Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to 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.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to 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.

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the member for Indi's amendments. I think it is worth pointing out that the 2013 Hawke review explicitly recommended no application fees. This is the same review that the government is repeatedly referring to as back-up for other changes in the bill to show they have actually been supported previously. This is just another example of previous comments about the FOI legislation being cherry-picked, all in one direction and all towards making it harder for the public to access information. It may be that fees would prevent bad-faith actors from introducing large volumes of requests, but it is also likely to deter public interest journalism. Had the government consulted more widely than with just public servants, had it consulted with some of the journalists who use the FOI process to hold government to account, I think that it would have heard more about the impact of fees on public accountability. I think, then, the government would be much happier to support this amendments and make sure that we are not creating extra barriers for the public to find out what decisions government is making and why it's make those decisions.

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government opposes the amendments. The cost to government of processing FOI applications is significant and increasing, costing $97.99 million in 2024-25 compared with $36.32 million in 2010-11. Further, vexatious and abusive requests and repeat requests by applicants for the same information impact on the ability of agencies and ministers to process other FOI requests in a timely manner. The ability to reduce these FOI requests will assist to manage these issues. The bill includes a regulation-making power to impose application fees for FOI requests and review processes. It also includes appropriate safeguards. The bill expressly prevents application fees from being imposed in relation to requests for an individual's own personal information. Any fee regulations must provide for waivers or remission in circumstances of financial hardship. The regulations can provide for circumstances in which fees should be refunded. Regulations to establish application fees under the bill will be subject to scrutiny and disallowance. All other Australian jurisdictions except the ACT have application fees for FOI requests.

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

I have a question for the Attorney-General. You quoted $97.99 million as the cost to the Commonwealth of processing freedom-of-information requests. Could you tell me, please, how much revenue you expect to raise by imposing these fees.

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the question from the member. As I said, the bill provides for regulations to prescribe fees for FOI applications, internal reviews and information commission reviews. A vast number of FOI requests continue to be for access to personal information, at about 75 per cent. So that would be excluded from those fees. This would all depend, obviously, on the number of requests that are received. Being unable to see into the future, it would be inappropriate to make an estimation.

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

I thank the Attorney-General. Attorney, I still can't see a case that charging for access to freedom of information will in any way compensate for the cost that the Commonwealth is claiming it's costing them right now. I'm wondering: what other justification, other than the cost, is charging a fee about?

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer the member to my comments made previously.

Question unresolved.

Mary Aldred (Monash, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.

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

by leave—I move amendments (3) and (4) as circulated in my name together:

(3) Schedule 7, Part 1, page 59 (line 2) to page 60 (line 9), omit the Part.

(4) Schedule 7, Part 2, page 61 (line 1) to page 63 (line 8), omit the Part.

In a bill full of antidemocratic reforms that will worsen transparency and accountability in our government, the amendments proposed in schedule 7 are perhaps the most egregious changes proposed. The amendments I'm moving today seek to repeal both the changes to cabinet exemptions as well as new powers to refuse FOI requests without even consulting the relevant documents.

First, on the summary refusal of request. This part of schedule 7 would enable decision-makers to refuse a request when 'it would clearly be exempt' under the relevant section of the act. This means that a decision-maker can refuse a request without ever checking whether it is actually an exempt document. Simply believing it would be exempt will be enough to refuse a request. I'll say that again, just to make sure everyone has got this straight: you're right to access government information can be determined by whether the public servant thinks it would involve an exempt document. That doesn't pass anybody's pub test. It's lazy, at best. The test of 'clearly exempt' is elastic and it will be stretched in practice. That is not a fair contest, and it will discourage legitimate scrutiny. It will result in worse outcomes. Now while you can appeal, most people will simply give up. It's just another way that freedom of information will be harder to access.

Second, on cabinet exemptions. It's already incredibly difficult under the current FOI Act to access documents that have gone anywhere near the cabinet room. Years of litigation have established a very high threshold for the disclosure of documents involved in the cabinet process. Now, I fully support the principle of cabinet solidarity, and I agree there must be rigorous and appropriate protections for cabinet confidentiality where it's needed. That's not my argument. However, I think most people today believe that the balance has shifted too far against disclosure—and that's under the current arrangements! But now the government want to go further and extend cabinet exemptions to more documents, many of which were never created to go to cabinet or even to directly inform cabinet deliberations.

Under this bill, anything considered or even simply noted in the cabinet process will be exempt, rather than the previous definition that refers specifically to deliberation and decision-making. Now this matters. I'm also extremely concerned that the previous dominant purpose test will be replaced by a substantive purpose test. Words matter. This will make the threshold even higher. Words matter, and that's why they're in the bill! Under these proposals, a document could be exempt simply because it helped to inform a minister in relation to an issue the cabinet will consider. It is a long bow; I contend that it is too long. It's hard to imagine anything that this couldn't include.

Finally, these amendments to expand cabinet exemptions are in direct contravention of the concluding recommendations of the robodebt royal commission. As I said in my speech yesterday—it's important these things are recorded in Hansardthis government's proposals seek to reinforce a culture of cabinet secrecy that, in part, allowed robodebt to persist for so long. So concerned am I about this that I asked the Attorney-General about these proposed changes in question time in an attempt to understand why the government was rejecting the concluding recommendation of its own royal commission. Unfortunately the Attorney-General's answer did not inspire me with confidence—suggesting that the proposals were merely a clarification of what happens now and would reflect the policy intent of the existing exemptions. But this simply isn't accurate.

Yesterday the Centre for Public Integrity published a fact check on key claims made by the government in relation to this bill. The fact check said that it is misleading to suggest that this bill simply clarifies the existing cabinet exemptions. In fact the opposite is true. The Australian Law Council, in its submission, said:

… the effect of the proposed amendments … will be to broaden what is captured by the cabinet documents exemption and further limit access to information. This contradicts the closing observations of the Royal Commission.

The Law Council goes on to recommend that these amendments be rejected. So I seek to repeal these sections of the bill because they will make our democracy and our government less open, less accountable and less transparent, and we don't want that.

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

Again I will be supporting the member for Indi's amendment, because clearly the attempt by the government to greatly increase the exemptions to the FOI framework are unwarranted. Again, as a matter of principle, the effort to do this will be an impediment to the community's access to information thereby promoting democracy through public participation and scrutiny. That's self-evident; I don't need to talk in any more detail about that. Surely we should be doing everything to shine a light on governance and public administration, and we should be taking no backwards steps in that regard. I would also make the point—and the member for Indi has already touched on this—that the robodebt royal commission made a very, very clear recommendation:

… the Government should end the blanket approach to confidentiality of Cabinet documents. To give effect to this, section 34 of the FOI Act should be repealed. The wide range of class and conditional exemptions in the FOI Act is sufficient to protect the public interest in relation to Cabinet documents. The mere fact that a document is a Cabinet document should not, by itself, be regarded as justifying maintenance of its secrecy.

In other words we shouldn't be having a debate about the merits of increasing the exemptions; we should be having a debate about the merits of reducing exemptions. I would like—this is going to be a little bit indulgent, so bear with me—to recount something out of my own personal experience. The students of ancient history in the Federation Chamber might remember that 20 or so years ago I got myself into terrible strife when I resigned from the Office of National Assessments and went to the media. I accused the Howard government of misleading the Australian community over the reasons for the invasion of Iraq. One of the reasons I resigned and went public was my concern as a public servant and intelligence official that, if I just ventilated my concerns internally, they wouldn't be reported. They'd be buried and they would never see the light of day. Heavens, if for any reason one day there should be one or in fact two inquiries into Australia's misplaced invasion of Iraq, there'd be no record of it.

My experience was that, if I as a public servant had been able to give frank and fearless advice and if it had been recorded carefully, I might've been more comfortable sticking with the team and not resigning from ONA. The point I'm getting to is that this claim that the current FOI framework is a barrier to frank and fearless advice is actually back to front. I think public servants would be much more comfortable with giving frank and fearless advice if they knew that it was written down and noted carefully. One day, if the government's refusal to heed that frank and fearless advice was made public, then it would be the government's problem, and I would be vindicated. I wouldn't stand accused as an incompetent—or worse, unprofessional—public servant that wasn't giving frank and fearless advice.

I'll make this point as firmly as I can. The claim that frank and fearless advice is not being provided, because public servants are scared of their advice one day being publicised, is quite misleading—in fact, it's terribly misleading. We have a world-class public service. It's really world-class. It's populated by officials and senior officials who want to give frank and fearless advice, and they want it to be recorded. They are quite comfortable with their advice being one day publicised, in particular if the government makes a serious misstep by—hmm!—accidentally invading a country for fraudulent reasons! Then that advice would clear those officials of any sort of incompetence or unprofessional behaviour. Good on the member for Indi. It's another good amendment, and I'll be supporting it.

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to just reiterate the issue that has come out of the robodebt royal commission and that is being ignored here. The excuse being used is that public servants will be more likely to give frank and fearless advice. In the robodebt royal commission, one of the quotes from Commissioner Holmes was this:

Nothing I have seen in ministerial briefs or material put to Cabinet suggests any tendency to give full and frank advice that might be impaired by the possibility of disclosure …

The commissioner goes on to say that, had there not been the exemption from freedom of information, the activity would have been uncovered earlier and dealt with much more effectively. The commissioner says that raises the real question of whether the protection of cabinet documents as a class of disclosure ought to be maintained or whether when access is sought, disclosure should be given unless there is a specific public interest in maintaining its confidentiality.

One of the things I'd like to add to that is that I'm unclear as to how this will actually increase frank and fearless advice anyway. If you move from a dominant-purpose test to a substantial-purpose test, I'm not convinced that that actually would make a significant difference in a public servant's decision about what to say to cabinet. Many experts would say that frank and fearless advice is far more likely to be protected by protecting the tenure of those public servants and ensuring that they are able to speak up without fear for their jobs than by avoiding the fear that someone might find out what they have said. In fact, they might feel more comfortable if they know that they can give advice. Ultimately—it may be one or two inquiries down the track—that advice will become known, and the public will know that they did their best. I will be supporting this amendment. I think the expansion of cabinet exemptions is absolutely heading in the wrong direction. We need greater transparency. The way to rebuild trust in government is for people to understand what decisions government are making and why they are making them. I'm very disappointed that the government is putting this forward. It is not in the interests of open government.

