is not a pre-requisite to an agency relying on Cl 16(a)(iv), the rationale for the exemption largely disappears if the individuals concerned consent to the information being provided. If the individuals do consent to their names and/or the content of the information being provided, then I recommend that the relevant documents or parts of documents be disclosed to the applicant, unless the relevant material is covered by another exemption upheld in this decision. These recommendations are not binding on the agency, consequently that part of the agency’s decision which relies on Clause Cl 16(a)(iv)(operations of an agency) is affirmed.

Agency’s submissions on the personal affairs of clients

74 According to the agency, documents relating to client records, reports and case notes would disclose personal and sensitive information relating to the care, condition, and treatment of mental health clients. The location of the investigation in a small country town is central to this submission.

75 Document 16 is an extract of notes from a client record. According to the agency, release of document 16 would unreasonably disclose personal information about the client named in the document.

76 Document 17 is a report on a client referred to the Community Health Centre. According to the agency, if document 17 was released it would be possible to identify the client involved and other personal information about the client, such as the client’s health status, would be disclosed.

77 Documents 78, 81, 134, 154,155, 156, 158, 159, 160, 161,162, 217 and 228 include information relating to patients such as identifying information about their care and treatment. Specifically documents 154, 158, 159, 160, 161 and 162 include patient records or reports including patient registration forms, case notes and reports. Document 178 includes medical record numbers and dates clients were seen.

78 The agency submitted that it is in the public interest to safeguard information relating to clients’ identities, care, registration forms, medical record numbers and appointment dates. According to the agency this is especially true when it applies to information relating to clients of a mental health care service.

79 It was the agency’s submission that the nature of the information contained in these documents is sensitive and was provided to the agency in confidence. Disclosure of this information would undermine public confidence in the confidentiality of client/health care worker consultations. It was the agency’s submission that it is in the public interest to protect such information from disclosure and this interest outweighs the applicant’s interest in the documents.

80 In Re Thomas and Royal Woman’s Hospital and Director-General of Community Services (1988) 2VAR 618 Deputy President Galvin stated, in relation to whether access should be granted to information provided to a hospital, that:

There is convincing evidence before the tribunal that the public has an expectation that all information given to a hospital by a client is to be kept confidential. Any situation which might result in the withholding of information to hospitals by clients and consequently be likely to give rise to disadvantage to the proper treatment of the client or to the proper administration of the hospital is, in my view, contrary to the public interest.

81 The agency submitted that an analogy can be drawn between clients providing personal information to a hospital and those providing personal information to mental health care providers. If mental health clients discovered that information provided confidentially by them may be disclosed to members of the public, some clients would not be as open in consultations. It was said that withholding information could inhibit their care and rehabilitation and lead to negative consequences for those clients.

Applicant’s submission on the personal affairs of clients

82 Mr Robinson stated that he had no particular interest in obtaining clinical notes or other personal information about clients unless those notes contain allegations of impropriety on his part.

Tribunal’s findings on the personal affairs of clients

83 I accept the agency’s submissions and find that material relating to clients’ identities, care, registration forms, medical record numbers and appointment dates relates to their "personal affairs" and disclosure would be unreasonable. While some of the documents contain information recording what clients said that Mr Robinson did or said, they are not, on their face, allegations of impropriety.

Overriding discretion in relation to personal affairs of clients

84 I am not aware of any special or overriding circumstances or interests which would justify the disclosure of these documents, nor have any such circumstances or interests been brought to my attention. Consequently, I affirm that part of the agency’s decision not to release documents or parts of documents containing information relating to the personal affairs of clients, to the extent that the agency relies on Clause 6 of Schedule 1 (personal affairs) in relation to those documents or parts of documents. This determination relates to the documents or parts of documents identified by the agency in their submission and recorded in the Schedule at the end of these reasons.

Agency’s submission on personal affairs of staff members or third parties

85 The agency submitted that documents 79, 107, 119, 121, 152, 183, 187, 201, 249, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259 and 265 and contain information about staff or other persons (other than clients) including working arrangements or views about them. Parts of documents 83, 121, 183, 249, 251, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259 and 284 relate to people not directly involved in the investigation. Document 173 refers to activity levels of staff at a number of centres. Release of this information could lead to the identity of the persons involved.

86 Documents 249 and 251-259 inclusive are applications for rights of private practice from other psychologists in New South Wales. The agency submitted that the nature of the deleted information relates to the identity of the applicants and it is highly likely that the persons concerned would not wish to have that information disclosed without their consent. Further, the identity of the applicants has no relevance to issues surrounding the investigation.

87 In Re Chandra and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1984) 6 ALD 257 at 259 The Administrative Appeals Tribunal observed:

. . . Whether a disclosure is ‘unreasonable’ requires, in my view, a consideration of all the circumstances, including the nature of all the information that would be disclosed, the circumstances in which the information was obtained, the likelihood of the information being information that the person concerned would not wish to have disclosed without consent, and whether the information has any current relevance.

