FOI to die? Albanese’s nuclear strike on transparency

The Albanian Government is so determined to keep AUKUS’s nuclear waste plans secret that it has appealed to the Federal Court to overturn the Administrative Review Tribunal’s transparency decision. Rex Patrick reports.

Are we seeing another nail in the coffin of what remains of freedom of information and government transparency?

In ruling in favor of the statement, ART Deputy Chairman Britten-Jones stated that “there is a significant public interest in understanding the policy decisions made by the Government in relation to nuclear waste management”.

He was quite convinced that there was “the best way to achieve success.” [nuclear waste] “social license and trust come from transparency, not secrecy.”

Transparency wins as court rebukes government secrecy

However, his very strong position was not enough to overcome Prime Minister Albanese’s obsession with secrecy. In a very rare move, the Federal Government appealed the Tribunal’s transparency decision to the Federal Court.

Political Sensitivity

It is clear that the documents the government has been ordered to make public are politically sensitive. They may be politically radioactive, but that is not an acceptable reason to refuse to release documents under the Freedom of Information Act.

Britten-Jones stated the following in his decision:

I do not consider that there would be serious harm in disclosing geological information about a particular site, even if it were to conclude that the site is not further considered or excluded as a site for the storage or disposal of nuclear waste.

At least one potential site for AUKUS waste is named in the documents.

In response to the government’s demands for narrative control, Britton-Jones said:

I can understand [Government’s] It is preferable for information to be released regularly, but if the material is published the Government will be able to provide its context and the public will benefit from a better understanding of the process being undertaken.

He continued to explain:

While there may be some inappropriate reactions to the disclosure of information that requires Government action, such disclosure will stimulate and stimulate debate on a matter of public importance and increase scrutiny, debate, interpretation and review of the Government’s activities. These are factors in the public interest that facilitate the Applicant’s access to the material in question. In my view, these factors outweigh the concerns expressed by the witnesses on behalf of the Defendant.

The requested documents include those that Britten-Jones said “may be controversial and may create sensitivity”.

This is all too much for the government.

Rather than handing over the documents, the government appealed the Court’s decision in the Federal Court.

The end of FOI?

The notice of appeal includes a request to the court that, if the Government is successful:

Then I will have to pay his legal costs.

I won the transparency battle in court and the Government now wants me to personally pay up to $150,000 if they win the appeal. With their very deep pockets (your money) they will probably appoint a King’s Counsel with a lawyer.

In filing the appeal and seeking costs against me, the government ignored its own model litigation rules, which state that it “cannot utilize a plaintiff who does not have the resources to litigate a legitimate claim.” The rules also state that “In certain circumstances, it would be appropriate for the Commonwealth or Commonwealth entity to pay the costs (for example, for a test case in the public interest).”

The Greens’ Justice spokesman, Senator David Shoebridge, was less than impressed when he heard about the proposed costs order:

“The Labor government has repeatedly made clear that they are willing to use millions of public dollars to silence whistleblowers and hide the truth from the public.

But even from them, this is a new field.”

“Threatening someone with a potentially crippling bill just because they successfully introduced an FOI into the system is bullying, plain and simple.”

In September last year, the Albanian Labor Party Government introduced an FOI Amendment Bill to Parliament, containing provisions aimed at significantly expanding Government secrecy. After a significant campaign by civil society groups, the bill was removed from the Parliament by all non-government senators.

Albanese’s effort at secrecy failed.

The outcry revives Albanese’s secrecy plans. If a citizen fights and gets a good transparency decision from the Information Commissioner or the Administrative Review Tribunal, it doesn’t really matter what the law is. The government may take this decision to the Federal Court and threaten legal costs. The ordinary citizen will have to walk away. They cannot afford to lose.

$150,000 Cost Risk (Source: Government)

Bingo for the government! Who needs more privacy laws when you have deep taxpayer-funded pockets that they refuse to give information to?

Senator Shoebridge also stated:

“This is an ugly precedent set by the Albanian government in secret, and this time with intimidation. A truly shameful thing.”

The approach is a nuclear attack on government transparency and could also mean an end to FOI rows. This is the absolute antithesis of the new era of transparency that Albanese promised before he was elected. Indeed, the situation is very different now that it has taken over the government’s legal arsenal.

FOI amendment bill. Transparency counter-revolution.

Rex Patrick is a former South Australian Senator and formerly a submariner in the armed forces. Known as an anti-corruption and transparency warrior, Rex is also known as “Transparency Warrior.”