In effect from: 1 July 2025

After an agency or Minister has finished processing a Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) (RTI Act) application it must give the applicant a notice of its decision.

If access is being granted to documents, the agency must give the applicant an opportunity to access them.

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

Prescribed written notice of decision

Section 191 of the RTI Act sets out the requirements of a prescribed written notice. It must include:

  • the decision and reasons for the decision
  • the day the decision was made
  • the name and designation of the decision maker; and
  • details of their review rights if the decision is not the decision sought by the applicant.

Section 54 of the RTI Act requires a decision maker to give a prescribed written notice of their decision about an access application. It also requires additional information for certain decisions made on an access application, e.g. where documents are released subject to the deletion of information, it must include details of the deletion, the provision under which it was deleted, and reasons for the decision.

Section 78T of the RTI Act also requires a decision maker to give a prescribed written notice of their decision about an amendment application. If amendment is granted, the decision maker does not need to give reasons for their decision.

A prescribed written notice under section 191 of the RTI Act is required for deemed decisions.

Decisions which neither confirm nor deny the existence of documents must comply with section 55 of the RTI Act.

Reasons for the decision

Section 27B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) provides that a statement of reasons must set out the findings on material questions of fact and refer to the evidence or other material on which those findings are based.

A material fact is a fact that can affect the outcome of a decision. The findings on the material facts must support the decision being made. Examples of material questions of fact include whether information is personal information or a trade secret, or whether a document was created for the consideration of Cabinet or brought into existence by or for a lawyer for the dominant purpose of providing legal advice.

The evidence for a finding of material fact is the information on which it was based, e.g. how and why the decision maker concluded that information was a trade secret or that a document was created for Cabinet. It can include any legislation or case law relied on.

Exempt or contrary to the public interest information must not be included in a prescribed written notice, so in some circumstances it may only be possible to provide a limited explanation.

A good statement of reasons is transparent and ensures the applicant or consulted third party understand the factors taken into account by the decision maker, enabling them to make an informed decision whether to exercise their review rights. It explains the power to make the decision, the findings of fact, how they were reached, and how the law applies to the facts in this specific case.  It explains not just the decision maker's conclusions, but how those conclusions were reached.

Review rights

The rights of review in a decision notice must be the review rights available for that decision, not the general or overall review rights that exist in the RTI Act. For example, if the decision is a healthcare decision, the decision notice should only refer to external review, as a healthcare decision cannot be internally reviewed.

Information about review rights must include details of how and when they can be exercised, including any time limits that apply.

Including the scope

The scope of an application is the documents an applicant has applied to access or the information and documents an applicant has applied to amend. This should be included in the  decision notice.

Ideally the scope should be quoted directly from the application, rather than being paraphrased. However, if the decision maker paraphrases it, e.g. because it is lengthy or unwieldy, they should clearly indicate they are doing so.

If a decision maker is concerned that an applicant may be dissatisfied with a paraphrased scope, they could include the applicant's exact scope in a separate document and refer to it in their decision, e.g. 'The scope of your application is set out in attachment one to this decision.'

If the scope changes during the application, the decision notice should include the original scope, the final scope, and how it was changed, e.g., informally by agreement, narrowed after a charges estimate notice, or reduced after a notice of intention to refuse to deal.

Search information and documents found

It may be helpful to outline the searches conducted in response to the application. This won’t always be necessary, e.g. where the applicant seeks specific documents which were all located.

Search information should have enough detail for the applicant to understand the nature and extent of searches that were conducted. For example:

  • identify the locations/offices/units/records/databases in which searches were conducted for documents
  • explain why those locations/offices etc were selected as appropriate locations to search for the documents
  • set out the search terms used for electronic searches; and
  • set out the results of the searches (using a schedule if appropriate).

The decision maker should also set out the in-scope documents found in these searches. If searches return out of scope documents, these should not be mentioned. For example, don't say 'Our searches located 300 documents, 27 of which were in scope of your application'. Instead say, 'Our searches located 27 documents in scope of your application'. Mentioning documents that have nothing to do with the application may confuse applicants or lead them to believe the decision maker missed documents, resulting in fruitless applications for review.

When describing the documents found or the searches conducted, it is important not to inadvertently reveal information which is exempt or contrary to the public interest to disclose.

Practical tips

Headings can greatly assist understanding, particularly in long and complex decisions. If the decision deals with multiple categories of information or grounds for refusal, dealing with them separately under clear headings may make the decision easier to understand.

Statement of reasons should be written in plain language that can be readily understood by the average applicant. They should not be unnecessarily legalistic or formal, and where legal language or RTI specific jargon is unavoidable, it should be explained in simple terms.

Decision makers should consider presenting their decision notices in two parts: a main letter that summarises the key information, e.g. documents found, access given, charges payable and review rights, and an attachment which contains the detailed statement of reasons.

Giving access to the documents

An applicant has 40 business days to access the documents, unless the agency agrees to extend this time. The 40 business days starts the business day after:

  • a decision of the agency (or, if relevant, the decision on external review or appeal)
  • informal resolution of an external review or appeal; or
  • a notice by the agency that a deferred access period has expired.

Before the applicant can be given access to the documents, they must pay any outstanding processing and/or access charges.

An agency can send the documents with the decision notice if there are no fees or charges owing and there is no deferred access period yet to expire.

