Decision making - amendment applications

In effect from: 1 July 2025

Deciding an amendment application

Individuals can apply to agencies or Ministers to have their personal information amended if they believe it is inaccurate, incomplete, misleading, or out of date.

There are several grounds on which an agency can refuse to amend a document set out in section 78S of the RTI Act, which does not provide an exhaustive list. These include where the agency is satisfied that:

the personal information is not inaccurate, incomplete, out of date or misleading
the information sought to be amended is not the applicant’s personal information; or
if the application was made by an agent—that the agent was not suitably authorised.

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

Discretion to refuse amendment

Even where an agency determines that personal information is inaccurate, incomplete, out of date, or misleading, the agency still has a general discretion to refuse to amend it.¹ In 3DT2GH,² the Information Commissioner explained the operation of the discretion:

To replace words actually used by the authoring officer with the text sought by the applicant would result in a contrived document containing invented contents, essentially putting words into the mouth of the author in a manner that would distort the official historical record.

An agency choosing to exercise this discretion may take into account ‘the fact that the purpose of amending a document is not to:

re-write history, as this destroys the integrity of the record-keeping process
determine disputed questions of opinion (including expert opinion), when that opinion was actually held and accurately entered in the official record
re-write a document in words other than the author’s
review the merits or validity of official action; or
correct any perceived deficiencies in the work undertaken by agencies or re-investigate matters.³

In Z18, the Commissioner discussed exercising the discretion not to amend, noting that the in making an amendment application the applicant was attempting to redress injustices he felt had occurred and rewrite several aspects of his history with the agency and the courts. Granting amendment would:

result in the Letter being an incomplete representation of the Author’s understanding of the facts surrounding [the applicant’s] court matter and his subsequent complaint, thereby detracting from the accuracy and integrity of the Letter. It would also be an attempt to rewrite the history of the actual events...⁴

A functional record

An agency can also refuse to amend where the document does not form part of a functional record. A functional record is a record available for use in the day-to-day or ordinary performance of the agency’s functions. Whether a document is part of a functional record is not a question of whether agency officers would access the document, but whether agency officers could access it if they had a reason to do so.⁵

The meaning of inaccurate, incomplete, out of date or misleading

These words have the following meanings:

inaccurate: not accurate.
incomplete: 1. not complete; lacking some part. 2. not to the entire extent: incomplete combustion.
out of date: 1. (of a previous style or fashion) obsolete. 2. (of a ticket, etc.) no longer valid.
mislead: 1. to lead or guide wrongly; lead astray. 2. to lead into error of conduct, thought or judgement.⁶

Misleading and inaccurate

Information can also be misleading if:

it could lead a person reading it into error or could, even if it is literally true, convey another meaning that is untrue, for example, if there is insufficient detail to fully explain something; or
it misleads, or is likely to mislead, people who might read the information.

The Information Commissioner has observed⁷ that the amendment provisions are aimed at:

…ensuring that personal information concerning an applicant and read by third persons, does not unfairly harm the applicant or misrepresent personal facts about the applicant. It is concerned that the third persons reading the personal information do not get the wrong impression…

A misleading impression is not the same as an inaccuracy, although inaccurate facts may also be misleading. Accurate facts can also give a misleading impression, either because they are incomplete or because they are written in highly specialised technical terms and made available to the general public who are unlikely to be familiar with them. However, a failure to use precise language will not necessarily make information misleading or inaccurate as long as the information is generally consistent with the facts.⁸

Out of date vs old

Information is not out of date just because it is old. It can only be out of date where newer information makes it obsolete or no longer valid. For example, medical records often contain information which has been superseded by current events, e.g. that two years ago an applicant's leg was broken. The fact that the applicant’s leg is no longer broken does not make that information out of date.

