When it comes to the rule of law in Australia, the buck stops with Attorney-General George Brandis.
But on the question of releasing two-year-old ministerial diary entries, a senior staff member to Senator Brandis has told a Sydney court he would have to run it past up to 263 people.
Shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus slipped back into his pre-parliament role of senior barrister on Friday morning as part of a battle to force Senator Brandis to release Outlook diary entries for September 2013 to May 2014, in line with a request made under freedom of information laws.
The attorney-general's office has argued that consenting to the request would create an "unreasonable burden", including up to 526 hours consulting with 263 people who had appointments with Senator Brandis to ask if they had any reason to keep their meeting secret.
Senator Brandis was not before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on Friday but his chief of staff, Paul O'Sullivan, gave evidence that if the date of a meeting between Senator Brandis and a senior official from the spy agency ASIO were released there could be national security concerns, even if the subject of the meeting was not disclosed.
News that makes sense
Your trusted source for staying up-to-date with the world around you. Get free daily news updates and analysis, straight to your inbox.
"There's a thing called mosaic effect that can be achieved by looking at patterns of behaviour," Mr O'Sullivan told the tribunal.
Asked why such information could not simply be blacked out, Mr O'Sullivan replied there were 13 steps involved in redacting any piece of information.
Only one person in the attorney-general's office is trained in the process and only one computer in the office is equipped with the necessary software, he said.
Mr Dreyfus alleges there has been a "gross exaggeration" from the minister's office about how long it would take to produce the document sought.
"We say that the attorney-general has clutched at every possible reason to obstruct and obfuscate this request," the Labor MP said.
"It simply flies in the face of common sense."
Mr Dreyfus said outside the court that Mr O'Sullivan's evidence was baffling.
"I still don't understand why it could possibly be said to take 13 steps to redact something from a minister's diary," he said.
Mr Dreyfus's request for information was prompted by concerns about an apparent lack of consultation by the attorney-general before he cut funding for environmental and indigenous legal services.
"We do have a general interest in how this minister, a senior cabinet minister, has carried out his duties in his first eight months," Mr Dreyfus told reporters.
"That's what this appointment schedule ought to disclose: who he's been meeting with, how he's chosen to spend his time, because what's absolutely clear already is that he didn't choose to spend his time consulting with, or meeting with, people affected by his funding cuts.
"That's a concern."
Justice Jayne Jagot has reserved her decision.
