The federal government’s proposal to amend Australia’s freedom of information laws is taking the legislation in a more secretive direction, says an expert.
If passed, the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 will allow public servants to refuse anonymous FOI requests and applications requiring more than 40 hours to process. The legislation – introduced last week – would also expand the category of documents that can be denied access.
Attorney-General Michelle Rowland said the overhaul was necessary, describing the current FOI framework as “stuck in the 1980s”.
“The federal FOI Act is certainly in need of updating – it hasn’t had a major overhaul since 2010, and there’s a lot that has happened since then, not least in relation to technology,” Professor Gabrielle Appleby – UNSW Faculty of Law & Justice, and Head of Research for the Centre for Public Integrity – told GN.
Indeed, as Professor Appleby acknowledges, the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs described Australia’s FOI system in December 2023 as “broken” and unfit for purpose.
Significant operational problems, including under-resourcing departments and excessive delays in finalising FOI requests and reviews are some of the problems identified by the CPI. “But the government’s amendments are not addressing these issues and are taking the legislation in a concerning – more secretive – direction,” Professor Appleby said.
The Bill also restricts the release of Cabinet documents and government deliberations. Revealing what public servants think hinders “the free and frank exchange of opinions that are necessary for the development of robust policy advice”, said the government.
“This, again, is concerning, as this exemption has been identified as a particularly problematic one, often improperly invoked by government,” Professor Appleby said.
As for the Bill enabling public servants to refuse anonymous requests, Professor Appleby told GN there are legitimate reasons why an applicant may seek anonymity, “including fear of reprisal or identification in a community”.
“If the government is concerned about a deluge of anonymous AI-generated applications, the legislation should target these, as it purports to be able to identify them, not by removing the ability of people to make anonymous requests,” she added.
This Bill is a retrograde step on many levels.
In response to the criticism, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said: “I think most people would find it surprising that people can put in anonymous FOI requests. What that means is that there’s no way to determine whether a foreign agent or actor is putting in requests for information that are sensitive.”
However, the government is unwilling to show evidence of automated abuse of the FOI system citing security reasons. “There is a particular irony of the government refusing to release the evidence it has for restricting FOI access. It also speaks to the poor process behind the development of the Bill,” Professor Appleby said.
The government is also proposing to charge a mandatory application fee for FOI requests – which was abolished in 2010 so that public requests for documents became “a more routine and accepted part of the daily business of government agencies”.
The fee was to “ensure genuine requests are prioritised while saving taxpayers’ money on frivolous and automated requests … while ensuring public sector resources are not unduly misused by vexatious FOI requests”, said the government.
“There are certainly concerns with resourcing and delays under the current FOI regime,” Professor Appleby said. “But much of the legislation is not addressing these issues structurally but rather creating further restrictions on individuals’ access to information.”
Professor Appleby told GN that, ultimately, the proposed FOI amendments undermine important developments in the Australian public’s right to know. “This Bill is a retrograde step on many levels.”
Leave a Reply