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/2016/jan/20/george-brandis-challenges-ruling-process-request-release-diary
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| George Brandis challenges ruling that he must reconsider request to release diary | |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| Attorney general George Brandis is launching a federal court challenge to a freedom of information ruling that his office needed to process a request for his ministerial diary. | Attorney general George Brandis is launching a federal court challenge to a freedom of information ruling that his office needed to process a request for his ministerial diary. |
| Related: Freedom of information: George Brandis’s diary has its day in court | Related: Freedom of information: George Brandis’s diary has its day in court |
| The move, likely to cost thousands of dollars in legal fees, followed a request from shadow attorney general Mark Dreyfus for the diary entries. | The move, likely to cost thousands of dollars in legal fees, followed a request from shadow attorney general Mark Dreyfus for the diary entries. |
| The list Dreyfus requested was simply an itemised extract of the meetings Brandis had taken, and contained little to no detail about the substance of those meetings. | The list Dreyfus requested was simply an itemised extract of the meetings Brandis had taken, and contained little to no detail about the substance of those meetings. |
| Dreyfus said it was extraordinary Brandis would go to “such great lengths to avoid dealing with such a simple FOI request”. | |
| The attorney general’s office initially ruled that processing the request would substantially interfere with the minister’s functions. | The attorney general’s office initially ruled that processing the request would substantially interfere with the minister’s functions. |
| Brandis’s office argued it would be necessary to consult many of the individuals named in his diary entries, which would be too difficult to require them to process the request. | Brandis’s office argued it would be necessary to consult many of the individuals named in his diary entries, which would be too difficult to require them to process the request. |
| The administrative appeals tribunal rejected this reasoning and said Brandis’s office was obliged to continue processing the request. He is now challenging that decision. | |
| The ruling by Justice Jayne Jagot did not mean Brandis was required to release the extracts, just that his office must continue to process the request. | |
| In her reasoning Jagot was critical of Paul O’Sullivan, Brandis’ chief of staff, and his assessment of the potential security ramifications of the decision. O’Sullivan is a former director-general of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (Asio). | In her reasoning Jagot was critical of Paul O’Sullivan, Brandis’ chief of staff, and his 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. | 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. |
| She said: “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 said: “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’”. |
| Dreyfus said it was a “total waste of money”, given that others minister such as Julie Bishop has released similar extracts. | Dreyfus said it was a “total waste of money”, given that others minister such as Julie Bishop has released similar extracts. |
| “Senator Brandis is meant to protect the integrity of the FOI system and yet has shown nothing but disdain for it in this case,” he said. | “Senator Brandis is meant to protect the integrity of the FOI system and yet has shown nothing but disdain for it in this case,” he said. |
| “His arguments were rejected once and I’m confident they will be rejected again by the court.” | “His arguments were rejected once and I’m confident they will be rejected again by the court.” |
| A spokeswoman for the attorney-general said the decision had been made “in the public interest” because there was “wide ranging implications for the FOI system” as a result of the tribunal decision. | A spokeswoman for the attorney-general said the decision had been made “in the public interest” because there was “wide ranging implications for the FOI system” as a result of the tribunal decision. |