Villanueva and Queensland Nursing Council; A Midwife (Third Party); Talbot (Fourth Party); Gordon (Fifth Party)

Application number:
1998 S0076
Decision date:
Wednesday, Apr 26, 2000
Reported:
(2000) 5 QAR 363

 

Villanueva and Queensland Nursing Council

The applicant applied for access to documents in connection with the respondent's investigation of a complaint which the applicant had lodged about the conduct of a midwife who had been involved in the delivery of the applicant's baby at Ipswich General Hospital in 1994.

The Information Commissioner considered the application to the matter in issue of s.16 and s.48 of the FOI Act (in connection with a claim by the midwife's solicitors that disclosure of the matter in issue was prohibited by s.139 of the Nursing Act 1992 Qld), as well as the application of s.42(1)(e), s.44(1) and s.46(1)(b) of the FOI Act.  The Information Commissioner decided that, with the exception of a small amount of matter which the Information Commissioner considered could properly be characterised as information concerning the midwife's personal affairs and which was exempt from disclosure under s.44(1) of the FOI Act, the matter in issue did not qualify for exemption under the FOI Act. 

The Information Commissioner gave detailed consideration to the claims of the midwife and the various other participants in the review that the information they provided to the respondent during the course of the investigation was communicated in confidence and therefore was exempt from disclosure under s.46(1)(b) of the FOI Act. 

The Information Commissioner decided that, in the particular circumstances of the case, it was not reasonable for those persons to expect that the information that they provided would be kept confidential from the applicant, and that the other requirements for exemption under s.46(1)(b) had not been satisfied.  As regards the public interest balancing test incorporated in s.46(1)(b), the Information Commissioner found that, subject to any applicable constraints in a particular case (such as the need to respect any applicable obligations or understandings of confidence, or applicable privacy considerations) there is a legitimate public interest in a complainant being given sufficient information to be satisfied that an investigating body has conducted a thorough investigation and reached a fair and realistic decision about whether the available evidence was sufficient to justify any formal action being taken in respect of the complaint.

(1998 S0076, 26 April 2000)