Santoro MLA and Department of Main Roads; Brisbane City Council (Third Party)(Affirmed in subsequent proceeding under the Judicial Review Act 1991 Qld)

Application number:
1999 S0044
Applicant:
Santoro MLA
Respondent:
Department of Main Roads
Decision date:
Tuesday, Oct 24, 2000
Reported:
(2000) 5 QAR 405

Santoro, MLA and Department of Main Roads; Brisbane City Council (Third Party)
(1999 S0044, 24 October 2000)

The applicant sought access to documents relating to the City-Valley Bypass project. The respondent and the third party claimed that disclosure of the matter in issue, which related to funding for the construction of the project, could reasonably be expected to cause damage to relations between the State Government and the Brisbane City Council, and that the matter in issue therefore qualified for exemption under s.38(a) of the FOI Act.

The Information Commissioner decided that the use of the words 'relations between the State and another government' in s.38(a) of the FOI Act indicated that the legislature intended to protect relations between the government of the State of Queensland and other autonomous governments of similar status, and not relations between the two levels of government within Queensland.  The Information Commissioner decided that the correct interpretation of the phrase 'another government' in the context of s.38 of the FOI Act is that it refers to the Commonwealth government, the governments of other Australian States and territories, and the governments of foreign states.  Accordingly, the Information Commissioner held that the matter in issue did not qualify for exemption under s.38(a), because apprehended damage to relations between the State of Queensland and the Brisbane City Council was not within the sphere of application of s.38(a) of the FOI Act, properly construed.

Even on the assumption (contrary to the Information Commissioner's finding) that the words 'another government' in s.38 extended to the Brisbane City Council, the Information Commissioner was not persuaded that the matter in issue would qualify for exemption under s.38(a).  The Information Commissioner was not satisfied that disclosure of the matter in issue could reasonably be expected to cause damage to relations between the State of Queensland and the Council.  The Information Commissioner also noted that, had the Commissioner been persuaded that disclosure of the matter in issue could reasonably be expected to cause some damage to relations between the State of Queensland and the Council, the Information Commissioner considered that the public interest considerations favouring disclosure of the matter in issue were strong enough to have warranted a finding that disclosure of the matter in issue would, on balance, be in the public interest.

(The Brisbane City Council sought review of the Information Commissioner's decision in the Queensland Supreme Court.  The matter was heard by Justice Wilson on 10 April 2001 - BCC v Albietz [2001] QSC 160.  In a judgment delivered on 17 May 2001, Justice Wilson upheld the Information Commissioner's decision, ordering that the Council's application for judicial review be dismissed. The Council subsequently appealed to the Queensland Court of Appeal.)