Amendment is not a form of review

Some applicants may attempt to use an amendment application to change the outcome of other agency processes. However, “[t]he amendment provisions of the [RTI] Act cannot be used to determine disputed questions of opinion when that opinion was held by the author and the record merely reflects this”.⁹ The right to apply for amendment under the [RTI] Act is not intended to “permit a re-writing of history”.¹⁰ Agency decisions cannot be changed or appealed by way of amendment.

In Resch and Department of Veterans Affairs,¹¹ the applicant wished to have the description of his disability altered by amending his records under the corresponding provisions in the Commonwealth FOI Act. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal refused the amendments, noting that: "the medical opinions of the departmental medical officers and consultants are not shown to be ‘incorrect’ merely by producing medical opinions to the contrary."

Similarly, in Z18, the Commissioner observed that, as part of the review of his amendment application, the applicant was attempting to litigate the status of his mental health at the time a charge was dismissed and stated that “it is not a function of the Information Commissioner to reconsider or overturn the Magistrate’s decision to dismiss the charge.”¹²

Amendment of factual information

Where an applicant applies to amend purely factual personal information and the decision maker decides to grant the amendment, they should consider amending the information by alteration. 'Altering' includes deletion of the information but does not include the destruction or disposal of the entire document.¹³

For example, where a decision maker is satisfied that the applicant’s date of birth in an agency database is incorrect, they can delete the incorrect date of birth and replace it with the correct date of birth.

However, in some circumstances the original record may need to be preserved, for example, because the Public Records Act 2023 (Qld) requires it to be retained unaltered. In those circumstances, a notation will be more appropriate.

Amendment of opinion

Applicants may apply to amend an opinion—or an advice or recommendation based on an opinion—which is also their personal information. These will generally be specialist opinions based on facts and information available to the author at the time of writing, often contained in a medical or other professional’s report. For example, in most circumstances a doctor’s report will be based on the doctor’s own observations made during an examination of the patient or the patient’s records.

Opinion claimed to be inaccurate

It will be difficult for an applicant to succeed in amending an expert opinion, particularly a medical opinion. Amendment of an expert opinion would only be in contemplation where:

the facts underlying the opinion have been thoroughly discredited or have been demonstrated to be totally inadequate
there is alternative expert opinion that some of the facts underlying the original opinion are substantially incorrect, and the original opinion could not be maintained without these facts
the person forming the opinion was tainted by bias or ill will, incompetence or lack of balance, or necessary experience
the factual basis underlying the opinion is so trivial that the opinion formed is dangerous to rely on and likely to result in error; or
the facts upon which the opinion was based were misapprehended.¹⁴

However, these are serious conclusions that are difficult to establish, and the onus lies on the applicant to provide evidence that proves them. The fact that another expert might have taken a different view on the same facts, or that the agency preferred one report over another, does not necessarily make a conflicting opinion inaccurate.

If an applicant does provide information that leads a decision maker to believe one of these might be relevant to their application, the decision maker should consider the matter carefully and consult the author of the report or other experts as appropriate.

Even if a decision maker was satisfied that the expert opinion was inaccurate, the discretion still exists to refuse to amend the information (see above). If the decision maker decided to amend the opinion, the form of amendment would generally not involve removing the original report (or any part of it) from the file. The amendment could be made by way of:

cross-referencing to another more reliable report
including a copy of a more reliable report on the file
including a notation that sets out the basis on which the original report is inaccurate; or
a combination of the above.

Opinion out of date

Different issues will be raised where amendment is sought because the applicant believes an opinion is out of date.

A medical or other expert's opinion often represents a ‘snapshot in time', describing particular circumstances, symptoms, or treatments. In the sense that the report or opinion might only apply for a set period of time, the report may almost immediately go 'out of date'. However, because it is still an accurate statement of the expert's opinion at the time it was made, it is not likely to be out of date within the meaning of the RTI Act.

Opinion incomplete or misleading

An expert opinion that is not out of date or inaccurate could still be incomplete or misleading if the record failed to show there had been disagreement between competent experts, for example between doctors about a diagnosis. If the applicant can provide evidence of these, demonstrating that the document is incomplete or misleading, it could be amended by, for instance, including a notation of the other opinions, or including more recent reports from other equally qualified experts.

