The applicant's request relates to allegations against him in respect of various alleged incidents that occurred in early 2008 at YZ Primary School (YZPS) where his daughter is a student and where he was volunteering as a parent. The applicant states that his request also relates to ongoing issues which are associated with and arise out of the alleged incidents.

In response to the alleged incidents, action was taken by the principal of YZPS and an investigation was conducted by Victoria Police. In August 2008, Victoria Police ceased its investigations without charging the applicant.

The applicant sought 103 documents or categories of documents in his FoI request. His request was divided into three headings :

1. Documents requested from YZPS (61 categories);
2. Documents requested from ... Regional Office (SMR) (25 categories); and
3. Documents requested from the Office of the Deputy Secretary of Government School Education (OGSE) (17 categories).
4. The documents that were requested were from three institutions; the YZPS, the regional office where YZPS was situated and from the Office of the Deputy Secretary of Government School Education (OGSE). There were 103 separate documents or categories of documents held by the entities referred to in the request.
5. Some documents were released completely and other documents were partially released.
6. When the matter first came to the Tribunal, sampling of the documents that were denied or only partially released was ordered.
7. In paragraph 7 of the respondent's legal contentions filed at the Tribunal, Ms Richards, who appeared for the respondent, sets out how the sampling was to take place and the circumstances in which the sampling happened -

The respondent filed a list of sample documents with the Tribunal on 18 March 2011. The sample selected comprised 10 documents in 7 categories.

At the compulsory conference on 7 April 2011 the parties reached agreement in relation to categories 1, 6 and 7 in the sample, representing 7 documents in total. There remain 4 categories of documents in dispute, as follows :

(a) Category 2 - Minutes of notes of meetings and conversations at CPS - documents 6 and 7, representing documents 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 49;

(b) Category 3 - Minutes or notes of meeting and telephone conversations involving DEECD officers - document 20, representing documents 18, 19 and 21;

(c) Category 4 - Correspondence and reports concerning investigation of Applicant's complaints to OGSE - documents 22 and 31, representing documents 16, 17, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 34; and

(d) Category 5 - Correspondence between CPS, officers of DEECD, the applicant and others - documents 24 and 40, representing documents 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44, 47 and 48.

The Category 2 sample documents are claimed to be exempt from release under ss 30(1) and 33(1). Part of document 6 is also claimed to be exempt from release under s 35(1)(b).

The Category 3 sample document is claimed to be exempt under ss 30(1) and 33(1).

The Category 4 sample documents are claimed to be exempt under ss 30(1), 33(1) and 35(1)(b).

The Category 5 sample documents are also claimed to be exempt under ss 30(1), 33(1) and 35(1)(b).

1. Further, at the commencement of the hearing, it was agreed that where there was more than one sample of a document in a category of documents (categories 2, 4 and 5), if I was of the view that the second document did not take the position any further, then I would only need to look at one document in each category.

1. In early 2008, the applicant and his wife enrolled their female child in the preparatory class of YZPS. The applicant described himself as a house father who worked a few shifts per week as a part time projectionist but otherwise devoted the rest of his time to household duties and looking after his child, while his wife went out to work. It is noted that later in 2008, the applicant's wife gave birth to a second child.
2. At the time of enrolling his daughter into YZPS or shortly thereafter, the applicant volunteered to perform duties in relation to a number of functions conducted by the school. These functions included helping in the canteen, helping with a walking bus ie the children walking to school rather than being bussed or driven, the school council, working bees etc. As a result, the applicant spent a lot of his time at the school. Further, it should be noted that he knew a number of students at the school, as he had previously met them when his daughter attended a nearby crèche.
3. It is noted that the first difficulties between the applicant and the principal of YZPS commenced in February 2008, when the applicant questioned the school's "Sun Smart" policy. In March 2008, the principal received a number of verbal complaints made by other parents, suggesting that the applicant was being "over familiar" with the children at YZPS. I understand that there were two meetings between the applicant and the school principal in regard to these matters and the applicant was asked to "tone it down" and then returned to his volunteered duties.
4. On or about 12 April 2008, complaints were made by a parent that the applicant had sexually interfered with a female student or students. Further complaints followed on Saturday 14 April 2008. Eventually, there were some 30 allegations made against the applicant, which allegations alleged sexual abuse in relation to children at the school.
5. There was a meeting between the principal and the parents making the allegations on 10 April 2008. The applicant alleges that after that meeting, the principal sent those making the allegations home to think about the matter. There were further allegations made on 12 April of a similar nature against the applicant. He was notified of these allegations by the principal on that day, and was also told that a parent had complained to the police. As a result, he went home to wait for the police to arrive. He also agreed to absent himself from his volunteer duties at the school.
6. The applicant and his wife gave evidence that when the police arrived, he was treated far differently and more suspiciously than he would have been treated, had he not known of the allegations. The applicant maintains that the principal should have reported these allegations to the police at the first possible opportunity after the allegations were made. The applicant also states that when the police arrived, they suggested that he had disposed of evidence.
7. In any event, the applicant was taken to the police station and questioned.
8. It is worth noting that on 12 and 14 April 2008, the principal had telephone conversations in relation to the allegations. The notes of these telephone conversations are contained in documents 6 and 7 which are the sample documents of category 2. Ms Ramus in her statement states :

The notes record, among other things, advice sought from and provided by officers of DEECD (Department of Education and Early Childhood Development). Their release would disclose information in the nature of opinion, advice or recommendation, or regarding the consultation or deliberation that has taken place between officers of the school and central office.

1. While the police were investigating the allegations, the applicant voluntarily absented himself from the school. However, in June 2008, the principal having formed the view that the applicant's behaviour had not moderated, formalised a trespass order that excluded him from the school activities for one year.
2. As previously stated, the allegations were investigated by both the police and the Department of Human Services (DOHS). As a result of DOHS being notified, restrictions were placed on the applicant in relation to his new born child.
3. Eventually, DOHS formed the view that the applicant was not a risk to children and Victoria Police decided not to prosecute the matter. In a letter to the applicant dated 28 August 2008, the police wrote :

Police found that the allegations could not be substantiated and there was insufficient evidence to submit a Brief Of Evidence therefore Police will not be pursuing a prosecution in this matter this time.

1. By letter of 16 August 2010, the Acting Deputy Secretary of OGSE, Dr Brown, wrote to the applicant and inter alia stated as follows :

In relation to your ongoing involvement with YZPS, both the School Council and the Department have concerns about your continuing actions, which are now considered to be of an unreasonable nature and to have a seriously negative and divisive effect on the school community. Your ongoing constant communication with the Department staff in various areas is also consuming an unreasonable and disproportionate amount of staff time ....

