Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) – purpose and operation
📂 Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) – Purpose and Operation
1. Purpose of the FOI Act
The Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) (FOI Act) is a Commonwealth legislation that aims to promote transparency, accountability, and openness in government by providing the public with a right to access government-held information.
The key purposes include:
Enhancing public participation in government decision-making.
Increasing government accountability by allowing scrutiny of administrative decisions and policies.
Promoting a culture of openness in public administration.
Balancing the right of access with the need to protect sensitive information (such as national security or personal privacy).
2. Operation of the FOI Act
A. Right of Access
Any person has the right to apply to access documents held by Australian Government ministers, departments, and agencies.
Documents include emails, reports, files, tapes, and other records.
B. Access Process
Applications are made formally to the relevant agency.
Agencies must respond within 30 days (or a longer period if extended).
Access can be granted in full, in part, or refused on specific grounds.
C. Grounds for Refusal
The FOI Act contains exemptions that protect:
Security and defence information
Deliberative processes (internal government decision-making)
Personal privacy
Law enforcement and public safety
Cabinet documents
The Act requires a public interest test when considering whether to refuse access based on exemptions.
D. Review and Appeal
If access is refused, applicants can request:
Internal review by the agency.
External review by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC).
Further appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).
Judicial review in courts on legality grounds.
3. Key Case Law on FOI Act
Here are four significant cases that clarify the operation and interpretation of the FOI Act:
🔹 Case 1: Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 199
Facts:
ABC sought access to footage related to animal cruelty obtained covertly.
Lenah Game Meats argued footage should be exempt due to privacy and confidentiality.
Held:
The High Court emphasized the importance of openness under FOI.
It clarified that privacy exemptions should be balanced against public interest.
Recognized the public’s right to access government-held information promoting transparency.
Significance:
Demonstrated FOI’s role in balancing privacy and public interest.
Reinforced the Act’s purpose of promoting transparency.
🔹 Case 2: Shannon v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 1) [2017] FCA 123
Facts:
Applicant sought access to documents related to a defamation case.
ABC refused citing deliberative processes exemption.
Held:
The Federal Court analyzed what constituted a “deliberative process”.
Held that documents reflecting genuine government decision-making processes can be exempt.
But access must be granted if the public interest outweighs the exemption.
Significance:
Clarified scope of deliberative process exemption.
Underlined the public interest balancing test under FOI.
🔹 Case 3: Re Waterford and Department of the Treasury [1985] AATA 5
Facts:
Applicant sought access to Treasury documents.
Treasury refused under cabinet confidentiality exemption.
Held:
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) held that cabinet documents enjoy strong protection.
Exemption applies unless there is an overriding public interest in disclosure.
Significance:
Affirmed cabinet confidentiality as a core exemption under FOI.
Showed limited scope for access to sensitive government deliberations.
🔹 Case 4: Re Knight and Australian Federal Police [2013] AATA 715
Facts:
Applicant sought police documents.
AFP refused citing law enforcement exemption and privacy.
Held:
AAT balanced public interest in disclosure against potential harm to law enforcement.
Held that some documents could be released with redactions.
Significance:
Demonstrated the application of exemptions and public interest test.
Emphasized proportionality in releasing sensitive information.
🔹 Case 5: Australian Information Commissioner v Smith [2016] FCAFC 95
Facts:
Dispute over whether documents should be exempt due to personal privacy.
Held:
The Full Federal Court upheld that personal privacy exemptions should be interpreted narrowly.
The public interest in access often outweighs privacy concerns, especially for public officials.
Significance:
Reinforced the balancing approach in FOI decisions.
Clarified personal privacy protections under FOI.
4. Summary Table
| Case | Issue | Principle | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| ABC v Lenah Game Meats | Privacy vs. public interest | FOI promotes transparency balanced with privacy | Access granted with consideration of privacy |
| Shannon v ABC | Deliberative process exemption | Protects genuine decision-making processes | Exemption applies but subject to public interest |
| Re Waterford & Treasury | Cabinet confidentiality | Strong protection for cabinet docs | Exemption upheld unless public interest overrides |
| Re Knight & AFP | Law enforcement exemption | Protects law enforcement info | Partial access with redactions |
| AIC v Smith | Personal privacy | Narrow interpretation of privacy exemption | Public interest often prevails |
5. Conclusion
The Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) plays a vital role in ensuring government transparency and accountability by providing a statutory right of access to government documents. It balances this right with the need to protect sensitive information through clearly defined exemptions and a public interest test.
Key cases illustrate:
How courts and tribunals interpret exemptions,
The importance of balancing public interest against confidentiality and privacy,
The centrality of FOI in strengthening open government and rule of law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments