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

The question before the House is amendments (1) and (2) moved by the honourable member for Indi be agreed to.

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

The second unresolved question is that amendments (3) and (4), moved by the honourable member for Indi, be agreed to.

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

To assist the House, I thought it would be useful to give some explanation, given that these amendments were debated last night in the Federation Chamber and there may be many members who didn't have a chance to hear that debate.

In a bill full of antidemocratic reforms that will worsen transparency and accountability, these amendments are particularly important because they go to the question of the expansion of cabinet exemptions. Under the bill that is before us, the test of exemptions is elastic and will be stretched in practice, meaning the public's right to access government information can be determined by whether the public servant thinks it would involve an exempt document. While you can appeal, many people will simply give up on that.

It's already incredibly difficult under the current FOI Act to access documents that have gone anywhere near the cabinet room, and years of litigation have established a very high threshold for the disclosure of documents involved in the cabinet process. I fully respect and support the principle of cabinet solidarity. There must be rigorous and appropriate protections for cabinet confidentiality where it's needed, but, under this bill, anything considered or even simply noted in the cabinet process will be exempt, rather than the previous definition, which referred specifically to deliberation and decision-making. I'm also extremely concerned that the previous 'dominant purpose' test will be replaced by a 'substantive purpose' test, increasing the threshold even higher.

Under these proposals, a document could be exempt simply because it helped to inform the minister in relation to an issue the cabinet will consider. I believe, and I think many people do—civil society organisations from right across the nation say that this is a long bow, way too long. This is a serious extension of what is considered cabinet confidentiality. My amendments seek to remedy that issue, and I really ask members of the House to think very carefully about what we're doing under these freedom-of-information laws, consider their vote and support these amendments.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I didn't want to interrupt the member during that speech. I just want to note for the House that this entire debate of consideration in detail happened in the Federation Chamber last night and went for two hours. The minister was there, and, effectively, it sounds like we are about to repeat a debate that the House has had in the Federation Chamber, which is a formal part of this House. It's a formal part of our operations. If we're going to get into a situation where it is felt there is a need that whatever is debated in the Federation Chamber needs to be redebated here, that would be a fundamental change in the way the House has operated ever since the Federation Chamber was established. To that end, I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring in relation to the Freedom of Information Bill 2025:

(1) the House note that all proposed amendments to the bill have been fully debated in the Federation Chamber and returned to the House with unresolved questions;

(2) the unresolved questions on the bill being put immediately;

(3) the questions necessary to complete the remaining stages of the bill to be put immediately; and

(4) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister.

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

I won't delay the House long. I just want to make it clear and make the point that this is why we tried to have the debate in the House the other day. Rather than going backwards and forwards between here and the Fed Chamber, these matters could have been dealt with in their entirety here. I won't take it any further—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay, thank you.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

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

The question is that the question be put.

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

The member for Fisher is seeking a point of order, but the House has just resolved to pass a resolution, so I've got to put the question. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

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

The member for Fisher has indicated that he wants to raise a point of order.

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

Yes, thanks, Mr Speaker. I just want to raise this to your attention, and this goes to the neutrality of the chair, which is a fundamental principle of this place. The member for Wentworth stood in her place trying to speak on the amendments moved by the member for Indi. Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon, who was in the chair at the time, did not give the member for Wentworth the call. The members on this side of the House were alerting the Deputy Speaker to the member for Wentworth being on her feet. This is not the first time this has happened, and I would ask that you inquire into the issue. Every single member in—

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

Okay, resume your seat. You've made your point. Resume your seat. It's not a speech or a statement. You've raised the issue at the first opportunity to speak. I understand that. I'm aware of the issue, and I'll give a statement regarding the issue, but I'll hear from the Leader of the House first.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to the point of order, I'd remind the member of standing order 47, which allows motions to suspend standing orders to be moved at any time. That's exactly what happened.

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

Yes. The standing order enables, mid-sentence or mid-behaviour, for that to be moved. I like to give, and all the chairs like to give, all members a fair go, and I think that has been evident. I disagree with the member's statement—the way that it was phrased. What will also help is if the House in order and there are not people just standing around and making interjections, as I believe occurred at the time.

Honourable members interjecting—

No, we're not going any further with this. I've given a statement to the House. I've recognised that. But I want to reinforce what the Leader of the House says: at any time under that standing order—during a debate, when someone's on their feet or not on their feet—a suspension motion can be moved. So that is the standing order. If you're not happy with the standing order, I can appreciate that, but they're the rules that we all operate under.

Now we're going to move to the unresolved question on the amendments moved by the member for Indi. The question is that amendments (3) and (4) moved by the honourable member for Indi be agreed to.

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

The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mackellar be agreed to.

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

The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Kooyong be agreed to.

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

The question is that amendments (1) to (3) moved by the honourable member for Curtin be agreed to.

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

The question is that the amendments made by the Federation Chamber be agreed to.

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

The question now is that this bill, as amended, be agreed to.