Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (6) as circulated in my name together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (lines 5 and 6), omit the item.

(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (lines 10 to 21), omit the item.

(3) Schedule 2, item 41, page 16 (line 18) to page 16 (line 24), omit subsection 15AD(6), substitute:

Multiple requests

(6) For the purposes of this section, the agency or Minister may treat 2 or more requests as a single request if:

(a) the agency or Minister is satisfied that:

(i) the requests relate to the same document or documents; or

(ii) the requests relate to documents, the subject matter of which is substantially the same; and

(b) the details given in relation to the requests in accordance with paragraph 15(2)(c) are the same.

(4) Schedule 2, item 53, page 20 (line 4) to page 20 (line 11), omit the item.

(5) Schedule 2, item 54, page 20 (lines 21 to 31), omit paragraph 15(2)(e), substitute:

(e) if the applicant is seeking to access, on behalf of another person, a document containing personal information about the other person or information concerning the business, commercial or financial affairs of the other person:

(i) state that the request is being made on behalf of another person; and

(ii) include the full name of the other person; and

(iii) be accompanied by all of the following that are provided in a form and manner specified by the agency or Minister for the purpose of requests under this section:

(A) proof of the applicant's identity;

(B) proof of the other person's identity;

(C) proof that the applicant is authorised to access the document on behalf of the other person.

(6) Schedule 7, item 3, page 61 (line 4) to page 61 (line 10), omit the item.

(7) Schedule 7, Part 3, page 64 (line 1) to page 65 (line 5), omit the Part.

The FOI Act enshrines a right to access information and protects individuals' rights by providing them access to the information held by government about themselves. The objects of this act are clear and they should not be qualified or restricted. My amendments (1) and (2) omit the government's proposed qualifiers to this fundamental statement of the objects of the act.

What is proposed by the government is the introduction of the notion that promoting representative democracy must be balanced with efficiency. Representative democracy is not practised only when convenient. The objectives of openness and transparency should not be qualified. Similarly, the government has argued that departments risk being overwhelmed by FOI requests which are being generated by bots. It has sought to treat multiple requests for the same information as a single request, but this is irrational. If two or more requests for the same document are from different sources, they should clearly not be treated as the same request. For example, a matter of public interest might well be sought by more than one media outlet. The government's solution to this issue is unnecessarily restrictive. I therefore propose a solution in amendment (3) to maintain reasonable access, under which requests could be considered and treated as being different requests if different addresses are supplied under the section 15(2)(d) notification.

The government has sought to prevent anonymous requests with this bill. To protect the privacy of individuals, it is appropriate that a person seeking their personal records should provide their name and their proof of identity so that personal material is not wrongfully given to another person. However, in seeking public interest material, there may be a reason—a very good reason in some instances—for a requester not to be identified. If release of the material is in the public interest, it doesn't matter who the requester is. It only matters that an address for response is provided to facilitate the actual provision of the information. My amendments (4) and (5) make this distinction, protecting the privacy of individuals and the anonymity of public interest requests.

I now come to the more egregious parts of the government's bill: its deliberate move to keep Australians in the dark on this flimsy pretext of national interest. We see this pretext in this and other bills, including the environmental protection of biodiversity conservation bills currently being debated in the House, which reference the FOI Act as grounds for the minister not to publish decisions in the so-called national interest. If the government's decisions are lawful, sound, based on the best advice, in the public interest and, indeed, in the national interest, then they should be shared with the people. We need to stop the rot. If we let these provisions of secretiveness pass, if we hide who has lobbied the government, if we hide what information is before ministers and if we hide who is benefiting from government decisions, we are losing our battle for integrity and accountability in this democracy.

Amendment (6) addresses the right to freedom of information. It changes the requirement for exempting cabinet documents from requiring a dominant purpose to requiring only a substantive purpose of being for cabinet consideration. I support the member for Mackellar in her related amendment to section 7 regarding the addition of new considerations for not releasing these documents. Those considerations, as given in this legislation, are too broad, too loose and too easy to misapply.

The Freedom of Information Act 1982 is legislated as an act 'to give to members of the public rights of access to official documents of the government of the Commonwealth and of its agencies'. That is a worthy activity for any government. Any restrictions on those rights of access have to be limited and they have to be proportionate to prevent transgressions of those rights. I commend these amendments to the House.

See this speech in context