RTI Reform is coming to Queensland – Part 1
11 March 2025

On 4 December 2023, the Queensland Parliament assented to the Information Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2023 (Qld) (IPOLA Act), with privacy reforms to the Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) (RTI Act). You can read more about that here.
The RTI Act gives people the right to access documents of an agency and to amend their personal information contained in documents of an agency, subject to some exceptions and limitations.
Notably, the IPOLA Act now implements a single right of access for both personal information and other government documents. If an applicant requests access to their own personal information, the current position to not charge for this access continues to apply.
There are a number of other changes to procedural requirements across the life of an RTI request which are outlined below. Some limited changes to the RTI Act commenced on 1 March 2024, with others to commence on 1 July 2025. The Office of the Information Commissioner (OICQ) has published the IPOLA Guidelines to help agencies prepare for the commencement of the changes to the RTI Act.
In Part 1 of this series we will examine the first half of headline changes to the RTI Act and how agencies can prepare for these. This article focuses on operational, governance and administrative changes for receiving and assessing RTI applications. The remaining changes will be covered in Part 2 of our RTI series, with a focus on internal and external review rights and public disclosure requirements for agencies.
As mentioned above, the IPOLA Act will simplify RTI processes for agencies by consolidating provisions relating to access and amendment applications. Previously there were separate routes of access under the RTI Act and the IP Act and generally, the new RTI Act provisions reflect the existing IP Act provisions. Applications for access to documents of an agency will now all be made under the RTI Act, even if any or all documents contain an applicant's personal information.
The requirement that an application be in an approved form has been relaxed. While the application itself must still contain all the required information, it may (but need not be) in the approved form. Agencies may notice this change on the ground with the form of access applications received. The IPOLA Act has also removed the requirement for an agent acting on behalf of an applicant to show evidence of their identity (though evidence of authorisation is still required for an agent).
The way timeframes are calculated for the processing of an application will materially change because the clock will no longer stop and start for the prescribed 25 business day processing period. Previously, this occurred where a separate time period relating to another matter applied (such as a notice of intention to refuse to deal). Instead time periods that relate to other matters will be added onto the 25 business day processing period and extend the total duration of the processing period. This is intended to make it easier for agencies to keep track of the progress of an application without needing to keep a record of when the clock stopped and started on the processing period.
The processing period will end when the agency makes a decision, or the application is a deemed decision because the agency does not make their decision in the time allowed. It is important to note as well that the 25 business day processing period only commences from the 'valid application date' being the date on which the application complies with relevant requirements. If an application is not compliant, the clock will not start until it is deemed to be compliant. An additional 5 business days will automatically be added to the processing period if an applicant only provides a postal address.
Currently, if an agency receives an access application for a document that is noncompliant, it must contact the applicant within 15 business days to give the applicant an opportunity to rectify the noncompliance and make the application compliant. The new changes to the RTI Act require the agency receiving the noncompliant application to become more involved by providing more assistance and to do all things necessary to help applicants make their applications compliant.
Agencies should think about how they are going to manage applicants reaching out and asking for assistance with making their applications compliant. The qualification of reasonableness in the requirement to assist applicants means that it is unlikely that the agency will need to outline step by step what the applicant needs to do, but they should be on hand to answer any queries. This responsibility may fall to a designated privacy officer within the agency.
Currently, an agency must provide an applicant with a CEN that outlines any processing or access charges and schedule of documents before the end of the processing period. The amendments will mean that a CEN is no longer required if there are no processing or access charges, notably where an application is for personal information only. If a CEN is required for an application, it must still be provided before the end of a processing period.
Agencies will no longer be required to provide an applicant with a schedule of the documents located in response to an access application. Agencies should ensure that their internal RTI procedures are amended so as of 1 July 2025 they are no longer supplying documents that are not necessary.
The way in which an agency makes a decision will also need to be revisited in light of the changes to 'personal information' under the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) (which is being uplifted to align more closely with the Federal Privacy Act), particularly so where agencies have existing precedents outlining how they handle RTI requests.
Additionally, there is the addition of a new note at Schedule 4 of the RTI Act (Schedule 4 outlines the factors for deciding the public interest). This new note clarifies that when applying the public interest test, factors other than those listed in Schedule 4 may be considered when deciding whether an applicant should be provided with access to a document.
Under the current RTI Act, decision makers must provide notices of, and reasons for, their decisions about an access application. This is done through a prescribed written notice that sets out:
As part of the larger effort to consolidate access and amendment applications, the IPOLA Act amends the decision notice requirement so that this now applies for amendment applications as well. The prescribed written notice for an amendment application will be the same as the requirement for an access application. However if the amendment application is granted, the decision maker does not need to give reasons for their decision.
While not subject to amendment, the Guidelines remind readers that a good statement of reasons should explain the power to make the decision, the findings of fact, how they were reached, and how the law applies to the facts in the specific case. It should explain not just the decision maker's conclusions, but how those conclusions were reached.
The changes made to the RTI Act do not apply to access and amendment applications made before, and not finalised by, 1 July 2025. These applications must be dealt with in accordance with the former RTI Act as it existed when the application was received.
An agency can refuse to deal with an application to the extent that it relates to documents previously applied for, this can include if an application was made under the former IP Act or RTI Act.
Agencies should note when an application is deemed to be "finalised" and take care in determining which legislation it applies to the application, particularly as we inch closer to 1 July 2025.
Agencies will need to undertake a number of operational and administrative changes. Given the impending 1 July 2025 deadline, agencies should start preparations now so that they will be compliant with the new RTI Act provisions upon commencement.
Authors: Clare Doneley, Partner; Alex White, Associate.
The Ashurst Group comprises Ashurst LLP, Ashurst Australia and their respective affiliates (including independent local partnerships, companies or other entities) which are authorised to use the name "Ashurst" or describe themselves as being affiliated with Ashurst. Some members of the Ashurst Group are limited liability entities.
Ashurst Australia (ABN 75 304 286 095) is a general partnership constituted under the laws of the Australian Capital Territory.
Ashurst Risk Advisory Pty Ltd is a proprietary company registered in Australia and trading under ABN 74 996 309 133.
The services provided by Ashurst Risk Advisory Pty Ltd do not constitute legal services or legal advice, and are not provided by Australian legal practitioners in that capacity. The laws and regulations which govern the provision of legal services in the relevant jurisdiction do not apply to the provision of non-legal services.
For more information about the Ashurst Group, which Ashurst Group entity operates in a particular country and the services offered, please visit www.ashurst.com.
This material is current as at 11 March 2025 but does not take into account any developments after that date. It is not intended to be a comprehensive review of all developments in the law or in practice, or to cover all aspects of those referred to, and does not constitute professional advice. The information provided is general in nature, and does not take into account and is not intended to apply to any specific issues or circumstances. Readers should take independent advice. No part of this publication may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from Ashurst. While we use reasonable skill and care in the preparation of this material, we accept no liability for use of and reliance upon it by any person
The information provided is not intended to be a comprehensive review of all developments in the law and practice, or to cover all aspects of those referred to.
Readers should take legal advice before applying it to specific issues or transactions.