Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025
Ms ALDRED (Monash) (20:07): In making my remarks on the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill, I want to go back some years to the dismissal of the Whitlam government, which next week will be 50 years ago, and revisit one of the crowning achievements of the subsequent Fraser Liberal government. The Freedom of Information Act was introduced in 1982—40 years ago.
There are a couple of key principles that really guided that, because, of course, Malcolm Fraser took over from a disastrous government. We had the loans affair, we had ministerial misconduct, and we had Minister Rex Connor and others, who really diminished and dismantled public faith in Australia's system of government at that time. In introducing the Freedom of Information Act, the Fraser government had the guiding purpose of allowing Australian citizens greater access to government information.
The principle behind that was greater transparency. It was a legacy that the Fraser Liberal government could be very proud of. In the years since, it's been the pride of our democratic system—making sure that we have accountability and transparency.
In making amendments in the way that the government have—and there have been some very fine, thoughtful, considered contributions on all sides of the chamber in addressing some of these concerns. I really want to focus my remarks on a couple of things. One element of this is a truth tax, and the government, in trying to square up support for the set of fees that it's looking at introducing, is trying to say: 'Well, look at state governments around Australia.
You've got Victoria, which this year brought in a $33 fee; you've got WA, which brought in a $30 fee; and you've got South Australia, which brought in a $43 fee.' There are no fees for the other states. The federal government is proposing fees of up to $60. And it is a truth tax, because many people in the Australian community don't have the means or the resources to pay those fees.
When you look at some of Australia's most award-winning, capable investigative journalists, they are journalists who have broken groundbreaking stories that are very clearly in the Australian national interest. Investigative journalists like Nick McKenzie, Chris Masters and Adele Ferguson are responsible for some of those groundbreaking stories to do with FOI requests and applications.
The information that they were able to glean from those requests really held up the foundation of some of those breaking stories. We've heard national security mentioned as one of the areas needing reform through these amendments, but that's already dealt with. They hide behind the cloak of national security and cabinet advice, but there are already mechanisms for dealing with the protection of those areas, and rightly so.
That really is a flimsy argument in the context of amendments to this bill. We've seen a number of recent developments in the life and times of this government which are deeply, gravely concerning. One recent example is the CFMEU and the way that the government has dealt with very serious allegations attached to the CFMEU of lawlessness, intimidation and standover tactics.
Investigative journalists have brought light to those issues, and freedom of information requests and applications are a fundamental part of supporting some of those things coming to the public arena. I think that, fundamentally, these amendments have the capacity to really damage public trust and to shut people down—without being able to keep government agencies accountable, which is very important.
We've heard a couple of arguments from the government. Some of those contributions have been thoughtful, but I fundamentally disagree with the arguments that have been put forward. One of them has been on the development and evolution of technology—as if there are suddenly going to be reams and reams of new applications coming forward and they're going to be vexatious—and that the states have fees and that the applicants should no longer be able to be anonymous.
Most recently, there are some very good examples of why whistleblowers would want to choose to lodge FOI applications anonymously. I think that's a fundamental tenet of the legacy that the Fraser government left in setting up the FOI framework, act and legislation. This government doesn't have a good story to tell on government transparency.
Quite contrary to the arguments that have been put forward about reams and reams of vexatious, frivolous applications, we've actually seen plummeting rates. The rate of FOI requests granted in full has fallen sharply, from 59 per cent in 2011-12 to 25 per cent in 2023-24. We're also seeing a rising number of refusal rates.
One of the things that really concerns me about this bill is where applications can be refused because they're deemed frivolous. My question would be: who deems them to be frivolous? The government, or someone on behalf of the government, may well deem them to be frivolous, but a whistleblower or someone acting in the public interest to expose a failing or a cover-up by an agency is not acting in a frivolous way.
We've seen longer waiting times, though. We've seen the average wait time to process FOI requests increase significantly, with some sources reporting an average of 51 hours for a 2023-24 request, compared with 13 hours in 2006-07. Again, that is the government seeming to frustrate the process, to waylay the applicants seeking the information that that government has.
We've seen some very recent examples of this. Earlier in October, we saw this in Senate estimates, from national security to the cost of living, health and integrity. The Albanese Labor government is no friend of transparency; it's no friend of accountability.
It has made some very bad decisions while focusing on wrong priorities, which have been brought to light through that Senate estimates process. We have a very robust, very strong democratic system in Australia, and there are some fundamental tenants of that. One of them is the FOI process.
Another is making sure there is an opposition with the resources needed to do its job properly. We've seen cuts to opposition staffing arrangements made by this government, which has impacted, across the board, the ability of the opposition to hold the government to account. It is really important, no matter who is in power, to make sure the public interest is being served, that issues of concern are being raised in the parliament; that, where there are policy failings, they are able to be prosecuted.
No matter which side you sit on, this should be a place where you can have a robust contest of ideas. That creates better policies, it creates a better policy process, and ultimately it strengthens public faith in our system of government. We've seen other cover-ups in recent months.
The ISIS brides cover-up was only exposed through the estimates process. It may never have come to light, because we had the Prime Minister denying any form of supportive arrangements for the return of ISIS brides. That was in conflict with comments made by New South Wales police.
Those sorts of things would not have come to light but for a robust Senate estimates process. My point, in bringing it back to the FOI bill that we're reviewing, is that there is a pattern of behaviour by this government where government accountability, government transparency is just not a priority. It's something that this government, and this Prime Minister particularly, is trying very hard to push down.
We have had the triple 0 chaos. I'm a regional Australian; I'm a regional Victorian. I was dealing with a constituency group that I was speaking with the member for O'Connor about recently, about how some people in my electorate can't access triple 0 when they need to.
These are really important issues that should be brought front and centre to the government's attention. I know the member for O'Connor is from a regional community. We were just talking earlier about how important connectivity is for those regional communities.
We come to this place from all parts of Australia seeking to raise issues of national importance, but also critical issues for our local communities. We've seen the Prime Minister's Medicare mistruths exposed through Senate estimates. There are some very important mechanisms in our parliamentary process to support transparency.
It's not every day of the week that I would agree with the Australia Institute; however, they do some very good work on important issues. Their latest FOI annual report has some alarming statistics. In the first two years of the Albanese government, there were 21,000 requests determined per year—the lowest since the Gillard government.
When you're looking at the cost comparison, determining half as many FOI requests—34,000—it cost the Howard government $25 million to administer, so trying to argue on cost isn't really an argument that stacks up. The Australia Institute also reported that only one in five Australians—21 per cent—were very confident that Australia's FOI system gives Australians access to all the government information they are entitled to.
A further 29 per cent are 'somewhat confident'. Three in five Australians, 62 per cent, said 30 days should be the maximum anyone should have to wait before their FOI request is decided. Four in five Australians, 79 per cent, said three months should be the maximum anyone should have to wait before their FOI request is decided.
It is really important that government information is seen as the right of every Australian citizen. My concern is that ministers and senior public servants are not paying respect to this process. In fact there are instances where they're abusing the process and deliberately delaying freedom-of-information requests—contrary to the government's claims about FOI generators generating thousands of requests by public servants 20 years ago, with many more FOI requests than under the Albanese government.
This is an issue of national concern. It's an issue of concern to many people in my electorate who have written to me expressing grave reservations that they have. I'm very glad to be sitting on this side of the House raising concerns on behalf of my electorate.