Taylor v Destination NSW

Tribunal's jurisdiction and powers

1. The Tribunal's jurisdiction to conduct this review derives from s100 of the GIPA Act read with s28 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) and s9 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) (ADR Act).
2. In determining the application, the Tribunal is to decide what the correct and preferable decision is having regard to the material before it: ADR Act, s63(1). The Respondent bears the onus of satisfying the Tribunal that the decision it has made is the correct and preferable decision: GIPA Act, s105(1). The Respondent is not limited to defending the matter on the same basis as it made its original decision: Public Service Assn v Premier's Department [2002] NSWADT 277 at [57] and [59].
3. In determining the application, the Tribunal may affirm the decision, vary the decision, set aside the decision and make another decision in substitution for the decision set aside, or set aside the decision and remit the matter for reconsideration by the Respondent in accordance with any directions or recommendations of the Tribunal: ADR Act, s63(3).
4. In determining the application, the Tribunal is to ensure that it does not, in the reasons for its decision or otherwise, disclose any information for which there is an overriding public interest against disclosure: s107(1) of the GIPA Act.

The GIPA Act

1. Section 3(1) of the GIPA Act provides: 3 Object of Act (1) In order to maintain and advance a system of responsible and representative democratic Government that is open, accountable, fair and effective, the object of this Act is to open government information to the public by: (a) authorising and encouraging the proactive public release of government information by agencies, and (b) giving members of the public an enforceable right to access government information, and (c) providing that access to government information is restricted only when there is an overriding public interest against disclosure.
2. Section 3(2)(a) of the GIPA Act requires that the Act be interpreted and applied so as to further that object.
3. Section 5 of the GIPA Act establishes a presumption in favour of disclosure of government information. An access applicant has a legally enforceable right to access the information requested unless there is an overriding public interest against disclosing the information: section 9(1) of the GIPA Act.
4. Section 12 of the GIPA Act sets out the general public interest consideration in favour of access to government information. Section 12(1) of the GIPA Act sets out a general public interest in favour of disclosing government information. Section 12(2) provides that the agency may take into account any other considerations in favour of disclosure which may be relevant.
5. Section 13 of the GIPA Act sets out the public interest balancing test for determining whether there is an overriding public interest against disclosure. The balance is always weighted in favour of disclosure. Before deciding whether to release or withhold information, an agency must apply the public interest test and decide whether or not an overriding public interest against disclosure exists in regard to the information sought. Section 13 requires the decision maker to: 1. identify relevant public interest considerations in favour of disclosure, 2. identify relevant public interest considerations against disclosure, 3. attribute weight to each consideration for and against disclosure, and 4. determine whether the balance of the public interest lies in favour of or against disclosure of the government information.
6. The only public interest considerations against disclosure that can be considered are those identified in section 14 of the GIPA Act. This includes considerations set out in schedule 1 to the GIPA Act. Considerations against disclosure will only be relevant if it is established that the disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to have the effect outlined in the table to section 14 of the GIPA Act.
7. Pursuant to section 105 of the GIPA Act the burden of establishing that the decision is justified lies on the Respondent.
8. The Tribunal is to determine where the balance lies between the public interest considerations for and against disclosure. The balancing exercise "is a question of fact and degree, requiring the weighing of competing matters, and is a task not amenable to mathematical calculation": Battin v University of New England [2013] NSWADT 73 at paragraph [74]. In undertaking this exercise the Tribunal is to be guided by section 15 of the GIPA Act.
9. Section 54 of the GIPA Act requires an agency to take such steps (if any) as are reasonably practicable to consult with a person before providing access to information relating to the person in response to an access application.
10. Under section 55 of the GIPA Act, the Tribunal is entitled to consider the Applicant's motives for making the application to the extent that it is relevant to whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to have any of the effects referred to in clauses 2 - 5 of the Table to section 14. The personal factors of the application can also be taken into account as factors in favour of providing the Applicant with access to the information.

