1. The decision of the Information Commissioner is affirmed.
2. The decision in order 1 does not come into effect until after the expiry of 28 days from the date of these orders.

1. On 8 December 2023, Ms Wilson, a Member of the Victorian parliament, made a request for access to a document under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Vic) ('the Act') from the Department of Education ('the Department').
2. The request was for:

A document which outlines the individual condition score of every government school in Victoria, sourced from the most recent Condition Assessment Report for each individual school under the Rolling Facilities Evaluation program. The document should contain the school name, the suburb the school is located in and the individual condition for the school.

1. As such a document was not in existence at the time of the request, the Department produced a document containing the relevant information under section 19 of the Act[1] ('the Document').
2. On 13 March 2024, an authorised officer of the Department decided to refuse the request, on the basis that the Document was exempt under s 28(1)(ba)[2] of the Act ('First Decision').
3. On 18 March 2024, the respondent applied to the Information Commissioner ('OVIC') for review of the Department's decision.
4. On 5 June 2024, after reconsidering the matter in accordance with s 49M of the Act, an authorised officer of the Department revoked the First Decision, and made a fresh decision to refuse access to the Document on the basis that it was exempt under ss 30 and 28(1)(c) of the Act ('Second Decision').
5. On 18 July 2024, after conducting a review of the Second Decision, OVIC made a fresh decision under s 49P of the Act. It found that the Document was not exempt under ss 30 or 28(1)(c) of the Act and was to be released in full. OVIC was satisfied that s 30(1)(a) applied, but was not satisfied that it would be contrary to the public interest to disclose the Document.[3]
6. On 2 August 2024, the Department sought review of OVIC decision to VCAT.
7. In summary, the Department contended that the Document provided no useful information and the information it did provide had no context, and so there was a real risk that it would be misleading and create a mischief.
8. Ms Wilson relied on the reasoning of OVIC and submitted that:
   • There is a strong public interest in whether the Department is effectively planning for and managing school infrastructure.
   • Community awareness will inform public debate on school infrastructure.
   • The government has announced significant funding towards a school maintenance program. As such, it should be accountable to the community about where such funding is allocated.
   • The report is of sufficient detail and expertise to be relied upon for use in the Department's planning.
9. As this is a review under s 50(3D) of the Act, section 55 does not apply. This means the Department does not have the onus establishing its decision was justified, rather the Tribunal's task is to make the correct or preferable decision.[4]
10. I found that the disclosure of the Document was not contrary to the public interest and affirmed the decision of OVIC for the reasons set out below.

1. The object of the Act is to extend as far as possible the right of the community to access information in the possession of the Government of Victoria and other bodies constituted under the law of Victoria for public purposes and that any discretions conferred by the Act shall be exercised as far as possible so as to facilitate and promote, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost, the disclosure of information.[5]
2. Section 16 requires agencies to administer the Act with a view to making the maximum amount of information promptly and inexpensively available to the public.
3. Section 30(1) of the Act provides that 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

(b) would be contrary to the public interest.

1. It was common ground that the document fell within section 30(1)(a) and so was an exempt document. The only issue was whether the release of the document was contrary to the public interest.

1. A hearing was held on 1 October 2025. The Department called two witnesses: Ms J Wandel and Mr C Thompson. Both witnesses adopted their witness statements and were not cross-examined. The Tribunal also had before it a Tribunal Book and written submissions from the parties. Ms Wilson did not file any evidence or call any witnesses.

