Stewart v Mid Coast Council

[2021] NSWCATAD 33

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Stewart v Mid Coast Council [2021] NSWCATAD 33

Hearing dates:

22 October 2020

Date of orders:

18 February 2021

Decision date:

18 February 2021

Jurisdiction:

Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division

Before:

C Mulvey, Senior Member

Decision:

2020/00112909:

The decision of the Respondent 19 March 2020 is affirmed.

2020/00152615:

The decision of the Respondent 22 April 2020 is affirmed.

2020/00182237:

The decision of the Respondent 30 April 2020 is affirmed.

Catchwords:

GIPA Act - Government Information - Access -

Legislation Cited:

Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997

Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009

Cases Cited:

Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force v Camilleri (GD) (2012) NSWATP 19

Hurst v Wagga Wagga City Council (2011) NSWADT 307

Director General, `Department of Education and training v Mullett and Anor (GD) [2002] NSWADTAP 12

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

David John Stewart (Applicant)
Mid Coast Council (Respondent)

Representation:

Solicitors:
Applicant (Self Represented)
Local Government Legal (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2020/00112909, 2020/00152615, 2020/00182237

Publication restriction:

None

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The Applicant, Mr David Stewart, has filed three separate requests for the Tribunal to review decisions of the Respondent under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (“the GIPA Act”).

2. The applications relate to decisions made by the Respondent which concern Council staff incorrectly laying down a number of headstones at the Bight Cemetery, Wingham, in July 2019. Following concerns raised by community members, work in relation to the laying down of headstones at the Bight Cemetery was suspended on 26 July 2019.

3. The Applicant made three separate requests for information pursuant to the GIPA Act. The Respondent allocated reference numbers GIPA20/20, GIPA22/20 and GIPA33/20 in relation to these requests. The proceeding numbers allocated by the Tribunal are:

• Proceedings Number 2020/00112909 (GIPA20/20);

• Proceedings Number 2020/00182237 (GIPA22/20);

• Proceedings Number 2020/00152615 (GIPA33/20).

4. The Applicant agreed for the Tribunal to determine each of his three applications together as the information he seeks is closely related.

5. I set out below the information requests that the Applicant initially sought and the information that he continues to press following a decision made by the Respondent below.

Proceedings Number GIPA20/20

6. The application was lodged with the Tribunal on 15 April 2020.

7. The Applicant initially requested from the Respondent the following information:

1. Policy, documentation and emails associated with the Monument Risk Assessment Programme which was operational at the Bight Cemetery when a large number of headstones were laid down.

2. Assessment criteria used to assess unsafe headstones at the Bight Cemetery.

3. Assessment reports on every headstone in the Bight Cemetery showing which were safe and which were unsafe.

4. The qualifications and training for those who did the assessment reports on the headstones.

5. All documentation including emails, reports, work order documentation on the original job implementation by Council staff at the Bight Cemetery. This should include the tasks to be carried out, workers’ position description, the number of workers involved, the level of supervisor overseeing the tasks and equipment used.

6. All documentation including emails and reports on how the implementation failed to follow the assessment criteria and assessment reports on unsafe headstones in the Bight Cemetery.

7. All images that were taken showing before and after positions of all headstones laid down at the Cemetery.

   8. A number of documents were located following reasonable searches undertaken by the Respondent and provided to the Applicant. Documents bearing numbers 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 18 to 27 were provided to the Applicant, however, parts of the copies of those documents were redacted. The redactions made to these documents relate to the names of certain staff members of the Respondent who were involved in an incident which occurred at The Bight Cemetery in July 2019.

   9. Following an internal review conducted by the Respondent on 19 March 2020, it confirmed the previous decision with respect to the redaction of the said documents.

   10. It is this decision that the Applicant seeks for this Tribunal to review.

Proceedings Number GIPA22/20

11. The application was lodged with the Tribunal on 19 June 2020.

12. The Applicant seeks access to information under the GIPA Act in relation to the following:

1. I request all documentation, emails and reports relating to the tragic death of Indy Henderson at Blackhead Bowling Club and the subsequent Coronial Inquest in 2018.

2. I request all the documentation, emails and reports of all identified monuments on council owned/controlled land cemeteries within its area from November 2016 to August 2019.

