VKJY and Secretary, Department of Home Affairs (Freedom of information)

This matter concerned an application for review before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) concerning a freedom of information request made by VKJY (the applicant) to the Secretary, Department of Home Affairs (the respondent). The applicant sought access to documents, and the respondent had initially claimed exemptions under section 22 of the *Freedom of Information Act 1982* (Cth) (the Act). However, the respondent sought to rely on a different ground on review, namely conditional exemptions under section 47E(c) of the Act, which relates to documents that could have a substantial adverse effect on the management or assessment of personnel.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the respondent had taken all reasonable steps to locate documents within the scope of the applicant's request, and whether the conditional exemptions claimed under sections 47E(c) and 11B of the Act were properly applied. Specifically, the Tribunal considered whether the respondent's interpretation of the scope of the request was unduly narrow and whether the claimed exemptions for personnel management and legal professional privilege were correctly applied to the documents in question.

The Tribunal reasoned that the respondent had not adequately substantiated its claim that disclosure of public servants' names and direct contact details would have a substantial adverse effect on personnel management. It noted that the respondent's submissions were framed in general terms and failed to explain how disclosure in this particular case could reasonably be expected to lead to inappropriate unsolicited approaches, personal attacks, or harassment, particularly in the absence of any identified concerns about the applicant's past conduct. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from previous decisions where such exemptions were upheld, finding that the respondent had not established the necessary particulars to justify the exemption under section 47E(c). Furthermore, the Tribunal found that certain documents claimed to be covered by legal professional privilege were not so covered.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the respondent with directions. These directions included the release of specific emails that were found not to be covered by legal professional privilege, the release of documents claimed to be exempt under section 47E(c) in unredacted form (except for personal mobile phone numbers), and a requirement for further searches to be conducted in accordance with the criteria outlined in the applicant's request.