1. In her statement Ms Wandel outlined her qualifications and work experience and stated that since 3 March 2025, she has been the Chief Executive Officer at the Victorian School Building Authority ('VSBA'). The VSBA is responsible for school and early childhood education infrastructure. The VSBA plans, designs and builds new schools and early learning services and is responsible for upgrading and expanding existing infrastructure. The VSBA also supports schools to maintain their buildings and grounds by offering expert advice and coordinating maintenance programs and grants.
2. She explained that Condition Assessment Reports ('Reports') are prepared for each Victorian government school by a third-party contractor as part of a process implemented by the Department called the Rolling Facilities Evaluation ('RFE') which is overseen by the VSBA.
3. In accordance with the RFE, an assessment of each public school is undertaken every five years, and a Report is produced for each school. There are currently approximately 1580 Victorian government schools, and therefore approximately 300 schools are the subject of a condition assessment report each year. The first RFE cycle was conducted in the period 2018 to 2022, and the second RFE cycle is being conducted in the period 2023 to 2027.
4. Reports produced as part of the RFE are used for the primary purpose of asset management and specifically to help the VSBA identify and prioritise issues that need to be rectified within schools, the recommended timeframe for these works and then to allocate the resources to fix them.
5. Reports for schools are prepared for the Department by a third-party contractor. Reports record information and assessments about the condition of components of buildings (e.g. building structure, external fabric, fixed furniture and fittings, internal fabric, internal finishes and various services) and other assets (e.g. footpaths, fencing, shade structures, car parks, walls, landscaping and other external structures). The condition assessment is a visual assessment. More technical or intrusive investigations are undertaken by alternate processes. The Report is used by the VSBA to assist it in managing the maintenance, repair and upgrade needs of the 1580 government schools in Victoria.
6. Reports ascribe a condition rating for each element or asset that has been assessed, from one to five. A score of five signifies that the asset is in excellent condition. A score of one reflects that the asset is in poor condition. Reports also ascribe priority ratings for fixing any defects.
7. Reports also include a school condition score, which is a number generated by aggregating and weighting condition scores for the particular elements that have been assessed, applying a particular methodology. In accordance with that methodology, 80% of the school condition score is derived from individual scores ascribed to buildings, and 20% is derived from individual scores ascribed to other assets.
8. Approximately 10% of the Reports are audited by another third-party contractor to provide a high-level cross-check that the scores are calculated accurately and consistently.
9. The VSBA is currently half-way through the second cycle of the RFE, which means about half of the 1580 schools in the program have been evaluated and given scores.[6]
10. For the other half of the schools, their latest condition scores were determined on different dates in the first cycle of the RFE (and as such would have been determined on different dates between 2018 and 2022). Sometimes a school's participation in an assessment is delayed, such as where capital works are presently underway at a school. In those instances, the RFE program will usually wait until the works are finished to make an updated assessment and generate an updated score.
11. Information in Reports feed into a number of different funding decisions in different ways. There are three types of funding which are relevant:

(a) First, as a factor in the amount Victorian schools receive each year for general maintenance, allocated through the Student Resource Package ('SRP');

(b) Second, funding that is made available to address priority repair needs of a particular school, through the Planned Maintenance Program ('PMP'); and

(c) Third, as a factor in funding that is made available for specific capital works at schools.