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

I also rise to support this amendment. Out of all of the bill, this is probably the most important part to change. I thank the member for Indi for making these changes. I want to reiterate what was said by the member for Clark in terms of robodebt. The government has made a huge deal, and rightly so, about the impact of robodebt on individuals and the enormous stain that it is on Australian political public service history. Something which was so clearly put in the robodebt royal commission has been ignored. In some cases it seems to mischaracterise some of what of the robodebt royal commission said. Saying that somehow this fits within the robodebt royal commission's observations and recommendations is very disappointing, and I'm disappointed.

I'm disappointed, I'll be honest, with the Prime Minister who, in a question I asked specifically on this issue, denied that robodebt had anything to do with FOI, when in fact the robodebt royal commission is explicit in that, in relation to cabinet confidentiality and how that inhibited a negative for robodebt.

I'd also like to make the observation, more broadly, about what we're trying to do in this country to improve the quality of debate. Mike Burgess, the head of ASIO, spoke yesterday, very powerfully, at the Lowy Institute, talking about the need to disagree well, to have fact based and broad based conversations and to do this in an effective way. Let's be honest: the parliament doesn't do that very often. But, to do that well, we actually need the information to back it up. We do need the frank and fearless advice of the Public Service to be more available to the country, rather than less available to the country, so that we can have the debates that we need to have in this country about difficult political and public issues.

There are many difficult challenges that we are facing as a country—economically and socially. As a member of the public rather than as a member of the parliament, I would love more of that information to be out there in the public domain so that, as a member of the public, I can be better informed about whether the government is serving the people or whether it's not, about what policies we should or shouldn't be considering and about what policies have been considered and why, justifiably, they have been left alone.

In the dearth and vacuum of information, you will have other players who play, and I respect many of the think tanks and others who play in the space. But there are also many bad actors who play in this space, who try and fill the void of good public data and good public debate with sometimes quite misleading information. That actually decreases trust.

So I urge the government to completely rethink its approach on this FOI bill. What would it take to increase transparency in this country to give people more confidence in government and more information and certainty so our community can be more well-informed about what are the good policy choices that we should be urging our government to be making and what are the difficult trade-offs that we should be urging our government to be making? Let's be honest: there are very difficult trade-offs here, but most Australians do not have access to the Public Service advice that helps make those difficult trade-offs clear. So I very much support the FOI recommendations coming out of the robodebt royal commission. We should be decreasing, rather than increasing, restrictions to cabinet documents.

So I once again recommend and urge the government to support the member for Indi's amendments. I think they go to the heart of building trust in government by building a better public debate, and I think both of those things are really critical.

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With respect to amendment (3), the government opposes the amendment. The government considers that this provision is necessary to achieve efficiencies and allow agencies and ministers to more quickly resolve requests of this kind. The government recognises that a similar provision was repealed in the 2010 reforms and that the ALRC's 1997 open government report recommended the repeal.

However, the ALRC also acknowledged that repealing the provision may increase the cost of FOI processing. The government respectfully suggests that, in the context of rising FOI costs since the 2010 reforms, the repeal should be reconsidered on that basis.

The proposed provision has appropriate safeguards. The provision is only available in certain circumstances. The decision to refuse access is a reviewable decision through internal review and by the information commissioner and the Administrative Review Tribunal. When relying on the provision, the agency or minister provides a statement of reasons for the decision, including that the provision was used and what exemptions were relied on to refuse access.

With respect to amendment (4), the government considers the proposed changes to cabinet exemption are required to appropriately protect information central to the cabinet process and support the principle of collective ministerial responsibility.

The amendments are necessarily to more clearly and accurately reflect how the cabinet process works in practice, and to ensure appropriate protections for the full range of documents prepared to support the cabinet process and workings of cabinet government. The amendments would provide appropriate protections for briefings where a matter is presented to cabinet orally and without papers and reflect that, for example, a summary of a cabinet document can be just as revealing of cabinet deliberations as a verbatim copy or an extract.

The change of the reference from 'dominant purpose' to 'substantial purpose' recognises that documents may be created for multiple purposes; however, the cabinet purpose must be of substance, real and not insignificant, trivial or nominal, ensuring the exemption still applies to documents with a genuine cabinet purpose. The government will therefore be opposing both sets of amendments.

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

I thank the Attorney-General for her response. I feel, though, that I need to ask the Attorney-General to respond in particular to the Law Council opinion on cabinet exemptions and the explicit advice that they've given in regard to the robodebt royal commissioner's recommendation. I don't feel that the Attorney has addressed that and I have real concerns about that, so I'd ask, respectfully, that the Attorney address that particular concern with this bill.

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As outlined in the Australian government's response to the report of the robodebt royal commission, the government believes it is critical that the cabinet, the key decision-making body of government, is comprehensively informed in its deliberations. To achieve this, the cabinet must have the benefit of frank and fearless advice from the minister and senior public servants in question. The principle of collective responsibility requires that ministers should be able to express their views frankly in cabinet meetings, in the expectation that they can argue freely in private while maintaining a united front in public when decisions have been reached.

For these reasons, the government does not support the repeal of section 34. The bill does, however, respond to the royal commissioner's observation that merely describing a document as a cabinet document is not, in itself, sufficient justification to maintain confidentiality of a document. The bill inserts new subsection 34(7) to make clear that the mere presence or absence of any kind of security marking or other feature is not sufficient to determine whether or not the document is exempt under section 34.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 16:37 to 16:55

Ben Small (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As there are no further speakers, the question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Question unresolved.

