PoliticalClaims.au

While the claim is substantially accurate, the full context involves legitimate complexity: **Coalition's perspective/justifications:** - The government released information through proper legal channels (parliamentary Senate orders) - FOI exemptions for "commercially sensitive" information exist under Australian law for legitimate reasons—to prevent private providers from being harmed by exposure of internal safety documents - The government did prosecute those responsible (NEATO, RASQ, the project coordinator) rather than preventing accountability - The report itself was not the primary source of justice—criminal charges and a $90,000 fine were imposed [2] **However, critics counter:** - Public interest in deaths on government programs should outweigh commercial confidentiality [3] - The refusal to release the report prevented public understanding of what safety failures occurred and what could be prevented [5] - The Ernst and Young report showing 64% of sites don't meet safety standards suggests the problems were systemic, not isolated, and transparency was needed [3] - Josh's family and the public had legitimate interests in understanding what went wrong **Key context:** This is not unique to the Coalition in the sense that governments universally resist releasing unflattering reports.