Freedom of Information - Access grant - Whether disclosure would unreasonably affect an organisation in respect of its lawful business affairs - Whether contrary to public interest to release conditionally exempt documents - (CTH) Freedom of Information Act 1982 ss 11A and 47G(1)(a)

1. Under s 55K of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act), I affirm the internal review decision of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (the ACCC) of 11 February 2025.

1. This decision discusses the application of s 47G(1)(a) of the FOI Act to documents about the ACCC's investigation into the operation of retirement villages by Aveo Group Limited (Aveo), and the outcome of the investigation. It is primarily of interest to the parties in relation to the specific documents sought.

1. On 23 September 2024, the Freedom of Information applicant (FOI applicant) applied to the ACCC for access to documents in relation to the operation of retirement villages by Aveo. On 16 October 2024, the FOI applicant revised the scope of their request as follows:
   • the final Enforcement Committee paper related to the investigation of retirement village operator Aveo and records of the decision of the outcome of the investigation, and
   • the final correspondence to Aveo advising of the outcome of the investigation.[1]
2. During the processing of the FOI applicant's request, the ACCC consulted Aveo as an affected third party under s 27 of the FOI Act.
3. On 4 December 2024, the ACCC made a decision to grant the FOI applicant partial access to three documents: the final Enforcement Committee paper (Document 1), an email recording the decision of the outcome of the investigation (Document 2) and a letter to Aveo advising the outcome of the investigation (Document 3). The ACCC redacted certain material on the basis of the business information exemption (s 47G).
4. On 17 January 2025, Aveo sought internal review of the ACCC's decision, proposing more extensive redactions to the documents.
5. On 11 February 2025, the ACCC issued an internal review decision affirming the primary decision.
6. Aveo subsequently sought Information Commissioner (IC) review of the ACCC's internal review decision.
7. On 31 March 2025, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) wrote to the FOI applicant to notify them of the IC review. In response, the FOI applicant requested to be joined as a party to the IC review. The OAIC subsequently added the FOI applicant as a party under s 55A of the FOI Act.[2]
8. During the course of the IC review, Aveo (the IC review applicant) advised that it does not pursue exemption contentions in respect of four passages within Document 1.[3] This material is therefore no longer in contention in this IC review.[4]
9. The issue to be decided in this IC review is whether the material in Documents 1, 2 and 3 that the IC review applicant maintains is conditionally exempt under s 47G(1)(a) of the FOI Act is conditionally exempt under that provision, and if so, whether giving the applicant access to the conditionally exempt material at this time would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest (s 11A(5)).
10. In an IC review of an access grant decision, the IC review applicant bears the onus of establishing that a decision refusing the request is justified or that I should give a decision adverse to the FOI applicant.[5]
11. In making my decision, I have had regard to the following:
    • the ACCC's decisions of 4 December 2024 and 11 February 2025 and reasons for those decisions
    • the material at issue
    • the FOI Act[6]
    • the Guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner under s 93A of the FOI Act[7] to which agencies must have regard in performing a function or exercising a power under the FOI Act (FOI Guidelines),[8] and
    • the parties' submissions.

1. The IC review applicant maintains that Documents 1, 2 and 3 contain exempt material under s 47G(1)(a) of the FOI Act.
2. A document will be conditionally exempt if it discloses information (business information) concerning the business, commercial or financial affairs of an organisation or undertaking, where the disclosure of the business information would, or could reasonably be expected to unreasonably affect the organisation adversely in respect of its lawful business, commercial or financial affairs (s 47G(1)(a)).