• drop your daughter at school and collect her at the end of the day or when otherwise required;
• attend special parent events such as school concerts and award nights;
• attend parent-teacher interviews by appointment;
• attend other school meetings of groups of which you are a member;
• observe school assemblies;
• participate in school working bees.

• participate in any school volunteer activities involving direct contact with children other than you own children;
• attend at the school for any purpose other than those listed above.

1. On 24 March 2009, the applicant made a complaint to Mr Darrell Fraser, Department Secretary for OGSE. The complaint consists of 24 pages of very close typing and goes into great detail. At the beginning of the complaint, the applicant summarised the allegations as follows :
   • The Principal of the school did on 3 occasions FAIL to MANDATORILY report an allegation of Child Sexual Assault that supposedly happened on the school grounds during school hours.
   • The Principal questioned my 5 year old daughter alone whilst she was under the protection of a DHS order in an attempt to gain information from my daughter to use against me and that she told my 5 year old daughter NOT to tell anyone about the conversation or she would deny it.
   • The Principal did attempt to coerce an officer of the DHS to convince her to retract or go back on a decision made by the DHS affecting this case and was cautioned by the DHS officer to watch what she was saying because it came perilously close to slandering me.
   • The Principal has by abusing powers given to her by legislation placed a trespass ban on me preventing me for normal interactions at the school and placing undue stress and strain on our family.
   • The Principal has followed a PATTERN of poor behaviour towards myself and my family and has at every turn been vindictive and bullying and has acted in a way unbecoming the position she holds.
   • The Principal did threaten me in front of a witness, has bullied and coerced parents, has failed to maintain order at the school by allowing school yard gossip to persist and actually taken actions that allowed this gossip to commence and continue
   • The Principal has prevented me from attending Parent Teacher nights and school concerts as well as School Council meetings and activities and has implemented a volunteer policy at the school that is discriminatory and unworkable.
   • The Principal is discriminating against me using her powers improperly and is continuing to do so.
   • The Regional Director of the ... Regional Office and other staff in that office have mishandled this case, refusing to take the case onboard and investigate our claims, transferring staff preventing us access to them, taking sides with the principal without listening to our information and failing to prevent the escalation of the case.
   • The Regional Director of the ... Regional Office appears to be uninterested in resolving this problem and only interested in protecting their name and the Principal.
2. On 22 October 2008, a letter was sent to the applicant's wife modifying the trespass order and stating :

The school is prepared to modify the operation of the original warning so as to enable AB to now attend family events to which all other parents have been invited. The school would therefore be happy for AB to attend the Art Show with the family as well as any Christmas concert or function which might be held.

1. On 20 April 2009, the applicant lodged an additional complaint stating inter alia :

We (the applicant and his wife) find it totally reprehensible for the Regional Director to enter into or complete a new contract with the Principal of YZPS ...

1. As a result of the complaints, the respondent engaged an independent investigator, Gregg Gibbs, to consider the allegations and provide an investigation report. As a result of the investigation, a report was provided by Mr Gibbs to the Deputy Secretary of OGSE.
2. While the applicant was not provided with Mr Gibbs' report, he was sent a letter dated 13 July 2009 advising him of the outcome of the investigations in relation to each of the allegations that he had made. It should be noted that subsequently, pursuant to the applicant's freedom of information request, the applicant was provided with Mr Gibbs' report in part with other parts being redacted save and except that Mr Gibbs by and large found that the applicant's complaints were unfounded. Therefore, I do not intend to go into detail about the findings that are referred to in the letter sent to the applicant on 13 July 2009. However, in relation to allegation 3, which occupied considerable time during the hearing, I think it is worthwhile to set out what was contained in that letter -

On three occasions, the principal failed to lodge a mandatory report of an alleged sexual assault on the school grounds during school hours against students ...

The police investigation did not find any evidence to substantiate the allegations of sexual assault made against AB on 12 April. The school inquiries did not substantiate that AB had any physical contact with the female students as alleged by the parents on 10, 11 April.

The concerns expressed by parents on 10 and 11 April had been confined to 'over familiar' interactions with children and did not warrant a mandatory report by the Principal. The Principal acted in accordance with the required reporting procedures after being informed of the allegation to police by ... on Saturday 12 April.

I find that the allegation is not supported by the evidence.

1. The applicant was not satisfied with the investigation and thus made further reports to the Ombudsman and launched this freedom of information proceeding. I understand the Ombudsman has found that the complaints were not justified.
2. It should be noted that in relation to the above matters, the applicant stated that he has sent to the respondent's officers documents including letters and emails numbering between 100 and 110 documents. Many of these documents go for copious number of pages and are very closely typed and, as a consequence, I find would have taken somebody a considerable amount of time to read and digest these documents and provide an answer. I also note that the applicant said that many of his email documents were not nearly as long and as a consequence would have taken a much shorter time to read.

1. Ms Price, counsel for the applicant, referred me to a number of general statutory provisions and Parliamentary debates concerning the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the Act). In particular, she referred me to statements of the Premier Mr Cain in Parliament relating to the individual's right to know, the government being open to public scrutiny and accountable to the people.
2. Ms Price also referred to the objects of the Act contained in s 3 and the right to obtain access to documents in s 13.
3. The exemptions claimed by the respondent relating to the relevant documents are ss 30(1), 33(1), 35(1) and 50(4). Those provisions relevantly read as follows :

(1) Subject to this section, a document is an exempt document if it is a document the disclosure of which under this Act -

(a) would disclose matter in the nature of opinion, advice or recommendation prepared by an officer or Minister, or consultation or deliberation that has taken place between officers, Ministers, or an officer and a Minister, in the course of, or for the purpose of, the deliberative processes involved in the functions of an agency or Minister or of the government; and

(2) In the case of a document of the kind referred to in section 8(1), the matter referred to in subsection (1)(a) of this section does not include matter that is provided for the use or guidance of, or is used or may be used for, the purpose of making decisions or recommendations, or enforcing enactments or schemes, referred to in section 8(1).

(3) This section does not apply to a document by reason only of purely factual material contained in the document.

(1) A document is an exempt document if its disclosure under this Act would involve the unreasonable disclosure of information relating to the personal affairs of any person (including a deceased person).

(2A) An agency or Minister, in deciding whether the disclosure of a document under this Act would involve the unreasonable disclosure of information relating to the personal affairs of any person, must take into account, in addition to any other matters, whether the disclosure of the information would, or would be reasonably likely to, endanger the life or physical safety of any person.

information relating to the personal affairs of any person includes information -

(a) that identifies any person or discloses their address or location; or

(b) from which any person's identity, address or location can reasonably be determined.