1. She explained the role that condition scores play in the different funding decisions.
2. The SRP comprises student-based funding, schools-based funding and targeted initiatives funding. Infrastructure funding is one type of school-based funding.
3. The school infrastructure funding within the SRP includes a Maintenance and Minor Works ('MMW') component that applies maintenance rates to eligible buildings on eligible campuses, with cost modifiers and adjustments based on building type, location, and other factors. While the SRP calculations are largely driven by the size and type of buildings, one of the elements that factors into the MMW component of the SRP is the condition score assigned to each building as part of the RFE. The score is only one of a number of different factors which are taken into account in determining the MMW component of the SRP. Other factors include building age, heritage status, rurality, etc.
4. Schools are required to use the MMW component of the SRP funding to undertake routine and proactive maintenance of their buildings and grounds, and to prevent asset degradation and potential health and safety issues. Principals are responsible for managing this funding and, with the support of VSBA teams, must develop a five-year School Maintenance Plan, which is submitted through the Asset Information Management System and endorsed by the Department.
5. As noted above, the PMP is an additional amount of funding which is allocated to schools throughout the year. It is a targeted program that complements the annual funding schools receive through the SRP allocation. The Department administers the PMP, and decisions about allocations are made by reference to particular infrastructure issues that are identified at schools following their five-yearly RFE assessment or following other similar audits.
6. For this category of funding, it is information about the condition of particular elements or assets of a school that is recorded in Reports generated by the RFE (rather than the condition score of the school) that is used to work out what funding needs to be allocated.
7. The third main category of funding is major capital works, new school builds, and significant upgrades. This category of funding is subject to budget being allocated, by the government, for particular projects. In briefing the government in connection with the making of such decisions, the Department will typically provide a range of information, including but not limited to school condition scores in Reports. In addition, building-level condition information contained in the Reports is a factor informing initial project costings.
8. Ms Wandel stated there were a number of limitations associated with the usefulness of school condition scores generated as part of the RFE process.
9. First, because of the time frame over which condition scores are prepared (i.e. once every five years), the latest score for any given school may be (in a sense) out of date by up to as much as five years.
10. If works to a particular school are prioritised, the school's condition may be significantly improved fairly quickly after its assessment, without that being reflected in an updated condition score until the school is next up for assessment as part of a future cycle in the RFE in five years' time.
11. In cases where capital works are underway, the RFE program will usually wait until the works are finished to make an updated assessment and generate an updated score.
12. Second, the way scores change also varies depending on the size of the school and the size of the planned works:
    • When dealing with smaller schools, fixing the roof of a building may drastically change the school's score compared to the same development in a larger school with many buildings.
    • The contribution of the rating assigned to infrastructure versus building elements varies depending on the composition of each school site. As such, a school with a single deteriorated building and multiple good condition buildings may receive a lower score than a school with multiple buildings with moderate defects, despite the overall conditions being arguably comparable.
13. Third, another limitation of the condition assessment score (especially presented in an ordered list) is that it can mispresent the relative condition of a school as compared to other schools, especially where the methodology used and the limitations of the data is not well understood. The methodology underpinning the RFE is an average that cannot account for a range of building or element-level comparison (hence, the cross-checks). Presenting the scores in a list runs the real risk of a creating an inaccurate impression of the relative condition of schools.
14. Mr Wandel notes that the Department does not use school condition scores for ranking or benchmarking schools on their own and to the extent the Department does use scores as a high-level way to prioritise funding, the limitation of condition scores are understood by the Department and factored into that decision making.
15. A further limitation of the condition scores is their use as an evaluative tool beyond the specific purpose of an input into maintenance and funding allocation. For example, it is not possible to identify from the scores which assets for a particular school are contributing to a higher or lower score and the degree to variance between scores averaged across different buildings. If a prospective family were interested in understanding the condition of a school's sporting facilities, the school's condition score would not convey any information to assist them to gain this understanding.