1. The operation of s 47G depends on the effect of disclosure rather than the precise nature of the information itself. Notwithstanding this, the information must have some relevance to a person in respect of their business or professional affairs or the business, commercial and financial affairs of the organisation.[9]
2. 'Business or professional affairs' under the FOI Act has been discussed in the FOI Guidelines.[10] The term 'business affairs' has been interpreted to mean 'the totality of the money-making affairs of an organisation or undertaking as distinct from its private or internal affairs.[11] Accordingly, in this IC review, for the s 47G conditional exemption to apply, the documents must concern the IC review applicant's money-making affairs.
3. I have examined an unedited copy of Documents 1, 2 and 3 and I am satisfied that the material at issue comprises the IC review applicant's business information. The parties accept this.[12]

To find that s 47G(1)(a) applies, a decision maker needs to be satisfied that if the document was disclosed there would be an unreasonable adverse effect, on the business or professional affairs of an individual, or on the lawful business, commercial or financial affairs of an organisation or undertaking.[13] > > These criteria require more than simply asserting that a third party's business affairs would be adversely affected by disclosure. The effect needs to be unreasonable. This requires a balancing of interests, including the private interests of the business and other interests such as the public interest. Where other interests, for example environmental interests, outweigh the private interest of the business this conditional exemption cannot apply.[14]

2. As to the balancing of interests that is required, the FOI Guidelines note:

The presence of 'unreasonably' in s 47G(1) implies a need to balance public and private interests. The public interest, or some aspect of it, will be one of the factors in determining whether the adverse effect of disclosure on a person in respect of his or her business affairs is unreasonable. A decision maker must balance the public and private interest factors to decide whether disclosure is unreasonable for the purposes of s 47G(1)(a); but this does not amount to the public interest test of s 11A(5) which follows later in the decision process.[15]

1. The IC review applicant submits that this material contains details of 'unsubstantiated allegations' relating to an investigation that was discontinued in 2019. In summary:
   • The allegations are serious in nature and not supported by evidence, resulting in the ACCC's decision to discontinue the investigation.
   • The allegations are untested, in that the IC review applicant was not afforded an opportunity to fully respond to the allegations prior to the ACCC's discontinuance of the investigation.
   • The material reveals information that was provided to the ACCC in confidence, which the IC review applicant expected would not be widely disseminated.
   • While the ACCC's investigation stemmed from a joint media investigation, the material at issue contains the ACCC's findings and views which is not publicly available or generally known and only subject to public speculation.[16]
2. The IC review applicant further submits that disclosure would be unreasonable as the damage to its private interests would outweigh any public interest in disclosure. Disclosure would, in summary:
   • Release material that gives a negative impression of the applicant's business practices and without the full context, this could allow speculation and adverse inferences to be drawn which would result in reputational damage.
   • Adversely impact the IC review applicant's commercial interests, by impacting its ability to attract and retain residents, and consequently drive down its property prices. This would have a flow on effect to residents, decreasing the value of their residences and their ability to secure a sale.[17]
   • Impact on the IC review applicant's ability to maintain positive relationships with residents, which would likely have an adverse emotional impact (distress) on residents.
3. The IC review applicant cites a number of past IC review and Administrative Appeal Tribunal (AAT) decisions dealing with unsubstantiated allegations in support of its submissions.[18]
4. The FOI applicant disagrees with the IC review applicant's open submissions and submits, in summary:
   • The FOI Act only protects a company's lawful business affairs.
   • That the IC review applicant had a reasonable expectation of confidentiality over the material, is not the relevant test.
   • The passage of time since the investigation means that there is no reasonable expectation of an unreasonable adverse effect.
   • The IC review applicant's assertions that disclosure could allow speculation and adverse inferences to be drawn, and unfounded concerns to be raised, about Aveo's business practices are explicitly excluded under s 11B(4) of the FOI Act.[19]
5. The ACCC accepts that the material at issue comprises the applicant's business information, and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to have some limited adverse effect on the applicant's business or commercial affairs. This being the potential for reputational or commercial harm, flowing from the public dissemination of information outlining the detail of the allegations made against the IC review applicant and the nature of the ACCC's regulatory concerns.
6. However, the ACCC does not accept that any potential harm would meet the 'unreasonable' threshold under 47G(1)(a). In summary:
   • There has been discussion in the public domain by both the media and the public regarding the nature and outcome of the ACCC's investigation into the IC review applicant, and speculation as to the ACCC's views about its conduct.
   • While the material at issue would disclose the precise nature of the ACCC's views and regulatory concerns, the public interest in disclosure of its views as the regulator, including its reasons for taking no further action in relation to the allegations, outweighs the private reputational and commercial interests of the IC review applicant.
   • The material at issue would also reveal the reasons why the investigation was discontinued and the background and contextual information that informed that decision, which would enhance scrutiny of government decision making in circumstances where the existence of the investigation and its areas of focus are already in the public domain.
   • It would be open to the IC review applicant to provide additional context and make a public statement responding to the concerns or allegations contained in the material at issue.
7. The IC review applicant disagrees, saying an opportunity to make a public statement does not detract from the unreasonableness of the disclosure and would do little more than attempt to mitigate the extent of the resulting damage. Further, despite the passage of time, the serious nature of the comments and assessments in the material means the risk of reputational harm remains acute and exacerbated in the current settings of intense media scrutiny of the sector.[20]