35 Documents containing material obtained in confidence

(1) A document is an exempt document if its disclosure under this Act would divulge any information or matter communicated in confidence by or on behalf of a person or a government to an agency or a Minister, and -

(a) the information would be exempt matter if it were generated by an agency or a Minister; or

(b) the disclosure of the information under this Act would be contrary to the public interest by reason that the disclosure would be reasonably likely to impair the ability of an agency or a Minister to obtain similar information in the future.

(4) On the hearing of an application for review the Tribunal shall have, in addition to any other power, the same powers as an agency or a Minister in respect of a request, including power to decide that access should be granted to an exempt document (not being a document referred to in section 28, section 29A, section 31(3), or in section 33) where the Tribunal is of opinion that the public interest requires that access to the document should be granted under this Act

1. In relation to this category, document 7 does not take document 6 any further, save and except that if the only exemption that applied to document 6 was s 35, then document 7 would be released.
2. Denise Ramus, Assistant Regional Director Operations, ... Region of the respondent, made the major statement for the respondent in this proceeding and gave oral evidence and was cross-examined. At paragraph 29 of her statement, she described documents 6 and 7 as follows :

Documents 6 and 7 are the sample documents in this category, and are handwritten notes made by the Principal of YZPS detailing telephone conversations and meetings held on 12 April and 14 April 2008 respectively. The documents are claimed to be exempt from release under ss 30(1) and 33(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 and, in the case of document 6, under s 35(1) of the Act.

1. To qualify for an exemption pursuant to s 30 of the Act, the document first must be in the nature of opinion, advice or recommendation prepared by an officer or minister or consultation or deliberation that has taken place between the officer ... in the course of or for the purpose of the deliberation process ... and secondly, the release would be contrary to the public interest.
2. Sub-section (3) provides that the exemption does not apply to a document by reason only of purely factual material.
3. On examination of these documents, it is clear that as well as factual material, which I will deal with below, the documents both provide opinion, and were made for the purpose of discussing the situation with either other departmental officers or employees at the school. It is also clear on their face that the documents do contain opinion that has been formed and inserted in the documents as a result of consultation and deliberation within the meaning of the section. Thus, I am satisfied that at least as to part, the documents come within s 30(1)(a) of the Act.
4. The next matter that must be considered is whether release of these documents would be "contrary to public interest" pursuant to s 30(1)(b). The approach usually taken in assessing the public interest pursuant to s 30(1)(b), was conveniently summarised by Judge Fagan in Re Hulls and Victorian Casino and Gaming Authority (1998) 12 VAR 483 at 488. His Honour there stated :

Of course in the assessment of public interest under the section, there must be taken into account all factors bearing on the issue of whether disclosure of the document will be contrary to the public interest. The cases give guidance as to the kinds of factors to be taken into account. They include such matters as

• the right of every person to obtain access to documents as provided by s.13 of the Freedom of Information Act

• the degree of sensitivity of the issues involved in the consideration

• the stage of the policy development process at which the communication was made
• whether the disclosure would be likely to inhibit frankness and candour in the making of communications
• whether disclosure would lead to confusion or unnecessary debate having regard to possibilities discussed
• disclosure of documents which give merely a part explanation rather than complete explanation for the taking of a particular decision

(See Re Howard and Treasurer(Cth) [1985] AATA 100; (1985) 3 AAR 169 per Davies J and Re Tanner v Department of Industry Technology and Resources (1987) 2 VAR 65 per Judge Rowlands).

• the likelihood that disclosure of the documents would inhibit the independence of officers or the making of proper and detailed research and submissions by them
• the likelihood that disclosure would create mischief in one way or another such as a risk of mischievous interpretation

(See Re Western Mining Corp v Department of Conservation Forests and Lands (1989) 3 VAR 150).

• the significance of the document eg whether it is or is not merely a draft document

(See Re Brogg v Department of Premier and Cabinet (above), and the Western Mining Corp case (above).

1. Ms Price also referred me to the decision of the then President of the Tribunal, Bell J, in McIntosh v Department of Premier and Cabinet [2009] VCAT 1528 at paragraph 18. His Honour there, when dealing with the public interest considerations in s 30(1), stated as follows -

Under the principles, the application of the public interest in s 30(1)(b) involves a balancing of various considerations. The starting point is the object of the Act in s 3(1), which emphatically recognises the right of the community to access information, limited only by exemptions which protect essential public interests.[1] Those purposes are always directly relevant when considering the public interest, but may be especially strong, and outweigh other aspects of the public interest, where access to the information is necessary to address questions that have acquired a particular importance in the mind of the community

1. Ms Price correctly submitted that the respondent must establish that the release of the documents would be contrary to public interest. She stated that in this particular instance, there are several public interest factors that favour the release of the documents. In particular, she said :

These factors include, but are not limited to, the public interest of ensuring that schools comply with the policy of mandatory reporting of allegations of child abuse, that school communities are provided with accurate information concerning such allegations, that parents are not arbitrarily subject to trespass bans issued by principals, that parents are permitted to participate fully in school activities without bullying, intimidation or undue interference by school authorities, that schools cite policies where those policies actually exist, that men are encouraged to volunteer in schools and are supported in that role, that investigations into schools are conducted in a transparent and accountable manner and that members of the community have trust and faith in the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development.

1. In relation to the submission that the school comply with mandatory reporting matters, I note that the applicant states that the principal should have reported the alleged sexual abuse matters to the police when they first came to her attention on 10 April, rather than waiting until a later time. It is said that if these had been reported earlier, the applicant would have had a chance to clear himself of the allegations at an earlier time by the use of DNA samples or otherwise that may have disappeared by the time they were reported. Also that the police would not have taken a suspicious view of the applicant that he may have destroyed or hidden evidence. That is, they would have come to his place by surprise. It needs to be made clear in relation to the failure to mandatorily report at the first available opportunity, that the investigation found that "the allegation was not supported by the evidence".
2. While it is not for me to determine whether the principal acted properly or otherwise, it does appear that there has been a full investigation into the matter and the parts of the report that are necessary to satisfy a reasonable person that there has been a proper investigation, have been extracted in the letter being exhibit DR3 to Ms Ramus' witness statement which letter has been signed by Darrell Fraser being the Deputy Secretary OGSE on 13 July 2009.
3. In relation to the allegation that is in the public interest that the "school communities are provided with accurate information concerning such allegations", it is quite apparent to me that a considerable amount of the material that is necessary to give the school community confidence that they have been provided with accurate information are contained in the materials that have been released. In my view, the release of documents 6 and 7 would add little to what is known already about the allegations that were made. The minutia of the detail to which the documents go into would do nothing other than cause embarrassment and be unsettling in the school community.
4. Ms Price was also concerned on behalf of her client that the parents, and in particular the applicant, had been subject to an arbitrary trespass ban. At page 6 in relation to allegation 6 of the said letter of 13 July 2009 by Mr Fraser, it is noted that the investigator makes it clear that the principal acted within her authority in relation to the trespass bans. The investigator stated -

It is my finding that the Principal did act within her delegated authority and in accordance with Order 165 and Executive Memorandum No: 97/041

I find that the Principal's actions were reasonable in the circumstances and she did not abuse her powers.