If the documents are not being sent with the decision notice, the agency must tell the applicant the period within which the applicant may access them and explain how to do so. If access is deferred to any documents, that must be explained in the decision notice.

Once the applicant seeks access, the agency should give them the documents as soon as possible. The RTI Act does not provide a specific timeframe for an agency to give access to documents.  Section 38(4) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) provides that ‘if no time is provided or allowed for doing anything, then the thing is to be done as soon as possible’.

How can an agency give access?

Under the RTI Act, access to documents must be given in the way the applicant requests, unless it would:

  • interfere unreasonably with the operations of the agency
  • be detrimental to the document or, due to its physical nature, be inappropriate; or
  • involve copyright infringement of someone other than the State.

The RTI Act includes a non-exhaustive list of ways access can be given, including:

  • inspection
  • copies
  • viewing or hearing images or sounds
  • transcriptions of sound recordings, shorthand writing or code; and
  • creating a written document out of electronic information, such as a database.

An agency may give access to a document in another form agreed to by the applicant.

Access to copies

Applicants can be given access to electronic copies (e.g., PDFs of documents provided by email, CD, USB or downloadable from a weblink) or hardcopies. Hardcopies may be given in the form of, for example, printouts, photocopies, large scale maps, building plans, or x-rays.

Access by download link

If access to the document is being given by way of download from a weblink (usually emailed to the applicant) the link must be active for at least 40 business days (or the relevant access period). If the link expires before the end of the access period then a new active link must be sent to the applicant (unless they advise they have accessed the documents).

If the applicant does not access the documents within the access period, their right of access expires, although the agency does have the discretion to extend this timeframe.

Access by inspection

Applicants can choose access by inspection or inspection may be the only form of access available, for example, where the document is subject to third party copyright. Documents must be redacted to remove exempt, irrelevant, or contrary to the public interest information before the applicant inspects them.

An applicant must be given a ‘reasonable opportunity’ to inspect the documents.  What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances. An agency should consider the applicant's access to transport and any difficulties involved in travelling to the agency. It may be appropriate to send the documents to a branch of the agency closer to the applicant to facilitate inspection.

A ‘reasonable opportunity’ may also mean allowing the applicant to inspect the documents over several days, particularly if there are a large number of documents.

Depending on the contents of the documents, agencies may wish to consider supervising applicants during inspection.

Viewing images and hearing sounds

If a document is an audio or video document, such as a phone recording or CCTV, the agency can arrange for the applicant to hear or view it, with any irrelevant, exempt, or contrary to the public interest information removed.

If the agency does not have the appropriate equipment to facilitate the access, it will have to borrow or hire it.

Creating written documents and transcripts

These documents are not post-application documents because their creation is specifically authorised by the RTI Act.

Written documents from electronic information

Where information only exists electronically, such as in a database, an agency can create a written document from the electronic information to give access to it. The agency can only use tools which are usually available to it to create the written document.

Generally, the agency should only create a written document out of information which is in scope of the application. Methods of creating the written document will depend on the tools available to the agency but could include exporting to a spreadsheet or taking a screen capture.

Transcription of sounds, shorthand, or code

Where an agency has documents where words are recorded in the form of shorthand, code, or sound, the agency can produce a written transcript of the words to give access.

Redacting irrelevant, exempt and contrary to the public interest information

For information in a document that is irrelevant to an application, an agency may delete this information from a copy of the document before giving the applicant access, but only if the agency considers that it is reasonably practicable to do so.

Where an agency decides to refuse access to exempt information, contrary to the public interest information, contrary to child’s best interests information, or relevant healthcare information, the agency must delete this information from a copy of the document before the applicant is given access.

Never remove information from original documents. Copies must always be made of the original documents and the information removed from the copies.

Methods of redaction

Electronic deletion from written documents

Most agencies use software such as Redax, a plug-in for Adobe Acrobat, or similar programs, which enable users to:

  • delete information from scanned electronic documents
  • make a notation about why information was deleted
  • number each page
  • insert watermarks such as ‘released under RTI’; and
  • save the document as a copy of the original with material deleted.

Electronic copies can then be provided to the applicant in PDF format. However, it is important to ensure that extra steps are taken to prevent the document being altered or manipulated. For example, PDF documents can be password protected in Adobe Acrobat to prevent them from being altered.

Redacting hardcopies

While redaction is primarily done through electronic means, if an agency needs to redact information from a hardcopy document, it is important the redaction is made to a copy of the original document. The redaction should be made with a method that completely obscures the information. The final copy must be carefully checked to ensure the information has been entirely removed.

Notation of reasons for removal

When information is deleted from documents, a notation should be made to identify the section under which it was removed. For example, the copies could be marked: ‘deleted: exempt information under section 48 RTI Act’ or ‘deleted: contrary to the public interest under section 49 RTI Act’ as appropriate.

Watermarks

It is recommended that documents released under the RTI Act be watermarked to indicate this. Agencies using Redax or similar software can insert the watermark across the electronic files. Where the document is not a written document, for example a CD or x-ray, the access copy can still be labelled or otherwise marked to indicate RTI release.

If a decision maker decides to give access by way of inspection because providing copies would infringe copyright, they should ensure appropriate conditions are in place during inspection, for example, by ensuring there is adequate supervision, to prevent copying or reproduction of the copyright document. See Helping Hands Pty Ltd and Department of Education, Training and Employment (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 30 October 2012) at [88].

Print Page
Back to top