The Respondent's case
31The Respondent relies on the statement of Elissa Stathis, the Manager of the Department's Information Access Unit. Ms Stathis set out the purpose and contents of the Marks Reports. She also describes the confidentiality accorded to the testing of children for entry into selective schools, and the limited circumstances in which certain information relating to the results of that testing for each candidate, is disclosed.
32The Respondent submits that disclosing the names of the schools in each of the Marks Reports would involve the disclosure of information "concerning the personal affairs" of students listed in those Reports.
33In her statement, Ms Stathis set out how the Marks Reports lists, for each candidate, his or her calculated profile score, as well as a breakdown of the student's scores for each component of the selective high school ("SHS") placement assessment. This includes the raw and moderated school assessment scores for English and mathematics, as well as the scaled test scores for English, writing, mathematics and general ability.
34Ms Stathis has identified how the Marks Report provides a level of detail above and beyond what is provided to parents of candidates for SHS placement assessment (the child's calculated profile score, and, if further information is requested, the child's raw school assessment scores and raw SHS placement test scores).
35The Respondent submits that if considered in isolation, the name of a school does not concern the personal affairs of individual students. However, the school name has to be viewed in the context of a Marks Report from which all information (other than the names of individual candidates and their student numbers) has already been divulged. In this context the name of a school would reveal, at least to a person familiar with the candidature of a particular school, the identity of one or more of the students listed in the Marks Report, and thereby the student's scores for different components of the SHS placement assessment, as well as the student's calculated profile score.
36In her statement, Ms Stathis set out how in the Marks Reports the results are arranged by student surname and in alphabetical order, and how it would be reasonable for a person to deduce this order.
37Ms Stathis also outlined how, once alphabetical order is ascertained, it would be reasonably likely that a person familiar with the candidature of students for SHS entry from Year 5 of the relevant primary school, could infer the identity of one or more students simply by reference to their place in the list.
38Ms Stathis also described the procedures for assembling and seating students for the SHS placement test in alphabetical order by family name at the same test centre. This assists a parent or student to perceive and recall who from a primary school is seeking SHS entry, and to match results in the Marks Reports to particular students. In her statement, Ms Stathis also indicates that familiarity with the candidature for SHS entry at a primary school is likely to occur through daily interactions between parents and students.
39It is particularly likely that the identity of candidates with family names at the start or end of the alphabet could be ascertained from the Marks Reports. It is also possible that the identity of students in other positions on the list could be deduced, for example, where a student or parent identifies their own calculated profile score, and is able to match adjacent or surrounding rows of results to other students.
40The Respondent submits that in this regard, the name of the school for each Marks Report is information from which, or by use of which students' identities (and therefore their SHS placement assessment scores) can reasonably be identified. The school names are akin to the handwriting in examination responses, which in Rabel , was held to relate to the personal affairs of the students concerned, and in Re Redfern , to fall within the definition of "personal information".
41The Respondent submits that, as emphasised by Lockhart J at Colakovski , the school names should not be considered in the abstract, but on the basis that they are contained in documents which contain significant detail about individual candidates' scores for each component of SHS placement assessment.
42The Respondent is not submitting that the Applicants themselves would or could seek to infer the identity of students in each of the Marks Reports. The Applicants stated in their application that "I understand that the names and/or student numbers will be blacked out for privacy reasons". The Respondent submits that this indicates that the Applicants appreciate that this information should remain confidential.
43The Respondent submits that once access to documents is provided in response to an FOI application, the FOI Act does not seek to restrain in any way the use that a citizen may make of the documents.
44In her statement, Ms Stathis referred to an internet blog maintained by Ms Challita. Ms Stathis stated:
"...
I am aware that in the blog Mrs Challita comments on past SHS placement processes, and that she has previously published documents released to her under the Freedom of Information Act 1989 on that topic on her blog. My expectation is therefore that if the Marks Reports (incorporating reference to school names) are released, they will also end up on Mrs Challita's blog, and be publicly accessible.
