Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025

Mr GEE (Calare) (20:35): I will be opposing the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025. In terms of open, honest and transparent government, I believe that this bill is a regression. In an age where citizens and the Australian public are crying out for more accountability and more openness from government, this bill takes us back.

It's a backwards step and really is a regression. If the opposition had introduced this legislation when they were in government, the Labor Party MPs would have been lining up to denounce it. There would have been an absolute outcry.

I'm very surprised that the government is actually taking these steps. There just isn't evidence that artificial intelligence bots are overwhelming the system. It has been suggested that this is happening, but I think the Australian public is yet to be convinced or is yet to see the evidence that this is actually happening.

I turn to other issues, such as the exemption of documents that are being prepared for the now substantive purpose of going to cabinet, rather than for the dominant purpose. I think that is a real concern. All that does is widen the pool of documents that can be withheld from the public.

It increases the class of documents that the public won't see and increases government secrecy. It basically weakens the test and is a way of holding back more government documents from public scrutiny. It weakens transparency and bolsters secrecy in decision-making, and I think that is a bad thing.

It's also a direct conflict with the findings of the robodebt royal commission report. I note what others have said about this bill. The Australian Lawyers Alliance, for example, says changes in the bill 'move the balance too far away from openness towards secrecy'.

I notice that the Centre for Public Integrity has described the bill, including the reintroduction of fees, as a 'retrograde step' that winds back important developments in the public's right to know. The former Australian Public Service commissioner, Andrew Podger, believes that the bill goes in the opposite direction to that pursued by former senator John Faulkner and the former chief of staff to Paul Keating, Allan Hawke, and 'would seriously erode access in important respects and make the legislation even more, not less, complicated and difficult to understand'.

The OpenAustralia Foundation also strongly opposes the proposed amendments, which it considers will 'make it harder for the public to access government information'. If you look at what the Australian Lawyers Alliance and many other organisations have said, it is clear that this bill does not have many friends outside of the government. In fact, it doesn't seem to have any friends outside the government.

I'm no friend of this bill either, and so on behalf of the Calare electorate I'll be opposing it. We need to be promoting openness and transparency in government and decision-making, and this bill is a retrograde step. For those reasons, I will not be supporting it, and I would urge other MPs who support openness and transparency in government and its decision-making to oppose this bill as well.