18.
exercise of judicial or decision-making functions were documents relating to matters of an administrative nature[1]. That reasoning was relied on by the appellant to support the proposition that the only documents of the Official Secretary which were excluded from disclosure under s 6A(1) were documents relating to the substantive powers and functions of the Governor-General as decision-maker. That aspect of the reasoning in Bienstein is erroneous. First, the references in the extrinsic materials to examples of "administrative matters", such as the number of sitting days of a court, were misread in Bienstein as suggesting that even documents held by a court which related to individual cases might be characterised as documents "relating to 'matters of an administrative nature'."[2] Secondly, it was decided that since some powers and functions of a judicial officer were administrative in nature, those administrative powers and functions which were not closely related to judicial independence would not need protection from the operation of the FOI Act[3]. However, that reasoning, deriving from the different factual circumstances in Fingleton v The Queen[4], accords no weight to the circumstance that a judicial officer is not subject to the operation of the FOI Act. Only a registry or office of a court or specified tribunal is subject to the operation of the FOI Act, and then only in respect of documents relating to administrative matters. The approach in Bienstein, relied on by the appellant, is not apt for application to s 6A(1). That approach would not accord proper weight to the circumstance that the Governor-General is not subject to the operation of the FOI Act and would result in an impractical and unwieldy approach to the application of s 6A(1), contrary to the provision that public access to information is to be achieved promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost[5].
Application of s 6A(1) to the appellant's request
Correspondence and file notes relating to nominations
52 Correspondence and file notes relating to the appellant's nominations are directly related to the Governor-General's exercise of substantive powers and