1. In his statement, Mr Thompson outlined his qualifications and work experience and stated he is currently the Regional Director of the South-Western Victoria Region and is responsible for the line management of school Principals of about 450 Victorian government schools in the South-Western Victorian Region.
2. He said he had been involved in the Department's processes for the allocation and management of resources to Victorian government schools. He was familiar with the way in which the Department manages resource allocation to its schools and the processes surrounding this.
3. He states that school condition scores have some utility to the Department for the purpose of managing school asset repairs and upgrades. But the limitations of the usefulness of the scores are known to the Department. The scores are not treated by the Department as a reliable metric to assess a school holistically, or by comparison to other schools (including because Reports are prepared at different times for different schools over the course of a five-year period).
4. He notes that the way in which condition scores are generated (including how and when they are generated as part of the RFE process) is not well understood or known by the public. Accordingly, the limitations of the usefulness of the scores are not well understood or known by the public.
5. In particular, he is concerned that, publication of the Document would tend to suggest that a school with a lower score than another or others, was of a materially lower standard or quality. This is particularly the case if the condition scores are presented as a 'ranking'. This would create a misleading impression. Condition scores are not used to generate a ranking of schools or to enable a comparison by the public of the facilities of one school against another.
6. In his view there was a risk that condition scores might be misunderstood more broadly in the public domain, in that parents might mistakenly believe that condition scores measure the broader quality or performance of a school (rather than a more directed assessment of the condition of the facilities of a school as one of the inputs into budget allocation decisions and managing maintenance). The condition score of a school does not give any picture of the quality and performance of a school from a perspective of its culture, the quality of the teaching, student wellbeing supports or co-curricular activities available.
7. Mr Thompson said he was concerned about the impact that the release of condition scores would have on the quality of the decisions that parents made about where to enrol their children. The limitations of the condition score would distort that decision making process that families undertake and potentially result in decisions being made based on (at least in part) an inaccurate understanding of the condition of the facilities, provision of facilities (including specialist facilities) or even the broader quality of a school, particularly as it compares to other schools.
8. Mr Thompson explained that in Victoria, each residential address sits within a government school zone which identifies that address' designated neighbourhood government school. Every eligible child has a right to enrol at their designated neighbourhood government school.
9. Families may apply for enrolment at a government school outside their zone. Acceptance out of zone is governed by the Department's priority order of placement.
10. Mr Thompson said he was concerned that that if a report with the latest condition scores for each school were to be published, it would convey a misleading representation of the comparative condition (or broader quality) of schools. The resulting reputational damage from this could materially skew parents' behaviour. A school that is wrongly perceived as 'run-down' may see in-zone families apply elsewhere, or opt for non-government alternatives, even though the school meets, and might even exceed, departmental condition and curriculum standards.
11. He referred to a newspaper article from The Guardian Newspaper from 11 March 2024 which reported on under-enrolment at some inner-city schools.
12. He explained how under-enrolment can affect a school's funding and in extreme cases can trigger a re-zoning.
13. In Mr Thompson's view, if the document was released it may adversely influence parents when deciding whether to send their children to a particular government school. Having regard to the limitations of the condition score, and the misleading impression that may be given by publishing a list, as though it represents a reliable comparison of schools at the time of publication, there was a real risk that this decision making would be based on inaccurate information.
14. He stated it may also discourage parents from undertaking a more complete assessment of the appropriateness of a school for their children on the mistaken belief that the condition score functions as a ranking of schools that is endorsed by the Department.
15. He said the document could:
    • be misunderstood as a more general ranking of the relative merit of the schools (as opposed to its more limited purpose, being a particular kind of assessment of the condition of certain facilities of the school to work out what, and over what time frame, funds need to be allocated to a school for maintenance or upgrades); or
    • even if understood as only an assessment of the physical condition of the school, be misunderstood on the basis that it represents a blended score across all facilities and by reason of the periodic nature over which it is assessed, be significantly out of date. This could have the result that, reliance is placed on the condition score at the expense of the parent making their own enquiries as to the condition of the particular facilities that are of importance to them and their child.
16. For the same reasons, the release of the condition score may also impact the ability of schools to recruit and employ teachers and education support staff.
17. Neither Mrs Wandel nor Mr Thompson were cross-examined. It was submitted by Ms Wilson that their evidence was merely their opinions.

1. The Department indicated that it was only relying on the exemption in section 30 of the Act. It conceded that the exemptions previously claimed under section 28 were not applicable.
2. The Department submitted that the Document would plainly disclose opinion, (the school condition scores) prepared by an officer for the purpose of the deliberative processes involved in the functions of the Department and therefore, met the requirements of section 30(1)(a) of the Act. This was conceded by Ms Wilson.
3. The Department submitted the issue was whether disclosure of the Document would be contrary to the public interest such that s 30(1)(b) applies. To be contrary to the public interest, the Department need not provide overriding or compelling reasons. All factors must be weighed up. The Department referred to Hulls v Victorian Casino & Gaming Authority[7] where the Tribunal identified matters that may bear on the assessment of public interest. It noted that one of the factors was the likelihood that disclosure would create mischief, such as risk of mischievous interpretation and that this was of significance in this case.
4. The Department submitted that the potential for mischief, misinterpretation and undermining of confidence, were prospective and therefore it is the possibility of the fact, with which the Tribunal is concerned.
5. The Department assumed Ms Wilson intended to publish the Document.
6. The Department submitted the disclosure of the Document may mislead or confuse, and/or may be susceptible to misinterpretation or mischievous interpretation.
7. The Department referred to a number of cases.
8. In Rosen v Department of Human Services[8] ('Rosen'), the Tribunal accepted that the 'nature of the information in the document is clearly a relevant factor in the balancing process'.[9] If, for example, information is unclear, it is more likely that its disclosure would be contrary to the public interest; there can be little public interest in seeing something conveying little meaning.
9. In Peter Ryan MP v Melbourne Water[10] ('Ryan'), the Tribunal held that disclosure of a document containing modelling prepared at a particular point in time was contrary to the public interest. It stated:

