The Albanese government has introduced a bill that would significantly expand its power to withhold government documents, a move critics say undermines decades-old transparency standards.
The Labor proposal, introduced to parliament by Attorney-General Michelle Rowland, would allow public servants to issue blanket refusals to act on Freedom of Information (FOI) requests from journalists, advocacy groups or members of the public if processing the request takes more than 40 hours. That threshold, which amounts to one day of work for a small team, could be used to deny all but the simplest FOI requests, given the time required to perform basic email searches and redact personal details.
Rowland argued the changes are overdue, stating that the current laws are “broken” and waste too much public service time on “frivolous” or spam requests, she said, citing examples such as an FOI request for the desktop backgrounds of departmental staff.
The proposed legislation goes well beyond curbing frivolous requests. It would introduce a fee for lodging non-personal FOI applications, a ban on anonymous requests and expanded exemptions around cabinet and deliberative documents.
The fee amount is yet to be set, but indications suggest it will align with state and territory charges, which range from $30 to $58. Personal requests, such as individuals seeking their own government records, would remain free.
Shadow Attorney-General Julian Leeser labelled the move a “truth tax,” warning that the new fees would further restrict access to information in the public interest. The Greens have also criticised the proposal, warning of major setbacks to transparency.
Under the bill, cabinet exemptions would expand from documents prepared for the “dominant purpose” of cabinet consideration to those prepared for any “substantive purpose” of informing cabinet. In practice, this could shield a far broader range of documents from release. Similarly, anything considered “deliberative material”, from ministerial notes to “blue-sky thinking” about potential policies, could be exempted.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese rejected claims that his government was retreating from transparency commitments.
“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 about information that are sensitive,” he said.
Rowland has argued the reforms will allow public servants to focus on “genuine” requests. “[The bill] is designed to make sure that we can prioritise genuine FOI requests and make sure that we most expeditiously spend taxpayers’ money,” she said.
The government insists the changes are necessary so public servants can be “frank” in their policy advice without fear of disclosure.
“The proposed amendments seek to ensure an appropriate balance [between] Australians being informed of the processes of their government and its agencies on the one hand, [and] prejudice to the effective working of government and its agencies on the other,” supporting materials for the bill said.
A Broken System?
Australia’s FOI system has been under scrutiny for several years. A 2023 Senate inquiry described the system as “dysfunctional and broken,” pointing to resourcing shortfalls and long delays.
Rowland says public servants spent “more than a million hours processing FOI requests” in 2023-24, a workload she attributes partly to the kinds of frivolous and automated requests in question.
However, according to The Conversation, there is little evidence that anonymous requests or AI “bots” are overwhelming the system. There is also little evidence, reportedly, that the ability for people to apply a pseudonym has caused integrity problems in the system.
The Centre for Public Integrity condemned the bill as “a retrograde step.”
“The Prime Minister had previously declared that he was not frightened of scrutiny and transparency, and that he led an open government,” a statement from the centee read. “But what we see in this bill is a government that is winding back important developments in the Australian public’s right to know.”
The prior Senate inquiry recommended greater use of proactive disclosure, allowing agencies to release personal information directly to citizens to which the information pertains without requiring FOI processes. An option that could be explored as this bill advances.
