Tedesco and Mt Gravatt District Community Support Inc.
(2004 F0310, 21 March 2005)
The applicant sought access to documents held by the respondent concerning the applicant.
The Management Committee of the respondent resolved to provide the applicant with copies of documents to which he sought access, but otherwise did not process the applicant's FOI access application in accordance with Part 3 of the FOI Act. The applicant was not satisfied that he had received all of the documents responsive to his request, and purported to apply for internal review of that decision. The respondent did not respond to that request, and the applicant applied to me for review, under Part 5 of the FOI Act, of the respondent's decision to refuse him access to documents under the FOI Act.
The issue in this case was whether or not the respondent is a "public authority" as defined in s.9 of the FOI Act. I discussed the application of ss.9(1)(a), 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(c), the crucial section being s.9(1)(a)(ii). Applying the tests set out in Barker and World Firefighters Games, Brisbane, 2002 (2001) 6 QAR 149, I found that although the respondent was established under an enactment and for a public purpose, it could not be a public authority as it was not also established by government.