42 In my view, it would be reasonable for any person to deduce that applicants' names were listed alphabetically by family name in the Marks Report. This is a logical way of presenting academic results or test scores. Alphabetical order is also consistent with the way candidates are arranged during the SHS Placement Test, as described above at para. 17, and would sensibly occur to someone who had attended the test, or had their child attend the test.
43 Once alphabetical order is ascertained, it would be possible for a person with knowledge of which students from the primary school have applied for SHS entry in 2010, to deduce the identity of one or more students simply by reference to their place in the list. This is particularly likely to be the case for students with surnames at the start or the end of the alphabet, but could also occur for other students in the list.
44 In terms of knowledge of the SHS candidature from particular primary schools, as noted above, students from the same school go to the same test centre, dressed in school uniform, and are assembled and seated alphabetically by family name.
45 This process indicates that candidates are likely to be familiar with the other students from their primary school who are applying for SHS entry. Lining up and sitting in alphabetical order also increases the possibility that if a student or parent identified their own profile score in the Marks Report, they could match adjacent or surrounding rows of results to other students whose surnames were close to them in alphabetical order.
46 Parents may also have gained familiarity with the SHS candidature from their child's school through dropping their children off at the test centre. The first dot point on page 27 of Attachment I3 indicates that parents are able to remain on the school grounds while students are assembled and marshalled into the test room.
47 Apart from knowledge obtained through attending the SHS Placement Test, students and parents are also, in my view, likely to be aware of who is applying for SHS entry through their interactions with each other, both within and outside the primary school environment. This is particularly likely to be the case for smaller schools.
48 Hypothetically, all or the vast majority of students from a primary school year could apply for SHS entry, allowing someone with access to a class or year level list to largely match the results to a Marks Report.
45In this regard, the Respondent submits that Mr Challita's maintenance of an internet blog, and her publication of documents previously released to her under the FOI Act on that blog is relevant. It submits that Ms Challita is likely to publish the Marks Reports on the blog, and otherwise to seek maximum publicity for the documents.
46In regard to the question of whether disclosure would be unreasonable, the Respondent says that it has struck an appropriate balance between the public interest in protecting personal privacy against the public interest in the Applicants being given access to the document.
47In terms of the public interest in protecting personal privacy, the Respondent submits that there is an expectation on the part of parents and students, that applications for SHS entry and SHS placement assessment results will be treated confidentiality, and the student's privacy protected. The Respondent submits that this expectation is generated by the confidentiality measures underpinning the SHS placement assessment process, including the procedures for conducting the SHS Placement Test, and notifying parents of the results. The Respondent relies on the evidence of Ms Stathis in this regard. Expectations of confidentiality were considered highly relevant to the consideration of the public interest in Rabel and in Re Redfern .
48It is Ms Stathis's view that, if SHS placement assessment results included in the Marks Reports were disclosed, the students and parents of students whose scores were divulged could suffer stress, anxiety, distress or embarrassment. The Respondent submits that even if only one or some of the students in a Marks Report were to be identified (for example, the student at the first or final row of a Report), it is unreasonable and unfair for these students to be singled out in this manner, and denied the confidentiality and anonymity accorded to other students' results. Other candidates and parents could remain fearful that their identities and results would also eventually be inferred and disclosed.
49As in Rabel , the Respondent submits that the disclosure of individual student's identities and thereby their results through revealing the names of schools in the Marks Report would prejudice the integrity of the SHS assessment process.
50Ms Stathis has set out in her statement the information that is available to parents regarding the SHS placement assessment scores, including the breakdown of results available once a Request for Scores form is completed. The Respondent contends that in assessing the public interest in the Applicants (and possibly the broader public) being given access to the names of the schools in the Marks Reports, the information already available regarding SHS placement assessment results needs to be taken into account. The Respondent says that the school names in the Marks Reports are unlikely to assist the Applicants to discover and understood the SHS placement assessment process, beyond what has already been ascertained.
51The Respondent acknowledges that withholding the names of each of the schools (as well as the candidates' names and student numbers) does not fully satisfy the Applicants' curiosity, but says that it is an appropriate balance between the competing public interests in the circumstances.