The Claim
“Refused to publish minutes from the national cabinet tackling COVID. After a judge ruled that it must be published, they introduced a new law to keep it secret. They argued that even though the cabinet has done nothing wrong, they should be able to keep discussion details secret. ---”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The core components of this claim are substantially accurate and well-documented through government records, court decisions, and parliamentary proceedings.
Component 1: Government Refused to Publish National Cabinet Minutes
VERIFIED - ACCURATE
The Coalition government fought Freedom of Information requests for National Cabinet documents during the COVID-19 pandemic. Senator Rex Patrick filed approximately 50 FOI requests seeking National Cabinet meeting minutes and related documents [1]. The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet resisted these requests, arguing that National Cabinet meetings were covered by Cabinet-in-Confidence exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) [2].
This resistance occurred during 2020-2021 when National Cabinet was functioning as the key coordination body for Australia's pandemic response [3].
Component 2: A Judge Ruled They Must Be Published
VERIFIED - ACCURATE
On August 5, 2021, Justice Richard White of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) made a landmark ruling in Patrick and Secretary, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (Freedom of Information) [2021] AATA 2719 [4].
Justice White's decision was unambiguous:
- National Cabinet is NOT a "committee of the Cabinet" as defined in the Freedom of Information Act
- National Cabinet meetings are NOT exempt from Freedom of Information disclosure on the grounds of Cabinet confidentiality
- The government's claim to protect National Cabinet documents under Cabinet privilege was invalid [4]
Justice White reasoned that National Cabinet comprises heads of different governments, many from opposition parties. Since a federal Cabinet committee must be "derived from the Cabinet" and consist of Cabinet members, National Cabinet could not qualify. As Justice White stated: "The mere use of the name 'National Cabinet' does not, of itself, have the effect of making a group of persons using the name a 'committee of the Cabinet'" [4].
The government did not appeal this decision. Senator Patrick received the requested documents 28 days after the ruling [1].
Component 3: Government Introduced New Law to Keep It Secret
VERIFIED - ACCURATE
In direct response to Justice White's ruling, the Morrison government introduced the COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 in September 2021—approximately one month after the court decision [5].
This legislation explicitly:
- Amended the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) to expand the definition of "Cabinet" to include the National Cabinet [6]
- Granted National Cabinet documents the same FOI exemptions as federal Cabinet documents [5]
- Removed the public interest test requirement, meaning even documents whose public interest in disclosure outweighed the need for confidentiality could be withheld [7]
The bill passed and became the COAG Legislation Amendment Act 2021 [5]. This legislative action directly overturned the effect of Justice White's court decision, though it could not undo the ruling itself [8].
Timeline verification:
- Court ruling: August 5, 2021
- Bill introduction: September 2021
- Law passed: 2021 [1]
Missing Context
The claim presents an accurate account of the Coalition government's actions but omits important contextual information:
No "Nothing Wrong" Argument in Government Statements
The claim attributes to the government an explicit argument that "even though the cabinet has done nothing wrong, they should be able to keep discussion details secret." While this captures the practical effect of their position, government statements focused on the need for executive privilege rather than an explicit admission of wrongdoing [9]. The government's stated rationale was that Cabinet deliberations require confidentiality to enable frank and candid advice [10].
Broader Government Secrecy Context
The National Cabinet secrecy issue is part of a wider pattern of Australian government secrecy practices. Both Coalition and Labor governments have expanded executive privilege claims, though in different ways [11]. This is not unique to the Coalition's approach to National Cabinet specifically.
Labor's Campaign Promises and Subsequent Actions
A crucial omission from the original claim: Labor promised to reverse this National Cabinet secrecy but failed to do so after taking office [12].
In March 2022 (before the election), Shadow Attorney General Mark Dreyfus stated Labor would "unwind the secrecy scheme" [13]. Anthony Albanese campaigned on transparency, stating "The Australian people deserve accountability and transparency, not secrecy" [14].
However, since taking office in June 2022, the Albanese government has:
- Maintained the COAG Legislation Amendment Act 2021 without repeal
- Rejected calls to increase National Cabinet transparency
- Expanded government secrecy more broadly (only 25% of FOI requests fully granted vs. ~50% in 2021-22) [15]
This represents broken campaign promises and suggests the National Cabinet secrecy issue is not unique to the Coalition—both major parties maintain it [13].
