Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. The Attorney-General has asked us to be open-minded to the government's proposed freedom-of-information reforms as a step towards greater transparency. I might be more trusting if the government showed greater commitment to other transparency measures. Publishing ministerial diaries and disclosing sponsored parliamentary orange passholders, as the crossbench has repeatedly urged, would demonstrate real commitment to transparency. When will the government commit to these reforms?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Wentworth for her question and for her engagement on this issue, including yesterday, I think it was, when we had a meeting with other members about these issues. With regard to other reforms coming on top of our creation of a national anti-corruption commission and other reforms that we have already introduced, today the Attorney-General has announced consultation on stage 2 of public sector whistleblower reforms. That will be important going forward. As I indicated, that would come forward. Freedom of information is a vital part of our democracy, but, right now, the FOI system is broken. The current framework is stuck in the 1980s, and this was before new technology was there—before email, before smartphones—and we need to keep up with that.

Last year, public servants spent more than one million hours processing FOIs—not doing policy, not helping people out there with their issues; but going through FOIs.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Members on my left are going to cease—

The member for Latrobe! That is not an appropriate way to use when I am addressing the House. You'll leave the chamber under 94(a).

The member for Latrobe then left the chamber.

Trust me, if people are going to interject, when I'm addressing the House is not the time to do it. The member was given the courtesy of silence for her question; the same courtesy is going to be given to the Prime Minister, who's updating the House, and I think everyone wants to hear the answer.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are real issues with the current system. One is the anonymous nature of FOI applications. Anyone can set up a Gmail address. It could be someone backed by a foreign government seeking interference. We do not know. Just last week, we expelled the Iranian ambassador. Certainly, the Jewish community, including the Jewish Board of Deputies, have made representations about the some of the FOI applications that go to security, for example, around Jewish synagogues, Jewish schools and other areas as well. The anonymous nature of applications coming forward is an issue, as are application fees. Every state and territory, other than the ACT, has an initial FOI application fee—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Goldstein and the member for Hume—order! When this information is being provided to members, it is not an opportunity to just to continue to keep conversations going across the chamber. I'm going to give everyone one more chance, and, if it continues, people are just going to leave.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition knows that charges are already part of the FOI system, but, under the proposals which we're putting forward, there won't be any application fee for people's own personal information, and waivers will be provided for financial hardship. In addition to that, we'll make sure that issues such as the eSafety Commissioner, who, for example, in 2023-24, saw a more than a 2,000 per cent increase in FOI requests compared to the previous year—artificial intelligence means it is possible for someone who wants to disrupt an agency completely and bring it to a halt is able to do so. Governments have to respond to changes in technology. That is what we are doing. (Time expired)