The Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Strictly Confidential

© The Hidden World Research Group

The Role Of The AAT In Endorsing

AFP Censorship Of Information Sought By Schapelle Corby

An Independent Report

The Expendable Project www.expendable.tv

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

2. The AAT Hearing

2.1 Introduction 2.2 The Interests Of The Commonwealth 2.3 The Public Interest / Individuals 2.4 Legal & Other Devices 2.5 Submissions

3. The AAT Decision

3.1 Introduction 3.1.1 Decision Rationale 3.1.2 Confidential Affidavits

3.2 Application 2010/2438 3.3 Application 2010/4442

3.3.1 Irrelevant Information 3.3.2 South Australia Police 3.3.3 Random Exclusions 3.3.4 Professional Privilege 3.3.5 Baggage Handlers 3.3.6 International Relations 3.3.7 Deliberation 3.3.8 Database Searches 3.3.9 Missing Documents

4. Conclusions

4.1 Public Interest 4.2 Summary

[Introduction]

Expendable.TV Page 1 - 1

1. INTRODUCTION

Schapelle Corby‟s efforts to gain access to information, held by the AFP on herself, through the Freedom of Information Act, began in July 2009. The process, however, was dogged by delay, as the AFP used a variety of methods to evade its legal responsibility. This saga is documented within the “FOI Act Abuse Report”, which can be downloaded from the following web page: http://www.expendable.tv/2011/10/foi-abuse-report.html The outcome of this process was characterized by extreme censorship, and a refusal to release entire documents.

1.1. BACKGROUND Since October 2011, The Expendable Project has been publishing internal government correspondence, which exposes a number of astonishing, yet unreported, facts. These include the revelation that the government, and the AFP, withheld a significant volume of evidence from both Schapelle Corby, and the Indonesian court. This was evidence which was vital to Schapelle Corby, including that her bags were 5kg overweight on the Qantas system, when she checked in without excess charge ($175), and that her boogie-board bag was the ONLY one not scanned at Sydney Airport (baggage handlers had diverted it). The withholding of primary evidence, to protect political interests, and the commercial interests of corporations, is supplemented by direct evidence which demonstrates a variety of other hostile and abusive acts, perpetrated by AFP personnel. These include misleading the media, the making of false statements, the destruction of evidence, and an internal cover-up of the activities of specific individuals. Given her situation, having spent a considerable number of years in an Indonesian prison, it is difficult to imagine a more pressing need than Schapelle Corby‟s for openness, and for a properly functional Freedom of Information Act. This is clearly a case in which the public interest demands transparency and full accountability. Unfortunately, however, efforts made on her behalf, have been largely frustrated. It is against this background that a case was lodged with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), which represents the final step, under Australian legislation, in the applicant process to obtain information.

http://www.expendable.tv/2011/10/foi-abuse-report.html

[The AAT Hearing]


2. THE AAT HEARING

2.1. INTRODUCTION The date of the hearing itself was 2nd – 4th July 2012, but the deck was stacked against Schapelle Corby and her family from the outset.

The AFP was represented by Clayton UTZ, long term donors to the Liberal Party, who in May 2011 had been commissioned, at substantial tax payer expense, to help deny Schapelle Corby the access to the information she sought.

[The AAT Hearing]


Schapelle Corby and her family were unable to afford legal representation, and were therefore represented by Mercedes Corby, and long term advocate, Diane Frola. The hearing was held before AAT Deputy President, Philip Hack SC, and testimony was provided by a range of senior AFP officers, as well as Dr Vivienne Thom, the Inspector-General Intelligence and Security. It was witnessed by Jake Blight, Assistance Inspector-General, who watched invisibly in via a one way link from an unknown office in Canberra. Another serious blow to the prospect of balance was that the hearing refused to receive important submissions from Schapelle Corby's representatives. It refused to accept the submission of documents, which included a large number of the government's own emails, and which evidenced the context of Schapelle Corby's requests. These, for example, demonstrated the clear and unambiguous conflict of interest of the AFP, in rejecting access to the hidden material. The basis of this refusal initially appeared to be the volume of reading material presented, but it was later stated that they were considered to be not relevant to Mr Hack‟s deliberations. The disappointment with this outright refusal, to even consider evidence which was seen as central, was openly and directly expressed at the hearing, during a prolonged stand-off with Ms Frola. Despite these serious disadvantages, Schapelle Corby's team presented their responses to each of the AFP refusals (known as “exemptions”). These covered a number of broad areas, and embraced the actual context of the situation. The most wide ranging areas of contention were as follows:

2.2. T HE INTERESTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH The AFP refused to provide a significant number of documents, and much correspondence, on the basis that it would damage national security and international relations:

33(1)(a)(iii) 33 Documents affecting national security, defence or international relations (1) A document is an exempt document if disclosure of the document under this Act: (a) would, or could reasonably be expected to, cause damage to: (iii) the international relations of the Commonwealth; 33(1)(b) 33 Documents affecting national security, defence or international relations

[The AAT Hearing]


Schapelle Corby‟s representatives submitted the following:

The public interest in disclosure is in fact serious, burning, and directly relevant. It embraces a central issue of the Schapelle Corby case; that of the sacrifice of the legal and human rights of an individual in order to foster a relationship with a foreign state. The political situation was undoubtedly difficult, but we contend that the actions of politicians and police officers at the time were consistent with prioritizing a political relationship above the welfare and rights of a citizen. We contend that this issue is clearly of public interest: transparency of decision making with respect to these matters is of paramount importance. To suggest that it is not of considerable public interest for the public to be aware of the degree to which their own government will sacrifice their rights is preposterous. It strikes against core democratic values, given that the public elect a government to represent them in these matters. On behalf of the AFP, Clayton UTZ sell the idea that the damage of disclosure would be substantial. Quite apart from how they actually define or quantify such damage, this represents yet another clear conflict of interest. Whatever the degree of sacrifice of Schapelle Corby‟s rights for political benefit was, disclosure of the AFP's role in any such a situation would, at least to some degree, create difficult issues for the AFP themselves. It is thus through self interest, not public interest, that the AFP are motivated to prevent the disclosure of this information. It is also noteworthy that police officers are not best placed to assess matters pertaining to complex international relationships. Equally, relationships with foreign states should be forged upon honest, open and moral principles. If this is indeed the case, then the foreign state would surely have no objection to the release of information in circumstances in which there are serious concerns regarding the conduct of police officers and politicians in Australia. If the relationship is not thus formed, one must ask questions of an ethical and moral nature. The concrete fact of a citizen of Australia, seeking to obtain information relating to her desperate predicament in a foreign prison, being denied that information for the benefit Australia's political relationship with that nation, raises profound issues. To have access denied on such ambiguous undefined grounds, at the behest of a party integral to the original disturbing situation, with a clear conflict of interest in play, is surely contrary not only to the principles of the Freedom of Information Act, but to natural justice.

[The AAT Hearing]


The following points were also repeatedly made:

It has been suggested, by a multitude of third parties, particularly on the internet, that the AFP routinely sought to withhold important information because it incriminated AFP personnel, in terms of misconduct. For example, it is sometimes suggested that an AFP officer provided false and damaging information to the Indonesian law enforcement agency, whilst withholding vital primary evidence of a supportive nature (supportive of Schapelle Corby's innocence). Further documented allegations pertain to Schapelle Corby's requests for forensic testing of the marijuana and bags, which were initially viewed positively from Indonesia. It has been suggested that, chronologically, this position changed following a number of interactions with AFP personnel. The subsequent confirmed withholding, of important primary evidence by the AFP, and others, from Schapelle Corby‟s lawyers, is an important consideration, and frames a number of these allegations. Increasingly, there are public allegations, stemming from reports published on the internet, that the interests of the AFP, Qantas, SACL, and a number of individuals, took precedence over the welfare and human rights of Schapelle Corby, as well as over the best interests of the Commonwealth. We submit that the interests of the public, and the international relations of the Commonwealth, are not served by a veil of secrecy relating to matters fundamental to a citizen‟s rights, or by suppression of information which may be seen as evidential to serious allegations relating to the conduct of a State agency (the AFP). We suggest that in the absence of impropriety, there is little or no scope for damage, and in the case of impropriety, it is in the best interests of the Commonwealth that this be addressed in a transparent and open manner. We further submit that the damage suggested by Clayton UTZ is manufactured, and is insignificant, certainly relative to the potential wider and long term damage which might be precipitated through continued exemption and secrecy. It is argued that the censoring of information, which already published documents suggest evidences potentially corrupt acts, is not in the best long term interests of the Commonwealth of Australia.

