Delegate of the Australian Information Commissioner for the purposes of s 55K of the Freedom of Information Act 1982**

Freedom of Information - Whether a practical refusal reason exists - Whether work involved in processing the request would substantially and unreasonably interfere with the performance of the Agency's functions - (CTH) Freedom of Information Act 1982 ss 24, 24AA, and 24AB

1. Under s 55K of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act), I affirm the decision of the Torres Strait Regional Authority (the TSRA) of 14 September 2021.

1. This decision discusses whether a practical refusal reason exists (s 24, 24AA, and 24AB) in relation to the applicant's request for documents held by the TSRA relating to tenders and grants and contracts providing legal services and legal education. It provides an example of a circumstance in which a broadly worded request for information or documents, in the absence of any context or detail as to their content or subject matter, could lead to a substantial and unreasonable diversion of an agency's resources.

1. On 13 August 2021, the applicant applied to the TSRA for access to all documents broadly relating to tenders, grants and contracts for the provision of core legal services or core legal education services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people from 30 June 2010 to 13 August 2021.
2. On 13 September 2021, the TSRA issued a request consultation notice (s 24AB) advising that it intended to refuse access to the documents requested on the basis that the work involved in processing the request, in its current form, would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the TSRA from its other operations (s 24AA(1)(a)(i)).
3. The applicant declined to revise their request in response to that notice.
4. The TSRA subsequently refused the applicant's request on the basis that the work involved in processing it would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the TSRA from its other operations (s 24AA(1)(a)(i)).
5. The TSRA maintains that a practical refusal reason arises due to the broad scope of the request and the work required to process the request. The applicant disputes the TSRA's decision.
6. The applicant submits that the request consultation process was deficient and that a practical refusal reason does not exist.
7. The issues to be decided in this Information Commissioner review (IC review) are:
   • whether a request consultation process has been undertaken in accordance with s 24AB of the FOI Act, and
   • whether the work involved in processing the applicant's request would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the TRSA from its other operations.
8. In an IC review of an access refusal decision, the agency bears the onus of establishing that its decision is justified, or that I should give a decision adverse to the applicant.[1]
9. In making my decision, I have had regard to the following:
   • the TRSA's decision and reasons for decision of 14 September 2021
   • evidence of sampling provided by the TSRA
   • the FOI Act[2]
   • the Guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner under s 93A of the FOI Act[3] to which agencies must have regard in performing a function or exercising a power under the FOI Act,[4] and
   • the parties' submissions.

Whether the TSRA was entitled to refuse access for a practical refusal reason (s 24)

1. Section 24 of the FOI Act sets out the requirements an agency or Minister must satisfy to refuse access to documents because of a practical refusal reason. In deciding on this issue, I am required to consider:
   • whether a request consultation process has been undertaken in accordance with s 24AB of the FOI Act, and if so
   • whether I am satisfied that the work involved in processing the applicant's request would 'substantially' divert the resources of the agency from its other operations, and
   • whether I am also satisfied that the work involved in processing the applicant's request would 'unreasonably' divert the resources of the agency from its other operations.[5]

Whether a request consultation process was undertaken (s 24AB)

