The Claim
“Spent over $20,000 in a legal fight in order to hide modelling for the impact of university fee deregulation.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The core factual claim is accurate. The Department of Education and Training incurred $20,932.78 in legal costs fighting a Freedom of Information (FOI) request seeking the government's modelling on university fee deregulation impacts [1]. The department engaged the Australian Government Solicitor to represent it in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) [1].
The FOI applicant, Crispin Rovere, sought access to 45 documents totaling 7,932 pages related to higher education modelling, including the effect of the policy on students and public funding levels [2][4]. The AAT ultimately ruled against releasing the documents [1][3].
The government reaffirmed its intention to bring the higher education reform package back to parliament in spring 2015, despite having been blocked twice by the Senate in December 2014 and March 2015 [1].
Missing Context
The claim omits several important contextual elements:
The AAT's rationale for the decision: The tribunal found the modelling was "speculative" and accepted the department's argument that releasing price signalling before the changes took effect could undermine genuine competition in a deregulated market [1]. The department maintained it would be "inappropriate" to release the modelling because it could prejudice the market [1].
The FOI legal process: The $20,000 figure represents costs incurred through standard government legal procedures. Government departments routinely engage the Australian Government Solicitor for FOI-related legal matters, and AAT appeals are a standard part of the FOI review process [5].
The broader policy context: The fee deregulation proposal was part of a larger higher education overhaul that included cutting subsidies for bachelor degrees by an average of 20% and extending funding to sub-bachelor programs and private colleges [1]. The government argued these changes were necessary to expand access and improve the sector [1].
Ongoing secrecy: The BuzzFeed article from 2017 indicates the department continued to refuse releasing fee modelling data even after the Coalition abandoned full deregulation, with officials claiming any existing work didn't constitute "modelling per se" [2].
Source Credibility Assessment
The Guardian Australia: A mainstream, reputable news outlet with center-left editorial leanings. The article by Daniel Hurst presents factual reporting with direct quotes from parliamentary committee documents and official sources. The Guardian has a generally strong reputation for accuracy in Australian political coverage [1].
BuzzFeed News Australia: While BuzzFeed is primarily known for entertainment content, BuzzFeed News operates as a separate journalism division. Alice Workman's reporting on Australian politics is generally factual, citing specific Senate estimates testimony and official documents. However, the outlet has a more informal tone and the article includes opinion-framing about "policy inertia" [2].
Both sources cite official parliamentary documents and committee testimony, lending credibility to the factual claims.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Search conducted: "Labor government FOI legal costs education transparency"
Finding: While specific instances of Labor fighting FOI requests on education modelling are not documented in the available sources, Labor governments have faced similar criticism regarding transparency. The Rudd-Gillard government commissioned the Bradley Review (2008) which led to significant higher education reforms, including demand-driven funding [6].
Labor's higher education spokesman Kim Carr explicitly criticized the Coalition's spending on legal fees, stating: "Now we discover they're spending large sums of money on legal fees to prevent public disclosure about their own funding models" [1]. This suggests Labor positioned itself as more transparent on this specific issue, though whether this reflects actual practice across all FOI matters is not established.
Comparative context: Both major parties have used FOI exemptions to protect cabinet deliberations and commercially sensitive information. The use of AAT appeals is standard practice for government departments regardless of the party in power [5].
Balanced Perspective
While the claim accurately states the legal costs incurred, several contextual factors complicate a simple "hiding" narrative:
Government justification: The department argued the modelling was "speculative" and that releasing it could prejudice market competition by creating price signalling before policies were finalized [1]. This rationale aligns with standard FOI exemptions for cabinet documents and commercially sensitive information.
Standard practice: Government departments routinely engage legal representation for AAT matters. The $20,000 figure, while noteworthy, is not unusually high for federal government legal proceedings. The AAT process is designed specifically for reviewing administrative decisions, and departments have a right to defend their FOI determinations [5].
Policy rationale: The Coalition's higher education reforms sought to deregulate fees while cutting public subsidies, arguing this would improve competition and quality [1]. The government maintained it had "presented a detailed rationale for its higher education reforms to the public" even while withholding specific modelling [1].
Political context: The policy was highly unpopular and had been blocked by the Senate twice. The government faced pressure from universities, students, and opposition figures regarding potential fee increases [1][2].
Key context: Fighting FOI requests through AAT appeals is standard practice across Australian governments of both political persuasions. The specific issue here is the transparency of fee impact modelling for a controversial policy, not a unique instance of secrecy.
PARTIALLY TRUE
6.0
out of 10
The claim accurately reports that the Coalition government spent $20,932.78 in legal costs fighting an FOI request for university fee deregulation modelling [1]. However, characterizing this as "hiding" oversimplifies the situation. The AAT accepted the department's argument that the modelling was speculative and that release could undermine market competition [1]. While the expenditure is factual, the framing implies deliberate concealment of wrongdoing rather than a standard FOI defense using established exemptions. The government provided a policy rationale for non-disclosure that a tribunal found legally valid [1][3].
Final Score
6.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The claim accurately reports that the Coalition government spent $20,932.78 in legal costs fighting an FOI request for university fee deregulation modelling [1]. However, characterizing this as "hiding" oversimplifies the situation. The AAT accepted the department's argument that the modelling was speculative and that release could undermine market competition [1]. While the expenditure is factual, the framing implies deliberate concealment of wrongdoing rather than a standard FOI defense using established exemptions. The government provided a policy rationale for non-disclosure that a tribunal found legally valid [1][3].
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (6)
-
1
University fee deregulation: Coalition's $20,000 fight to keep modelling secret
Government also reaffirms plan to bring higher education bill back to parliament before end of year despite being blocked twice by Senate
the Guardian -
2
The Government Knows How Much Uni Fees Will Cost Under Deregulation But It Won't Tell Us
Oh, and the $152 million in cuts to higher education are still on the table.
BuzzFeed -
3
Tribunal refuses to release Abbott government's university fee modelling
Administrative Appeals Tribunal rules on freedom of information dispute, agreeing calculations could undermine competition in a deregulated market
the Guardian -
4
University fee forecasts will remain hidden because modelling 'speculative'
News Com
-
5
Summary of the freedom of information review process
This guidance material sets out the merit review framework for access refusal and access grant decisions made under the Freedom of Information Act 1982.
OAIC -
6
The Rudd Government: Australian Commonwealth Administration 2007-2010
***description of this page***
2010
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.