Make public information more readily transparent
Time will tell. But on the basis of sparse information available so far, the process of accessing commonwealth documents through FOI is about to become more expensive and restrictive via what is shaping up to be the biggest crackdown on transparency in 15 years. It is legitimate, as Ms Rowland states, to amend the system to deal with computer-generated FOI systems creating hundreds of vexatious requests in a few weeks. But the changes should not be wrapped up in measures that jeopardise transparency.
While applicants seeking their own personal information will continue to be exempted from paying a fee, higher upfront charges for journalists, activists, politicians and their staffers seeking data will act as a barrier to transparency. And in one of the most concerning so-called “reforms”, the government plans to address “barriers to frank and fearless advice from the public service by ensuring the test for accessing deliberative documents is clearer in law and easily understood”. In other words, the media and others could be impeded from scrutinising advice from public servants and how governments use it, closing off an important avenue to look at how and why ministers’ decisions are made.
For example, The Australian recently found out through FOIs that the National Disability Insurance Agency recommended that the government stick with its plan for NDIS reform despite the disability community “not supporting its timeline”. In a separate FOI request, The Australian revealed that the Health Department questioned whether Labor’s proposed 12.5 per cent incentive split between medical practices and providers offered “sufficient incentive” for doctors to join the amended bulk-billing practice incentive program.
There is no good reason why the advice of experienced bureaucrats and expert agencies on areas of public policy, where billions of dollars and community wellbeing are at stake, should be concealed. Under the “reforms”, Sarah Ison reports, reasons to redact or refuse information requested include when information “is not yet policy and still being deliberated on” or, as is the case at present, when information is subject to “cabinet confidentiality”. Such loopholes offer broad exemptions to keep significant information under wraps.
Upfront fees for lodging FOI requests are likely to reflect what is charged by state and territory agencies, which ranges from $30 to $58 per request. It is of more concern that there is nothing in the reforms outlined to suggest the intention is to make information and data gathered by various departments and agencies more transparent. Nor is the government’s record encouraging.
Analysis by the Centre for Public Integrity, released earlier this year, showed that in 2022-23, more FOI requests were refused than fully granted. The nation’s FOI regime remained “severely compromised by systemic secrecy and persistent delays, threatening democratic accountability”, the Centre said in July. The Albanese government had “overseen the most dramatic decline in full disclosures since records began”. Despite notable funding and staffing improvements at the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner – real funding up by 97 per cent and staffing by more than 65 per cent – the system continues to falter, the Centre warned. Labor should uphold its promise to “bring transparency” back into government. Its “reforms”, unfortunately, suggest it is headed in the opposite direction.
In opposition, the Labor Party promised an Albanese government would “shine a light on politics and bring back accountability”. Anthony Albanese’s promise to “bring transparency” back into government after the “secrecy” of the Morrison era is about to be tested, as Attorney-General Michelle Rowland introduces changes to Freedom of Information laws on Wednesday. The only point of doing so is to make government more transparent.