Unconstitutional “evil”. Albo’s plan for more government secrecy

by Rex Patrick | Oct 16, 2025 , https://michaelwest.com.au/albos-evil-plan-for-government-secrecy/

Prime Minister Albanese’s plan to amend FOI laws and increase government secrecy may be unconstitutional, and the LNP, Greens, and Independents are all opposing it. Rex Patrick reports.

Sussan Ley’s opinion piece in the Canberra Times this week, coupled with strong statements of rejection from Greens justice spokesperson Senator David Shoebridge, looks to be the final nail in the coffin for Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s hypocritical and evil attempt to clamp down on the ability of citizens to participate in democracy and review the performance of their government.

Every document the government produces is generated for public purposes and on the taxpayer’s coin. The Freedom of Information Act itself states that:

“information held by the Government is to be managed for public purposes, and is a national resource.“

Of course, there is information we should not see; defence secrets, law enforcement tactics, commercially sensitive information shared with government, and citizens’ personal information held by government.

Justice Mason articulated it well in the High Court decision in The Commonwealth of Australia v John Fairfax & Sons:

“It is unacceptable in our democratic society that there should be a restraint on the publication of information relating to government when the only vice of that information is that it enables the public to discuss, review and criticise government action.

“Accordingly, the court will determine the government’s claim to confidentiality by reference to the public interest. Unless disclosure is likely to injure the public interest, it will not be protected.”

This judicial declaration was made in 1980, two years before the Freedom of Information Bill was enacted. The principles laid down by Justice Mason were subsequently incorporated into the Act, whereby the default position is that requested information is to be made available to applicants “unless access to the document at that time would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest” – although this default position is:

“effectively being defeated due to a flourishing culture of government secrecy.”

Horse trading risk

Could the Coalition opposition falter in their resolve – maybe in exchange for less stringent environmental regulations for industry? Could the Greens seek to do a deal – maybe in exchange for tighter emission controls?

The problem is that when you horse trade, you sometimes end up with a donkey.

But anything is possible in politics. The Bill is not scheduled to be debated this year. A week in politics is a long time; a few months an eternity.

Unconstitutional?

The fallback, if the Bill passes, would be to mount a constitutional challenge to the prospective crackdown on public access to government information. There is force in the proposition that the:

“Bill intrudes on the implied freedom of political communication in the Australian Constitution.“

In the 1992 High Court case of Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd & New South Wales v Commonwealth, the court ruled that the implied freedom is a necessary incident of the representative democracy which the Australian Constitution provides. Communication is protected because it is the means by which electors inform themselves about government and political matters, which allows them to exercise an informed choice at elections.

Anthony Mason, by then High Court Chief Justice, said in that case:

“… The point is that the representatives who are members of Parliament and Ministers of State are not only chosen by the people but exercise their legislative and executive powers as representatives of the people. And in the exercise of those powers the representatives of necessity are accountable to the people for what they do and have a responsibility to take account of the views of the people on whose behalf they act. Freedom of communication is an indispensable element in representative government.

“Indispensable to that accountability and that responsibility is freedom of communication, at least in relation to public affairs and political discussion. Only by exercising that freedom can the citizen communicate his or her views on the wide range of matters that may call for, or are relevant to, political action or decision. Only by exercising that freedom can the citizen criticise government decisions and actions, seek to bring about change, call for action where none has been taken and in this way influence the elected representatives. By these means the elected representatives are equipped to discharge their role so that they may take account of and respond to the will of the people.

“Communication in the exercise of the freedom is by no means a one-way traffic, for the elected representatives have a responsibility not only to ascertain the views of the electorate but also to explain and account for their decisions and actions in government and to inform the people so that they may make informed judgments on relevant matters. (Author’s emphasis.)

“Absent such a freedom of communication, representative government would fail to achieve its purpose, namely, government by the people through their elected representatives; government would cease to be responsive to the needs and wishes of the people and, in that sense, would cease to be truly representative.”

The FOI Act recognises this Constitutional foundation, with the Parliament declaring one of the objectives of the legislation is to… “promote Australia’s representative democracy.” In 1988, in the High Court case of Egan v Willis, Justices Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne stated:

In Australia, s 75(v) of the Constitution and judicial review of administrative action under federal and State law, together with freedom of information legislation (author’s emphasis), supplement the operation of responsible government in this respect.

Beyond reasonable secrecy

Although the High Court only declared freedom of political communication in the 1990s, it has existed in Australia since 1901.