1. Before relying on a practical refusal reason to refuse a request, agencies and Ministers are required to undertake a 'request consultation process' in accordance with s 24AB of the FOI Act.[6]
2. The agency must notify the applicant in accordance with s 24AB(2) of the FOI Act. If the applicant contacts the relevant contact person, then the agency must 'take reasonable steps to assist the applicant to revise the request so that the practical refusal reason no longer exists' (s 24AB(3)).
3. The applicant submits that the TSRA's request consultation process was deficient because:
   • the TSRA did not provide the applicant with specific information about its capacity to process the request, and
   • the TSRA did not respond to the applicant's invitation to provide them with part access to material pending the outcome of an IC review.
4. During this review, the TSRA provided evidence of the request consultation process undertaken with the applicant, including the informal consultation process. This material indicates that:
   • The TSRA began consulting with the applicant informally on 31 August 2021. The informal consultation notice suggested that the applicant narrow the scope of the request by further identifying the documents sought and limiting the request to the last two financial years.
   • The applicant responded to the informal consultation notice on 4 September 2021 by submitting that the TSRA has capacity to process their request.
   • The applicant further responded to the informal notice on 8 September 2021 declining to revise their request on the basis that the TSRA was not a small agency and would not need to consult with third parties and therefore, the request would not substantially or unreasonably divert TSRA resources. The applicant further noted that their request was already limited in time.
   • On 13 September 2021, the TSRA issued the formal request consultation notice (s 24AB). On the same day the applicant responded and confirmed they intended to refer the request of the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC).
   • On 14 September 2021 the TSRA made its decision.
5. The OAIC wrote to the TSRA on 11 March 2025 providing a preliminary view that the TSRA did not undertake a valid request consultation process (s 24AB) and directing the TSRA under s 55(2)(e)(ii) to undertake further steps to cure the procedural defects. While acknowledging the TSRA's informal consultation with the applicant prior to issuing the request consultation notice, the OAIC noted the following deficiencies with the request consultation process:
   • the applicant was not adequately put on notice of the 'substantial' nature of the request during the consultations as the applicant was only informed of a processing estimate of approximately 80 hours (1300 documents), rather than the 215 hours (1,041 - 6,908 documents) posited during this IC review
   • the applicant's response to the formal request consultation notice sent and received on 13 September 2021 was not a response pursuant to s 24AB(6)(c) of the FOI Act (it did not indicate that the applicant refused to revise their request), and
   • upon receiving the applicant's response on 13 September 2021 (which was on the first day of the consultation period), the TSRA proceeded to make a practical refusal decision on 14 September 2021 instead of adequately utilising the request consultation period to take reasonable steps in response.
6. The OAIC's direction required the TSRA to contact the applicant by 18 March 2025 to engage in a further 14 day consultation period to assist the applicant to revise the scope of their request in order to attempt to resolve the practical refusal reason. [7]
7. In response, the TSRA advised it contacted the applicant on 14 March 2025 to engage in accordance with the terms of the direction. The TSRA subsequently met with the applicant in person on 19 March 2025 to discuss their request. During the meeting, the TSRA submits it:
   • explained why the practical refusal reason decision was made, including by reference to the volume of documents captured by the request, the time and resources needed to process the request, and the limited staffing available within the TSRA to process the request
   • sought further information from the applicant in relation to their request, including in relation to his concerns about possible improper contracting activities, and
   • briefed the applicant on documents the TSRA considered relevant and suggested the applicant might avoid the practical refusal reason by confining the scope of their request to particular types of documents.
8. In the course of the further consultation process, the applicant did not address the TSRA's suggestions to refine the scope of their request and instead submitted that they would accept documents which the TSRA considered to be in scope pending the outcome of this review. The applicant also requested details from the TSRA as to its capacity to process the applicant's request. In making these submissions, the applicant did not address the TSRA's concerns regarding the breadth of their request or reduce the scope of their request.
9. I have considered the TSRA's communications with the applicant during the further consultation process which have included details as to the resources necessary to process the applicant's request and details as to the TSRA's staff resources and size. In emails dated 28 March 2025 and 31 March 2025, the TSRA summarised the matters discussed during the meeting of 19 March 2025 and provided the applicant with a table of documents, setting out what might be a reasonable request, based on an assessment of documents identified as substantially relevant against each of the 12 individual information requests laid out in the applicant's request. The TSRA invited the applicant again to reconsider the scope of his request.
10. As noted in previous decisions,[8] it is open to me to consider that the steps taken by an agency to consult with the applicant during an IC review cure their failure to take reasonable steps during the request consultation period.
11. I have considered the correspondence and other consultations between the TSRA and the applicant after the date of the OAIC's direction. Having regard to the additional steps taken by the TSRA to consult with the applicant, I consider that the TSRA has now taken reasonable steps to assist the applicant to revise the request so that the practical refusal reason no longer exists.