3. I request all documentation, emails and reports from inspections of the stability, of all identified monuments on council owned/controlled land and cemeteries within its area from November 2016 to August 2019.

4. I request that professional qualifications and training of the person(s), including Council personnel, who carried out the inspections of all identified monuments on council owned/controlled land within its area and of all identified monuments/headstones on council owned/ controlled cemeteries within its area from November 2016 to August 2019.

5. I request the invoice(s) given to council (if applicable) for services in inspecting all identified monuments on council owned/controlled land within its area and of all identified monuments/headstones on council owned/controlled cemeteries within its area.

6. I request all documentation, reports and emails regarding the appointment of the independent investigator of the Bight Cemetery, all documentation, reports and emails regarding the terms of reference for the investigation and when the independent investigator is due to report to Council.

7. I request all documentation and emails regarding any work over the last 5 years that the independent investigator may have (or have had) with Council or the individual Councils before amalgamation.

8. I request the report of the independent investigator.

   13. On 30 April 2020, the Respondent undertook an internal review of its decision. The Council provided a number of documents to the Applicant in response to his request. The information which remains in issue with respect to this application is:

   1. the redacted names and positions of officers of the Respondent in document 6.1;

   2. the information in the emails that are document numbers 6.2, 6.3 and 6.6, being emails to and from Peel HR, the investigator;

   3. the information in document 8.1, being the interim investigation report.

Proceedings Number GIPA33/20

14. The application was lodged with the Tribunal on 21 May 2020.

15. The Applicant seeks access to information under the GIPA Act in relation to the following:

1. I request all the emails, reports, documents or submissions to Cemetery and Crematoria, National Trust, Department of Industry and Environment, Department for Planning and Public Spaces and Office for Local Government, the Privacy Commissioner and any other government or semi-government agency regarding any matter concerning cemeteries and the Bight Cemetery from August 2019 to present.

2. I request all emails, documents, minutes and reports from and to MCC and Personnel and Reference Groups regarding cemeteries and the Bight Cemetery from August 2019 to the present.

3. I request all emails and documents relating to the application and the license regarding the Donkey Orchard at the Bight Cemetery from August 2019.

4. I request all itemised invoices of projects completed by Peel HR since the MCC Amalgamation.

5. I request all emails, documents and reports between MCC and Peel HR [the independent investigators] from August 2019 to the present.

6. I request all emails, work order, documents, reviews, legal opinions and discipline reports regarding the surveillance cameras at the Bight Cemetery from August 2019 to the present.

   16. The Respondent, following an internal review, made a decision on 22 April 2020. Documents were provided to the Applicant. The documents which the Applicant seeks access to are an unredacted copy of document numbers 1.43, 4.1 to 4.48, 6.41 and the unredacted copy of the final investigator’s report from Peel HR.

Relevant Legislation

17. Section 3 of the GIPA Act states that the object of the Act is to open government information to the public and:

1. It is the intention of Parliament:

   (a)   that this Act be interpreted and applied so as to further the object of this Act, and

   (b)   that the discretions conferred by this Act be exercised, as far as possible, so as to facilitate and encourage, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost, access to government information.

   18. Section 5 of the GIPA Act provides:

There is a presumption in favour of the disclosure of government information unless there is an overriding public interest against disclosure.

19. Section 12 provides, for public interest considerations in favour of disclosure.

20. Sections 13 and 14 provide:

13 Public interest test

There is an overriding public interest against disclosure of government information for the purposes of this Act if (and only if) there are public interest considerations against disclosure and, on balance, those considerations outweigh the public interest considerations in favour of disclosure.

14 Public interest considerations against disclosure

1. It is to be conclusively presumed that there is an overriding public interest against disclosure of any of the government information described in Schedule 1.

2. The public interest considerations listed in the Table to this section are the only other considerations that may be taken into account under this Act as public interest considerations against disclosure for the purpose of determining whether there is an overriding public interest against disclosure of government information.

3. The Information Commissioner can issue guidelines about public interest considerations against the disclosure of government information, for the assistance of agencies, but cannot add to the list of considerations in the Table to this section.

4. The Information Commissioner must consult with the Privacy Commissioner before issuing any guideline about a privacy-related public interest consideration (being a public interest consideration referred to in clause 3 (a) or (b) of the Table to this section).

