Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025

Ms PENFOLD (Lyne) (20:55): As a new member of parliament, I appreciate that laws have to be updated over time, but I was quite surprised by this bill, the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025, because, while the opposition and the government disagree on many things, I think the one thing we do share common ground on is our democracy and ensuring the strength of our democracy.

I certainly see freedom of information law as a core tenant of Australia's democracy. It recognises that democracy is owned by the Australian people, not by governments, not by parliaments and certainly not by unelected officials. It provides the right of the Australian people to access information that governments and bureaucrats use to make decisions for and on behalf of them.

Information used to make these decisions is in large part not a proprietary asset of a minister, a government, a department or an official. Information is a public asset and one that must be available for the public to access. I see our freedom of information laws as an assistance for any government to earn its social licence, and I've seen many governments struggle with the concept of social licence.

Winning the last election did not give the Albanese government a social licence. You can't buy it. You have to earn it and then you work hard to own it.

That requires accountability. It requires transparency. It requires honesty.

It requires the fortitude and the maturity to highlight when you do good work but also, most importantly, when you do bad. On this count, having worked for the live export industry, I have seen year after year, government after government, deny cattle producers and transport operators the moneys that they are due for the malfeasance in office. The fact that this government, a Labor government, that made the decision that the courts have said was wrong—they have failed year after year to pay producers for the pain and harm that they caused the industry.

Social licence is earnt when, well managed, the law enables trust in government decision-making processes, enhancing the tacit approval for them to get on with the job of governing. Handled poorly and used to hide decisions, to create secrecy and oppose open government, it ensures that trust in government, politics and the institutions of government are undermined.

I think we all appreciate, as members of parliament, that support by the public for our institutions is absolutely critical, and it is particularly critical at the juncture we find ourselves in, in this nation. You don't earn a social licence doing what the public expects you to do or by doing what the laws tell you to do. You earn it by doing what is not expected, by doing more than what the law demands of you.

I've seen—and I think I said this in my first speech—the best and the worst of government in the various positions that I've held in this place and in a state and territory parliament over my career. I've seen the worst of government through freedom-of-information laws, working as a policy adviser in child protection to the then opposition leader in the Northern Territory.

I won't name the young girl who this case involved, but she sadly died in the hands of a child protection system that failed her in the worst possible ways. This case and, in fact, others would not have come to light but for the FOI process. The opposition at the time pursued the government to release information when the case came to public attention.

The government refused, time and time again. The only way to get to the truth was to use freedom-of-information laws. Even then, when the government's hands were tied and the laws forced them to release information—and I can remember this very clearly—page after page after page was blacked out, redacted, across many important documents.

But the opposition persevered with the information that they were able to ascertain and pressured the government into making improvements to child protection in the Northern Territory that were ultimately implemented. Unfortunately, they were made far too late for this little girl, but hopefully the laws did protect others. I raise this case only to show that FOI laws in this country must ensure they serve the people and they serve the truth.

They should not be used to hide uncomfortable inconveniences for ministers, governments or bureaucrats. FOI should not be seen by bureaucrats or governments or ministers as an attempt to second-guess their decisions but demonstrate that governments and bureaucrats are doing the job they are entrusted to do. Given today is Melbourne Cup day and given the winner—with this bill, the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025, it certainly feels to me and others that the government is giving an up-yours to the Australian people.

I don't say that lightly, but I'm just expressing a feeling. I hope that is certainly not the intention with this bill. We are certainly starting to see the government's true colours, its true nature; it's the unmasking of what the Albanese government is about.

The fact that the government has even brought on this bill and this debate, as well as the manner in which it has, shows a level of arrogance about how it is prepared to ignore due procedure and the processes of this parliament. We're seeing it with this bill and we're certainly seeing it with the environment protection and biodiversity bill, a bill that comes to some 1,400 pages—seven pieces of legislation that are very important.

