The Claim
“Refused to publicly release a video of illegal whaling.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The claim is TRUE - the Turnbull Government did refuse to publicly release video footage of Japanese whaling. The facts are well-documented:
Background of the Footage:
In 2008, Australian Customs officers aboard the patrol vessel Oceanic Viking, along with A319 aerial surveillance flights, documented Japanese whaling activities in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary in Antarctica [1]. This footage captured the killing of Minke whales in Australian territorial waters.
Initial FOI Refusal:
On December 7, 2015, Sea Shepherd Australia Limited and the Environmental Defenders Office NSW (EDO NSW) submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the Australian Department of Immigration and Border Protection seeking the photographs and video footage [1]. FOI requests had been made in 2012, 2013, and 2014 as well, all of which were refused [1].
Official Refusal Decision:
On April 29, 2016 — more than four-and-a-half months after the FOI request was made — the Turnbull Government formally refused the request, citing that disclosure could "damage" Australia's international relations with Japan [1]. This occurred despite the International Court of Justice (ICJ) having ruled on March 31, 2014, that Japan's whaling program (JARPA II) was unlawful and violated international obligations [2].
Verification by Information Commissioner:
Significantly, on May 23, 2017, the Commonwealth Information Commissioner reviewed the government's decision and ruled that the release of the footage was not exempt from disclosure and would not actually affect international relations [3]. The Commissioner ordered the footage be released. This independent review confirmed the government's refusal was not justified.
Timeline:
- 2008: Footage recorded by Australian Customs
- 2012-2014: FOI requests denied during ICJ proceedings
- March 31, 2014: ICJ rules Japan's whaling program unlawful
- December 7, 2015: New FOI request submitted after ICJ ruling
- April 29, 2016: Turnbull Government refuses release citing "diplomatic relations"
- May 23, 2017: Information Commissioner overturns refusal decision
- November 28, 2017: Footage publicly released by Sea Shepherd [3]
Missing Context
While the claim is factually accurate, it omits important context about why the government initially refused release and what ultimately occurred:
Legitimate Initial Rationale (Though Later Rejected):
Prior to the ICJ ruling, the government's stated reason for refusing FOI requests (2012-2014) was that disclosure could negatively impact Australia v Japan proceedings being heard in the International Court of Justice [1]. This was a defensible reason at the time, as public release of evidence could theoretically influence international court proceedings.
Different Reasoning After ICJ Victory:
After the ICJ ruled against Japan on March 31, 2014, the grounds for refusal shifted. The Australian Government then argued that release would "damage" international relations with Japan [1]. However, this reasoning was questioned by legal experts and civil society organizations, who argued that Australia had just publicly taken Japan to the International Court of Justice on this very issue and had prevailed — making a subsequent refusal to release evidence difficult to justify on diplomatic grounds [4].
Information Commissioner Override:
Critically, the claim omits that an independent authority (the Information Commissioner) eventually ruled the government was wrong. On May 23, 2017, the Information Commissioner determined that releasing the footage would not harm international relations and ordered its release [3]. This overturned the government's refusal.
Overseas Comparisons:
The claim contextualizes this as "illegal whaling" — which is accurate, as the ICJ ruled the whaling program unlawful. However, this was a contentious issue involving international law complexities: Japan argued its whaling was for "scientific research" under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, while Australia (and the ICJ) argued this was a pretext [2].
Source Credibility Assessment
The original source is Sea Shepherd Australia, an advocacy organization with clear anti-whaling positions. This introduces some perspective to consider:
Sea Shepherd Australia:
- A partisan environmental advocacy group explicitly opposed to whaling [5]
- Uses strong language ("barbarity," "pander," "shocking") indicating advocacy positioning
- However, the factual claims in the article (FOI dates, refusal reasons, officials quoted) are corroborated by mainstream news sources
Corroborating Sources:
- ABC News (Australia's mainstream public broadcaster) — confirmed the refusal, the Information Commissioner's decision, and provided additional context [3]
- Maritime Executive (maritime industry publication) — reported the same facts independently [1]
- Tasmanian Times (state news outlet) — included comment from Greens Senator Peter Whish-Wilson [6]
Overall Assessment:
While Sea Shepherd's language is clearly advocacy-oriented, the underlying facts are accurate and have been independently verified by mainstream Australian media. The factual claims withstand scrutiny.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor governments handle similar situations differently?
Labor governments also faced decisions about releasing classified or sensitive diplomatic materials. Key differences:
Kevin Rudd Government (2007-2010):
The Labor government under Kevin Rudd initially took a strong anti-whaling position, promising to take Japan to the International Court of Justice — a campaign promise they fulfilled by commencing proceedings in May 2010 [7]. However, Labor's record on FOI and diplomatic secrecy was not markedly different from Coalition approaches.
Rudd's Diplomatic Approach to Japan:
Interestingly, academic analysis suggests the Rudd Government used the whaling issue strategically in bilateral relations with Japan [7], indicating that successive Australian governments (both Labor and Coalition) have treated whaling as a diplomatic matter requiring careful management of Japan relations.