Table

…

1 Responsible and effective government

There is a public interest consideration against disclosure of information if disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to have one or more of the following effects (whether in a particular case or generally):

(d)   prejudice the supply of an agency of confidential information that facilitates the effective exercise of that agency’s functions

(f)   prejudice the effective exercise by an agency of the agency’s functions

(g)   found an action against an agency for breach of confidence or otherwise result in the disclosure of information provided to an agency in confidence

3 Individual rights, judicial processes and natural justice

There is a public interest consideration against disclosure of information if disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to have one or more of the following effects:

(f)   expose a person to a risk of harm or of serious harassment or serious intimidation

4 Business interests of agencies and other persons

There is a public interest consideration against disclosure of information if disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to have one or more of the following effects:

(d)   prejudice any person’s legitimate business, commercial, professional or financial interests

21. Section 15 provides principles that apply to a determination as to whether there is an overriding public interest against disclosure of government information.

22. Section 53 provides:

53 Searches for information held by agency

1. The obligation of an agency to provide access to government information in response to an access application is limited to information held by the agency when the application is received.

2. An agency must undertake such reasonable searches as may be necessary to find any of the government information applied for that was held by the agency when the application was received. The agency’s searches must be conducted using the most efficient means reasonably available to the agency.

3. The obligation of an agency to undertake reasonable searches extends to searches using any resources reasonably available to the agency including resources that facilitate the retrieval of information stored electronically.

4. An agency is not required to search for information in records held by the agency in an electronic backup system unless a record containing the information has been lost to the agency as a result of having been destroyed, transferred, or otherwise dealt with, in contravention of the State Records Act 1998 or contrary to the agency’s established record management procedures.

5. An agency is not required to undertake any search for information    that would require an unreasonable and substantial diversion of the agency’s resources.

   23. Section 58 provides: 

6. An agency decides an access application for government information by-- 

   (a)   deciding to provide access to the information, or 

   (b)   deciding that the information is not held by the agency, or 

   (c)   deciding that the information is already available to the applicant (see section 59), or 

   (d)   deciding to refuse to provide access to the information because there is an overriding public interest against disclosure of the information, or 

   (e)   deciding to refuse to deal with the application (see section 60), or 

   (f)   deciding to refuse to confirm or deny that information is held by the agency because there is an overriding public interest against disclosure of information confirming or denying that fact. 

Note : These decisions are reviewable under Part 5. 

1. More than one decision can be made in respect of a particular access application, so as to deal with the various items of information applied for. 

2. If an agency finds that information or additional information is held by the agency after deciding an access application, the agency can make a further decision that replaces or supplements the original decision, but cannot be required to make a further decision in such a case. The further decision can be made even if the period within which the application is required to be decided has expired.

   24. Section 63 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 provides:

63 Determination of administrative review by Tribunal

1. In determining an application for an administrative review under this Act of an administratively reviewable decision, the Tribunal is to decide what the correct and preferable decision is having regard to the material then before it, including the following:

   (a)   any relevant factual material,

   (b)   any applicable written or unwritten law.

2. For this purpose, the Tribunal may exercise all of the functions that are conferred or imposed by any relevant legislation on the administrator who made the decision.

3. In determining an application for the administrative review of an administratively reviewable decision, the Tribunal may decide:

   (a)   to affirm the administratively reviewable decision, or

   (b)   to vary the administratively reviewable decision, or

   (c)   to set aside the administratively reviewable decision and make a decision in substitution for the administratively reviewable decision it set aside, or

   (d)   to set aside the administratively reviewable decision and remit the matter for reconsideration by the administrator in accordance with any directions or recommendations of the Tribunal.

