C0056
Ang Claim
“Tumangging ilathala ang mga minuto mula sa national cabinet na tumatalakay sa COVID. Matapos magpasya ang isang hukom na dapat itong ilathala, sila ay nagpasa ng bagong batas para panatilihin itong lihim. Naniniwala sila na kahit walang ginawang mali ang cabinet, dapat nilang mapanatiling lihim ang mga detalye ng pagtalakay.”
Orihinal na Pinagmulan: Matthew Davis
Sinuri: 29 Jan 2026
Orihinal na Pinagmulan
✅ FACTUAL NA BERIPIKASYON
Ang mga pangunahing bahagi ng claim na ito ay **substantially accurate** at well-documented sa pamamagitan ng mga government records, court decisions, at parliamentary proceedings.
The core components of this claim are **substantially accurate** and well-documented through government records, court decisions, and parliamentary proceedings.
### Bahagi 1: Tumanggi ang Gobyerno na Ilathala ang National Cabinet Minutes ### Component 1: Government Refused to Publish National Cabinet Minutes
**VERIFIED - ACCURATE** Ang gobyernong Coalition ay lumaban sa mga Freedom of Information request para sa National Cabinet documents noong COVID-19 pandemic. **VERIFIED - ACCURATE**
The Coalition government fought Freedom of Information requests for National Cabinet documents during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Si Senator Rex Patrick ay nag-file ng humigit-kumulang 50 FOI requests para sa National Cabinet meeting minutes at mga kaugnay na dokumento [1]. Senator Rex Patrick filed approximately 50 FOI requests seeking National Cabinet meeting minutes and related documents [1].
Tumutol ang Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet sa mga request na ito, na nagsasabing ang mga National Cabinet meetings ay sakop ng Cabinet-in-Confidence exemptions sa ilalim ng Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) [2]. 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].
Ang pagtutol na ito ay naganap noong 2020-2021 nang ang National Cabinet ay gumagana bilang pangunahing coordination body para sa pandemic response ng Australia [3]. This resistance occurred during 2020-2021 when National Cabinet was functioning as the key coordination body for Australia's pandemic response [3].
### Bahagi 2: Isang Hukom ang Nagpasya na Dapat Itong Ilathala ### Component 2: A Judge Ruled They Must Be Published
**VERIFIED - ACCURATE** Noong Agosto 5, 2021, si Justice Richard White ng Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) ay gumawa ng landmark ruling sa **Patrick and Secretary, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (Freedom of Information) [2021] AATA 2719** [4]. **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].
Ang desisyon ni Justice White ay malinaw: - Ang National Cabinet ay **HINDI** isang "committee of the Cabinet" ayon sa definition sa Freedom of Information Act - Ang mga National Cabinet meetings ay **HINDI** exempt mula sa Freedom of Information disclosure sa pamamagitan ng Cabinet confidentiality - Ang claim ng gobyerno na protektahan ang National Cabinet documents sa ilalim ng Cabinet privilege ay **invalid** [4] Ayon kay Justice White: "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]. 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.
Hindi inapela ng gobyerno ang desisyong ito. Since a federal Cabinet committee must be "derived from the Cabinet" and consist of Cabinet members, National Cabinet could not qualify.
Si Senator Patrick ay nakatanggap ng mga hiniling na dokumento 28 araw matapos ang ruling [1]. 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].
### Bahagi 3: Nagpasa ang Gobyerno ng Bagong Batas para Panatilihin itong Lihim The government did not appeal this decision.
**VERIFIED - ACCURATE** Bilang direktang tugon sa ruling ni Justice White, ang Morrison government ay nagpasa ng **COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2021** noong Setyembre 2021—humigit-kumulang isang buwan matapos ang court decision [5]. Senator Patrick received the requested documents 28 days after the ruling [1].
