Key RTI concepts

Access charges are the cost of giving the applicant access to a document. They apply even if the document contains the applicant’s personal information.

The access charges for a document are set out in the RTI Regulation and—except where access is given to an A4 black and white copy—are the actual cost incurred by the agency for:

• engaging another entity to search for and retrieve the document
• relocating the document as necessary for access to be given to the document
• transcribing audio recordings (of words), shorthand writing or codified words
• creating a written document using equipment usually available to the agency for retrieving or collating stored information (for example printing a report from a database); or
• otherwise giving access to the document, for example by reproduction of the document, such as duplicating an X-ray or photograph.

The cost of giving access to an A4 black and white copy is, as at 1 July 2025, $0.25 per page.

Giving access in electronic form

There is no cost for providing access by email or on a disc. These costs are specifically excluded from the access charge by the RTI Regulation.

Access provided through other electronic methods can be charged at the actual cost of giving access. However, if giving access using these methods—for example a weblink from which documents can be downloaded—involves no cost to the agency, they will attract no access charges.

The access charges may be waived if they are uneconomical to charge, and they must be waived if the applicant is in financial hardship as defined by the RTI Act.

The access period is the time given to an applicant to access the documents. It is 40 business days, 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.

Applicants must include an address to which notices can be sent when applying for access or amendment, applying for internal review, or applying for external review.

This address can be an email address; it does not have to be postal address. However, if only a postal address is provided with the access or amendment application or application for internal review, the relevant processing period is extended by five business days.

Administrative access refers to the release of information by means other than a formal access application under the RTI Act.

Under section 83 of the RTI Act, an affirmed decision occurs if an internal review decision is not made by the end of the internal review processing period. The principal officer or Minister is taken to have affirmed the original decision.

Section 14 of the RTI Act provides that an agency is a department, a local government, a public authority, a government owned corporation (GOC) or a GOC subsidiary.

If a body is established to help an agency, or perform functions connected with an agency, then it is considered to be part of that agency and not an agency in its own right. These bodies can include boards, councils, committees, subcommittees, and school councils.

Agency does not include the entities listed in schedule 2 of the RTI Act, which are either entirely excluded from the RTI Act, or excluded for specific functions. These include the Legislative Assembly, commissions of inquiry, and courts and tribunals in relation to their judicial or quasi-judicial functions.

An application fee is only payable if an RTI access applications includes documents that do not contain the applicant’s personal information. There is no application fee for amendment applications.

As at 1 July 2025, the application fee payable is $57.65. The fee is calculated according to the RTI Regulation. 

If the agency decides an application fee is payable and the applicant has not paid it, the agency must contact the applicant and give them a reasonable opportunity to pay it. If the applicant does not pay the application fee, the agency must give them a prescribed written notice of its reviewable decision that the application fee was payable and that because it was not paid, the application is noncompliant.

This is a reviewable decision.

Can the application fee be waived?

No. Section 24 of the RTI Act states that the application fee must be paid unless the application is only for documents containing the applicant's personal information. Even if the applicant is eligible for a waiver of the processing and access charges on the grounds of financial hardship, there are no provisions in the RTI Act which allow for the application fee to be waived in any circumstances.

Can the application fee be refunded?

The RTI Act requires the application fee to be refunded in only two circumstances:

• If a deemed decision is made, i.e., the agency did not make a considered decision either in the original processing period or in the further specified period allowed by the applicant; or
• Where an application fee was paid but the application is limited to documents containing the applicant’s personal information.

Generally, if payment accompanies the application, the application will be compliant when it is received by the agency (presuming all other application requirements are satisfied), regardless of how long the agency takes to process the payment.

If there is a form of payment the agency cannot process, has made a policy decision not to accept, or can only accept in a specific way, the application will not be compliant when accompanied by that form of payment. Applicants should be advised of the payment issues as quickly as possible. It would be best practice to include any payment limitations on the agency's website.

Minister in the RTI Act includes an Assistant Minister. Documents of an Assistant Minister can also be applied for under the RTI Act and Assistant Ministers are able to give directions under the RTI Act for their applications to be dealt with by another person.

A Charges Estimate Notice (CEN) is a written estimate of the charges payable for an access application. As set out in section 36, a CEN is only required if the agency considers that the applicant will need to pay an access and/or processing charge. It is not necessary for the agency to give the applicant a schedule of relevant documents along with a CEN.

If no charges are payable, the agency does not need to issue a CEN.

The applicant can narrow their application after the first CEN. If they do, the agency must issue a second and final CEN.

No more than two CENs can be given on an application.

Child means an individual who is under 18 years old.

Section 68(4)(c) of the RTI Act provides that if giving access in the form requested by the applicant (e.g., copies) would breach the copyright of someone other than the State of Queensland, the agency can refuse that form of access and give access in a different, non-infringing form.  It is not the role of RTI decision makers to interpret contractual arrangements and make complex determinations regarding copyright, but because copyright can impact the available forms of access, they need to be aware of copyright and make relevant inquiries as needed.

Determining if copyright applies to some or all of the documents (Higgins and Education Queensland (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 31 March 1999)) requires a consideration of whether copyright subsists in the documents and, if so, whether it would be infringed by the agency making copies for release under the RTI Act. In Australia, copyright is governed by the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).

The Commissioner discussed the application of this Act to providing access under the RTI Act in V11 and Brisbane City Council [2021] QICmr 39 (6 August 2021) and Mt Cooth-tha Local Residents and Brisbane City Council [2021] QICmr 49 (27 September 2021). Decision makers should refer to those decisions for guidance on determining if documents are subject to copyright.

Under schedule 1 of the RTI Act, coronial documents are outside the scope of the RTI Act while a coroner is investigating the death to which the document relates. Coronial documents are documents which were specifically prepared for a Coroner’s investigation or inquest, such as:

• an autopsy certificate, autopsy notice or autopsy report
• a report from a police officer helping a Coroner about the investigation into a reportable death; and
• a record of the Coroner's findings and comments.