1. The ACCC explains that its investigation into the IC review applicant commenced in 2017, in response to over 15 separate allegations stemming from the joint Four Corners/Fairfax media investigation into the IC review applicant and Australian Consumer Law (ACL) concerns in relation to the proposed redevelopment of its retirement village located in Newmarket, Queensland.[21]
2. I note the ACCC investigation, and its subsequent discontinuance,[22] has received significant media attention.[23] That media attention appears to be ongoing, and is focused not just on the IC review applicant but on the broader retirement villages industry.[24]
3. As I have outlined above, the FOI Guidelines explain that the determination of whether disclosure would have an unreasonable adverse effect on an organisation or undertaking requires a balancing of the public interest with the private interests of the organisation or undertaking. Consistently with the FOI Guidelines and the reasoning in the AAT decision of Bell and Secretary, Department of Health (Bell),[25] I have balanced the private interests of the IC review applicant with the public interest in releasing the relevant parts of the documents in determining whether releasing them would unreasonably affect the IC review applicant's business affairs.
4. Based on my examination of an unedited copy of the documents at issue, they primarily concern allegations in respect of the IC review applicant's retirement village in Newmarket, Queensland. These allegations appear to be unsubstantiated, to the extent that the ACCC discontinued its investigation into them.
5. As noted by the parties in their respective submissions, a number of previous IC review decisions and decisions of the AAT have discussed the test of unreasonableness in the context of unsubstantiated allegations. It is clear that where disclosure would result in the release of facts already in the public domain about an organisation, disclosure would not amount to an unreasonable adverse effect on its business affairs.[26]
6. The decisions cited by the IC review applicant comprise those in which the release of unsubstantiated allegations have been found to be unreasonable for the purposes of

