Department of Primary Industries and WorkCover Queensland; P (Third Party)
Department of Primary Industries and WorkCover; P (Third Party)
(2002 S0004, 12 May 2003)
This was a 'reverse FOI' application by the Department of Primary Industries (DPI) for review of a decision by the respondent to give the third party access to certain documents. The third party had lodged a claim with the respondent against his employer, DPI. The respondent engaged a psychologist to prepare a report to assist it in considering that claim. Three DPI employees were interviewed during the preparation of that report. The matter in issue comprised the statements provided by the three employees, references in the body of the report to the information they provided, and a letter that one of the third parties had provided to the psychologist.
The DPI employees argued that the matter in issue concerned their personal affairs. Assistant Commissioner Moss identified small amounts of personal affairs matter and decided that, on balance, the public interest did not favour disclosure of that matter, such that it was exempt matter under s.44(1) of the FOI Act. However, AC Moss held that the bulk of the matter in issue did not relate to private aspects of the employees' lives, but rather, related to or arose from their employment by DPI, and therefore did not qualify for exemption under s.44(1).
AC Moss rejected DPI's claim that the matter in issue qualified for exemption under s.40(c) of the FOI Act. She was not satisfied that disclosure of the matter in issue could reasonably be expected to have a substantial adverse effect on the management or assessment by DPI of its personnel, given that the third party no longer worked for DPI. AC Moss also rejected DPI's claims for exemption under s.42(1)(b) and s.46(1)(b) of the FOI Act. She held that the DPI employees could not reasonably have expected that their identities would remain confidential, given the nature of the information they were providing and the real possibility that the information would be relied upon in making a decision adverse to the interests of the third party. Although it appeared that an express undertaking as to confidentiality was provided to at least one of the DPI employees at the time he was interviewed, AC Moss decided that the requirements of procedural fairness meant that neither he nor the respondent could reasonably have expected that the information would be kept confidential while taking appropriate action in respect of it. It must have been an implicitly authorised exception to any understanding of confidentiality that it would be necessary for the respondent to provide an account of its investigation, and the reasons for its decision (including the material on which it based that decision), to the third party.