The Hearing

25. The following evidence was relied upon by each party:

Applicant

• Application in 182237 filed 19.6.20 - A1

• Application in 152615 filed 21.5.20 - A2

• Application in 112909 filed 15.4.20 - A3

• Applicant bundle 29.9.20 - A4

• Applicant’s response to Peel HR - A5

Respondent

• Affidavit Kathryn Duggan (112909) 11.9.20 - R1

• Affidavit Noel Martin (112909) 11.9.20 - R2

• Affidavit Kathryn Duggan (182237) 11.9.20 - R3

• Affidavit Kathryn Duggan (152615) 11.9.20 - R4

26. Each party filed written submissions.

27. The hearing took place by way of telephone.

28. None of the witnesses were called for cross-examination.

29. A number of objections were taken by Mr Pickup in relation to some of the Applicant’s evidence.

30. Annexure G in the Applicant’s bundle marked A4 was not relied upon and therefore not read. Mr Pickup objected to the relevance of Annexure H. Following some discussion the Applicant withdrew that Annexure and it is not read. Annexure L was also objected to on the basis of relevance. I determined that the material in Annexure L related to what the officer said in a meeting and was not relevant to the applications and did not read that evidence. Annexure N was objected to and was not read by the Applicant. Mr Pickup objected to Annexure P, which ultimately I allowed to be included in the bundle subject to weight.

Evidence of Kathryn Duggan

31. The Respondent relies upon an Affidavit of Kathryn Duggan, Governance Coordinator at the Mid Coast Council, sworn 11 September 2020. Ms Duggan sets out a chronology of the relevant applications filed by the Applicant and the decisions made by the Respondent. Ms Duggan was not cross-examined. I accept her unchallenged evidence.

Affidavit of Noel Martin

32. The Respondent also relies upon an Affidavit of Noel Martin, sworn 11 September 2020. Mr Martin was not called for cross-examination. I accept his unchallenged evidence.

The Issues

GIPA20/20

33. The Respondent in not disclosing the redacted information to the Applicant relies upon clause 3(f) of the Table found at s14 of the GIPA Act. The Respondent states that the release of such information may expose a person to harm or risk or of serious harassment or serious intimidation. The Respondent also relies upon clause 1(f) of the Table found at s14 of the GIPA Act. The applicant seeks the release of this information.

GIPA22/20

34. In so far as the information not provided to the Applicant relates to the redaction of the names of officers identified in document 6.1, the Respondent relies upon clauses 1(f) and 3(f) of the Table in s14 of the GIPA Act. Documents 6.2, 6.3 and 6.6 are emails to and from Peel HR, the investigator retained to revie the circumstances around the laying down of headstones at the Bight Cemetery, the Respondent relies upon clause 4(d) of the Table in s14 of the GIPA Act that release of the information will prejudice Peel HR’s legitimate business, commercial, professional or financial interests.

35. In relation to information contained in document 8.1, being the interim investigation report, the Respondent is relying upon provisions of clauses 1(d), 1(f), 1(g), 3(f) and 4(d) of the Table in s14 of the GIPA Act.

GIPA33/20

36. The Applicant seeks access to an unredacted copy of document numbers 1.43, 4.1 to 4.48 and 6.1 of the unredacted copy of the final investigator’s report from Peel HR. The Respondent relies upon the provisions of 1(d), 1(f), 1(g), 3(f) and 4(d) of the Table in s14 of the GIPA Act.

37. The Appeal Panel in Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force v Camilleri (GD) (2012) NSWATP 19, refers to the approach which should be taken when determining an application within the GIPA Act as it may concern whether an agency has properly refused access. The Appeal Panel said (at [24] and [25]) the following:

‘[24]   Putting to one side the case where a conclusive presumption is relied upon, the Act envisages a two step approach to the question of whether information has been properly refused.

1. The new Act has a more structured approach to the decision making task than was seen under the previous legislation. The Agency case for refusal must rely on one or more of the Section 14 Table considerations. The Tribunal’s task is then to weigh that case against the factors favouring disclosure (Section 13), mindful of the injunctions that appear in both subsections 12 and 15. It is important, in our view, that the Tribunal proceed in the structured way reflected by these provisions. The Table considerations are concerned with systemic features of the operation of government.’

   38. In applying this approach the Tribunal must consider whether one or more of the public interest considerations against disclosure found in the Table to s14 applies and, if that is the case, I must weigh those factors against the public interest considerations in favour of disclosure to determine where the balance lies.

   39. In determining the question of where the balance lies, the decision in Hurst v Wagga Wagga City Council (2011) NSWADT 307 at [70] is apposite. It is a question of fact and degree requiring the weighing of competing matters and is a task that is not amenable to mathematical calculations to determine where the balance lies between the competing interests. The words used in the commencing clauses within the Table setting out the public interest considerations against disclosure must be given their ordinary meaning and require a judgement to be made by the decision maker as to whether it is reasonable, as distinct from something that is irrational, absurd or ridiculous. In that regard the words ‘could reasonably be expected to have one or more of the following effects’ must be given their ordinary meaning.

