SSPR and Australian Information Commissioner - [2023] AATA 3098

SSPR and Australian Information Commissioner [2023] AATA 3098 (19 September 2023)
Division:FREEDOM OF INFORMATION DIVISION
File Number: 2022/8103
Re:SSPR
APPLICANT

AndAustralian Information Commissioner
RESPONDENT

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal:Senior Member C. J. Furnell
Date:19 September 2023
Date of written reasons: 22 September 2023
Place:Melbourne

Pursuant to a decision made on 19 September 2023, the Tribunal decided not to exercise its power under s 37(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) so as to require the Respondent to lodge with the Tribunal copies of certain documents. The following are the written reasons for that decision.
..........................[SGD]..............................................
Senior Member C. J. Furnell
Catchwords
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for Tribunal to require lodgement of certain documents pursuant to s 37(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) – whether Tribunal is of opinion that the documents may be relevant to the review of the decision under review – where Applicant submitted the decision-maker relied on or used the documents in making the decision under review – Tribunal not of opinion that the documents may be relevant – application refused
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)
Cases
Cash World Gold Buyers Pty Ltd (Taxation) [2017] AATA 736
Commissioner of Taxation v ACN 154 520 199 Pty Ltd (in liq) (formerly EBS & Associates Pty Ltd) [2018] FCA 1140
Dimitropoulos and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2019] AATA 1775
Esber v Commonwealth of Australia (1992) 174 CLR 430
Frugtniet v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2019) 266 CLR 250
FYMS and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation) [2022] AATA 456
Mika Engineering Holdings Pty Ltd and Commissioner for Taxation [2006] AATA 634
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Makasa [2021] HCA 1
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v ZRTY [2022] FCA 1529
Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2008) 235 CLR 286
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member C. J. Furnell
22 September 2023

The applicant applied to have the Tribunal exercise a power it has to require a person to lodge copy documents with the Tribunal.
The power arises under s 37(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (AAT Act). That section provides that the Tribunal “may cause” a notice to be given to a person who has made a decision the subject of review by the Tribunal which requires that the person lodge with the Tribunal a copy of a document or documents in the possession of, or under the control of, the person. The power is only exercisable, however, if the Tribunal is of the opinion that the document or documents in question “may be relevant” to the review of the relevant decision.
At an interlocutory hearing conducted on 19 September 2023, I decided to refuse the applicant’s application. I was not satisfied that the documents in question may be relevant. I provided reasons for that decision, orally. The applicant has asked, however, that I provide a…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read SSPR and Australian Information Commissioner and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2023] AATA 3098
Decision Date: 19 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application by the applicant to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for the Tribunal to require the lodgement of certain documents pursuant to section 37(2) of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth). The applicant sought these documents in relation to the review of a determination made by the Australian Information Commissioner in August 2022.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it was of the opinion that the 261 documents in question "may be relevant" to the review of the Commissioner's decision. The applicant contended that the documents were relevant because they were listed as relevant in a Resolve report, were considered relevant by the decision-maker, and represented material relied upon by the decision-maker.

The Tribunal, constituted by C. J. Furnell SM, reasoned that the applicant's submissions, based solely on their inclusion in the Resolve report, did not rise above mere speculation. The Tribunal emphasised that the exercise of the power under section 37(2) requires an opinion of relevance supported by a rational process of evaluation, not mere speculation or a general connection to the subject matter. The Tribunal noted that its review function is a de novo merits review, requiring it to stand in the shoes of the original decision-maker and address the same questions. The mere fact that documents might have informed the original decision-maker or revealed a less-than-elegant decision-making process was not sufficient to establish relevance for the purpose of section 37(2).