Whilst the FOI Act only came into effect in 1982, it effectively codified a mechanism and a reasonable limit on what government information could be available to fulfil the Constitutional freedom of political observation.

The Cabinet provisions in Prime Minister Albanese’s FOI Amendment Bill depart from necessary confidentiality in Cabinet solidarity and collective responsibility, and, in a radical departure from established understanding and practice,

“wrap a secrecy blanket over all things being carried out at the top echelons of government.

Secrecy for the sake of secrecy is wrong. Exaggerated secrecy, that is, secrecy beyond the public interest, will warp the foundations of our democracy and will most likely be unconstitutional.

Sections 7 and 24 of the Constitution, which state respectively that the Senate and the House of Representatives shall be composed of senators and members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth, imply that citizens have a right to be informed so that they can properly consider their vote.

As such, the passage of the Bill will likely give rise to a challenge as to the validity of

“laws that seek to hide what the public own and should reasonably be able to see.”

Complacency

So, although passage of the Bill through the Parliament looks set to fail, the Government will be working up a negotiating scenario – maybe offering something that the Coalition hates but the Greens really like or something the Greens hate but the Coalition really likes.

But no good could come from negotiation on this Bill. It’s a poison pill for democracy.

Information is to democratic participation as water is to life. We take the water for granted until it stops flowing. Complacency must not set in, and there should be no deals. Albanese’s toxic FOI suppression Bill should be voted down.

The Senate’s Legal and Constitutional Legislation is holding its first hearing into the Bill this Friday.

October 26, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | secrets and lies | Leave a comment

AUKUS: Revolving door, spiralling down

Ahead of the launch of a new database on the Australian military-industrial complex, we document the farce that AUKUS has become

Michelle Fahy, Undue Influence, Oct 20, 2025

It is clear to many that AUKUS, in particular its early fulfilment stages, is becoming a debacle. In February, Defence Minister Richard Marles lauded as a ‘very unique’ arrangement Australia’s gift to the United States of $4.7 billion to bolster America’s struggling submarine output, highlighting that such an arrangement hasn’t been seen in other defence pacts globally.

Of course such an arrangement hasn’t been seen elsewhere! Most other countries wouldn’t agree to hand over this massive sum without ensuring there were provisions for a refund should the promised submarines fail to arrive.

In an inept performance in Senate Estimates in June 2024, Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead, head of the Australian Submarine Agency, woodenly refused to answer a straightforward question from Greens’ Senator David Shoebridge about whether the agreement Australia has struck with the US contains a clawback provision should the promised submarines fail to be supplied.

Mead’s performance, as recorded in Hansard, is mordantly comical:

It is thus obvious that Australia has no contractual way of recovering its money should the current or a future US President block the transfer of the submarines, as the US President is entitled to do under US legislation.

Australia is certainly ‘very unique’ in its willingness to part with almost $10 billion (the UK is getting a similar amount) in public funds with no strings attached.

Australia made the first payment of $800 million to the US in February and quietly transferred the second payment, a further $800 million, in July. It has committed to paying a total of US$2 billion ($3 billion) by the end of 2025, with the remainder to be paid over the decade to 2035‒36.

Under the AUKUS deal, both major political parties have committed to spending vast public resources with no consultation and minimal transparency and accountability.

Even though the Australian National Audit Office has exposed, in report after report, serious probity breaches in defence procurement, including unethical conduct between global weapons companies and the Australian government, these transgressions are routinely ignored. The weapons deals continue regardless.

The big winners from AUKUS so far have been nuclear submarine manufacturers in the United States and the United Kingdom. Australia has committed to providing almost $10 billion to boost the output of these companies, helping secure jobs for workers in America and the United Kingdom.

As there are no clawback provisions in either of these agreements, should President Trump ditch AUKUS, or if the submarine manufacturing capacity in the US and UK doesn’t sufficiently increase, Australian taxpayers will be picking up another multibillion-dollar defence tab with nothing to show for it. We’ve already shelled out $3.4 billion for no submarines, following former PM Scott Morrison’s shredding of the pre-AUKUS French submarine contract.

This is far from the only example of waste, misdirection and incompetence in Australia’s dealings with the global arms industry. Take the Albanese government’s engagement with global arms giant Thales. In October last year, the government signed up Thales to a further munitions manufacturing contract and a ‘strategic partnership’ in the new domestic missile-making endeavour, the Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance (GWEO) enterprise.

