Democracy in the Dark: Albanese's War on Transparency

How the "most open and transparent government" is building Australia's biggest secrecy shield

Remember when Anthony Albanese promised to "not just defend democracy but to enrich it"? In 2019, he criticized Morrison government secrecy and vowed to "reform freedom of information laws so they can't be flouted by government." Yet his government is now introducing what former Senator Rex Patrick calls "nothing short of an Albanese counter-revolution" that "strips away citizens' rights to access important information."

The Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 isn't just bad policy—it's a deliberate dismantling of your right to know what your government is doing with your tax dollars, in your name. And the justifications for it? Completely fabricated.

The Big Lie: "AI Bots Made Us Do It"

The government's primary justification for these draconian changes centers on claims that the FOI system is being overwhelmed by AI-generated spam requests from foreign adversaries. Attorney-General Michelle Rowland, Prime Minister Albanese, and Health Minister Butler all pointed to 600 requests to the eSafety Commissioner as evidence of automated system abuse requiring urgent legislative intervention.

As for those terrifying "foreign adversaries backed by foreign governments"? Despite repeated requests from journalists and parliamentary inquiries, the government has provided zero evidence. Not a single shred. When pressed, officials hide behind vague "national security concerns" while offering only generic statements.

Bill Browne from The Australia Institute notes this claim "seems like a particularly long bow to draw, primarily because FOIs reveal information that should be public. They don't have the power to force the government to release anything that it would be inappropriate for the public to know."

What This Bill Actually Does to Your Rights

Let's cut through the bureaucratic spin and look at what this legislation will do:

1. The "Truth Tax" - Mandatory Application Fees ($30-$58)

• Want to know if your government is wasting money? Pay up first.
• Investigative journalism requiring dozens of requests? Financially impossible for most outlets.
• Guardian Australia's investigation of MP travel allowances that forced Andrew Laming to repay $10,000+ required "around a dozen FOI requests over several months"—under the new fees, this investigation might never have happened.
• Compare this globally: France, Spain, Denmark, Germany, and UK charge zero application fees. Ireland eliminated its €15 fee in 2014 after it cut requests in half.

2. Anonymous Request Ban - Death Sentence for Whistleblowers

• All requesters must provide their full name—no anonymous or pseudonymous requests allowed.
• Professor Gabrielle Appleby warns this "will have a worrying impact on vulnerable individuals, particularly potential whistleblowers and others who fear retaliation."
• This came the same week the government shot down a private members' bill for an independent whistleblower protection authority.
• Virtually unprecedented among democracies—US Federal FOIA allows "any person" to request information, with commercial services specifically maintaining anonymity to protect whistleblowers.

3. Expanded Cabinet Secrecy - From "Dominant" to "Substantial" Purpose

• Currently, documents need to be primarily intended for Cabinet to gain exemption protection.
• The Bill changes this to "substantial purpose"—meaning documents with multiple purposes can be exempted even if Cabinet consideration is a minor aspect.
• Former Senator Rex Patrick: "Words count when fronting a tribunal or court" and this makes it "so much harder for applicants" to challenge government claims.
• Result: Any significant issue considered by Cabinet becomes immune from scrutiny for 20 years, including consultant reports from firms like PWC and Deloitte.

4. 40-Hour Processing Cap

• Agencies can refuse complex requests as "too hard" if they estimate processing would exceed 40 hours.
• This targets exactly the kind of deep investigations into systemic problems that are most necessary for accountability.
• Bernard Keane of Crikey warns the Bill also adds "factors against giving access" that "could be used to refuse access to almost any document."

The Robodebt Betrayal

Associate Professors Maria O'Sullivan and Yee-Fui Ng from Deakin University explain: "The over-classification of government information is one very critical reason Robodebt was allowed to continue with impunity for so long. Even the Royal Commission itself noted it had trouble obtaining information as part of its inquiry."

The Commission concluded the scheme likely would not have run "in the same way, for the length of time that it did, or at all, if there had been proper stakeholder consultation and transparency in its design and implementation."