88 The agency submitted that it would be unreasonable to disclose the personal affairs of third parties who provided information in confidence to the agency, particularly if that information does not relate to the applicant.

Applicant’s submissions on personal affairs of staff members or third parties

89 Again, Mr Robinson has no interest in obtaining documents in which the personal affairs of staff members or third parties is disclosed if the information does not relate to the investigation of complaints against him. He requested that if the documents contain references to him that he be given access to a copy of those documents with the information relating to personal affairs deleted.

Tribunal’s decision on personal affairs of staff members or third parties

90 The documents which the agency claimed to be exempt under this heading fall into two categories. Firstly, documents 249 and 251-259 (which relate to public servants applying for a limited right of private practice); secondly documents containing views or opinions about others, including Mr Robinson. Each of these categories will be discussed in turn.

91 In relation to the first category of documents, the initial question is whether the "working arrangements" (which I take to be arrangements concerning private practice) constitute the "personal affairs" of the staff members concerned.

92 In University of Melbourne v Robinson [1993] 2 VR 177 at 187 Eames J of the Supreme Court of Victoria stated that:

The reference to the "personal affairs of any person" suggests to me that a distinction has been drawn by the legislature between those aspects of an individual’s life which might be said to be of a private character and those relating to or arising from any position, office or public activity with which the person occupies his or her time.

93 (See also State of Queensland v Albietz [1996] 1 Qd R 215 at p 221-222.) In Commissioner of Police v District Court of New South Wales (1993) 31 NSWLR 606 (Perrin's Case) Kirby P held at p 625, that "In its context, the words 'personal affairs' mean the composite collection of activities personal to the individual concerned." Kirby P went on to say that:

Applying that test, it cannot properly be said that the disclosure of the names of police officers and employees involved in the preparation of reports within the New South Wales police can be classified as disclosing information concerning their personal affairs. The preparation of the reports apparently occurred in the course of the performance of their police duties. What would then be disclosed is no more than the identity of officers and employees of an agency performing such duties. As such, there would appear to be nothing personal to the officers concerned. Nor should there be. It is quite different if personnel records, private relationships, health reports of (perhaps) private addresses would be disclosed. Such information would attract the exemption."

94 Perrin's case is analogous in some respects with the present case. In this case, documents 249 and 251-259 relate to public servants applying for a limited right of private practice. I am not satisfied that disclosure of an application by a public servant for a limited right of private practice, is information concerning the "personal affairs" of that person. That information relates to or arises from the position with which the person occupies his or her professional time.

95 There is one line of authority which has held that even information about a person’s work performance or vocational competence does not ordinarily constitute their personal affairs. (See Young v Wicks (1986) 13 FCR 85 at 89 per Beaumont J; Department of Social Security v Dyrenfurth (1988) 80 ALR 533 and Wiseman v Commonwealth of Australia (unreported, Federal Court, 24 October 1989.) The fact that a public servant is interested in, or has applied for, the right to private practice, does not even relate to their work performance or vocational competence and, in my view, falls outside the definition of "personal affairs."

96 Clause 7 of Schedule 1 provides an exemption for information concerning business and professional affairs in certain circumstances. If an agency is contemplating releasing such information to an applicant, it must consult with the person concerned. (See s 32 of the FOI Act) No consultation has taken place in this case. In my view, if the Tribunal was contemplating disclosure of such documents the relevant parties would have to be consulted and given an opportunity to put their point of view.

97 Mr Robinson has specifically said that he is not interested in these documents unless they contain references to him. I have looked at documents 249 and 251-259 and I am satisfied that they do not contain allegations relating to Mr Robinson. Consequently, the fairest way to deal with this part of the decision is to remit it to the agency for further consideration under s 65 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997.

98 The agency should consult with Mr Robinson to determine whether he wishes to proceed with this aspect of his application. If he does, then a new determination should be made after consulting with the people concerned, bearing in mind that the information does not relate to their personal affairs. If the agency makes a decision varying the original decision, then Mr Robinson may proceed with the application or withdraw the application at that stage.

99 Consequently, I remit that part of the agency’s decision not to release documents or parts of documents 249 and 251-259, to the extent that the agency relies on Clause 6 of Schedule 1 (personal affairs) in relation to those documents or parts of documents.

100 The second category of documents contains views and opinions about others (which I take to include views about Mr Robinson). Again, the initial question is whether views about the competence or work performance of colleagues constitutes the personal affairs of the people holding those views. As mentioned above, there is a line of authority, with which I agree, that information about a person’s work performance or vocational competence does not ordinarily constitute their personal affairs. Given this conclusion, it is not logical that a third party’s view of a person’s work performance or vocational competence should be characterised as constituting that person’s personal affairs.

