Page:Patrick v Attorney-General (Cth).pdf/13

 REASONS FOR THE IC DECISION

41 The written reasons for the IC Decision are published as Rex Patrick and Attorney-General [2023] AICmr 9 (28 February 2023). The outcome of the review is summarised in the opening paragraphs:

42 The Commissioner referred to the "mandatory access rule" in s 11A(3) of the FOI Act. She said that whether the Document was in the possession of Mr Dreyfus and therefore an "official document of a Minister" was determinative of the application of that rule. She identified the issue for consideration as whether the Document "remains an 'official document of a Minister' to which access can be provided". The Commissioner said that the issue to be determined was whether the document was in the possession of the current Attorney-General.

43 The Commissioner referred to three earlier administrative decisions in which it was found that a document that was not in the possession of a newly appointed Minister (after a change of Government) no longer met the description of an official document of the Minister, notwithstanding that it might previously have met that description: Phillip Morris Ltd and Treasurer [2013] AICmr 88 (13 December 2023), Thomas and Prime Minister [2014] AICmr 18 (20 February 2014) and  ' ACY' and Attorney-General (Freedom of Information) [2023] AICmr 7 (22 February 2023).

44 The Commissioner went on to explain why she was satisfied that the Document was not in the possession of the current Attorney- Patrick v Attorney-General (Cth) [2024] FCA 268