The Albanese government has committed to bringing a bill to parliament. This bill would dramatically broaden its authority to withhold government documents, a move that has one watchdog group calling it the “death knell” of transparency in public administration. Supporters of this proposal are trying to roll back decades-old transparency standards. It raises an exciting, new, and important debate on the right balance between government accountability and operational efficiency.
The proposed legislation would remove the ability to request Freedom of Information (FOI) documents anonymously. Second, it provides the government with enhanced power to stop as “vexatious” or “abusive” the requests that it doesn’t like. As Attorney-General, Michelle Rowland has stated, these changes are needed because the existing laws are seen to be “broken”. She pointed to examples of “frivolous” requests such as one for every employee’s desktop wallpaper.
In 2023-24, Australian bureaucrats wasted an estimated one million hours dealing with FOI requests. The government has said the amendments would result in a better balancing of interests. That’s a delicate balance to strike, protecting the public’s need to know while allowing government agencies to avoid unnecessary burdens.
Criticism of the Proposed Bill
The reaction from opposition parties – especially the new Coalition and the Greens – has been predictably apocalyptic. For those reasons, critics say the legislation as currently proposed would severely undercut the public’s right to know and stifle transparency efforts that promote accountability in government. In response, Julian Leeser, a member of the Coalition which is currently in opposition, maligned the bill as a “truth tax.” He pointed out the dangerous precedent fee introduction for non-personal FOI requests will set.
The bill proposes a new, yet-to-be-determined fee for individuals filing FOI requests. At the upper bound, it could be expected to match state and territory government charges, currently between $30-$58. Critics argue that these fees would discourage people from pursuing this critical information and increase the already diminished access to essential federal documents.
“But what we see in this bill is a government that is winding back important developments in the Australian public’s right to know.” – Source not explicitly mentioned.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese stood by the government’s position on these changes, arguing that changes are based on security concerns. First, he raised concerns about allowing people to submit anonymous FOI requests. Such a practice would invite reckless invasive information searches by foreign agents or bad actors.
“I think most people would find it surprising that people can put in anonymous FOI requests. What that means is that there’s no way to determine whether a foreign agent or actor is putting in requests about information that are sensitive.” – Anthony Albanese.
The Path Forward
And thankfully, new Minister for Communications Michelle Rowland listened to this growing criticism and did the right thing. She pledged to move the bill through the committee process, allowing stakeholders ample opportunity to express their views. This approach is deliberately designed to encourage discussion and possibly win favour with the opposition and members of the crossbench.
Rather than rehearse the debate, Rowland focused on the constructive opportunity before everyone, encouraging all sides to keep their minds open to new ideas. She emphasized that the goal of the proposed legislation is to focus on sincere FOI requests while protecting the efficient use of taxpayer dollars.
“I look forward to a fulsome debate on this. I just ask, as I have with everyone I’ve briefed on this, including the crossbench, that they keep an open mind, that they understand the way in which this is impacting not only on individuals but also on public servants.” – Michelle Rowland.
Rowland highlighted that the proposed adjustments are designed to create a balance between public engagement with government processes and safeguarding effective governance.
“The bill is designed to make sure that we can prioritise genuine FOI requests and make sure that we most expeditiously spend taxpayers’ money.” – Michelle Rowland.
Implications for Transparency
The implications of this proposed legislation go beyond the efficiency of federal bureaucracy. There are legitimate fears that any move to increase opacity will have the downstream effect of eroding public trust in our government institutions. Striking the right balance between operational efficacy and collection accountability becomes an important area of debate as conversations about the future of the bill move forward.
Outsiders have captured these views further arguing that the federal government seeks to expedite everything. This approach endangers citizens who rely on clear governance to inform them about the policies and regulations that shape their everyday lives. The result of this current legislative push will potentially determine the future state of play on government transparency in Australia.
