In effect from: 1 July 2025

Determining if a new RTI application can be processed

The first two things an agency or Minister has to assess when they receive a new Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) (RTI Act) access or amendment application are: can the application be made and is the application compliant.

  • The application can only be made if it is for a document of an agency or document of a Minister that is subject to the RTI Act.
  • The application will only be compliant if it meets all of the relevant application requirements in section 24 or 78E of the RTI Act.

Note: references to an agency on this page include a Minister.

Can the application be made

An application must be for documents that are within the scope of the RTI Act. Under section 32 and section 78J of the RTI Act, an entity can decide that an access or amendment application is outside the scope of the Act if it:

  • is for a document which is a document to which the Act does not apply as set out in schedule 1 of the RTI Act; or
  • has been made to an entity to which the Act does not apply, as set out in schedule 2 of the RTI Act.

An application is also outside the scope of the Act if it is made to the Office of the Information Commissioner, Information Commissioner, Right to Information Commissioner, or Privacy Commissioner.

Dealing with an application outside the Act

Under section 32 or 78J, if every document applied for is outside the scope of the Act, the agency must give the applicant a decision that their application is outside the scope of the Act within 25 business days of receiving the application. This time cannot be extended under section 18 of the RTI Act.

Dealing with a mixed application

If an application is for a mix of documents outside the scope of the Act and documents of an agency, the agency must:

  • within 25 business days give the applicant a decision under section 32 or 78J on the documents excluded from the Act; and
  • deal with the rest of the application as an access or amendment application.

Review of a section 32 or 78J decision

With the exception of a judicial function decision, decisions under section 32 or 78J are reviewable decisions. This means they can be internally or externally reviewed.

Judicial function decisions can only be appealed to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal under section 119(2).

Documents excluded from the Act

Schedule 1 of the RTI Act lists documents to which the RTI Act does not apply. These documents are not subject to the RTI Act and there is no right to apply for them. An application for access to a schedule 1 document is outside the scope of the RTI Act.

The majority of schedule 1 documents refer to other legislation which sets the parameters of the exclusion. Decision makers should refer to the other legislation to determine if documents are excluded from the RTI Act.

Entities excluded from the Act

Schedule 2, part 1 of the RTI Act list entities which are entirely excluded from the RTI Act. An application made to an entity listed in schedule 2, part 1 of the RTI Act is outside the scope of the RTI Act.

Schedule 2, part 2 of the RTI Act lists entities which are only excluded in relation to the listed function. An application made to an agency listed in schedule 2, part 2 requires an assessment of the application to determine which functions it relates to. If it relates to a function mentioned in schedule 2, part 2, the application is outside the scope of the RTI Act.

Judicial and quasi-judicial entities

Under schedule 2, part 2, items 1-8 judicial entities are excluded from the RTI Act for their judicial functions, quasi-judicial entities are excluded for their quasi-judicial functions, and tribunals are excluded for both.

RTI processing documents

RTI processing documents are considered to be quasi-judicial function documents. Applications for RTI processing documents are outside the scope of the Act.

Government Owned Corporations (GOCs)

Several GOCs are included in schedule 2, part 2. For these GOCs, the RTI Act only applies in relation to their community service obligations. Application to these GOCs for documents that do not relate to their community service obligations are outside the scope of the Act.

Only the relevant GOC can rely on these sections. They do not apply if the GOC's documents are held by a different agency.

Is the application compliant

An access or amendment application will be compliant when it meets all the relevant application requirements in section 24 or 78E of the RTI Act.

Relevant application requirements

  • The application must be in writing. It does not need to be made on the approved form.
  • If the access application is only for documents that do not contain the applicant’s personal information, the application fee must be paid.
  • The application must give sufficient information about the documents to allow them to be identified.
  • The application must include an address to which notices can be sent.
  • Access applications for personal information documents and all amendment applications must be accompanied by evidence of identity.
  • Access applications for personal information documents and all amendment applications which are made on someone else’s behalf must be accompanied by evidence of the agent’s identity.
  • Access applications for personal information documents and all amendment applications made by a parent on behalf of a child must be accompanied by evidence of the parent’s parental responsibility.
  • For amendment applications, the applicant must have had previous access to the information.
  • Amendment applications must state the information the applicant claims is inaccurate, incomplete, out of date or misleading (incorrect), and how and why they claim it is incorrect.

