In effect from: 1 July 2025

It is common for people who have been involved in an agency investigation or made a complaint to an agency to apply for access to related documents. In many cases, it will be contrary to the public interest for access to be given to investigation and complaint documents.

Decisions of the Information Commissioner have consistently upheld agency decisions to refuse access to these kinds of documents for the reasons discussed on this page.[1]

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

Exempt information

Schedule 3 of the RTI Act lists information that is exempt from release without the need to undertake any further public interest considerations. If an agency decides information falls within one of the provisions in schedule 3, for example because it is confidential complaint information or would prejudice an ongoing investigation, it is permitted to refuse access to it without any further public interest considerations.

For example, schedule 3, section 10(1) of the RTI Act may apply if an agency is conducting an investigation.

Public interest factors

Schedule 4 of the RTI Act lists public interest factors for and against disclosure.  Decision makers must identify all relevant factors and balance them to decide if it would be contrary to the public interest to give access to documents. The public interest factors are non-exhaustive, allowing agencies to identify new public interest factors if required.

Factors favouring disclosure

Factors favouring disclosure which commonly arise when processing applications for investigation or complaint documents include:

  • information is the personal information of the applicant
  • enhancing the accountability of agencies
  • revealing background/contextual information to an agency decision
  • if the applicant was the subject of the complaint/investigation: administration of justice/procedural fairness.

The Commissioner considered whether the procedural fairness public interest factors[2] applied in:

  • In l6XD0H and Department of Community Safety,[3] the Commissioner decided that no procedural fairness issues arose because the investigation was complete, the disciplinary process was finalised, and the applicant had received considerable information about the investigation.
  • In P6Y4SX and Department of Police,[4] the Commissioner found that no procedural fairness issues arose because the applicant had an opportunity to refute the allegations during the investigation, which had finalised the matter and cleared the applicant of any wrongdoing.

Decision makers should consider relevant agency policies and may want to speak to the business unit which conducted the investigation or dealt with the complaint as part of making this decision.[5]

Factors favouring non-disclosure

Personal information of people other than the applicant

Applicants will generally be given access to their own personal information (although there may be exceptions). Giving access to other people’s personal information, or to information that infringes someone’s right to privacy, may, on balance, be contrary to the public interest depending on the factors favouring disclosure.  This includes any information that would allow an applicant to work out the identity of someone who made a complaint. If the personal information of the applicant and the personal information of the other person cannot be separated then it may be necessary to refuse access to all the information.

Prejudice a management function

Determining whether this public interest factor applies requires a decision maker to consider the character of the management function and the effect disclosure would have on that function.[6] When a matter is investigated internally, agency staff involved in the workplace investigation generally provide information on the understanding that it will only be used for the investigation and any subsequent disciplinary action.

It is reasonable to expect staff to cooperate with an investigative process and provide information; it is also reasonable to expect that disclosing this information could make staff reluctant to fully participate in, or to provide full and complete information to, future investigations[7]. Where releasing information would have this affect access may be refused where, on balance that release would be contrary to the public interest.

Prejudice the flow of information

Agency investigators rely on the free flow of information from witnesses and complainants.  If giving access under the RTI Act to information they have provided would mean that, in the future, witnesses or complainants would be less likely to provide information[8] then access may be refused where, on balance that release would be contrary to the public interest.

Unsubstantiated allegations and prejudice to fair treatment of individuals

In some cases, the applicant will be a complainant seeking access to documents about the actions agency took in relation to their complaint. In these circumstances, decision makers will have to consider whether:

  • the information consists of unsubstantiated allegations of wrongdoing; and
  • disclosing the information could reasonably be expected to prejudice the fair treatment of individuals.

If the information satisfies both of these points release may, on balance, be contrary to the public interest.[9]

Other public interest factors

The lists of public interest factors are not exhaustive. It is always open to an agency to identify other relevant public interest factors not listed in the RTI Act and apply them to an RTI application.[10]

Footnotes:

  1. See for example SW5Z7D and Queensland Police Service [2016] QICmr 1 (15 January 2016), Castley-Wright and Mareeba Shire Council [2018] QICmr 25 (22 May 2018), Gapsa and Department of Transport and Main Roads 6 September 2013 (311159), Arthur and Council of the City of Gold Coast [2017] QICmr 25 (13 July 2017).
  2. Arising from the factors favouring disclosure in schedule 4, part 2, items 16 & 17.
  3. (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 26 June 2012).
  4. (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 31 Jan 2012).
  5. For example see: Kelson and Queensland Police Service [2017] QICmr 7 (3 March 2017).
  6. Stella v Griffith University [2025] QCA 203.
  7. Daw and Queensland Rail (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 24 November 2010) (Daw).
  8. See, for example, Matthews and Gold Coast City Council (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 23 June 2011), Suskova and Council of the City of Gold Coast [2015] QICmr 31 (27 November 2015).
  9. Troiani and Queensland Police Service (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 21 August 2012).
  10. See for example Seven Network Operations and Redland City Council; Third Party 30 June 2011 (310227).
Print Page
Back to top