Key facts
- The Australian government may require former senator Rex Patrick to pay up to $150,000 in legal costs if he loses his bid to access Aukus documents.
- Patrick is seeking details on the storage of nuclear waste from the Aukus submarine fleet.
- The Department of Industry, Science and Resources has appealed a previous administrative appeal decision in Patrick's favor.
- Attorney-General Michelle Rowland has defended the government's position, stating it can rightly insist on cost recovery.
- Critics argue the move breaches 'model litigant' rules and will have a chilling effect on freedom of information requests.
The Australian government is facing significant backlash for its decision to pursue legal costs against former senator Rex Patrick in his battle to access documents related to the Aukus security agreement. Patrick, a transparency advocate, used freedom of information laws to seek details about the storage of nuclear waste from the Aukus submarine fleet. After winning an initial administrative appeal, the Department of Industry, Science and Resources lodged a federal court appeal to overturn the decision and sought an order for Patrick to pay the government's legal costs if he ultimately loses.
Attorney-General Michelle Rowland has defended the department's actions, stating that the government can rightly insist on cost recovery and is acting 'firmly and properly' to protect its interests. She indicated that the industry department is responsible for the conduct of the case and that the model litigant rules do not prevent seeking costs. This stance has drawn sharp criticism from several crossbench MPs, including Jacqui Lambie and Pauline Hanson, who accuse the government of behaving like a 'Labor stooge' and undermining the principles of transparency.
Transparency organizations, including the Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance and the Australian Democracy Network, have joined the chorus of disapproval, urging the government to cease the legal challenge. They argue that the prospect of facing a six-figure legal bill would create a 'chilling effect' on the use of freedom of information laws, particularly for journalists and smaller organizations, thereby hindering public scrutiny of government actions. Bill Browne from the Australia Institute echoed these concerns, suggesting it is another attempt to limit Australians' right to access government information and scrutinize the government.
Patrick himself has referenced a 1912 high court decision, asserting that governments should adhere to a 'standard of fair play' and expressed hope that the courts would address what he perceives as a 'misguided sense of fairness and proper process' exhibited by the Attorney-General.