Wilson AM and Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (Freedom of Information)

This matter concerned an application for review before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) of a decision by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) to refuse access to documents. The applicant, a respiratory physician and former President of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP), sought access to documents relating to a privacy complaint made against the RACP. The OAIC contended that the documents were exempt from disclosure under sections 47E(d) and 47F of the *Freedom of Information Act 1982* (Cth), and bore the onus under section 61 of the Act to justify its refusal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the disclosure of the documents would, or could reasonably be expected to, have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of the OAIC's operations, as contemplated by section 47E(d). It also needed to consider whether the documents were exempt under section 47F, which relates to unreasonable disclosure of personal information. The central dispute revolved around the OAIC's assertion that maintaining confidentiality in its complaint investigation processes was crucial for its effective functioning.

Deputy President Britten-Jones applied the principles established in cases such as *Re James and Australian National University* and *Searle Australia v Public Interest Advocacy Centre*, which confirm that the "conduct of the operations of an agency" extends to the performance of its functions. The Tribunal accepted evidence from Assistant Commissioner Stevens, which established that parties to privacy complaints provide information to the OAIC in confidence, with the expectation that it will not be disclosed outside the complaints process. This expectation of confidentiality, supported by the *Privacy Act 1988* (Cth), the OAIC's Guide, and its Policy, was found to be essential for parties to participate fully and frankly, thereby enabling the OAIC to conduct its investigations efficiently and effectively. The Tribunal concluded that disclosure of the documents would have a substantial adverse effect on the OAIC's ability to perform its regulatory functions.

The Tribunal affirmed the OAIC's decision to refuse access to the documents.