Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025

Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (17:42): I rise today to address some other grave, specific concerns that I have with this bill. The provisions under schedule 7 part 2, which expand cabinet document exemptions, raise serious questions about the government's commitment to transparency and accountability. The Law Council of Australia has voiced strong opposition to this measure, citing its potential to undermine public trust and democratic principles.

The Law Council warns that the amendments could reduce transparency around government decision-making and hinder scrutiny of matters in the public interest, which runs counter to the objectives of the Freedom of Information Act. They argue that the bill extends beyond efficiency gains and instead undermines the core principles of FOI—particularly the public's right to access information promptly and at minimal cost.

Before proceeding with reforms that may reduce access to information, the Law Council recommends that the government commission an independent review of the FOI Act and the broader federal FOI framework. On balance the Law Council does not support the bill in its current form—especially provisions that enlarge the scope of exemptions and implement barriers to public access.

My question to the minister is how does the government justify restricting access to information in a democracy where transparency is a cornerstone of public trust? This bill, in its current form, risks eroding the very foundations of open government. I urge the minister to reconsider these provisions and listen to the voices of civil society, legal experts and the Australian public.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Garland ): I call the member for Fisher. Mr WALLACE: In relation to the expansion of cabinet document exemptions under schedule 7, part 2, this has drawn considerable criticism from Transparency International Australia. My question to the minister is this: why is the government expanding the cabinet exemption, effectively shielding more documents from public scrutiny?

This move appears designed to reduce transparency around key decisions. I urge the minister to reverse this provision and uphold the public's right to know. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Fisher.

Mr WALLACE: The discretionary refusal powers in schedule 7 allow agencies to reject the requests deemed frivolous or harassing. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner has raised concerns about the lack of safeguards. My question to the minister is this: what safeguards exist to prevent agencies from abusing the new discretionary powers to refuse requests deemed frivolous or intimidating or harassing?

Without clear definitions and oversight, this provision risks arbitrary denial of access. I call on the minister to introduce robust safeguards. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Fisher.

Mr WALLACE: In relation to the discretionary refusal powers under section 11B(3) of the act, the Freedom of Information Bill introduces discretionary powers under schedule 7, part 3, division 1 that have been described by the Environmental Defenders Office as a 'grave integrity failure'. The EDO—who I often don't agree with, but in this case I do—in submissions to the legal and constitutional affairs committee, argued against the expansion of exemptions allowing agencies to refuse requests on vague grounds, such as 'prejudicing frank discussion' or 'orderly and effective government conduct'.

My question to the Attorney is this: why is the government pursuing reforms that have been described by integrity advocates as a 'grave integrity failure'? This bill risks giving agencies broad powers to reject requests based on vague and subjective criteria, undermining the public's right to know. I urge the minister to withdraw these provisions and restore faith in our democratic institutions.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Fisher. Mr WALLACE: I refer you to the Freedom of Information Bill 2025, specifically schedule 7, part 3, division 1, and in relation to the amendments to section 11B(3) of the act. Subsection (3A)(a) inserts a provision which provides that a document is conditionally exempt if the document would or could reasonably be expected to: … prejudice the frank or timely discussion of matters or exchange of opinions between participants in deliberative processes of government for the purposes of consultation or deliberation in the course of, or for the purposes of, those processes … Attorney, what does that provision even mean?

In what circumstances does the minister consider that it could or would be exercised? The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Fisher. Mr WALLACE: In relation to schedule 2, part 4, division 1, which amends section 15AD(1) of the act, it introduces subjective criteria like intimidation or harm for rejecting FOI requests.

The Australian Lawyers Alliance warns this undermines procedural fairness. My question to the minister is this: how does the government plan to ensure procedural fairness when agencies can now reject requests based on subjective criteria like intimidation or harm or, even worse, those that 'are likely' to have that effect? In what circumstances and how would it be determined that an application was an abuse of process?

Attorney, this opens the door to abuse and arbitrary decision-making. I urge the Attorney to clarify and constrain these powers. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Fisher.

Mr WALLACE: Until only a couple of hours ago, the bill's requirement for verified identity under schedule 2, part 5, division I, would have effectively banned anonymous FOI requests. The Human Rights Law Centre warned that this would deter whistleblowers and vulnerable individuals from seeking accountability. My question to the minister is this: why did the minister believe that banning anonymity was in any way acceptable, and why did it take her until this very, very late stage to see that such a proposal was antithetical to the concepts of FOI?

Does the minister now accept that banning anonymous FOI requests would have deterred whistleblowers and vulnerable individuals from seeking accountability? This change would have threatened to silence those who rely on anonymity to expose wrongdoing. Why did it take the Attorney so long to acknowledge that all Australians should have the right to seek information without fear of recriminations?

What evidence supported the claim that anonymous or pseudonymous requests are predominantly vexatious or abusive? The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the member for Fisher. Mr WALLACE: The Law Council of Australia has criticised the government for failing to conduct an independent review before introducing sweeping changes to the FOI framework.