s 47(1)(a) of the FOI Act. [27] In these matters, the circumstances involved the disclosure of business information that had not been previously released and the private interests of the relevant businesses outweighed any public interests identified in disclosure. Further, the matters of Besser; Secretary, Department of Employment & Ors,[28] Farrell,[29] Besser[30] and Dolphin Software[31] involved agency investigations into allegations or complaints made against multiple third party organisations where the allegations or complaints remained unsubstantiated and where the organisations had not previously been publicly linked to the allegations or complaints. The harm caused by the release of material identifying these businesses would have been substantial and would have affected multiple third party organisations, outweighing the public interest in disclosure. 7. The matter of Gadens[32] involved the disclosure of unsubstantiated allegations against the applicant law firm only. In finding the disclosure of the documents in question would, or could reasonably be expected to, unreasonably affect the applicant firm in its lawful business or professional affairs, the Tribunal took into account that the matter was very old (dating back almost 10 years), the allegations were serious but were peripheral to ASIC's central investigation into the firm's client and that the firm was not given a chance to respond to them. 8. Conversely, the decisions cited by the FOI applicant comprise those in which the release of unsubstantiated allegations were not found to be unreasonable.[33] In these matters, the public interests in disclosure outweighed the private interests of the relevant organisations. In Kazakhstan Potash Corporation Limited,[34] the Tribunal examined the legislative framework which governed the operations of the applicant organisation and found that there was a clear public interest in ensuring that those who are asked to invest in securities, including shares in the applicant company, are properly informed. [35] In circumstances where there was evidence that the difficulties faced by the applicant organisation in obtaining finance were known, the disclosure of a Statement of Concerns would not unreasonably affect the operation of the applicant organisation.[36] 9. In Bell,[37] the Tribunal noted there was a public interest in ensuring that persons who deal with government, whether as grant recipients or otherwise, are able to conduct their lawful business, commercial or financial affairs without unreasonable public scrutiny of those affairs. The Tribunal balanced that against the public interest in knowing whether public money was accounted for at the appropriate time in the manner required; and the public interest in ensuring that public programmes are properly administered.[38] The passage of time had an impact on the weight attributed to the public interest for and against disclosure.[39] 10. Here, the IC review applicant has been widely linked to the majority of the allegations in the documents (see media and journal articles referred to above at [29]) and I am of the view that the release of the material at issue would not cause the IC review applicant any significant harm. I do not accept the IC review applicant's submission that the specificity of the material at issue would unreasonably elevate the IC review applicant's exposure to reputational damage, in the context of the volume of material that currently exists in the public domain. I also note that the IC review applicant has previously provided public responses to these allegations.[40] 11. The matter before me can be distinguished from those relied on by the IC review applicant. Those matters involve the business information of multiple third party organisations in circumstances where the unsubstantiated allegations/complaints had not been previously released and the combined private interests of those businesses outweighed any public interests identified in disclosure. In this matter, the allegations against the IC review applicant are clearly central (not peripheral[41]) to the ACCC's investigation into the conduct of the IC review applicant. Further, I agree with the ACCC, that the material would disclose the ACCC's views about the IC review applicant including the ACCC's reasons for taking no further action in relation to the allegations.[42] In this way, disclosure would reveal the ACCC's reasons for discontinuing the investigation into the IC review applicant and the background or contextual information that informed that decision. 12. I am also of the view there is a clear public interest in protecting consumers of goods and services and ensuring consumers are treated fairly. The ACL, which is written into Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), is the legislative interpretation of that public interest.[43] In this regard, I note the IC review applicant, from information on its website, operates some 67 retirement villages across the eastern states of Australia and asserts it is home to more than 10,000 residents nationwide.[44] Disclosure of the material at issue would therefore enhance the scrutiny of the ACCC's decision making into concerns regarding the IC review applicant's compliance with the ACL, in circumstances where that decision has the potential to affect a large number of residents. 13. The material at issue can also be characterised as being contained within 'truly government documents'. As noted by the FOI Guidelines, the AAT has distinguished between 'truly government documents' and other business information collected under statutory authority.[45] The first category includes documents that have been created by government or that form part of a flow of correspondence and other documents between government and business. The AAT concluded that such documents incline more to arguments favouring scrutiny of government activities when considering whether disclosure would be unreasonable.[46] 14. I note that in an IC review of an access grant decision, the IC review applicant bears the onus of establishing that a decision refusing the request is justified or that I should give a decision adverse to the FOI applicant.[47] Taking all of the above into account, including the parties' submissions, I have concluded that the disclosure of the material at issue within Documents 1, 2 and 3 would not, or could not reasonably be expected to, unreasonably affect the IC review applicant adversely in respect of its lawful business, commercial or financial affairs. Therefore, the material at issue is not conditionally exempt under s 47G(1)(a) of the FOI Act.

1. I am not satisfied that the material at issue within Documents 1, 2 and 3 is conditionally exempt under 47G(1)(a) of the FOI Act. As I have not found the material at issue to be conditionally exempt, I do not need to consider whether disclosure would be contrary to the public interest within the meaning of s 11B of the FOI Act.

Relevant provisions of the FOI Act, FOI Guidelines, and decisions

Section 11A(4) of the FOI Act states the agency or Minister is not required by this Act to give the person access to the document at a particular time if, at that time, the document is an exempt document.

(1) A document is conditionally exempt if its disclosure under this Act would disclose information concerning a person in respect of his or her business or professional affairs or concerning the business, commercial or financial affairs of an organisation or undertaking, in a case in which the disclosure of the information:

(a) would, or could reasonably be expected to, unreasonably affect that person adversely in respect of his or her lawful business or professional affairs or that organisation or undertaking in respect of its lawful business, commercial or financial affairs; or

(b) could reasonably be expected to prejudice the future supply of information to the Commonwealth or an agency for the purpose of the administration of a law of the Commonwealth or of a Territory or the administration of matters administered by an agency.

