The decision under review is varied to this extent:

(a) as to document 1, the whole of the part under the heading "Assumptions" on page 1, the whole of the part under the heading "Key Tasks and Completion Dates" on page 2, the whole of the part under the heading "Other assigned project resources" on page 2 and the whole of the part under the heading "Evaluation and measurement" on page 3 are not exempt and shall be released to Mr McIntosh;

(b) as to document 4, the parts not released are not exempt and shall be released to Mr McIntosh;

(c) as to document 6, the words from and including "the" until "2007-08" in lines three to four of the fourth paragraph on the third unnumbered page are not exempt and shall be released to Mr McIntosh.

1. Andrew McIntosh MP is the Shadow Minister for Police and Emergency Services. He is interested in the role, function and output of the unit responsible within Victoria Police for the planning and placement of police officers. Under the Freedom of Information Act 1982, Mr McIntosh has applied for access to various reports and draft reports prepared for that unit.
2. Commander Robert Clegg is the Assistant Director and a member of the Board of Management of the Human Resources Department of Victoria Police. This is the unit responsible for advising the Corporate Committee of Victoria Police on the planning and placement of police officers.
3. In response to his request, Victoria Police have given Mr McIntosh a number of documents in whole or in part. Five documents remain in dispute. Victoria Police resists disclosure of these documents on the ground they are exempt under s 30(1)(a) and (b) of the Act. Under this section, internal working documents (paragraph (a)), disclosure of which is contrary to the public interest (paragraph (b)), are exempt. This is the only exemption relied on.
4. Victoria Police rely on a number of public interest grounds which relate to the general reasons why internal working documents should not be released. Mr McIntosh relies on a number of public interest grounds relating to the significance of police numbers and similar issues in the community.
5. I embark on the task of reviewing the decision not to release the disputed documents with the objects of the legislation in mind. As I said in Smeaton v Victorian WorkCover Authority:[2]

The Freedom of Information Act has very important purposes in the public interest. The objects of the legislation are set out in s 3(1). The provisions of the legislation are to be interpreted, and its discretions exercised, with those objects firmly in mind (s 3(2)). The right to seek, receive and impart information is an aspect of the human right of freedom of expression which is recognised in s 15 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, reflecting article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.[3] The provisions of the Freedom of Information Act should be interpreted consistently with this human right, to the extent required by the standard principles of interpretation and the special interpretative obligation in s 32(1) of the Charter, as I explained them in Kracke v Mental Health Review Board.[4]

1. There was no dispute in this case about the proper application of the public interest test in s 30(1)(b). When the tribunal is applying that test, the respondent must establish it would be positively contrary to the public interest for the information to be disclosed. As I said in McIntosh v Department of Premier and Cabinet,[5] the collection of authorities in Re Wells and Department of Premier and Cabinet[6] was cited with approval by Maxwell P in Secretary, Department of Justice v Osland.[7] The proper approach is set out in those authorities. I went on to say that:[8]

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.[9] Those purposes are always directly relevant when considering the public interest, but may be especially strong, and outweigh other aspects of the public interest, where access to the information is necessary to address questions that have acquired a particular importance in the mind of the community.

Other relevant consideration have been identified in such authorities as Re Howard and Treasurer of Commonwealth of Australia[10] and Re Hulls and Victorian Casino and Gaming Authority,[11] details of which are set out in Re Wells and Department of Premier and Cabinet.[12] Among those considerations are the purposes of the exemption in s 30. In the words of Maxwell P, these "include the efficient and economical conduct of government, protection of the deliberative processes of government, particularly at high levels of government and in relation to sensitive issues, and the preservation of confidentiality so as to promote the giving of full and frank advice."[13]

