Anger at Labor as Rex Patrick
Wanderstayfinder.com – The Albanese government is preparing to demand that Rex Patrick cover legal costs of up to $150,000 if he loses his ongoing battle to access documents related to the Aukus submarine agreement. This escalation has sparked significant backlash, with several crossbench MPs publicly supporting the transparency campaigner. Patrick successfully used freedom of information laws to obtain information about nuclear waste storage for the future submarine fleet, winning an administrative appeal in May. However, the Department of Industry, Science and Resources has now appealed to the federal court, seeking to overturn the decision and potentially require Patrick to pay the government’s legal costs.
Political Backlash Against Government Decision
Anger at Labor as Rex Patrick continues to grow as prominent politicians criticize the government’s approach. Senators Jacqui Lambie and Pauline Hanson have strongly condemned the decision, arguing it violates rules requiring the government to act as a model litigant. These politicians, alongside unions and transparency advocacy groups, have appealed to Attorney General Michelle Rowland, but their requests have been rejected. According to documents reviewed by Guardian Australia, Rowland maintained last week that the government has the right to require Patrick to pay costs if he loses, stating the government is acting “firmly and properly” to protect its interests.
Rowland communicated with crossbench members, including independents Helen Haines and David Pocock, as well as Greens senator David Shoebridge, explaining that the industry department manages the case. The department maintains that model litigant rules do not prevent it from seeking costs from Patrick. Previous legal disputes have involved fees reaching as high as $150,000.
Concerns About Access to Information
“The government is sending a very clear message to people: stop when we say you can’t have information under FoI, or we’ll take you to court and you could lose all your savings … and maybe your house,” Lambie said.
Lambie accused Rowland of “behaving like a Labor stooge” and questioned whether the attorney general possesses leadership or simply doesn’t care. She emphasized that this issue extends beyond a single department and will not disappear. Multiple organizations, including the Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance, the Grata Fund, the Alliance for Journalists’ Freedom, and the Australian Democracy Network, have urged the government to halt the legal challenge.
Tosca Lloyd, a campaigner with the Whistleblower Justice Fund, warned that the threat of a six-figure legal bill could significantly limit ordinary citizens’ use of FoI rules. “This chilling effect is neither hypothetical nor unintentional,” she stated. Public interest journalism relies heavily on the FoI system, with investigative reporters at smaller and independent outlets using it constantly to uncover stories the public deserves to know. Lloyd noted that if challenging poor government decisions requires expensive federal court litigation, most newsrooms will simply avoid the risk, meaning important stories won’t be told.
Bill Browne, director of the Australia Institute’s Democracy & Accountability program, argued that departments and ministers should not pursue FoI applicants. “The Albanese government already tried to restrict Australians’ right to access government information, and was rebuffed by the Senate. This looks like another attempt to raise the cost of scrutinising the government,” Browne explained.
Patrick’s Legal Position
Rex Patrick has pointed to legal precedent dating back to a 1912 high court decision, which established that governments should observe a “standard of fair play.” “I have some experience in courtrooms and have asked the court to ensure fairness from government and that these laws will be decided with competent barristers arguing different sides of the secrecy/transparency questions before it,” Patrick said. He expressed hope that the courts would address what he described as the “misguided sense of fairness and proper process exhibited by the attorney general.” A spokesperson for Rowland declined to provide further comment, directing questions to the department.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Rex Patrick fighting for? Rex Patrick is seeking access to documents about the Aukus agreement, specifically regarding where nuclear waste from the future submarine fleet will be stored.
How much could Patrick have to pay? The government is seeking up to $150,000 in legal costs if Patrick loses the federal court appeal.
Why is the government pursuing this case? The Department of Industry, Science and Resources believes it has the right to seek costs and is not prevented by model litigant rules from doing so.
Who supports Patrick in this dispute? Crossbench MPs including Jacqui Lambie, Pauline Hanson, Helen Haines, David Pocock, and David Shoebridge have publicly backed Patrick’s position.
What impact could this have on journalism? Campaigners warn that the potential for high legal costs could create a “chilling effect,” preventing investigative reporters from challenging government decisions.