If an agency receives an application that does not meet all the relevant application requirements, the application is noncompliant. The agency must follow the steps set out in section 33 or 78K of the RTI Act to manage the noncompliant application.

Application fee

The test for whether an application fee is payable is whether every document applied for contains the applicant's personal information.

The test will only arise if the applicant is an individual and the only applicant. If two individuals make a joint application, they are applying for each other’s personal information as well as their own, which means the application is not limited to documents containing the applicant’s personal information. This does not mean that a single individual who applies for documents containing their information has to pay an application fee if those documents also contain other people’s information.

Agencies will need to consider the scope of the application and assess whether every document is likely to have the applicant’s personal information in it somewhere. It doesn’t matter what else is in the document or how much or how little of the applicant’s personal information it contains.

Agencies who assess that no application fee is payable must process and make decisions on all information in the documents which is relevant to the application's scope, not just the applicant's personal information.

For example, an applicant applies for ‘my HR file’. On the file is a copy of a report about their business unit’s processes and practices, and the employee's name appears on page twelve of the report. This makes it a document containing their personal information which can be applied for with no application fee.

If the applicant pays an application fee but every document they have applied for does contain their personal information, the agency must refund the application fee. This includes where the agency originally advised an application fee was payable, but realised during processing that every document contains the applicant's personal information.

Evidence of identity and authority

An applicant must provide evidence of their identity for:

  • any access application that includes documents which will contain the applicant’s personal information; and
  • all amendment applications.

If the applicant has someone (referred to as an agent) make one of these applications on their behalf, the agent must provide evidence of their authority to act as an agent for the applicant. This includes a parent applying on behalf of their child.

If none of the documents being applied for in an access application contain the applicant's personal information:

  • the applicant does not need to provide evidence of their identity; and
  • an agent does not need to provide evidence of authority to act for the applicant.

However, if an agent applies for sensitive information about the applicant, such as confidential information about a company they claim to be acting for, and the agency has concerns about the agent's authority to act, then those concerns may be taken into account when making the access decision.

Before doing so, it would be reasonable for the agency to speak with the agent, explaining those concerns and the possible ramifications for the decision, and ask them to provide proof of their authority to act for the applicant. The agent is not required to provide this evidence, and the application will be valid even if they refuse, as it is not a requirement of the RTI Act.

Evidence of identity

Valid forms of ID under the RTI Act are documents that could reasonably be accepted to be evidence of the person’s identity as defined in the Right to Information Regulation 2025 (RTI Regulation). This includes:

  • a passport, a birth certificate, or a relevant authority (defined in the RTI Regulation) in the form of a card
  • a certified copy of one of the above
  • an electronic PDF document of a relevant authority created using the approved app under the Transport Planning and Coordination Act 1994 (must be provided electronically to the agency)
  • a digital authority for a relevant authority displayed to the agency under the Transport Planning and Coordination Act 1994, section 29AI(2)
  • a statutory declaration from an individual who has known the person for at least one year; or
  • for prisoners only: a copy of a prisoner’s identity card that is certified by a Corrective Services officer.

This list is not exhaustive and other documents may also satisfy the requirement to provide evidence of an applicant’s identity, such as, a Medicare card or citizenship certificate.

Redaction of ID invalidates it

The entire identity document, with no information blacked out or covered, must be provided for it to be valid. If an applicant provides, for example, a drivers licence with the photo or numbers covered, the agency cannot accept it as proof of identity for the purposes of the RTI Act.

Certified by a qualified witness

The most common method of providing evidence of identity is by way of a certified copy. Except as set out below, copies of evidence of identity documents must be certified as a correct copy of the original by a ‘qualified witness’. A qualified witness is a pharmacist, Justice of the Peace, lawyer, Commissioner for Declarations, pharmacist or notary public.

Under no circumstances can a qualified witness certify their own identification.