[The AAT Hearing]


2.3. THE PUBLIC INTEREST / INDIVIDUALS On behalf of the AFP, Clayton UTZ sought to withhold information on the basis that it was part of a “deliberative process”, and contrary to the public interest.

36(1)(a) 36 Internal working documents (1) Subject to this section, a document is an exempt document if it is a document the disclosure of which under this Act: (a) would disclose matter in the nature of, or relating to, opinion, advice or recommendation obtained, prepared or recorded, or consultation or deliberation that has taken place, in the course of, or for the purposes of, the deliberative processes involved in the functions of an agency or Minister or of the Government of the Commonwealth; and (b) would be contrary to the public interest. (5) This section does not apply to a document by reason only of purely factual material contained in the document.

Schapelle Corby‟s representatives argued the following:

It is surely in the public interest that debate and decision making on the central matters relating to Schapelle Corby's situation, and in particular, matters with which the AFP and ministers have been accused of impropriety and misconduct, is disclosed to her. The individuals were acting in office, and therefore assuming a role. There is no issue of privacy in play, and of course, political embarrassment is no justification for censorship. Clayton UTZ appear to extend 36(1)(a) to even misrepresent formal documents as opinion. Recommendation is not opinion. Statements by officers describing information obtained are not opinion. Further, where an officer has stated his opinion, assuming that it is based upon reasonable and sensible rationale, it is difficult to understand how this would disadvantage him or her. Surely, only if there were malicious, unfounded, or similar content, would an officer object to such scrutiny. If an effect of disclosure is to enhance the former, and discourage the latter, the disclosure is again very much in the public interest. Regardless, stretching the definition and scope of words like 'opinion' is a device which effectively embraces the role of a significant number of individuals in this case. The extended use of this approach becomes ridiculous, and enables the AFP to claim that information of the most fundamental nature is exempt from disclosure. With respect to the public interest issues discussed, the AFP completely over look the public interest with respect to transparency of matters for which increasing volumes of evidence have emerged which indicate serious and sustained AFP misconduct.

[The AAT Hearing]


The availability of information with respect to these matters is paramount in retaining or restoring confidence in the AFP, and indeed, in certain politicians. Alternatively, the information may be central to subsequent legal actions against those culpable. Censoring access to such important material is absolutely not in the public interest. Indeed, the very act of censorship would inevitably increase public concern. The duel approach, of falsely claiming or exaggerating the effects of exposure of operational matters, and ignoring the very serious public interest matters evident in this particular case, is disturbing. The citation of other cases, which bear no or little resemblance to the unique context of this one, does not alter these core aspects. The implication of exempting documents which may shed light on misconduct, and potentially corruption, is of serious concern for any democracy. We contend that the public interest is not served by suppressing Schapelle Corby's access to any of this material. However, the interests of specific individuals, in situ within the AFP, past and present, may well be served by such censorship.

2.4. LEGAL & OTHER DEVICES The AFP sought to withhold other information using a variety of highly dubious devices. For example, Clayton UTZ even sought to extend the meaning to professional privilege to embrace the CDPP, to which the following response was submitted:

Clayton UTZ argues professional privilege. However, clearly, the lawyer is an agency of state (CDPP) and the client is an agency of state (AFP). Both are surely servants of the public. To seek to extend professional privilege to this circumstance is a clear device to bestow secrecy upon communication between two government agencies.

Another area of contention was the scope of the original search for relevant information.

[The AAT Hearing]


Schapelle Corby‟s team contended throughout that the AFP had limited the original search for documents, pertaining to Schapelle Corby, by selective use of search terms. For example, it was stated that searches were not made on some of the most common names by which Schapelle Corby was referred. It also transpired that the AFP had found a substantial volume of material relating to Schapelle Corby, but had not processed it for the request, because it was, in effect, too much work (“practical refusal”). Finally, the AFP claimed that a number of key documents, identified by Schapelle Corby‟s team using external references, had been “lost” and were “missing”.

2.5 SUBMISSIONS The above aspects framed the position in terms of the majority of the most critical documents. The arguments reproduced above were presented in writing, to enable the AAT to properly reflect upon the wider picture, rather than focus upon the narrow perspective of the AFP. This was intended to prevent any ambiguity, in terms of the scope required to measure individual, public and national interest.