"Could reasonably be expected…"

1. The words "could reasonably be expected to" have been held to require "something which is more than a mere risk or chance. It must be based on real and substantial grounds, and it must not be purely speculative, fanciful, imaginary or contrived": Leech v Sydney Water Corporation [2010] NSWADT 198 at [28], adopted in Flack v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2011] NSWADT 286 at [41]-[42] and cited in Roy v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2012] NSWADT 120 at [28]. While it must be a "real" risk, the chance of it materialising need not be more probable than not: Neary v State Rail Authority [1999] NSWADT 107 at [35]-[36] and the cases there cited. The phrase "'simply calls for an "objective assessment', on the evidence before the Tribunal, as to whether the claimed effects could be expected to arise, from the standpoint of a reasonable administrator. Ultimately, it is of course a question of fact": Hall v Department of Premier and Cabinet (NSW) [2012] NSWADT 46 at [45].
2. In Attorney General's Department v Cockcroft [1986] FCA 35; (1986) 10 FCR 180 at 190, Bowen CJ and Beaumont JJ interpreted the term in the following way: In our opinion, in the present context, the words "could reasonably be expected to prejudice the future supply of information" were intended to receive their ordinary meaning. That is to say, they require a judgment to be made by the decision-maker as to whether it is reasonable, as distinct from something that is irrational, absurd or ridiculous, to expect that those who would otherwise supply information of the prescribed kind to the Commonwealth or any agency would decline to do so if the document in question were disclosed under the Act. It is undesirable to attempt any paraphrase of these words. In particular, it is undesirable to consider the operation of the provision in terms of probabilities or possibilities or the like...
3. The word "expected" is not to be given too wide a meaning in light of the objectives of the statute: Cockcroft per Sheppard J at 112. The occurrence of the prejudice does not have to be established on the balance of probabilities but there must be something more than a possibility, risk or chance of the event occurring: Cockcroft per Bowen CJ and Beaumont J at [106].

The respondent's approach to determining the access application

1. The Applicant's access application sought information in relation to events which received financial support from the Respondent between April 2012 and April 2015. The Respondent determined that the access application involved nine different named events, being Vivid Sydney, The Addams Family, Yabun Festival, Strictly Ballroom, Blue Man Group, New Year's Eve celebrations, Sydney Festival, Corroboree Sydney, and the Sydney International Art Series, six of which recurred over multiple years in the subject period, totalling twenty-three separate events. The Respondent also characterised the Applicant's request for information as falling within six separate "categories of documents", with reference to the six numbered items in the Applicant's access application.
2. The Respondent approached the justification of its reviewable decision on two grounds concurrently. First, as reflected in the initial decision and its reviewable decision, access to documents within each of the six categories was stated to have been refused on public interest grounds pursuant to s58(1)(d). Second, as reflected in the reviewable decision and subsequent evidence and submissions, s60 of the GIPA Act was referred to as a reason for refusing to deal with the application as a whole on the basis that doing so would be a substantial diversion of resources.

