Speaker 1: I'm Daniel James and you're listening to seven am. What
Speaker 1: did Jackie Lamby, Pauline Hansen, Lydia Thorpe and David Pocock
Speaker 1: all have in common? Usually nothing, but they're part of
Speaker 1: an unlikely group of politicians backing former Senator Rex Patrick
Speaker 1: in a legal fight with the Albanesi government over information
Speaker 1: the government doesn't want released. At the center of that
Speaker 1: fighter documents about potential sites for nuclear waste storage from
Speaker 1: August Submarines. A builder could see Patrick force to pay
Speaker 1: one hundred and fifty thousand dollars and a warning about
Speaker 1: what happens when ordinary Australians push too hard for answers.
Speaker 1: Today Transparency campaign Rex Patrick on the case that is
Speaker 1: united some of Parliament's most unlikely allies. It's Tuesday, August four, Rex.
Speaker 1: In May, you won a freedom of information case which
Speaker 1: ordered the government to release information on where it will
Speaker 1: stare nuclear waste for Australia's future orchast submarines. Now the
Speaker 1: government is appealing to stop those documents being released. What
Speaker 1: do you understand is in those documents or what they
Speaker 1: could reveal.
Speaker 2: Well, we know that Back in February of twenty twenty three,
Speaker 2: the Minister announced that the government was going to do
Speaker 2: a review into how to select a location for orcust
Speaker 2: nuclear waste.
Speaker 3: As part of being a responsible nuclear steward, Australia will
Speaker 3: take responsibility for the disposal of the nuclear waste which
Speaker 3: comes from member operating nuclear power submarines, which is both.
Speaker 2: That report was completed in November of twenty twenty three,
Speaker 2: so in December, a month later, I sought access to
Speaker 2: both the report, but knowing the government might claim that
Speaker 2: to be cabinet, I then also asked for the documents
Speaker 2: that fed into that report, so the policy documents that
Speaker 2: were being sort of built up in background.
Speaker 3: The process by which we will determine how that all
Speaker 3: occurs is a process that we're underway right now and
Speaker 3: we will complete within twelve months. To be clear on that,
Speaker 3: that is not to say in twelve months time there
Speaker 3: will be a place, but it is to say within
Speaker 3: twelve months time we will identify what the road will
Speaker 3: be to determining where.
Speaker 2: So the report and the documents themselves don't actually mention
Speaker 2: that location. No location has been selected, but all of
Speaker 2: the criteria what the geological site must be, issues such
Speaker 2: as transportation, security, making sure that the facility is not
Speaker 2: located on an earthquake zone those sorts of things. But
Speaker 2: I know from the hearing that took place and the
Speaker 2: decision that was made by the Administra of Review Tribunal
Speaker 2: that it does include at least one location. The tribunal
Speaker 2: made the point that naming one location doesn't tell you
Speaker 2: that that's the location the government has chosen. But I
Speaker 2: think the government's worried that if you name any location,
Speaker 2: people are going to get upset. Look, that information that
Speaker 2: I'm seeking has been described by the Administra Review Tribunal
Speaker 2: as information that is of significant public interest. I've also
Speaker 2: just been in the last couple of weeks had a judge,
Speaker 2: Justice O'Sullivan make the same declaration in relation to similar documents.
Speaker 2: So a huge public interest in the disclosure of these
Speaker 2: sorts of documents so that the public can discuss and
Speaker 2: scrutiniz the government as they work towards finding a place
Speaker 2: to put Baucus nuclear waste.
Speaker 1: So it's a hot political issue, as anything to do
Speaker 1: with nuclear waste usually is Why did the government, beyond
Speaker 1: that argue this information should remain secret. What harm did
Speaker 1: it say would come from releasing it?
Speaker 2: Well, I might summarize it as saying that the government
Speaker 2: wants to control the narrative. Those words were talked about
Speaker 2: in the hearing. They say that if you just release
Speaker 2: a little bit of it, then people are going to
Speaker 2: get the wrong impression. If you don't do it in
Speaker 2: a controlled manner, it's going to create difficulty for the government.
Speaker 2: But of course all of those arguments don't stand. So,
Speaker 2: for example, if you're worried about small amounts of information
Speaker 2: being misleading, release more, tell people more. And indeed the
Speaker 2: FI is there to allow you to appear in behind
Speaker 2: the sort of thick curtains of government officers and just
Speaker 2: see what's going on.
Speaker 1: What do you think the government's been so secretive about
Speaker 1: this work?