Whether a practical refusal reason exists (s 24AA(1)(a)(i))

1. In determining whether a practical refusal reason exists for the purposes of s 24AA(1)(a)(i) of the FOI Act I must first consider whether I am satisfied that the diversion of the Department resources from its other operations would be substantial. If I am satisfied that it would be, I must then consider if that substantial diversion would be 'unreasonable'.[9]
2. In answering this question, I have had regard to the relevant mandatory factors listed in s 24AA(2) of the FOI Act but I have not considered the factors set out in s 24AA(3) of the FOI Act.[10]

Whether the work involved in processing the request would substantially divert the resources of the TSRA from its other operations

1. Initially, the TSRA maintained that a minimum of 1,300 documents were within scope of the request, consisting of agency emails, draft contracts and working documents, tender advertisements and evaluative processes. TSRA also submits that a large number of third parties would need to be consulted and that their estimate of 80 hours was a conservative estimate to:
   • identify, locate and review the documents, redact exempt material and undertake third party consultations, and
   • prepare the documents for release and draft a schedule of documents and statement of reasons.
2. However, following the further request consultation with the applicant, the TSRA submitted it had conducted further searches and calculations. The TSRA provided an example of various search terms relevant to the applicant's request and varying timeframes, which returned between 1,041 to 6,908 documents. The TSRA also submits that it is yet to identify all contracts between the TSRA and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service during the relevant time period.
3. The TSRA undertook a sampling exercise in response to the IC review. With reference to a sample size of 227 documents, which it considers is representative of the applicant's request, the TSRA provided an estimated processing time for the sample of 215 hours.[11]
4. In coming to its estimated processing time for the sample, the TSRA relied upon a standard of between 30 seconds to 5 minutes per page as a reasonable estimate of processing time to assess and edit documents that fall within the scope. It assessed the page range of the documents within the representative sample and used 15 pages as the average page number per document. It estimated that:
   • approximately 70 documents totalling 1, 050 pages, could be released without exemption requiring approximately 30 seconds processing time per page to a total of 8.75 hours,
   • 157 documents totalling 2,355 pages would require third party consultation, redaction and the application of exemptions requiring 5 minutes per page to a total of 196.25 hours, and
   • a further 10 hours would be required for drafting correspondence, schedule of documents and a statement of reasons.
5. The TSRA also provided an activity log detailing approximately 30 hours of additional searches, sampling and engagement it has undertaken over the further request consultation period with the applicant.
6. The applicant maintains that its request is neither broad nor overly complicated. The applicant also outlined their reasons for seeking access to the documents within the scope of their request. I have not summarised these or considered them because I am unable to consider the reasons that an applicant is seeking access (s 24AA(3)(a)).
7. In estimating the time to process the representative sample, the TSRA has relied upon methods recommended in previous decisions of the Information Commissioner.[12] The 5 minutes per page estimate for documents requiring third party consultation is at the higher end of the scale. However, even if a reduced estimate were used, the processing time remains significant.
8. I accept the TSRA's contentions as to the breadth of the request resulting in a significant volume of documents falling within its scope. I accept that a smaller sample size for the purpose of the sampling exercise is appropriate in this case. Based on submissions and evidence provided by the TSRA, I consider the TSRA's estimates to be reasonable, and that processing the applicant's request would require a substantial diversion of the TSRA's resources.