The parties submissions and my consideration

40. GIPA20/20- The Applicant submits that the release of the redacted information, the names and positions of council employees or agents, is information that should be disclosed. He contends that disclosure is in the public interest as it:

• Could reasonably be expected to promote open discussion of public affairs, enhance Government Accountability or contribute to positive and informed debate on issues of public importance;

• disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to inform the public about the operations of agencies and, in particular, their policies and practises for dealing with members of the public;

• disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to ensure effective oversight of the expenditure of public funds;

• disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to reveal or substantiate that the agency (or a member of an agency) has engaged in misconduct or negligent, improper or unlawful conduct;

• the applicant has a father, great grandparents, great, great grandparents and a great, great, great grandmother and step grandfather buried at the Bight Cemetery; and

• reporting of the nature of investigation results to Council would provide the community with some benefit that the staff are not just seeking to hide the nature of the investigation, its outcomes and recommendations quoting counsellor Bell in relation to a notice of motion.

41. The Respondent contends That disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to prejudice the effective exercise by the agency of its functions. Paragraph 12 of Ms Duggan’s affidavit refers to a council meeting taking place on 23 October 2019. At that meeting a delegate of the United Services Union voiced concerns about the release of information concerning staff involved in the laying down of headstones at the Bight Cemetery. Should such information be disclosed, industrial action would likely commence to prevent such disclosure. Ms Duggan deposes that such industrial action if initiated against the respondent would substantially disrupt its operations and thereby prejudicing the effective exercise of its functions.

42. Mr Martin supports Ms Duggan’s evidence in this regard.

43. Ms Duggan also refers to the potential of serious harassment and serious intimidation that may result to the named employees should the information be disclosed. Ms Duggan refers to the community response and media reports associated with the laying down of the headstones and has included a number of Facebook posts which give an indication of the public sentiment surrounding the issue. It is submitted that the disclosure of this information my subject the relevant employees to scrutiny of the general public without full knowledge of the facts and could result in bullying, harassment and abuse of them in those circumstances.

44. I give particular weight to the public interest considerations against disclosure having regard to clauses 1(f) and 3(f) of the Table to Section 14. Having reviewed the material before me, I find that the appropriate balance lies in favour of not disclosing the information which has been redacted in the documents on the basis that industrial action would have a serious impact on the respondents operations and thereby prejudice the effective exercise of its function. I also find that given the and public sentiments which are contained in the various Facebook posts about the laying down of the headstones, release of the names of employees would likely cause serious harassment and serious intimidation to those persons should the information be disclosed.

45. I have also taken into consideration that the Applicant has been provided with all the information in his access application, other than minor redactions deleting names of some council staff members. I'm not satisfied that there is any necessary reason for those names to be disclosed which would alter the weighing exercise which I have referred to above. In my view there is no public interest in disclosing the names of the relevant council officers and their positions.

46. The request is therefore refused. I confirm the decision of the respondent.

47. GIPA22/20 - The Applicant seeks disclosure of information in document 6.1 which has been redacted in similar terms to the documents referred to in matter GIPA20/20. For the same reasons, I refuse the application and affirm the decision of the respondent.

48. As it relates to the request of documents 6.2, 6.3 and 6.6, the nature of the information concerns emails and correspondence passing between Peel HR Pty Ltd (Peel HR) and the Respondent. Peel HR is a company which was retained by the Respondent to undertake an investigation concerning the Bight Cemetery.

49. The Applicant maintains the same submissions as those which are set out in paragraph 40 above.

50. The respondent submits that disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to prejudice any persons legitimate business, commercial, professional or financial interests.

51. Ms Duggan deposes at paragraph 13 of her affidavit, that the council undertook consultation with Peel HR in relation to the release of the information and received an objection on the basis that it would have an adverse impact on the interests of Peel HR and the investigator.