[The AAT Decision]


3. THE AAT DECISION

3.1 INTRODUCTION The decision of the AAT hearing was detailed in a document, which was sent to the applicant and the respondent, on 15th October 2012.

In all cases, other than with respect to three relatively un-contentious documents, Deputy President, PE Hack SC, supported the AFP‟s censorship of the information being sought on behalf of Schapelle Corby. Indeed, he went further, notionally excluding from provision over a dozen documents which had previously been nominated for disclosure. Clearly, even in itself, this decision added to the fundamental questions being asked, with respect to this case, regarding openness and transparency, and the accountability of those in public office. Closer examination of the decision document, however, also raises questions with respect to the role and mandate of the AAT.

[The AAT Decision]


3.1.1 DECISION RATIONALE In view of the serious and disturbing issues in play, it is important to examine the reasons which were presented by Mr Hack, to justify his support for some of the most serious exclusions. These are illustrative examples, and are presented in no particular order. Note that throughout the paper, Mr Hack cited an affidavit by AFP Commander Fiona Drennan. This presented a list of grave consequences, should Schapelle Corby be granted access to the information, held on herself, by the AFP. It is not unreasonable to presume that Commander Drennan, the wife of Deputy AFP Commissioner Peter Drennan, would submit a case which is prone to present an AFP centric view of the situation, for example, heavily weighting AFP interest in any measure of public interest. The frequency with which Mr Hack referred to her affidavit, and accepted it, apparently with little or no question, raises a number of issues of process. This is particularly the case in the absence of any reference at all to submissions or comments made by those representing Schapelle Corby, including those presented in Section 2 of this document. It is hard to avoid the impression, therefore, that the AAT failed to take the wider view of matters such as public and national interest, which that section describes. Instead, given the absence of such discussion in the decision paper, the AAT appears to have taken a wholly AFP centric perspective. 3.1.2 CONFIDENTIAL AFFIDAVITS Throughout, Mr Hack referred to paragraphs, in Commander Drennan‟s affidavit, which were confidential. This means that Schapelle Corby‟s representatives have never had sight of them, and that they are not in the public domain. They are secret. Clearly, therefore, this type of justification is seriously flawed. It is impossible to dispute what is not visible. It is possible to predict the AFP‟s likely self interest arguments in a situation, but not to reasonably counter them when they are not directly available, and have never been seen. This surely raises fundamental questions regarding the fairness of the AAT process itself, particularly where the hidden/secret AFP affidavit statements are so readily accepted as fact by the tribunal.

[The AAT Decision]


3.2 APPLICATION 2010/2438: ANALYSIS A number of documents identified for this specific request relate to the AFP‟s interactions with the Indonesian National Police (INP). In particular, documents were sought which might further illuminate Commissioner Keelty‟s relationship with General Pastika, to establish, for example, whether any false information or input was provided. For the documents in most serious contention, Mr Hack supported the AFP‟s decision to censor. For example, stating that “I accept as well, the advice identified by Ms Drennan in paragraph 45 of her affidavit were material of this nature to be disclosed.” Further, there was no discussion of balance of interests, for example, between the interests of the AFP in maintaining secrecy, and the rights of Schapelle Corby, such as her legal and human rights in a wider context. No reference at all was made to the fundamental arguments put forth by Schapelle Corby‟s representatives, for instance, as presented in Section2 of this document. The decision appears to have been taken from a wholly AFP related perspective, rather than a wider perspective embracing the concrete matters and public interest issues surrounding the actual request.

3.3 APPLICATION 2010/4442: ANALYSIS This application for information covered a significant number of aspects of AFP conduct, and embraced a domestic and well as an international context. The following represent a number of the disturbing issues which are apparent from the decision document: 3.3.1 IRRELEVANT INFORMATION Mr Hack frequently supported the AFP‟s censorship by deeming that information was not relevant to the request. Examples include speaking notes for Commissioner Keelty, emails, government briefings, and similar data. However, in doing so he did not appear to have weighted the importance of context at all. Statements and actions by individuals are always in context, and clearly, to evaluate and understand them, knowledge and sight of that context is extremely valuable, and sometimes essential.