As noted above, the entire identity document must be provided, with no information redacted from the certified copy, for it to be valid under the RTI Act.

There is no requirement for a copy of an agent’s authority to be certified by a qualified witness.

Exceptions – prisoner identity cards

A prisoner providing a copy of their prisoner identity card as evidence of identity does not need to have it certified by a ‘qualified witness’. Instead, the RTI Regulation requires prisoner identity cards to be certified by a corrective services officer.

Exceptions - digital evidence of identity

The Queensland Digital Licence app under the Transport Planning and Coordination Act 1994 (the approved app) allows people to store Queensland Department of Transport issued digital authorities. The approved app allows users to display their digital authorities and produce PDF versions of their authorities.

A PDF document of a ‘relevant authority’ created using the approved app and given in electronic form, eg by email, to an agency does not need to be certified by a qualified witness. A relevant authority is a:

  • a driver licence
  • a photo identification card; or
  • a personal watercraft licence or recreational marine driver licence.

Evidence of identity for prisoners incarcerated in Queensland

Some correctional centres are not set up to photocopy and certify Prison Identify Cards. An alternative form of evidence of identity is an original memorandum from a General Manager of a correctional facility, attesting to the identity of a prisoner. Many correctional centres have procedures in place to produce these for prisoners wishing to make access or amendment applications, and they are accepted by Queensland Corrective Services as identification.

Evidence of identity for prisoners incarcerated in other jurisdictions

If the prisoner is not incarcerated in Queensland, the agency will need to consider the best way for them to provide evidence of identity. The RTI Regulation provides that evidence of identity can be a document that could reasonably be accepted to be evidence of the person’s identity. As such, agencies could consider accepting:

  • the other jurisdiction’s equivalent of a prisoner identity card, certified by the other jurisdictions’ equivalent of a Queensland Corrective Services Officer
  • a statutory declaration from the equivalent of a Queensland Corrective Services facility’s General Manager; or
  • a statutory declaration from someone who has known the prisoner for more than 12 months.

Evidence of authority

Documents that will establish an agent's authority may include:

  • a will or court order appointing the agent to act as the applicant’s guardian
  • the client agreement authorising a legal practitioner to act for an applicant
  • evidence the agent is the child’s parent.

This not an exhaustive list and other documents can establish an agent’s authorisation.  Other examples are:

  • A letter of authority from the applicant specifically appointing the person to act as the applicant’s agent to make the application.
  • In the case of a legal representative, a letter of authority setting out the nature, terms and duration (where relevant) of the legal representative’s authority which is signed by the legal representative and their client (the applicant).

Generally, evidence of an agent's authority should:

  • be in writing
  • be current
  • state the full name of the applicant and the name of the agent
  • set out the scope of the authority to act as the applicant's agent; and
  • be signed and dated by the applicant.

Evidence of parentage/parental responsibility

A parent applying on behalf of their child is acting as their child’s agent. Their evidence of authority must be evidence of their parental status. The following documents can establish a person as a parent or person exercising parental control:

  • Birth certificate which identifies the applicant as a parent
  • Court orders that give the applicant parental responsibility for the child; or
  • Correspondence and/or cards from government agencies, such as Centrelink, Medicare, or the Department of Human Services, that indicate the applicant has parental control of, or responsibility for, the child.

If an applicant is unable to provide any of the above documents, the decision maker should talk to the person about how they can demonstrate parental responsibility for the child.

This is particularly important in the case of adoptions under Aboriginal tradition or Torres Strait Islander custom, or informal kinship care arrangements.  Statutory declarations from other individuals who know the child and the person exercising parental control may be acceptable in some circumstances.

Anyone who is a parent of a child can make an application on behalf of the child. They do not need to demonstrate, or provide evidence of, a level of contact or relationship with, or interest in, the child. This includes, for example a parent:

  • who has never had contact with the child,
  • who does not currently have contact with the child
  • who only has supervised contact with the child
  • does not have parental responsibility under court orders
  • whose conduct towards the child resulted in child protection orders; or
  • whose conduct towards the child may be considered detrimental to the child.

