The Crown Solicitor’s Office, on behalf of SA Police, filed an application in the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT) on Tuesday for a review of a freedom of information (FOI) direction issued by the state Ombudsman on June 5.

The Ombudsman had ordered SA Police to release 19 documents about the relocation of the Thebarton police barracks for the new $3.2b Women’s and Children’s Hospital.

The documents – which would reveal some of the land options SA Police and the state government were considering for a new police horse barracks before they settled on Adelaide Airport land – were requested by former senator Rex Patrick on October 21, 2022.

SA Police in December refused access to 21 documents it found within the scope of Patrick’s FOI and upheld its decision following an internal review.

Police argued the documents were exempt from release because they were either cabinet documents, documents affecting law enforcement and public safety, or documents containing commercial information that could prejudice the government’s competitiveness in the property market.

Patrick challenged SA Police’s decision with the state Ombudsman, Wayne Lines.

Lines determined on June 5 that he was not satisfied with SA Police’s reasoning for keeping the documents under wraps and ordered the agency to release 11 documents in full and a further eight in part.

SA Police had 30 days from June 5 to decide whether to release the documents or ask the SACAT to review the Ombudsman’s determination.

During that time, the Malinauskas Government has since announced its intention to build a new police horse barracks on land near Adelaide Airport along with a CBD “staging post” behind the SA Supreme Court building.

InDaily asked SA Police why it intended to challenge the Ombudsman’s ruling given the location for the new police barracks land was announced on June 8.

In a statement, a police spokesperson replied: “The Commissioner of Police has an obligation to Cabinet, as the Chief Executive of SAPOL, and a decision to refer the matter is in line with fulfilling that obligation.

“The matter has been referred to SACAT as a matter of principle.”

Under the state’s FOI laws, if a government agency commences a SACAT review, that agency must pay the other party’s “reasonable costs”.

It means SA Police will be funding Patrick’s legal costs as well as its own in its bid to keep the documents under wraps.

The police spokesperson did not respond to a question about how much it anticipated paying in legal fees.

Commenting on SA Police’s challenge, Patrick said: “I get the feeling this is secrecy just for the sake of it.

“We’ve reached the point where the location for the barracks has been decided, and so the documents I’m seeking are now predominantly of historical rather than contemporary value.

“I’m disappointed the Commissioner has not accepted the umpire’s decision and saddened by the fact that the taxpayer will now bear the cost of both his and my legal team”.

SA Police’s SACAT review is the latest development in a protracted FOI battle which has now spanned nearly nine months. The legislated timeframe for an agency to respond to an FOI request is 30 days.

According to the Ombudsman’s timeline of events, SA Police on October 31 extended the deadline to deal with Patrick’s FOI request until December 16.

It also sought extensions on March 31 and April 21 to respond to the Ombudsman’s provisional determination that SA Police should release 19 of the 21 FOI documents.

The 21 documents include briefing papers prepared for the Police Commissioner regarding the new Women’s and Children’s Hospital build and relocation planning for the Thebarton barracks.

One document is titled: “SAPOL barracks relocation options – Renewal SA”.

Loading…

Taking too long?

Reload document

|

Open in new tab

The Ombudsman determined that two of the documents – labelled documents 1 and 2 – were cabinet submissions and upheld SA Police’s decision not to release them.

But he rejected SA Police’s argument that some of the other documents could not be released in full because they copied information from documents 1 and 2.

He instead determined these documents – documents 6, 7, 17 and 21 – should be released with the extracts of the cabinet submissions redacted.

SA Police refused to release other documents, including the Renewal SA site options paper, because it argued disclosure would impact commercial activities.

But the Ombudsman also rejected this argument, writing in his June determination: “I do not consider that the material in the document, such as the requirements for a future site or possible purchasing options, is revelatory of any particular information that could affect the ability of the State to compete in the market.”

“Given the degree of public scrutiny that the project has received, it appears that much of the information in document 12 (Renewal SA site options) is already in the public domain,” Lines wrote.

“Moreover, document 12 does not disclose a preferred relocation site, which I accept may undermine the State’s ability to negotiate a competitive price.”

In March, SA Police nominated Park 21 West, an eight-hectare plot of southern park lands on the corner of Greenhill Road and Sir Lewis Cohen Avenue, as its first preference – a move loudly opposed by Adelaide and Unley councils as well as conservation and park lands preservations groups.

The Malinauskas Government took nearly three months to weigh up whether to accept SA Police’s preference for Park 21W before announcing it would house the police horses on Adelaide Airport land.

Prior to revealing the airport barracks decision, Premier Peter Malinauskas defended the government’s refusal to say what other locations were in contention, arguing that releasing this information would “unreasonably inflate expectations or anxiety within the community”.

Asked at a press conference on June 6 about the Ombudsman’s order to release the documents, Malinauskas said: “Naturally, SAPOL like any other agency needs to comply with Ombudsman decisions, and that’s exactly what will occur here no doubt.”