Senator Rex Patrick says government wants to avoid a precedent that would make it easier to access diaries of senior officials

This article is more than 1 year old

This article is more than 1 year old

The prime minister’s department has intervened to thwart the release of the navy chief’s diary to a senator investigating the handling of a multibillion-dollar arms contract.

The Centre Alliance senator Rex Patrick is attempting to uncover the circumstances that led the government to hand a $4bn patrol boat contract to the German shipbuilder Luerssen, instead of Austal, a local company, which said it could do the work for less.

The defence department had resisted Patrick’s attempts to secure the diaries of the navy chief and defence’s head of capability acquisition and sustainment.

Defence ordered to hand over navy chief's diary to senator investigating arms contract Read more

Last month, the department was found to have misused exemptions to freedom of information law when rejecting Patrick’s request for the diaries. The information commissioner ordered it to release the documents, and the department confirmed to Guardian Australia that it planned to do so.

But this week, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet intervened to keep the diaries secret. It will take the case to the administrative appeals tribunal on behalf of the government.

Patrick believes the government is trying to prevent him from setting a precedent that would provide greater transparency around the diaries of senior government officials. The defence department had previously tried to use exemptions that prevented material from being released if it revealed the deliberations of the cabinet. The information commissioner, Angelene Falk, had found that the diaries contained only dates of cabinet meetings, which could not be taken to reveal the content of cabinet discussions.

“The information merely records the appointments that have been scheduled for a particular day and do not contain any further information as to what was considered or discussed in those meetings,” Falk found.

Patrick said the government wanted to avoid letting that precedent stand.

“They’re not worried about the chief of navy’s appointments,” he said. “The worry is about that precedent, and the claim they’ve made is about cabinet dates.”

The PM’s department said it was seeking a review of the decision as an “affected third party”. A spokesman said the diaries contained “cabinet-in-confidence material”.

“Accordingly, the department, as the custodian of cabinet information and processes, is an affected third party and has exercised this right of review,” the spokesman said. “As the matter is currently with the AAT, it is not appropriate to comment further.”

Patrick said the government could be spending thousands simply to keep dates secret.

“What’s the cost of a date?” he asked.

“In another AAT FOI matter I’m involved in, they’ve spent more than $150,000 on legal fees. It is going to cost a significant amount of money to try to protect a date in circumstances where I already know the week, and have a pretty good idea of the day.”

The most recent data available on FOI law in Australia shows a worrying trend against transparency. FOI refusals are at their highest level since records began in 2010-11, spiking recently because of high rates at the Northern Australian Infrastructure Facility.

The total fees and charges imposed by Australian government agencies has declined significantly since peaking in 2010-11, but the costs of FOI can still be prohibitive, particularly for individuals or smaller non-profit organisations.