The definition of coronial documents in schedule 5 of the RTI refers to the Coroners Act 2003. Coronial documents do not include a record, or a copy of a record, of an inquest made under the Recording of Evidence Act 1962 (Qld).

Coronial documents commonly include the pathologist’s preliminary advice to the Coroner, toxicology certificates, police photographs of the death scene, police reports to the coroner, witness statements, independent reports commissioned by the Coroner or on behalf of another person specifically to inform a coronial investigation or inquest, and the Coroner’s findings. Coronial documents do not include investigation documents.

Agency documents which are part of a coronial investigation but are not coronial documents are referred to as investigation documents. Investigation documents are not excluded from the RTI Act and any application for them must be processed by the agency. When deciding whether a document is a coronial document or an investigation document it is important to consider why the document was created.

Some examples of investigation documents include suicide notes, CCTV footage, SMS or email messages, telephone recordings, medical records, Medicare and prescription history records, departmental records, internal policy and procedure documents and the outcomes of internal incident reporting and review processes (e.g. clinical incident reviews or safety analyses) or other investigative processes.

Under section 46 or 78R of the RTI Act, a deemed decision occurs if the agency does not deliver a considered decision to the applicant by the end of the processing period. If this happens, the Minister or principal officer is taken to have made a decision to refuse access.

A deemed decision can only be externally reviewed.

A principal officer can delegate the power to deal with an application to another officer of the agency. An officer of an agency is defined in schedule 5 of the RTI Act to include a member of the agency, a member of the agency’s staff and a person employed by or for the agency.

With the exception of local government principal officers, a principal officer can also delegate their powers to the principal officer of another agency with their consent. This power can then be sub-delegated within the second agency.

Departments are public sector entities declared to be departments of Government under the Public Sector Act 2002 (Qld).

A Minister can direct any person to deal with an application for the Minister.

The RTI Act does not distinguish between draft documents and final documents.If an in-scope document is a document of an agency (or of a Minister) it must be processed. Drafts cannot be excluded unless the applicant agrees.

Documents are not just paper or PDFs. Schedule 1 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) provides that ‘document’ (a) means a record or information, however recorded; and (b) includes—(i) a thing on which there is writing; and (ii) a thing on which there are marks, symbols or perforations having a meaning for persons qualified to interpret them; and (iii) an electronic document. This includes audio recordings, video recordings, and images.

For the purposes of the RTI Act, a document is a single item which may be made up of multiple pages, eg a multiple page letter or report is a single document. Any attachments to the document are part of the document, eg an email with attachments or a briefing note with appendices are each single documents.

A document does not have to be a public record to fall under the definition of document in the RTI Act. When conducting searches in response to an RTI application agencies have to capture every document in scope, regardless of whether or not it is a public record.

Under the RTI Act a document of a Minister is a document which relates to the affairs of an agency and is in the Minister’s physical possession or legal control or one which the Minister is entitled to access. It does not include a document of an agency or a document to which the RTI Act does not apply.

Ministerial obligations under the RTI Act continue if there is a change of Minister (Attorney-General (Cth) v Patrick [2024] FCAFC 126 (Patrick), considering when the status of a document as an official documents of a Minister is established under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth)). Documents will continue to be documents of a Minister where there is a change of Minister without a change of government, however a change of Minister due to a change of government may require careful consideration.

A document of a Minister also includes a document in the possession, or under the control, of a member of staff of, or a consultant to, the Minister in the person’s capacity as member or consultant.

While document of a Minister includes a document the Minister is entitled to access, the definition explicitly excludes a document of an agency. Any documents in the possession of an agency are documents of that agency; they cannot be documents of a Minister, regardless of the Minister's entitlement to access them.

Only documents that relate to the affairs of the agency can be a document of a Minister. A document will relate to the affairs of an agency where it bears a direct or indirect relationship to:

• the business and activities of an agency
• the agency’s area of governmental responsibility; or
• arrangements between government departments and other agencies and external entities.

This means it is necessary to consider the kind of information the documents contain.

In Frecklington, MP and Premier and Minister for Trade (No. 2) [2020] QICmr 26 (12 May 2020) (Frecklington No 2) the Commissioner considered whether a Ministerial staff member’s browser history related to the affairs of an agency. Browser history is an unintentionally and automatically generated list of URLs, being an unreliable record of resources accessed by a user, which may potentially contain times and dates but no detail of the information on the webpage visited.

Having regard to the general character and content of web browser histories and their lack of ‘meaningful content’ the Commissioner did not consider the browser history requested by the applicant had any direct or indirect relationship to the affairs of an agency.

If the information does not relate to the affairs of an agency it will not be a document of a Minister, even if it is in the possession or control of the Minister or the Minister is entitled to access it. Examples include:

• party political matters
• matters related to the electorate
• details of activities relating to the Minister’s activities as a Member of Parliament
• details of activities relating to the Minister’s personal life or activities.

Archived Ministerial documents

The Public Records Act 2023 (Qld) provides for relevant public records to be transferred to State Archives when there is a change of Minister. If an applicant wishes to access these documents, they will need to apply to the department of which State Archives is part.

Consultation will be required if a decision is made to release information that is reasonably likely to be of concern to a third party. The need for consultation will need to be decided on a case by case basis, but possible third parties could include the former Minister, the current Minister of the former Minister's portfolio or the portfolio agency, or the leader of the former Minister's political party, depending on the nature of the documents.

Queensland Parliamentary Services may be of assistance with consulting former Ministers.

A document of an agency includes any document the agency is entitled to access or which is in the agency’s physical possession or legal control, as long as it is not a document to which the RTI Act does not apply.