As the question is unresolved, in accordance with standing order 188, the question will be included in the Federation Chamber's report on the bill to the House.

Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the amendment circulated in my name:

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

The amendment I am moving today is simple. It removes the changes proposed in this bill to the deliberative documents exemption of the Freedom of Information Act. The bill proposes to expand this exemption by including a new list of 'factors against giving access' in addition to the current 'factors favouring access' and 'irrelevant factors'.

This list of factors against giving access to a document in the public interest is overly broad. In the words of former Public Service Commissioner Andrew Podger, 'They could be used to refuse access to almost any document.' Specifically, the list includes whether giving access to the document would or could reasonably be expected to prejudice the orderly and effective conduct of a government decision-making process. This is one of many measures in this bill that would reduce government transparency and take our public service in a more secretive direction.

As I outlined in my second reading speech, experts, the broader community and my crossbench colleagues have all raised key concerns with this bill, including the expansion of the cabinet documents exemption, the reintroduction of application fees for FOI requests and the removal of the ability for an FOI applicant to remain anonymous or use a pseudonym.

A central argument for the government for the proposed expansion of exemptions is that the current provisions constrain the delivery of frank and fearless advice. Certainly, we must protect the Public Service values of impartiality, intellectual rigour and perhaps, most importantly, the willingness of public servants at all levels to offer frank and fearless advice to their superiors and their ministers. Yet the evidence, including from the robodebt royal commission, shows that factors other than FOI are contributing to failures to provide frank and fearless advice. These include the central role of government in appointing and dismissing departmental secretaries, which has the potential to impact the relationship between the secretary and the minister. Disappointingly, the government has not taken on key recommendations of the 2019 Thodey report to reform the appointment and tenure processes of departmental secretaries. Such reforms would structurally strengthen the independence of the Public Service and improve the ability of public servants to provide frank and fearless advice.

Freedom of information is a key pillar of our democracy. It ensures that the Australian people have access to the information they need to understand the decisions and actions of their government. Australia's FOI system does need repair, but the overwhelming sentiment from community experts—and in submissions to the Senate inquiry on this bill—is that this bill is not fit for purpose. Given the strong and broad opposition to the bill, I feel it should be withdrawn. I would urge the government to instead set up an independent, comprehensive review of the FOI system in a way that modernises it to work for, not against, our democracy. However, in place of that, the bill—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 17:00 to 17:13

However, in place of that, the bill should, at the very least, be amended to remove the most egregious elements. These include the member for Indi's amendments to remove the expansion of the cabinet documents exemption and application fees and the member for Kooyong's amendment to remove the restriction on anonymous requests. I thank them both for their tenacity in striving to strengthen the integrity and transparency of our political system.

The amendment I'm moving removes the expansion of the deliberative documents exemption, something that would move us away from a culture of disclosure and towards a culture of secrecy. Our FOI system is critical to the integrity and strength of our democracy, and we must preserve and protect it at all costs. That's why I asked the government to engage in good faith with the crossbench amendments today. There is no urgency to push these changes through, and I ask the government to seriously consider these amendments. I commend the amendment to the House.

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the member for Mackellar's amendment. FOI is a fundamental tool of accountability in our democracy and the default option should be disclosure. Adding more factors that count against disclosure is heading in the wrong direction to where the whole framework should be heading. FOI was developed in 1982 with a clear purpose to open up government, to shift that default from secrecy to transparency and to ensure that decisions made in the name of the public are actually visible to the public. It has generally worked. It ensures that the public find out what the government is doing, it exposes corruption and waste, and it allows the public to participate in government decision-making and exercise some power as citizens. Adding more exemptions to what can be disclosed is not in the spirit of the legislation as it was originally intended. It might be painful for government to actually have to be transparent in its decision-making, and I recognise that, but it is a small amount of pain to bear for a system of democracy that actually retains the trust of the people.

This part of the bill that the member for Mackellar is seeking to amend was going to introduce new factors to be considered that would say 'let's keep this secret'. But let's think about the concept of balance and whether balance is an appropriate thing to be looking for in this bill. We are balancing transparency for the benefit of the public versus a bit of inconvenience for public servants. One of the things put forward by the government in explaining the need for this bill is that there are 500 full-time equivalent public servants filling FOI requests. That sounds like a lot, 500 people. But is this really too many? If we are thinking about balance, do we have that balance? There are 213,000 federal public servants and 500 of them are focused on making sure that government decisions are transparent—that is, 0.2 per cent of the public service focused on public accountability.

I think that this concept of introducing factors that count against a greater disclosure is completely the wrong way for the legislation to be headed in, and I thank the member for Mackellar for her amendment.

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government opposes the amendment. Part 3 of schedule 7 inserts three public interest considerations that would weigh against the disclosure of information under the deliberative processes exemption. The amendments provide greater statutory guidance in respect of the harms the exemption is designed to protect. The amendments reflect the effective operation of government, including the development of high-quality and robust policy, and rely on agencies being able to provide and ministers being able to consider frank and comprehensive advice in confidence. Other like-minded jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom and New Zealand recognise such factors as relevant considerations in assessing the public interest in disclosure. Importantly, the deliberative processes exemption remains a conditional exemption, subject to the public interest test, and, in applying the exemption, the decision-maker will still need to weigh the public interest considerations for and against disclosure.