1. With an investigator having made a finding of this nature, in my view, it would be wrong to say, as Ms Price has, that the trespass ban was "arbitrary". It is also noted that difficulties with the applicant and principal occurred prior to the sexual allegations being made. That is, I have already referred to two meetings between the applicant and the principal in March 2008, when the applicant was asked "to tone it down". Thus, it is quite apparent that, in this particular situation, it simplifies the matter far too much to say that the trespass bans were put on the applicant merely because of the sexual allegations against him, although they may have been the reasons that he voluntarily excluded himself from the school grounds in April 2008.
2. It is also noted that in relation to the school bans, the investigator found that the principal had acted appropriately.
3. In relation to the volunteer bans that were imposed upon the applicant and his wife, I do not believe that the release of the documents would add to the debate on this matter. In fact, in my view, they would serve to confuse the debate more than it is already. It should also be noted that the allegation about banning volunteer work has been investigated by Mr Gibbs. The extract from the report contained in Mr Fraser's letter makes it clear that -

It was evident that the Principal continued to have concerns about complaints raised prior to April and decided to continue the notice beyond August albeit with some modifications.

In response to AB's allegation that this action was discriminatory, I do not consider the Principal's decision was made through prejudice and she made her decision clear in her letters to AB.

1. Thus, I have come to the conclusion that the release of these documents would not assist in the public debate concerning the ban on volunteering.
2. In relation to the submission that the release of the documents would assist in the transparency of the events, in my view, releasing the documents would do little to advance the transparency of the issue save and except that the documents themselves would be out in the public domain. I do not believe that the documents would increase trust in relation to the respondent as submitted by Ms Price. In my view, those that trust the respondent in light of the documents that have been released, would continue to trust the respondent and those that would be suspicious of the respondent's action would continue to be suspicious even if the documents were released. In relation to the matter of trust, I do not believe that the release of these documents would take the matter any further.
3. Thus, in my view, weighing the balance in this particular instance, I am of the view that insofar as documents 6 and 7 relate to the matters contained in s 30(1)(a), that the release of those documents would be contrary to the public interest.
4. However, as I have already stated, documents 6 and 7 do not in their entirety contain matters referred to in s 30(1)(a), that is, "disclose matters in the nature of opinion, advice or recommendation". Some of the matters are purely factual as referred to in s 30(3).
5. Ms Richards on behalf of the respondent submitted that those matters that were not caught by the exemption in s 30 were in fact exempt pursuant to s 33.

Section 33 - Personal Information

1. In relation to both documents in category 2, it is clear upon reading the documents that that part of the document that is not covered by s 30 of the Act, contains personal information within the first test of s 33, that is, information relating to personal affairs that concerns or affects a person as an individual. I also note the provision of s 33(9) of the Act. I note at this point that notices pursuant to s 53A of the Act were sent to a number of individuals whose personal information is contained in these documents.
2. In response to that notice, an overwhelming amount of the individuals who received the notice have expressed the view that they do not want their personal information to be released.
3. After having dealt with the question of whether the information in the documents is personal information as defined by the Act, the more difficult question is whether the release of that information would be "unreasonable".
4. The authorities make clear that in order to decide whether the release of the information would be unreasonable, a balancing exercise must be conducted. See Page v Metropolitan Transit Authority (1988) 2 VAR 243 at 245-246 -

I first turn to the exemption claimed under s 33(1) of the Act. A person's name and address relate to his personal affairs; Re Simons and Victorian Egg Marketing Board (No 1) (1985) 1 VAR 54 at 55; Re Solaci and Ombudsman (1987) 1 VAR 46 at 469. What therefore has to be decided is whether disclosure of this information would be unreasonable. This requires a balancing of interests: the right to personal privacy of an individual whose personal affairs may be unreasonably disclosed by granting access to the information and the object of the Act to extend as far as possible the right of the community to access to information in the possession of the Government or Agencies: Penhalluriack v Department of Labour and Industry (County Ct, Lazarus J, 19 December 1983, p 45 unreported); Re Chandra and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs 1984) 6 ALN 257 at 259. More particularly, this balancing of interests requires a consideration of all the circumstances, including the interest that the applicant has in the information in question, the nature of the information that would be disclosed, the circumstances in which the information was obtained, the likelihood of the information being information that the person concerned would not wish to have disclosed without consent, and whether the information has any current relevance. It is apparent that the purpose of s 33(1) of the Act is to prevent the unreasonable invasion of the privacy of third parties: Chandra's case (supra).

1. It is also important to look at whether the personal information supplied would be likely to cause apprehension of harm or harassment in the mind of a person whose personal information will be disclosed. See Akers v Victoria Police [203] VCAT 397 at 43. Also relevant, is the motive of the person that is seeking the information. That is, whether the person is going to use the information for his or her private use or whether the information will be disseminated to the public at large. In paragraphs 35 to 36 inclusive of her witness statement, Ms Ramus sets out her reasons for believing that the release of the information contained in the category 2 documents would be unreasonable. In those paragraphs she states as follows :

The notes contain information about the personal affairs of people other than the applicant, in particular students and parents. The information contained in the documents includes details not readily available to others, and was documented as part of the initial response to an ongoing situation at the school. The purpose of these notes was to assist the principal to make considered decisions in the best interests of those involved in or affected by the circumstances in question.

If information provided in confidence at meetings or in conversations is disclosed to other parties, in future people will be less likely to provide the full and frank information required to address and resolve complex situations involving students, parents, school council members and DEECD employees.

The disclosure of this information is unnecessary and unreasonable, and will lead to stress and anxiety for those concerned. Further, disclosure will significantly compromise the integrity of the processes undertaken by the principal to effectively manage this matter in particular, and similar situations in the future.

