Government backs down on FOI law reforms

The proposed changes to the FOI system would have introduced new grounds to deny requests based on cabinet confidentiality, a ban on anonymous requests, and measures to deter “vexatious and frivolous” requests. The justification from the government was that artificial intelligence and Russian bots had enabled a mass of requests to overwhelm the FOI system, but no evidence has been provided for this claim. The proposed amendments were first reported in the media on 1 September, and the bill was introduced to Parliament on 3 September 2025.

Dr Gabrielle Appleby is a Professor at the Law Faculty of UNSW, with expertise in public law. As Research Director for the Centre for Public Integrity, she was involved in writing the Centre’s submission on the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025. Appleby says “The proposal appeared with no prior public warning and, by the government’s own admission, without public consultation before its introduction. Instead, the Bill draws on a number of selective recommendations from earlier reviews and consultation with government agencies.”

The upshot, she explains, is that the process reflects a largely one-sided account of the challenges in the FOI system, focusing on agency concerns while overlooking the significant barriers faced by members of the public trying to use the system.

Clancy Moore, CEO of Transparency International Australia says, “It is welcome that this Bill has been abandoned, because it would have made a broken FOI system worse. By introducing fees, restricting anonymous requests and making it easier to knock back complex applications, the Bill would have put new barriers in the way of journalists, civil society and ordinary members of the public trying to hold government to account.”

He adds, “But shelving a bad Bill is not the same as fixing the system we already have, which remains plagued by delay, under-resourcing and overuse of secrecy claims.”

The Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 would have allowed public servants to refuse anonymous FOI requests, and to deny applications that would demand more than 40 hours to process. The Bill would have changed the current 30-day response time from calendar days to business days. Additionally, the proposed legislation would have expanded the types of documents that can be denied access – such as cabinet documents and government deliberations. The Bill would have also imposed a mandatory application fee for FOI requests.

At least 70 organisations and individuals made submissions to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Amongst these, the Australian Democracy Network, representing more than 30 allied non-profits, said the Bill appears to be “a strategic suite of measures to rationalise administrative efficiency and bolster government secrecy, at the expense of citizen accountability rights”.

In its submission, the Australian Lawyers Alliance said: “At a time when trust in government is declining, we consider that legislation which increases the perception that government wishes to conduct its affairs in more secrecy will assist, rather than reduce, that decline.” Kieran Pender, Associate Legal Director of the Human Rights Law Centre, says freedom of information is vital to our democracy, and the Bill’s withdrawal is a step in the right direction.

“The Bill, if passed, would have seen anonymous, pseudonymous, and third-party FOI requests being banned, removing critical tools for whistleblowers to speak up about wrongdoing. FOI requests are one of the only means for whistleblowers to acquire more information about the wrongdoing they want to disclose, and concealing their identity can be a crucial protection.”

He explains that taking away a whistleblower’s ability to make anonymous FOI requests would significantly hinder a key mechanism in Australia’s integrity landscape. “The Bill’s withdrawal shows how integral FOIs are to whistleblowers, civil society, and the community at large. It’s time for the Albanese Government to enact meaningful reforms to the FOI Act to enhance transparency, starting with an independent, comprehensive review of the Act.” An inquiry in 2023 found that the system was dysfunctional based on funding cuts and a lack of accountability.

Appleby says, “The 2023 inquiry described the FOI system as ‘dysfunctional and broken’, largely because of under-resourcing and weak accountability. Our Secrecy and Delay report suggests that there has been some positive movement in relation to resourcing and first instance decision making, however, there remain systemic problems in relation to refusal rates and denial of access, and review processes remain slow.”

In terms of granting FOI requests, Appleby says, “In principle, the law is reasonably clear about when FOI requests should be granted and when information can be withheld. Since 2010, the Freedom of Information Act has been built around a presumption of disclosure, with specific exemptions available where release would genuinely harm the public interest.”

In practice, however, the picture is less clear-cut, she explains. “Our research, including the Centre for Public Integrity’s Secrecy and Delay report, shows agencies often apply exemptions broadly or rely on delay and procedural barriers that undermine the intent of the law.” The result, Appleby says, is a gap between the Act’s pro-disclosure framework and how the system operates in practice, “one of the key reasons the FOI system needs reform”.