Asking for additional information

A parent applying on behalf of a child is only required to provide evidence that they are a parent, as set out in section 24 of the RTI Act.

In limited circumstances, taking into account the context of the specific application, the decision maker may believe that additional information could assist them to make their decision about release of information. Where appropriate—and taking into account the privacy principle obligations which govern collection of personal information—a decision maker could ask the parent for this additional information.

A refusal to provide this additional information cannot make the application noncompliant and it should not be standard agency policy to always request additional information.

Dealing with a second agent

On some applications which have an applicant and agent, or a parent applying on behalf of their child, the agent or parent will ask someone else to deal with the agency. This ‘second agent’ will often, but not always, be a lawyer. Sometimes, particularly in the case of a parent applying on behalf of a child, it may be another family member.

There is nothing in the RTI Act that prevents this. For these applications, agencies will need to first satisfy the identity and authority requirements of the RTI Act in relation to the applicant and agent or parent and child. Then they will need to decide, as a matter of policy, what they require to satisfy themselves that the second agent is properly authorised to represent the parent or agent.

Where the applicant is a child, written confirmation from the parent that the second agent is acting for them may be sufficient. Where the applicant is an adult, the agency may want confirmation from the applicant as well as the first agent that the second agent is authorised to deal with the agency in relation to the application. Where the second agent is a lawyer, confirmation on firm letterhead that the lawyer is acting for the agent or parent may be enough to satisfy the agency.

Ways of providing evidence of identity and authority

Original sighted by agency

If the agency has public facing offices, the original identification documents, including digital authorities, or evidence of authority could be shown to an agency officer, who could make a file note confirming the original documents have been sighted. There is also an area on the application form where the officer can confirm the original identification was sighted.

There is no need to copy the evidence of identity document, however, the agency may wish to take a copy of any agent authorisation.

Sighting identity using video conferencing

Agencies can also sight an applicant's identity document using video conferencing. This can be done, for example, using Zoom, Teams, Discord or any appropriate video program, after which decision makers can file note that they have seen the applicant's ID.

Agencies will need to consider any privacy implications of the program, and ensure the applicant or agent consents to its use, but using video tools allows applicants to meet the Act’s identity requirements without having a third party certify their identity.

Copy provided by post or email

Evidence of identity and evidence  of authority can be posted or emailed to the agency. Apart from the exceptions listed above, the evidence of identity must be certified by a qualified witness.

Providing electronic copies

Apart from PDFs created using the approved app, the RTI Act does not specify how copies of evidence of identity documents are to be given to an agency. If the agency allows, they can be provided electronically, such as by email or fax.

The Electronic Transactions (Queensland) Act 2001 (Electronic Transactions Act) provides that where a State law requires or permits the production of a paper document an electronic version may be provided if the following conditions are met:

  • The method used to produce the electronic copy of the document ensures the integrity of the document’s information, ie the information is complete and unaltered, apart from immaterial or endorsed changes.
  • The information in the electronic document will be readily accessible for subsequent reference.
  • The person the paper document is to be given to agree to receive an electronic copy of the document.

The Electronic Transactions Act does not apply to particular requirements and permissions, including that a document “be attested, authenticated, verified or witnessed by a person other than the author of the document” (section 7A and schedule 1 of that Act).

It is up to each agency to decide whether it is appropriate to accept identity documents electronically, taking into account any general restrictions about receipt of sensitive personal information documents. However allowing these documents to be provided electronically can help simplify the application process.

Can the documents be identified

Sections 24(2)(b) and 78E(4)(b) of the Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) (RTI Act) state that an application for access or amendment  must give sufficient information concerning the document to enable the agency to identify the document.

This means applicants must describe the documents they want to access or amend clearly enough to allow the decision-maker to identify the documents and conduct searches for them.1

However, applicants are not expected to know how agency documents are stored, created, or named, or what kinds of documents agencies produce. Understanding the applicant's meaning should not be approached in the same way as interpreting an Act; if there are ambiguities or the scope is unclear, decision makers should seek clarification from the applicant.