Every student, parent and DEECD employee should be able to go about their lives and work without the ongoing hindrance and interference demonstrated by the applicant to date. The disclosure of the documents in question would further encourage his unreasonable demands.

1. As far as the applicant is concerned in relation to the question of unreasonableness as used in s 33 of the Act, he relies upon the public interest matters which I have referred to in dealing with s 30 above. He also says that he was told that certain matters were done because of policy but on occasions that policy did not exist. He says that it is in the public interest that information be obtained to show why he was misled in these matters.
2. On examination of these documents, I have come to the conclusion that in relation to the personal information contained therein, the public interest motive of the applicant would not be satisfied. Put another way, that information would not assist the applicant or the public in relation to the "right to know".
3. Further, it seems very likely that the information contained in these documents would have been provided on the basis that the information would remain confidential. It is well known by most in the community and in particular parents with children at school that those parents can have discussions with the child's teacher or principal in full confidence that the information they disclose will remain confidential.
4. Ms Price, on behalf of the applicant, submits that her client is likely to know the names of those persons involved and therefore giving him the information would not alter the position of those persons. The applicant may or may not know the names of the persons involved, however, if he were able to obtain the names of the persons concerned in the document, the question then may be asked what would he do with that information and what would be his likely reaction and the likely reaction of the persons whose personal information is contained in the documents?
5. In my view, having read the documentation in this proceeding and heard the applicant in the witness box, he would use his best endeavours to circulate this information as widely as possible and not just keep it for his own personal use. For example, in his grounds of public interest statement file with the Tribunal, in paragraph 4, he stated :
   1. The Public Interest in members of the Victorian public being aware of all issues surrounding sensitive issues such as the reporting and management of allegations of sexual assault on children in order to -
      • participate fully in community debate on the effectiveness of processes;
      • make informed decisions about situations influenced or affected by public policies and procedures;
      • make an informed assessment of potential risk to themselves or their family or community about the reporting and investigation of allegations that may be made against them - or which they may seek to make about other people.

What has happened to me may at some time happen to others - to anyone. ...

1. The position here is very different from the position in Victoria Police v Marke [2008] VSCA 218; (2008) 23 VR 223, where there was no indication that the applicant intended to disseminate the documents to a large number of people or anyone at all. In that case, it was made clear that if the documents had been applied for by a newspaper reporter, the situation may have been very different. I accept the submission of Ms Richards, who appeared on behalf of the respondent, that it is likely that the applicant will leave no stone unturned to establish his innocence in this matter. He has already contacted a member of Parliament and is likely to attempt to contact members of the media.
2. Thus I find that the applicant would be likely to disseminate this information as far and wide throughout the community as he was able.
3. It is also likely that the applicant may use this information to harass the persons concerned. While I have the utmost sympathy for the applicant's position of being accused of very serious matters of which both the police and the DOHS decided not to proceed any further, that does not change the fact that he seems to have a propensity for sending various documents to a large number of people, which documents are extremely lengthy. As I have mentioned previously, he has sent out approximately 100 to 110 documents to the respondent and its various sub-branches. Many of these documents I have seen and they are of extraordinary length and detail where much shorter documents or no document would have sufficed. It may well be that the applicant does not consider that he is harassing people by the use of these documents. However, when the person who receives these documents must read them in detail and provide an answer, it then becomes clear that valuable time of others is being taken up. Further, it is quite likely that documents such as these are likely to have a very upsetting effect on those receiving them as well as wasting a lot of time. The effect of the persons receiving long and lengthy documents which is likely would happen, is in fact harassment.
4. Ms Price has submitted that the personal information contained in the document could be redacted and the non-redacted document released. However, the non personal information insofar as it relates to s 33 is so intertwined with other parts of the document, that redaction would not be an option.
5. Thus I find that the personal information contained in the document pursuant to s 33 of the Act is exempt.

Relationship between section 33 and section 30 of the Act

1. Looking at these category 2 documents as a whole, both while neither s 30 nor s 33 of the Act encompasses the entire document, when put together those two sections do in fact cover the whole document. Thus, subject to s 50(4) of the Act, which I will consider below, in relation to s 30, the exemption in relation to category 2 documents has been made out.

1. It should be noted the author (Jason Pizer) of Victorian Administrative Law at paragraph [FOI.35.40] refers to a number of criteria that needs to be considered in relation to s 35. He states as follows :

Ten points may be made about the expression 'information or matter communicated in confidence'.

First, whether information or matter has been communicated in confidence is a question of fact. It is not necessary to consider whether legal obligations of confidence are set up by the communication in question. ...

Second, a form confidentiality agreement is not required to establish that the information or matter was communicated in confidence. Nor is it necessary to establish an oral agreement. Rather, the 'understanding of the party communicating and the circumstances surrounding the communication or the very nature of the information may be sufficient in themselves'. ...

Fifth, the word 'information' is not confined to factual information. The exemption does not distinguish between reliable information and misinformation - the truth or untruth of the information is immaterial. ...

Sixth, it has been held that information is not protected under s 35 if it has been disclosed on commercial television and is thus 'in the public arena'. ...

Seventh, s 35(1)(b) applies to information communicated to an agency 'not only by outsiders but also by its own officers' ...

Eighth, s 35(1)(b) is not confined to documents that themselves convey the information or matter communicated in confidence to an agency; the section extends to documents the disclosure of which would divulge such information or matter. ...

Ninth, information may still be regarded as being communicated in confidence if the person giving the information is told (or it is otherwise the case) that the information they provide is not, or may not be, absolutely confidential. ...

And tenth, the VCAT has held that information is still regarded as being provided in confidence for the purposes of the exemption even if :

• The information is obtained by one person during an internal investigation and is later provided to others involved in that investigation ...
• The information is obtained during an internal investigation and is passed on to others involved in a different investigation, such as an investigation conducted by the police ...

1. Ms Ramus in her witness statement at paragraphs 37 to 40 inclusive sets out why she believes document 6 to be covered by the exemption in s 35(1)(b), as follows -

Document 6 records a particularly sensitive communication by a parent to the Principal. It can be inferred from the subject matter of the communication that it was made in confidence.

It is vital that there is continued open and trustful communication from teachers, students and parents to principals and DEECD officers and other relevant parties, about any matter that might affect the good order and safe environment of a school. The provision to the applicant of information obtained in confidence, as part of the deliberative process necessary for the management of the circumstances in question, is unreasonable and will have a negative impact on the capacity to gather similar information in the future.

The situation at the school related to the applicant is likely to be aggravated rather than resolved if confidential communications are made available to him. Parents, DEECD staff and others could reasonably become anxious about the motives of the applicant, thus destabilising the good order of the school.