[I]t is contrary to the public interest to disclose a document which would potentially mislead and confuse any debate about a general topic where it deals only with a narrow range of specific issues"; [i]f it is susceptible to misinterpretation or mischievous interpretation, disclosure is contrary to the public interest.[11]

1. The Department submitted that the Tribunal in Ryan, stated that the document would be 'susceptible to misinterpretation'. The modelling was 'not accurate, not current and therefore misleading and impossible for a lay person to understand and that to release it now would be mischievous'. The documents were 'highly technical documents, incomplete in some respects, out of date and could easily be misinterpreted'. The information in the document was only part of the information that the authority used in conducting their business.
2. Further, the documents were intended for a specific audience familiar with the technical terms and jargon used, so has the potential for public misunderstanding and the contents of the document could be misinterpreted.
3. The Department sought to distinguish the decision in Mildenhall v Department of Education[12] ('Mildenhall') where a spreadsheet was released which it had been argued had the potential to mislead and to give rise to unnecessary debate, without there being a proper understanding of its purpose by those who read it. The Department submitted, in that case the Tribunal found there was no justification for concluding the documents should give rise to confusion or potential for mischief or mislead anyone. The Department argued that the test was whether there was potential for mischief, or the possibility of mischief, being caused by the release of a document, not that it is proven that an adverse consequence will follow.
4. The Department further submitted that Mildenhall could be distinguished in this matter, and unlike in Mildenhall, the Document was artificially created. The Document was not prepared to be read or provide information. The information was not meaningful. The Document only gives a score to each school and no information about how the 'score' was generated, or what the score meant or signified (including what are the limitations of the score, which are known by the Department but not more broadly). Unlike in Mildenhall, the Document does not reveal what date the score was given. The Document therefore conveys very little meaning.
5. The Department submitted not only does it provide little meaning, but it would also be apt to confuse or mislead. That is because disclosure of the Document, with a 'score' for each school set out in a single document, would enliven a real risk that the public (including parents, teachers and other members of the school community) may infer that each 'score' represented a reliable indicator of the condition of the school and/or worse, that the Document enables a comparison or 'ranking' of schools. The Document does not specify the date on which the relevant assessment for each school was conducted, or when the score was determined.
6. There is a real prospect that misleading impressions formed by parents could contribute to decisions as to where to enrol their children which can distort school funding and impact on the ability to recruit staff.
7. The Department referred to Ryan and submitted that the release of the Document, which contains 'incomplete' information from Reports, which is 'out of date' and is of limited value to a reader, without an understanding of how the score is derived, and could potentially mislead and confuse any debate about the conditions of schools or funding decisions. The Document did not contain sufficient information for an uninformed audience to interpret it, and it would be susceptible to misinterpretation or mischievous interpretation.
8. The Document does not meet the aims of the request which are to provide a better understanding the management and planning of school infrastructure or how funding is allocated to schools. The condition scores were not representative of the overall condition of the schools as shorn of all context, the scores are not 'meaningful information'.
9. At the hearing the Department submitted that it had the onus of establishing that releasing the Document would be contrary to the public interest.
10. The Department referred to Mr Wilson's written submissions where it was stated:

