Neither confirm nor deny - checklist

The Right to Information Act (Qld) (RTI Act) permits agencies¹ to respond to an access application by neither confirming nor denying the existence of the documents sought.

Before applying this exception, a decision maker must be satisfied that if the documents existed, they would contain prescribed information under section 55 of the RTI Act. This section provides that an agency is not required to give information as to the existence or non-existence of a document containing prescribed information.

The rationale for this type of response is that in some situations, any other response given by the agency would reveal information² that could cause harm or would be contrary to the public interest.

This checklist has been developed to assist in determining whether an agency is entitled to neither confirm nor deny the existence of a document. This should be determined on a case by case basis in the circumstances and context specific to each situation.

Prescribed information

‘Prescribed information’ is defined under schedule 5 of the RTI as particular types of exempt information³ or personal information the disclosure of which would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

In some situations, a neither confirm nor deny response may not be appropriate even though the information is prescribed information. For example, it would not be appropriate to neither confirm nor deny the existence of a document if the applicant already has evidence proving the document’s existence.

Step One: Would the information be ‘prescribed information’ if it existed?

Schedule 3 of RTI Act – Exempt information	Yes	No
If the document existed would it contain exempt information under schedule 3, section 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9 or 10 of the RTI Act? Schedule 3, section 1 – Cabinet matter brought into existence before commencement Schedule 3, section 2 – Cabinet information brought into existence on or after commencement Schedule 3, section 3 – Executive Council information Schedule 3, section 4 – Information briefing incoming Minister Schedule 3, section 5 – Information revealing particular Sovereign communications Schedule 3, section 9 – National or State security information Schedule 3, section 10 – Law enforcement or public safety information

Schedule 3 of RTI Act – Exempt information

Yes

If the document existed would it contain exempt information under schedule 3, section 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9 or 10 of the RTI Act?

Schedule 3, section 1 – Cabinet matter brought into existence before commencement
Schedule 3, section 2 – Cabinet information brought into existence on or after commencement
Schedule 3, section 3 – Executive Council information
Schedule 3, section 4 – Information briefing incoming Minister
Schedule 3, section 5 – Information revealing particular Sovereign communications
Schedule 3, section 9 – National or State security information
Schedule 3, section 10 – Law enforcement or public safety information

If you answer yes information contained in the document sought would be ‘prescribed information’ and it would be appropriate to use the neither confirm nor deny provision. Proceed to Step Two.

If you answer no, please continue.

Personal information	Yes	No
If the document existed would it contain personal information?

If you answer yes, please continue to the next question.

If you answer no, the information in issue is not prescribed information and you cannot ‘neither confirm nor deny’ the existence of the document.

Section 47(3)(b) of the RTI Act – Public interest test	Yes	No
If the document existed, would the disclosure of the personal information be, on balance, contrary to the public interest?

If you answer no, the document does not contain prescribed information and does not meet the requirement of section 55 of the RTI Act. To be prescribed information, the disclosure of the personal information must be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

If you answer yes, the information in issue is prescribed information and you can consider whether it is appropriate to neither confirm or deny the existence of documents sought in the particular circumstances of the application. Proceed to Step Two.

Step Two: Would it be appropriate to neither confirm nor deny the existence of the documents sought?

Response	Yes	No
Is the document publically available, for example, it is a transcript or document available from a court or is information about the document published and accessible by the public for example, information disclosing the existence of the document is published on the agency’s website?
Can you confirm the document exists without revealing information that could cause harm or would be contrary to the public interest, for example that Bryan is the one who made the complaint about Becker?
Do other considerations apply that would mean it would not be appropriate to neither confirm nor deny the existence of the documents sought?

If you answer yes to any of the Step Two questions, it would not be appropriate to neither confirm nor deny the existence of the document, because doing so is inconsistent with the provision or undermines the purpose of the provision.

If you answer no to all the Step Two questions, it may be appropriate to neither confirm nor deny the existence of the document.

1 In this Guideline, references to an 'agency' include Ministers, unless otherwise specified.
2 See Schedule 5 of the RTI Act.
3 Exempt information mentioned in Schedule 3, section 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9 or 10.

Current as at: July 1, 2025