Additional material should be accepted if it provides more complete or more recent information.

Important considerations when deciding whether to amend an opinion

When making a decision about amendment of an opinion, relevant issues include:

How old is the document? It may be that, although the opinion was correct at the time of writing, it has since been rendered obsolete or no longer valid by time or events.
How was the opinion reached? For example, was it based on facts? Did it take account of all the available facts?
Were the circumstances surrounding the creation of the document considered?
What evidence has the applicant produced in support of their claim? Has this evidence been provided by a person as qualified as the person making the original report, such as another doctor or specialist?
What form does this evidence take? For example, is it a statutory declaration sworn by the applicant, another report, or a reference from an employer?
Can the author be contacted? It may be helpful to discuss the matter with the author, and to give the original author a copy of the applicant’s claims and supporting evidence.
If the author cannot be contacted, an alternative may be to discuss the record with an equally qualified person.

Methods of amendment

If a decision maker decides that personal information is inaccurate, incomplete, out of date or misleading, they can grant the amendment by:

altering the personal information; or
adding a note to the personal information.

When making an alteration it is usually sufficient to strike through the words to be amended, add a side note indicating the nature of the defect, and insert the correct details or a note of where the correct details are to be found. It is also possible to include a copy of more accurate or up to date information on the file.

Any notation must:

state how the information is inaccurate, incomplete, out of date or misleading; and
if the information is claimed to be incomplete or out of date, set out the information required to complete the information or bring it up to date.

The existence of the notation should be clearly indicated on the cover of each of the applicant’s files and the amendment itself should include a reference to the fact that the record was amended under the RTI Act.

Disposal or destruction not permitted

The RTI Act provides for amendment by alteration or notation; it does not provide for the disposal or destruction of public records.

Public records containing inaccurate, incomplete, out of date or misleading information cannot be removed or destroyed unless their disposal is authorised under the Public Records Act 2023 (Qld).

Particular notations required if amendment refused

If the agency refuses to amend the applicant’s personal information, the applicant can give the agency a notice requiring the agency to add a particular notation to the document that:

states the way the applicant claims the information to be inaccurate, incomplete, out of date or misleading
if the applicant claims the information is inaccurate or misleading – sets out the amendments the applicant claims are necessary for the information to be accurate or not misleading; and
if the applicant claims the information to be incomplete or out of date – set out the information the applicant claims is necessary to complete the information or to bring it up to date.

The decision maker must comply with the notice and add a notation. However, the decision maker is not required to use the applicant’s exact wording in the notation.

Delivering the decision

The agency must give the applicant a prescribed written notice of the decision.

Footnotes

Purrer v Office of the Information Commissioner[2021] QCATA 92 (Purrer) at [28].
3DT2GH and Department of Housing and Public Works (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 26 November 2012) (3DT2GH) at [51].
Z18 and Queensland Police Service [2020] QICmr 8 (14 February 2020) (Z18) at [27] (footnotes omitted).
Z18 at [63].
Z18 at [31].
Susan Butler (ed), Macquarie Dictionary (7th ed, 2017) at pages 765, 768, 1067 and 960 respectively, referred to in Z18. These dictionary definitions were considered in Purrer at [29].
3DT2GH at [15] citing Buhagiar and Victoria Police (1989) 2 VAR 530 per Jones J; see also Cowen.
Z18 at [52].
U5OR8D at [30].
Ibid.
(1986) 9 ALD 380.
At [50].
Doelle and Legal Aid Office (1993) 1 QAR 207; AD6L9H and Department of Health (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 31 August 2010) at [11].
Secretary, NSW Treasury v C (GD) [2004] NSWADTAP 6 at [103] and Connell v Department of Justice (General) [2005] VCAT 1903 at [24]–[26].

Print Page