• The application must be balanced against the principles set down in s 71(2)(a), (b) and (c) (collectively, the mandatory principles);
• The Applicant has not led any evidence or made submissions which demonstrates why the information is confidential or the consequences of publication. Nor has it explained how any claim for confidentiality should be balanced against the mandatory principles
• The evidence is relevant to the Tribunal's reasons and will assist the public in understanding the reasons, and
• The Applicant did not make any application for this evidence to be made confidential despite including it in the Applicant's SFIC [1.15].

The application is refused for the following reasons:

• The application must be balanced against the principles set down in s 71(2)(a), (b) and (c) (collectively, the mandatory principles);
• The Applicant has not led any evidence or made submissions which demonstrates why the information is confidential or the consequences of publication. Nor has it explained how any claim for confidentiality should be balanced against the mandatory principles;
• The evidence is relevant to the Tribunal's reasons and will assist the public in understanding the reasons; and
• The Applicant did not make any application for this evidence to be made confidential when submitting the Applicant's financial statements to the Tribunal as evidence.

The application is refused for the following reasons:

• The application must be balanced against the principles set down in s 71(2)(a), (b) and (c) (collectively, the mandatory principles);
• The Applicant has not led any evidence or made submissions which demonstrates why the information is confidential or the consequences of publication. Nor has it explained how any claim for confidentiality should be balanced against the mandatory principles;
• The evidence is relevant to the Tribunal's reasons and will assist the public in understanding the reasons; and
• The Applicant did not previously make any application for this evidence to be made confidential.

The application is refused for the following reasons:

• The application must be balanced against the principles set down in s 71(2)(a), (b) and (c) (collectively, the mandatory principles);
• The Applicant has not led any evidence or made submissions which demonstrates why the information is confidential or the consequences of publication. Nor has it explained how any claim for confidentiality should be balanced against the mandatory principles;
• The evidence proposed to be published is relevant to the Tribunal's reasons and will assist the public in understanding the reasons;
• The Applicant did not make any application for this evidence to be made confidential at the time the evidence was lodged with the Tribunal or prior to the decision being handed down; and
• The first five numbers in the account numbers have already been partially masked to avoid identification of the accounts and any potential misuse.

The application is refused for the following reasons:

• The application must be balanced against the principles set down in s 71(2)(a), (b) and (c) (collectively, the mandatory principles);
• The Applicant has not led any evidence or made submissions which demonstrates why the information is confidential or the consequences of publication. Nor has it explained how any claim for confidentiality should be balanced against the mandatory principles;
• The evidence is relevant to the Tribunal's reasons and will assist the public in understanding the reasons;
• The Applicant did not make any application for this evidence to be made confidential at the time the evidence was lodged with the Tribunal;
• The information does not identify the account numbers; and
• The information is three years out of date.

Information concerning a witness [s 70(1)(b)] Information concerning a party [s 70(1)(b)]

See the item above re the table with the account numbers.

Additionally, the Tribunal notes the information is three years out of date.

Information is confidential in nature [s 71(2)(d)(iii)]

The application is refused for the following reasons:

• The application must be balanced against the principles set down in s 71(2)(a), (b) and (c) (collectively, the mandatory principles);
• The Applicant has not led any evidence or made submissions which demonstrates why the information is confidential or the consequences of publication. Nor has it explained how any claim for confidentiality should be balanced against the mandatory principles;
• The evidence is relevant to the Tribunal's reasons and will assist the public in understanding; and
• The Applicant did not previously make any application for this evidence to be made confidential. This is despite some of it being lodged as part of the Applicant's SFIC.

Information is confidential in nature [s 71(2)(d)(iii)]

Information is confidential in nature [s 71(2)(d)(iii)]

The application is refused for the following reasons:

• The application must be balanced against the principles set down in s 71(2)(a), (b) and (c) (collectively, the mandatory principles);
• The Applicant has not led any evidence or made submissions which demonstrates why the information is confidential or the consequences of publication. Nor has it explained how any claim for confidentiality should be balanced against the mandatory principles;
• The evidence is relevant to the Tribunal's reasons and will assist the public in understanding the reasons;
• The Applicant did not make any application for this evidence to be made confidential despite including some of this information in the Applicant's SFIC; and
• The services described are provided under a Commonwealth program of funding - i.e., via public funds. The Applicant has not established why such information should be treated as confidential when it is reasonable to assume it must be required to report to the Commonwealth on its operations under the grant.

The application is refused for the following reasons:

• The application must be balanced against the principles set down in s 71(2)(a), (b) and (c) (collectively, the mandatory principles);
• The Applicant has not led any evidence or made submissions which demonstrates why the information is confidential or the consequences of publication. Nor has it explained how any claim for confidentiality should be balanced against the mandatory principles;
• The evidence is relevant to the Tribunal's reasons and will assist the public in understanding the reasons;
• The Applicant did not make any application for this evidence to be made confidential; and
• The services described are provided under a Commonwealth program of funding - i.e., via public funds. The Applicant has not established why such information should be treated as confidential when part is derived from a Commonwealth audit of the Applicant from over 12 months ago.

The application is refused for the following reasons:

• The application must be balanced against the principles set down in s 71(2)(a), (b) and (c) (collectively, the mandatory principles);
• The Applicant has not led any evidence or made submissions which demonstrates why the information is confidential or the consequences of publication. Nor has it explained how any claim for confidentiality should be balanced against the mandatory principles;
• The evidence is relevant to the Tribunal's reasons and will assist the public in understanding the reasons;
• The Applicant did not make any application for this evidence to be made confidential; and
• The services described are provided under a Commonwealth program of funding - i.e., via public funds. The Applicant has not established why such information should be treated as confidential.

[1] The Administrative Review Tribunal (Common Procedures) Practice Direction 2024 (the Common Procedures Practice Direction) addresses particular issues relating to confidentiality at paragraphs 6.7 and 6.8. These have no application to this case.

[2] Amana Community Services and Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner [2024] AATA 2984; Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner v Amana Community Services Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 1241.

[3] See also Commonwealth v John Fairfax [1980] HCA 44 ; 147 CLR 39 at 51; ABC v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 63 ; 208 CLR 199 per Gleeson CJ at [30].

[6] MDCT and National Disability Insurance Agency [2021] AATA 580; 85 AAR 32 at [38]; See also McEwan v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2025] FCA 978, [14].