Ang legislation na ito ay eksplisitong: - Nag-amyenda sa Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) upang i-expand ang definition ng "Cabinet" upang isama ang National Cabinet [6] - Nagbigay sa National Cabinet documents ng parehong FOI exemptions tulad ng federal Cabinet documents [5] - **Tinanggal ang public interest test requirement**, na nangangahulugang kahit ang mga dokumento kung saan ang public interest sa disclosure ay mas malaki kaysa sa pangangailangan para sa confidentiality ay maaaring pigilan [7] Ang bill ay naipasa at naging **COAG Legislation Amendment Act 2021** [5]. ### Component 3: Government Introduced New Law to Keep It Secret
Ang legislative action na ito ay direktang pinalitan ang epekto ng court decision ni Justice White, bagama't hindi ito maibabalik ang ruling mismo [8]. **Timeline verification:** - Court ruling: Agosto 5, 2021 - Bill introduction: Setyembre 2021 - Law passed: 2021 [1] **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].
Nawawalang Konteksto
Ang claim ay naghahatid ng accurate account ng mga aksyon ng gobyernong Coalition ngunit hindi isinasaalang-alang ang mahalagang contextual information:
The claim presents an accurate account of the Coalition government's actions but omits important contextual information:
### Walang "Nothing Wrong" Argument sa mga Government Statement ### No "Nothing Wrong" Argument in Government Statements
Ang claim ay inia-atribute sa gobyerno ang eksplisitong argument na "kahit walang ginawang mali ang cabinet, dapat nilang mapanatiling lihim ang mga detalye ng pagtalakay." Bagama't ito ay kumakatawan sa practical effect ng kanilang posisyon, ang mga government statement ay nakatuon sa pangangailangan para sa executive privilege sa halip na eksplisitong pag-amin ng kawalan ng kamalian [9]. 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].
Ang naging rason ng gobyerno ay ang mga Cabinet deliberations ay nangangailangan ng confidentiality para sa malayang payo [10]. The government's stated rationale was that Cabinet deliberations require confidentiality to enable frank and candid advice [10].
### Mas Malawak na Konteksto ng Government Secrecy ### Broader Government Secrecy Context
Ang isyu ng National Cabinet secrecy ay bahagi ng mas malawak na pattern ng mga Australian government secrecy practices. The National Cabinet secrecy issue is part of a wider pattern of Australian government secrecy practices.
Ang parehong Coalition at Labor governments ay nag-expand ng executive privilege claims, bagama't sa iba't ibang paraan [11]. Both Coalition and Labor governments have expanded executive privilege claims, though in different ways [11].
Hindi ito natatangi sa approach ng Coalition sa National Cabinet. This is not unique to the Coalition's approach to National Cabinet specifically.
### Mga Campaign Promises at Kasunod na Aksyon ng Labor ### Labor's Campaign Promises and Subsequent Actions
Isang kritikal na omission mula sa orihinal na claim: **Ang Labor ay nangako na baligtarin ang National Cabinet secrecy ngunit nabigo itong gawin matapos ang pag-upo sa puwesto** [12]. A crucial omission from the original claim: **Labor promised to reverse this National Cabinet secrecy but failed to do so after taking office** [12].
Noong Marso 2022 (bago ang election), sinabi ni Shadow Attorney General Mark Dreyfus na ang Labor ay "i-unwind ang secrecy scheme" [13]. In March 2022 (before the election), Shadow Attorney General Mark Dreyfus stated Labor would "unwind the secrecy scheme" [13].
Si Anthony Albanese ay nag-campaign sa transparency, na nagsasabing "The Australian people deserve accountability and transparency, not secrecy" [14]. Anthony Albanese campaigned on transparency, stating "The Australian people deserve accountability and transparency, not secrecy" [14].
Gayunpaman, simula nang maupo sa puwesto noong Hunyo 2022, ang gobyernong Albanese ay: - Nanatili sa COAG Legislation Amendment Act 2021 nang walang pagpapaalis - Tumanggi sa mga tawag para sa pagtaas ng National Cabinet transparency - Nag-expand pa ng government secrecy sa mas malawak na paraan (25% lamang ng FOI requests ang lubos na ipinagkaloob vs. ~50% noong 2021-22) [15] Ito ay nangangahulugan ng broken campaign promises at nagmumungkahi na ang isyu ng National Cabinet secrecy ay **hindi natatangi sa Coalition**—parehong major parties ang nagpapanatili nito [13]. 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].
