Tribunal douses tobacco FOI bid

Tobacco giant Philip Morris has lost a legal bid to see Government policy documents about plain packaging for cigarettes.
The company appealed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal after a Freedom of Information request for the Government's legal advice about the policy was knocked back.

But this week tribunal deputy president Stephanie Forgie ruled that granting the tobacco company access to the documents under Freedom of Information laws was not in the public interest.

Ms Forgie said the documents were subject to legal privilege because the advice was prepared by government lawyers.

Philip Morris has been fighting to access documents the Government has relied on to support its policy since last June.

They include emails and legal advice from the Department of Health and Ageing, the Prime Minister's office and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

They also include images of plain packing prepared by the Cancer Council, potential logos and a brief on tobacco.

But Ms Forgie ruled that these, too, were covered by legal privilege because they were prepared by in-house lawyers acting for the Government.

''In trying to ascertain the public interest, a distinction must be drawn between the public interest and a matter of interest to the public,'' Ms Forgie wrote in her finding.

''As I have found that the DFAT advice and AGS [Australian Government Solicitor] advice are subject to legal professional privilege, I am satisfied that their disclosure under the FOI Act would be contrary to the public interest ... The public interest is that in the administration of justice that comes from the encouragement of full and frank disclosure by clients to their lawyers.''

Philip Morris made a bid for the documents under Freedom of Information laws in June last year.

In November a senior adviser identified 32 documents held by the Prime Minister's office that related to the request. Of those, 10 were released to Philip Morris in full and 22 were released in part. The office refused to allow access to the others, arguing the documents were either irrelevant to the request or were protected by legal privilege.