Decision makers must assist applicants, most of whom will not be familiar with agency documents and record keeping systems. They must provide advice and help to the extent it would be reasonable to expect them to do so, to help the applicant to make their application in a form which rectifies any scope issues. Conversely, applicants have a responsibility to be clear and precise, and to work with the decision maker to make their application compliant.

Working with the applicant

An application to access documents or to amend personal information in a document which is non-compliant because the scope is unclear must not be approached in the same way as non-compliance on purely technical grounds, e.g., no application fee paid or no ID provided.

The examples provided in this guideline are just that: examples. Each application and the way it is written must be approached on its own merits.

If a decision maker cannot identify the documents an applicant is seeking, a phone call or, if telephoning is not practicable, a less-formal email will be far more useful to both decision maker and applicant than moving straight to a  formal non-compliance letter.

A conversation can allow questions to be asked, allow an applicant to explain what they want, and allow context and clarification which could assist the decision maker in understanding the documents being sought.

Any agreed alteration to the scope should be confirmed in writing, but an initial call can prevent significant and potentially unnecessary work.

Where the scope of an application is too broad, it may not comply with section 24(2)(b) or 78E(4)(b) of the RTI Act.

An application that is too broad, means specific documents cannot be identified.  An application that  is too big, means the volume of documents is so large  it may trigger the refusal to deal provisions because it  diverts  agency resources. Being too big is not, on its own, a ground of non-compliance but being too broad is.

The specific recordkeeping and document management systems of the agency will be relevant when determining whether or not an application sufficiently describes the documents.2

Where an agency is large and decentralised, applicants may need to include additional information (e.g., geographical locations, relevant reference numbers, names of business units or agency officers) in their scope to make it compliant and allow the agency to identify the documents and undertake searches. For example, ‘All documents relating to my interactions with agency officers’ may be a compliant access application where the applicant applies to a small statutory body with only 30 officers and one office.

However, if the same application is made to a large department with multiple regional offices and a decentralised records management system, the application is likely to be non-compliant because the applicant has not provided sufficient information to allow an officer of the agency to identify in which regional office the documents may be located.

All documents related to [x], directly or indirectly

The inclusion of the words directly or indirectly in an application will not automatically make it non-compliant, but they can be a cue to decision makers to carefully consider the scope of the application.

Whether these words make a scope non-specific enough to be non-compliant will often depend on the subject matter. Generally, documents will either relate to the nominated scope of an application or they will not. Decision makers will need to determine if the applicant, in using the words directly or indirectly, is attempting to seek access to documents about a subject they have not identified in their application but that they believe is connected to something they have mentioned (Cannon at  [12]).

If the subject matter is clear, and all information directly and indirectly related to it is limited, the inclusion of the words directly or indirectly will generally not make the application non-compliant as the applicant is clearly seeking information only on the nominated subject matter.

In Bade and Gympie Regional Council (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 14 February 2012) (Bade), the Information Commissioner found that it was clear from the terms of the access application that the applicant sought documents that:

  • comprised formal documents and internal memos
  • were created between July 2007 and September 2010; and
  • related to an obligation on a party, either directly or indirectly, who had an interest in fulfilling Condition 1.1 of the assessment manager's conditions.

The Council located 29 documents within scope of the application. On review, the Information Commissioner identified that the only obligation which arose rested with a single party and additional documents located were not within the scope of the application as they related to other parties.

In Bade, despite the applicant's use of the words directly or indirectly, the scope of the application was clear because there was only one obligation to which documents could relate.

Where the subject of the application is not clear or limited, a different outcome is likely. For example, an application for 'all documents related to me, whether directly or indirectly', may raise compliance issues as decision makers cannot ordinarily be expected to determine the nature of an indirect connection to an applicant or something specifically nominated by an applicant (Cannon at  [12]). While the connection may be apparent to the applicant, if they have not actually described what they are seeking in their application, the application may not be compliant.

Including, but not limited to

Again, the inclusion of the words including, but not limited to in an application will not automatically make it non-compliant, but they can be a cue to decision makers to carefully consider the scope of the application.

