Bill Debate · Second Reading

Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025; Second Reading

House of Representatives · Wednesday 5 November 2025

Continued from Tuesday 4 November 2025.

Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia

At a glance

The debate centred on whether the bill modernised the freedom of information framework or entrenched government secrecy. Opposition and crossbench members argued the legislation weakened transparency by banning anonymous requests, imposing fees, capping processing times, and expanding exemptions. The Attorney-General defended the bill as necessary to address system inefficiencies and abuse, while moving an amendment to allow third-party requests to preserve anonymity for legitimate applicants. The bill was commended to the House.

Outcome

The bill was commended to the House.

Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.

How the debate unfolded

Continued the debate

Aaron Violi (Casey) (Liberal Party) Liberal

Violi argued the bill reversed four decades of progress towards open government by prioritising bureaucratic control over public access. Violi criticised the ban on anonymous requests as a threat to whistleblowers and the introduction of application fees as a tax on transparency. Violi stated that the 40-hour processing cap and extended decision timeframes would reward agency delays and dysfunction. Violi concluded that the expansion of cabinet exemptions shielded government incompetence from scrutiny.

Government response

Michelle Rowland (Attorney-General) ALP Greenway

Rowland argued the current framework was outdated and inefficient, diverting resources from genuine requests. Rowland stated the bill addressed abusive processes and improved system efficiency for all users. Rowland moved an amendment to allow applicants to make non-personal information requests through third parties, thereby maintaining anonymity for those with legitimate concerns. Rowland commended the bill to the House, asserting it balanced information access with effective government operation.

Opposition response

Melissa Price (Durack) (Liberal Party) Liberal

Price characterised the bill as a significant rollback of transparency laws that shifted the presumption from openness to control. Price argued the legislation silenced whistleblowers and made transparency a privilege for those who could afford new fees. Price criticised the government for rushing the debate before the Senate committee report was finalised. Price stated the coalition would oppose the bill and seek amendments to remove restrictive provisions.

Cameron Caldwell (Fadden) (Liberal National Party) LNP oppose

Caldwell argued the bill lacked any mention of transparency or accountability, instead erecting barriers between the government and the public. Caldwell highlighted concerns that the ban on anonymous requests would deter vulnerable citizens and journalists from seeking information. Caldwell stated the 40-hour processing cap allowed agencies to abandon complex inquiries, while extended timeframes exacerbated existing delays.
Leon Rebello (McPherson) (Liberal National Party) LNP oppose

Rebello argued the bill narrowed freedom of information and entrenched secrecy, contradicting the government's claims of modernisation. Rebello noted that no major integrity body supported the legislation, which ignored the 2023 Senate inquiry findings. Rebello stated the coalition would oppose the bill and support amendments to retain anonymity and subject fees to parliamentary disallowance.
Zali Steggall (Warringah) (Independent) Ind oppose

Steggall argued the bill was drafted without consultation and increased secrecy rather than improving the system. Steggall stated the expansion of cabinet exemptions contradicted the Robodebt Royal Commission recommendations and shielded government decisions from scrutiny. Steggall proposed establishing an independent intermediary for anonymous requests and aligning exemptions with public interest rather than political convenience.
Henry Pike (Bowman) (Liberal National Party) LNP oppose

Pike argued the bill was rushed and lacked credible national security justification, ignoring the 2023 Senate inquiry. Pike cited criticism from civil society groups regarding the truth tax and the silencing of whistleblowers. Pike stated the processing cap and expanded exemptions would create inconsistency and delay, undermining public trust in government.
Tom Venning (Grey) (Liberal Party) Liberal oppose

Venning argued the bill treated the public as a nuisance and shifted power to the bureaucracy. Venning stated the 40-hour cap and extended timeframes obstructed accountability, particularly for regional communities and small media outlets. Venning called for proper resourcing of the Information Commissioner and protection of anonymity instead of the proposed restrictions.

First speaker today

Aaron Violi (Casey) (Liberal Party)

Liberal

Bill

Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025

Speeches

10 speeches, 5 other contributors

Topics

Integrity & Parliament Law & Justice

Debate Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025; First Reading Bill Debate, 24 Nov 2025 · Same bill
Debate Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025; Second Reading Bill Debate, 24 Nov 2025 · Same bill
Debate Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026; Second Reading Bill Debate, 17 Sep 2026 · Shared topic: Law & Justice
Debate Australian Parliament General Debate, 17 Sep 2026 · Shared topic: Integrity & Parliament
Question Time Senate Question Time 29 Jun 2026 · Shared topics: Integrity & Parliament, Law & Justice

About House of Representatives debates

The House of Representatives debates bills, motions and matters of public importance in its main chamber. Members from all parties can take part, and the responsible minister usually replies for the government. Summaries are in reported speech, not transcripts; always check the official record before quoting.