Confidentiality order hearing and supporter Q&A, Thursday 9 July
On Thursday 9 July at 09:00 AEST, the confidentiality order hearing in my case resumes (I explain why it was adjourned below). It is an open hearing by video conference. If you want to join, follow the procedure outlined on the ART website.
I will host a supporter Q&A in the evening, after the hearing, to discuss how things went and give general updates. We’ll meet at 19:00 AEST (UTC+10), for about an hour. I’ll send the joining details to supporters (on Chuffed and Pozible) by Wednesday.
Want to join but not yet a supporter? Head over to my Chuffed campaign to fix that. Every dollar helps, and I’m grateful for every donation, no matter the size.
Why was the hearing adjourned? §
A hearing to decide the confidentiality order applications made by Services Australia over particular evidence took place on May 29 at 09:00. Services Australia filed substantive submissions in support of their application the afternoon before the hearing.
We were very annoyed by that. A few hours is not sufficient time to properly digest the submissions, let alone respond to them.
So what happened at the hearing? The presiding Tribunal member was Deputy President Britten-Jones. The first thing that happened in the hearing was the Deputy President, unprompted, made note of the timing and stated that he presumed that we would seek an adjournment. He was correct.
The second thing that happened was the Deputy President stated that he had examined the evidence over which the confidentiality order is sought. He provided an initial view that some parts of it ought not to be subject to such an order. Whilst this is absolutely not a foregone conclusion, it was an encouraging sign.
After some other formalities the hearing was adjourned, to be resumed July 9. A closed hearing then took place, which Jason (my solicitor) and I could not attend. I inferred that counsel for Services Australia would make submissions about or referring to the evidence over which they seek the order. But what actually happened we don’t know—and probably never will.
What will happen at the resumed hearing? §
Yesterday, one week ahead of the resumed hearing, we filed some submissions of our own. I’ll share and discuss what we filed in a separate post soon.
We have no idea how Services Australia will respond to what we just filed! They might ignore it or treat it as a minor bump in the road. Or they might receive it as a broadside salvo and go to battlestations!
We hope that this hearing will be the last in the confidentiality order skirmish. Best case, there are oral arguments, maybe another closed session, and then the Tribunal will make a decision (probably after the hearing). But there could be yet another adjournment, or time given for parties to make further submissions.
The picture should be much clearer come next Thursday.
—Fraser
