Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 3), omit "Schedules 2 to 6", substitute

"Schedules 2 to 5".

(2) Schedule 6, page 56 (line 1) to page 58 (line 12), omit the Schedule.

Freedom of information should never come with a fee. Today I move amendments that would repeal schedule 6 of the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025. Schedule 6 allows the government to charge application fees for FOI matters by a regulation which would be created at a later date. The bill would let the government set fees for things like making an FOI request, seeking internal review of a refusal or applying for an independent information commissioner review. Fee for access is contrary to the right to access information, and these provisions to create application fees appear to be just another barrier to access, with little justification provided by the government.

I have three key concerns with application fees, which I'll now outline. First, a fee system will simply create new barriers for people with little disposable income to access the FOI system and make it more likely that they will decide against pursuing information. Provisions for financial hardship and exemptions for personal information are important, but the fact remains that when there is a cost there is a subset of our community who will not even apply, even when they have a genuine and reasonable reason to do so. Even with hardship waivers, the burden of proof will shift to the applicant to establish this hardship, provide paperwork and endure any delays. This will further disincentivise people from exercising their right to seek information.

Secondly, the administration of application fees is likely to cost more than it will ever raise in revenue, and if it isn't a revenue measure then what is it and why have it? It's just bureaucracy that unfairly burdens people who can least afford it. If it's not raising revenue, it must be achieving some other aim. The only obvious conclusion is that the purpose of charging a fee is to deter people from applying in the first place. Remarkably, the bill's own explanatory memorandum, written by the Attorney-General's own office, states:

The existence of an application fee may unintentionally limit access to information for certain persons.

The government then says that the application fees are 'reasonable, proportionate and necessary', without providing any evidence for why this is true. Put simply, saying it's true doesn't make it true.

Finally, the government tries to justify application fees on the basis that most state and territory governments charge fees. This is a poor argument and, on its own, is no justification for such a significant change. If the government wishes to establish a fee-charging system it should lay out a clear case for change and explain how the benefits of such reform would outweigh any negative impacts on vulnerable persons or those otherwise disadvantaged by the proposed application fees. It hasn't done so, and I would truly appreciate hearing from the Attorney-General—and I'm really grateful that the Attorney is here—how the government weighed up the disincentive it acknowledges exists against the supposed need to limit the number of requests made. On what basis did the government determine this was proportionate and reasonable?

As I previously stated, the government has thus far failed to make the case for why application fees are necessary and has not sufficiently justified that application fees won't deter people from making an application in the first place. Without a case for change and a solid evidence base, I cannot support schedule 6.

See this speech in context