Source Credibility Assessment
Original Sources: MSN News
Rating: Conditional Credibility (HIGH factual accuracy, LEFT-CENTER bias)
MSN News functions primarily as a news aggregator rather than original reporter [16]. When assessing MSN articles, credibility depends on the source outlet being aggregated. MSN has a left-center political bias (51% of stories from left-center sources) and high factual rating according to Media Bias/Fact Check [16].
The MSN article cited is credible insofar as it reports on actual court decisions and legislative proceedings that are documented in government records and parliamentary debates [1].
Original Sources: The New Daily
Rating: Mostly Factual with LEFT-CENTER bias
The New Daily is rated "Mostly Factual" by Media Bias/Fact Check (not the highest credibility tier) [17]. Key limitations:
- Lacks hyperlinked sourcing, making independent verification more difficult [17]
- Left-center political bias based on editorial perspective
- Owned by Industry Super Holdings (collectively controlled by ~24 industry super funds)
- Advised by Greg Combet, former Labor Cabinet minister [17]
While The New Daily is reasonably fact-based for factual reporting (like the National Cabinet story), its ownership structure and advisory board should be noted when assessing potential bias in policy commentary [17].
Assessment: Both original sources are reasonably reliable for reporting factual events (court decisions, legislation introduction) but reflect left-center political perspectives. The underlying facts they report are independently verifiable through government sources.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Answer: Labor promised to reverse this but maintained it after taking office.
Pre-Election Position (Opposition)
Labor opposed the COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 while in opposition [18]. The opposition issued dissenting committee reports recommending the removal of Schedule 3 (the secrecy provisions) [19]. Labor's position was that the removal of the public interest test went too far and that the courts' decision should stand [20].
Post-Election Position (Government)
Despite campaign promises to "unwind the secrecy scheme," the Albanese government has:
- Maintained National Cabinet secrecy - Did not repeal the COAG Legislation Amendment Act 2021 [12]
- Rejected transparency advocates' calls - Rebuffed renewed FOI requests and transparency campaigns [13]
- Expanded government secrecy - Under Labor, Government secrecy has increased rather than decreased:
- FOI approval rates dropped from ~50% (2021-22) to only 25% of requests fully granted [15]
- Senate order compliance declined to lowest levels since 2016 [15]
- Public interest immunity claims tripled - from averaging 1 claim per 3 weeks (Morrison) to 1 per week (Albanese), with 84% document refusals in 2022 [15]
Former Senator Rex Patrick summarized the situation: "Albanese has taken the blue secrecy blanket off national cabinet and replaced it with a red secrecy blanket" [13].
Comparative Finding
This is NOT unique to the Coalition. While the Coalition introduced the National Cabinet secrecy legislation, Labor has perpetuated and expanded government secrecy practices [12, 13, 15]. The issue reflects a broader bipartisan commitment to executive confidentiality that transcends party politics [21].
Balanced Perspective
The Coalition's Position and Rationale
The Coalition government's argument for National Cabinet confidentiality, while criticized as excessive, reflects a standard executive position: confidentiality is necessary for effective decision-making [10]. Governments worldwide claim Cabinet privilege to enable frank discussion of options, including rejected alternatives, without public pressure [22].
The Coalition's position was that National Cabinet, despite its unusual composition, functioned as the primary decision-making forum during the pandemic and warranted the same protections as Cabinet [23].
The Counterargument
Justice White's court decision identified a genuine legal and constitutional problem: National Cabinet comprises heads of different governments, many from opposition parties, so it cannot meet the legal definition of a "committee of Cabinet" [4]. Allowing it to claim Cabinet privilege would effectively exempt any multi-party coordinating body from FOI scrutiny [4].
Critics argued the government shouldn't overturn a court decision through legislation simply because it disliked the outcome [8]. The Law Council of Australia opposed the legislation, stating that removing the public interest test was excessive [24].
Context: Both Parties Practice Executive Secrecy
A key insight: transparency in government decision-making is easier to promise from opposition than to practice in government [13]. The Albanese government's failure to repeal National Cabinet secrecy, despite campaign promises, demonstrates that this issue reflects broader bipartisan practices regarding executive confidentiality rather than a solely Coalition position [15].
This suggests:
- The issue is systemic, not party-specific
- Incumbent governments, regardless of party, prioritize confidentiality
- Campaign promises on transparency often don't survive the transition to office [13]
Key Context: This is not unique to the Coalition. Both major Australian parties maintain similar secrecy practices, and Labor expanded secrecy measures after criticizing them in opposition [15, 21].