[The AAT Decision]


It is also noteworthy that statements such as “They do not come under the scope of the request” are impossible to counter without detailed or further rationale. Mr Hack even excluded a series of hitherto identified documents on the basis of his opinion of irrelevance. 3.3.2 SOUTH AUSTRALIA POLICE One of the documents being sought was a draft letter from Commissioner Keelty to the Commissioner of South Australia Police. This was sent in the context of a bogus story, which had been leaked from within a police agency, and which had sought to falsely link Schapelle Corby with a drug dealer. Whilst the damaging story was wholly discredited shortly thereafter, a relationship of Commissioner Keelty, with the journalist who „broke‟ it, has subsequently been identified, with emails published on the Expendable.TV website. Despite this, however, Mr Hack again cited the opinion of Commander Drennan, in supporting continued censorship of the letter, stating that “It will suffice to say that disclosure of that document would reveal details of an unrelated investigation”. There was no detailed argument or rationale advanced for exemption within the real context of the incident. NOTE1: The release of this letter was also exempted under “damage to security of the Commonwealth”, to which Mr Hack, inexplicably, did not refer. NOTE2: Of tangential interest here is that this investigation actually relates to a criminal called Malcolm McCauley, who is frequently used by unscrupulous journalists to produce baseless smears against Schapelle Corby‟s father (dead men cannot sue). Mr Hack‟s declaration, that the investigation of McCauley is unrelated, is therefore of interest in this context. 3.3.3 RANDOM EXCLUSIONS The decision document also refers to a number of documents for which censorship is supported without even a hint of rationale. For example, an AFP briefing paper is exempted on the basis of affidavit arguments which are “confidential” and thus not provided, with the statement “But in any event, it is clear that the document is properly exempt” being used to justify this black hole. This clearly is neither transparent nor open. Nor does it constitute any form of reasoning.

[The AAT Decision]


3.3.4 PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE Professional privilege is an important aspect of law. The confidential relationship between lawyer and client is rightly protected. However, the AFP appears to have abused this right to censor its deliberations with the CDPP. These were two government agencies, conspiring to seize the book royalties of a citizen still in legal process overseas. The signal of guilt to Jakarta, in doing so, was but one disturbing aspect. Another was that Australian law was unilaterally extended beyond its national borders. Yet another was that the judicial system itself was brought into disrepute, via closed secret trials, in which Schapelle Corby wasn‟t even represented. Yet, apparently endorsed by the AAT, the AFP are able to hide their role under the auspices of “professional privilege”, a provision which was surely never intended to enable two government agencies to censor their communications from the public. The wider public interest, and long term implication, of such an endorsement appears to have been completely overlooked, at least insofar as there is no discussion or rational offered within the decision document. 3.3.5 BAGGAGE HANDLERS The AAT supported the AFP‟s censorship of key documents relating to baggage handlers, which of course are extremely important in the context of the now known criminal activities at Sydney Airport. Again, Mr Hack cited Commander Drennan‟s position, that disclosure would reveal police methods and procedures. Yet, these are activities which occurred EIGHT YEARS ago, and which were very specific to a particular scenario at a particular location. Yet again, no consideration appears to have been was given to the wider public interest of disclosure, outside the context of AFP interest. 3.3.6 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS The AAT supported the continued censorship of a number of documents under the provision that that disclosure may “cause damage to the international relations of the Commonwealth”. For example, documents 54, 57, 78, 97, and part of 107, amongst others However, little or no rationale was offered. In some cases, bland general statements were made to justify this position, such as “I accept there is a need for Australia, through the AFP, to have a close and cooperative relationship with the INP”.

[The AAT Decision]


