Freedom of Information request blocked by agency assessing $1b loan to mining giant Adani

The Federal Government agency considering a $1 billion loan to mining giant Adani has refused a Freedom of Information (FOI) request for the dates and locations of its upcoming board meetings.

The Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (NAIF) rejected the FOI request from Greenpeace on the grounds that it could encourage protesters and media interest.

An expert on FOI laws slammed the decision as setting a dangerous precedent.

"That level of secrecy is not justified," said Rick Snell, the acting dean of law at the University of Tasmania.

"[Because of] the funds controlled and size of its projects, there is a necessity for a significant level of transparency."

The NAIF was set up last year to offer up to $5 billion over five years to encourage private sector investment in developments such as ports, rail, energy and airports deemed in the public interest.

The Indian mining giant Adani has expressed interest in accessing some of the funds to subsidise a rail line to link its controversial multi-billion dollar Carmichael coal mining proposal in Queensland to the Abbot Point port.

Video 1:22 Do you know how Adani is controlled?

ABC News

Info could draw attention from media, protesters

Greenpeace lodged the FOI request to the agency seeking "documents indicating the dates and locations of NAIF board meetings that have been scheduled in 2017".

But NAIF's chief executive Laurie Walker refused access to the information late last month on the basis that "disclosure of the dates of board meeting could reasonably be expected to adversely affect the NAIF's operations".

Ms Walker wrote that the release could create media attention and protest activity.

"Large amounts of people and noise at the site of the board meeting is very likely to adversely affect the board's ability to operate effectively, in meeting to deliberate policies, as well as progressing and making any determinations on any relevant expressions of interest or proposal," she said.

Greenpeace Australia CEO David Ritter said the organisation was shocked with the rejection.

"It is completely unacceptable and it is an affront to just basic democratic principles of transparency," he said.

Professor Snell said NAIF's handling of the request violated key principles, such as the freedom to peacefully protest, the implied freedom of speech, and the provisions of the Commonwealth Freedom of Information Act.

He said Greenpeace had a long history of activism, but not of violent or "over-the-top" protests.

"I think it is really pushing the boundaries of this exemption claim and it sets a bad precedent for other agencies who would be able to exploit it to an even greater extent," he said.

"In a liberal democracy, all public sector organisations have to take into account that there will be some disruption from civil disobedience or protesters."

In a statement, NAIF said "its decision was made in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 1982".

Greenpeace lodges complaint

Greenpeace has made a complaint to the Information Commissioner about the decision to reject the FOI.

Professor Snell said he believed the complaint would be upheld because the concerns were based on prejudgments and were "hypothetical" in nature.

"We are only talking about the dates and locations of meetings of the board, not about the central decision making aspects of the agency," he said.

In another case, the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) also rejected an FOI request by Greenpeace for information.

Greenpeace wanted to know "BP's approved Well Operations Management Plan for the Great Australian Bight Project", including the impact on whales.

NOPSEMA said the release of the information would have an unreasonable and adverse impact on the activities of an organisation, including "the likelihood of opposition/protest groups using the information to oppose all drilling activities in the Great Australian Bight".

"It is very hard not to see that as a broader trend towards secrecy, towards a failure to observe good principles of transparency and democracy," Mr Ritter said.

NOPSEMA said this was a concern raised by BP in their submissions, where the company objected to allowing the documents' release.

"It is important to note that the BP concern was one of a number of objections and factors NOPSEMA considered in its decision," a NOPSEMA spokesman said.

Greenpeace said it was "outrageous" and "startling" that NOPSEMA withheld the information because "BP told it to".

"This is supposed to be an independent regulator, not an extension of the oil industry," Mr Ritter said.