Reliance on s60 of the GIPA Act

1. I reject the Respondent's submission that s60 of the GIPA Act applies so as to allow the Respondent to refuse to deal with the access application, on the basis that the Respondent did not sufficiently comply with s60(4) and s60(5) of the Act.
2. Section 60(4) of the GIPA Act requires an agency to give the access applicant a reasonable opportunity to amend the application before refusing to deal with an access application because dealing with it would require an unreasonable and substantial diversion of resources. Section 60(5) requires an agency to give reasons for a refusal to deal with an access application in the notice of decision. The Tribunal cautioned in the decision of Singh v Legal Aid Commission (No 2) [2015] NSWCATAD 5 ("Singh") that the power of an agency to refuse to deal with an access application is a powerful one and should be used as a last resort after making every attempt to assist an applicant to narrow their request.
3. The only opportunity suggested or given to the Applicant by the Respondent to refine the scope of his application was via letter dated 23 August 2016, which stated: "Destination NSW will undertake an internal review of your original application. We kindly ask that by return letter, you consent to the internal review taking place. We also at this time give you the opportunity to refine the scope of your original application if you wish".
4. There was no reference in the letter to the suggestion of refining or re-scoping the application having any relevance to an unreasonable or substantial diversion of the Respondent's resources. So much is confirmed by the Applicant's response on 30 August 2016, which was to effectively broaden the scope of his request. I therefore accept the Applicant's submissions that he did not understand by that correspondence that he was being asked to narrow his application because complying with it would cause an unreasonable and substantial diversion of the Respondent's resources. Compliance with s60(4) of the GIPA Act must be demonstrable prior to a decision being made under s60(1) of the GIPA Act, and it is the Respondent's onus in these proceedings to do so. I find that the Respondent has not discharged that onus. The letter of 23 August 2016 does not support the standard expressed in Singh of "making every attempt to assist an applicant to narrow their request".
5. In addition, whilst the reviewable decision referred to s60 of the GIPA Act as "the reason of dealing with this application would require an unreasonable and substantial diversion of the Destination NSW resources", this is in the nature of an assertion without any explanation or supporting reasons provided as required by s60(5) of the Act. Whilst the Respondent has sought to characterise submissions and evidence filed in these proceedings as proof of its compliance with s60(5) of the GIPA Act, I reject those as irrelevant in circumstances where they have only been provided following the applicant's request for administrative review by this Tribunal, for the purpose of these proceedings.
6. Further, the reviewable decision demonstrates that the Respondent did deal with the application. A decision to refuse to deal with an access application is a reviewable decision pursuant to s80(c) of the GIPA Act. The processes established under the GIPA Act distinguish between the requirement to decide to refuse to deal with an access application for the reason of an unreasonable and substantial diversion of resources, and to decide not to release information based upon overriding public interest considerations against disclosure. As the Appeal Panel observed in Commissioner of Police v Danis [2017] NSWCATAP 7 ("Danis"), the decisions available under section 58 are in the nature of final decisions. The decision by the Respondent as confirmed in the notice of decision of 22 June 2015 was "to refuse to provide access to some information under section 58(1)(d) because there is an overriding public interest consideration against disclosure of the information". The reviewable decision of 15 September 2016 stated "…the decision outlined in the Notice of Decision previously provided stands. This is because there is an overriding public interest against disclosure of the information."
7. The Respondent's original decision and reviewable decision to refuse to provide access to information under s58(1)(d) conflict with a submission that it relied on s60(1) to "refuse to deal" with the application. It dealt with the application by considering the public interest considerations relevant to the information sought, and determining to refuse access. In those circumstances a decision to refuse to deal with an access application under s58(1)(e) through s60(1) of the GIPA Act is not available to an agency where the agency has already made a final decision under a different subsection of s58 of the GIPA Act with respect to the same information. This expressly considers the application of s58(2) of the GIPA Act, which allows that "more than one decision can be made in respect of a particular access application, so as to deal with the various items of information applied for", on the basis that the Respondent did not specify which item of information it refused to deal with under s60(1) of the Act, implying that the provision applied to the entirety of the access application. More than one decision under s58 of the GIPA Act cannot be made in circumstances where there is no distinction between various items of information applied for in the access application.
8. In any event, the evidence provided by the Respondent, comprising hearsay evidence in the affidavit of Ms Chipchase, is insufficient to demonstrate that complying with the access application would actually require an unreasonable and substantial diversion of the Respondent's resources. The factors outlined in Cianfrano v Director General, Premier's Department [2006] NSWADT 137 at [62] for determining whether production would involve an unreasonable and substantial diversion of an agency's resources, which were confirmed as relevant to the GIPA Act considerations in Colefax v Department of Education and Communities (NSW) (No 2) [2013] NSWADT 130 at [25], were largely not addressed by the Respondent. Further, correspondence and material provided by the Respondent following the conclusion of the hearing demonstrates that the information provided to Ms Chipchase upon which the Respondent based its submissions at hearing was inaccurate. In the circumstances, even if it was possible for the Respondent to rely on both s58(1)(e) in addition to or in the alternative to s58(1)(d) of the GIPA Act, the Respondent has not adequately supported a claim that complying with the Applicant's request for information would require an unreasonable and substantial diversion of its resources pursuant to s60(1) of the GIPA Act.