Whether the work involved in processing the request would unreasonably divert the resources of the TSRA from its other operations

1. The TSRA maintains that processing the request would unreasonably divert its resources from its other obligations for the following reasons:
   • The primary function of the TSRA is the support and implementation of development initiatives in the Torres Strait region. Its role includes support of the 20 TSRA Board Members representing communities in the Torres Strait region and the implementation of remote programmes in outer island communities.
   • The TSRA submits that it is a small agency with 139 employees, many of whom are engaged in remote field work and it does not have a dedicated FOI officer. Where necessary, the TSRA engages external legal services to assist it in managing its FOI functions.
   • Only four TSRA staff are skilled in FOI processing. Primary responsibility for FOI requests rest with the Corporate Services Manager. Two Programme Managers and a Senior Project Officer also have skills to process information requests.
   • The Corporate Services Manager also has responsibilities in payroll, recruitment, finance, ICT, travel and property management. The Senior Project Officer is currently involved in a review which is of critical importance to the TSRA's future service delivery and their diversion would significantly impact TSRA functions. The two remaining Programme Managers also perform other roles in addition to their functions relating to FOI and information processing.
   • Due to the volume of documents within scope of the applicant's request and their sensitivity, final review of the documents would need to be outsourced to a legal officer at significant cost.
2. The applicant submits that the TSRA should upgrade its resources so that it is able to respond to requests such as the applicant's. This is necessary to ensure transparency and accountability in provision of services to the people of the Torres Strait region.
3. I have considered both parties' submissions in relation to TSRA resources as it relates to the processing of the applicant's request. While it is implicit in the objectives of the FOI Act that agencies and ministers must ensure that appropriate resources are allocated to dealing with FOI matters, the evident purpose of the practical refusal ground is to ensure that the capacity of agencies and ministers to discharge their usual functions is not undermined by processing FOI requests that are unreasonably large or complex.
4. Further, I must balance the public interest in processing FOI requests in the Torres Strait region against the public interest in ensuring that agencies such as the TSRA are capable of discharging their functions.[13]
5. I have had regard to the reasons provided by the TSRA above and accept that the applicant's request is extremely broad. This is evident in the number of documents that the TSRA have submitted may be captured within scope of the applicant's request. Also, I note that the TSRA is yet to identify all relevant contracts between the TSRA and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service during the relevant period. I accept that the TSRA has made genuine attempts to assist the applicant to revise the scope of their request as set out above at [19] to [21].
6. I have considered whether the applicant has cooperated in revising their request so as to reduce TSRA's processing workload.[14] The applicant's offer to accept some documents from the TSRA pending the outcome of this review was provided on an interim basis only. The applicant has otherwise refused to narrow the scope of their request.
7. In considering the above factors, I accept that processing a request of this size and volume would unreasonably divert the resources of the TSRA from its other operations.

1. For the reasons set out above, I find that the TSRA has established that a practical refusal reason exists for the purposes of s 24(1)(b) of the FOI Act. Based on the material before me, the TSRA was authorised under s 24(1)(b) of the FOI Act to refuse access to the documents in accordance with the request.

General Manager Freedom of Information Case Management

Delegate of the Australian Information Commissioner for the purposes of s 55K of the Freedom of Information Act 1982

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

Whether a request consultation process was undertaken (s 24AB)

(1) This section sets out what is a request consultation process for the purposes of section 24.

(2) The agency or Minister must give the applicant a written notice stating the following:

(a) an intention to refuse access to a document in accordance with a request;

(c) the name of an officer of the agency or member of staff of the Minister (the contact person) with whom the applicant may consult during a period;

(d) details of how the applicant may contact the contact person;

(e) that the period (the consultation period) during which the applicant may consult with the contact person is 14 days after the day the applicant is given the notice.

(3) If the applicant contacts the contact person during the consultation period in accordance with the notice, the agency or Minister must take reasonable steps to assist the applicant to revise the request so that the practical refusal reason no longer exists.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), reasonable steps includes the following:

(a) giving the applicant a reasonable opportunity to consult with the contact person;

(b) providing the applicant with any information that would assist the applicant to revise the request.

(5) The contact person may, with the applicant's agreement, extend the consultation period by written notice to the applicant.

(6) The applicant must, before the end of the consultation period, do one of the following, by written notice to the agency or Minister:

(c) indicate that the applicant does not wish to revise the request.