Where the words attach to, for example, the type of documents sought, e.g., 'all documents, including, but not limited to, briefing memos, file notes, emails and audio recordings', they raise no issues as 'all documents' already includes the sub-class of listed documents.

However, where they attach to the subject matter of the documents, they have the potential to infinitely expand a scope. For example, where an applicant applies for 'all documents about an agency’s actions in North Queensland, including but not limited to investigations into vegetation clearing, noise complaints, and illegal dumping' the inclusion of the phrase effectively makes the scope cover documents about everything the agency has done in North Queensland.

It will be necessary to carefully consider the impact the phrase has on the specifically identified subject matter, and whether its addition creates an additional class or classes of documents which the decision maker cannot reasonably identify. It will also be relevant to consider the effect it will have on searches.

An applicant is not required to provide a list of the specific agency documents they seek to access or amend. The onus is on the agency officers to identify the documents the applicant wants to access, or the documents containing personal information they wish to amend.

Despite this onus, the applicant must write their application clearly enough that the decision maker can use that information (along with their own knowledge of agency operations and processes) to identify which documents are in scope.

As mentioned previously, the agency should take reasonable steps to work with an applicant to clarify scope, and help the applicant to make their application in a compliant form. Also, agencies must not take an overly technical approach when interpreting scope. When searching for and considering documents potentially responsive to an application, some degree of investigation and analysis will always be required.

The more detailed the analysis or investigation required, the more likely the application is non-compliant.  For example, an application that requires an agency to make a subjective assessment or independently verify something may require clarification from the applicant.

For example:

  • All documents which show the wrongdoing done to me by the Business Unit.
  • All evidence to support allegations and comments made about me to the police about the offence I was charged with.
  • Any files about incidents of serious injury that happened at a specific location (where 'serious injury' is not a defined term and would require the decision maker to make a value judgement about whether an injury is serious or not).

Applications with 'if/then’ statements, for example where the applicant states they want access to X documents, unless Situation A exists, in which case they want Y documents (requiring the decision maker to investigate Situation A before they know what the applicant is seeking).

The RTI Act creates a right to apply for access to documents. It does not create a right to have questions answered or to have answers to questions extracted from documents (Hearl and Mulgrave Shire Council (1994) 1 QAR 557 at [30]). However, in some circumstances, it will be appropriate to treat these kinds of applications as a request for documents containing the answers to those questions. This will only be suitable where, taking into account the nature of the questions, it is both possible and reflects the applicant's intentions in framing their application.

In C64 and Queensland Police Service [2021] QICmr 43 (17 August 2021) at [14] the applicant raised concerns about the abbreviations used in a handwritten document. The Commissioner held that the applicant's request for an explanation of the abbreviations amounted to a request for an answer to a question, to which the right of access to documents under the Act did not extend, and it could not be addressed as part of the review.

If it is not suitable to interpret the application as a request for documents, the application will not be compliant with section 24(2)(b). In those circumstances, the decision maker could:

  • assist the applicant to rework their scope into an application for documents; or
  • direct the applicant to the relevant part of the agency to have their questions answered.

Applications must be for documents. If the applicant applies for:

  • access to physical plant or equipment (See for example Price and Director of Public Prosecutions (1997) 4 QAR 157 where the applicant sought access to a pair of tinsnips and the Information Commissioner held that they were not a document)
  • a meeting with agency officers
  • skin, blood, or other physical specimens
  • access to email accounts, servers, or electronic devices rather than the documents they contain; or
  • anything else that is clearly not a document

—then the application cannot be made under the Act.

Amendment applications - additional requirements

Previous access

Before someone can apply to have their personal information amended, the applicant must have previously accessed it. This does not need to have been access under the RTI Act or the now repealed provisions of the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld). For example, the applicant may have:

  • viewed the document on a computer screen
  • read it but not been given a copy of it
  • seen an extract from it; or
  • had it read to them over the phone.

The decision maker must confirm the applicant has previously had access to the information. This could be done by, for example, asking the applicant to:

  • provide a copy of the document
  • describe it in enough detail to satisfy the decision maker that the applicant has had access to it; or
  • provide details about when and how the access was obtained.