There is public interest in the disclosure of this information, for the purpose of questioning whether the Department is effectively planning for and managing school infrastructure - ultimately ensuring that the health, safety, and welfare of school children are properly safeguarded. There is also a public interest in promoting transparency and accountability in the allocation and use of public funds more broadly.[13]

1. The Department submitted that the release of the Document would not provide information that would further this purpose. The Document would not advance the objectives articulated by Ms Wilson. There was a disconnect between the interest identified and the information in the Document.
2. The Document lists schools and a score. There is no information as to how that score was formulated and what it means. There is no data as to how the score was ascribed to an individual school, what it was based on, or how current it was. Due to the rolling assessment, the score could be derived from the date that was from 2018 or last year. The Document does not provide this context. If infrastructure works had been carried out since the score was assigned, those works would not be reflected in the score.
3. The Department relied on the evidence of Ms Wandel and Mr Thompson in identifying a real risk that releasing the information would cause mischief. The Department submitted that as they had not been cross-examined, their evidence was uncontested and ought to be relied upon.
4. The Department emphasised that test was not whether release would mislead or confuse, but rather whether there is a real risk it might do so.
5. There is a real risk the Document would be susceptible to misinterpretation. There are no dates in the document that indicate when the audit was done or the scores assigned and this may create the misleading impression that the information is recent or current.
6. The document could be used to rank schools when the underlying data is not available and there are no dates to give it context.
7. The Department submitted it was not a solution, as suggested by Ms Wilson, that to remedy the confusion created by the Document the Department can release contextual information to address the confusion. The reasoning in Brog v Department of Premier and Cabinet[14] ('Brog') indicates that the focus is on the document in question (in the absence of other documents that might help explain it) and the reasoning in Ryan also did not support this. It was a speculative that the Department might be able to mitigate the risk of the document being misunderstood.
8. The audit reports which Ms Wilcon suggested could be released to give context involved thousands of pages of documents. The Department ought not have to provide the context where the matter is about the release of one document. There was an obvious risk of misinterpretation when thousands of documents were needed to give context.
9. OVIC stated 'However, I consider the aggregate score would be representative of the overall condition and is meaningful information'. The evidence of Ms Wandel indicates that the aggregate score would not be representative of the overall condition and is not meaningful information.

1. Ms Wilson submitted there was public interest in the disclosure of this information, for the purpose of questioning whether the Department is effectively planning for and managing school infrastructure, ultimately ensuring that the health, safety, and welfare of school children are properly safeguarded. There is also a public interest in promoting transparency and accountability in the allocation and use of public funds more broadly.
2. Ms Wison referred to McIntosh v Department of Premier and Cabinet[15] where the Tribunal said the starting point for the assessment of the public interest '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'.
3. Ms Wilson conceded that the first limb of section 30(1) was met but submitted the second limb in paragraph (b) was not met. It was for the Department to show that the release of documents would harm the public interest in some way.
4. Ms Wilson submitted there are sound reasons to doubt that the release of the Document will mislead or confuse. In this respect, Ms Wilson relied on the facts and reasons outlined in the OVIC Decision, including as follows:

(e) I acknowledge that the document itself does not contain detailed information about the factors considered when school infrastructure is scored and does not fully represent the performance of the school or its facilities. However, I consider the aggregate score would be representative of the overall condition and is meaningful information.

(f) There is no evidence to support that disclosing a list of conditions scores would impact school enrolments. It may be one factor considered by parents and guardians, however, their decision to enroll their child would be dependent on a multitude of factors.

1. Ms Wilsons submitted the evidence offered by the Department did not displace these findings and does not explain why the Department with its significant number of media, communications, and policy advisors is not capable of providing any additional context to the Victorian public.
2. The Victorian public are entitled to information and can be trusted to interpret it responsibly. In the circumstances, transparency is preferable to withholding information on the assumption that the community cannot understand it.
3. Further, it is not enough that the Department identifies a risk that the condition scores are used for purposes other than initially intended. The Department must show that this factor outweighs the other facts in favour of disclosure. Ms Wilson adopted the reasons of OVIC where it stated:

(a) There is a strong public interest in whether the Agency is effectively planning for and managing school infrastructure.