The documents an agency is entitled to access include:

• Documents provided to a legal services provider for the purposes of seeking advice.
• An official work notebook or diary of an employee that the employee has taken outside the workplace, including for example, an employee on long service leave that has their work notebook or diary at home.
• Documents provided to an audit services provider for the purposes of an internal audit conducted by an external provider.
• Documents provided to a debt collector retained to recover monies owed to the agency.

In these cases, the agency must contact the person or organisation and retrieve the documents so they can process them as part of the application.

This phrase appears in relation to information that would, if a person were alive, be their personal information as eligible family members may have a greater public interest in accessing this information than other people.

The following relationships to the deceased person constitute eligible family members ,  but only in the order of priority they are listed and then only if they are reasonably available:

1.           A spouse (includes both married and de facto partners, regardless of gender)

2.           An adult child (who is aged 18 years or more)

3.           A parent

4.           An adult sibling

5.           If none of the above persons are reasonably available –

• If the deceased person was not an Aboriginal person or Torres Strait Islander, then the next nearest adult relative who is reasonably available.
• If the deceased person was an Aboriginal person or Torres Strait Islander, then a person who is an appropriate person according to the tradition or custom of the Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander community to which the deceased person belonged and who is reasonably available.

When deciding who the eligible family member is, you must start at the beginning of the list.  If that person is not reasonably available you move to the next person on the list and continue down the list in order until you identify a person who is reasonably available.

Step-parents

While the RTI Act recognises a step-parent as a parent for the purposes of making an application on behalf of a minor child, it does not do so for the purposes of defining an eligible family member (TFN20S and Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service [2018] QICmr 37 (20 August 2018).

To determine if a step-parent is a parent under the eligible family member definition it will be necessary to consider the relationship between step-parent and adult child, in particular, the extent of their familial connection and involvement.

Not reasonably available

Not reasonably available can mean:

• That the person described does not exist or is deceased – it may be that the deceased person did not have any relationships of that kind or that the people with whom they had that relationship have died.
• A person of that description cannot reasonably be contacted.
• A person of that description is unable or unwilling to act as an eligible family member of the deceased person for the purpose under the
  RTI Act or IP Act.

The fees and charges in the RTI Act are:

• Application fee
• Processing charge; and
• Access charge.

All fees and charges under the RTI Act are GST exempt (see Division 81, section 81.10(5) of A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (Cth)).

When considering processing and access charges, it is important to remember that there is a duty to minimise charges and that the final amount of the charges cannot exceed estimates in the Charges Estimate Notice (CEN).

When do they have to be paid

The application fee must be paid at the start of the process to make the application compliant.

The processing and/or access charges must be paid before the applicant is given access to documents. These charges must be paid even if access to the documents is refused, or the applicant does not access the documents within the access period.

Applicants can apply to have the processing and access charges waived if they are in financial hardship. Individuals apply to the relevant agency and non-profit organisations apply to the Information Commissioner. The application fee cannot be waived.

Agencies must decide to waive the processing and access charges where the applicant is in financial hardship and the requirements of the Act have been met.

Where the applicant is a non-profit organisation, they will be in financial hardship if the Commissioner has made a decision that the organisation has financial hardship status. This status is granted for twelve months and can be viewed on OIC’s website. If the applicant currently has financial hardship status, the agency must waive the charges.

Where the applicant is an individual, they must ask to have the charges waived and provide a copy of their concession card. The agency must decide to waive the charges if:

• the concession card is one which is recognised by the Act
• the agency considers the applicant is the holder of the concession card; and
• the agency considers the applicant is not making the application for another person who is seeking to avoid payment of the charge.

The concession card must be one of the following:

• Services Australia Health Care Card
• Services Australia Pensioner Concession Card; or
• Department of Veterans’ Affairs Pensioner Concession Card.

The holder of a concession card is someone who is named on the concession card and would be entitled to be named on the concession card at the time it is being relied on (including as a dependent).

If the applicant applies for financial hardship status before a Charges Estimate notice (CEN) is issued and the agency decides to waive the charges, it does not need to issue a CEN. The applicant must be given a decision that the charges have been waived, but this can be included in the final decision notice. If the agency decides not to waive the charges, it must include notice of that decision in the CEN.

If the applicant applies for financial hardship after a CEN is issued and the agency decides to waive the charges, the applicant should be given notice of that decision as soon as practicable after the decision is made. The agency does not need to issue a second CEN.

A GOC or its subsidiary is an agency under the RTI Act. Current GOCs are listed in schedule 1 of the Government Owned Corporations Regulation 2014 (Qld).

Limitation of application to some GOCs

Schedule 2, part 2 of the RTI Act lists functions of entities to which the RTI Act does not apply. Several GOCs are included in this list. For these GOCs, the RTI Act only applies in relation to their community service obligations. Community service obligations are listed in the Government Owned Corporations Act 1993 (Qld) (GOC Act).

A GOC listed in schedule 2, part 2 of the RTI Act may not have any community service obligations. Any community service obligations a GOC is to perform must be included in the GOC’s statement of corporate intent which is prepared each financial year.

Healthcare decisions are decisions about whether to refuse access to the applicant's own relevant healthcare information because releasing it might be prejudicial to the applicant's physical or mental health or wellbeing.

Only the principal officer or Minister, or an appropriately qualified healthcare professional appointed by them, can make a healthcare decision.

The usual delegation or direction arrangements do not apply to healthcare decisions. A principal officer of an agency or a Minister can only appoint an appropriately qualified healthcare professional to make a healthcare decision.

The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (HR Act) commenced in full on 1 January 2020 and contains twenty-three human rights. Subject to some exceptions, it will be unlawful for a public entity to make a decision in a way not compatible with human rights, or to make a decision and fail to give proper consideration to relevant human rights.

