Murphy and Department of Infrastructure and Planning; Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland, Logan Branch Inc.

Application number:
210514
Decision date:
Tuesday, Jan 20, 2009

Murphy and Department of Infrastructure and Planning
(210514, 20 January 2009)

 

The freedom of information applicant (FOI Applicant) sought access to documents tendered to the Queensland Premier in support of an application for Ministerial exemption under the Regulatory Provisions of the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2005-2026 (Matter in Issue).  When consulted by the Department of Infrastructure and Planning (DIP), the external review applicant (ER Applicant) objected to disclosure of the Matter in Issue on the basis that it was exempt under sections 46(1)(a), 46(1)(b), 45(1)(b) & (c), 45(3), 44(1), 41(1) and 36 of the Freedom of Information Act 1992 (Qld) (FOI Act).  During the external review process the external review applicant agreed not to pursue its objections under sections 36, 41(1), 45(1)(b) and 46(1)(a).

 

Section 44(1) Personal Affairs

 

In its internal review decision, DIP claimed that information contained in the Matter in Issue, including a PO Box address, mobile telephone number, signatures and two street addresses were exempt from disclosure under section 44(1) of the FOI Act.  The ER Applicant also claimed that names, home addresses, property information, signatures and education qualifications/experience contained in the Matter in Issue was personal affairs information that should not be disclosed under section 44(1) of the FOI Act.

 

In considering whether the information was personal affairs information, Assistant Commissioner Corby (AC Corby) distinguished between the private and business activities of individuals and found that the documents in issue concerned the business affairs of the ER Applicant, namely, they concerned the subdivision and sale of land.

 

AC Corby considered the principles in Stewart and Department of Transport (1993) 1 QAR 227 and found that:

 

·       The signatures and street addresses could be characterised as information concerning the personal affairs of the ER applicant and another party and were prima facie exempt from disclosure under section 44(1) of the FOI Act

·       There were no public interest considerations favouring disclosure of the personal affairs information which outweighed the privacy interests of the ER applicant/other party

·       The PO Box address and mobile telephone number concerned the business affairs of the ER applicant/other party and were not exempt under section 44(1) of the FOI Act

 

Section 45(1)(c) Adverse effect

 

AC Corby was satisfied that the Matter in Issue concerned the business, professional, commercial or financial affairs of the ER Applicant and another party.  However, AC Corby was not satisfied that disclosure of the Matter in Issue could reasonably be expected to have an adverse effect on those affairs because:

 

·       it was not substantially different to information that was publicly available through the local Council’s planning and development website; and

·       the nature of the local Council’s planning and development process was such that release of the Matter in Issue could not adversely effect the outcome of the decision-making process. 

 

Further, AC Corby was not satisfied that disclosure of the Matter in Issue would prejudice the future supply of such information to government, given the benefit derived from the provision of such information to the Premier. 

 

Accordingly, AC Corby was satisfied that the Matter in Issue did not qualify for exemption under section 45(1)(c) of the FOI Act.

 

Section 45(3) Research

 

The ER Applicant submitted that the Matter in Issue disclosed the purpose and results of research and should be exempt under section 45(3) of the FOI Act.

 

In considering the cumulative requirements of section 45(3) of the FOI Act, AC Corby was not satisfied that there was a reasonable basis for expecting that disclosure of the information could have an adverse effect on the person on whose behalf the research was carried out, and therefore the second limb of the test had not been satisfied.

 

Accordingly, the Matter in Issue was not exempt under section 45(3) of the FOI Act.

 

Section 46(1)(b) Communicated in confidence

 

The ER Applicant also claimed that the Matter in Issue consisted of matter communicated in confidence.

 

AC Corby, in considering the cumulative test for section 46(1)(b) of the FOI Act, decided that disclosure of the Matter in Issue could not reasonably be expected to prejudice the future supply of such information.  Therefore, as the third limb of the cumulative test was not met, the Matter in Issue was not exempt under section 46(1)(b) of the FOI Act.

 

In her examination of the public interest balancing test, AC Corby also found that the weight of the public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure (such as individuals receiving fair treatment in accordance with the law in their dealings with the government) did not equal or outweigh that of the public interest considerations favouring disclosure (such as government accountability and public participation).

 

On this basis, the Matter in Issue was not exempt under section 46(1)(b) of the FOI Act.