Section 47G(2) - (3) of the FOI Act contain exceptions to the exemption in s 47G(1) of the FOI Act.

As stated in the FOI Guidelines, this conditional exemption does not apply in the following circumstances:

... if the document contains only business information about the FOI applicant (s 47G(3)). Where the business information concerns both the FOI applicant and another business, the provision may operate to conditionally exempt the FOI applicant's information, but only if the FOI applicant's business information cannot be separated from the information of the other business or undertaking.

... to trade secrets or other information to which s 47 applies (s 47G(2)). In other words, a decision maker should consider an exemption under s 47 for documents containing trade secrets or other information to which s 47 applies if the circumstances call for it. This is a limited exception to the normal rule that more than one exemption may apply to the same information (see s 32).[48]

The FOI Guidelines explain that the operation of s 47G of the FOI Act depends on the effect of disclosure, rather than the precise nature of the information itself.[49] Notwithstanding this, the information must have some relevance to a person in respect of their business or professional affairs or to the business, commercial and financial affairs of the organisation.[50]

The use of the term 'business or professional affairs' distinguishes an individual's personal or private affairs and an organisation's internal affairs. The term 'business affairs' has been interpreted to mean 'the totality of the money-making affairs of an organisation or undertaking as distinct from its private or internal affairs'.[51]

In relation to the question of unreasonableness, the FOI Guidelines state:

The presence of 'unreasonably' in s 47G(1) implies a need to balance public and private interests. The public interest, or some aspect of it, will be one of the factors in determining whether the adverse effect of disclosure on a person in respect of his or her business affairs is unreasonable. A decision maker must balance the public and private interest factors to decide whether disclosure is unreasonable for the purposes of s 47G(1)(a), but this does not amount to the public interest test in s 11A(5) which follows later in the decision process.[52]

The test of reasonableness applies not to the claim of harm but to the objective assessment of the expected adverse effect. For example, the disclosure of information that a business' activities pose a threat to public safety, damage the natural environment, or that a service provider has made false claims for government money, may have a substantial adverse effect on that business but may not be unreasonable in the circumstances to disclose. Similarly, it would not be unreasonable to disclose information about a business that revealed serious criminality. These considerations require weighing the public interest against a private interest - preserving the profitability of a business. However at this stage it bears only on the threshold question of whether disclosure would be unreasonable.[53]

If a party to an IC review is unsatisfied with an IC review decision, they may apply under s 57A of the FOI Act to have the decision reviewed by the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART). The ART provides independent merits review of administrative decisions and has power to set aside, vary, or affirm an IC review decision.

An application to the ART must be made within 28 days of the day on which the applicant is given the IC review decision (see s 18(1) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 and rule 5(3) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Rules 2024). An application fee may be payable when lodging an application for review to the ART. Further information is available on the ART's website (www.art.gov.au) or by telephoning 1800 228 333.

Making a complaint to the Commonwealth Ombudsman

If you believe you have been treated unfairly by the OAIC, you can make a complaint to the Commonwealth Ombudsman (the Ombudsman). The Ombudsman's services are free. The Ombudsman can investigate complaints about the administrative actions of Australian Government agencies to see if you have been treated unfairly.

If the Ombudsman finds your complaint is justified, the Ombudsman can recommend that the OAIC reconsider or change its action or decision or take any other action that the Ombudsman considers is appropriate. You can contact the Ombudsman's office for more information on 1300 362 072 or visit the Commonwealth Ombudsman's website at http://www.ombudsman.gov.au.

[1] Refer FOI applicant's FOI request of 23 September 2024 and revised request of 16 October 2024. On 17 January 2025, the FOI applicant agreed to exclude the identifying personal information of individuals from the scope of the request.

[2] Correspondence to the FOI applicant of 22 April 2025.