Public interest considerations

1. The Respondent relied on s58(1)(d) of the GIPA Act to refuse to provide the Applicant with access to the information requested in his access application. The Respondent did not engage in any third party consultations, instead making generalised submissions regarding the confidentiality of the information relevant to or obtained from those third parties.
2. In submissions, the Respondent applied the public interest test theoretically and holistically to each of the six categories of documents identified as numbered items in the Applicant's access application, without specific reference to the documents containing the information caught by the requests in the access application. The Respondent provided the Tribunal, on a confidential basis, with folders containing 79 documents it considered were caught by the access application, and a table identifying the bases in the Table to s14 of the GIPA Act for refusing to provide access to each document in those folders. It did not specify which of the 79 documents in those folders were produced in response to which particular request in the access application.
3. This is a fundamentally flawed approach. The public interest test in the GIPA Act requires examination of the government information to apply the public interest test to that information and not to 'classes' or 'categories' of documents as was required under the former Freedom of Information regime (emphasis added). In Starr v Superannuation Administrative Corporation [2015] NSWCATAD 76, the Tribunal found that in relation to communication of the external lawyers advice to the respondent, only those paragraphs containing the external confidential legal advice were the subject to the overriding public interest considerations against disclosure. The applicant was entitled to have access to the remaining information.
4. In submissions, the Respondent identified the following records as containing the information sought in the Applicant's access application at "Category 1", being "Documents used to decide support for events including Vivid, Addams Family Musical, Yabun Festival, Strictly Ballroom, Blue Man Group, New Year's Eve celebrations and Sydney Festival, Corroboree Sydney and Sydney Internal Art Series" ("Request 1"): 1. The "Visitor Economy Industry Action Plan", submitted to provide the overarching direction for Destination NSW's investment into events. Destination NSW directed Mr Taylor to access a copy of this document online at http://www.trade.nsw.gov.au/invest-in-nsw/industry-opportunities/tourism/industry-action-plan-tourism. 2. The "Assessment Criteria" proforma, submitted to be used by the Respondent when deciding whether to provide financial support for an event, outlined and publicly accessible at http://www.destinationnsw.com.au/support-for-events. 3. "Business Case Submissions", to which the Respondent refused the Applicant access on the basis that the public interest considerations against disclosure outweighed those in favour: The business case submission documents contain commercial and financial information regarding the proposed event. This information is obtained on a confidential basis from the applicant for support. Additionally, the business case submission documents contain Destination NSW's proprietary assessment methodology for assessing the events against the relevant criteria for support. Destination NSW has refused access to these documents.
5. The Respondent identified the following documents as containing the information sought by the Applicant's access application at "Category 2", being his request for "The proposals and costing put forward for each event and the minutes of meetings discussing the merits of the events" ("Request 2"): 1. The "Event Investment Form" proforma, submitted to be used by third parties for funding applications to the Respondent, a copy of which was provided to the Applicant; 2. Proposals submitted by the Respondent and by third parties for specific events, to which the Respondent refused the Applicant access on the basis that the public interest considerations against disclosure outweighed those in favour. 3. Minutes of meetings discussing the merits of particular events. The Respondent located 2 such documents following the conclusion of the hearing, despite a statement in the reviewable decision and submissions that no such minutes were kept, but refused access to the Applicant on the basis that public interest considerations against disclosure outweighed those in favour.
6. In relation to the Applicant's request for "documents indicating who made the decision in each case and their expertise" ("Request 3"), the Respondent provided the Applicant with general information about decision making and financial delegation in the Respondent's organisation, the hiring of staff in accordance with statutory obligations, and the existence and location of public records regarding the identity and professional experience of the members of Destination NSW's board and the Minister for Tourism and Major Events. No specific information was provided by the Respondent in answer to the Applicant's request for information regarding "each case".
7. In relation to the Applicant's request for a "List of events that failed to secure support [from] Destination NSW with reasons why they were not supported" ("Request 4"), the Respondent submitted that it did not have such a list and was not obligated to provide such a list pursuant to s75(2)(c) of the GIPA Act.
8. In response to the Applicant's request for "Documents showing how these event sponsorships were evaluated in terms of value for money for the taxpayer" ("Request 5"), the Respondent referred to the Business Case Submissions identified in response to Request 1, and submitted further that: Additionally, the risk of prejudice to Destination NSW's deliberative processes should be given considerable weight. If written evaluations of applications for support were subject to release to the public, then staff at Destination NSW may avoid providing written evaluations and would instead only provide oral advice to decision makers on a confidential basis. This would severely compromise Destination NSW's deliberative processes.
9. It is unclear whether the written evaluation of applications referred to in submissions are the Business Case Submissions documents provided to the Tribunal, or other documents not otherwise provided to the Tribunal.
10. In response to the Applicant's request for "Documents indicating how each event fulfilled the criteria under which they were assessed" ("Request 6"), the Respondent submitted: Support for the Events was provided by Destination NSW in accordance with funding agreements between Destination NSW and the event organisers. The funding agreements include key performance indicators (KPIs) that were negotiated between the parties to the funding agreements, as well as terms setting out information to be provided to Destination NSW at the conclusion of the event. In most instances, the KPIs influenced whether and when the organiser of the Event received a tranche of funding from Destination NSW. The terms of these funding agreements are confidential. The funding agreements also provide for review of the agreement by the parties, and the KPIs set out in the funding agreements are therefore subject to change.
11. It is unclear whether the funding agreements and KPIs referred to in submissions are included in the Business Case Submissions documents provided to the Tribunal as an answer to Request 1, or additional documents not otherwise provided to the Tribunal.