101 A contrary view was taken in a similar legislative context by the Victorian Administrative Appeals Tribunal in Hutchinson and Department of Human Services (1997) 12 VAR 422. Deputy President Megay decided that handwritten notes and statements taken from interviewees by an officer investigating the conduct of a public servant, related to the interviewees’ personal experiences with the applicant and their reactions to those experiences, their versions of particular events and their reactions to those events.

102 While the circumstances are similar in the present case, I do not agree that "personal affairs" should be so broadly defined. When a person’s opinion about the work performance of another arises from the position, office or public activity which the person occupies, it concerns the business or professional relationship, rather than a private or personal relationship with that person.

103 I am not satisfied that documents containing the views or opinions of third parties about Mr Robinson or other individuals, concern the personal affairs of those third parties. Because Mr Robinson has specifically said that he is not interested in these documents unless they contain references to him, I remit that part of the agency’s decision not to release documents or parts of documents containing views or opinions about people other than Mr Robinson, to the extent that the agency relies on Clause 6 to Schedule 1 (personal affairs) in relation to those documents or parts of documents.

104 Again, Mr Robinson may be content not to proceed with his application in relation to this part of the decision, given that the documents do not contain views or opinions relating to him. If the agency makes a decision varying the original decision, then Mr Robinson may proceed with the application or withdraw the application to the extent that it relates to the exemption claimed for these documents.

105 I set aside that part of the agency’s decision not to release documents or parts of documents containing views or opinions about Mr Robinson, to the extent that the agency relies on Clause 6 to Schedule 1 (personal affairs) in relation to those documents or parts of documents.

Reference to individual documents or parts of documents

106 I have not always referred to the numbers of individual documents or the precise parts of documents which are covered by the orders I have made. The exemptions relied on in relation to each document are set out in the schedule at the end of these reasons. In several cases, various aspects of the personal affairs exemption have been claimed in relation to separate passages in the same document. I have ordered that the decision in relation to some passages or parts of documents be affirmed, some be remitted and others be set aside. Rather than attempt to identify all these passages and the orders which apply to them, I am relying on the agency’s identification of these passages in the course of oral and written submissions to the Tribunal. The agency is well aware of which exemptions are relied on and I trust they will have no difficulty in applying these orders to the documents in question.