---
Pagsusuri ng Kredibilidad ng Pinagmulan
### Orihinal na Pinagmulan: MSN News
### Original Sources: MSN News
**Rating:** Conditional Credibility (HIGH factual accuracy, LEFT-CENTER bias) Ang MSN News ay pangunahing gumagana bilang isang news aggregator sa halip na orihinal na reporter [16]. **Rating:** Conditional Credibility (HIGH factual accuracy, LEFT-CENTER bias)
MSN News functions primarily as a news aggregator rather than original reporter [16].
Kapag sinusuri ang MSN articles, ang credibility ay depende sa source outlet na ini-aggregate. When assessing MSN articles, credibility depends on the source outlet being aggregated.
Ang MSN ay may left-center political bias (51% ng mga kuwento mula sa left-center sources) at mataas na factual rating ayon sa Media Bias/Fact Check [16]. 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].
Ang MSN article na nasanggunian ay credible sa halip na ito ay nag-uulat ng aktwal na mga court decisions at legislative proceedings na dokumentado sa mga government records at parliamentary debates [1]. 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].
### Orihinal na Pinagmulan: The New Daily ### Original Sources: The New Daily
**Rating:** Mostly Factual with LEFT-CENTER bias Ang The New Daily ay rated na "Mostly Factual" ng Media Bias/Fact Check (hindi pinakamataas na credibility tier) [17]. **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].
Mga pangunahing limitasyon: - Walang hyperlinked sourcing, na nagpapahirap sa independent verification [17] - Left-center political bias batay sa editorial perspective - Pagmamay-ari ng Industry Super Holdings (collectively controlled ng ~24 industry super funds) - Pinapayuhan ni Greg Combet, dating Labor Cabinet minister [17] Bagama't ang The New Daily ay makatwirang fact-based para sa factual reporting (tulad ng National Cabinet story), ang ownership structure at advisory board ay dapat isaalang-alang kapag sinusuri ang potensyal na bias sa policy commentary [17]. **Assessment:** Parehong orihinal na pinagmulan ay makatwirang reliable para sa pag-uulat ng mga factual events (court decisions, legislation introduction) ngunit nagre-reflect ng mga left-center political perspectives. 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.
Ang mga pinagbatayang katotohanan na iniulat nila ay independently verifiable sa pamamagitan ng mga government sources. The underlying facts they report are independently verifiable through government sources.
---
⚖️
Paghahambing sa Labor
**Gumawa ba si Labor ng katulad na bagay?** **Sagot: Ang Labor ay nangako na baligtarin ito ngunit pinanatili pagkatapos ng pag-upo sa puwesto.**
**Did Labor do something similar?**
**Answer: Labor promised to reverse this but maintained it after taking office.**
### Pre-Election Position (Opposition) ### Pre-Election Position (Opposition)
Tumutol ang Labor sa COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 habang nasa opposition [18]. Labor opposed the COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 while in opposition [18].
Naglabas ang opposition ng dissenting committee reports na inirerekomenda ang pagtanggal ng Schedule 3 (ang secrecy provisions) [19]. The opposition issued dissenting committee reports recommending the removal of Schedule 3 (the secrecy provisions) [19].
Ang posisyon ng Labor ay ang pagtanggal ng public interest test ay sobrang layo at ang desisyon ng mga korte ay dapat manatili [20]. 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) ### Post-Election Position (Government)
Sa kabila ng mga campaign promises na "i-unwind ang secrecy scheme," ang gobyernong Albanese ay: 1. **Pinanatili ang National Cabinet secrecy** - Hindi inalis ang COAG Legislation Amendment Act 2021 [12] 2. **Tumanggi sa mga tawag ng mga transparency advocates** - Tinanggihan ang mga bagong FOI requests at mga transparency campaigns [13] 3. **Nag-expand ng government secrecy** - Sa ilalim ng Labor, tumaas ang government secrecy: - **Bumaba ang FOI approval rates** mula sa ~50% (2021-22) hanggang 25% lamang ng mga request ang lubos na ipinagkaloob [15] - **Bumaba ang Senate order compliance** sa pinakamababang antas simula 2016 [15] - **Tumriple ang public interest immunity claims** - mula sa average na 1 claim bawat 3 linggo (Morrison) hanggang 1 bawat linggo (Albanese), na may 84% document refusals noong 2022 [15] Sinummarize ni Former Senator Rex Patrick ang sitwasyon: "Albanese has taken the blue secrecy blanket off national cabinet and replaced it with a red secrecy blanket" [13]. Despite campaign promises to "unwind the secrecy scheme," the Albanese government has:
1. **Maintained National Cabinet secrecy** - Did not repeal the COAG Legislation Amendment Act 2021 [12]
2. **Rejected transparency advocates' calls** - Rebuffed renewed FOI requests and transparency campaigns [13]
3. **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].