52. Ms Daniel Platt, director of Peel HR was granted leave to be heard under s104(3) of the GIPA Act on 22 September 2020. She filed an affidavit sworn 6 October 2020. Ms Peel's role at Peel HR entails conducting workplace investigations, workplace mediations, and other related duties. She deposes the manner in which Peel HR undertakes workplace investigations. Gathering evidence is undertaken in a confidential manner in order to produce a report to organisations such as the respondent. The investigation concerning the Bight Cemetery was conducted on a confidential basis. Following the investigation being completed, Peel HR invoices its client which includes itemised and detailed descriptions of the components of work undertaken. Ms Platt says that the manner in which the work is undertaken and associated costings is commercial in confidence and such information is not made publicly available. Ms Platt was not cross examined and I accept her as being an honest and reliable witness.

53. I give particular weight to the public interest considerations against disclosure having regard to clause 4(d) of the Table to Section 14. Having reviewed the material before me, I find that the appropriate balance lies in favour of not disclosing the information which has been redacted in these documents on the basis that disclosure all of the information could reasonably be expected to prejudice Peel HR’s legitimate business, commercial professional or financial interests. I'm satisfied having reviewed the evidence of Ms Dugan and Ms Platt that the legitimate interests concerning the operation of the Respondent and Peel HR have been identified enabling the findings which are set out about.

54. The applicant also seeks access to document 8.1, which includes information described as being the interim investigation report. The respondent submits that access to the information included in the report relates to the legitimate business and commercial interests all the council and peel HR. In addition, the respondent relies upon close 1(d), 1(f), 1(g), 4(d) of Table 14 in Section 14 of the GIPA Act.

55. As it relates to 1(f) of Table 14 in Section 14 of the GIPA Act, I make the same same findings and conclusion I set out in paragraph 44 above. I also repeat my findings and conclusions concerning clauses 4(d) of the Table to Section 14 which I set out in paragraph 53 above. I am also of the view that clause 1(d) of the Table to Section 14, is apposite such that the disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to prejudice the supply of confidential information to the agency that facilitates the effective exercise of that agency's functions. The interim report is concerning a workplace investigation where staff participate in that investigation on a confidential basis. Both Ms Duggan and Ms Platt set out that process. I accept their evidence. I also note the decision in Director General, `Department of Education and training v Mullett and Anor (GD) [2002] NSWADTAP 12 at [58] which is apposite.

56. Having reviewed the material before me, I find that the appropriate balance lies in favour of not disclosing the information in documents 6.2, 6.3, 6.6 and 8.1.

57. The request is therefore refused. I affirm the decision of the respondent.

58. GIPA20/20 -The Applicant submits that the release of the unredacted information contained in document numbers 1.43, 4.1-4.48, and 6.41 and a copy of the final investigators report from Peel HR should be disclosed. He contends that disclosure is in the public interest for the same reasons as set out in the other two related matters.

59. The redactions concerning documents 1.43 and 6.41 relate to the names and positions of officers of the respondent. For the same reasons is set out in paragraphs 44 above. I find that the Decision of the respondent should be affirmed.

60. In relation to documents 4.1 to 4.48 being invoices issued by Peel HR, the respondent relies upon clause 4(d) of Table 14 in Section 14 of the GIPA Act. Ms Duggan in her affidavit at paragraph 6, refers to several public interest considerations against disclosure which includes that the information contains business and financial information of Peel HR. Many of the invoices both predate the incident at the Bight Cemetery and do not relate to the investigation. Miss Platt deposes that disclosure of the information in these documents was provided commercial in confidence and could prejudice the conduct, effectiveness, or integrity of other investigations that may have been conducted by or on behalf of the agency.

61. I am satisfied that information sought may relate to other investigations and have no relationship to the Bight Cemetery investigation. I am satisfied that the balance lies in favour of not disclosing the information as the detail would fall within clauses 1(g) and (h) of the Table to Section 14 of the GIPA Act.

62. In weighing these factors against the public interest considerations in favour of the disclosure as set out in section 12 of the GIPA Act, I find that the decision of the respondent should be affirmed.

63. The overall decision is that the application should be dismissed. The decision of the respondent is affirmed.

Orders

2020/00112909:

1. The decision of the Respondent 19 March 2020 is affirmed.

2020/00152615:

1. The decision of the Respondent 22 April 2020 is affirmed.

2020/00182237:

1. The decision of the Respondent 30 April 2020 is affirmed.

**********

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.

Registrar

Decision last updated: 18 February 2021