There was no published consideration at all of the vital issues referred to in Section 2 of this document. Central public interest questions, such as the balance, in sacrificing the legal and human rights of an individual in order to foster a relationship with a foreign state, were not considered in the document at all. 3.3.7 DELIBERATION Material which documents advice, discussion, and similar information is clearly of extreme importance where serious AFP misconduct is alleged. In this context, surely, the public interest lies in transparency, particularly given the high office of some of the individuals referred to. The AAT, however, supported the censorship of this material, using the ambiguous S36(1) provision of the Freedom of Information Act. 3.3.8 DATABASE SEARCHES It is without question that the searches of the AFP database for information relating to Schapelle Corby were limited in scope. Very few phrases were used, and these sometimes even excluded the names by which the AFP actually referred to her. However, despite these facts, Mr Hack still concluded that they were “appropriate and reasonable”, rendering an unknown but significant number of documents, relevant to Schapelle Corby, hidden and entirely excluded from the exercise. This was despite repeated requests to extend the search parameters. 3.3.9 MISSING DOCUMENTS It transpired during the case that the AFP had “lost” a number of important documents. This was directly referred to at the hearing, and confirmed by the AFP with respect to a particular item: “...there has been a concern that a reference to one particular document, a letter to Mal Hyde, the South Australian Police Commissioner, was referenced in one of the documents, but couldn't be found. And she has gone back and done some subsequent searches, searched the PROMIS database again, searched the CMS - which is the ministerial correspondence database - and also asked people to conduct physical searches. And again that document has not been able to be found...”. This, of course is a very important matter in the context of the overall case, as the AFP are alleged to have deleted vital evidence by a number of parties. However, Mr Hack did not reference this issue at all in the decision paper.

[Summary]


4. CONCLUSIONS

The AAT‟s decision document is conspicuous by a number of important absences and omissions. The first absence is referred to in Section 2.1, above. Prime evidential submissions by Schapelle Corby‟s representatives were refused at the hearing by Mr Hack. This evidence was of fundamental importance, because it demonstrated the conflict of interest in terms of the AFP‟s role with respect to this Freedom of Information request. It demonstrated the pressure upon AFP operatives in, for example, the creation of affidavits, with regard to the release of information which could be seriously damaging to the AFP itself. This aligns with another serious absence. That is, the absence of any reference at all to the contents of those applicant submissions which were accepted at the hearing. Some of these, again, are listed in Section 2. They are fundamental, yet are unreferenced in the decision document. It should also be emphasized that some of the hearing was held in secret, with Schapelle Corby‟s representatives being forced to leave the courtroom. This, again, is not a feature which suggests any semblance of balance.

4.1 PUBLIC INTEREST At the most generic level is the issue of AFP interest, versus public interest. These are not the same. Yet the entire exercise appears to have been conducted within the framework and perspective that they are somehow aligned. There was little or no consideration of Schapelle Corby‟s specific situation, or the serious non-policing and wider issues in play. For example, when considering international relations, surely the issue of human rights is a vital component aspect. Yet, it was ignored, for instance, when considering the importance of the AFP relationship with the INP. The same applies with respect to claims of wider damage to Commonwealth relations. The human and legal rights of Australian citizens are core factors in any balanced determination of such matters. Similar arguments apply with respect to national security, also in terms of the sacrifice of the rights of an individual. Yet, vital questions like these are wholly absent from the rationale provided in the decision document.

[Summary]


Then there is consideration of the public interest in terms of the secrecy surrounding the AFP‟s own conduct in this case. Mr Hack was openly informed that evidence of serious AFP misconduct had already been published on the internet, yet this was never referred to in the decision document. Public interest is not AFP interest, yet the decision document appears not to recognize this fact. Instead, the document almost exclusively follows the AFP line, supporting secrecy, even where grave and disturbing issues are raised. Correct and proper context is simply not applied. Further, the document allows a number of clearly dubious devices, employed by the AFP to support censorship, to remain undisturbed and unchallenged.

4.2 SUMMARY This, demonstrably, was not a balanced hearing. The outcome, therefore, was perhaps predictable. The excessive weight given to the testimony of AFP officers was evident through the direct acceptance of, often hidden, affidavit statements, whilst reference to the input of Schapelle Corby‟s representatives was entirely absent. The serious issues identified in Section 3 of this report speak for themselves, and their implications are stark. In effect, the AAT rubber stamped AFP censorship of its own conduct and political role, and thus simultaneously brought itself into disrepute. It allowed AFP secrecy to trump the public‟s right of transparency, on the most fundamental of issues. Schapelle Corby‟s rights, as a citizen, were totally disregarded, rather than balanced against the narrow interests of the AFP. The real context of the FOI request, and the wider public interest issues it raised, were not even referred to. As mirrored across a range of government departments, in practical terms, Schapelle Corby's democratic and legal rights, under freedom of information legislation in Australia, have been revoked. The State continues to hide and censor the disturbing information, which exposes its own conduct, from both Schapelle Corby, and from the public.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Documents

Transcript of The Administrative Appeals Tribunal