These exceptions include that the public entity could not reasonably have acted differently or made a different decision because of another law. Human rights may also be limited where that limit is justified and reasonable.

Freedom of expression: the right to seek and receive information

Section 21 of the HR Act sets out the right to freedom of expression, which includes the right to seek and receive information. This includes the right to seek and receive information from Queensland government agencies.

Human rights and access applications

The RTI Act contains a similar right—the right to access documents of an agency—which is independent of the right to seek and receive information in the HR Act. However, as long as the agency "properly processes a request for access to documents" under the RTI Act, they will be "respecting, and acting compatibility with, the applicant's right to freedom of expression" (XYZ v Victoria Police (General) [2010] VCAT 255 (16 March 2010) (XYZ v Victoria Police) at paragraph 573; Horrocks v Department of Justice (General) [2012] VCAT 241 (2 March 2012) (Horrocks) at paragraph 111). In most cases, nothing else will be required.

When discussing the interaction between the Victorian equivalents of Queensland's HR Act and RTI Act, His Honour Justice Bell said in XYZ v Victoria Police (General): "it is perfectly compatible with the scope of that positive right in the Charter for it to be observed by reference to the scheme of, and principles in, the Freedom of Information Act."

Under the RTI Act, information applied for is released unless it would be contrary to the public interest to do so and decision makers must have a pro-disclosure bias. By properly applying these requirements, decision makers both accord the HR Act’s right to access information and ensure the right is limited only to a reasonable and justifiable extent.

When will an agency need to consider other human rights?

If an applicant raises or refers to a specific human right in their application, or it is apparent from the application that a specific human right should be considered, an agency will need to address it in its decision. If an applicant refers to human rights generally the agency will need to identify any human rights that may be relevant, taking into account the circumstances of the application. For example, the RTI Act sets out public interest factors that include matters relevant to some human rights under the HR Act, such as privacy.

When taking human rights into account, agencies will need to consider whether the refusal of access infringes the right and, if so, if the infringement is justified. Generally, as long as the RTI or IP Acts have been properly applied, any limitation of human rights will be justified or accord with the relevant right (Lonigro v Victoria Police FOI Division (Review and Regulation) [2013] VCAT 1003 (14 June 2013) at paragraph, applying XYZ v Victoria Police and Horrocks; Faine v Victorian Building Authority (Review and Regulation) [2019] VCAT 111 (8 March 2019) at paragraph 83).

The below extracts demonstrate how the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal has approached this issue:

Mcnamara v Department of Human Services (General)[2010] VCAT 1237 (28 June 2010)

Section 13 as applied in this proceeding do not, in my opinion, breach a human right protected by the Charter. I mention the two potential rights which in my view could be submitted to be relevant.

Section 13 of the Charter recognises JEM’s right not to have his privacy, family, home or correspondence unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with. Given my decision, section 13 of the Act is not operating to breach that right.

Section 17 of the Charter recognises families are the fundamental group unit of society and are entitled to be protected by society and the State. As I am not persuaded releasing the notes would protect the family being JEM and his mother, in my view section 13 of the Act is not operating to breach that right.

If I am correct in my above view (at b), I do not need to consider whether a limit imposed on a right is justified. If I am not correct, and section 13 and/or 17 of the act are breached, then in my view, in the terms of and with reference to section 7 of the Charter not releasing the Notes is a reasonable limit of rights.

Tsamis v Victoria Police (Review and Regulation) [2015] VCAT 1080 (17 July 2015)

In reaching this conclusion, I have considered the right to privacy of those who appear in the video under s 13 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. I do not regard release of the video as an unlawfully and/or arbitrarily interference with their right to privacy nor any form of attack on reputation.

Faine v Victorian Building Authority (Review and Regulation) [2019] VCAT 111 (8 March 2019)

The VBA correctly submitted that the right of a person not to have his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with (s 13 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic)) is a relevant consideration here. In my view the balancing of factors required under s33(1), accords with proper consideration of that right and does not change the result here.

Amendment applications

Under the RTI Act, an individual can apply to have documents containing their personal information amended if it is inaccurate, incomplete, out of date, or misleading (inaccurate) as long as they have first had access to the documents.

Unlike the right to access information, there is no human right that directly corresponds with the right to have inaccurate personal information amended. However, the right to privacy and reputation, specifically the right not to have the person's reputation unlawfully attacked, is of general relevance. As such, it may be raised by applicants or, if human rights generally are raised by an applicant, it may need to be considered by agencies.

When deciding amendment applications, agencies should adopt the approach set out above for access applications.

The term ‘irrelevant information’ is used to describe information contained within a document, when the document is generally within the scope of an application, but the document also contains information that is not relevant to the application. The RTI Act allows irrelevant information to be deleted where it is practicable to do so.

It will be practicable to delete irrelevant information where it is feasible to produce a redacted version of a document from which irrelevant information has been deleted.  This means that it will be practicable to delete information where it is physically or mechanically possible, and where the agency concerned has the necessary resources.

Example

An application is made for all records of stray dogs picked up by the local Council. The Council prepares a single report each financial year about all stray animals it picked up that year. The report is a document within the scope of the application, but the information it contains includes information about stray cats and other animals, which is not relevant to the application made: it is irrelevant information.

In these circumstances, information in the report that relates to animals other than stray dogs can be deleted as irrelevant information.

Deletion of irrelevant information is not a ground of refusal under the RTI Act; it is a mechanism to remove information from a document that is irrelevant to the application. It is a reviewable decision.

A judicial entity is an entity that has judicial functions, which are typically characterised by:

• the settlement of disputes about existing rights and obligations, rather than the determination of future rights and obligations
• settling disputes between identified, rather than hypothetical or abstract, parties; and
• making decisions which are binding upon the parties.

An important factor is whether the function is performed in a judicial manner, ie:

• whether the decision maker applies established legal standards rather than a policy discretion; and
• whether the decision maker is independent and not subject to direction or control.