SCHEDULE ONE

DOC. NO.	Description	Exemption	Reason	Basis for Agency’s determination
D2	ICAC “Referral of matter to the NSW Health Dept for Investigation and Report Back” - dated 19 June 1995	Full	OA & Prot.D.	Operation of an agency: 1. Document discloses the source of the complaint. Protected Disclosure: 1. Document discloses the source of the complaint.
D5	Letter from the Manager, Community Mental Health, Central West Health Service – dated 12 May 1995	Partial	OA	Document identifies information, which could lead to the identification of a witness or complainant.
D6	Handwritten letter from the Manager, Community Mental Health, Central West Health Service – dated 6 June 1995	Partial	OA	Document identifies the source of the complaint..
D7	Letter to Acting Director Mental Health Services – dated 8 May 1995	Partial	OA	Document identifies the source of the complaint..
D9	Letter from the NSW Department of Health – dated 30 November 1995	Partial	OA	Document identifies the source of the complaint..
D10	Memo from Senior Management Analyst to Director, Audit, dated 1 December 1995	Partial	OA	Document includes details of the investigation undertaken by the Area Health Service and the Audit Branch of the NSW Department of Health, and includes names of persons interviewed in connection with the matter.
D12	Memorandum relating to investigation – dated 18 February 1996	Full	OA	1. Document includes details of the investigation undertaken by the Area Health Service and the Audit Branch of the NSW Department of Health, includes names of staff members interviewed in connection with the matter. 2. Document details discussions with ICAC in relation to a particular aspect of the investigation.
D14	Letter from the Central West Health Service - dated 19 June 1995	Partial	OA	Document identifies the source of the complaint.
D16	Patient’s notes	Full	PA	Document discloses personal information about the patient named in the document.
D17	Report on referral of Client	Full	PA	Document could be used to ascertain the identity of the client involved.
D26	Letter from ICAC to NSW Department of Health – dated 4 December 1996	Full	Prot. D.	Document was prepared by the ICAC and relates to their investigatory functions. The ICAC does not consent to the release of this document.
D28	Audit branch Briefing note – dated 11 December 1996	Partial	OA	Document identifies the source of the complaint..
D48	Memorandum from Audit Branch – dated 26 November 1997	Full	LPP	Document was produced for the sole purpose of obtaining legal advice.
D51	Briefing note from Legal Branch to Director General – dated 23 December 1997	Full	LPP	Document contains confidential communications between the Director-General of the Department of Health and his legal adviser (Legal Branch).
D55	Letter from NSW Health to Mid Western Health Service – dated 12 January 1998	Partial	LPP	Part of document includes the legal advice referred to in document 51. The legal advice has been provided to another government agency on a confidential basis and NSW Health has not waived the privilege it seeks in relation to this matter.
D56	Letter from NSW Health to ICAC – dated 12 January 1998	Partial	LPP	LPP: This document would disclose legal advice referred to in documents 51. The legal advice has been provided to another government agency on a confidential basis and NSW Health has not waived the privilege it seeks in relation to this matter.
D77	Handwritten papers – dated 21 December 1995	Partial	OA & Prot. D	Operations of an agency: (a) Document identifies third parties interviewed or information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and/or comments on the actions of third parties. (b) Details issues to be raised with people interviewed. Protected Disclosure: (a) The release of this information could disclose matter relating to a protected disclosure, including the views of a range of people regarding the allegations which could lead to the disclosure of the identity of the complainant.
D78	Handwritten notes folders	Partial	OA Prot D.	Operations of an agency : 1. Identify third parties interviewed and information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and/or comments on the actions of third parties. Protected Disclosure: (a) The release of this information could disclose matter relating to a protected disclosure, including the views of a range of people regarding the allegations which could lead to the disclosure of the identity of the complainant.
D79	Interview between A Robinson, J White & J Manton – dated 22 January 1996	Partial	Prot D.	Protected Disclosure: (a) The release of this information could disclose matter relating to a protected disclosure, including the views of a range of people regarding the allegations which could lead to the disclosure of the identity of the complainant.
D94	Front page contents	Partial	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: 1. Document refers to a person who made a complaint. Protected Disclosure: (a) The release of this information could disclose matter relating to a protected disclosure, including the views of a range of people regarding the allegations which could lead to the disclosure of the identity of the complainant.
D95	Interview between J White, J Manton & a third party dated 8 January 1996	Full	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Notes of interviews conducted with third parties or refer to information from those interviews. Identifies those interviewed. Protected Disclosure: The release of this information could disclose matter relating to a protected disclosure, including the views of a range of people regarding the allegations which could lead to the disclosure of the identity of the complainant.
D98	Handwritten letter to Walter Zyla – dated 12 May 1995	Partial	OA & Prot.D	Operations of an agency: Document could lead to the identification of a person who made a complaint. Protected Disclosure: (a) The release of this information could disclose matter relating to a protected disclosure, including the views of a range of people regarding the allegations which could lead to the disclosure of the identity of the complainant.
D99	Letter from W Zyla – dated 12 May 1995	Partial	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency 1. Document could lead to the identification of a person who made a complaint. Protected Disclosure: (a) The release of this information could disclose matter relating to a protected disclosure, including the views of a range of people regarding the allegations which could lead to the disclosure of the identity of the complainant.
D100	Handwritten diary notes from 1 January 1995 to 13 August 1995	Full	PA & Prot.D.	Personal affairs: Document contains personal information relating to the treatment and appointment dates of patients. Protected Disclosure: The release of this information could disclose matter relating to a protected disclosure, including the views of a range of people regarding the allegations which could lead to the disclosure of the identity of the complainant.
D101	Interview list	Partial	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency Identifies parties interviewed. Protected Disclosure: (a) The release of this information could disclose matter relating to a protected disclosure, including the views of a range of people regarding the allegations which could lead to the disclosure of the identity of the complainant.
