faulker03

 The second of three related posts. Justice Jagot's ruling in Dreyfus and Attorney General (Commonwealth of Australia) [2015] AATA 995 on the interpretation and application of the Freedom of information Act provisions regarding third party consultation and the method of assessing the time involved is of significance generally as a somewhat rare Tribunal decision on the subject. However t he Office of Australian Information Commissioner has dealt with a swag of cases over the last year often rejecting agency arguments about these issues. And rejecting what some agencies without foundation seem to regard as a golden rule-that a request that is likely to take more than 40 hours will substantially and unreasonably divert resources.   My guess is the reported decisions are the tip of a rather large pile of questionable decisions regarding consultation. Allof which must cost the taxpayer a packet-probably more than the cost of getting on and processing the application ...

The first of three related posts. Justice Jagot in Dreyfus and Attorney General (Commonwealth of Australia) [2015] AATA 995 overturned the decision by the O ffice of the Attorney General to refuse to process a Freedom of Information application for the Attorney General's appointments diary for the period 18 September 2013 to 12 May 2014.   Justice Jagot ordered the office to process the application by Shadow Attorney General Mark Dreyfus after a finding that processing would not substantially and unreasonably interfere with the performance of the Minister's functions (Sections 24 and 24AA).   Justice Jagot was critical of and disagreed with the approach taken by the office in interpreting and applying the act's provisions on third party consultation, and the calculation of the estimated time involved in order to justify the 'substantial and unreasonable' claim: 76.... this is a case where my conclusion is ultimately based on the onus of proof. It has not...