The new deal with Thales was struck despite the fact that Thales is currently being investigated by four countries for widespread criminal activity in three separate corruption probes. …………………….https://undueinfluence.substack.com/p/nothing-to-see-here-says-australia………………………………………… The Thales example illustrates how a key democratic accountability mechanism, the National Audit Office and its reports, is routinely ignored.

…………………………………………………How is it that such imbroglios occur again and again? Australian governments are highly susceptible to the ‘revolving door’ process in which politicians, the military and public servants move effortlessly between government, lobbying and the industry itself.

In what follows, no suggestion is being made of unlawful activity by any person named, nor that any of the appointments noted was unlawful.

The problem for Australia is not one of legality but of the perfectly legal influence of industry insiders within government, the lack of transparency, and the absence of management of the ‘revolving door’.

The revolving door

The ‘revolving door’ describes the movement of public officials into related private roles, and industry executives into related public roles. It is a widespread problem that undermines democracy, yet in Australia it remains unmonitored and unpoliced.

A large number of Australia’s senior government ministers and their staffers, military officers, and defence department officials move through the revolving door into paid roles with the weapons industry. Such moves are not illegal but they require a robust management framework—with rules that are enforced—to mitigate the inherent conflicts of interest. Australia’s feeble attempts at managing the revolving door have been completely ineffective

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..In the lobby

Numerous former senior politicians are now working as lobbyists for the weapons industry. Examples include: Liberals Christopher Pyne (Pyne and Partners), Joe Hockey (Bondi Partners), Arthur Sinodinos (The Asia Group) and David Johnston (TG Public Affairs); and Labor’s Kim Beazley (TG Public Affairs), Joel Fitzgibbon (CMAX Advisory), Stephen Conroy (TG Public Affairs) and Mark McGowan (Bondi Partners).

There are also plenty of former senior military officers pulling strings on behalf of weapons companies too. Examples are listed below.

The federal register of lobbyists provides some transparency, but does not cover the majority of people who lobby politicians. The register applies only to third-party lobbyists. These people operate as paid professionals, either individually or as an employee of a lobbying firm, on behalf of clients. Third party lobbyists make up just 20% of all lobbyists. The remaining 80% include, amongst others, company CEOs and people employed by corporations as ‘government relations’ advisers. This enables employees of major weapons companies to lobby politicians easily and legally, with zero transparency.

Reverse cycle: private to public

The government’s engagement with UK weapons giant BAE Systems’ local subsidiary best illustrates how this works.

The government gave former senior BAE Systems executives influential behind-the-scenes roles both before and during the tender process for Australia’s largest ever surface warship procurement, the $46 billion Hunter class frigates, a contract BAE went on to win. Few of these roles were publicly acknowledged. https://undueinfluence.substack.com/p/sinking-billions-revolving-doors

BAE Systems was awarded the frigates contract by the Turnbull government in mid-2018. The names of the people appointed to an expert advisory panel to oversee the tender evaluation process were not made public. Here’s why: serious conflicts of interest…………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Lockheed Martin locks on target

Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza has put the issue of the extensive influence on the Australian government of Lockheed Martin—the world’s largest arms manufacturer—under the spotlight…………https://undueinfluence.substack.com/p/buck-passing-inside-the-murky-arms

Lockheed Martin utilises the revolving door heavily in the US. Until recently, it had openly adopted the same strategy in Australia. From October 2013 until the end of 2021, the board of Lockheed Martin Australia boasted multiple former senior Australian public officials: at least two at any one time, more often three, and even four during one 20-month period.

They included a roll call of defence heavies from past decades,………………………………………………………………………………………

The UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territory, Francesca Albanese, released a report in July addressing the ‘economy of genocide’ in which she makes special note of Lockheed Martin’s F-35 program…………………………….

Australia’s refusal to cease the supply of parts and components into Lockheed Martin’s F-35 global supply chain places the nation at risk of being found complicit in Israel’s genocide.

Complicity in the world’s worst international crime is just one of the democracy-undermining consequences of Australia’s deep enmeshment in the US and broader Western military industrial complex.

This feature article started life as a talk to Australia’s Online Quaker Meeting mid-year. I later expanded it for ARENA Quarterly’s Spring 2025 issue, which was delivered to bookshops last week ($20). It is also online at Arena. https://undueinfluence.substack.com/p/aukus-revolving-door-spiralling-down?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=297295&post_id=176534719&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

October 20, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | secrets and lies | Leave a comment