In Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers v Secretary, Department of Transport (1986) 71 ALR 73, the respondent argued that the secrecy provision in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, section 16 (as it then existed) which required a public servant to keep certain matters secret unless disclosure was part of the public servant’s usual ‘duty’ (a word appearing in the then section 16), meant that the requirement to provide reasons for administrative decisions under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, s 13(2) did not apply.
This was rejected. Gummow J noted that the ‘duty’ of a public servant included a duty to comply with other laws, such as the obligation to provide reasons under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. At 84-85 his Honour said:
The [duty] indeed required … observance and compliance with obligations arising at common law and in equity, save as excluded or supplanted by statute: see Hogg Liability of the Crown pp 147–160. These general law obligations would include those of care and skill (Carpenter’s Investment Trading Co Ltd v Commonwealth (1952) 69 WN(NSW) 175 at 178), fidelity (Reading v Attorney-General  AC 507) and confidentiality (Commonwealth v John Fairfax and Sons Ltd (1980) 147 CLR 39 at 50–1 ; 32 ALR 485). Also included, in my view, in the exception is what is appropriate to discharge or satisfy requirements or duties imposed pursuant to procedures existing under statutes other than the Tax Act.
In FL and Department of Human Services  AICmr 30 the Information Commissioner rejected an argument from the agency that disclosure of information sought should be taken as disclosure ‘to the world at large’ and therefore ‘unreasonable’.
The Commissioner followed decisions from the Victorian Court of Appeal, the Appeal Panel of the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal and the Queensland Information Commissioner.
In Victoria Police v Marke  VSCA 218 the Court of Appeal set aside a VCAT decision which wrongly assumed that disclosure of the information sought would be disclosure to the world at large. The evidence before VCAT was that the applicant was a professional police officer who understood sensitive and confidential information, and explicitly, that he would not release the information to the world at large.
The Court of Appeal criticised VCAT’s assumption as ‘a fiction … an absolutely worst case scenario’ (Weinberg J); that the applicant’s use of the information may be relevant to the balancing exercise in deciding whether disclosure would be ‘unreasonable’ (Pagone AJA); and that to assume so would almost always work against disclosure, which is contrary to the object of the FOI Act of giving ‘the greatest possible public access to Government information’ (Maxwell P).
Marke was followed in Department of Education and Training v GJ (GD)  NSWADTAP 33 in which it was concluded that the decision maker was wrong to ‘exclude from its consideration matters pressed by the applicant personal to the applicant such as the purpose of the application and promises of limited use’ (emphasis added).