If an individual has not had previous access to the information, they cannot make a compliant amendment application. The decision maker could suggest they make an access application under the RTI Act.

The applicant is also required to describe:

  • the personal information they want to amend
  • how they think it is inaccurate, incomplete, out of date or misleading; and
  • the changes or additions they believe are necessary to correct it.

The applicant needs to provide evidence to support their claims, as the onus is on them to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the information is inaccurate, incomplete, out of date or misleading.

Evidence required for an amendment application

When applying for amendment, the applicant must establish that their information is inaccurate, incomplete, out of date or misleading.3 This means they must:

  • provide evidence that proves their personal information is inaccurate, incomplete, out of date or misleading; and
  • show what amendments or additional information is required to correct the information.

Where the applicant is applying to have their interpretation of events or issues amended, they must establish:

not only that the relevant information inaccurately, incorrectly or misleadingly represents the underlying events or issues, but that the authoring individual had not actually held and accurately entered into the official record their particular understanding of those events.4

The decision maker must decide how much verification is required, taking into account:

  • the type and extent of the personal information; and
  • the ways in which it is claimed by the applicant to be inaccurate, out of date, misleading or incomplete.

Where the applicant contends that a simple, readily verifiable fact is wrong, they can give the agency information that demonstrates this. For example, if the applicant’s date of birth is wrong in agency records, they can provide a copy of their birth certificate.

If the applicant provides no evidence to support their amendment application, and the decision maker has no evidence to demonstrate that the information is inaccurate, incomplete, out of date or misleading, they will generally not be able to amend the documents.

However, while the decision maker is not required to conduct a full-scale investigation into the applicant's claims, they should take reasonable steps to acquire copies of any documents that support or refute the applicant's submissions.

Managing a noncompliant application

If an agency receives a noncompliant application, it must give the applicant an opportunity to rectify the noncompliance. If they fail to do so, and the agency decides the application is noncompliant, then the agency must give the applicant a decision notice explaining that the application is noncompliant.

Although the RTI Act does not stipulate the timeframe in which an agency or Minister must make a decision that an application is noncompliant, application of section 38(4) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) ‘creates a strict time’ 5 to undertake that step, that is, as soon as possible. The agency is allowed an additional 10 business days to then give written notice of the decision to the applicant.

The processing period and noncompliant applications

The processing period is the time a decision maker has to give the applicant a decision. It runs from the valid application day.

If the application is compliant when it arrives, the processing period starts on the next business day. If it's noncompliant when it arrives, the processing period starts on the business day after it's made compliant.

Contacting the applicant

An agency must make reasonable efforts to contact the applicant within 15 business days to tell them how their application is noncompliant and must give the applicant a reasonable opportunity to rectify the noncompliance. This contact does not need to be in writing or take the form of a formal letter. Agencies can contact the applicant by telephone or email.

How long is a reasonable opportunity?

What is a reasonable opportunity will depend on the circumstances.

OIC encourages agencies that have received noncompliant applications from applicants in extenuating circumstances, such as prisoners, to consider allowing a minimum of 20 business days. For all other applicants, 15 business days will generally be reasonable if there are no circumstances which could delay the process. Agencies can also extend the time.

Noncompliance decision

If the applicant does not rectify their application after being given a reasonable opportunity to do so, and the agency decides that the application is noncompliant, the agency must give notice of its decision that the application does not comply with all relevant application requirements and give that decision to the applicant within ten business days of making it.

Footnotes

  1. Cannon and Australian Quality Egg Farms Ltd (1994) 1 QAR 491 (Cannon); Lonsdale and James Cook University [2015] QICmr 34 (15 December 2015) at [9].
  2. Mewburn and Queensland Police Service [2014] QICmr 49 (2 December 2014).
  3. Purrer at [32].
  4. U5OR8D and Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2018] QICmr [18] (19 April 2018) (U5OR8D) at [10].
  5. Niclin Constructions Pty Ltd v SHA Premier Constructions Pty Ltd (2019) 2 QR 190 at [34] (Applegarth J).
Print Page