I want to make a comment that isn't intended in any way to be partisan, because this is an important piece of legislation. I was fisheries adviser in this building when the coalition introduced their bill. I remember the time that was taken across multiple portfolios to consider the legislation, to engage with stakeholders and to ensure that the bill responded to the concerns that people had.

We haven't been given that opportunity with the environment bill and we're certainly not given it with this bill. The fact the government has even brought on this bill and this debate, as well as the manner in which it has, is incredibly disappointing. It wasn't even meant to be debated this week.

It's not on the draft forward program. The fact that the government has brought on this bill for debate now demonstrates the government is looking for a distraction and will try to ram this bill through, even though this bill has few real friends. The coalition opposes it; the crossbench opposes it.

All stakeholders, apart from the bureaucrats, oppose this bill. The bill was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on 4 September this year. Submissions closed on 1 October, although I understand that submissions are still being received and considered by the committee.

The reporting date is not until 3 December 2025. Again the government is continuing to abuse parliamentary processes, again disappointing the democracy in this country. The fact that we are debating this bill before the Senate has even written its report is a travesty and, I hasten to say, a result of an excess of hubris.

The Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 proposes to require FOI requests to be made with applicant identification, thereby banning anonymous requests. It introduces a discretionary 40-hour cap on processing FOI requests, thereby allowing agencies to stop searching once a request is too difficult. It enables application fees to be charged for some FOI requests and reviews.

It expands exemptions, especially around cabinet and deliberative documents, thereby making refusals easier. It clarifies that FOI responses can be provided by successive ministers or agencies if the original respondent leaves office. It extends decision timeframes from 30 calendar days to 30 working days, delaying responses.

The government claims it will modernise the FOI framework and improve efficiency. Well, as I have just described, in reality it weakens the public's right to know, entrenches an attitude of secrecy and reduces transparency. The coalition will oppose the bill.

As I said, it was introduced without proper consultation. The government rushed the bill, ignoring the 2023 Senate FOI inquiry, and without advancing credible national security reasons. We will always listen to arguments about national security and remain open to being persuaded, but it is hard to see how making it more difficult for people to ask for information from their government will improve national security.

We are yet to hear of any instance of a leak of national security classified information that could only be addressed by the measures in this bill. The bill undermines transparency and democratic accountability. It moves FOI from a presumption of openness to a presumption of control.

Australians will see only announcements, never the debates and never the deliberations that led to them. It creates a truth tax by imposing application fees and processing caps. Australians will have to pay for access to information—information that belongs to them.

It silences whistleblowers and vulnerable applicants and expands secrecy around cabinet and advice. It rewards delay and dysfunction. It lacks public support; every major integrity and transparency body has condemned this bill.

It contradicts Labor's own integrity pledges. Labor promised transparency, but it has delivered secrecy. Nondisclosure agreements, secret estimates manuals and document refusals have become the norm.

It damages public trust. Secrecy undermines democracy and prevents Australians from forming informed opinions about their government. It will do nothing for government.

Put aside who is in government; it would do nothing for the idea of government to earn the social licence I spoke of earlier. And it increases bureaucracy and legal complexity. New thresholds, exemptions and caps will lead to more disputes, more appeals and less transparency.

The coalition will engage constructively on the bill, including with crossbench amendments that seek to improve transparency, such as considering removal of the most restrictive provisions in schedules 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8. The bill is currently the subject of a committee inquiry which is due to report in early December. Given the complexity of the proposed changes and their impact, the coalition will continue to work through the committee process.

We will ensure anonymity is retained, that whistleblowers are protected and that any new fees are subject to parliamentary disallowance. We will continue to hold the government accountable for undermining transparency. We must remember that freedom of information is not a privilege given by government.

It is a right owed to every Australian citizen. When you limit what citizens can know, you limit what they can decide. The government's bill puts secrecy before service and control before citizenship.

The coalition stands for open government, a free press and the people's right to know, which is not what this bill will deliver.