35. I have explained at paragraph 14 above how the public interest balancing test must be applied. Schedule 4 of the RTI Act sets out the factors that Parliament has decided are irrelevant factors, relevant factors favouring disclosure and relevant factors favouring nondisclosure. These are not exhaustive lists. This is evident from the wording of section 49, which requires a decision-maker, for example, to ‘identify any factor favouring disclosure that applies in relation to the information, including any factor mentioned in schedule 4, part 2. This is consistent with Australian and international case law and decisions on determining public interest. For example, it has been observed that:
[t]he categories of public interest are not closed, and must alter from time to time whether by restriction or extension as social conditions and social legislation develop
the authorities approach the issue by identifying particular issues that lie inside or outside the public interest while never drawing the boundary between the two. That approach reflects the changing qualities of the issues that arise in the community
36. That the ACCC has significant responsibilities in relation to promoting competition and fair trade in markets and ensuring compliance with relevant competition and consumer legislation does not alleviate me of my responsibility under the RTI Act to determine whether the applicant has a legal entitlement to access the information in issue by identifying and considering relevant factors when applying the public interest test.