Other factors which may suggest the exercise of a judicial function are that the:

• body hearing the dispute is bound by the rules of evidence
• body normally hears disputes in public, unless there is a good reason to do otherwise; and
• parties have a right to legal representation.

Quasi-judicial

A quasi-judicial entity possesses some, but not all, of the characteristics of a judicial entity. A body exercising a quasi-judicial function will often:

• have two parties to proceedings
• conduct hearings in public
• allow parties to have legal representation
• be required to act consistently with the requirements of justice; and
• be required to give reasons for its decision.

However, it may not be bound by the rules of evidence, consist of individuals appointed for a limited term, and/or make recommendations rather than binding decisions.

Review bodies

Some review bodies will be quasi-judicial entities in relation to some of their functions. For example, T71 and Queensland Police Service [2022] QICmr 10 (4 March 2022) (T71), (applying the commentary of Hoeben J in Carmody v Information Commissioner & Ors (5) [2018] QCATA 18) determined that the Information Commissioner is a quasi-judicial entity, citing Cairns Port Authority v Albietz [1995] 2 Qd R 470:

This is a case where there was already a respondent which could effectively oppose the relief sought by the applicant. The ultimate question was whether that respondent should be allowed access to certain documents. The Information Commissioner’s role was quasi-judicial and he was by statute required to be the arbiter between two contending parties.

A judicial function decision is a decision under section 32(1)(b) or 78J(1)(b) of the RTI Act that all or part of an application is outside the scope of the Act because of schedule 2, part 2, items 1-8.

Schedule 2, part 2, items 1-8 list the entities which are excluded from the RTI Act for their judicial or quasi-judicial functions. The Office of the Information Commissioner is a quasi-judicial entity whose external review functions are quasi-judicial functions, and on this basis the processing files for prior access and amendment applications that were externally reviewed are excluded (T71).

Because judicial function decisions are excluded from the definition of reviewable decision, they cannot be internally or externally reviewed. They can, however, be appealed to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) under section 119(2) of the RTI Act.

If an agency makes a reviewable decision and a judicial function decision on the same application, the applicant has the right to apply for an internal or external review of the reviewable decision and appeal the judicial function decision to QCAT.

Local governments are:

• the Brisbane City Council established under the City of Brisbane Act 2010 (Qld)
• a local government or joint local government established under the Local Government Act 2009 (Qld); and
• the Wide Bay Water Corporation.

Metadata includes information about the document’s content, author, publication date and physical location. Section 28 of the RTI Act provides that an access application for a document is not taken to include an application for access to metadata about the document, unless the access application expressly states that it does.

Where an application expressly seeks access to metadata, access does not need to be given unless it is reasonably practicable.

The Governor, by commission, may appoint a person as a Minister of State, while the Governor in Council may appoint Assistant Ministers. See section 43 of the Constitution of Queensland 2001 (Constitution) and section 33 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) regarding Ministers, and section 24 of the Constitution regarding Assistant Ministers.  In the RTI Act a reference to a Minister includes an Assistant Minister.

The RTI Act creates a number of offences relating to actions, directions, and failures to act under the RTI Act.

Direction to act in a particular way

It is an offence to give a decision maker a direction requiring them to make a decision they believe is not the decision that should be made under the Act.

It is also an offence to give an agency employee involved in a matter under the RTI Act a direction to act contrary to the requirements of the Act.

These offence provisions protect all agency employees working under the RTI Act, ensuring they are able to make the decisions and take the actions they believe are correct.

Unlawful access

It is an offence for a person to knowingly deceive or mislead a person exercising powers under the RTI Act in order to gain access to a document containing someone else’s personal information.

False or misleading information

It is an offence for a person to give information to the Information Commissioner or a staff member of the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) that the person knows is false or misleading in a material particular. A material particular is a matter of significance and not trivial or inconsequential.

It is important to note that the offence won’t apply to information contained in a document given to the Information Commissioner or staff member of the OIC if,when giving the document, the person:

• informs the Information Commissioner or OIC staff member, to the best of their ability, how the information is false or misleading; and
• gives the correct information to the Information Commissioner or OIC staff member if the person has, or can reasonably obtain, the correct information.

Failure to produce documents or attend proceedings

It is an offence for a person to fail to give information, produce a document, or attend before the Information Commissioner if required under the RTI Act if they do not have a reasonable excuse for their failure.

What is the punishment for offences?

Each offence has a maximum penalty of 100 penalty units.  The value of a penalty unit is specified in the Penalties and Sentences Regulation 2015 (Qld).

Under the RTI Act, a parent is the child’s mother, father, or a person exercising parental responsibility for the child.

For an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child a parent includes a person who, under Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander tradition, is regarded as a parent of the child.

A person who temporarily stands in the place of a parent is not a parent. Baby-sitters, short term foster carers, and schoolteachers are not a parent under the RTI Act.

A person who exercises parental responsibility for the child includes a person who is granted guardianship of the child under the Child Protection Act 1999 (Qld) or who otherwise exercises parental responsibility for the child under a decision or order of a federal court or a court of the State (Section 61B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)).

This means other people, such as stepparents or informal kinship carers, may be able to establish that they exercise parental control, even if it is not as a result of guardianship or other court order.

A post-application document:

• is a document that did not exist or was not in the possession or control of the agency on the day the agency received a compliant application; but
• is not one of the documents section 68 of the RTI Act specifically allows an agency to create after receiving the compliant  application.

Agencies are not required to give an applicant a post-application document, but in some circumstances they may wish to do so, for example where a specifically relevant document arrived in the agency shortly after the date of the application.

There are no requirements for how an agency gives access to post-application documents, however:

• an agency cannot charge for a post-application document; and
• an applicant has no review rights in relation to a post-application document.