Ben Small (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the question is unresolved, in accordance with standing order 188, the question will be included in the Federation Chamber's report to the House on the bill.

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Link to 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.

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government opposes the amendments. The amendments to the objects of the act balance promoting transparent government with the countervailing public interest in protecting essential private interests and the proper functioning of government.

The amendments in relation to vexatious requests allow multiple requests to be treated as a single request and will help agencies deal with abusive requests and repeated requests by applicants for the same information. I note that the government has also moved amendments in relation to the anonymous measures in the bill and I'll speak to those later in the debate. The amendments in relation to anonymous applications will ensure vexatious applicant declarations are unable to be circumvented, discourage applicants from engaging in inappropriate or threatening behaviour and enable agencies to know who they are dealing with. The amendments in relation to the deliberative processes exemption provide greater statutory guidance on the harm the exemption is designed to protect against and reflect that the effective operation of government relies on agencies being able to provide and ministers being able to consider frank and comprehensive advice in confidence.

The amendments to the cabinet exemption are necessary to more clearly and accurately reflect how the cabinet process works in practice and to ensure appropriate protections for the full range of documents prepared to support the cabinet process and the workings of cabinet government.

Question unresolved.

Ben Small (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the question is unresolved, in accordance with standing order 188, the question will be included in the Federation Chamber's report to the House on the bill.

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and move government amendments (1) and (2) as circulated together:

(1) Schedule 2, item 53, page 20 (line 8), after "person", insert ", and the applicant is seeking to access a document containing personal information about the other person or information concerning the business, commercial or financial affairs of the other person".

(2) Schedule 2, item 56, page 21 (lines 8 to 20), omit subsection 19(1), substitute:

(1) This section applies if, when dealing with a request for access to a document (including a request that does not comply with the requirements of subsection 15(2)), an agency or Minister is not satisfied of:

(a) the identity of the applicant; or

(b) in the case of a document that contains personal information about a person on whose behalf the request was made, or information concerning the business, commercial or financial affairs of a person on whose behalf the request was made—the identity of a person on whose behalf the request was made.

The amendments to part 5 of schedule 2 moderate the circumstances under which identifying information must be provided by an applicant when making a request. Applicants would only be required to declare when they are making a request on behalf of another person and provide that other person's full name where the request is for that person's personal, business, commercial or financial information. This is a sensible adjustment based on feedback by stakeholders through the committee process.

The amendments also provide that proof of identity is not required for another person whom the applicant is acting on behalf of where the freedom of information request does not concern that person's personal, business, commercial or financial information. The changes reflect that there may be situations where an applicant may wish or need to obtain non-personal information anonymously through another applicant—for example, a community group being able to put in a request on behalf of their constituent, an investigative journalist or whistleblowers. Retaining the requirement for the applicant to provide a name supports a number of policy purposes, including to ensure vexatious applicant declarations are effective and unable to be circumvented through use of a pseudonym.

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

I rise in support of the Attorney-General's amendments. I think these are sensible amendments. I recognise that we had a conversation in her office some time ago which included a conversation about such measures to improve the bill. I thank the Attorney-General for bringing these changes to the chamber.

Question agreed to.

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) as circulated in my name together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit "Sections 1 to 3", substitute "Sections 1 to 4".

(2) Clause 2, page 2 (after line 3), after subclause (1), insert:

(1A) The Minister must not advise the Governor-General to make a Proclamation for the purposes of item 2 or 3 of the table until after the Minister has tabled a copy of the review of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 in accordance with subsection 4(4).

(3) Page 3 (after line 2), after clause 3, insert:

4 Review of operation of Freedom of Information Act 1982

(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the Freedom of Information Act 1982, with terms of reference to provide recommendations on how best to:

(a) encourage greater proactive disclosure of information to the public, and thus reduce the need for formal FOI requests; and

(b) maximise accessibility, transparency and efficiency for genuine and lawful FOI requests, including through setting an appropriate fee structure; and

(c) improve the timeliness of dealing with FOI requests, including review processes; and

(d) ensure that exemptions to disclosure requirements do not go further than is required for good government; and

(e) create a robust system for the resourcing, training, auditing, and oversight of authorised officers responsible for FOI decisions; and

(f) manage vexatious and frivolous requests; and

(g) address the potential impact of artificial intelligence, both to improve FOI processing and to mitigate the impact of its use in generating vexatious and frivolous requests; and

(h) provide structural support for public servants to provide frank, honest, timely and evidence-based advice.

Timing of review

(2) The persons conducting the review must complete the review before the end of the period of 6 months beginning on the day this section commences.

(3) The persons conducting the review must give the Minister a written report of the review as soon as possible after the review is completed.

Minister to table copy of report of review

(4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.

These amendments would ensure that there is a broad review of the Freedom of Information Act before this bill comes into force. A broad review is the only thing that all previous reviews have agreed on. The 2013 Hawke review, the 2015 Shergold review, the 2019 Thodey review and the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee inquiry in 2023 all called for a comprehensive independent review of the entire FOI Act.

It's important to note that none of these listed reviews performed a comprehensive review of the FOI system, so this would not be duplicative. Instead, every previous review that has at least partially looked at the FOI system has pointed out its complexities and the importance of it actually getting a comprehensive assessment.

