Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025; Consideration in Detail

Wilkie supported Haines' amendments, arguing that fees deter public participation and that the government had not demonstrated a need for them. Wilkie noted that FOI request numbers had remained steady between 2020 and 2024, contradicting claims of AI-driven surges. Wilkie also supported repealing cabinet exemption expansions, citing the Robodebt Royal Commission's recommendation to reduce secrecy.

Chaney supported the amendments, highlighting that the 2013 Hawke review recommended no application fees. Chaney argued that fees would deter public interest journalism and that the government was cherry-picking past reviews to justify reduced transparency. Chaney also supported repealing the expansion of cabinet exemptions, stating it contradicted the spirit of the FOI Act.

Spender supported the amendments, emphasizing the importance of transparency for informed public debate. Spender argued that the government's justification for expanding cabinet exemptions ignored the Robodebt Royal Commission's findings. Spender urged the government to rethink its approach to build trust and provide better information to the public.

Scamps moved an amendment to remove the expansion of the deliberative documents exemption, arguing it would reduce transparency. Scamps noted that experts and community submissions indicated the bill was not fit for purpose. Scamps urged the government to withdraw the bill or amend it to remove egregious elements, including fee reintroduction and anonymity restrictions.

Ryan moved amendments to remove qualifiers to the objects of the FOI Act and to allow anonymous requests for public interest information. Ryan argued that treating multiple requests as single requests was irrational and that anonymity should be protected for public interest inquiries. Ryan also supported repealing the expansion of cabinet exemptions, stating it was too broad and easy to misapply.

Chaney moved amendments to require an independent review of the FOI Act before the bill commenced. Chaney argued that previous reviews had called for comprehensive assessments and that the current bill only addressed issues solved by less transparency. Chaney highlighted that the proportion of FOI requests granted in full had dropped significantly, indicating a need for broader reform.

Scamps supported Chaney's call for an independent review, noting that all previous reviews recommended comprehensive assessments. Scamps argued that the bill's provisions, including fee reintroduction and anonymity restrictions, were retrograde steps that undermined transparency. Scamps emphasized the importance of trust in the political system for social cohesion.

Wallace opposed the bill, citing concerns from various stakeholders about reduced transparency and increased secrecy. Wallace questioned the justification for expanding cabinet exemptions and discretionary refusal powers, arguing they lacked safeguards. Wallace urged the government to pause the bill and engage with stakeholders, noting the lack of consultation with media and civil society.