Providing access to post-application documents

Agencies have the discretion to give post-application documents to an applicant, but unless the applicant agrees, post-application documents cannot be provided instead of documents in scope of the application.

Where the agency believes an applicant's scope could be satisfied by a post-application document, for example where they are seeking statistical data that does not exist but could be compiled, the agency could contact the applicant to discuss providing a post-application document.

When taking this approach, the decision maker should:

• Contact the applicant to see if they will accept post-application documents in place of all or part of their application. Where post-application documents will be an extra, rather than a substitute, the applicant's agreement is not necessary, but they should be clearly marked and their presence explained in the decision letter.
• If the applicant agrees to accept post-application documents in place of all or part of  their application, confirm they will withdraw their application or amend their scope, whichever is appropriate.
• Ensure the applicant understands there is no charge for post-application documents but that there are also no review rights.
• Make a file note of the conversation with the applicant and/or confirm the conversation in writing.

A document is in the possession of an agency or Minister (or the Minister’s consultant or staff member) if it is in their physical possession.

A document is in the control of an agency or Minister if they have a legal right to control the document (46 and Queensland Police Service [2020] QICmr 3 (4 February 2020)).

Documents in the custody of State Archives are in possession of the agency

Under the Public Records Act 2023 (Qld) (PR Act), agencies can place documents in the custody of State Archives.

Under section 182 of the RTI Act and 191 of the IP Act, if the documents are not yet available from State Archives under the PR Act, for the purposes of the RTI Act they are deemed to be documents in the possession of the agency who lodged it with State Archives

If the agency that lodged the documents no longer exists, they are deemed to be in the possession of the agency whose functions most closely resemble those of the original agency, as long as that agency is entitled to access the documents from State Archives.

Applicants who wish to access those documents need to apply to the agency, not State Archives, and agencies will need to retrieve those documents if they receive an application for them.

This does not apply to documents of former Ministers lodged with State Archives. Access to those must be sought from the department in which State Archives is located.

Principal officer is the person who has the power to deal with access and amendment applications and is defined in schedule 5 of the RTI Act. This table sets out who the principal officer is for each type of agency.

The processing charge is the charge for the time an agency spends:

• searching for or retrieving a document; and
• making a decision or doing things related to making a decision on an RTI application.

No processing charge is payable in relation to documents containing the applicant’s personal information.

How much are processing charges?

As at 1 July 2025, RTI processing charges are:

• nil, if the agency spends no more than 5 hours processing the application; or
• $8.95 per 15 minutes or part of 15 minutes of the time spent working on the application, including the first five hours, when the agency spends more than 5 hours processing the application.

Agencies cannot charge for personal information documents

An agency cannot charge processing fees for documents containing the applicant’s personal information.

• If no RTI application fee was payable – because all requested documents contain the applicant’s personal information – there will be no processing charges.
• If an RTI application fee was payable – but some of the requested documents contain the applicant’s personal information – the agency must not charge any processing charges for those documents.

Depending on the ratio of personal information documents to non-personal documents, there may be various ways for an agency to calculate the processing charge. Whatever the method, the time spent on personal documents must not be included in the total charge.

To ensure the applicant is aware that the agency is not improperly charging the applicant, agencies may wish to consider noting on the CEN that they have not included personal documents when calculating the charge.

If a document is not where an agency’s filing system indicates it should be, and an agency needs to spend extra time trying to find it, the agency cannot charge the applicant for that time.

For example, if an agency spends an additional two hours locating a document that was incorrectly filed, those additional two hours cannot be counted when calculating the processing time for the application.

The processing charges may be waived if they are uneconomical to charge, and they must be waived if the applicant is in financial hardship as defined by the RTI Act.

The RTI Act contains provisions which protect decision makers from a range of criminal and civil causes of action. They ensure that decision makers with a genuine belief that they are acting correctly are able to do their jobs under the Act without worrying they will incur liability for their actions.

‘Genuine belief’ is not defined in the RTI Act, which means the words are given their ordinary meaning. For something to be a genuine belief it must be a real or authentic belief. The reasonableness of the belief may also be a factor when determining whether someone has acted with genuine belief (Margarula v Rose 1999 149 FLR 444). ‘Reasonable in the circumstances’ will likely cover situations where a public service officer genuinely believes, and has a reasonable basis for that belief, that they were acting in accordance with the RTI Act.

Protection for actions for defamation or breach of confidence

The RTI Act contains protections against actions for defamation and breach of confidence.

Defamation is the act of publishing information (verbally or in writing) about a person that insinuates or accuses them of things which would lower that person’s reputation in the eyes of the public.

Breach of confidence is the failure to preserve the confidential character of information which has been communicated with the understanding of confidence.

If the RTI Act required or permitted that access be given to a document, or that it be published on a disclosure log, or access or publication was done with the genuine belief that it was required or permitted:

• no action for defamation or breach of confidence can be brought against the State, an agency, or officer of the agency; and
• no action for defamation or breach of confidence in relation to any publication involved in, or resulting from the giving of access or publication, lies against the author of the document or another person having given the document to an agency.

For decision makers this means that if a decision is made under the RTI Act to give access to a document or to include it in the disclosure log in the genuine belief it was permitted under the Act, the decision maker cannot be sued for defamation or breach of confidence.

Protections for criminal offences

If the RTI Act required or permitted that access be given to a document, or that it be published on a disclosure log, or access or publication was done with the genuine belief that it was required or permitted—

• neither the person authorising the access; nor
• any person concerned in the giving of the access

—commits a criminal offence because of authorising or giving access.

Both an agency’s RTI decision maker and the person responsible for publishing documents on the agency’s disclosure log are people who authorise access. The protection also extends to anyone else involved with giving access to documents, for example records officers and administrative staff.

