Page:Attorney-General (Cth) v Patrick (2024, FCAFC).pdf/26

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

as permissible, by creating substantial duties that fill what her Honour perceived as gaps in the express terms of the FOI Act.

73 The Attorney-General submits that: the primary judge appears to have treated a Minister's "office" as a perpetual, continual thing that is inhabited by different appointees over time (see the Reasons at [121], [123], [124], [128]), but that is not so; a person is appointed a Minister of State under s 64 of the Constitution (read with s 65), to administer such Departments of State as the Governor-General determines; the appointment is particular to a person and a portfolio; the number of Ministers and Departments may vary between (or even within) governments; the responsibilities of a Department, and the legislation administered by a Minister administering the Department, are set out in Administrative Arrangements Orders, which are made by the Governor-General and varied from time to time, sometimes within a single government. The Attorney-General submits that: s 11A confers a right to access documents of "the" Minister (i.e., the particular Minister to whom the FOI request was made); by convention, the names of some Ministries will be the same in successive governments (such as "Attorney-General"), but a "new" Attorney-General, appointed after the retirement of the prior Attorney-General, is not filling the one perpetual "office"; there is nothing unusual in the possibility that documents of a former Minister are not "official documents of" the new Minister.

74 The Attorney-General submits that: the position of Ministers can be contrasted with the express provision made in s 4(6)–(7) of the FOI Act for what is to occur when an agency is abolished; there is no similar regime for when a Minister leaves office; that reflects Parliament's choice that, if a Minister is no longer in office, the FOI Act does not continue to provide access to the official documents of that Minister. The Attorney-General submits that, in practice, an FOI request to a former Minister may be treated as a request to the new Minister; but, in law, there is no continuation in the Ministerial office; that is why provisions such as ss 19, 19B, 19D-19E, 20 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) are necessary; s 4(6)–(7) of the FOI Act (relating to agencies) is in addition to the provisions of the Acts Interpretation Act dealing with changes in Departments (such as s 19A and following).

75 It is convenient at this point to set out s 20 of the Acts Interpretation Act:

20 References to holders of appointments, offices and positions in Acts and Commonwealth agreements

In a provision of an Act, or of an agreement entered into by or on behalf of the Commonwealth, a reference in general terms to the holder or occupier of an office, appointment or position includes all persons who for the time being:


Attorney-General (Cth) v Patrick [2024] FCAFC 126
23