12. In relation to the entirety of the access application, the public interest considerations in favour of disclosure include: 1. The general public interest pursuant to s12(1) of the GIPA Act; 2. That disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to promote open discussion of public affairs, enhance Government accountability or contribute to positive and informed debate on issues of public importance pursuant to s12(2)(a) of the GIPA Act; 3. That disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to inform the public about the operations of Destination NSW pursuant to s12(2)(b) of the GIPA Act; 4. That disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to ensure effective oversight of the expenditure of public funds by Destination NSW pursuant to s12(2)(c) of the GIPA Act.
13. The Applicant submitted that: "The access application sought documents that would shed light on how Destination NSW operates and reaches decisions to support certain events; that is to say, how it spends taxpayers' money". "DNSW declines to disclose how much money it spends on a particular event, to whom that money is given, the purpose for which it is given and an evaluation of whether that money is spent wisely. Keeping this information secret and away from the scrutiny and consideration of the people of NSW - ie. The people whose money they are spending - contrary to the public interest considerations that favour disclosure in s 12". "It is also not widely understood that Destination NSW does not consider the artistic merit of an event when deciding whether to provide financial support. This point was made by Neville d'Costa: "Destination NSW's main remit is to double overnight visitor expenditure by 2020. We are not an arts grant body and therefore our role is not to educate the public about art etc. - our role is to invest in events that will drive tourism and so we look to how likely it is an event will deliver overnight visitation.""
14. I agree with the Applicant. In circumstances where the information is sought by the Applicant for the purpose of investigative journalism into the funding of and by Destination NSW, I consider that the public interest considerations in favour of disclosure carry significant weight, particularly the considerations at s12(2)(b) and 12(2)(c) of the GIPA Act.
15. The Respondent submitted generally that the basis for refusing access to information was that the information "is confidential and commercially sensitive", and disclosure thus could reasonably be expected to have the relevant stated effects in the table to s14 of the GIPA Act.
16. In Commissioner of Police (NSW) v Camilleri [2012] NSWADTAP 19, the Appeal Panel held that the question as to whether information is "confidential information" is to "be examined, primarily at least, by reference to the agency's evidence as to the conditions under which it conducts the service within which the information was received" (at [33]) and that the enquiry "should focus on the point of receipt, and the administrative standards and community understandings which surrounded it" (at [34]). Whilst the Respondent's evidence demonstrates that the Respondent intended or expected the information to be confidential, there is no evidence from any third parties as to their expectations or intentions in providing information to the Respondent, and the Respondent agreed at hearing that none had been sought.
17. The evidence from Ms Chipchase was that "the Event Investment Form advises applicants that DestinationNSW will take all reasonable care to ensure that confidentiality is preserved", and that strategic investment agreements "generally contain provisions relating to disclosure under the GIPA Act". On review of the evidence, the event investment form proforma contains the following disclaimer: Disclaimer: Any personal information you provide in this Event Investment Form will be used solely for the evaluation of the proposed event by the event proponent and Destination NSW. The form itself will remain the property of Destination NSW. You have the right to access and/or correct any Personal Information which Destination NSW holds about you, subject to the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1988 (NSW). For more information on our privacy policies, including your rights to access and/or correct your information, please visit our website at www.destinationnsw.com.au. Destination NSW will take all reasonable care to ensure that confidentiality is preserved, but neither Destination NSW or its servants or agents nor other persons assisting to evaluate the information will be liable for any breach of confidentiality, unless such breach arises from a direct intentional disclosure for a purpose other than evaluation, in which case only the actual persons making such a disclosure shall be liable to the entrants. Destination NSW reserves the right to evaluate and assess any events in its absolute discretion.
18. The disclaimer does not address the Respondent's statutory obligations with respect to record keeping, reporting, or providing public access to information. Those obligations inform administrative standards for government agencies and community understandings of how agencies work and deal with information provided to them by reason of the enactment of legislation such as the GIPA Act. This is a failure by the Respondent to inform the community of the statutory limitations placed on any implied or express confidentiality assurances. It does not limit the application of those statutory obligations.
19. The Strategic Investment Agreements located at Documents 2, 14, 21, 24, 25, 28, 32, 38, 46, 52, of the confidential documents specify that certain information must be provided to the Respondent as the investor, "in order for the Investor to comply with its NSW Government reporting requirements". Schedule 5 to the Strategic Investment Agreements contains the "Investor Standard Terms", which includes at Clause 12 "Confidential Information" terms, including an acknowledgement at Clause 12.8 that the agreement is subject to the GIPA Act. At Clause 12.8(e) the agreement specifies that "The Investor will take reasonably practicable steps to consult with the Event Organiser before providing any person with access to information relating to this agreement, in response to an access application", and clauses 12.8(f) through to 12.8(j) provide the Respondent's obligations with respect to notice and disclosure for a GIPA access application.
20. On the evidence before the Tribunal, no such consultation was made by the Respondent with any third parties. The effect of this finding is significant. First, in Applicants v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2015] NSWCATAD 22 at [96]-[98], the Tribunal considered that where evidence consists merely of a person's opinion as to the likelihood that people will behave in a certain way, the usefulness of that evidence is likely to be limited. The Respondent's evidence from Ms Chipchase as to the concerns that third parties may have in relation to the release of the information they provided to the Respondent is therefore of limited use and I ascribe it little weight. Consultation with third parties assists and informs a decision maker in applying the public interest test. Assuming an objection without any consultation does not inform the public interest considerations against disclosure.
21. Second, the Respondent's evidence and submissions that breaching confidentiality by disclosing the information pursuant to the GIPA Act access application would have certain effects relevant to the public interest considerations against disclosure, such as (but not limited to) prejudicing the effective exercise of an agency's functions, is also of limited weight, as the Respondent has failed to comply with the terms of its agreement with the third parties whose information it received. As submitted by the Applicant: If the disclosure of confidential information of third parties is of such concern to Destination NSW, it could have sought ways to avoid that disclosure while fulfilling its statutory obligations to release information about its operations. It failed to do that and rather seeks to maintain secrecy by assuming third parties will object instead of consulting them.