Protection from personal liability

A relevant entity will not incur civil liability for an act done or omission made honestly and without negligence under the RTI Act. ‘Relevant entity’ includes an agency (including the principal officer), a Minister, a decision maker and a person acting under the direction of an agency, principal officer or Minister.

This means that an agency employee who takes certain actions, or fails to take certain actions, under the RTI Act will not be liable for any civil actions, provided such actions were done honestly and without negligence.  The liability will instead attach to the State.

When do the protections not apply?

• The RTI Act requires an agency’s policy documents to be made publically available—the protections do not apply when giving access to these policy documents.
• Agencies are required to have a publication scheme—the protections do not apply when information is made available under the publication scheme.
• The protections only apply to access under the RTI Act—they do not apply to the administrative release of information, for example information released under an agency policy.
• If an agency employee knowingly acts in a manner that is contrary to the requirements of the RTI Act, the protections will generally not apply.

Section 16 of the RTI Act lists the kinds of entities which are public authorities, including:

• entities established for a public purpose by an Act
• entities established by government under an Act for a public purpose (whether or not the public purpose is stated in the Act).
• an entity created by the Governor in Council or a Minister
• an entity declared to be a public authority under section 16A
• a rail government entity under the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994
• a person holding an office established under an Act; and
• a person holding an appointment made by the Governor in Council or Minister otherwise than under an Act and declared by regulation to be a public authority.

Established by an Act

The phrase ‘established by an Act’ means that the Act in question needs to have directly provided for the entity's establishment. (English and Queensland Law Society Inc. (1995) 2 QAR 714).

Established by government under an Act

The Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) defines ‘under’ for an Act or a provision of an Act to include by, for the purposes of, in accordance with, and within the meaning of.

It will often be necessary to consider the history of the entity to determine whether it was established by government or established by others (for example, a group of concerned citizens). ‘Government’ includes an agency, so an entity established by a department is established by government.

An entity can be established under more than one Act (Davis v City North Infrastructure Pty Ltd [2011] QSC 285).

A public purpose

The meaning of 'public purpose' is considered to be 'relatively straightforward' and means a purpose that is for the benefit of members of the community (McPhillimy and Gold Coast Motor Events Co. (1996) 3 QAR 376 (McPhillimy)). The public purpose does not need to be specified in the establishing Act.

When determining if an entity is established for a public purpose, it is relevant to consider the primary functions of the entity. As per Davis and City North Infrastructure Pty Ltd (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 31 March 2010) (Davis), an entity is likely established for a public purpose if:

• it undertakes works that are ordinarily a government responsibility
• it involves a significant use of public monies; and
• the projects undertaken are intended to be for public use and to benefit members of the community.

Entities declared to be public authorities

An entity may be declared by regulation to be a public authority in relation to all or part of its functions. The Minister may only recommend that Governor in Council make a regulation about certain kinds of entities, and only if the Minister decides it is in the public interest for the entity to be declared a public authority.

The phrase ‘could reasonably be expected to’ appears in various provisions of the RTI Act and is the relevant test to be applied when assessing various grounds for non-disclosure. This is an objective test. This means it is ‘approached from the view point of the reasonable decision-maker’ (Leech v Sydney Water Corporation [2010] NSWADT 298 citing Neary v State Rail Authority [1999] NSWADT 107).

In Attorney-General’s Department v Cockcroft (1986) 64 ALR 97 at 106 (Cockcroft), Bowen CJ and Beaumont J considered the phrase 'could reasonably be expected to' which appeared in section 43(1)(c)(ii) of the Commonwealth FOI Act, stating:

In our opinion, in the present context, the words 'could reasonably be expected to prejudice the future supply of information' were intended to receive their ordinary meaning. That is to say, they require a judgment to be made by the decision-maker as to whether it is reasonable, as distinct from something that is irrational, absurd or ridiculous ... It is undesirable to attempt any paraphrase of these words. In particular, it is undesirable to consider the operation of the provision in terms of probabilities or possibilities or the like. To construe s43(1)(c)(ii) as depending in its application upon the occurrence of certain events in terms of any specific degree of likelihood or probability is, in our view, to place an unwarranted gloss upon the relatively plain words of the Act. It is preferable to confine the inquiry to whether the expectation claimed was reasonably based.

Accordingly, the words are to be given their ordinary meaning and the relevant expectation must be reasonably based and not irrational, absurd or ridiculous (Searle Australia Pty Ltd v PIAC (1992) 108 ALR 163; Cockroft). Though it is important to note Hayne J’s cautionary comment in McKinnon v Secretary, Department of Treasury (2006) 229 ALR 187 at 204 that:

"... when their Honours said, as they did [in Cockcroft], that the words required a "judgment to be made by the decision-maker as to whether it is reasonable, as distinct from something that is irrational, absurd or ridiculous," to expect certain consequences, they are not to be understood as having used the latter expression as a paraphrase of the former. Rather, they are to be understood, and have since been understood, as doing no more than drawing an emphatic comparison. To do more would have been, as their Honours correctly said, "to place an unwarranted gloss upon the relatively plain words of the Act".

An expectation of an occurrence that is merely a possibility (ie speculative, conjectural or hypothetical) is unreasonable (Murphy and Treasury Department (1995) 2 QAR 744). At the same time, it is not necessary for the decision maker to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the expectation will crystalise (Cockroft). As explained in Neary and State Rail Authority [1999] NSWADT 107:

… There must be more than a mere risk. While the key word used in the relevant provision - `expect' - carries a firmer connotation than words such as `anticipates', it is not necessary that the level of risk be such that it be assessed as more probable than not. Nor is it necessary for the administrator to apply a balance of probabilities calculus similar to that used to set the burden of proof in litigation. All relevant factors, including public interest considerations, should be taken into account. The extent and nature of the effect will be relevant, and often decisive. It is necessary to assess what is reasonable in the circumstances.