The claims by the federal government that Russian bots and AI have flooded the FOI request system, overwhelming staff, are seemingly unfounded. The Centre for Public Integrity fact checked this claim (see claims 3 and 4) and found no evidence to support them.

“In short, the government has not presented any evidence to substantiate these claims,” Appleby says. “Under questioning, the Attorney General’s Department acknowledged that the FOI system was not currently being overwhelmed, but at most could be vulnerable to such risks in the future. The national security concerns that have been cited appear to stem from advice sought by the Attorney General’s Department from security agencies about possible risks, rather than evidence that these events are actually occurring.”

As for the amendments intended to stop anonymous FOI requests, this is a direct challenge to journalists and whistleblowers. It doesn’t stand up to transparency standards, Appleby says. “As the Centre for Public Integrity pointed out in our submission, anonymity can play an important role in allowing journalists, whistleblowers and members of the public to seek information without fear of retaliation or professional consequences.”

For instance, the agency receiving the request may also be the person’s employer, or the subject of the scrutiny. “Removing the ability to make anonymous requests therefore risks deterring legitimate public interest inquiries and could particularly affect vulnerable applicants.” Increasing the application fees for journalists and politicians is a further blow to transparency. “The proposed reintroduction of application fees represented a significant shift backwards in the Commonwealth FOI framework,” says Appleby.

Since 2010, application fees have been abolished at the federal level, reflecting the principle that government information should be as accessible as possible. While state and territory FOI regimes do include application or processing fees, the Commonwealth had deliberately moved away from an application fee approach.

Appleby says, “Disappointingly, in proposing to reintroduce an application fee, the amendments didn’t engage with a 2012 review of the FOI Act fees and charges, which proposed an alternative approach to managing administrative burden that did not rely on reintroducing application fees, but instead focused on improving the way requests are managed. That option does not appear to have been meaningfully considered in the 2025 reform proposal.” The reforms needed are many, but an independent and comprehensive review is the next step rather than a hastily introduced Bill, Appleby suggests.

What elements of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 are outdated, or in need of amendment in your opinion, and why?

According to Gabrielle Appleby, the Act is in need of foundational review, despite the significant amendments of 2010. “One of the most significant issues is delay. Timeframes in the Act no longer reflect how the system operates in practice, with many requests and reviews taking months or even years to resolve.”

Delay is the symptom of deeper structural problems within the system, she points out, along with chronic under-resourcing, deprioritisation of FOI functions within agencies, and the lack of effective information management systems to identify and process relevant material.

“The Act also predates the modern digital information environment. Governments now create and store vastly more information in digital systems, yet proactive disclosure and information management practices at the point of document or data creation have not kept pace, which contributes significantly to delay and inefficiency.”

Oversight is another area that needs attention.

“The review and complaints functions of the Information Commissioner have been significantly under-resourced, leading to large backlogs and weak accountability for poor decision-making by agencies. There is also a need for clearer guidance and stronger consequences where exemptions are applied incorrectly or excessively, so that the pro-disclosure intent of the Act is properly upheld in practice.”

At the same time, Appleby recognises that reform should also consider how to better support agencies in managing requests that are genuinely unreasonable or abusive.

“Any modern FOI framework needs to balance accessibility with practical tools for agencies to deal with illegitimate requests, while ensuring that legitimate public interest scrutiny is not discouraged.”

Ultimately, a healthy democracy depends upon transparency and accountability. Whether this is through parliamentary debate, media, or public access to information that is not genuinely protected for national security reasons.

The people most affected by the amendments would be journalists, politicians – particularly independents and those from minor parties – researchers, civil society organisations and ordinary members of the public who rely on FOI to investigate issues of public importance, Appleby points out.

“Barriers to access tend to have the greatest impact on those with the least resources, meaning that public interest scrutiny becomes harder while well-resourced actors are better able to navigate the system.”

Where requests are denied, request makers have avenues to challenge the refusal.

Appleby says, “A number of avenues are provided under the legislation. These include an internal review – within the government agency – and then there is external merits review, initially by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, and then it can also be taken to the Administrative Review Tribunal. Finally, there is the possibility of judicial review in the Federal court, limited to questions of law.”

Ultimately, says Appleby, the structural nature of these reforms underscores why the Centre for Public Integrity, and others, have called for an independent, comprehensive review of the FOI regime, “to go beyond tinkering around the edges, to consider redesigning systems that are fit for purpose for a modern, information-rich democracy.”