The reason we need a broader independent review of the act, as opposed to just a committee inquiry into this bill, is that this bill only addresses the problems that are solved by less transparency. This is, at best, half of the problem. The other half of the problem is that, in many circumstances, we need more transparency.

There are many reasons to increase the information that's disclosed. Requests can take far too long to be answered. The proportion of FOI requests granted in full has dropped from 59 per cent in 2012 to just 25 per cent in 2024. There have been findings that this system is driving a culture of secrecy, a lack of ministerial engagement and inconsistent exemptions. Journalists and legal advocates report administrative torture, with excessive redactions and delays that compromise public interest reporting.

These really crucial problems that require greater transparency are not addressed in this bill. A comprehensive independent review should be linked to the fundamental purpose of the FOI system, based on the principle that we need to maximise transparency and efficiency for genuine and lawful FOI requests. Within this context, it should consider how best to encourage greater proactive disclosure of information to the public, and thus reduce the need for formal FOI requests.

It should consider how to maximise accessibility, transparency and efficiency for genuine and lawful FOI requests, including through setting an appropriate fee structure. It should consider how to improve the timeliness of dealings with FOI requests, including review processes, and ensure that exemptions to disclosure requirements do not go further than is required for good government. It should consider how best to create a robust system for resourcing, training, auditing and oversight of authorised officers responsible for those FOI decisions and how best to manage vexatious and frivolous requests. Also, it should consider how to address the potential impacts of artificial intelligence, both to improve FOI processing and to mitigate the impact of its use in generating vexatious and frivolous requests. Largely, it should consider how best to provide structural support for public servants to provide frank, honest, timely and evidence based advice.

This review should be done by independent experts, not by representatives of the government who are focused on reducing the workload and reputational risk for government. It also needs to provide significant opportunities for public feedback. The FOI system is part of the checks and balances that we put on governments to ensure that power is used in the public interest. We should not be making changes to this system without seeking the views of the public and the media, who hold governments to account.

The consultation process for this bill was wholly inadequate, consulting only the public servants who can't help finding FOI requests painful to fulfil. Our FOI system is an essential part of our democratic checks and balances. Without looking at both sides of the ledger—the reasons for more transparency, as well as the reasons for less transparency—the government is doing the public a disservice in this bill. I commend the amendments to the House.

Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support for the member of Curtin's amendments. I just want to add my voice in calling for a broad review of the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill and of our FOI system—again, not just a committee review, but one that's done independently by experts. We know all previous reviews—the Hawke, Shergold, Faulkner and Thodey—all recommended comprehensive reviews.

There are multiple concerns with this bill to change our FOI laws. They include the expansion of the cabinet document exemption, the reintroduction of application fees for FOI requests—something that would shut some people out of their democracy and promote secrecy over transparency—and the removal of the ability for a FOI applicant to remain anonymous or use a pseudonym. We know that sometimes it is people like whistleblowers and investigative journalists who need to make these applications anonymously, and we know that there have been many royal commissions coming from investigative journalism, so to cut that out, to shut that out, would be a retrograde step in terms of our transparency.

There is one other thing I want to mention. A number of us have said that freedom of information is a cornerstone, a key pillar of our democracy. We need to be moving towards greater transparency and greater accountability, rather than greater secrecy. That's why having an independent, broad based review of our FOI system is incredibly important, and I support the member for Curtin's call for there to be a broad based review of our FOI system.

Finally, a lack of trust in our political system, a lack of trust in our democracy, is something that undermines social cohesion and a sense of wellbeing. Anything we can do to inspire greater trust in our government and our political system is always a great way to grow that social cohesion.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition is opposed to the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025, lock, stock and smoking barrel. I acknowledge the amendments that were moved by the Attorney-General, and I thank her for doing so, but they do not remedy all of the many problems that have been raised by my parliamentary colleagues and many stakeholders. This bill does not have a friend, apart from the Public Service. When every stakeholder, the crossbench and the coalition are combining to say that the bill is extremely problematic, it is incumbent on the government to have a very long, hard look at the bill.

As many of my colleagues have mentioned so far, the concept of freedom of information is a fundamental tenet of our democracy. Our democracy can be inconvenient at times. That's the price you pay for living in a democracy. I get it. I understand that sometimes requests for freedom of information may be difficult and arduous, but the concept of putting these 40-hour time limits on requests for information goes against the very basis of freedom of information. It goes against the very basis of a bulwark of our democracy—

Carina Garland (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sorry to interrupt the member, but I would ask that you be relevant to the amendments that are before the House.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm able to speak on the bill.

Carina Garland (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I put the question that the amendments be agreed to.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been relevant, actually, insofar as the amendments that have been put forward by the Attorney go to—

Carina Garland (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, they're the amendments from the member for Curtin.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sorry. The amendments moved by the member for Curtin are very sensible amendments. Basically, what they are asking the government to do is to go and do an independent inquiry on the bill. When this bill does not have a friend in the world and when all of the stakeholders are saying that there should, in fact, be an independent inquiry—not a parliamentary inquiry, which would no doubt be stacked with government members who would no doubt support this bill. A proper independent inquiry has been called for in relation to the concept of changing the FOI Act for many years. It beggars belief that this government would not seek to get all of the barnacles out on the table. It's this concept—this is a government that campaigned in the lead-up to the 2022 election on honesty, on transparency and on accountability and, now it's in government, it doesn't want to be held to account. This government wants to make life difficult for Australians who want answers from their government. I implore the Attorney to reconsider—just hit pause. Why won't the Attorney hit pause and commission an independent inquiry in relation to this bill?

