Proactive information release becomes the default rather than FOI being the way in, and government information relating to policy decision-making is required to be in the public domain.
Transparency & AccountabilityFreedom of Information
Freedom of Information · The Democrats’ planOpen by default. Secrecy should have to explain itself.
Australia’s Freedom of Information laws were introduced in 1982, when hard copies were the norm, and there has been no significant overhaul since. A Senate committee inquiry found the regime “dysfunctional and broken”, and the culture has become one of secrecy and obstruction — in some agencies, applications for even routine documents face delaying tactics and unjustifiable expense. Our plan changes what has to be justified: publication becomes the default, and Cabinet and other exemptions have to pass a public-interest test.
1982 The year FOI became law Written when hard copies were the norm, with no significant overhaul since.
30days The legal deadline to answer a request In practice, applications now take two years or more to resolve.
15 Senate committee recommendations From the 2023-24 inquiry that found the regime “dysfunctional and broken”.
48,117 FOI requests to Victorian agencies, 2022-23 According to the OAIC’s annual reports — more than any other state except Western Australia.
The FOI obstacle course
Lodge a request and watch both systems handle it.
How the right to know got hard to use
- The set-up
Freedom of information is a check on power, not a courtesy.
A well-functioning and comprehensive FOI system acts as a deterrent against corruption, because those involved know there is a high likelihood of being exposed, and it empowers the public with independent access to information so they can take a fuller part in the political process — the case put by Johan Lidberg, Associate Professor of Journalism at Monash University. The Freedom of Information Act 1982 gives that principle legal form: citizens can request access to government-held information, including what agencies hold about them and about government policies and decisions.
- The consequence
The system has drifted into damage control.
Monash researchers ran 377 surveys and interviewed 257 individuals at 96 agencies — hospitals, government departments, statutory agencies, local government and universities across Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia — and found informational bottlenecks, inadequate resources, and little understanding of or commitment to FOI principles beyond the dedicated FOI teams. A culture of ‘damage control’ and reluctance to release sensitive information leaves FOI coordinators struggling to comply with the legislation while staff are perpetually underfunded, and charges accrue with the time spent searching for or retrieving a document. An information commissioner was appointed to overcome delay, yet applications now take two years or more to resolve; of the OAIC's introduction in 2010 as a flexible clearing house for appeals, Geoffrey Watson SC concludes it has had the opposite effect on cost and speed — a conclusion the OAIC's own data corroborates.
- The fix
Publish by default, and make secrecy pass a public-interest test.
Put government information relating to policy decision-making into the public domain as a matter of course, subject Cabinet and other exemptions to a public-interest test, reduce the scope of documents covered by cabinet confidentiality, and release Cabinet documents within 10 years rather than the current 30. Then bring the Act into the era it now operates in: terminology and procedures written for digital environments, realistic legislative timeframes, consultation required only when reasonable and practicable, clear and adequate procedures for vexatious applications, and agencies disclosing the automated technologies they use.
The plan at a glance
Cabinet and other exemptions from FOI are subject to a public-interest test, and the scope of documents covered by cabinet confidentiality is reduced.
Cabinet documents are publicly released within 10 years, instead of the current 30.
Government agencies become more proactive in disclosing the details of the automated technologies they use.
Terminology and procedures reflect modern digital environments rather than the paper-based ones of 1982; timeframes are made realistic, consultation is required only when it is reasonable and practicable, and there are clear procedures for vexatious applications.
One question, two systems
“What advice did the department rely on?” — the same question, put to today’s rules and to ours.
The obstacle course — today
- An Act drafted in 1982 for a paper-based world, never significantly overhauled
- Thirty days to respond in law; two years or more to resolve in practice
- Cabinet and other exemptions apply without a public-interest test
- Cabinet documents kept from the public for 30 years
The open shelf — our plan
- Terminology and procedures written for modern digital environments
- Realistic legislative timeframes, with clear procedures for vexatious applications
- Cabinet and other exemptions subject to a public-interest test, over fewer documents
- Cabinet documents publicly released within 10 years
The change that does the most work
Information about how a decision was made stays inside government until somebody files an FOI request
Proactive release is the default: government information relating to policy decision-making is in the public domain, and FOI is the backstop
This is the first commitment in our plan — “making proactive information release the default, rather than using FOI for access to information” — paired with requiring government information relating to policy decision-making to be in the public domain. Every other commitment then applies to what is genuinely left over: the public-interest test on Cabinet and other exemptions, a narrower cabinet confidentiality, Cabinet papers at 10 years instead of 30, and timeframes that are realistic.