(b) Community awareness will inform public debate on school infrastructure.

(c) The government has announced significant funding towards a school maintenance program. As such, it should be accountable to the community about where such funding is allocated.

(d) The report is of sufficient detail and expertise to be relied upon for use in the Agency's planning.

1. In balancing a range of factors, disclosure is not contrary to the public interest.

WHETHER DISCLOSURE OF THE DOCUMENT WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST

1. In Friends of Mallacoota Inc v Department of Planning and Community Development,[16] Hampel J summarised the considerations that might arise when deciding whether disclosure would be contrary to the public interest:

(a) The nature of the information and the nature of the document. The more sensitive or contentious the issues involved in the communication, the more likely it is that the communication should not be disclosed;

(b) Draft internal working documents or preliminary advice and opinions are more generally than not inappropriate for disclosure, particularly when the final version of the document has been made public;

(c) It is contrary to the public interest to disclose documents reflecting possibilities considered but not eventually adopted, as such disclosure would be likely to lead to confusion and ill-informed debate, to give a spurious standing to such documents or promote pointless and captious debate about what might have happened rather than what did;

(d) Decision-makers should be judged on the final decision and their reasons for it, not on what might have been considered or recommended by others in preliminary or draft internal working documents;

(e) It is contrary to the public interest to disclose documents that would have an adverse effect on the integrity or effectiveness of a decision-making, investigative or other process;

(f) Disclosure of documents which do not fairly disclose the reasons for a decision subsequently taken may be unfair to a decision-maker and may prejudice the integrity of the decision-making process; and

(g) Public interest concerns the interest of the public as distinct from the interest of individuals.

1. The matter proceeded on the basis that if the document was released to Ms Wilson, it would be released in some form to the public at large.
2. In McIntosh v Department of Premier and Cabinet[17] Justice Bell stated:

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.[18]

1. The document sets out what was requested. It lists each school by name and number and a score. A significant number of schools have not been assigned a score (as noted in Ms Wandel's evidence).
2. The cases indicate that there are a wide range of situations that are regarded as contrary to the public interest.
3. The document is not one that requires confidentiality to promote the giving of full and frank advice in government decision making. In my view it is not of a sensitive or contentious nature.
4. It is not a preliminary draft of a report where the final report was substantially different and in the absence of accompanying explanatory material as to why the changes occurred, would have the potential for misconstruction, confusion and exploitation and for undermining confidence in the final report that had been released to the public as in Brog.[19]
5. The only basis for non-disclosure that has been advanced is that there is a real risk that a 'mischievous interpretation' of the Document could be used to rank schools and influence enrolment (and possibly funding) decisions. This is primarily due to the lack of context in the document such as an explanation as to how each score was calculated and the fact that the time frame of the assessment that led to the score is not apparent from the Document.
6. The Department sought to distinguish Mildenhall (where the documents were ordered to be released) which involved the release of a spreadsheet that was describes as:

a spreadsheet disclosing estimates of maintenance needs of government schools in Victoria as at 5 November 1997. For each school referred to in the spreadsheet, the total anticipated maintenance needs are specified broken down into various categories according to priority allocated. Upon the evidence, the figures contained in the spreadsheet were sent by BSA to the relevant schools with a request for verification or comment on the accuracy. Opportunity was given to appeal against the estimates. Many schools did not avail themselves of the opportunity to comment. The information in the spreadsheet was used for broad statewide planning relating to funding.

