Obtaining information from federal agencies is about to become subject to stricter rules under the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 (Cth).
The bill has passed the House of Representatives and has now been referred to the Senate for final approval.
The objectives of the current Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) include: providing the right to access documents; increasing public participation in government processes with a view to promoting better informed decision-making; and increasing scrutiny, discussion, comment and review of the government’s activities.
The proposed changes purport to streamline and clarify processes and provide safeguards to “protect private interests” and ensure “the proper and effective operation of government”. Many of the proposed changes have come under criticism from the Law Council of Australia, who suggest these measures will reduce transparency and increase barriers to public access of information.
Obtaining information from federal agencies is about to become subject to stricter rules under the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 (Cth).
The bill has passed the House of Representatives and has now been referred to the Senate for final approval.
The objectives of the current Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) include: providing the right to access documents; increasing public participation in government processes with a view to promoting better informed decision-making; and increasing scrutiny, discussion, comment and review of the government’s activities.
The proposed changes purport to streamline and clarify processes and provide safeguards to “protect private interests” and ensure “the proper and effective operation of government”. Many of the proposed changes have come under criticism from the Law Council of Australia, who suggest these measures will reduce transparency and increase barriers to public access of information.
The new measures under criticism include:
- New powers to refuse to deal with requests that are considered vexatious or frivolous or an abuse of process. The Law Council suggests that the reference to “vexatious” and “frivolous” may not be sufficiently detailed to guide assessment on whether an FOI request amounts to that description.
- The prohibition of anonymous requests. The Law Council noted the chilling effect of this prohibition on applications made by whistle-blowers, journalists and parties seeking sensitive information on sensitive matters of public interest.
- Expanded exemptions to refuse requests, including placing a 40-hour cap on processing time for a request. The Law Council considers that the 40-hour processing cap will likely stifle the operation of the act, especially for vulnerable applicants, with unintended consequences when vulnerable people seek access to complex, voluminous or
historical records. - Introduction of application fees for requests for non-personal information and reviews of decisions. The Law Council predicts that the application fee for certain requests will effectively create an economic barrier that may deter disadvantaged applicants from exercising their rights under the act.
The proposed requirement for application fees for certain information is particularly concerning for people in prison or detention centres, who are often under financial hardship, essentially preventing them from accessing certain information.
It is important to understand that these changes impact applications to federal agencies only. They will not affect applications for information from prison authorities, because prisons operate under state or territory law. However, the proposed changes to federal law will likely impact people in prison and detention centres who are applying for information from federal agencies, such as the Department of Home Affairs.
I am concerned by any legislation that purports to increase safeguards for the government or big business. The cost of such safeguards, unusually, involves infringing fundamental rights of the people. We should continue to be vigilant by critically assessing any changes for the sake of safety and challenge those that seek to reduce rights.
The new measures under criticism include:
- New powers to refuse to deal with requests that are considered vexatious or frivolous or an abuse of process. The Law Council suggests that the reference to “vexatious” and “frivolous” may not be sufficiently detailed to guide assessment on whether an FOI request amounts to that description.
- The prohibition of anonymous requests. The Law Council noted the chilling effect of this prohibition on applications made by whistle-blowers, journalists and parties seeking sensitive information on sensitive matters of public interest.
- Expanded exemptions to refuse requests, including placing a 40-hour cap on processing time for a request. The Law Council considers that the 40-hour processing cap will likely stifle the operation of the act, especially for vulnerable applicants, with unintended consequences when vulnerable people seek access to complex, voluminous or
historical records. - Introduction of application fees for requests for non-personal information and reviews of decisions. The Law Council predicts that the application fee for certain requests will effectively create an economic barrier that may deter disadvantaged applicants from exercising their rights under the act.
The proposed requirement for application fees for certain information is particularly concerning for people in prison or detention centres, who are often under financial hardship, essentially preventing them from accessing certain information.
It is important to understand that these changes impact applications to federal agencies only. They will not affect applications for information from prison authorities, because prisons operate under state or territory law. However, the proposed changes to federal law will likely impact people in prison and detention centres who are applying for information from federal agencies, such as the Department of Home Affairs.
I am concerned by any legislation that purports to increase safeguards for the government or big business. The cost of such safeguards, unusually, involves infringing fundamental rights of the people. We should continue to be vigilant by critically assessing any changes for the sake of safety and challenge those that seek to reduce rights.