### Komparatibong Natuklasan ### Comparative Finding
**Hindi ito natatangi sa Coalition.** Bagama't ang Coalition ang nag-introduce ng National Cabinet secrecy legislation, pinanatili at pinalawig ni Labor ang mga practice ng government secrecy [12, 13, 15]. **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].
Ang isyu ay kumakatawan sa mas malawak na bipartisan na commitment sa executive confidentiality na lumalampas sa party politics [21]. The issue reflects a broader bipartisan commitment to executive confidentiality that transcends party politics [21].
---
🌐
Balanseng Pananaw
### Ang Posisyon at Rason ng Coalition
### The Coalition's Position and Rationale
Ang argumento ng gobyernong Coalition para sa National Cabinet confidentiality, bagama't kritikal bilang sobrang pagsasara, ay kumakatawan sa isang standard executive position: ang confidentiality ay kinakailangan para sa epektibong decision-making [10]. 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].
Ang mga gobyerno sa buong mundo ay nangangako ng Cabinet privilege upang magbigay-daan sa malayang pagtalakay ng mga opsyon, kasama ang mga tinanggihang alternatibo, nang walang public pressure [22]. Governments worldwide claim Cabinet privilege to enable frank discussion of options, including rejected alternatives, without public pressure [22].
Ang posisyon ng Coalition ay ang National Cabinet, sa kabila ng hindi pangkaraniwang komposisyon, ay gumagana bilang pangunahing decision-making forum sa panahon ng pandemya at karapat-dapat ng parehong proteksyon tulad ng Cabinet [23]. 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].
### Ang Counterargument ### The Counterargument
Ang court decision ni Justice White ay nakilala ang isang totoong legal at constitutional problema: Ang National Cabinet ay binubuo ng mga ulo ng iba't ibang gobyerno, karamihan mula sa opposition parties, kaya ito ay hindi maaaring matugunan ang legal definition ng isang "committee of Cabinet" [4]. 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].
Ang pagpayag dito na mag-claim ng Cabinet privilege ay epektibong mag-exempt sa anumang multi-party coordinating body mula sa FOI scrutiny [4]. Allowing it to claim Cabinet privilege would effectively exempt any multi-party coordinating body from FOI scrutiny [4].
Sinabi ng mga kritiko na ang gobyerno ay hindi dapat baligtarin ang isang court decision sa pamamagitan ng legislation dahil hindi nila nagustuhan ang resulta [8]. Critics argued the government shouldn't overturn a court decision through legislation simply because it disliked the outcome [8].
Tumutol ang Law Council of Australia sa legislation, na nagsasabing ang pagtanggal ng public interest test ay sobrang labis [24]. The Law Council of Australia opposed the legislation, stating that removing the public interest test was excessive [24].
### Konteksto: Parehong Partido ang Nagpapractice ng Executive Secrecy ### Context: Both Parties Practice Executive Secrecy
Isang pangunahing pananaw: **ang transparency sa government decision-making ay mas madaling ipangako mula sa opposition kaysa ipractice sa gobyerno** [13]. A key insight: **transparency in government decision-making is easier to promise from opposition than to practice in government** [13].
Ang pagkabigo ng gobyernong Albanese na alisin ang National Cabinet secrecy, sa kabila ng mga campaign promises, ay nagpapakita na ang isyung ito ay kumakatawan sa mas malawak na bipartisan practice tungkol sa executive confidentiality sa halip na isyu na solely Coalition [15]. 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].
Iminumungkahi nito na: 1. This suggests:
1.
Ang isyu ay systemic, hindi party-specific 2. The issue is systemic, not party-specific
2.
