Recent Cases: Victoria

Department of Transport v Davis (Review and Regulation) [2024] VCAT 79

The Department of Transport (“Department”) applied to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“Tribunal”) under s 50(3D) of the FOI Act for review of two decisions of the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner (“OVIC”).  The OVIC decisions were to release documents to David Davis MP.  For one matter, the document related to Cabinet and was regarding an Independent Broad-Based Anti-Corruption Commission (“IBAC”) investigation into V/Line corruption.  For the other matter, the relevant part of the document was a three-line bullet point within a briefing concerning a different IBAC investigation into V/Line corruption.  That document had been prepared for the Minister of Transport to appear at the Public Account’s and Estimates Committee (“PAEC”).  The parties requested both applications to be heard together.

Section 28(1)(d) - Cabinet documents 

The Tribunal confirmed that a document would not be confidential under s 28(1)(d) of the FOI Act if it did not reveal the deliberations of Cabinet.  The Tribunal was not satisfied that the relevant document revealed any deliberation or decision of the Cabinet, or that it predicted any outcomes of processes.  It held that the documents merely described events, therefore, the documents were not exempt under s 28(1)(d) of the FOI Act. 

Section 30(1) - Internal working documents 

While they may have had a connection with Cabinet, there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that either of them contained sensitive information relating to Cabinet processes, or that disclosure would have had an adverse effect on the integrity or effectiveness of similar Department processes.  The Tribunal did not accept that the second document was prepared with the intention of remaining confidential. The author of that document had recommended that the information claimed as exempt was to be read out by the Minister at PAEC.  The arguments that disclosure would inhibit the frank and fearless drafting of future PAEC briefings was rejected.  Therefore, disclosure of the Brief was not contrary to public interest. 

Decision

The Tribunal affirmed both decisions under review.