Protest group los­es appeal to obtain gov­ern­ment documents

The cas­es — Mudgee Region Health Alliance v Min­is­ter for Finance, Domes­tic Man­u­fac­tur­ing and Gov­ern­ment Pro­cure­ment and Nat­ur­al Resources [2026] NSW­CATAD 195 and Mudgee Region Health Alliance v Depart­ment of Plan­ning, Hous­ing and Infra­struc­ture [2026] NSW­CATAD 194 — cen­tred on access appli­ca­tions under the Gov­ern­ment Infor­ma­tion (Pub­lic Access) Act 2009 (NSW) (GIPA Act). They high­light the ten­sion between pub­lic trans­paren­cy, account­abil­i­ty, and pro­tec­tions for gov­ern­ment process­es and com­mer­cial inter­ests in major devel­op­ment projects.

The Appli­cant in the cas­es was the Alliance; the Respon­dent was the Min­is­ter for Finance (the Min­is­ter) and the Depart­ment of Plan­ning, Hous­ing and Infra­struc­ture (Depart­ment of Plan­ning) respec­tive­ly. Swaab rep­re­sent­ed Bow­dens Sil­ver and Sil­ver Mines Ltd (Bow­dens) as the inter­est­ed par­ty in both sets of proceedings. 

Back­ground

The request for infor­ma­tion from the Alliance fol­lows the deci­sion by the NSW Court of Appeal in Bing­man Catch­ment Land­care Group Incor­po­rat­ed v Bow­dens Sil­ver Pty Ltd [2024] NSW­CA 205 to declare the devel­op­ment con­sent for the Bow­dens Sil­ver Project void. The Court ruled that a pro­posed trans­mis­sion line was an inte­gral part of the devel­op­ment, and its impacts had not been prop­er­ly assessed.

Sub­se­quent leg­isla­tive amend­ments to the Envi­ron­men­tal Plan­ning and Assess­ment Act 1979 and ongo­ing re-approval process­es fol­lowed. The Alliance sought doc­u­ments under the GIPA Act con­cern­ing cor­re­spon­dence between gov­ern­ment offices/​ministers and Bow­dens, as well as doc­u­ments relat­ing to inter­nal delib­er­a­tions, legal advice, and respons­es to the Court of Appeal decision.

Bow­dens was con­sult­ed as a third par­ty and strong­ly object­ed to dis­clo­sure of sev­er­al documents.

Key Issues and Tri­bunal Decisions

1. Minister’s Office Case ([2026] NSW­CATAD 195)

The Tri­bunal (Senior Mem­ber Emer­i­tus Prof R Gray­car) con­sid­ered whether claims of cab­i­net infor­ma­tion applied to House Fold­er Notes pre­pared for Bud­get Esti­mates and whether par­lia­men­tary priv­i­lege applied to notes and cau­cus brief­in­gs for par­lia­men­tary use. The Tri­bunal also con­sid­ered pub­lic inter­est fac­tors against dis­clo­sure in rela­tion to a key brief­ing note from Bow­dens to the Min­is­ter, marked ​“com­mer­cial-in-con­fi­dence.”

The Tri­bunal affirmed the deci­sion to refuse the release of cabinet/​parliamentary mate­ri­als and the com­mer­cial in con­fi­dence brief­ing note. Fac­tors against dis­clo­sure (prej­u­dice to con­fi­den­tial sup­ply of infor­ma­tion, agency func­tions, and the proponent’s business/​financial inter­ests) out­weighed trans­paren­cy inter­ests argued by the Alliance.

2. Depart­ment of Plan­ning Case ([2026] NSW­CATAD 194)

This case involved more oper­a­tional doc­u­ments, includ­ing legal advice and cor­re­spon­dence between the Depart­ment of Plan­ning and Bow­dens legal rep­re­sen­ta­tives. Argu­ments relat­ed to var­i­ous ​‘pub­lic inter­est fac­tors,’ includ­ing prej­u­dice to sup­ply of con­fi­den­tial infor­ma­tion, prej­u­dice to delib­er­a­tive process­es, prej­u­dice to the effec­tive exer­cise of agency func­tions, and prej­u­dice to the proponent’s com­mer­cial interests.

The Tri­bunal addressed evi­den­tiary objec­tions, affirm­ing that while not bound by strict evi­dence rules, find­ings must rest on log­i­cal­ly pro­ba­tive mate­r­i­al and not mere spec­u­la­tion. The Tri­bunal affirmed the deci­sion to refuse con­test­ed doc­u­ments, par­tic­u­lar­ly where strong commercial/​deliberative pro­tec­tions applied. 

Legal Sig­nif­i­cance

These deci­sions rein­force sev­er­al impor­tant prin­ci­ples which apply in respect of appli­ca­tions for gov­ern­ment doc­u­ments made under the GIPA Act:

1. Strong pro­tec­tions exist for core gov­ern­ment func­tions: Cab­i­net doc­u­ments, par­lia­men­tary mate­ri­als, and legal advice receive near-absolute pro­tec­tion. The Tribunal’s role is lim­it­ed when Cab­i­net infor­ma­tion is claimed.
2. Com­mer­cial-in-con­fi­dence infor­ma­tion: Pro­po­nents’ sub­mis­sions to gov­ern­ment, espe­cial­ly in respect of sen­si­tive devel­op­ment projects, can attract sig­nif­i­cant weight if dis­clo­sure risks harm­ing nego­ti­a­tions, or future engage­ment with regulators.
3. Bal­anc­ing exer­cise: Pub­lic inter­est in trans­paren­cy, envi­ron­men­tal account­abil­i­ty, and com­mu­ni­ty par­tic­i­pa­tion is real but not unlim­it­ed. It must be weighed against prej­u­dice to delib­er­a­tive process­es and third-par­ty interests.

Togeth­er, the rul­ings demon­strate a prag­mat­ic approach to uphold­ing pro­tec­tions where gen­uine harm to gov­ern­ment oper­a­tions or com­mer­cial nego­ti­a­tions could occur. They pro­vide guid­ance for future GIPA dis­putes involv­ing major infrastructure/​mining projects in NSW.

Impli­ca­tions for the Pub­lic and Pro­po­nents of Devel­op­ment Projects 

For activist groups, the cas­es under­score the lim­i­ta­tions in obtain­ing gov­ern­ment and com­mer­cial-in-con­fi­dence doc­u­ments relat­ing to devel­op­ment projects. For gov­ern­ment and indus­try, they affirm that frank engage­ment and the pro­vi­sion of sen­si­tive advice can be pro­tect­ed when con­fi­den­tial­i­ty is rea­son­ably expected.

The Bow­dens project con­tin­ues through a re-approval process. These NCAT deci­sions con­tribute to the evolv­ing jurispru­dence on open gov­ern­ment in the con­text of eco­log­i­cal­ly sen­si­tive and eco­nom­i­cal­ly sig­nif­i­cant devel­op­ment projects. The full judg­ments can be accessed at the fol­low­ing links: 

Mudgee Region Health Alliance v Min­is­ter for Finance, Domes­tic Man­u­fac­tur­ing and Gov­ern­ment Pro­cure­ment and Nat­ur­al Resources — NSW Caselaw

Mudgee Region Health Alliance v Depart­ment of Plan­ning, Hous­ing and Infra­struc­ture — NSW Caselaw