D102	Interview notes dated 30 January 1996	Full	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Identifies third parties interviewed or information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and/or comments on the actions of third parties. Protected Disclosure: The release of this information could disclose matter relating to a protected disclosure, including the views of a range of people regarding the allegations which could lead to the disclosure of the identity of the complainant.
D103	Interview notes dated 16 January 1996	Full	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Identifies third parties interviewed or information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and/or comments on the actions of third parties. Protected Disclosure: The release of this information could disclose matter relating to a protected disclosure, including the views of a range of people regarding the allegations which could lead to the disclosure of the identity of the complainant.
D104	Interview report	Full	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Identify third parties interviewed or information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and/or comments on the actions of third parties. Protected Disclosure: The release of this information could disclose matter relating to a protected disclosure, including the views of a range of people regarding the allegations which could lead to the disclosure of the identity of the complainant.
D105	Interview notes dated 19 January 1996	Full	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Identify third parties interviewed or information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and/or comments on the actions of third parties. Protected Disclosure: The release of this information could disclose matter relating to a protected disclosure, including the views of a range of people regarding the allegations which could lead to the disclosure of the identity of the complainant.
D106	Interview notes – dated 15 December 1995	Full	OA Prot.D. & PA	Operations of an agency: Identify third parties interviewed or information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and/or comments on the actions of third parties. Personal affairs: Document contains personal information relating to a staff member.
D107	Letter to Mrs Helen Fitz-Nead - dated 27 October 1995	Partial	Prot D.	Protected Disclosure: (a) The release of this information could disclose matter relating to a protected disclosure, including the views of a range of people regarding the allegations which could lead to the disclosure of the identity of the complainant.
D108	Interview notes - dated 15 December 1995	Full	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Identify third parties interviewed or information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and comments on the actions of third parties. Protected Disclosure: The release of this information could disclose matter relating to a protected disclosure, including the views of a range of people regarding the allegations which could lead to the disclosure of the identity of the complainant.
D109	Fax. To John Manton - dated 1 March 1996	Partial	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: 1. Document identifies third parties interviewed and comments on the actions of third parties. .
D110	Handwritten notes - dated 15 January 1996	Full	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Identify third parties interviewed and information obtained from third parties.
D111	Handwritten notes – dated 1 February 1996	Full	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Identify third parties interviewed and information obtained from third parties.
D112	Handwritten notes	Full	OA Prot.D. & PA	Operations of an agency: 1. Identifies parties interviewed and information obtained from those parties. 2. Contains medical and treatment information about a patient Personal affairs: 1. Contains the views expressed by parties interviewed and comments on the actions of third parties. 2. Contains medical and treatment information about a patient.
D113	Interview notes – dated 30 January 1996	Full	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: 1. Identifies third parties interviewed and contains information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and/or comments on the actions of third parties.
D114	Interview notes – dated 17 January 1996	Partial	OA	Identify third parties interviewed or information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and the comments on the actions of third parties. Protected disclosure:
D115	Interview notes – dated 24 January 1996	Full	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Identify third parties interviewed or information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and the comments on the actions of third parties. Protected Disclosure: The release of this information could disclose matter relating to a protected disclosure, including the views of a range of people regarding the allegations which could lead to the disclosure of the identity of the complainant.
D116	Interview notes – dated 19 January 1996	Full	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Identify third parties interviewed and information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and the comments on the actions of third parties. Protected Disclosure: The release of this information could disclose matter relating to a protected disclosure, including the views of a range of people regarding the allegations which could lead to the disclosure of the identity of the complainant.
D117	Interview Notes – undated	Full	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Identify third parties interviewed and information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and the comments on the actions of third parties. Protected Disclosure: The release of this information could disclose matter relating to a protected disclosure, including the views of a range of people regarding the allegations which could lead to the disclosure of the identity of the complainant.
D118	Handwritten Notes	Partial	OA & Prot.D	Operation of an agency: Identify third parties interviewed and information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and the comments on the actions of third parties. Protected Disclosure: (a) The release of this information could disclose matter relating to a protected disclosure, including the views of a range of people regarding the allegations which could lead to the disclosure of the identity of the complainant.
D119	Photocopy brochure – Schizophrenia	Partial	OA Prot.D. & PA	Operations of an agency: 1. Identify parties interviewed. Personal affairs: 1. Document contains information about staff or other persons (other than patients) including working arrangements or views about them. Protected Disclosure: The release of this information could disclose matter relating to a protected disclosure, including the views of a range of people regarding the allegations which could lead to the disclosure of the identity of the complainant.
