[Linux-aus] Grant Application from Fraser Tweedale for Support the myGov Code Generator source code FOI review

Sat Jul 18 10:54:01 AEST 2026

I'm sorry but that's a no from me.
We are not here to fund litigation.
While we may receive the benefit of the result of that litigation it was not started by us nor is LA a party to this.

This sets a dangerous precedent where anytime someone want to fight for FoI and source code then we can be asked for funds and potentially could start fighting for it as an organisation.

The litigants knew it was expensive to start with, and the government was always going to push back hard. That is not our responsibility to assist.

Individuals who want to support this can do so at their own expense and to the best of their abilities.

However, I do not see LA as an organisation who should be supporting this except with maybe a letter of support or similar. We could possibly do an amicus curiae brief possibly), stating that we believe open source is in the best interests of society both to further technological progress and from a security standpoint.

I am happy for us to fund someone to review the code when/if it is released but not to fund the litigation itself.

Regards
Marcus

________________________________
From: linux-aus <linux-aus-bounces at lists.linux.org.au> on behalf of Linux Australia Website via linux-aus <linux-aus at lists.linux.org.au>
Sent: Thursday, 16 July 2026 21:08:33
To: committee at lists.linux.org.au <committee at lists.linux.org.au>; linux-aus at lists.linux.org.au <linux-aus at lists.linux.org.au>
Cc: Linux Australia Website <grant-applications at linux.org.au>
Subject: [Linux-aus] Grant Application from Fraser Tweedale for Support the myGov Code Generator source code FOI review

Your Email Address: frase at frase.id.au
Project name: Support the myGov Code Generator source code FOI review
Grant Type: Project Grant
Aim of the project: I am applying for a grant of $5,000 to help cover litigation costs in a Freedom of Information review at the Administrative Review Tribunal. The matter is *Tweedale and CEO, Services Australia*, file 2025/4916. I applied for review of Services Australia’s access refusal decision in relation to my request for access to the source code of the myGov Code Generator app, a (now retired) mobile app published by Services Australia for myGov login MFA (TOTP). The case involves critical questions about government transparency and software security, the validity of “security by obscurity” arguments in this context, and the benefits and consequences of governments granting access to the source code of applications they develop and expect citizens to run on their devices.
Much more detail about this matter, and regular updates, are available at https://openmygov.au.
The outcomes of this legal proceeding and my associated efforts will include:
* Precedent: A binding or persuasive administrative law decision regarding the accessibility of government-developed source code under Australian law, and the validity of “security by obscurity” arguments for refusing access.
* openmygov.au: continued free, unhindered public access to all disclosable submissions, evidence, expert witness reports, decisions and other documents, and a chronicle of the conduct of this case—in other words, a legal toolkit for future open-source FOI litigation in Australia (and possibly useful elsewhere)
I am happy to answer any questions or provide further information to Council and/or the Linux Australia membership in support of this application.
## Risks and disclosures
### Impact on LA funding and government relations
Impact: Actively financing public-interest litigation against a major Federal Government agency may have a chilling effect on future sponsorship opportunities for LA-auspiced events, or otherwise introduce friction in LA’s interactions with Government.
Mitigation: Contributing to the costs of this litigation does not enjoin LA as a party or subject LA to any risks of further direct costs. Also, the matter and the purpose of the review is aligned with Linux Australia’s values and purpose and is being pursued in the public interest; it is unlikely to be perceived as frivilous or vexatious.
### The Tribunal decides against transparency
Impact: Should the Tribunal agree with the Respondent’s “security by obscurity” arguments and refuses access, it sets an unfortunate precedent.
Mitigation: This is barely worse than the status quo, where agencies refuse access for these reasons anyway, but those decisions are not challenged. Grounds for appeal (judicial review) in Federal Court will be considered, although costs would be in another order of magnitude and may be prohibitive. Win or lose, the community will have an extensive and durable record of and playbook for FOI litigation involving open source and cybersecurity matters.
### Disclosure of EO2027 treasurer role
I am a core organising team member and the appointed Treasurer for the Everything Open 2027 conference, which is an official subcommittee of Linux Australia. I have no influence over grant funding decisions, and conference money is managed in complete separate accounts.
Estimated cost breakdown of the project: Through a successful Pozible crowdfunding campaign early in 2026, and an ongoing Chuffed campaign, I raised approximately $20,000 to help with the costs of this litigation. Though I always expected costs to exceed this amount, procedural battles over Services Australia’s national security claims and applications for confidentiality orders over critical evidence have depleted these funds sooner than expected. We are now in an intense phase, finalising the evidence and submissions. The substantive hearing is listed for 3 days from 2–4 September in Melbourne.
Cumulative costs by the end of this proceeding will certainly exceed $30,000, and could end up in the range of $40,000–$50,000. The shortfall between funds raised (so far) through crowdfunding campaigns and the eventual costs is therefore at least $10,000 and possibly much more.  In addition to Wise Law’s fees (the biggest expense by far), my costs include travel to and accommodation in Melbourne for the hearing, and for a one-day strategy meeting back in February.  (Wise Law and both expert witnesses are based in Melbourne.)
I am applying for a **$5,000** grant to help close this gap. I would gratefully accept any lesser amount the Linux Australia Council deems appropriate, as I recognise that the requested amount is a significant proportion of the 2026 grants program budget, and I do not want to disadvantage or preclude other worthwhile grant opportunities.
Project team details: I (Fraser) am a free software developer and active member of the Australian open source community. Most of my work over the last decade has been on open source PKI, authentication and identity management solutions, and supply chain security. I will give evidence in this proceeding on open source public policy and law in Australia and around the world, and on cybersecurity matters.
I have engaged two expert witnesses to assist the Tribunal, both known to the LA membership and Australian open source community: cryptographer and electoral security researcher Dr Vanessa Teague; and Dr Peter Serwylo for his Android expertise and involvement in the F-Droid project. Vanessa and Peter are providing their services free of charge.
My legal representative in this proceeding is Jason Bosland of Wise Law, a boutique cyber law firm based in Melbourne. Jason is an expert in administrative law, and he has a good grasp on the technical aspects of the case. Wise Law are generously providing their services at a 50% discount, in recognition of the public interest nature of this case. Jason has also employed a paralegal to help with preparation of my case; this will reduce costs because the volume of evidence and submissions is significant.
First Name: Fraser
Last Name: Tweedale
Email Address: frase at frase.id.au
A statement including a willingness to provide regular project updates on the project: I publish detailed information and updates about this case at https://openmygov.au/. All information I can publish, I do, including submissions, evidence, and Tribunal decisions and orders. It will form a significant and valuable artifact for Freedom of Information applicants or litigants, and people interested in the intersection of free/open source software, public policy, and administrative law.
I am committed to absolute transparency with respect to all funds received (from all sources) and all expenditure, including publication of invoices and bank statements (I have a dedicated bank account for this purpose).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20260718/f279e327/attachment-0001.htm>