Labor’s proposed freedom of information (FOI) bill is encountering significant resistance from various political factions, jeopardizing its passage through the Australian Senate. This morning, the crossbench, including the Greens, announced their intention to oppose the bill, citing concerns over transparency and governmental accountability.
In a press release, a coalition of 10 MPs, featuring independents such as Allegra Spender, Helen Haines, Dai Le, and Zali Steggall, alongside Senators David Pocock, David Shoebridge, and Jacqui Lambie, called for the bill’s withdrawal.
“When we examine the history of government failures, such as robodebt, it is clear government and bureaucratic decisions need greater transparency, not less,”
the statement emphasized.
Political Landscape and Senate Challenges
The Coalition has also expressed opposition to the bill in principle, although they await the findings of a Senate committee inquiry, expected to report on December 3. With Labor holding only 29 out of 76 seats in the Senate, the bill’s success hinges on significant amendments or strategic alliances.
Greens’ justice spokesperson David Shoebridge highlighted the bill’s deficiencies, noting its failure to address existing issues like delays and redactions in the FOI process.
“Labor’s FOI bill makes a broken system worse and let’s be clear, it faces an uphill battle in the Senate because the numbers just aren’t there,”
he remarked, underscoring the necessity for genuine reform.
Expert Critiques and Legislative Implications
According to Catherine Williams and Gabrielle Appleby of the Centre for Public Integrity, the Senate inquiry has received overwhelmingly negative feedback.
“No supporter outside the government was to be found,”
they wrote, noting that only the Australian Public Service Commission, Services Australia, and the Attorney-General’s Department endorsed the bill.
Attorney-General Michelle Rowland defends the bill as a means to balance access rights with taxpayer resources, proposing measures like fees for requests, a 40-hour processing cap, and mandatory identification for applicants. However, Liberal-National Senator Paul Scarr challenged this justification, pointing out that the recommendation to impose fees was contingent on broader reforms.
“Regarding the comment in relation to the fees and charges that you referred to, do you acknowledge that it’s contained in a recommendation that actually said you needed to reform the system in all the other ways the recommendations suggested and then, after three years of reforming the system to improve it, you could perhaps look at whether or not you needed to introduce charges to address things like vexatious proceedings?”
Scarr stated.
Administrative Hurdles and Future Prospects
During a Senate estimates hearing, it was revealed that the Attorney-General’s Department had received 21 FOI requests concerning the reforms and sought extensions from the Office of the Information Commissioner (OAIC) for all, which were denied.
“We were advised by the OAIC that they had rejected our request for an extension,”
said Kenneth Eagle from the office of corporate counsel, acknowledging that some requests were already overdue.
The ongoing debate over the FOI bill underscores the complexities of balancing transparency with administrative efficiency. As the Senate committee prepares its report, the future of the bill remains uncertain, with potential negotiations or amendments likely necessary to secure its passage. The outcome will set a precedent for how Australia navigates the delicate intersection of public access to information and governmental resource management.