1. It was argued in that case that disclosure of the spreadsheet would be contrary to the public interest because it had the potential to cause confusion and unnecessary debate because it is inaccurate and, without a proper understanding of the purpose of the document, would be likely to mislead.
2. It was also argued in that case that it was contrary to the public interest to release the document because the information in the document contained inaccuracies and had the potential to confuse and mislead and to give rise to unnecessary debate without there being a proper understanding of its purpose by those who read it.
3. The Tribunal in that case noted that the system involved ongoing appraisal subject to adjustment and that such review might well demonstrate that earlier estimates were wrong, was a recognisable aspect of the system. Further it observed the claim that figures occurring in a spreadsheet relating to assessment as at a particular day should give rise to confusion or potential for mischief or should mislead anyone was unsubstantiated speculation. The Tribunal found there was a clear public interest in many aspects of education not the least the maintenance of the school facilities in which it is provided. In the absence of overriding and compelling reasons for refusing to release the information in dispute, it was released.
4. In the current case, the Document would not be misleading or difficult to interpret because it contains highly technical terms or jargon. Nor is it inaccurate as in Ryan.
5. I accept that the score may provide to the public little useful or valuable information, but I do not accept that it is meaningless. If this was the case, there would be no point in generating the score. The Department's submission is that it has some meaning to the Department but would mislead the public.
6. I am mindful of the comments in Rosen that there can be little public interest in seeing something conveying little meaning.[20] However that case involved cryptic handwritten notes that were almost indecipherable[21] and that is not the case here.
7. The mischief the Department pointed to was that it could be used to rank schools and influence parents' decisions regarding enrolment in particular schools (which in turn could affect funding decisions). As on the face of it, it is unclear how the score is calculated, and as it only relates to one aspect, namely physical infrastructure, I am not satisfied that there is a real risk that it would influence parents' enrolment decisions. The evidence of Mr Thompson that there was a risk it would be used by parents to rank schools and influence parents' enrolment decisions, is speculative.
8. The article Mr Thompson referred to reports that 'school shopping' had become more prevalent among middle-class parents in gentrified suburbs. Middle class families were trying to essentially avoid people from lower income backgrounds. It notes the lower enrolments in schools next to public housing towers. It appears to relate primarily to inner city schools and indicates that there are factors that are more influential than opaque infrastructure scores in making enrolment decisions.
9. I am also satisfied that the Department when releasing the information could provide some context to counter any potential mischief. This need not be the thousands of documents referred to by the Department in submissions, but rather an explanation that many factors go into the calculation of the scores and their purpose, and that they are done over a rolling five-year timeframe. At the very least, that the score is only one factor taken into account in providing funding to schools.
10. I am not satisfied there is real risk that the mischief it is claimed may result in the disclosure of the document would eventuate.
11. I affirm the decision of OVIC.
12. As is standard practice, I allowed a 28 day delay, in which the Department may consider its appeal rights.

[1] Where the requested information is not available in a discrete form, but the agency could produce a written document containing the information in discrete form by the use of a computer.

[2] A document prepared for the purpose of briefing a Minister in relation to issues to be considered by the Cabinet.

[3] Section 30(1)(b).

[4] Department of Health & Human Services v Herald and Weekly Times Pty Ltd (Review and Regulation) [2015] VCAT 291 at [9] and Department of Treasury and Finance v Davis (Review and Regulation) (Corrected) [2024] VCAT 618 at [31].

[6] Although I note since the 2018-2022 assessments are completed and its halfway through the second cycle, it's more akin to three-quarters of the assessments having been completed.

[7] (1998) 12 VAR 483 at 488.

[8] [2006] VCAT 691.

[10] (General) [2009] VCAT 2079.

[12] [1998] VICCAT 1266.

[14] (1989) 3 VAR 201.

[15] (General) [2009] VCAT 1528, [18].

[16] (General) [2011] VCAT 1889.

[17] (General) [2009] VCAT 1528.

[20] DP Coglan, Rosen v Department of Human Services [2006] VCAT 691 At [67] Referring to Mond v Department of Justice [2005] VCAT 2817 and Roy Morgan Research Centre Pty Ltd v State Revenue Office (unreported, VCAT, Coghlan DP, 17 June 1999) at 21.

[21] Rosen v Department of Human Services [2006] VCAT 691 at 75.