Conley and Treasury Department

Conley and Queensland Treasury
(2003 F0149, 29 April 2005) 

Cabinet matter – Executive Council matter – matter communicated in confidence – deliberative process matter – commercial affairs – damage to relations between the State and another government – prejudice to the conduct of industrial relations by an agency – matter affecting the economy of the State 

The applicant sought access to documents concerning the process under which the third party, Conrad Jupiters Ltd, was awarded preferred applicant status to develop the Treasury Casino in Brisbane.  As a result of concessions by the participants during the review, the matter in issue (which originally comprised many thousands of folios) was confined to 15 documents or parts of documents.

Questions arose during the course of the review as to whether particular documents properly fell within the scope of the FOI access application.  Applying the principles stated in Cannon and Australian Quality Egg Farms Limited (1994) 1 QAR 491, AC Barker found that all of the subject documents fell within the scope of the FOI access application. 

In relation to claims for exemption under s.36(1)(a), AC Barker was satisfied that the matter in issue in 5 documents had been 'submitted' to a meeting of the Special Purposes Cabinet Committee which considered the proposal for the Brisbane casino licence and/or to Cabinet, and was therefore exempt matter under s.36(1)(a) of the FOI Act. 

In the absence of any sufficient probative evidence to justify claims for exemption under s.37(1)(b) of the FOI Act, AC Barker decided that none of the documents in respect of which those claims were made qualified for exemption under that provision. 

Applying the principles stated in B and Brisbane North Regional Health Authority (1994) 1 QAR 279, AC Barker found that claims for exemption under s.46(1)(a) were made out in relation to one document and to parts of 7 others, but were not made out in relation to all or part of 5 other documents.  AC Barker also found that the claims for exemption under s.46(1)(b) were not made out in relation to those other documents. 

Applying the principles stated in Eccleston and Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs (1993) 1 QAR 60, AC Barker found that the claims for exemption under s.41(1) were not made out in relation to the matter in issue in 4 documents. 

Applying the principles stated in Re Cannon, AC Barker found the claims for exemption under s.45(1)(b) and s.45(1)(c) were not made out in relation to the matter in issue in 5 documents. 

AC Barker also decided that claims for exemption under s.38(a), s.40(d) and s.47(1)(b) of the FOI Act in respect of one document were not made out.