I therefore consider that disclosure of this information would be likely to impair DEECD's ability to obtain similar information in the future. People are very likely to become wary of providing frank information to assist in the resolution of problems or complaints if that information is subsequently made available to the complainant. The chances of effective resolution of complex situations would diminish accordingly.

1. In relation to document 6, it is clear that the information refers to communications between a parent/s and the principal. By the very nature of the communication, it is clear that it was communicated in confidence. As I have previously stated, communications with parents between parents on the one hand and teachers or principal of a school on the other, is that it is confidential information. It is very important for parents to be able to express a view about their children and other matters at the school in the full knowledge that that information will be kept confidential. Likewise, it is also important that a principal or teacher should be able to communicate matters at the school to a parent with the same confidence of confidentiality. Ms Ramus in her oral evidence referred to the interchange between a parent/teacher/principal as "sacred" when referring to the confidentiality aspect.
2. In my view, it is clear that the information disclosed in document 6 was intended by both those disclosing and those receiving to be in confidence. Further, I hold the view that if this information was released, there may be a real difficulty in future for parents/teachers/principals to have free and frank communications between them and if this exemption was not upheld, those communications would dry up.
3. Thus as to category 2, I conclude that subject to s 50(4), the exemptions have been made out. It should be noted that s 50(4) does not apply to the s 33 exempt part of documents 6 and 7.
4. Thus I conclude that the disclosure of this information would be contrary to the public interest as such disclosure would be reasonably likely to impair the ability of schools to obtain such information in the future.

1. The exemptions claimed in relation to this document are s 30 and s 33. However, Ms Richards in her submissions stated that she could not see any real ground for the s 33 (personal information) exemption to apply. I agree with Ms Richards.
2. Document 20 is a note of a telephone conversation between Ms Ramus and the principal of YZPS. Ms Ramus states at paragraph 42 of her witness statement in relation to document 20 -

The note is a record of consultation and deliberation that took place between me and the principal, and records matter in the nature of opinion, advice and recommendation, in the course of the deliberative processes involved in responding to the situation at YZPS concerning the applicant ...

I consider that it would be contrary to the public interest to disclose this note. It was essential that the principal have unimpeded access to information and frank advice so that she could consider how best to respond. Further, it is important that information about situations such as this one be shared without reservation between DEECD staff, including schools and the Regional Office. The release of this note would undermine the ability of principals to have confidential and frank communications with their Regional Office, and the free flow of information between the schools and Regional Offices.

1. I have already dealt with the legal principles involving s 30 exemption and I will not repeat them.
2. I accept Ms Ramus' description of the document and the matters contained in the quotation set out above. In fact, as Ms Richards pointed out, there was no challenge to these matters in her cross-examination.
3. Insofar as the public interest that is referred to in s 30(1)(b) of the Act, the same considerations apply here as applied to the matters referred to category 2 documents. Therefore, I find that it would be contrary to public interest for document 20 to be released.
4. Thus I conclude that subject to s 50(2), the exemption in relation to document 20 is made out.

1. As document 31 does not take the matters as referred to in document 22 any further, in line with what I have discussed earlier, I will only deal with document 22 and document 31 will be one of those represented in the sample.
2. The exemptions taken by the respondent in relation to document 22 are ss 30, 33 and 35. I have dealt with the law relating to these exemptions above.
3. In relation to category 4 documents, Ms Ramus in her witness statement at paragraphs 45 ff stated -

... They are documents produced in the course of investigating and responding to the applicant's complaints of March and April 2009 ... DEECD provided the applicant with a detailed response to his complaints in July 2009 ...

Both documents are internal working documents, in that they record opinion, advice or recommendation, or consultation or deliberation that has taken place in the course of the deliberative processes involved in investigating and responding to the applicant's complaints.

... it is important that the ability of DEECD officers to investigate complaints concerning Government schools is not hampered by a disclosure of sensitive and confidential communications. The assurance of confidentiality is a feature of DEECD investigations and it would be much more difficult to conduct those investigations if that assurance could not be given.

1. It is to be noted that this document is correspondence and reports concerning the investigation of complaint to the OGSE.
2. It is clear on the face of the document that its context are in the nature of opinion, advice and recommendation prepared by an officer of the respondent for the purpose of consultation and deliberation in the deliberative process of the respondent agency. Thus, I will now need to consider s 30(1)(b), that is whether the release of the document would be contrary to the public interest.
3. In relation to the applicant's claim about the public interest, I refer to what I have said in relation to previous documents and the same equally applies to this document.
4. Mr Gibbs who conducted the investigation to which document 22 relates, in his witness statement makes it clear that the information he obtained which has been transferred to this document was obtained in confidence. Further, he also makes it clear that it would have a detrimental effect on the ability of an agency to obtain this information in future if document 22 was released.
5. At paragraphs 17 to 20 of Gregory Gibbs' statement, he states :

I consider that the disclosure of the documents that relate to my investigation in category 4 would divulge information and matters communicated to me in confidence. (The principal) provided her response to my letter outlining AB's allegations to me on the understanding that her response would be kept confidential and would not be communicated to AB. Her response was sent to my personal email address, because she wanted the information contained in her response to remain confidential.

The same can be said for all of the witnesses I interviewed for the purpose of compiling my report. They all provided me with full and frank answers on the understanding that the confidentiality of their responses would be respected.

Disclosure of the documents for which this exemption has been claimed would be likely to impair my own as well as DEECD's ability to obtain similar information in the future. I believe that if it came to be known that responses given to me or other consultants engaged by DEECD could be released to the complainant or another member of the public, this would deter some people from being witnesses, and assisting in other future investigations. This would undermine my ability to conduct similar investigations in the future and present an obstacle for the resolution of future complaints.

I am concerned that the effect of release of these confidential communications to AB would be a loss of confidence in the integrity of the DEECD investigative process. I am also concerned that such release would have a negative effect on those witnesses who spoke to me in good faith and on the understanding that their responses would be kept confidential.