(7) The request is taken to have been withdrawn under subsection (6) at the end of the consultation period if:

(a) the applicant does not consult the contact person during the consultation period in accordance with the notice; or

(b) the applicant does not do one of the things mentioned in subsection (6) before the end of the consultation period. [emphasis in original]

Where an agency or minister is satisfied that a practical refusal reason exists, they must undertake a request consultation process with the applicant before making a decision to refuse the request (s 24AB).

The agency or minister must give the applicant a written notice that states:

• an intention to refuse access to a document in accordance with a request
• the practical refusal reason
• the name and contact details of an officer with whom the applicant may consult during the process, and details of how the applicant may contact them
• that the consultation period during which the applicant may consult the contact person is 14 days after the day the applicant is given the notice (s 24AB(2)).

Agencies and ministers are only obliged to undertake a request consultation process once for any particular request (s 24AB(9)), but they may choose to continue discussions with an applicant in order to refine a request that is still too large or vague.

If an applicant contacts a contact officer during the consultation period, the contact officer must take reasonable steps to help them revise the request so that the practical refusal reason no longer exists (s 24AB(3)). For example, a contact officer could provide a breakdown of the time estimated for each step of the process, explain the difficulties the agency will have in dealing with the request and suggest what would be a reasonable request in the circumstances.[15]

Whether a practical refusal reason exists (ss 24 and 24AA)

Section 24 of the FOI Act enables an agency or Minister to refuse access to a document where the agency has undertaken a request consultation process in accordance with s 24AB of the FOI Act, and after that process the agency or Minister is satisfied that the practical refusal reason still exists.

Subparagraph 24AA(1)(a) of the FOI Act lists the following practical refusal reason:

(1) For the purposes of section 24, a practical refusal reason exists in relation to a request for a document if either (or both) of the following applies:

(i) in the case of an agency--would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the agency from its other operations; or

(ii) in the case of a Minister--would substantially and unreasonably interfere with the performance of the Minister's functions;

Subsection 24AA(2) of the FOI Act lists matters which a decision maker must consider where relevant in deciding whether or not a practical refusal reason exists. It is a non-exhaustive list.

(3) In deciding whether a practical refusal reason exists, an agency or Minister must not have regard to:

(a) any reasons that the applicant gives for requesting access; or

(b) the agency's or Minister's belief as to what the applicant's reasons are for requesting access; or

(c) any maximum amount, specified in the regulations, payable as a charge for processing a request of that kind.

As set out in 'ACW' and Australian National Maritime Museum [2023] AICmr 4 ('ACW'), a decision maker must consider the following 3 elements in determining the issue of whether a practical refusal reason exists for the purposes of s 24AA(1)(a)(i) of the FOI Act:

• First, I must determine whether a request consultation process has been undertaken in accordance with s 24AB of the FOI Act. In many cases, this element of the decision-making task may be dealt with briefly because it is clear that a relevant process has been validly conducted and no agreement as to validity arises between the parties to the IC review.
• Secondly, if I determine that a request consultation process has been validly undertaken, I must determine whether I am 'satisfied' that the work involved in processing the applicant's request (as revised, if at all, during the request consultation process) would 'substantially' divert the resources of the agency from its other operations.
• Thirdly, if I am satisfied of a substantial diversion of resources, I must determine whether I am also 'satisfied' that the work involved in processing the applicant's request would 'unreasonably' divert the resources of the agency from its other operations.[16]

To be 'satisfied' for the purposes of s 24(1) of the FOI Act that a practical refusal reason exists, a decision maker must 'feel' an 'actual persuasion' that the reason exists. They cannot be satisfied simply as a result of a 'mere mechanical comparison of probabilities independently of any belief in its reality'.[17] Moreover, a decision maker's 'satisfaction' as to the existence of a practical refusal reason cannot be arbitrary or capricious; it must be formed 'according to law and not humour'.[18]

A diversion of an agency's resources will be considered to be 'substantial' if the diversion can be characterised as 'real or of substance' rather than 'large'.[19]

The FOI Guidelines explain:

In deciding if a practical refusal reason exists, an agency or minister must have regard to the resources required to perform the following activities specified in s 24AA(2):

• identifying, locating or collating documents within the filing system of the agency or minister
• examining the documents
• deciding whether to grant, refuse or defer access
• consulting with other parties
• redacting exempt material from the documents
• making copies of documents
• notifying an interim or final decision to the applicant.

