RPDS and Secretary, Department of Education

This matter concerned an application by RPDS for confidentiality orders under sections 35(2), (3), and (4) of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth) before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). RPDS sought to prohibit the publication of their name, their parents' names, their address, and other identifying information held by the AAT. Additionally, RPDS requested an order prohibiting the publication or disclosure of information relating to the proceedings, including the decision and any evidence lodged. A private hearing was also requested. The Secretary, Department of Education, was the respondent.

The AAT was required to determine whether to grant RPDS's requests for confidentiality and a private hearing. This involved considering the principle that AAT hearings and proceedings should generally be held in public, and that evidence and documents should be made available to the public and parties. The AAT also had to assess whether there were cogent reasons to depart from this principle, particularly in light of RPDS's concerns about the public disclosure of personal and health information.

The Tribunal Member, Mr S Evans, noted that the respondent did not oppose confidentiality orders but highlighted the limited evidence provided by RPDS regarding how public disclosure would be contrary to the public interest or cause serious disadvantage. The Tribunal considered observations from a previous AAT decision, which emphasised the importance of public scrutiny of tribunal processes and that embarrassment alone is not a sufficient reason to restrict publication. Balancing RPDS's privacy concerns with the principle of open justice, the Tribunal concluded that replacing RPDS's name with a pseudonym would adequately address their privacy concerns while maintaining the public nature of the proceedings.

The Tribunal directed that the publication or disclosure of RPDS's name, address, or any other identifying information be prohibited, and that a pseudonym be used in accordance with section 35(3) of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth). However, RPDS's request for a private hearing and broader prohibitions on the publication of evidence and the decision were not granted, as no cogent reasons were provided to justify such measures.