Hardy and Department of Health
(310264, 27 June 2011)
Section 67(1) of the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld)
Sections 47(3)(b) and 49 Right to Information Act – Grounds on which access may be refused – Contrary to public interest – schedule 4, part 2, items 1, 3, 9, 11, 16 – part 3, item 3, 16, 19 – part 4, item 6, 8
The applicant made a complaint to the Department of Health (QH) about the level of care provided to her father. QH commissioned an external party to conduct an investigation into the complaint.
The applicant applied under the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) (IP Act) for access to full copies of the externally appointed investigator’s:
· Draft Report on Townsville District’s (QH) Treatment of the applicant’s deceased father dated 6 June 2008; and
· Final Report on Townsville District’s (QH) Treatment of the applicant’s deceased father dated 2 March 2009.
QH located 721 pages and decided to grant the applicant full access to 505 pages, partial access to 41 pages and to refuse access to 175 pages. QH refused access to this information on the basis that its disclosure would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest under section 47(3)(b) of the Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) (RTI Act).
After carefully considering all evidence and submissions, Right to Information Commissioner Mead was satisfied that access to the information in issue could be refused under section 67 of the IP Act and section 47(3)(b) of the RTI Act on the basis that its disclosure would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest under section 49 of the RTI Act.
The Right to Information Commissioner considered that the weight to be attributed to the factors in favour of disclosure was low, considering the applicant had already been provided with:
· the summary of findings
· the executive summary
· background to the investigation
· the terms of reference and methodology; and
· an overview of each allegation along with the findings and recommendations of the investigator.
The low weight attributed to the factors in favour of disclosure was outweighed by the weight of the following factors in favour of nondisclosure:
· disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to prejudice an individual’s right to privacy
· disclosure of the information would disclose personal information of a person, whether living or dead
· disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to prejudice an agency’s ability to obtain confidential information
· the information consists of information of a confidential nature that was communicated in confidence and disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to prejudice the future supply of information of this type; and
· disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to prejudice the management function of an agency.
