Former high-power public servants scathing in criticism of Labor’s FOI changes
Two former high-powered public servants who had been charged with ensuring integrity in the federal bureaucracy have slammed the Albanese government’s move to crack down on freedom of information laws.
Two former high-powered public servants – who had been charged with ensuring integrity in the federal bureaucracy – have slammed as a threat to transparency the Albanese government’s move to crack down on freedom of information laws.
Andrew Podger, an ex-public service commissioner, said Labor’s reform goes in “exactly the opposite direction” to what the last review of the FOI regime recommended, and the proposed changes could be used to “refuse access to almost any document”.
Former information commissioner John McMillan, once responsible for FOIs and privacy, said the bill should be withdrawn because some of its proposals are “one-sided and questionable”.
Labor’s suggested reforms – to ban anonymous FOI requests, charge fees on non-personal FOI requests and set ceilings on how much work an FOI request can ask for – have been excoriated by the Coalition, experts and traditional allies such as unions and environmental advocacy groups.
The former public servants’ scathing comments add to criticism mounting against the legislation.
In his submission to a Senate inquiry on the bill, Mr Podger rubbished Labor’s suggestion that its proposed changes would empower bureaucrats to provide “frank and fearless advice”.
“There has for years been nonsense spoken by senior public servants about the adverse impact of FOI on ‘frank and fearless advice’,” he wrote.
“No evidence has now been given about any dulling effects the (current) legislation has had on advising.
“Indeed, transparency should make public servants more scrupulous to see that what they said is sound.
“My own experience has been that little courage is needed when offering advice on policy issues; ministers are rarely upset by advice advocating policies they do not agree with.
“Such advice is soon set aside as work proceeds on options the government feels more comfortable with.
“Where courage is needed is on issues of legality and propriety: advice on grants consistent with selection criteria, performance information to be included in annual reports, answers to
parliamentary questions, giving access under FOI to personally embarrassing documents such as entertainment expenses receipts.
“Or, as in the case of Robodebt, telling the minister something is illegal.
“It is not FOI that inhibits frank and fearless advice; far more important is the fact that unwelcome advice can attract career penalties and welcome advice can attract career rewards.”
He said rejecting an FOI application on the grounds that providing information could “prejudice the orderly and effective conduct of a government decision-making process” was the “final straw”.
“It could be used to refuse access to almost any document,” he wrote.
Mr Podger further lashed the lack of transparency in the culture of the Australian Public Service.
“What is not needed is an amendment to the FOI Act which would reinforce the current APS culture,” he said.
Mr McMillan, the information commissioner from 2010-15, said some of Labor’s proposed changes were “distinctly one-sided and have not been adequately explained or justified”.
He lashed Labor for the lack of consultation and said the proposed changes “focus almost exclusively on taking up concerns expressed by agencies”.
He said Labor’s justification for imposing costs on FOI applications and review was “strongly questionable”.
“The main practical value of charges is that they enable agencies to foreshadow that a charge will be imposed in the absence of sensible discussion between the agency and an applicant to refine the scope of an FOI request,” Mr McMillan said.
More Coverage
To join the conversation, please log in. Don't have an account? Register
Join the conversation, you are commenting as Logout