Application of 18 August for Review of A-G’s Department’s Decision on ‘deletions’

To Whom It May Concern:

Mr Malcolm Bennett’s decision of deleting some materials in one of the disclosed documents is unreasonable and erroneous as he failed:

1. to consider whether or not the legal advice was a part of the reasons for the decision that had been disclosed. (Implicitly, the ‘professional legal adviser’, who was as well the decision maker in relation to not intervening in the constitutional matter, ‘repeated’ ‘some legal advice earlier provided in this matter’ because the legal advice is the reasons for his decision. Obviously, he considered, to understand his decision, it is necessary to provide the reasons.)

2. to apply ‘real harm’ test that is a preliminary request for ‘a claim for exemption’ in accordance with section 13.2 of Freedom of Information Memorandum no 98

3. to consider “implied waiver of privilege” in accordance with Bennett v Australian Customs, in which Tamberlin J points out:

(i): ‘Kirby J points out in Ampolex Ltd v Perpetual Trustee Company (Canberra) Ltd (1996) 137 ALR 28 at 34: “I agree that a mere reference to the existence of legal advice would not amount to a waiver of its contents.”’ (paragraph 7, emphasis added)

(ii) ‘…the whole of the advice on which all those conclusions are based, must be considered to have been waived’. (paragraph 14, emphasis added)

Therefore, please review Mr Bennett’s decision and provide substantial reasons for your decision in relation to above issues.

Furthermore, I request for a waiver of the $40 application fee as:

a. a general rule is that review fee and application fee ought to be waived when the requests are ‘of serious concern or benefit to the public, not merely of individual interest’ (British Steel Corporation v Granada Television Ltd )

b. as showed in the background of the petition, our FOI requests are ‘of serious concern or benefit to the public, not merely of individual interest’

c. So far all decision makers, who made decisions about the matter in relation to:
(i) the notices of a constitutional matter
(ii) the petition
(iii) the FOI requests,
have not denied that the Full Court’s interpretation of the unlawful dismissal laws have affected all Australian workers’ rights to obey the laws and Constitution.

Holding it is better ‘to move this matter along’, Mr Bennett has waived our previous application fee even though his ground is to the effect that the reviewer’s time is more ‘valuable’ than the $40. If the reasons for decision of not intervening in the constitutional matter were disclosed, we would not have spent ‘valuable time proceeding’ our requests.

If you need any further information or particular documents please do not hesitate to contact me.

(files below are downloadable as .jpg files)

Mr Malcolm Bennett’s letter p.1, p.2, and attachment p.1, p.2 and p.3