Sunday 6th of October 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

they tried political shenanigans.....

The Full Federal Court has rejected Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus’ argument that government ministers should be allowed to shred documents when they leave office. What’s the scam?

The scam is that Dreyfus shredded $300k+ of taxpayers’ finest on lawyers fighting for the right to shred documents paid for by the public which votes politicians into office.

 

Rex Patrick v Mark Dreyfus court battle a big win for political integrity     BY Kim Wingerei

 

1,697 days after then-Senator Rex Patrick submitted a Freedom of Information request into ‘Sports Rorts’ documents – advice provided to Scott Morrison that is about Bridget McKenzie’s role in the tainted rorts affair, the Federal Court has now conclusively rejected the argument that the former government was entitled to ‘shred’ it upon leaving office.

That Scott Morrison (and then-Attorney General Michaelia Cash) didn’t want the advice revealed was no surprise, but, after Labor took office in 2022 and Rex appealed the decision to suppress the advice, the government argued that politicians should not be made to release documents about to the previous government’s actions.

Mark Dreyfus fought tooth a nail to defend the proposition that changing ministers should allow governments to wipe the FOI slate clean, spending hundreds of thousands in legal fees in the process.

In March this year, Justice Charlesworth agreed with Rex and said: “Whether a document is an official document of a minister is to be assessed by reference to the facts and circumstances in existence at the time an FOI request is lodged, not some later review date after which the minister may have changed.” Dreyfus appealed, but today, the full bench of the Federal Court upheld the decision on appeal:

There could be no question that the Document met the description of an “official document of a Minister” at that time. [ ] Accordingly, the primary judge concluded that the Information Commissioner had proceeded on an erroneous construction of the FOI Act.

 

And why did Dreyfus fight so hard to avoid the publication of a document related to the possible misdeeds of the LNP government? Simple, because he’d hope that one day, another government of the day will do the same for him.

It’s the party duopoly scam; I protect you if you protect me.

 

https://michaelwest.com.au/mark-dreyfus-court-defeat-is-a-a-big-win-for-transparency-whats-the-scam/

 

unappealing appeal....

 

Shredders and dustpans. Mark Dreyfus’ desperate sweep on taxpayers

    by Rex Patrick

 

Attorney General Dreyfus looks to spend thousands more taxpayers’ dollars to appeal a Full Federal Court decision that denied the right of ministers to shred politically sensitive documents as they leave office. Transparency Warrior Rex Patrick reports.

In correspondence to me, the Attorney General’s Department has given a strong signal that the Federal Attorney-General, the Hon Mark Dreyfus KC, will appeal his recent loss in the Full Federal Court to the High Court.

In May this year I won a case in the Federal Court against Mr Dreyfus that effectively prohibits ministers who leave office from sweeping their dirty secrets under the carpet on the way out – killing off any FOI rights for public access to controversial documents.

In her decision, Justice Charlesworth declared:

“I accept that there may be very strong political resistance to an outgoing Minister transferring documents forming the subject of a pending FOI request to a new incumbent, particularly on a change of Government. 

“This Court was told that it was common practice for documents not to be transferred. But the FOI Act is not concerned with party-political matters other than to the extent provided for in respect of documents correctly described as falling within certain exemptions. To the contrary, it is a regime devised to enlarge scrutiny of Government activities in accordance with its terms, including in cases where scrutiny is not wanted. If there be a common practice of the kind suggested to this Court in submissions, it is not one that is authorised or contemplated by the FOI Act and it should stop. 

“The balance between maintenance of secrecy and public access is one that is struck by the Parliament. It is legislation, not political or administrative convention, that is determinative of Mr Patrick’s rights in the present case.”

In short,

There were to be no more shredders used in ministerial offices on a change of minister.

However, Dreyfus, who is relying on the taxpayer to stump up the more than $400K spent on the case so far, lodged a misguided appeal. Last month, the Full Federal Court dismissed that appeal.

That’s not stopping Dreyfus, though.

Another appeal

Perhaps at the insistence of ministerial colleagues who don’t want pesky citizens to be able to scrutinise them, and perhaps because his own ministerial career will sooner or later come to an end, the Attorney-General appears to want to appeal the matter again.

In response to the Information Commissioner complying with the Federal Court’s order to finally progress the review, the Attorney-General’s department has foreshadowed a High Court appeal.

The Attorney-General’s Department has pointed to ground two of the judgement, which is where the Court determined that there exists an implied duty for a minister not to frustrate the right of the [FOI] requesting party to have the request determined, including on review or appeal. That includes an obligation not to shred documents.

An appeal will likely add more than $100K to the legal costs – shifting it up to a cool half million. It’s OK, Dreyfus is not paying – you are.

Dreyfus is hanging on tight to that shredder and his dustpan. Shred and sweep, Shred and sweep.

Slowing down transparency

If he loses, at the very least, he will have delayed by another six months the release of former Attorney General Christian Porter’s ‘sports rorts’ document that I’m seeking access to. The review of this matter by the Information Commissioner has already been in progress for five years – what’s another six to 12 months going to do apart from delaying an already long overdue FOI review?

If nothing else, if Dreyfus does seek special leave to appeal to the High Court it will guarantee this FOI matter will span three parliaments. It began in the 46th Parliament, has gone unresolved through the 47th Parliament, and will now likely extend into the 48th Parliament.

It’s remarkable that a Labor Attorney-General should go to such lengths to try to keep a document written by a Liberal predecessor secret,

a document that, when in opposition, Dreyfus loudly demanded scrutiny over.

But he’s clearly thinking about Labor’s dirt as much as that of the Coalition.

If Dreyfus wins, ministers will be safe again, and taxpayers will, for the sum total of $500K, continue to be left in the dark.

 

Rex Patrick

Rex Patrick is a former Senator for South Australia and earlier a submariner in the armed forces. Best known as an anti-corruption and transparency crusader - www.transparencywarrior.com.au.

 

https://michaelwest.com.au/shredders-and-dustpans-mark-dreyfus-desperate-sweep-on-taxpayers/

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.