Anger at Labor as Rex Patrick faces potential six-figure legal fee if he loses Aukus documents battle

Crossbench MPs are protesting Labor’s decision to seek an order to force the independent senator Rex Patrick to pay legal costs of up to $150,000 if he loses a fight to access Aukus-related documents. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP View image in fullscreen Crossbench MPs are protesting Labor’s decision to seek an order to force the independent senator Rex Patrick to pay legal costs of up to $150,000 if he loses a fight to access Aukus-related documents. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP Anger at Labor as Rex Patrick faces potential six-figure legal fee if he loses Aukus documents battle Australian government insists legal costs should be paid by former senator as FoI fight escalates Get our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcast The government will insist Rex Patrick pays up to $150,000 to cover its legal costs if he loses a fight to access documents about the Aukus agreement, escalating a battle in which several crossbench MPs have swung behind the former senator. The transparency campaigner has used freedom of information laws to seek details on where nuclear waste from the submarine fleet will be stored, and won an administrative appeal on the matter in May. But the Department of Industry, Science and Resources has appealed the matter to the federal court, seeking the decision be overturned and an order for Patrick to pay the government’s legal costs if he loses. Politicians including Jacqui Lambie and Pauline Hanson have lashed the decision, warning it is a breach of rules requiring the government to act as a model litigant. They, along with unions and transparency groups, have made appeals to the attorney general, Michelle Rowland, but have been rebuffed. According to documents seen by Guardian Australia, Rowland last week said the government could rightly insist on Patrick being required to pay costs if he loses, acting “firmly and properly” to protect its interests. Rowland wrote to a group of crossbenchers – including independents Helen Haines, David Pocock and the Greens’ David Shoebridge – saying the industry department was responsible for conduct of the case. The department does not accept the model litigant rules prevent it from seeking costs from Patrick. Previous legal fights have seen fees of much as $150,000. Lambie has accused Rowland of “behaving like a Labor stooge”. “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,” she said. “I cannot believe the attorney general has handballed what is a whole-of-government principle issue to the secretary of a single department. The attorney is behaving like a Labor stooge, and either doesn’t have any leadership within her or doesn’t care. So which one is it? Organisations including the Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance, the Grata Fund, the Alliance for Journalists’ Freedom and Australian Democracy Network have all called on the government to stop the legal challenge. Tosca Lloyd, a Whistleblower Justice Fund campaigner, said the risk of a six-figure legal bill would limit ordinary use of FoI rules. “This chilling effect is neither hypothetical nor unintentional,” she said. “Public interest journalism depends on the FoI system. Investigative reporters – especially those at smaller and independent outlets – use it constantly to uncover stories the public has a right to know. “If the cost of challenging a bad government decision is federal court litigation, most newsrooms simply won’t take that risk. The stories then won’t get told. That’s a loss for all of us.” Bill Browne, the Australia Institute’s Democracy & Accountability program director, said departments and ministers should not fight 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.” Patrick said legal precedent dating back to a 1912 high court decision showed a “standard of fair play” should be observed by governments. “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,” he said. “I can just hope that the courts will address the misguided sense of fairness and proper process exhibited by the attorney general.” A spokesperson for Rowland declined to comment, referring questions to the department. Explore more on these topics Freedom of information Independents Transparency Australian politics news Share Reuse this content