Sam Birrell (Nicholls, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Regional Health) Share this | Hansard source

I rise also to speak on the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025. In describing this bill and what Labor is doing, I think I'd paraphrase a Pink Floyd song called 'Shine On You Crazy Diamond'. My paraphrasing would be: Labor is saying that we'll bask in the shadows of secrecy and concealment, riding on a clandestine dream.

With this bill, the Albanese government is trying to dodge scrutiny, and the bill will normalise the use of fees for freedom of information, reducing transparency and accountability. Only last week, we saw a perfect example of the government's love of secrecy. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy, under political and public pressure, finally released his incoming government brief. This brief was heavily redacted. In some sections, page after page was completely blank. It was real Watergate-era stuff.

Now, energy is a critical issue for Australia, and the Australian public deserves to know the truth about Labor's energy transition. They see the outcomes in higher energy bills, but they should also be told the truth about Labor's transition, how it is going, and what advice the minister has received about the cost—the cost of energy being such a critical part of Australia's future prosperity. Instead, we get a briefing paper with massive information gaps. And this bill will make things worse.

Under Labor, there's been a surge in FOI refusals. Non-disclosure agreements are used in consultations, the Senate orders for production of documents are flouted, and the Prime Minister cut opposition staffing, making it harder to hold the government to account. These changes have been rightly described as a 'truth tax'.

Firstly, there's a ban on anonymous requests. This bill prohibits anonymous FOI applications, requiring all applicants to declare their identity. This eliminates the ability for whistleblowers—who may be in fear for various reasons—or vulnerable individuals to request documents without revealing themselves.

There are also mandatory application fees. This bill introduces a fee for lodging an FOI request, except for those seeking their own personal information, or waivers in cases of financial hardship. Critics, of which I am one, argue that this will deter both journalists and ordinary Australians from accessing information. It seems like we're entering a period of 'cash for transparency'.

There are also expanded agency powers to refuse requests. Agencies can gain broader powers to reject requests deemed vexatious, abusive or frivolous, including those considered an abuse of process. These powers may allow government departments to refuse more requests on subjective grounds. I'll just go back to that: reject requests deemed vexatious, abusive—and I don't really have a problem with those two words, but 'frivolous'? What's the meaning of frivolous? The meaning of frivolous is to not have any sensible, serious purpose or value. Who decides what has serious purpose or value?

There will be a 40-hour processing cap, so a discretionary limit is placed on the time agencies must spend processing a request, allowing them to stop work once the cap is reached, even if disclosure is in the public interest.

There's broader cabinet document exemptions. The bill changes the exemption for cabinet documents from those created or submitted for the 'dominant purpose' of going to cabinet to those created for 'substantial purpose'. This widens the scope for withholding documents and may lead to even more claims of cabinet confidentiality.

In the bill, there'll also be a stricter deliberative document test. The amendments clarify and potentially narrow access to documents that relate to deliberative processes. What does that mean? Well, it makes it easier to withhold records of internal discussions and advice.

This bill doesn't free up information; it just locks it up tighter. In its submission to the 2023 inquiry into the operation of Commonwealth freedom of information laws conducted by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, the Law Council of Australia expressed a strong view that the transparency afforded to the FOI scheme through the FOI Act is critical to the effective operation of the administrative law system and, more broadly, to the integrity of Australia's democratic institutions. What did the Law Council say about the bill? While welcoming efforts to streamline FOI processes and minimise misuse of these processes, the Law Council was of the view:

A number of the proposals in the Bill extend beyond efficiency gain and weigh against the central objectives of the FOI Act… We suggest the Bill includes several amendments which may have the effect of reducing transparency around Government decision-making and hindering scrutiny of matters in the public interest, contrary to the obligations under the FOI Act to 'facilitate and promote access to information promptly and at the lowest cost'… On balance. the Law Council recommends the Bill not be passed in its current form. The Law Council is opposed to those areas of the Bill that have the tendency to undermine the core principles of FOI, implement barriers to the public accessing information, and enlarge the scope of exemptions.

The Law Council aren't the only ones who have problems with this. The Centre for Public Integrity weighed in on the merits of the bill:

Australia's freedom of information (FOI) laws are meant to guarantee transparency, accountability, and public trust in government. Yet the Centre for Public Integrity warns that the proposed Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 risks taking Australia backwards. The Bill weakens the FOI Act's pro-disclosure foundations by expanding Cabinet and deliberative process exemptions, introducing fees, and removing anonymous applications. These changes would make it harder for journalists, parliamentarians, and citizens to scrutinise government decisions, and could silence the voices of vulnerable or marginalised applicants.

I think this government is not really interested in scrutiny. I think that got worse through its first term and its conduct during the second term highlights that, with the reduction of staff and allocations to opposition. Opposition and the crossbench are all interested in holding the government to account in the interests of the people they represent in this parliament, and they need a fair application of staff to be able to do that. For the Prime Minister and the government to come in and withdraw that staff—that hints to something very dangerous in the culture of the Albanese government. It's saying, 'We don't want scrutiny.' It's saying, 'We don't want an effective opposition to be able to hold us to account.' I can't remember, over the course of my life when I've had an interest in politics, another government behaving like this in relation to the fair allocation and resourcing of opposition.

I'll give you another example about the avoidance of debate. Today, there was to be a matter of public importance debate. These things are important because they give members of the opposition, the coalition or the crossbench, the ability to raise matters of public importance—matters that are important to the people they, and we, represent. I think it's great opportunity. It's sort of 10 minutes, 10 minutes and then five each. It's a great opportunity, as I did last week, to be able to bring up the plight of some of the hardworking taxpayers in my electorate, and what they go through, and why I think the government sometimes wastes the tax that comes from their hard work. The government then get to rebut and explain why they're doing what they're doing. I think that's healthy. It's a good way for parliament to be able to debate issues, not so much in question time or in what we're doing now, which is debating legislation. But it's a bit of back and forth. I think the MPI is a good thing.

Today, the government decided to suspend standing orders and, effectively, cancel the MPI. In the MPI, all of us in the coalition were going to talk about the government's attitude and actions towards regional Australia. I think that would have been a really good debate. I think we were going to talk about energy, taxation and agriculture. But none of that got talked about, because the government, in what I might say was a very arrogant way, stood up and said, 'We are suspending standing orders and cancelling the MPI.' Is that the way a government that is welcoming scrutiny and is prepared to defend its position behaves? I don't think so.

Many Australians are concerned about these changes. Trust in government has diminished. I came into this parliament in 2022, as did the member for Curtin. The member for Monash came in the last election, in 2025. I think we all came into this place because we wanted to represent our people and are prepared to be authentic in the way we do that. If the government wants to be authentic—the member for Monash and I hope to be in government one day, so we'll have to stand by what we've said today, but I'm prepared to do that—and if people want to be authentic in this place, they've got to open themselves up to scrutiny. A good government is not afraid of scrutiny. This bill reduces transparency and creates more places to hide information. We need more transparency, not less. There are experts out there, who we agree with, who suggest this bill will erode the foundations of freedom of information, and that is a backwards step for Australia.

I'll just finish—as some people do when debating politics—with the words of an episode from Yes, Minister. A good government opens itself up to transparency and open government. In the words of Yes, Minister, 'This seems to be the closed season for open government.'

See this speech in context