The federal agency considering a $900m loan to Adani has cited “substantial cyberbullying” of its directors to justify refusing a freedom of information request for basic details of its board meetings.

The Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (Naif) also raised concerns about “attempts to trace board members through unofficial channels” and protests outside its Cairns office to argue the time and place of meetings should be kept secret.

The Australian government solicitor last week relayed these and other concerns to the Office of the Information Commissioner, which is considering an appeal by Greenpeace after the Naif rejected its information request in January.

It follows recent controversy around Naif board member Karla Way-McPhail, after it was reported she has an interest in mining services businesses that could benefit from Adani’s success prompted extensive questioning in Senate estimates by Labor and the Greens.

Way-McPhail – whose political support of the Liberal National party and personal ties with Matthew Canavan, the federal minister overseeing Naif, were also raised in estimates – appears to be the only director who has received widespread media and public attention.

An inquiry into the Naif was approved by the Senate on the day Jason Clare, Labor’s shadow minister for resources and northern Australia, told parliament there had been a “cover-up” around governance questions surrounding Way-McPhail.

Siobhan Stoddart, a lawyer with the Australian government solicitor, wrote to the OIC, saying one of the agency’s distinguishing factors was “ongoing media attention concerning whether Naif is considering granting a loan to Adani”.

“It is an established fact that anti-Adani protests have disrupted businesses and organisations in the past, and it is reasonable to expect they could also disrupt Naif board meetings if the dates and locations of the meetings were disclosed,” she said.

The decision to withhold that information “was also made in the context of actual physical protests which have occurred at the Naif office, as well as complaints of substantial cyberbullying against particular board members and attempts to trace board members through unofficial channels”.

Greenpeace’s climate and energy campaigner, Nikola Casule, said the environmental group rejected “any suggestion that increased transparency would lead to bullying of the Naif board”.

“Other government agencies manage to be accountable and open without such concerns. What makes Naif different?”

Casule said the agency’s “repeated refusal to reveal any information about their functioning is dismaying”.

When combined with the fact the Senate inquiry would examine the makeup of the Naif board, “it makes it look like they have something to hide”, Casule said.

“Excuses have ranged from the usual commercial-in-confidence to documents being changed after the request was submitted to fears of cyberbullying, and potential public opposition to Naif’s plans,” he said.

“What it amounts to is a refusal to have any form of accountability to the Australian public despite controlling $5bn of their money.”

Greenpeace in its appeal questioned Naif chief executive Laurie Walker’s reference to anti-Adani protests at the Commonwealth Bank, where she formerly worked in corporate finance, in her decision to refuse the FOI request.

But Stoddart said Walker was entitled to rely on “relevant factual information” in “identifying likely consequences of disclosure of the documents in issue”.

Stoddart said the “practice of not disclosing dates or locations of board meetings is also consistent with that of Australian banks and other ASX listed companies”.

“The considerations of those companies in taking that position are also relevant to Naif, given its role as a ‘gap’ lender,” she said.

Stoddart also asked whether Greenpeace might consider abandoning its appeal because the Naif document that fell within the scope of its FOI request was “now out of date” and “no longer accurate”.

A leading freedom of information law scholar told the ABC that blocking Greenpeace’s original request for meeting details amounted to “a level of secrecy that was not justified” for an agency handling $5bn in taxpayer funds.

Since then, the Naif has been inundated with more than 1,500 similar FOI requests from people using a “randomised request generation program” hosted on the Greenpeace website.

The Naif has issued a blanket rejection of these requests, citing a “practical refusal reason”, namely that “the work involved in processing the request would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the agency”.

Elaine Johnson, the principal solicitor with the Environmental Defenders Office NSW, said the number of applicants was “irrelevant” to whether an FOI request was unreasonable.



“The requests are legitimate requests and cover a range of important public interest issues, in relation to funding of Adani’s coalmine in the Galilee basin, managing climate change risk and investments in fossil fuels,” she said.

“The fact that more than 1,500 people have applied for documents held by Naif only serves to demonstrate the clear public interest in making that information publicly available.

“Naif is bound by these laws to respond in a way that favours access to information sought, yet it appears to be doing the opposite.”