1. I will examine the documents that remain in issue against those principles.
2. Document 1 is part of an Implementation Project Plan 2007-2008 for the Expenditure Review Committee. Some parts of the document have been disclosed. All of the remaining parts are deliberative in nature. That has been established by the evidence given by Commander Clegg. The question is whether or not it would be contrary to the public interest to disclose the balance remaining. Insofar as the document discusses confidential budgetary processes and makes recommendations about how available funding might be distributed in terms of the allocation and placement of police officers, I am satisfied it would be so contrary.
3. The decisions made by Victoria Police and the government in respect of these matters speak for themselves. I think it would be injurious to the public interest to promote pointless and captious debate about what might have happened, rather than what did happen. The risk analysis in the document falls into the same category. In this case there are no significantly countervailing considerations.
4. However, the whole of the part under the heading "Assumptions" on page 1, the whole of the part under the heading "Key Tasks and Completion Dates" on page 2, the whole of the part under the heading "Other assigned project resources" on page 2 and the whole of the part under the heading "Evaluation and measurement" on page 3 should be disclosed. Nothing about the subject matter, the content or the context of the information disclosed in these parts would, if disclosed, be contrary to the public interest.
5. I uphold the claim for exemption with respect to document 1, except as to those parts.
6. Document 2 is part of the brief for the Corporate Committee by Commander Clegg dated 14 February 2007. This document should not be disclosed. It discusses options for how 50 additional police might be managed and distributed. Commander Clegg was not the final decision-maker. The entirety of the document is deliberative. To release the document would, I think, give rise to captious and futile public debate. The final decision on the subject, and the reason for it, is the important thing, not what Commander Clegg might have recommended. Again, there are not, here, significantly countervailing considerations. For those reasons, I uphold the exemption claimed with respect to document 2.
7. Document 3 has been disclosed.
8. Document 4 is part of the second page of a two-page briefing note to Chief Commissioner Nixon from Commander Clegg dated 2 February 2007. The context to the claim for exemption in relation to this document is that there has been a debate between the Police Association and Victoria Police and the government over whether there are 655 missing police. The debate was stimulated by information provided by Victoria Police itself. The information was incorrect. The Police Association have been so informed, but it continues to say there are 655 missing police.
9. Document 4 has been released almost entirely. What has not been disclosed is a paragraph on page two containing the opinions expressed by Commander Clegg about how incorrect information came to be supplied.
10. I have looked at Commander Clegg's comments in the document and heard his evidence. I consider his observations as to how the incorrect information came to be supplied to be unexceptional. He refers to various deficiencies which may have occurred in the collection of the information by the administrative staff of Victoria Police. It would not be contrary to the public interest to disclose these views. The document makes clear that he is discussing possibilities, not the actual reasons for the error. Since an error has been made in information supplied by Victoria Police, it is legitimate for Mr McIntosh to want to examine the possible reasons for it. Therefore I am of the view it would not be contrary to the public interest to release document 4.
11. Document 5 is part of the second page of the briefing note to the Corporate Committee from Commander Clegg dated 5 February 2007. This document has also been largely disclosed. The remaining part refers to the reactions by people in some geographical areas to decisions which might be made about the allocation of police resources to those areas, and how this might be dealt with. It is clear from the contents of the parts for which exemption is claimed that they are deliberative. In my view it would be contrary to the public interest to release these parts of the document. Commander Clegg's advice covers many possible reactions to the possible decisions. There are sensitive issues that have to be handled with care. It would promote futile and captious debate to disclose his consideration of these subjects. Nothing has been established which would displace the importance of that consideration. As I said earlier, it is the decision made and not the possibilities covered that is the important thing. For those reasons, I uphold the exemption claimed in respect of these parts.
12. Document 6 is an issues coversheet of six pages prepared by Commander Clegg dated 1 June 2007. Much of this document has also been released. It deals with the allocation of police officers. It is clearly deliberative. It discusses a range of sensitive options. It would also give rise to futile and captious debate to disclose the consideration of these options, and thereby be contrary to the public interest.
13. The issues discussed by Commander Clegg are entirely hypothetical and represent the consideration of options rather than the taking of actual decisions. Commander Clegg was not himself the decision-maker. The decisions in regard to the subject covered by the document were taken by Victoria Police. The decisions ultimately taken speak for themselves. There is no particular reason justifying the release of the considerations of options. I think it would be contrary to the public interest to order the release of the options considered by the non-decision maker. Therefore I will uphold the claim for exemption in respect of the non-disclosed parts of document 6.
14. That completes my examination of the individual documents.
15. During the hearing, Commander Clegg conceded that some parts of document 6 should be disclosed. Those parts were read out in the hearing, and this will be reflected in the final order that I make.
16. On the evidence in this case, I do not accept that Commander Clegg would be inhibited from giving full and frank advice by the release of any of the information for which exemption has been claimed. He is a highly experienced, professional, and robust career police officer who would not, in my view, be influenced in this way. I base my decision in respect of the exemptions that have been claimed on the other considerations which I have mentioned.
17. The decision under review will be varied accordingly.

[1] These reasons are based on a decision I gave ex tempore. I here refer to more recent decisions on the

relevant principles, but they are the same principles which I there applied.

[2] [2009] VCAT 1195, [17].

[3] Opened for signature 16 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171 (entered into force 23 March 1976).

[4] [2009] VCAT 646, [37] ff.

[5] [2009] VCAT 1528, [17].

[6] [2001] VCAT 1800; (2001) 18 VAR 293, 299-302.

[7] [2007] VSCA 96; (2007) 95 ALD 380.

[8] [2009] VCAT 1528, [18]-[19].

[9] McKinnon v Secretary, Department of Treasury [2006] HCA 45; (2006) 228 CLR 423, [19].

[10] [1985] AATA 100; (1985) 7 ALD 626, 634-635.

[11] (1997) 12 VAR 483, 488.

[12] [2001] VCAT 1800; (2001) 18 VAR 293, 299-302.

[13] Secretary, Department of Justice v Osland [2007] VSCA 96; (2007) 95 ALD 380, 399-400.