Consequently, the Tribunal formed the opinion that the 261 documents did not "may be relevant" to the review of the Commissioner's determination. The application to have the Tribunal exercise its power under section 37(2) of the *AAT Act* in relation to these documents was therefore refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Accordingly, even if (as the applicant submits) the 261 documents informed the respondent in arriving at the August 2022 determination, that does not make them documents that may be relevant:“The power in s 37(2) is not available simply because the taxpayer suspects documents somehow relate to a decision; nor is it enough that the documents are of interest to the taxpayer because they might reveal a less-than-elegant primary decision-making process… Once a matter comes before the Tribunal for a de novo review on the merits, … the views of the decision-maker himself… are not generally relevant to my function.”[15][15] FYMS and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation) [2022] AATA 456 at [23].Decision The documents in question are those of the 261 documents identified in the Resolve report not already included in the T documents. The Tribunal is not of the opinion that those documents “may be relevant” to the review of the respondent’s August 2022 determination. Hence, the Tribunal decides to refuse the applicant’s application to have the Tribunal exercise its power under s 37(2) of the AAT Act in relation to those documents.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

The applicant submitted that I ought to be satisfied that those 261 documents may be relevant to the Tribunal’s review of the respondent’s August 2022 determination as:(a)the 261 documents were listed “as relevant to the decision in the Resolve report”; (b)the respondent “considered them relevant to the decision they were making/made”; and(c)the 261 documents represented “material relied upon by the decision maker”.[4] [4] Applicant’s request for s 37(2) order submission at [9]-[10].Consideration The applicant’s submissions are, in essence, that the 261 documents were relied on or used by the respondent in making its August 2022 determination. In support of his submissions, the applicant relies only on the fact that a reference to the documents is included in the Resolve report. That fact alone, however, does not speak to the validity of the applicant’s submissions. In particular, the submissions that the respondent relied upon the documents in arriving at the August 2022 determination and that they were relevant to that determination do not rise above mere speculation, being no more than “… bare and unsupported assertions about the relevance of documents”.[5] [5] Cash World Gold Buyers Pty Ltd (Taxation) [2017] AATA 736 at [26]. Nevertheless, on the basis of a reference to them being included in the Resolve report, I am prepared to infer that the 261 documents concern the complaint which the applicant made to the respondent or were created in the course of considering that complaint. The fact that the documents may concern the applicant’s complaint to the respondent or were created in the course of considering that complaint, however, does not support, or represent an adequate basis for forming, an opinion that the documents may be of relevance. The exercise of the s 37(2) power is conditioned on the formation of such an opinion. Such an opinion “must be supported by a rational process of evaluation, based on reason and reasonable inference, not speculation…”.[6] [6] Ibid [25]. The mere fact that a document “…bears some correlation with the subject matter of, or evidence or issues in, the review proceedings” does not make it potentially relevant.[7] It “…is not enough that the postulated documents merely have a connection with or pertain to the subject matter of the proceedings”.[8] [7] Ibid [26].[8] Dimitropoulos and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2019] AATA 1775 at [82]. The opinion required of the Tribunal before it may exercise its s 37(2) power needs to be “…based on a rationally articulated connection between the documents sought and the matters required to be determined in the review proceedings.”[9][9] Ibid. This means that the potential relevance of a document is determined by reference to the role of the Tribunal in exercising its review function. In that role, the Tribunal is required to stand in the relevant decision-maker’s shoes to “do over again” that which was done by the decision-maker.[10] In doing so, it performs the same function, exercises the same power,[11] is subject to the same constraints and addresses the same question or questions[12] as the decision-maker.[10] Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Makasa [2021] HCA 1 at [50], quoting with evident approval two earlier decisions, Frugtniet v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2019) 266 CLR 250 at 271 [51] and Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2008) 235 CLR 286 at 315 [40]-[100].[11] Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v ZRTY [2022] FCA 1529 per Katzmann J at [34] citing Esber v Commonwealth of Australia (1992) 174 CLR 430 at 440; Frugtniet v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2019) 266 CLR 250 at [14]-[15]. See also Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Makasa [2021] HCA 1 at [50], where it is said that the “…merits review function of the AAT is “to stand in the shoes of the decision-maker whose decision is under review so as to determine for itself on the material before it the decision which can, and which it considers should, be made in the exercise of the power or powers conferred on the primary decision-maker for the purpose of making the decision under review”. The function of the AAT, in other words, is “to do over again” that which was done by the primary decision-maker.”[12] Frugtniet v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2019) 266 CLR 250 at [51], where it is said that the “…AAT exercises the same power or powers as the primary decision-maker, subject to the same constraints. The primary decision, and the statutory question it answers, marks the boundaries of the AAT’s review. The AAT must address the same question the primary decision-maker was required to address, and the question raised by statute for decision by the primary decision-maker determines the considerations that must or must not be taken into account by the AAT in reviewing that decision”.