Was the agency correct to partially withhold documents from this applicant? The documents related to a complaint made by an agency staff member alleging that the applicant was guilty of bullying and harassment?
The applicant was seeking access to documents held by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) about complaints he had made.
The key issue in this matter was whether or not the documents were conditionally exempt because their disclosure would impact on the proper and efficient conduct of an agency.
In this decision issues of official records family recollections and medical evidence were discussed. The key question for the AAT to answer was whether the information about the applicant’s birth date was “incomplete, incorrect, out of date or misleading”. The AAT needed to determine if there was sufficient evidence of the applicant’s birth date and the authenticity of documents produced.
The applicant submitted a freedom of information application to the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority for certain details from the drug tests taken by players of Essendon Football Club during the 2012 supplements program controversy. The AAT affirmed the Australian Information Commissioner’s decision not to release the information.
The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) made a decision to give the respondent, a journalist, access to a series of text messages sent between the Chief and Vice Chief of the Australian Defence Force (ADF). The Administrative Appeals Tribunal set aside this decision and made an order that access to the text messages be refused.
The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) made a decision to grant only limited access to certain documents of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (the Department) which relate to visas granted personally by the Minister. On 3 April 2018, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed the decision.