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government opposes the amendments. The government has a delivery focused agenda and, while reviews have their place, delivery is important for Australians. More than six reviews have considered or reported on the FOI system in the past 13 years and the bill is the first significant amendment made to the FOI Act in response to the reviews. Recommendations, analysis and stakeholder submissions made to previous reviews and inquiries into the FOI system were considered in the development of the bill. They included the 2013 Hawke review and the Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs' inquiry into the operations of the FOI Act.

Question unresolved.

Carina Garland (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the question is unresolved, in accordance with standing order 188 the question will be included in the Federation Chamber's report to the House on the bill.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to address some other grave, specific concerns that I have with this bill. The provisions under schedule 7 part 2, which expand cabinet document exemptions, raise serious questions about the government's commitment to transparency and accountability. The Law Council of Australia has voiced strong opposition to this measure, citing its potential to undermine public trust and democratic principles. The Law Council warns that the amendments could reduce transparency around government decision-making and hinder scrutiny of matters in the public interest, which runs counter to the objectives of the Freedom of Information Act. They argue that the bill extends beyond efficiency gains and instead undermines the core principles of FOI—particularly the public's right to access information promptly and at minimal cost.

Before proceeding with reforms that may reduce access to information, the Law Council recommends that the government commission an independent review of the FOI Act and the broader federal FOI framework. On balance the Law Council does not support the bill in its current form—especially provisions that enlarge the scope of exemptions and implement barriers to public access. My question to the minister is how does the government justify restricting access to information in a democracy where transparency is a cornerstone of public trust? This bill, in its current form, risks eroding the very foundations of open government. I urge the minister to reconsider these provisions and listen to the voices of civil society, legal experts and the Australian public.

Carina Garland (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call the member for Fisher.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the expansion of cabinet document exemptions under schedule 7, part 2, this has drawn considerable criticism from Transparency International Australia. My question to the minister is this: why is the government expanding the cabinet exemption, effectively shielding more documents from public scrutiny? This move appears designed to reduce transparency around key decisions. I urge the minister to reverse this provision and uphold the public's right to know.

Carina Garland (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Fisher.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The discretionary refusal powers in schedule 7 allow agencies to reject the requests deemed frivolous or harassing. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner has raised concerns about the lack of safeguards. My question to the minister is this: what safeguards exist to prevent agencies from abusing the new discretionary powers to refuse requests deemed frivolous or intimidating or harassing? Without clear definitions and oversight, this provision risks arbitrary denial of access. I call on the minister to introduce robust safeguards.

Carina Garland (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Fisher.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the discretionary refusal powers under section 11B(3) of the act, the Freedom of Information Bill introduces discretionary powers under schedule 7, part 3, division 1 that have been described by the Environmental Defenders Office as a 'grave integrity failure'. The EDO—who I often don't agree with, but in this case I do—in submissions to the legal and constitutional affairs committee, argued against the expansion of exemptions allowing agencies to refuse requests on vague grounds, such as 'prejudicing frank discussion' or 'orderly and effective government conduct'. My question to the Attorney is this: why is the government pursuing reforms that have been described by integrity advocates as a 'grave integrity failure'? This bill risks giving agencies broad powers to reject requests based on vague and subjective criteria, undermining the public's right to know. I urge the minister to withdraw these provisions and restore faith in our democratic institutions.

Carina Garland (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Fisher.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer you to the Freedom of Information Bill 2025, specifically schedule 7, part 3, division 1, and in relation to the amendments to section 11B(3) of the act. Subsection (3A)(a) inserts a provision which provides that a document is conditionally exempt if the document would or could reasonably be expected to:

… prejudice the frank or timely discussion of matters or exchange of opinions between participants in deliberative processes of government for the purposes of consultation or deliberation in the course of, or for the purposes of, those processes …

Attorney, what does that provision even mean? In what circumstances does the minister consider that it could or would be exercised?

Carina Garland (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Fisher.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to schedule 2, part 4, division 1, which amends section 15AD(1) of the act, it introduces subjective criteria like intimidation or harm for rejecting FOI requests. The Australian Lawyers Alliance warns this undermines procedural fairness. My question to the minister is this: how does the government plan to ensure procedural fairness when agencies can now reject requests based on subjective criteria like intimidation or harm or, even worse, those that 'are likely' to have that effect? In what circumstances and how would it be determined that an application was an abuse of process? Attorney, this opens the door to abuse and arbitrary decision-making. I urge the Attorney to clarify and constrain these powers.

Carina Garland (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call the member for Fisher.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Until only a couple of hours ago, the bill's requirement for verified identity under schedule 2, part 5, division I, would have effectively banned anonymous FOI requests. The Human Rights Law Centre warned that this would deter whistleblowers and vulnerable individuals from seeking accountability. My question to the minister is this: why did the minister believe that banning anonymity was in any way acceptable, and why did it take her until this very, very late stage to see that such a proposal was antithetical to the concepts of FOI? Does the minister now accept that banning anonymous FOI requests would have deterred whistleblowers and vulnerable individuals from seeking accountability?

This change would have threatened to silence those who rely on anonymity to expose wrongdoing. Why did it take the Attorney so long to acknowledge that all Australians should have the right to seek information without fear of recriminations? What evidence supported the claim that anonymous or pseudonymous requests are predominantly vexatious or abusive?

