TYGJ and Information Commissioner

The applicant, TYGJ, sought further redactions to a published decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, specifically concerning their place of work and position title, which they argued were consistent with an existing confidentiality order. Additionally, TYGJ applied for a new confidentiality order to protect the names of Australian Public Service employees. The Information Commissioner was the respondent. The matter was heard by Deputy President Forgie.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had established grounds for further redactions to the published decision regarding their employment details, and whether a new confidentiality order should be made to protect the names of APS employees, considering the potential for reputational harm and the presence of unanswered allegations.

Deputy President Forgie considered the principles governing confidentiality orders and redactions in published decisions. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had already been granted a confidentiality order regarding their name and other identifying details. In relation to the further redactions sought for location of work and position title, the Tribunal found that these details were not sufficiently specific to identify the applicant, especially given the existing confidentiality order. However, regarding the application to protect the names of APS employees, the Tribunal was persuaded that the potential for reputational harm, particularly in circumstances where allegations remained unanswered, warranted the granting of a confidentiality order for those names.

The Tribunal ordered that the names of the APS employees be redacted from the published decision.