My question to the minister is this: why were these sweeping changes introduced without first conducting an independent review of the FOI framework, as recommended by the Law Council and just about every other academic and interested stakeholder? This lack of consultation undermines the legitimacy of the bill, and I call on the minister to pause and engage meaningfully with stakeholders.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the member for Fisher. Mr WALLACE: Schedule 3, part 2, division 1 of the bill introduces a 40-hour cap on processing FOI requests. The Environmental Defenders Office warned that this could be used to reject complex but legitimate requests.

My question to the minister is this: how will the proposed 40-hour processing cap avoid becoming a blanket excuse for agencies to reject complex but legitimate requests? This arbitrary limit risks undermining access to information on matters of public interest, and I call on the Attorney to reconsider this cap and ensure fairness in FOI processing. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the member for Fisher.

Mr WALLACE: Schedule 6 introduces application fees for FOI requests. The Australian Council of Social Service warns that this will disproportionately affect low-income Australians. My question to the minister is this: how will the introduction of application fees not disproportionately affect low-income Australians seeking information about their rights or entitlements?

Attorney, access to information should not depend on one's ability to pay. I call on the Attorney to remove this financial barrier. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the member for Fisher.

Mr WALLACE: The Centre for Public Integrity has warned that the new fee structure under schedule 6 could deter legitimate public interest inquiries. My question to the minister is this: what measures are in place to ensure that the new fee structure does not become a barrier to legitimate public interest inquiries? This bill risks pricing out transparency.

I call on the minister to exempt public interest requests from fees. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the member for Fisher. Mr WALLACE: Schedule 5 alters review procedures, placing additional burdens on the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner.

My question to the minister is this: has the government considered the operational burden these changes will place on the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner? This bill risks overwhelming the OAIC and delaying transparency and justice. I call on the minister to consult with the commissioner and revise these provisions.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the member for Fisher. Mr WALLACE: Some lawyers have warned that the changes to the FOI Act could increase litigation and legal costs. My question to the minister is this: Does the minister acknowledge that these reforms could lead to increased litigation and legal costs rather than reducing inefficiencies?

This bill may create more problems than it solves. Has the minister performed a cost-benefit analysis of these reforms, and, if not, will she commit to doing so before proceeding with the bill? The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the member for Fisher.

Mr WALLACE: The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance has criticised the lack of consultation with media organisations. My question to the minister is this: What consultation was undertaken with media organisations, civil society and legal experts before drafting these amendments? Transparency reforms must be developed transparently.

I urge the minister to engage with stakeholders before legislating. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the member for Fisher. Mr WALLACE: The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills is reviewing the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill.

My question to the minister is this: Will the minister commit to amending or withdrawing the bill if the Senate committee finds that it undermines the public's right to know? The government must respect the findings of independent scrutiny. I urge the minister to act on the committee's recommendations.

Finally, as I have previously indicated, this bill does not have a friend in the world apart from the Public Service. And, quite frankly, I would have thought that the Public Service would have welcomed the changes that the Attorney has finally made today around anonymity. But the amendment that the Attorney has moved today does not, in and of itself, correct a bill with all the many faults and problems that so many of my colleagues have spoken of for such a long period of time.

This government is allergic to transparency. It continues day in, day out, particularly as we get closer to the Christmas break, to be jamming legislation through this place. Every Australian should be very concerned when they hear that their government is looking to create efficiencies in everyday Australians' access to information.

Democracy is a very precarious thing but it is something that should be cherished, and I think is cherished—mostly—by 27 million Australians. But the downward slide in democracy can happen very easily. In the lead-up to the '22 election, this government prided itself on making it a fundamental election principle. 'Vote for us,' they said. 'We'll restore,' they said, 'integrity to the parliament.

We'll restore integrity to government.' And what we have seen, particularly over the last four to six weeks, is this government continuing to ram legislation through this place. This bill should send a shock wave through the hearts of 27 million Australians. I have just spoken about a few of the stakeholders who have raised concerns about this bill—just a few.

The media, in particular, relies heavily upon access to freedom of information, and it relies heavily on the ability to be able to access information to hold the government to account. That is their job. Whether they do it particularly well or not is of course up for debate, but what this government shouldn't be doing is nobbling the ability of the media to do its job.

But that's exactly what this bill will do. You might say, 'How is it doing that?' The reality is that the media is much more than just your News Corps and large media organisations. It also involves small, independent newspapers, like the Glasshouse Country & Maleny News in my electorate.

They should be able to request information from this government on important issues like funding for hospitals and childcare centres. It's vitally important that Australians across our country have the ability to ask questions of their government, who are there to serve them. The bureaucracy are not there to serve themselves; the bureaucracy is there to serve the Australian public.

I urge this minister to pause this bill.