FOI Precedent:
Australian governments across the political spectrum have used FOI exemptions for diplomatic harm. The "international relations" exemption under the Freedom of Information Act (section 47F) is standard practice in Australian government FOI law, allowing refusal of documents that could damage international relations [8]. This is not unique to the Coalition.
Conclusion on Labor Comparison:
Labor governments have also refused FOI requests on diplomatic grounds. The difference is that Rudd Labor promised stronger action on whaling but the Turnbull Coalition both promised stronger action (pre-election) and then refused to release evidence — making the Coalition's position appear more hypocritical. However, both parties used similar FOI exemptions for diplomatic reasons.
Balanced Perspective
The Government's Position:
The Turnbull Government's justification for the FOI refusal rested on protecting Australia-Japan diplomatic relations. Several factors provide context for this decision:
Legitimate Diplomatic Concerns: Australia and Japan have significant bilateral relationships across trade, security, and regional cooperation. Japan is a major trading partner [7]. Governments may legitimately consider how public releases could affect these relationships.
Pre-ICJ Proceedings Justification: Prior to the ICJ ruling (2012-2014), refusing FOI requests to avoid potentially prejudicing court proceedings was legally defensible [1].
Post-ICJ Context: However, the 2016 refusal after the ICJ had already ruled against Japan was harder to justify, and the Information Commissioner agreed [3].
Environmental Enforcement Efforts: The government also maintained other efforts to address whaling, including motions at the International Whaling Commission to increase scrutiny of "scientific" whaling and improve transparency [3].
Criticism and Counterpoints:
Hypocrisy on Pre-Election Promises: The Turnbull Coalition promised in opposition to "send an Australian Customs vessel to the Southern Ocean to document Japan's illegal whaling activities." Instead, they refused to release documentation already obtained [1]. This represents a policy reversal.
Democratic Transparency Argument: By refusing to release footage documenting violations of international law that had already been ruled unlawful by the ICJ, the government withheld information the public had legitimate interest in seeing [4].
Information Commissioner's Judgment: The independent Information Commissioner's determination that release would not damage international relations undermines the government's stated justification [3].
Timing Issue: More than 4.5 months to refuse a standard FOI request, after an ICJ ruling had already publicized the dispute, suggests the government's concerns were overstated [1].
TRUE
8.0
out of 10
The Turnbull Government did refuse to publicly release video footage of Japanese whaling activities, citing potential damage to international relations. This refusal is well-documented, and the government continued to refuse even after an independent Information Commissioner ruled in May 2017 that the release would not harm international relations [1][3]. The footage was ultimately released by Sea Shepherd in November 2017, not by government initiative [3].
The refusal represented either an overestimation of diplomatic harm or a prioritization of Australia-Japan relations over public transparency regarding documented international law violations. The Information Commissioner's subsequent determination that the government was wrong strengthens the claim's validity.
Final Score
8.0
OUT OF 10
TRUE
The Turnbull Government did refuse to publicly release video footage of Japanese whaling activities, citing potential damage to international relations. This refusal is well-documented, and the government continued to refuse even after an independent Information Commissioner ruled in May 2017 that the release would not harm international relations [1][3]. The footage was ultimately released by Sea Shepherd in November 2017, not by government initiative [3].
The refusal represented either an overestimation of diplomatic harm or a prioritization of Australia-Japan relations over public transparency regarding documented international law violations. The Information Commissioner's subsequent determination that the government was wrong strengthens the claim's validity.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (8)
-
1
Turnbull Government bans public from seeing Japanese whale-killing film - Sea Shepherd Australia (May 3, 2016)
File: Three dead minke whales, illegally slaughtered, on the deck of the Nisshin maru in 2014. The Australian Government has footage similar to this but is refu...
Sea Shepherd Australia -
2
Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan) Judgment - International Court of Justice (March 31, 2014)
Icj-cij
-
3
Secret Japanese whaling video released by Customs after Sea Shepherd fight - ABC News (November 28, 2017)
The vision captured by Australian Customs officers in the Southern Ocean is so sensitive the Government fought for years to keep it secret, saying it could damage relations with Japan.
Abc Net -
4
Australia Refuses to Release Japanese Whale-Killing Film - Maritime Executive (May 3, 2016)
The Australia government has denied public access to photos and film of Japanese whaling activities in the Southern Ocean citing the ?damage? that
The Maritime Executive -
5
Sea Shepherd Australia website - About Us
Who We Are Sea Shepherd's Mission Statement Sea Shepherd Australia is a non-profit conservation organisation whose mission is to end the destruction of habitat and slaughter of wildlife in the world’s oceans in order to conserve and protect...
Sea Shepherd Australia -
6
Turnbull Government protects Japanese whalers instead of whales - Tasmanian Times (May 2, 2016)
Greens spokesperson for Whaling, Senator Peter Whish-Wilson, says that the Turnbull Government is doing more to protect the Japanese whalers from public
Tasmanian Times -
7
Whaling as a two level game in Australian politics - Science Direct (2012)
Sciencedirect
-
8
Freedom of Information Act Australia section 47F - International Relations Exemption
Federal Register of Legislation
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.