Speaker 2: Well, I think you mentioned that the issue. You said
Speaker 2: it was a hot political issue. I think it's a hot,
Speaker 2: radioactive political issue. Part of me feels as though if
Speaker 2: it were not documents or added to that topic, maybe
Speaker 2: the appeal wouldn't be taking place. But the government has
Speaker 2: appealed on questions of law that they've asked the court
Speaker 2: to determine, and then the matter will get remitted back
Speaker 2: to the Administra of Review Tribunal to be dealt with
Speaker 2: in accordance with law. So it's all very technical stuff,
Speaker 2: but what it does is put a really big bar
Speaker 2: in the way of someone like me trying to pursue
Speaker 2: these sorts of documents. And indeed, if you think about it,
Speaker 2: I mean they've taken me to court. They know that
Speaker 2: I'm not a lawyer. Just imagine someone wins an FOI
Speaker 2: and the government sends them a nose of appeal, no
Speaker 2: idea what to do, and when they read the appeal,
Speaker 2: it says the government is seeking costs against you if
Speaker 2: they are successful. Right now, those jos you get to
Speaker 2: about one hundred and fifty thousand dollars. That's not an
Speaker 2: unreasonable estimate.
Speaker 1: Yeah, let's talk about that, Rex. Because the government isn't
Speaker 1: just appealing this decision. It's raised the states. It's insisting
Speaker 1: that you pay up to one hundred and fifty thousand
Speaker 1: dollars to cover its legals costs if you lose the
Speaker 1: legal fight. What do you make of that decision? How
Speaker 1: do you reflect on that? Do you take that as
Speaker 1: a threat?
Speaker 2: But it's more than a threat because they've actually done
Speaker 2: the appeal. What is offensive about it is that the
Speaker 2: information I'm seeking, there's no information that I'm going to
Speaker 2: use to make money or have some personal benefit in
Speaker 2: relation to It's information where I get to look at
Speaker 2: perhaps fifteen emails, and those emails may or may not
Speaker 2: have something interesting in them, and the price tag they
Speaker 2: want to put on that is one hundred and fifty
Speaker 2: thousand dollars. This is a deep pocketed government bringing a
Speaker 2: citizen to the federal court, testing and asking the court
Speaker 2: what the law is, knowing full well that I don't
Speaker 2: have the capacity to go from fund lawyers, and I
Speaker 2: certainly can't risk fifty thousand dollars in adverse legal costs.
Speaker 2: This is a huge chilling effect. The message here is
Speaker 2: stop at an FOI loss. If you pursue win, we
Speaker 2: may take you to court and you may lose your house.
Speaker 1: Still to come why this is one hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: thousand dollars fight. They've seen political enemies band together, rex
Speaker 1: politicians who are really on the same side about anything
Speaker 1: abandon together to back you on this. From paul Ing
Speaker 1: Hanson to Jackie Lamby, to Lydia Thorpe and David Pocock,
Speaker 1: they say the decision to pursue legal costs is a
Speaker 1: breach of the rules which require the government to act
Speaker 1: as a model litigant. Can you explain those rules for us?
Speaker 2: Well, the model of rules basically say that the government
Speaker 2: shouldn't take advantage of a citizen who simply cannot resource
Speaker 2: a legal team. So if I were a corporation and
Speaker 2: I was after documents related to the business that I
Speaker 2: was engaged in, one might say, well, it's reasonable that
Speaker 2: the corporation pays legal fees if they're unsuccessful in their
Speaker 2: endeavor to get a document. We might even suggest that's
Speaker 2: the case if I was seeking documents to help me
Speaker 2: win a compensation case something like that. But in a
Speaker 2: pure case that involves no pecuniary interest, no financial interest
Speaker 2: in a matter of significant public interest and questions to
Speaker 2: the court about how the public law works, that is
Speaker 2: not a case where the government should seek to impose costs.
Speaker 1: And what's the government's response to claims of a breach.
Speaker 2: Well, they say that it's not a breach. They have said, well,
Speaker 2: we're not. We consider it to be a test case.
Speaker 2: Now that might be something that gets argued out in
Speaker 2: the court because the court just as that as the
Speaker 2: government has a responsibility to be fair to citizens. The
Speaker 2: courts take seriously, their role to be fair to citizens
Speaker 2: under their constitutional role. So the deal here is that
Speaker 2: I can't afford the one hundred and fifty thousand dollars I
Speaker 2: might need to have a lawyer instructing a barrister who
Speaker 2: might be led by a senior council, because that's what
Speaker 2: the other side may have, which means I'm on my own.
Speaker 2: And what happens is when I go to court, if
Speaker 2: I lose, use that's when I'll have to pay the
Speaker 2: commerce legal costs. And we all know that if you're
Speaker 2: self represented, there's a much greater chance of losing. So
Speaker 2: it's almost like this double whammy that they know I
Speaker 2: can't get a lawyer and the chances of winning against
Speaker 2: the silks or kick cases and senior counsels which they
Speaker 2: may well engage at taxpayers expense, it will make it
Speaker 2: extremely difficult for me. And maybe the point here is
Speaker 2: just to make sure that the documents never get released
Speaker 2: and the narrative control is maintained. Okay, I'm sorry, why
Speaker 2: can't that report be released again?