Correct and preferable decision

1. The onus for justifying its decision to refuse access to information lies with the Respondent. In reaching the correct and preferable decision in these proceedings, the Tribunal needs to determine whether the Respondent has justified its decision in relation to the Applicant's access application, and has to ensure that it does not, in the reasons for its decision or otherwise, disclose any information for which there is an overriding public interest against disclosure. This is a difficult task in circumstances where the Respondent has failed in its obligations under s54 of the GIPA Act to consult with third parties, has incorrectly approached the application of s13 of the GIPA Act to categories of documents instead of information, has applied the public interest considerations in the table to s14 of the GIPA Act without filing evidence to support the submission as to why each relevant particular public interest consideration against disclosure applies to the information contained in each document, and has made submissions on categories of documents without specifying which documents fall into each particular category.
2. In the circumstances the correct and preferable decision is for the Tribunal to set aside the reviewable decision and remit the matter under s65 of the ADR Act with the following orders: 1. Within 7 days, the Respondent is to confirm with the Applicant and Tribunal that the 79 documents produced confidentially to the Tribunal comprise all available information sought by the access application. If this cannot be confirmed, the Respondent is to provide the Tribunal with a copy of any additional information and an updated Table of Documents within that 7 days. 2. Within 7 days, the Respondent is to engage in consultation with all relevant third parties to the information sought by the access application in the following terms: 1. Provide each third party with a copy of the information held by the Respondent sought by the access application, relevant to that third party; 2. Require the third party to identify any objections to the release of that information, and the reasons for those objections, within 14 days. 1. Respondent to issue a reconsideration determination within 28 days, in accordance with these orders and reasons for decision. A copy is to be provided to the Tribunal. 2. Matter listed for directions on 7 November 2017 at 9.30am. I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. Registrar DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 12 September 2017