The full policy
Word for word — the platform as our members wrote it.
The Issues
A well-functioning and comprehensive FOI system acts as a deterrent against corruption within political systems, as those involved are aware of the high likelihood of being exposed. It also empowers the public with independent access to information, enabling greater participation in the political process and fostering a healthier democratic environment.
— Johan Lidberg, Associate Professor of Journalism, Monash University
Researchers at Monash University undertook 377 surveys as well as interviews with 257 individuals at 96 agencies — from hospitals, government departments, statutory agencies, local government and universities across Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. They found informational bottlenecks, inadequate resources, and a lack of understanding or commitment to FOI principles beyond dedicated FOI teams in government agencies.
A culture of ‘damage control’ and reluctance to release sensitive information was found to create significant challenges for FOI coordinators, who struggle to comply with legislation while staff are perpetually underfunded. The culture has become one of secrecy and obstruction.
In some agencies, applications for even routine documents face delaying tactics and excessive and unjustifiable expense. To overcome delay, an information commissioner was appointed, but even longer delays are now the norm, with FOI applications taking two years or more to resolve. That said, enormous amounts of time and effort go into responding to FOI requests, and it can be difficult to determine what is vexatious, unreasonably burdensome, a ‘fishing expedition’, and what is in the public interest.
Our Plan
-
Making proactive information release the default, rather than using FOI for access to information.
-
Requiring government information relating to policy decision-making to be in the public domain.
-
Requiring Cabinet and other exemptions from FOI to be subject to a public interest test.
-
Reducing the scope of documents covered by cabinet confidentiality.
-
Publicly releasing Cabinet documents within 10 years instead of the current 30.
-
Government agencies to be more proactive in disclosing the details of the automated technologies they use.
-
Ensuring that terminology and procedures are reflective of modern digital environments rather than of the paper-based environments that prevailed when the FOI Acts were first enacted.
-
Streamlining consultation requirements to ensure that consultation is required only when it is reasonable and practicable.
-
Ensuring that legislative timeframes are realistic.
-
Making clear and adequate procedures for dealing with vexatious applications in legislation.
The Evidence
FOI laws were introduced in 1982 when hard copies were the norm, and there has been no significant overhaul since.
The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee inquired into Commonwealth Freedom of Information Laws in 2023-24. It made 15 recommendations. The inquiry found that Australia’s freedom of information regime has become “dysfunctional and broken” after years of funding and resourcing neglect and chronic backlogs caused in part by a pro-secrecy culture within the bureaucracy.
The Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) gives citizens the right to request access to government-held information. This includes information they hold about people or about government policies and decisions. Agencies are required to respond within 30 days of receiving the application. Charges apply depending on the time spent on searching for or retrieving a document.
According to the OAIC annual reports, FOI requests to Victorian agencies reached 48,117 in 2022-23, higher than any other state bar WA.
The introduction of the OAIC in 2010 was supposed to speed up and cheapen the [Federal] FOI appeal process by providing a flexible clearing house antecedent to the AAT. According to Geoffrey Watson SC, it has in fact had the opposite effect on cost and speed. This conclusion is corroborated by the OAIC’s own data. Since 1984 the number of FOI requests has hovered between 20,000 and 45,000 per year
Current exemptions for FOI include: documents affecting national security, defence or international relations; Cabinet documents; documents affecting enforcement of law and protection of public safety; and documents to which secrecy provisions of an enactment apply. Conditional exemption documents include Commonwealth-State relations, deliberative processes of the Commonwealth Government, operations of agencies, and those that may have a substantial adverse effect on Australia’s economy.
References
-
New report exposes critical issues and highlights reforms needed in Freedom of Information culture and practices.
-
Australia’s freedom of information system ‘dysfunctional and broken’, inquiry finds.
-
Inquiry into the operation of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 — Submission, The Australia Institute.
-
Delay and Decay: Australia’s Freedom of Information Crisis.
-
Schedule of FOI request fees and charges.
Make it happen.
Policies like this only become law when enough people push. Push with us.