Speaker 1: The report is a classified report, Senator.
Speaker 2: Oh, it's a classified report, but I mean there's no
Speaker 2: detail really, So what's so classified with it.
Speaker 1: I mean, you haven't gone anywhere, really is it?
Speaker 2: And the minister setup would be released as a part
Speaker 2: of a social license.
Speaker 3: So when is the Minister of Defense going to release it?
Speaker 1: Jackie Lamby says, this is the government trying to send
Speaker 1: a message. What is that message? Rex? And are you
Speaker 1: worried that this could stop others in the future from
Speaker 1: pursuing information the government simply doesn't want exposed.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it just means that the ready sensitive stuff, the
Speaker 2: government has a means to be able to say you
Speaker 2: ain't going to get it even if the law says
Speaker 2: that you can, because you never get to test the
Speaker 2: law properly. And so Senator Lambe has weighed and she's concerned,
Speaker 2: and I've spoken to her. This issue is not about
Speaker 2: Rex Patrick. Okay, I'm old enough and ugly enough to
Speaker 2: look after myself. The big worry here is the FOI
Speaker 2: Act is a layman's tool.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: A senator can ask questions on notice, an order to general,
Speaker 2: can demand papers when they're oversighting government. The media can
Speaker 2: ask questions and use its its powers in terms of
Speaker 2: its ability to influence the public to potentially get answers
Speaker 2: to information. All the citizen has is FOI. It's a
Speaker 2: given to them by the Parliament to be able to
Speaker 2: participate in democracy and to be able to scrutinize their government.
Speaker 2: And the government is just putting a huge price tag
Speaker 2: on that activity, even though the Act says that access
Speaker 2: to documents should be granted two people in the least
Speaker 2: costly way, so that the Act actually says that, Yet
Speaker 2: they're basically saying, well, we're just going to outmuscle you,
Speaker 2: mister Patrick and anyone else who's watching pay attention.
Speaker 1: And finally, Rex, I mean, how important are freedom of
Speaker 1: information requests to a robust democracy? I mean how important
Speaker 1: have they become? Because government over the decade seems to
Speaker 1: me as Orbersuasians have become more and more secretive. What
Speaker 1: kind of things wouldn't we know without FOIS?
Speaker 2: I look, there's all sorts of stuff. I was the
Speaker 2: person that took Scott Morrison to court over a national
Speaker 2: cabinet being declared during COVID and basically then saying well
Speaker 2: we can't see the information and the basis upon which
Speaker 2: really big decisions like you can't leave your house, you
Speaker 2: can't cross a border, you can't send your kids to school.
Speaker 2: How those decisions were being made, so FOI properly pursued
Speaker 2: as opened up national cabinet. FOI has enabled us to
Speaker 2: see all sorts of misconduct by officials, or unfair play
Speaker 2: by governments or poorly thought through ideas. Fois are a
Speaker 2: critical tool for journalists who want to see what's happening
Speaker 2: behind the closed doors of government to be able to
Speaker 2: report and inform the public. They will be looking at this,
Speaker 2: and in fact it wasn't just the politicians that have
Speaker 2: weighed in and written to the Attorney General, so to
Speaker 2: have some civil society groups, including people like the Human
Speaker 2: Rights Law Center, but also some of the journalists organizations
Speaker 2: because they understand the implication of this.
Speaker 1: X Patrick, thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Also in the news day one of radio shock jock
Speaker 4: Allan Jones's long awaited trial has kicked off in Sydney,
Speaker 4: with the court hearing Jones allegedly kissed and touched a
Speaker 4: year twelve student who had invited to his home in
Speaker 4: the Southern Highlands. The prosecution says Jones met the teenager
Speaker 4: during a radio interview about the promising young athletes achievements,
Speaker 4: later paying for his phone and a six hundred dollars
Speaker 4: a week allowance to help with his training. Jones faces
Speaker 4: twenty two charges related to six male complainants. He denies
Speaker 4: any wrongdoing. And One Nation has finally announced its Victorian
Speaker 4: leader ahead of the upcoming state election. The party's state
Speaker 4: president or In Pickering, but One Nation's policies and full
Speaker 4: list of candidates won't be released for another month, just
Speaker 4: three months out from the vote. The announcement was made
Speaker 4: yesterday in Melbourne, with the ABC, the Age and The
Speaker 4: Guardian all refused entry. Hansen says she's quote not putting
Speaker 4: up with the spin gotcha moments, so they're banned.
Speaker 1: I'm Ruby Jones.
Speaker 4: This is a an am thanks for listening.