Importantly, the expectation must arise as a result of disclosure, rather than from other circumstances (Murphy and Treasury Department (1995) 2 QAR 744).

Review rights in the RTI Act only exist for reviewable decisions as defined in schedule 5 and set out in schedule 4A of the RTI Act.

For access applications, reviewable decisions are decisions:

• that the application or any part of it is out of scope of the RTI Act under section 32(1)(b), unless it is a judicial function decision (explained below)
• that the application is noncompliant with an application requirement under section 33
• giving access despite the objections of a third party consulted under section 37 or without consulting a third party under that section
• refusing to deal with all or part of an application under sections 40, 41 or 43
• refusing access to all or part of a document under section 47
• deferring access under section 72
• giving access to documents subject to the deletion of information under section 73
• that purport to, but may not, cover all documents in scope of the application (sufficiency of search)
• to give access in a different form than the applicant requested, unless it was made due to a third party's copyright
• that a processing or access charge is payable, including a decision not to waive charges – this does not include the amount of the charge; and
• that are deemed decisions.

For amendment applications, reviewable decisions are decisions:

• that the application or any part of it is out of scope of the RTI Act under section 78J(1)(b), unless it is a judicial function decision (explained below)
• that the application is noncompliant with an application requirement under section 78K
• refusing to deal with all or part of an application under sections 78N or 78P
• refusing to amend a document under section 78Q
• that a notice under 78V(2) does not relate to information the applicant was entitled to apply to amend; and
• that are deemed decisions.

A decision about the amount of the charge stated in a Charges Estimate Notice and a judicial function decision are not reviewable decisions and cannot be internally or externally reviewed.

Documents of the holder of an office connected with a quasi-judicial entity in relation to the entity’s quasi-judicial functions are excluded from the Act.  

The Commissioner found in T71and Queensland Police Service [2022] QICmr 10 (4 March 2022) (applying the commentary of Hoeben J in Carmody v Information Commissioner & Ors (5) [2018] QCATA 18) that:

• the Information Commissioner is a quasi-judicial entity
• the Information Commissioner’s external review functions are quasi-judicial functions; and
• an agency decision-maker who processes an access application and makes a reviewable decision on the application is ‘connected with’ the Information Commissioner in relation to the Information Commissioner's quasi-judicial functions.

This view was upheld in Stella v Griffith University [2025] QCATA 20 and Stella v Griffith University [2025] QCA 203.

This means that an agency’s RTI initial processing documents, as well as any internal review processing documents, are excluded from the Act as documents that are ‘in relation to’ the exercise of the Information Commissioner’s quasi-judicial functions. The application does not need to have proceeded to an external review for its processing documents to be excluded from the Act.

The concept of ‘routine personal work information’ applies to employee of agencies which are subject to the RTI Act.  It is not limited to those employed under the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) and may be relevant for employees of any agency subject to the legislation (such as local government, public authorities and ministerial staff). However, they will be referred to as ‘public sector employees’.

Routine personal work information is limited to personal information that is solely and wholly related to the routine day to day work duties and responsibilities of a public sector employee.  This includes information such as:

• a work email address
• a work phone number
• the fact of authorship of a work document, eg where the person's name is listed as one of the writers of a report
• a professional opinion given wholly in a professional capacity, eg that a stretch of vegetation is made up of specific sorts of plants
• a work classification, eg that someone is an AO6 project officer in the Administration area of a given department
• a work responsibility, eg that the officer is the contact if a member of the public has a complaint or a query about water allocation, or that an officer has responsibility for making decisions about granting licenses
• incidental appearances of a person's name in work documents, eg their identification as the author of a letter, a mention of an officer as a member of a project team in documents produced by the project, a mention of an officer as having responsibility for a team or project, or holding a given position, on a departmental website or in a report; and
• information about qualifications held where they are required for the officer's position, eg that a scientific officer holds a Bachelor of Science.

What sort of information is not routine personal work information?

Information that is not related wholly to the routine day to day work activities of a public sector employee is not routine personal work information. The discussions in sections 5 and 6 below do not apply to information that is not routine personal work information, even if that non-routine information arose in or out of a work context, for example:

• complaints made by or about a public sector employee
• names and other personal information of employees in the context of dealing with a workplace complaint (including the subject of the complaint and colleagues) (E24 and Department of Justice [2025] QICmr 6 (27 February 2025))
• reasons why an officer is accessing leave entitlements of any kind or when they have taken, or intend to take, leave
• opinions expressed at work that are not about work, eg an email discussion between two officers about a movie they had both seen
• opinions about another public sector employee
• the fact that an officer has been unsuccessful in applying for a different public service position
• details of how an officer utilises the flexible working hours arrangement, eg when they chose to start and finish work or when they access flextime
• opinions or reports about how well an officer performs their duties
• identifying information, such as an officer's address, drivers’ license details, date of birth, or age (V78 and Queensland Police Service [2020] QICmr 42 (28 July 2020))
• information about officers' emotions, team morale and incidents involving other people(G8KPL2 and Department of Health (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 17 June 2013)); and
• identification numbers (G46 and Queensland Police Service (No. 2) [2020] QICmr 73 (7 December 2020)).

Sufficiency of search refers to situations where the applicant believes that the agency has not located and dealt with all documents within the scope of their application.

A decision that purports to, but may not, cover all documents in scope of the application is a reviewable decision.

If an agency considers that the associated costs of receiving the processing and/or access charges would be higher than the charges themselves, it can waive the charges on the grounds that it is uneconomical to charge the applicant.

Associated costs are the costs of:

• estimating the charge
• otherwise complying with the Acts in relation to the charge; and
• receiving payment of the charge.

Developing a policy setting out the maximum amount of processing and access charge that would be considered ‘uneconomical to charge’ will ensure a consistent approach within the agency.