[3] On 7 May 2025, the ACCC and the IC review applicant participated in a conference during which the ACCC invited the IC review applicant to consider not pressing an exemption claim over certain passages of information in Document 1. Refer IC review applicant's open submissions of 11 June 2025 and Attachment L of the ACCC's submissions of 15 May 2025.

[4] 'AUN' and Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Freedom of information) [2025] AICmr 51 (21 March 2025) at [11].

[6] Section 47G(1)(a) of the FOI Act, as set out in Annexure A.

[7] See, Office of the Australian Information Commissioner_, Guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner under_ s 93A of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Guidelines).

[10] FOI Guidelines [6.191]-[6.194].

[11] FOI Guidelines [6.191], citing Re Mangan and The Treasury [2005] AATA 898 in turn citing Cockcroft and Attorney-General's Department and Australian Iron and Steel Pty Ltd (party joined) (1985) 12 ALD 462.

[12] See ACCC's submissions dated 15 May 2025 and FOI applicant's submissions dated 3 August 2025.

[14] FOI Guidelines at [6.187]. See Deputy President Forgie's discussions in Bell and Secretary, Department of Health (Freedom of information) [2015] AATA 494 particularly at [44]. The Information Commissioner has discussed and followed the Bell approach in a number of IC review decisions, for example Linton Besser and Department of Employment [2015] AICmr 67; 'VO' and Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (Freedom of information) [2020] AICmr 47; Boston Consulting Group and Australian National University (Freedom of information) (No 2) [2022] AICmr 16.

[16] See IC review applicant's submissions of 29 November 2024, 17 January 2025, 10 March 2025, 19 May 2025, 11 June 2025 and 29 August 2025. The IC review applicant provided both open and confidential submissions on 11 June 2025, after receiving approval from the OAIC.

[17] In support of its submissions, the IC review applicant also provided data that demonstrates the commercial impact of the joint media investigation on its sale and deposit levels, which included a 58% drop in sales from March 2017 to July 2017, and a 41% decline in deposits received. Refer IC review applicant's submissions dated 11 June 2025.

[18] Refer IC review applicant's submissions of 11 June 2025.

[19] Refer FOI applicant's submissions dated 3 August 2025. However s 11b(4) of the FOI Act sets out factors that are irrelevant considerations when determining the public interest test under s 11A(5) of the FOI Act. This is separate to and comes after a determination of whether disclosure would be unreasonable under s 47G(1)(a) of the FOI Act. See FOI Guidelines [6.184].

[20] Refer IC review applicant's internal review application dated 17 January 2025 and submissions dated 10 March 2025. See also IC review applicant's submissions of 29 August 2025.

[21] Refer ACCC's submissions dated 15 May 2025. In a statement reported in the Australian Financial Review on 3 July 2017, former ACCC Chair, Rod Sims said 'the ACCC would investigate some of the more serious matters raised in relation to Aveo and confirmed that three laws were relevant for the ACCC to investigate: misleading conduct, unfair contract terms and unconscionable conduct: ACCC to investigate Aveo over contract terms and conduct . The most significant allegation of which was the subject of a class action (Luke & Anor v Aveo Group Limited VID996/2017).

[22] On 13 November 2019 the ACCC notified the IC review applicant that it had discontinued its investigation, putting it on notice about certain ACL concerns arising from the investigation.

[23] Aveo: Exploitation of the elderly rife in retirement villages - ABC News , Aveo: How elderly Australians are being ripped off in retirement villages , Aveo: The retirement villages that swallow vulnerable people's money , Bleed them dry until they die: the Aveo residents who suffer cruelty and neglect , ACCC to investigate Aveo over contract terms and conduct , Aveo shares slump after ACCC announces investigation , Levitt, Stewart A; Meyerowitz-Katz, Daniel 'Setting an Important Restraint on Retirement Village Operators: The Matter of Luke v Aveo Group Ltd' [2018] PrecedentAULA 58; (2018) 148 Precedent 28 .

[24] Refer Retirement villages accused of gouging older Australians in 'corporatised elder abuse' - ABC News , Aveo Group's $11M settlement saved the retirement living sector - DCM Institute .

[25] (Freedom of information) [2015] AATA 494 at [48].

