The Australian Lawyers Alliance (ALA) made a submission to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, commenting on the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 proposed by the federal government last month (3 September).
The federal government introduced its bill to amend the Freedom of Information Act 1982, restoring the balance between access to information with appropriate protections to ensure the integrity and effectiveness of government decision making, it said.
ALA national president Ian Murray said: “In our view, some of the changes proposed in the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill move the balance too far away from openness towards secrecy.”
In its amendments, the federal government made changes to the administrative handling of requests. Attorney-General the Honourable Michelle Rowland said in a statement that the 1982 act was “stuck in the ’80s”.
The federal government proposed a 40-hour cap for the processing of each FOI request, and the prohibition of anonymous requests to prevent “vexatious and frivolous requests and reduce the risk of harm”, it said.
“Freedom of information is a fundamental tenet of an open, functional and liberal democracy,” Murray said.
In its submission, the ALA proposed: “The substantial number of requests received by [the] government could be reduced by … proactive disclosure of information that might otherwise be the subject of FOI requests.”
Murray argued for the rejection of the anonymous FOI request ban proposal. “These are important for facilitating access for journalists, whistle-blowers, and community advocates who may otherwise worry about reprisals,” he said.
ALA said: “We observe that community legal centres, Aboriginal legal centres and other community-based organisations routinely make FOI applications on their clients’ behalf. The identity requirement may significantly increase the administrative burden on those organisations.”
Additionally, the ALA opposed the bill’s introduction of an application fee for requests, with the exception of personal information requests.
In its submission, it stated that it “does not support the introduction of the charging of fees to access government information”.
Speaking about the bill’s proposed cabinet-in-confidence protections, Murray said: “We oppose any expansion of cabinet exemptions in the FOI Act. Our view is that the current test strikes the right balance between open disclosure and protection afforded to the executive in its sensitive decision-making deliberations. An expansion to this exemption will inevitably tip the balance too far towards secrecy and lack of accountability.”
The ALA said that “at a minimum”, the committee must retain the current ‘dominant purpose’ threshold for cabinet documents.
“There are less chilling options available to deal with the problems that the government has raised,” Murray said.
The bill will reduce access to information and will “[undermine social] democracy, impair good decision making and reduce trust in government”, the ALA said.
“We think that although some of the amendments proposed in the current act are welcome, there are aspects of it which do not strike the balance referred to and require amendment,” it said.
