Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I support the member for Indi's amendments. I think they are good and worthwhile amendments. I support the amendments, first of all, as a matter of principle. I think, as a matter of principle, the government should be doing whatever it possibly can to facilitate the community's access to information, thereby promoting democracy through public participation and scrutiny. So I think, first and foremost, that this is a matter of principle; people should not be charged for seeking information they need to find.

There is also a practical dimension to this—and this goes to the point of the member for Indi—that it is a disincentive for people seeking information through the FOI framework. Just about whatever financial impost the government might put on applying through the FOI framework will be unaffordable for a lot of Australians. Even the most modest amount of money will be an unreasonable impost. I'm sure, in our own communities, we would all regularly come across people who cannot even afford to shout themselves a cup of coffee at the local cafe. For them, $5 is too much to spend. It's not unusual that, as an MP and on behalf of members of my community, I apply through the Tasmanian FOI framework for people to access information in the Tasmanian system. They come to me and ask me to apply because there is no financial charge in Tasmania for an MP applying. They go to all that trouble to come to me because they can't afford it.

I would also add that I don't think the government has satisfactorily made the case that there is a need to charge. I was first attracted to the argument from the government that, with emerging technologies and artificial intelligence, there needs to be some tension in the process as an impediment to AI swamping us with FOI requests. But we haven't seen the evidence of that. In fact, when I look at the data between 2020 and 2024, FOI requests to the government have remained fairly steady at about 34,000 a year. They've gone up a bit and down a bit, but, if there is an issue in the future, we haven't actually seen even a whiff of it at this stage. So I can only draw the conclusion either that this is ill-considered because it is unnecessary, or, as the member for Indi has spoken to, that this imposition of a charge is indeed meant to create that tension to deter people from applying for FOIs in the first place. If that is the case, then, sadly, the Centre for Public Integrity is quite right on its recent integrity report card on the Albanese government. I'll just remind you, when it came to transparency in the report card, the Centre for Public Integrity gave the government a 'fail'. When it came to cronyism, the Centre for Public Integrity gave the government a 'fail'. When it came to undue influence and, in particular, the access of lobbyists, the Centre for Public Integrity gave the Albanese government a 'fail'. It also gave them a 'fail' for parliamentary accountability and for supporting an independent Public Service. So the government is rating poorly already and this adds to the criticism of the government.

Frankly, when it was announced right back at the start that the FOI framework would be reviewed, I actually spoke positively in the media of this move by the government because I felt it would likely be a genuine attempt by the government to modernise our FOI framework, which is warranted. But, sadly, now that we are preoccupied with the detail of the reforms, I find the reforms very much lacking and I've become quite critical. I will leave it there. I will support the amendments moved by the member for Indi.

See this speech in context