Carina Garland (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call the member for Fisher.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Law Council of Australia has criticised the government for failing to conduct an independent review before introducing sweeping changes to the FOI framework. My question to the minister is this: why were these sweeping changes introduced without first conducting an independent review of the FOI framework, as recommended by the Law Council and just about every other academic and interested stakeholder? This lack of consultation undermines the legitimacy of the bill, and I call on the minister to pause and engage meaningfully with stakeholders.

Carina Garland (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call the member for Fisher.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Schedule 3, part 2, division 1 of the bill introduces a 40-hour cap on processing FOI requests. The Environmental Defenders Office warned that this could be used to reject complex but legitimate requests. My question to the minister is this: how will the proposed 40-hour processing cap avoid becoming a blanket excuse for agencies to reject complex but legitimate requests? This arbitrary limit risks undermining access to information on matters of public interest, and I call on the Attorney to reconsider this cap and ensure fairness in FOI processing.

Carina Garland (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call the member for Fisher.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Schedule 6 introduces application fees for FOI requests. The Australian Council of Social Service warns that this will disproportionately affect low-income Australians. My question to the minister is this: how will the introduction of application fees not disproportionately affect low-income Australians seeking information about their rights or entitlements? Attorney, access to information should not depend on one's ability to pay. I call on the Attorney to remove this financial barrier.

Carina Garland (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call the member for Fisher.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Centre for Public Integrity has warned that the new fee structure under schedule 6 could deter legitimate public interest inquiries. My question to the minister is this: what measures are in place to ensure that the new fee structure does not become a barrier to legitimate public interest inquiries? This bill risks pricing out transparency. I call on the minister to exempt public interest requests from fees.

Carina Garland (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call the member for Fisher.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Schedule 5 alters review procedures, placing additional burdens on the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. My question to the minister is this: has the government considered the operational burden these changes will place on the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner? This bill risks overwhelming the OAIC and delaying transparency and justice. I call on the minister to consult with the commissioner and revise these provisions.

Carina Garland (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call the member for Fisher.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Some lawyers have warned that the changes to the FOI Act could increase litigation and legal costs. My question to the minister is this: Does the minister acknowledge that these reforms could lead to increased litigation and legal costs rather than reducing inefficiencies? This bill may create more problems than it solves. Has the minister performed a cost-benefit analysis of these reforms, and, if not, will she commit to doing so before proceeding with the bill?

Carina Garland (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call the member for Fisher.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance has criticised the lack of consultation with media organisations. My question to the minister is this: What consultation was undertaken with media organisations, civil society and legal experts before drafting these amendments? Transparency reforms must be developed transparently. I urge the minister to engage with stakeholders before legislating.

Carina Garland (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call the member for Fisher.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills is reviewing the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill. My question to the minister is this: Will the minister commit to amending or withdrawing the bill if the Senate committee finds that it undermines the public's right to know? The government must respect the findings of independent scrutiny. I urge the minister to act on the committee's recommendations.

Finally, as I have previously indicated, this bill does not have a friend in the world apart from the Public Service. And, quite frankly, I would have thought that the Public Service would have welcomed the changes that the Attorney has finally made today around anonymity.

But the amendment that the Attorney has moved today does not, in and of itself, correct a bill with all the many faults and problems that so many of my colleagues have spoken of for such a long period of time. This government is allergic to transparency. It continues day in, day out, particularly as we get closer to the Christmas break, to be jamming legislation through this place. Every Australian should be very concerned when they hear that their government is looking to create efficiencies in everyday Australians' access to information.

Democracy is a very precarious thing but it is something that should be cherished, and I think is cherished—mostly—by 27 million Australians. But the downward slide in democracy can happen very easily. In the lead-up to the '22 election, this government prided itself on making it a fundamental election principle. 'Vote for us,' they said. 'We'll restore,' they said, 'integrity to the parliament. We'll restore integrity to government.' And what we have seen, particularly over the last four to six weeks, is this government continuing to ram legislation through this place. This bill should send a shock wave through the hearts of 27 million Australians.

I have just spoken about a few of the stakeholders who have raised concerns about this bill—just a few. The media, in particular, relies heavily upon access to freedom of information, and it relies heavily on the ability to be able to access information to hold the government to account. That is their job. Whether they do it particularly well or not is of course up for debate, but what this government shouldn't be doing is nobbling the ability of the media to do its job. But that's exactly what this bill will do. You might say, 'How is it doing that?' The reality is that the media is much more than just your News Corps and large media organisations. It also involves small, independent newspapers, like the Glasshouse Country & Maleny News in my electorate. They should be able to request information from this government on important issues like funding for hospitals and childcare centres. It's vitally important that Australians across our country have the ability to ask questions of their government, who are there to serve them. The bureaucracy are not there to serve themselves; the bureaucracy is there to serve the Australian public. I urge this minister to pause this bill.

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer to my comments made in relation to government amendments. Secondly, I refer the honourable member to the answers and comments I have provided to every proposed amendment moved by other honourable members, each of which covers the subject matter he has raised and for which I have already given responses in this chamber.

Carina Garland (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As there are unresolved questions preventing the resolution of this question, in accordance with standing order 195, the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House with an unresolved question.