PARTIALLY TRUE
8.0
out of 10
(with important context missing about Labor's similar positions)
The claim accurately describes the Coalition government's actions: they refused to publish National Cabinet minutes, a court ruled against them, and they introduced legislation to reverse the court's effect by expanding Cabinet exemptions. All three components are factually documented through government records, court decisions, and parliamentary proceedings.
However, the claim omits crucial context: Labor promised to reverse this secrecy but maintained it after taking office, and both parties practice similar confidentiality approaches. The framing of this as a Coalition-specific problem obscures the broader bipartisan nature of government secrecy in Australia [12, 13, 15].
The original sources (MSN, The New Daily) are reasonably reliable for reporting factual events, though they reflect left-center perspectives [16, 17].
Final Score
8.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
(with important context missing about Labor's similar positions)
The claim accurately describes the Coalition government's actions: they refused to publish National Cabinet minutes, a court ruled against them, and they introduced legislation to reverse the court's effect by expanding Cabinet exemptions. All three components are factually documented through government records, court decisions, and parliamentary proceedings.
However, the claim omits crucial context: Labor promised to reverse this secrecy but maintained it after taking office, and both parties practice similar confidentiality approaches. The framing of this as a Coalition-specific problem obscures the broader bipartisan nature of government secrecy in Australia [12, 13, 15].
The original sources (MSN, The New Daily) are reasonably reliable for reporting factual events, though they reflect left-center perspectives [16, 17].
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (20)
-
1
Morrison government loses fight for national cabinet secrecy
The Morrison government has been dealt a blow with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ruling national cabinet is not a committee of federal cabinet and therefore is not covered by cabinet confidentiality.
The Conversation -
2
National Cabinet established to coordinate COVID-19 response
Parliament Gov
-
3
Not so confidential after all: National Cabinet to be subjected to scrutiny
Scott Morrison's position that the ruminations of national cabinet are secret stuff not meant for our ears has been overruled by a Federal Court judge.
Crikey -
4
COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2021
Helpful information Text of bill First reading: Text of the bill as introduced into the Parliament Third reading: Prepared if the bill is amended by the house in which it was introduced. This version of the bill is then considered by the second house. As passed by
Aph Gov -
5
The government is determined to keep National Cabinet's work a secret
In an open democracy, there is no rationale for withholding information about National Cabinet’s decisions or any documents these decisions are based on.
The Conversation -
6
Morrison fights to undermine court ruling, keep national cabinet secret
The prime minister fought the law, and the law won. So now he's trying to change it.
Crikey -
7
Legislation Freedom of Information Amendment - Law Council of Australia Response
COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2021
Lawcouncil -
8
Government Executive Privilege Principles
Where an FOI request for a document has been made and any required charges have been paid, an agency or minister must give access to the document unless the document is exempt
OAIC -
9
Cabinet Confidentiality and Executive Privilege
Parliament Gov
-
10
Government secrecy patterns across Australian governments
An independent think tank dedicated to preventing corruption, protecting the integrity of our accountability institutions, and eliminating undue influence of money in politics in Australia.
The Centre for Public Integrity -
11
Albanese's commitment to transparency should apply to national cabinet
Anthony Albanese beats his drum about transparency but has rejected calls for more light to be shed on national cabinet meetings
The Conversation -
12
Secretive Albanese government goes backward on transparency
“The Senate is being blocked from fulfilling its constitutional role of holding the government to account. This trend is dangerous for democracy.” – Dr Catherine Williams, Centre for Public Integrity
The Centre for Public Integrity -
13
Albanese's election campaign promises on transparency and accountability
Find out about Anthony Albanese and Labor's plan for a better future.
Australian Labor Party -
14
Going dark on information: The Albanese government's transparency problem
Johnmenadue
-
15
MSN.com Media Bias and Fact Check Rating
Mediabiasfactcheck
-
16
The New Daily - Media Bias and Credibility Assessment
Mediabiasfactcheck
-
17
Labor Opposition Position on National Cabinet Secrecy
Parliament Gov
-
18
Executive Privilege and Cabinet Confidentiality - International Comparison
We promote and uphold your rights to access government-held information and have your personal information protected
OAIC -
19
Coalition Government Statements on National Cabinet Confidentiality
Pmc Gov
-
20
Law Council of Australia Position on Freedom of Information Changes
Freedom of Information changes go too far
Lawcouncil
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.