The first GIPA judgment for 2025 is here and provides an examination of the competing public interest considerations for and against disclosure of government information in growth centres.

Background

The matter related to the Box Hill Precinct, a rapidly developing area within Sydney’s Northwest Growth Area. Jundu Pty Ltd and Mogul Stud Pty Ltd (the Applicants) sought access to various documents related to valuations, infrastructure planning, and land acquisition under the under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (the GIPA Act).

The information requested included:

• A property valuation report.
• Internal briefing and work schedules.
• Councillor briefing reports.
• Net Present Value (NPV) models.

In a letter dated 4 December 2024, the Council informed the Tribunal that a significant portion of the requested information had already been released. This included publicly accessible data disclosed as part of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal assessment process and other council reporting mechanisms. However, the Council clarified that this disclosure excluded sensitive information, such as detailed internal work schedules and valuation specifics, which could prejudice ongoing negotiations and deliberative processes. Ultimately, the Council released summary versions of certain documents, including work schedules, but withheld valuation reports, internal deliberative notes, and NPV models, citing overriding public interest considerations against disclosure. In Council’s view, this selective release balanced transparency with the need to protect the Council’s operational integrity and financial interests.

The Council refused access to the balance of the documents, citing an overriding public interest against disclosure.

Arguments for Disclosure

The Applicants advanced several arguments supporting the public interest in disclosure:

1. Transparency and Accountability – releasing the requested information would enhance public scrutiny of the Hills Shire Council’s operations, particularly in how it managed the precinct’s infrastructure needs and financial planning.
2. Community Participation – providing access to the valuation reports and planning documents would empower the community to engage meaningfully in discussions about the Box Hill Precinct development.
3. Public Funding Decisions – disclosing the basis for financial decisions, including land acquisition and infrastructure funding, would promote confidence in the Hills Shire Council’s stewardship of public resources.

Arguments Against Disclosure

The Council countered with several public interest considerations against disclosure:

1. Prejudice to Negotiations – the property valuation report, if disclosed, could undermine the Council’s negotiating position in ongoing or future compulsory acquisition proceedings.
2. Impact on Deliberative Processes – releasing internal deliberations, such as those in briefing notes, could inhibit future discussions and constrain candour within Council’s operations.
3. Commercial and Financial Interests – the Council argued that disclosure of sensitive financial data, including NPV models, could prejudice its ability to achieve competitive outcomes in property transactions and infrastructure planning.
4. Confidentiality Obligations – internal documents were created with an expectation of confidentiality, and disclosure might erode trust between the Council and its stakeholders, including consultants and valuers.

Tribunal’s Determination

Senior Member MacIntyre adopted the structured approach required under the GIPA Act, balancing public interest considerations for and against disclosure.

The Tribunal’s findings against disclosure included:

1. Valuation Report – disclosure would prejudice the Council’s legitimate commercial and financial interests by revealing its strategic benchmarks for negotiations. This information could be used by the Applicants to gain an unfair advantage during negotiations, particularly where compulsory acquisition is contemplated.
2. Internal and Councillor Briefing Notes – these documents revealed internal deliberations essential to Council decision-making. Their disclosure would inhibit frank discussions and diminish the effectiveness of future deliberations.
3. Work Schedules and NPV Models – releasing these documents could undermine the Council’s ability to execute its strategic planning effectively. The Tribunal agreed with the Council’s position that public disclosure could lead to broader disadvantages in managing infrastructure delivery.

The Tribunal acknowledged the strong public interest in transparency and accountability, particularly given the significant public funds at stake. However, it found that the weight of considerations against disclosure – particularly those relating to the Council’s financial and operational interests – outweighed the benefits.

Key Takeaways

This judgment underscores the nuanced approach required under the GIPA Act in balancing transparency with protecting sensitive governmental and commercial interests. For agencies (like local councils) and applicants, it highlights the importance of structuring access requests to align with statutory thresholds for public interest considerations.

For the Box Hill Precinct, the decision preserves the council’s ability to negotiate effectively and deliver infrastructure while maintaining transparency through public summaries of certain data.

As the first GIPA judgment of 2025, this decision provides assistance to both applicants and agencies navigating the interplay of public interest considerations under the GIPA Act.

Further Reading

You can read the full judgment below.