[26] FOI Guidelines [6.190], citing Re Daws and Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry [2008] AATA 1075 (26 November 2008) [22]. See also DPP Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd and IP Australia (Freedom of information) [2020] AICmr 29 (30 June 2020) [34] and Boston Consulting Group and Australian National University (Freedom of information) (No 2) [2022] AICmr 16 (2 March 2022) [34]-[40].

[27] See IC review applicant's submissions dated 11 June 2025 citing Besser; Secretary, Department of Employment and Ors (Freedom of information) [2017] AATA 835 (9 June 2017), Gadens Lawyers Brisbane and Australian Securities and Investments Commission (Freedom of information) [2021] AATA 1634 (9 June 2021), Paul Farell and Australian Federal Police (No. 4) (Freedom of Information) [2024] AICmr 93, Besser and Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2013] AICmr 65 and Dolphin Software Pty Ltd and Department of Industry, Science and Resources (Freedom of Information) [2022] AICmr 74.

[28] Besser; Secretary, Department of Employment and Ors (Freedom of information) [2017] AATA 835 (9 June 2017) (Besser; Secretary, Department of Employment & Ors). See Besser; Secretary, Department of Employment & Ors generally at [20]-[29].

[29] Paul Farrell and Australian Federal Police (No. 4) (Freedom of Information) [2024] AICmr 93 (Farrell). See Farrell at [119]-[120] and generally at [109]-[122].

[30] Besser and Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2013] AICmr 65 (Besser). See Besser generally at [39]-[44].

[31] Dolphin Software Pty Ltd and Department of Industry, Science and Resources (Freedom of Information) [2022] AICmr 74 (Dolphin Software). See Dolphin Software at [30]-[33] and generally [25]-[35].

[32] Gadens Lawyers Brisbane and Australian Securities and Investments Commission (Freedom of information) [2021] AATA 1634 (9 June 2021) (Gadens). See Gadens generally at [16]-[27].

[33] See FOI applicant's submissions dated 3 August 2025 citing Kazakhstan Potash Corporation Limited and Australian Securities and Investments Commission (Freedom of information) [2019] AATA 5035 at [97] and Bell and Secretary, Department of Health (Freedom of information) [2015] AATA 494.

[34] Kazakhstan Potash Corporation Limited and Australian Securities and Investments Commission (Freedom of information) [2019] AATA 5035 (26 November 2019) (Kazakhstan Potash Corporation Limited).

[35] The Tribunal noted that Part 6D of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) is the legislative interpretation of that public interest and that the responsibility for the oversight of that legislation, to ensure that bodies meet their obligations, is given to ASIC. See Kazakhstan Potash Corporation Limited at [91].

[37] Bell and Secretary, Department of Health (Freedom of information) [2015] AATA 494 (9 July 2015).

[40] Refer Aveo hits back: defends resident contracts in class action case and Aveo confident it can defend class actions | SBS News .

[41] Compare Gadens at [25]-[26].

[42] Compare Dolphin Software at [34]. The former Freedom of Information Commissioner noted that the material at issue does not identify or deal with the way in which the Department administered the relevant scheme.

[43] Following the reasoning in Kazakhstan Potash Corporation Limited and Australian Securities and Investments Commission (Freedom of information) [2019] AATA 5035 (26 November 2019), the ACL is an Australian-wide set of rules that sets out consumer rights and business responsibilities in Australia. See About Australian Consumer Law | Consumer Law .

[44] Refer Retirement Villages | Aveo , with 30 villages in Queensland, 12 villages in New South Wales, 23 villages in Victoria and two villages in Tasmania.

[45] FOI Guidelines at [6.189], citing Re Actors' Equity Association (Aust) and Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (No 2) [1985] AATA 69.

[46] Re Actors' Equity Association (Aust) and Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (No 2) [1985] AATA 69 at [31].

[48] FOI Guidelines at [6.179] - [6.180].

[51] FOI Guidelines at [6.191] (footnotes omitted).

[52] FOI Guidelines at [6.184] (footnotes omitted).

[53] FOI Guidelines at [6.185] (footnotes omitted).