Ang mga incumbent governments, anuman ang partido, ay nagbibigay ng prayoridad sa confidentiality 3. Incumbent governments, regardless of party, prioritize confidentiality
3.
Ang mga campaign promises sa transparency ay madalas hindi nakakaligtas sa transisyon sa puwesto [13] **Mahalagang Konteksto:** Hindi ito natatangi sa Coalition. Campaign promises on transparency often don't survive the transition to office [13]
**Key Context:** This is not unique to the Coalition.
Parehong major Australian parties ang nagpapanatili ng katulad na mga practice sa secrecy, at pinalawig ni Labor ang mga secrecy measures matapos ang pagkritiko sa kanila habang nasa opposition [15, 21]. Both major Australian parties maintain similar secrecy practices, and Labor expanded secrecy measures after criticizing them in opposition [15, 21].
---
BAHAGYANG TOTOO
8.0
sa 10
(na may nawawalang mahalagang konteksto tungkol sa mga katulad na posisyon ng Labor) Ang claim ay tumpak na naglalarawan sa mga aksyon ng gobyernong Coalition: tumanggi silang ilathala ang National Cabinet minutes, isang hukom ang nagpasya laban sa kanila, at sila ay nagpasa ng legislation upang baligtarin ang epekto ng court decision sa pamamagitan ng pag-expand ng Cabinet exemptions.
(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.
Ang lahat ng tatlong bahagi ay factually documented sa pamamagitan ng mga government records, court decisions, at parliamentary proceedings. All three components are factually documented through government records, court decisions, and parliamentary proceedings.
Gayunpaman, ang claim ay hindi isinasama ang mahalagang konteksto: Ang Labor ay nangako na baligtarin ang secrecy na ito ngunit pinanatili ito matapos ang pag-upo sa puwesto, at parehong partido ang may katulad na mga practice sa confidentiality. 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.
Ang pag-framing nito bilang isyu na natatangi sa Coalition ay nagdudulot ng shadow sa mas malawak na bipartisan na kalikasan ng government secrecy sa Australia [12, 13, 15]. The framing of this as a Coalition-specific problem obscures the broader bipartisan nature of government secrecy in Australia [12, 13, 15].
Huling Iskor
8.0
SA 10
BAHAGYANG TOTOO
(na may nawawalang mahalagang konteksto tungkol sa mga katulad na posisyon ng Labor) Ang claim ay tumpak na naglalarawan sa mga aksyon ng gobyernong Coalition: tumanggi silang ilathala ang National Cabinet minutes, isang hukom ang nagpasya laban sa kanila, at sila ay nagpasa ng legislation upang baligtarin ang epekto ng court decision sa pamamagitan ng pag-expand ng Cabinet exemptions.
(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.
Ang lahat ng tatlong bahagi ay factually documented sa pamamagitan ng mga government records, court decisions, at parliamentary proceedings. All three components are factually documented through government records, court decisions, and parliamentary proceedings.
Gayunpaman, ang claim ay hindi isinasama ang mahalagang konteksto: Ang Labor ay nangako na baligtarin ang secrecy na ito ngunit pinanatili ito matapos ang pag-upo sa puwesto, at parehong partido ang may katulad na mga practice sa confidentiality. 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.
Ang pag-framing nito bilang isyu na natatangi sa Coalition ay nagdudulot ng shadow sa mas malawak na bipartisan na kalikasan ng government secrecy sa Australia [12, 13, 15]. The framing of this as a Coalition-specific problem obscures the broader bipartisan nature of government secrecy in Australia [12, 13, 15].
📚 MGA PINAGMULAN AT SANGGUNIAN (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
Pamamaraan ng Rating Scale
1-3: MALI
Hindi tama sa katotohanan o malisyosong gawa-gawa.
4-6: BAHAGYA
May katotohanan ngunit kulang o baluktot ang konteksto.
7-9: HALOS TOTOO
Maliit na teknikal na detalye o isyu sa pagkakasulat.
10: TUMPAK
Perpektong na-verify at patas ayon sa konteksto.
Pamamaraan: Ang mga rating ay tinutukoy sa pamamagitan ng cross-referencing ng opisyal na mga rekord ng pamahalaan, independiyenteng mga organisasyong nag-fact-check, at mga primaryang dokumento.