Warren; Services Australia and (Freedom of information)

This matter concerned an application for review by Services Australia of a decision made by the Information Commissioner regarding a Freedom of Information request lodged by Mr Warren. Mr Warren sought access to documents related to the "Robodebt" scheme. Services Australia had initially refused access to all 13 documents identified in response to the request, citing exemptions under s 34 and s 37 of the *Freedom of Information Act 1982* (Cth). The Information Commissioner had partially set aside this decision, granting access to some documents while maintaining exemptions for others.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether certain documents were exempt from disclosure under s 34 of the FOI Act, specifically concerning Cabinet documents and drafts thereof, and whether the disclosure of information within these documents would reveal Cabinet deliberations or decisions, particularly in light of whether the existence of such deliberations had been officially disclosed. Additionally, the Tribunal was required to consider whether certain documents were conditionally exempt under s 47C of the FOI Act, and if so, whether the public interest favoured disclosure. The onus was on Services Australia to establish that the Information Commissioner's decision was not justified.

The Tribunal considered the application of s 34(1)(d) and s 34(3) of the FOI Act to various groups of documents, including draft new policy proposals, costing spreadsheets, and draft costing requests. It noted that s 33(1)(c) of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth) permitted the Tribunal to inform itself in any manner it thought appropriate, not being bound by the rules of evidence, provided that decisions were based on material with rational probative force. The Tribunal found that Services Australia had not discharged its onus to establish that documents 9 and NPP1 were exempt under s 34, and therefore Mr Warren was entitled to inspect them. The Tribunal also considered the application of s 47C, ultimately finding that the public interest favoured disclosure for several documents.

The Tribunal's decision partially set aside the Information Commissioner's decision. While the Information Commissioner had found documents 4, 9, and 10 to be exempt under s 34(1)(a), the Tribunal determined that Services Australia had not provided sufficient particulars to establish the exemption for documents 9 and NPP1. Consequently, Mr Warren was granted access to these documents. The Tribunal also found that several other documents, initially deemed conditionally exempt under s 47C by the Information Commissioner, were not exempt due to the public interest favouring disclosure.