Other matters that may be relevant in deciding if a practical refusal reason exists include:

• the staffing resources available to an agency or minister for FOI processing
• whether the processing work requires the specialist attention of a minister or senior officer, or can only be undertaken by one or more specialist officers in an agency who have competing responsibilities
• the impact that processing a request may have on other work in an agency or minister's office, including FOI processing
• whether an applicant has cooperated in framing a request to reduce the processing workload
• whether there is a significant public interest in the documents requested
• other steps taken by an agency or minister to publish information of the kind requested by an applicant
• as to a request to a minister - other responsibilities of the minister and demands on the minister's time, and whether it is open to the minister to obtain assistance from an agency in processing the request.[20]

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.

If you would like access to the information that we hold about you, please contact FOIDR@oaic.gov.au. More information is available on the Access our information page on our website.

[2] Sections 24, 24AA, and 24AB as set out in Annexure A.

[3] 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).

[5] See 'ACW' and Australian National Maritime Museum (Freedom of information) [2023] AICmr 4 at [10] as set out in Annexure A.

[6] It is only if, after the request consultation process, the agency or Minister is satisfied that the practical refusal reason still exists that they may refuse access to the document.

[7] The OAIC required the TSRA to explain to the applicant why their request/ parts of their request attracts a practical refusal reason; seek further information from the applicant about what is being sought to determine whether TSRA could provide the applicant with additional information to assist them to revise their request; make specific and targeted suggestions or what a reasonable request might be in the circumstances; ensure that correspondence provided to the applicant explains the practical refusal reason and includes the name and contact details of a contact person at the TSRA with whom the applicant can consult with.

[8] See, for example, 'AIG' and Australian Federal Police (Freedom of information) [2024] AICmr 52 at [34].

[9] See 'ACW' and Australian National Maritime Museum (Freedom of information) [2023] AICmr 4 at [10] as set out in Annexure A.

[11] The sample size relied upon by the TSRA in assessing the processing time for the applicant's request was less than the 10-15% recommended by the FOI Guidelines (see [3.121]). The TSRA submits that given the number of documents captured by the Applicant's request, a 10% sample size would be onerous. The TSRA relies upon 'WA', 'WB' and Australian Human Rights Commission (Freedom of information) [2020] AICmr 58 (25 November 2020) to submit that the sample size is representative of the requested documents and therefore adequate.

[12] The TSRA cite 'QO' and Department of Human Services (Freedom of Information) [2019] AICmr 46 at [55] and 'NJ' and Department of Home Affairs [2018] AICmr 12.

[13] See 'AVE' and Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (Freedom of Information) [2025] AICmr 69 at [33].

[15] FOI Guidelines at [3.127], [3.129], [3.132], and [3.133].

[16] 'ACW' and Australian National Maritime Museum [2023] AICmr 4 at [10].

[17] Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336 at 361 (Dixon J)

[18] Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Bayly [1952] HCA 31; (1952) 86 CLR 506 at 510 (Williams J). See also Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu [1999] HCA 21; (1997) 197 CLR 611 at [145] (Gummow J).

[19] See Langer and Telstra Corporation Ltd [2002] AATA 341 ('Langer') applied in Cambridge; Chief Executive Officer, Services Australia and (Freedom of information) [2021] AATA 1142 and Farrell; Chief Executive Officer, Services Australia and (Freedom of information) [2020] AATA 2390, noting that at the time of the decision in Langer, the reference to processing a request 'substantially and unreasonably' diverting the resources of an agency was contained in s 24 rather than s 24AA. However, there is nothing in the terms of s 24 as enacted at that time which would negate the application of the view reached by Forgie DP in the context of s 24AA(1).

[20] FOI Guidelines at [3.116] - [3.117] (footnote omitted).