1. Mr Gibbs has made an important point. He was able to obtain much of his information by either informing those that were giving him such information that it was confidential or by the implication that the giving of information was confidential. To release these documents would have a serious impact on the ability to obtain such information in the future. It is necessary in a community, such as a school community, that people are able to take freely and honestly without concern that what they are saying would become public.
2. Taking into account all the matters referred to by Mr Gibbs in his statement and the matters to which I have referred to above when dealing with other documents, I have come to the conclusion that it would be contrary to the public interest for these documents to be released. In particular, I have formed the view that matters in the interest of transparency and accountability, are far outweighed by the detriment that would in the future be caused if documents containing this type of information were to be released. It is clear to me that the release of this document would have a detrimental effect in obtaining such information in the future. I also note from attachment DR3 to Ms Ramus' statement provides the applicant with considerable information in relation to the investigation and that information would enable the applicant to consider whether the investigation has been appropriate and properly conducted. The release of the further information which the applicant seeks would not assist him a great deal more.
3. Thus I am satisfied that the exemption pursuant to s 30, subject to matters that need to be considered pursuant to s 50(4), has been made out.
4. In relation to the personal affairs exemption, s 33, claimed in relation to document 22, it is clear on the face of the document that it contains considerable personal information of a number of people including teachers and support staff at YZPS and other departmental officers.
5. The release of the information provided by these people would lead to a situation where such information would be likely to dry up in the future. Further, the release of the personal information would be in breach of the confidences that Mr Gibbs has referred to in his statement. Given all these circumstances, it is clear to me that the release of the personal information in this document would be unreasonable. I come to this conclusion after taking into account the matters which I have considered in relation to personal information relating to other documents in this proceeding, including the reasons given by Ms Price as to why her client submitted the documents should be released.
6. Further, although the personal information in this document may be able to be redacted, taking into account the finding I have made about this document in relation to s 30, I do not need to consider what information would be able to be redacted. However, I am of the view that redacting the personal information would leave the document at least in part nonsensical as much of the personal information is intertwined with other matters in the document.
7. In relation to the s 35 exemption claimed in relation to this document, I have already made comments as to both the legal position in relation to s 35 and the position in relation to other documents in this proceeding. As I have already said, in dealing with s 30 insofar as it relates to this document, releasing the information would be breaching the confidentiality, that those giving the information to make the document thought that they were receiving.
8. I have already dealt with the fact that to release the information in this document would be contrary to the public interest referred to in s 30(1)(b). Likewise, for the reasons that I have stated, the release of this document would be contrary to the public interest "by reason that the disclosure would be reasonably likely to impair the ability of the agency to obtain similar information in the future". I add further to that that if this information was released, it would be likely to deter or hinder the conduct of future investigations.
9. Ms Price submitted that Mr Gibbs' evidence that "he was concerned that a person would be discouraged from speaking freely with investigators because they would learn of the disclosure in this case, by word of mouth" was speculative. I do not agree with the submission of Ms Price because Mr Gibbs is an experienced investigator who has worked for many years prior to becoming an investigator in the respondent Department and he is well aware of the practices of the people that are concerned with the Department and conducting investigations. Rather than the information being speculative, it is an opinion that Mr Gibbs has formed on a reasonable and proper ground. Thus, I find subject to s 50(4) that the exemption relating to s 35 has been made out.

1. Both these documents are correspondence between YZPS and officers of DEECD, the applicant and others. I do not believe that considering document 24 separately from document 40 would be of any great advantage. I formed the view that if the exemptions apply to s 40, they would equally apply to document 24. Thus, I will only consider document 40 as a sample document not only those for which the sample stands already but as a sample for document 24.
2. Ms Ramus in her witness statement at paragraph 52 described the nature of the document as follows -

Both documents (24 and 40) contain opinion, advice or recommendation, or consultation or deliberation that has taken place in the course of the deliberative processes involved in investigating and responding to the applicant's email of 18 March 2010.

1. It is noted that in relation to document 40 that email from the applicant has been released in part. It is in response to that email that has not been released and forms the disputed part of the document. The exemptions claimed in relation to document 40 are ss 30, 33 and 35.
2. In Ms Richards' submissions, she described the document in more detail than did Ms Ramus in her witness statement. Ms Richards stated -

Document 40 has been released in part - the part released being the email from the applicant to the president of the school council dated 18 March 2010. This is a typically lengthy communication raising numerous serious issues, including an allegation of conflict of interest on the part of the school council president, a complaint about the president's conduct at a school council meeting and queries about the president's effectiveness in and ongoing suitability for the position.

The documents are internal working documents created in the course of the deliberative processes involved in investigating and responding to the applicant's email of 18 March 2010.

1. At paragraph 56 of Ms Ramus' witness statement, she correctly refers to the importance of respecting confidence of communication in situations like the present. She states :

Information or matters communicated between DEECD Officers, schools and other interested parties (for example, the School Council President) is communicated in confidence with the view that exchanges can be full and frank in order to obtain the most appropriate and relevant information in order to manage a very sensitive situation in a school where positive and constructive relationships are absolutely paramount to the success and effective operation of that school. Again, it is important that the confidence of such communications is respected, to ensure the free flow of information to DEECD staff in relation to the interests of children and their education. Release of the communication would inhibit the free flow of information in the future.

1. I agree with the points that she makes in relation to this matter.
2. Like other documents in this proceeding, this documents falls within s 30(1). Therefore, s 30(1)(a) is satisfied.
3. In relation to the public interest provisions in s 30(1)(b), although this document does not contain communications with parents, it does contain important matters of a confidential nature that are to be discussed between employees of the school and administrators including the president of the school council. I have taken into account above the matters of public interest urged by Ms Price referred to above in paragraph 37 hereof and the views I have expressed about those matters. In spite of those matters, in my view, the balance of the public interest weighs very strongly on document 40 not being released. To release such document, in my view, is likely to inhibit free discussion and deliberation in relation to matters affecting the school or affecting issues that may arise between students and parents. It is important that such deliberation, including opinions expressed, be made without having to be constrained with the thought that they may be released to the public or a person who might be seeking these documents, such as the applicant.
4. For reasons I have stated in relation to the public interest, equally apply to this document. Therefore, s 30(1) subject to s 50(4) has been made out.
5. This document does contain personal information within the meaning of s 33. That personal information is such for the reasons stated in relation to other documents, it would be unreasonable to release the same. However, as with documents in category 2, it may be possible to redact in parts the personal information from this document. However, as part of that personal information is intertwined with other information, it would be difficult to redact the document in parts. Insofar as other parts of the documents are concerned, I have already found that that document is exempt pursuant to s 30(1). Therefore, insofar as this document contains some personal information, that parts of the document that contain that information are exempt. They are also exempt as the documents contain information communicated in confidence pursuant to s 35(1)(b) of the Act.
6. Insofar as the public interest is concerned, as described in s 35(1)(b), for the purposes of this exemption, the same matters apply to that as I have referred to in s 30(1)(b).
7. Thus, this document is exempt, subject to s 50(4).

