Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025; Second Reading

Ng supported the bill, stating the current FOI system is overwhelmed by volume and abuse, costing $86.2 million in 2023-24. Ng argued the reforms modernise the framework, protect public servants from harassment, and implement recommendations from the 2013 Hawke review. Ng clarified that fees would not apply to personal information requests, which constitute 72 per cent of applications, and that the bill clarifies cabinet exemptions to prevent misuse of labels.

Joyce opposed the bill, arguing it enables government secrecy and prevents scrutiny of sensitive issues like capacity investment schemes. Joyce claimed the legislation removes the public's ability to access truth, leading to reliance on rumour and innuendo. Joyce suggested the bill should be referred to a joint committee for bipartisan examination rather than passed as drafted, asserting that transparency is essential for democratic accountability.

Ambihaipahar supported the bill, emphasising the need to balance transparency with the protection of public servants and resources. Ambihaipahar noted that FOI processing costs have doubled since 2010-11 and that the system is strained by vexatious requests. Ambihaipahar argued the reforms clarify legal ambiguities, particularly regarding cabinet confidentiality following the Patrick v Attorney-General decision, and ensure genuine requests are prioritised.

Wilson opposed the bill, characterising it as an attack on democracy designed to silence whistleblowers and limit journalistic scrutiny. Wilson cited a personal experience where FOI requests were delayed until after Senate estimates revelations, alleging the government weaponises the system. Wilson argued the bill imposes a 'truth tax' and expands secrecy under the guise of national security, lacking support from transparency organisations.

Clutterham supported the bill, drawing on her legal experience to explain how the amendments clarify the public interest test and deliberative process exemptions. Clutterham argued the changes reduce inefficiencies and address abuse of process, such as malicious requests that waste taxpayer money. Clutterham clarified that the cabinet exemption requires a substantive purpose test, not just a label, and that fees do not apply to personal information requests.

McCormack opposed the bill, arguing that charging fees acted as a tax on truth and would disadvantage genuine applicants without deep pockets. McCormack acknowledged the burden of vexatious requests but believed the bill clamped down on the public right to know and ignored Senate inquiry recommendations. McCormack expressed concern that expanded cabinet exemptions and bans on anonymous requests would reduce transparency and hinder whistleblowers.

Ryan argued the bill reversed previous reforms and limited public access to information, contradicting the government's election promises. Ryan criticised the reintroduction of fees and the expansion of cabinet exemptions, noting these changes contravened Robodebt Royal Commission recommendations. Ryan stated the bill shifted the system from pro-disclosure to secrecy, potentially hiding government decision-making processes.

French supported the bill, stating it modernised an outdated system overwhelmed by volume and abuse. French highlighted the introduction of a 40-hour processing cap and protections for staff privacy as necessary safeguards against harassment and automated requests. French argued the reforms balanced transparency with efficiency, ensuring the system remained functional and secure in the digital age.

Haines opposed the bill, arguing it shifted the FOI system from pro-disclosure to a balance favouring government interests. Haines moved amendments to repeal sections introducing application fees and expanding cabinet exemptions, citing concerns over increased secrecy and lack of evidence for malicious requests. Haines stated the bill failed to address genuine abuses while creating new barriers for vulnerable applicants and journalists.

Scamps argued the bill undermined democracy by expanding exemptions and removing anonymous request capabilities without sufficient evidence of abuse. Scamps noted the government failed to produce data on AI-generated or malicious requests during Senate estimates. Scamps called for an independent comprehensive review instead of the current bill, which she viewed as taking the system in a secretive direction.

Chaney argued the bill failed to address core issues of delay and secrecy while introducing barriers like fees and expanded exemptions. Chaney highlighted that full disclosure rates had dropped significantly and refusals had doubled, contradicting the act's presumption of disclosure. Chaney advocated for an independent review of the entire FOI Act before implementing significant changes, warning against undermining transparency institutions.