D121	Fax. To John Manton – dated 22 February 1996	Full	OA, Prot.D. & PA	Operations of an agency: Identify third parties interviewed and information obtained from third parties, Personal affairs: Document contains information about staff and patients including working arrangements or views about them. Protected Disclosure: The release of this information could disclose matter relating to a protected disclosure, including the views of a range of people regarding the allegations which could lead to the disclosure of the identity of the complainant.
D126	Letter W Harlum to A Robinson – dated 13 December 1991	Partial	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Identifies third parties interviewed and information obtained from third parties. Protected Disclosure: The release of this information could disclose matter relating to a protected disclosure, including the views of a range of people regarding the allegations which could lead to the disclosure of the identity of the complainant.
D127	Letter W Harlum to A Robinson – dated 13 December 1991	Partial	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency Identifies third parties interviewed and information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and/or comments on the actions of third parties. Protected Disclosure: The release of this information could disclose matter relating to a protected disclosure, including the views of a range of people regarding the allegations which could lead to the disclosure of the identity of the complainant.
D128	Handwritten payments received 5 June 1991 to 19 September 1995	Partial	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Document identifies third parties interviewed and information obtained from third parties. Protected Disclosure: The release of this information could disclose matter relating to a protected disclosure, including the views of a range of people regarding the allegations which could lead to the disclosure of the identity of the complainant.
D130	Typed pages - undated	Partial	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Identifies third parties interviewed. Protected Disclosure: The release of this information could disclose matter relating to a protected disclosure, including the views of a range of people regarding the allegations which could lead to the disclosure of the identity of the complainant.
D131	Typed page – undated	Partial	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Identifies third parties interviewed. Protected Disclosure: The release of this information could disclose matter relating to a protected disclosure, including the views of a range of people regarding the allegations which could lead to the disclosure of the identity of the complainant.
D132	Handwritten page allegation A1 – undated	Partial	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: (a) Document identifies third parties interviewed or information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and/or comments on the actions of third parties. (b) Details issues to be raised with people interviewed. Protected Disclosure: The release of this information could disclose matter relating to a protected disclosure, including the views of a range of people regarding the allegations which could lead to the disclosure of the identity of the complainant.
D133	Handwritten report – dated 17 may 1995	Partial	OA & prot.D.	Operations of an agency: (a) Document identifies third parties interviewed and information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and/or comments on the actions of third parties. Protected Disclosure: The release of this information could disclose matter relating to a protected disclosure, including the views of a range of people regarding the allegations which could lead to the disclosure of the identity of the complainant.
D134	Interview notes – dated 31 January 1996	Partial	OA Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: 1. Identify third parties interviewed or information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and/or comments on the actions of third parties. Personal affairs: 1. Document contains information relating to the personal opinion of persons interviewed. Protected Disclosure: The release of this information could disclose matter relating to a protected disclosure, including the views of a range of people regarding the allegations which could lead to the disclosure of the identity of the complainant.
D135	Interview notes – dated 15 February 1996	Partial	OA Prot.D. & PA	Operations of an agency: 1. Identify third parties interviewed or information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and/or comments on the actions of third parties. Personal affairs: 1. Document contains information relating to the personal opinion of persons interviewed. Protected Disclosure: The release of this information could disclose matter relating to a protected disclosure, including the views of a range of people regarding the allegations which could lead to the disclosure of the identity of the complainant.
D136	Interview notes – dated 1 February 1996	Full	OA Prot.D. & PA	Operations of an agency: Identify third parties interviewed and information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and comments on the actions of third parties. Personal affairs: Document contains information relating to the personal opinion of persons interviewed. Protected Disclosure: The release of this information could disclose matter relating to a protected disclosure, including the views of a range of people regarding the allegations which could lead to the disclosure of the identity of the complainant.
D137	Interview notes undated	Full	OA Prot.D. & PA	Operations of an agency: Identify third parties interviewed and information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and comments on the actions of third parties. Personal affairs: Document contains information relating to the personal opinion of persons interviewed. Protected Disclosure: The release of this information could disclose matter relating to a protected disclosure, including the views of a range of people regarding the allegations which could lead to the disclosure of the identity of the complainant.
D138	Handwritten notes – undated	Full	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Identifies third parties interviewed or information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and/or comments on the actions of third parties. Protected Disclosure: The release of this information could disclose matter relating to a protected disclosure, including the views of a range of people regarding the allegations which could lead to the disclosure of the identity of the complainant.
D140	Typed notes interview between A Robinson, M Richards & W Zyla	Partial	PA Prot.D. & OA	Operations of an agency: 1. Identify third parties interviewed or information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and/or comments on the actions of third parties. Personal affairs: 1. Document contains information relating to the personal opinion of persons interviewed. Protected Disclosure: The release of this information could disclose matter relating to a protected disclosure, including the views of a range of people regarding the allegations which could lead to the disclosure of the identity of the complainant.
D143	Handwritten Report – undated	Full	OA Prot.D. & PA	Operations of an agency: Notes of interviews conducted with third parties or refer to information from those interviews. Personal affairs:

