10.
that the terms of the appellant's request for documents referred to a substantive power or function, namely the administration of the Order of Australia. In particular, that substantive power or function involved nominations for appointments and awards, and consideration of those nominations, which culminated in a decision of whether or not to appoint or award a particular person. It followed that the appellant's request sought access to documents relating to that substantive power, which were excluded from disclosure under 's 6A(1) of the FOI Act.
24 In reviewing the Tribunal's decision and dismissing the appeal before it, the Full Court found that it was sufficient for the Tribunal to determine whether the categories of documents identified in the appellant's request were documents relating to "matters of an administrative nature". It was not necessary, in the Full Court's view, for the Tribunal to examine each document individually as "the character of the documents was apparent from the terms of the request."[1]
Submissions
25 On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the question before the Tribunal was whether the appellant's request for access to documents of the Official Secretary was capable of covering documents which related to matters of an administrative nature. If the appellant succeeded on that issue, the exclusion from the operation of the FOI Act, contained in s 6A(1), would not apply to the documents. The matter should then be remitted to the Tribunal to consider whether any (or any part) of some 400 documents (comprising about 1500 pages), which were covered by the appellant's request, were excluded from disclosure by virtue of some provision of the FOI Act other than s 6A(1), such as provisions exempting confidential documents from disclosure. In oral argument, it was further submitted that such inspection might also show that the documents requested did indeed fall within the exclusion provided by s 6A(1), because they disclosed some aspect of the decision-making processes relevant to the Order.
26 Appealing to text, context and legislative history, it was contended for the appellant that the exception in s 6A(1) should be construed widely, such that the only documents of the Official Secretary excluded from the operation of the FOI Act were documents which disclosed any aspect of the decision-making process in respect of a particular nomination for the Order. A correlative submission was that documents unrelated to that decision-making process "prima facie would be administrative and not disclose anything confidential." The distinction between
- ↑ Kline v Official Secretary to the Governor-General (2012) 208 FCR 89 at 97 [29].
