This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/dec/22/attorney-general-must-process-labor-request-to-see-parts-of-his-diary
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| George Brandis must process Labor request to see parts of his diary, tribunal rules | George Brandis must process Labor request to see parts of his diary, tribunal rules |
| (about 2 hours later) | |
| George Brandis must continue to process a request by shadow attorney general Mark Dreyfus for access to his ministerial diary, the administrative appeals tribunal has ruled. | George Brandis must continue to process a request by shadow attorney general Mark Dreyfus for access to his ministerial diary, the administrative appeals tribunal has ruled. |
| On Tuesday the tribunal ruled that a request from Dreyfus for access to extracts of Brandis’s meeting schedules in his diary be approved. | On Tuesday the tribunal ruled that a request from Dreyfus for access to extracts of Brandis’s meeting schedules in his diary be approved. |
| Dreyfus has been seeking access under freedom of information laws to the attorney’s ministerial calendar of appointments since May 2014. | Dreyfus has been seeking access under freedom of information laws to the attorney’s ministerial calendar of appointments since May 2014. |
| Brandis’s office had not claimed the diary was exempt from release under the Freedom of Information Act, but rather sought to stop processing the request on the grounds that it was a substantial and unreasonable interference with his functions. | Brandis’s office had not claimed the diary was exempt from release under the Freedom of Information Act, but rather sought to stop processing the request on the grounds that it was a substantial and unreasonable interference with his functions. |
| At a hearing in November the tribunal heard evidence from Brandis’s chief of staff, Paul O’Sullivan, that processing the diary extracts was a substantial burden because it would require more than 100 consultations with people the attorney general had met over the period requested. | At a hearing in November the tribunal heard evidence from Brandis’s chief of staff, Paul O’Sullivan, that processing the diary extracts was a substantial burden because it would require more than 100 consultations with people the attorney general had met over the period requested. |
| Dreyfus, who cross-examined O’Sullivan in the proceedings, told the tribunal Brandis’s refusal to process the request was “an untenable position to adopt having regard to his staffing and resources available to him”, and that he had “clutched at every straw” to resist processing the request. | Dreyfus, who cross-examined O’Sullivan in the proceedings, told the tribunal Brandis’s refusal to process the request was “an untenable position to adopt having regard to his staffing and resources available to him”, and that he had “clutched at every straw” to resist processing the request. |
| The ruling by Justice Jayne Jagot does not mean Brandis is required to release the extracts, just that his office must continue to process the request. | The ruling by Justice Jayne Jagot does not mean Brandis is required to release the extracts, just that his office must continue to process the request. |
| In her reasoning, Jagot was critical of O’Sullivan’s assessment of the potential security ramifications of the decision. O’Sullivan is a former director-general of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (Asio). | |
| She wrote that while his experience meant his “concern thus warrants careful consideration” she did not think that O’Sullivan’s concerns were based on the actual contents of the diary. | |
| “His concern appears to operate at a more general level that these requests(s) might set a precedent for disclosure of current and proposed appointments of the attorney-general,” she wrote. | |
| “I do not consider request(s) for diary extracts more than 18 months old to set a precedent for any request for access to records of current and future appointments.” | |
| She also found that national security meetings that Brandis had attended could be disclosed. | |
| “I am unable to accept that the mere fact that the attorney general had a meeting with Asio or attended a meeting of the national security council/committee more than 18 months ago could cause damage or divulge information if the required kind of a diary entry says nothing more than ‘meeting with Asio’ or ‘meeting of national security council/committee’.” | |
| She also said that she had “considerable difficulty” accepting the argument that business people Brandis met with would all need to be consulted, and said it was unlikely they would be unreasonably affected enough to require consultation as part of the FoI process. She wrote she was “unable to discern a rational basis” that every person named in the diary might wish to contend the release of the extracts. | |
| In 2010, Liberal MP Paul Fletcher sought access to the diary of then prime minister Julia Gillard. Her office declined to process the request using the same power being invoked in the Brandis matter. That decision was also overturned on review by the office of the Australian Information Commissioner. |