D145	Letter to Mr Eiligett – dated 8 may 1998 & response dated 6 June 1995	Partial	OA & Prot. D	Operations of an agency: 1. Identify third parties interviewed or information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and/or comments on the actions of third parties.
D146	Handwritten Inspection memo – undated	Partial	OA Prot.D. & PA	Operations of an agency: 1. Identify third parties interviewed and information obtained from third parties. Personal affairs: 1. Document contains information relating to the personal opinion of persons interviewed.
D148	Handwritten Inspection memo – undated	Partial	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Identifies third parties interviewed or information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and/or comments on the actions of third parties.
D150	Handwritten notes – undated	Full	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Document identifies third parties interviewed and information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and/or comments on the actions of third parties.
D151	Handwritten Inspection Memo - dated 20 may 1995	Partial	OA Prot.D. & PA	Operations of an agency: 1. Identifies parties interviewed and information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and/or comments on the actions of third parties. Personal affairs: 1. Document contains information relating to the personal opinion of persons interviewed.
D152	Fax to John Manton - dated 22 February 1996	Full	OA Prot.D. & PA	Operations of an agency: Identify third parties interviewed and information obtained from third parties, Personal affairs: Document contains information about staff and patients including working arrangements or views about them.
D153	Handwritten report – undated	Partial	OA Prot.D. & PA	Operations of an agency: 1. Identify third parties interviewed and information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and comments on the actions of third parties. Personal affairs: 1. Document contains information relating to the personal opinion of persons interviewed.
D155	Handwritten Report – undated	Partial	OA & PA	Operations of an agency: 1. Identifies third parties interviewed, information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and comments on the actions of third parties. Personal affairs: 1. Document contains information relating to patients, such as identifying information or information about their care and treatment.
D156	Handwritten notes – dated 19 January 1996	Full	OA Prot.D. & PA	Operations of an agency: Identify third parties interviewed or information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and/or comments on the actions of third parties. Personal affairs: Document contains information relating to patients, such as identifying information or information about their care and treatment.
D157	Copy of envelope to J Manton – dated 30 January 1996	Partial	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Document may identify third parties interviewed or information obtained from third parties.
D158	Client registration form and case notes	Full	PA & Prot.D.	Personal affairs: Document contains information relating to patients, such as identifying information or information about their care and treatment. Document includes patient records or reports including patient registration forms, case notes and reports.
D159	Discharge summary	Full	PA & Prot.D.	Personal affairs: Document contains information relating to patients, such as identifying information or information about their care and treatment. Document includes patient records or reports including patient registration forms, case notes and reports.
D160	Interim discharge summary and case notes	Full	PA & Prot.D.	Personal affairs: document contains information relating to patients, such as identifying information or information about their care and treatment. Document includes patient records or reports including patient registration forms, case notes and reports.
D161	Client registration form and case notes	Full	PA & Prot.D.	Personal affairs: document contains information relating to patients, such as identifying information or information about their care and treatment. Document includes patient records or reports including patient registration forms, case notes and reports.
D162	Typed Report re Client	Full	PA & Prot.	Personal affairs: Document contains information relating to patients, such as identifying information or information about their care and treatment. Document includes patient records or reports including patient registration forms, case notes and reports.
D165	Typed report re client	Full	PA & Prot.D.	Personal affairs: Document contains information relating to patients, such as identifying information or information about their care and treatment. Document includes patient records or reports including patient registration forms, case notes and reports.
D177	Handwritten Inspection Memo – undated	Partial	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Identify third parties interviewed or information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and/or comments on the actions of third parties.
D178	Handwritten notes - undated	Partial	OA Prot.D. & PA	Operations of an agency: 1. Identifies patients medical records numbers and dates of consultation. Personal affairs: 1. Identifies medical record numbers of patients and consultation dates.
D181	Handwritten Notes – undated	Partial	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Identifies third parties interviewed.
D182	Handwritten Notes – undated	Partial	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Identifies third parties interviewed.
D183	Letter A Robinson to P Fanning dated 8 August 1988	Partial	PA	Document contains information about staff and about persons not involved in the matter
D187	Letter to Mrs H Fitz-Nead dated 27 October 1995	Partial	OA, PA & Prot.D .	Operations of an agency: Identifies third parties interviewed or information obtained from third parties. Personal affairs: Document contains information about staff or other persons (other than patients) including working arrangements or views about them.
D188	Handwritten Inspection Memo – undated	Partial	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Identify third parties interviewed and information obtained from third parties.
D199	Handwritten Report Undated	Partial	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Identify third parties interviewed and information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and/or comments on the actions of third parties.
D201	Interview between M Richards, W Zyla & A Robinson dated 17 May 1995	Partial	OA Prot.D. & PA	Operations of an agency: 1. Identify parties interviewed or information obtained from parties, the views expressed by those parties and/or comments on the actions of third parties. Personal affairs: Document contains information about staff or other persons (other than patients) including working arrangements or views about them.
D203	Fax to John Manton – dated 6 February 1996	Partial	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Identify third parties interviewed and information obtained from third parties.
D204	Handwritten Inspection Memo	Partial	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Identify third parties interviewed and information obtained from third parties.
D210	Handwritten Inspection Memo – undated	Partial	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Identify third parties interviewed and information obtained from third parties.
D216	Handwritten report	Partial	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Identify third parties interviewed and information obtained from third parties.
D217	Table of clients etc 1 June 1995 to 6 June 1995	Partial	PA	Document contains information relating to patients, such as identifying information or information about their care and treatment.
D219	Handwritten report – undated	Partial	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Identify third parties interviewed and information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and comments on the actions of third parties.
D220	Handwritten interview notes dated 15 December 1995	Full	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Identify third parties interviewed and information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and comments on the actions of third parties.
D224	Handwritten notes	Partial	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Identify third parties interviewed.