Public Interest Override s 50(4)

1. It should be noted that insofar as I have found the documents in part are exempt pursuant to s 33, s 50(4) does not apply to those parts of documents.
2. It should also be noted that I have set out above the grounds of public interest that the applicant relies upon earlier in this decision and I do not believe it is necessary for me to repeat them. They apply equally to s 50(4) as they do apply to s 30(1)(b) and 35(1)(b).
3. It is clear from the cases in particular Osland v Secretary, Department of Justice [No 2] [2010] CLR 320 per French CJ, Gummow and Bell JJ at paragraph 14, that in order to override the exemption, the Tribunal needs to identify a high threshold of public interest before the power could be exercised. It is not sufficient that access to the document is justified in the public interest. At paragraph 14, it is stated by their Honours in the High Court as follows :

The power to grant access on public interest grounds is not, in terms, vested in the relevant Minister or agency. By virtue of s 16 they retain their freedom to grant access to exempt documents. Rather, it is a power included in the powers conferred on the Tribunal. In this respect it is unique in freedom of information legislation in Australia. It has been called a 'significant and exceptional' power and 'a most extraordinary provision'. These epithets do not justify its characterisation, propounded by the Secretary, as a power to be exercised only in 'exceptional circumstances'. Those words are not in the statutory text. Their use may misdirect the inquiry required by s 50(4). They may be taken erroneously to limit the range of matters relevant to the public interest. Nor do they sit easily with the proper approach to the construction of the FOI Act, which is to 'further, rather than hinder, free access to information' under it. Having said that, it must be accepted that the word 'requires', which appears in s 50(4) directs the decision-maker to identify a high-threshold public interest before the power can be exercised. It is not enough that access to the documents could be justified in the public interest. The terminology of the sub-section does not define a rule so much as an evaluative standard requiring restraint in the exercise of the power. It is, like many common law standards, 'predicated on fact-value complexes, not on mere facts', to be applied by the decision-maker.

1. It is also noted that for s 50(4) to be invoked, it must be demonstrated that there is some public interest imperative, that demands or necessitates the release of the documents. See Secretary to Department of Premier and Cabinet v Hulls [1999] VSCA 117; [1999] 15 VAR 360, 372-4 per Phillips JA.
2. Ms Price submitted that the applicant had demonstrated a public interest sufficient to bring this matter within s 50(4) of the Act. She referred to the grounds of public interest contained in the applicant's public interest grounds which were filed at the Tribunal -
   1. The Public Interest in members of the Victorian public being aware of, and able to access information about situations involving government agencies that have seriously impacted on themselves and their family.
   2. The Public Interest in members of the Victorian public understanding who within the public sector has made decisions that profoundly affect their capacity to live a normal and peaceful life, to provide closure to family and to ensure open government, transparency of decision making and improved accountability by public servants.
   3. The Public Interest in improving public scrutiny of government programs and processes and extending public understanding of the policies and assumptions, checks and balances that underpin those programs and processes.
   4. The Public Interest in members of the Victorian public being aware of all issues surrounding sensitive issues such as the reporting and management of allegations of sexual assault on children in order to -
      • Participate fully in community debate on the effectiveness of processes;
      • Make informed decisions about situations influenced or affected by public policies and procedures;
      • Make an informed assessment of potential risk to themselves or their family or community about the reporting and investigation of allegations that may be made against them - or which they may seek to make about other people.
3. Ms Price also stated :

In addition to this written statement the Tribunal may also infer public interest considerations from the facts presented to the Tribunal. The applicant and (his wife) each spoke passionately about the public interest issues raised in this matter. They identified the importance of the mandatory reporting scheme, the ability of parents to participate in school life, the requirement that trespass bans are used appropriately within schools, that the respondent cites policies where those policies actually exist, and the overriding principle that Department of Education and Early Childhood Development act in a transparent and accountable manner. These public interest issues are relevant to the applicant as an individual, but they are also broader public interest issues affecting all students, parents, teachers and the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. Therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant only raises a private interest.

1. A lot of these matters have been previously dealt with in relation to the public interest provisions in s 30 and s 35. those matters apply equally to the present consideration pursuant to s 50(4).
2. Further, it should be noted that as well as the applicant's complaints being investigated by Mr Gibbs and found wanting, the Ombudsman has also investigated the applicant's complaint and has declined to take any action.
3. Further, on examination of the documents, I have formed the view that release of the documents will not in substance assist in achieving what the applicant believes are the public interest grounds for the release of the documents. Put another way, the release of the documents will not, in any way, assist in the public debate about the way in which the respondent and government schools and YZPS in particular run their affairs.
4. At page 48 of the respondent's submissions, Ms Richards makes what I find to be a valid submission in support of the respondent's case that the release of these documents would be detrimental to the public interest. She states as follows :

However, release would harm the public interest in the ways identified by Mr Gibbs and Ms Ramus. In particular release would :

(a) undermine the practice of confidential communications between Department staff by disclosing those communications.

(b) undermine the integrity of the Department's deliberative processes by disclosing the consideration of possible courses of action in response to a sensitive situation in a primary school

(c) inhibit the making of confidential communications by children and parents to Department staff by disclosing those communications

(d) hamper the ability of Department staff to receive and investigate complaints concerning Government schools;

(e) break confidences by disclosing confidential information provided by children and parents to Department staff, and by witnesses interviewed by Mr Gibbs during his investigation;

(f) provide further opportunity for the applicant to misinterpret information provided to him and to reagitate issues that have already been investigated and determined.

1. I agree with the submissions of Ms Richards and am of the view that the damage referred to in those submissions would be likely to happen if these documents were released. And I also agree with her conclusion at paragraph 49 of the respondent's submission which states :

The applicant's interest in the documents is essentially a private interest. He and his wife do not accept the decisions of the principal to restrict his access to and volunteering at the school, nor do they accept the conclusions of the respondent and Mr Gibbs that the principal acted reasonably, nor do they accept the Ombudsman's conclusion that nothing had been done wrong. They seek to understand the basis on which these decisions have been made - at the cost of the personal privacy of others, and regardless of the impact on the free flow of information between parents and schools, between schools and the Department, and to those charged with the investigation of complaints. In truth they have had many opportunities to understand these decisions but have resolutely refused to accept the validity of the reasons put forward.

1. It necessarily follows that the public interest does not require the release of these documents and as such the public interest override in s 50(4) does not apply.

1. In relation to each of the category of documents, to which I have been asked to rule, I have formed the view that the exemptions have been made out and the respondent's decision will be affirmed.

[1] McKinnon v Secretary, Department of Treasury [2006] HCA 45; (2006) 228 CLR 423, [19].