D225	Handwritten inspection memo – undated	Partial	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Identify third parties interviewed and information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and comments on the actions of third parties.
D228	Handwritten notes – undated details clients	Full	OA Prot.D. & PA	Operations of an agency: identify third parties interviewed or information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and/or comments on the actions of third parties. Personal affairs: Document contains identifying information relating to patients, and information about their care and treatment.
D230	Letter to H Fitzgerald 24 September 1995	Partial	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Identify third parties interviewed.
D238	Letter to John Manton – dated 1 March 1996	Partial	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Identify third parties interviewed or information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and/or comments on the actions of third parties.
D239	Letter from Richard Elligett letter dated 19 June 1995	Partial	OA Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Identify third parties interviewed.
D240	Interview between A Robinson, M Richards & W Zyla 24 May 1995	Partial	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Identify third parties interviewed or information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and/or comments on the actions of third parties.
D241	Handwritten notes – undated	Partial	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Identify third parties interviewed or information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and/or comments on the actions of third parties.
D248	Letter to John Manton – dated 1 March 1996	Partial	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Identify third parties interviewed or information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and/or comments on the actions of third parties.
D249	Letter to CEO East Sydney dated 24 October 1988	Partial	PA	Personal affairs: (a) Document contains information about staff or other persons (other than patients) including working arrangements or views about them. (b) Document contains information about people not involved in the matter. (c) Document contains application for rights of private practice from other psychologists across the state.
D251	Letter to Northern Metro Region – dated 4 January 1988	Partial	PA	Personal affairs: (a) Document contains information about staff or other persons (other than patients) including working arrangements or views about them. (b) Document also contains information about people not involved in the matter. (c) Document contains application for rights of private practice from other psychologists across the state.
D252	Letter dated 30 January 1986	Partial	PA	Personal affairs: (a) Document contains information about staff or other persons (other than patients) including working arrangements or views about them. (b) Document also contains information about people not involved in the matter. (c) Document contains application for rights of private practice from other psychologists across the state.
D253	Letter dated 12 December 1984	Partial	PA	Personal affairs: (a) Document contains information about staff or other persons (other than patients) including working arrangements or views about them. (b) Document contains information about people not involved in the matter. (c) Document contains application for rights of private practice from other psychologists across the state.
D254	Letter dated 11 August 1983	Partial	PA	Personal affairs: (a) Document contains information about staff or other persons (other than patients) including working arrangements or views about them. (b) Document also contains information about people not involved in the matter. (c) Document contains application for rights of private practice from other psychologists across the state.
D255	Letter dated 7 July 1983	Partial	PA	Personal affairs: (a) Document contains information about staff or other persons (other than patients) including working arrangements or views about them. (b) Document also contains information about people not involved in the matter. (c) Document contains application for rights of private practice from other psychologists across the state.
D256	Typed information undated	Partial	PA	Personal affairs: (a) Document contains information about staff or other persons (other than patients) including working arrangements or views about them. (b) Document also contains information about people not involved in the matter. (c) Document contains application for rights of private practice from other psychologists across the state.
D257	Letter to Public Service Board dated 14 October 1976	Partial	PA	Personal affairs: (a) Document contains information about staff or other persons (other than patients) including working arrangements or views about them. (b) Document also contains information about people not involved in the matter. (c) Document contains application for rights of private practice from other psychologists across the state.
D258	Letter re right of private practice dated 16 February 1982	Partial	PA	Personal affairs: (a) Document contains information about staff or other persons (other than patients) including working arrangements or views about them. (b) Document also contains information about people not involved in the matter. (c) Document contains application for rights of private practice from other psychologists across the state.
D259	2nd page of letter undated	Partial	PA	Personal affairs: (a) Document contains information about staff or other persons (other than patients) including working arrangements or views about them. (b) Document also contains information about people not involved in the matter. (c) Document contains application for rights of private practice from other psychologists across the state.
D261	Handwritten notes	Full	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Identify third parties interviewed or information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and/or comments on the actions of third parties. Protected Disclosure: The release of this information could disclose matter relating to a protected disclosure, including the views of a range of people regarding the allegations which could lead to the disclosure of the identity of the complainant.
D265	Letter Mrs Helen Fitz-Nead	Partial	OA, PA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Identify third parties interviewed or information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and/or comments on the action of third parties. Personal affairs: Document contains personal information about staff.
D274	Referral of matter	Full	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Document reveals the identity of a person who made a complaint. Protected Disclosure: The release of this information could disclose matter relating to a protected disclosure, including the views of a range of people regarding the allegations which could lead to the disclosure of the identity of the complainant.
D277	Page 3 of interview - dated 5 June 1995	Partial	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Identify third parties interviewed or information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and/or comments on the actions of third parties.
D279	Letter - dated 19 June 1995	Partial	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Document refers to a person who made a complaint..
D280	Letter from W Zyla – dated 12 May 1995	Partial	OA	Document refers to a person who made a complaint.
D282	Handwritten notes A.7 – undated	Partial	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Identify third parties interviewed or information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and/or comments on the actions of third parties.
D284	Letter P Fanning to P Brown dated 25 July 1985	Partial	OA & PA	Operations of an agency: 1. Identify third parties interviewed or information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and/or comments on the actions of third parties. Personal affairs: 1. Contains the personal affairs of a staff member.
D289	Handwritten notes undated	Partial	OA & Prot.D.	Operations of an agency: Identify third parties interviewed or information obtained from third parties, the views expressed by third parties and/or comments on the actions of third parties. .