Rather than learning this lesson, the government is expanding the very secrecy mechanisms the Commission identified as catastrophic failures.

The Real Numbers: Fewer Requests, Exploding Costs

Access Rates Collapsed:

• 2011-12: 59% of requests granted in full
• 2023-24: Only 25% granted in full (The Mandarin)
• 2022-23: For the first time, more requests were refused than fully granted

Processing Times Tripled:

• OAIC review times increased from 6 months (2016-17) to over 15 months (2023-24)
• 967 reviews outstanding since 2021 or earlier
• 34 reviews from 2018 still pending

Vexatious Requests Are a Myth:

• The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner has made only 11 vexatious applicant declarations in its entire history
• These declarations require "a clear and convincing case" and are not made lightly
• Current FOI Act provisions (sections 24, 24AA, 89K) already empower agencies to refuse vexatious requests

Journalism Under Siege

The practical impact on public interest journalism is severe and well-documented. These changes would have likely prevented:

• The "sports rorts" scandal: Secret Bridget McKenzie review that forced her resignation from Cabinet—government argued it was Cabinet document, OAIC forced release
• ABC's 7.30 bank breach exposé: Uncovered 30+ data breaches by big four banks between 2012-2018
• Guardian travel allowance investigation: Andrew Laming ordered to repay $10,000+ in wrongly claimed allowances; PM Albanese repaid $126 for Comcar use to Labor fundraiser

Constitutional Crisis Brewing

Leading constitutional law scholars identify serious legal problems with the Bill's restrictions. Professor Gabrielle Appleby, head of research at the Centre for Public Integrity and a leading UNSW constitutional expert, describes it as "a retrograde step on many levels."

The constitutional concern centers on the implied freedom of political communication established by High Court precedent. This freedom requires free communication about government and political matters to ensure informed voting.

Rex Patrick's detailed legal analysis shows how the Bill contradicts High Court precedent. In Commonwealth v Northern Land Council (1993), the High Court established that Cabinet confidentiality protects "solidarity of Cabinet, the collective responsibility of Cabinet and the decisions of Cabinet"—not the topics Cabinet discusses.

Justice Kirby stated in 2008 that the FOI Act "assigns very high importance to a public interest in greater openness and transparency in public administration... nothing short of revolutionary." The current Bill "goes well beyond" protecting Cabinet confidentiality, creating what Patrick calls a "total secrecy club."

Australia vs. The World: Swimming Against the Democratic Tide

Australia ranks 65th globally on the Right to Information Rating with 87 out of 150 points. The Bill will likely worsen this ranking further.

International Comparison:

• Sweden: 1st on World Press Freedom Index, constitutional FOI since 1766
• Serbia: 1st on RTI Rating (135/150 points)
• India: 2nd on RTI Rating (130/150 points)
• New Zealand: Minimal fees (first hour free), releases Cabinet papers within weeks, no absolute class-based exemptions
• Australia: 65th, declining access rates, exploding processing times, now adding fees and banning anonymous requests

While New Zealand's Auditor-General noted the stark cultural difference in transparency approaches, Australia is moving to expand secrecy to 20 years with broader exemptions. The global movement over the past two decades has been dramatically toward expanded transparency—over 100 countries now have FOI laws, most strengthening rather than restricting access.

Australia is swimming against this tide.

Unprecedented Unified Opposition

The breadth of opposition to this Bill is remarkable. Organizations and experts opposing it include:

• Centre for Public Integrity (Professor Gabrielle Appleby, Geoffrey Watson SC): Calls it a move that "spells trouble for public integrity and our democracy"
• Transparency International Australia: Warns it "risks creating barriers to accessing information and scrutiny"
• The Australia Institute: Documents that public servants 20 years ago dealt with many more requests at a fraction of current costs
• OpenAustralia Foundation: Concludes "identity mandates erode privacy; fees create barriers; expanded exemptions tilt toward secrecy"
• Human Rights Law Centre: Emphasizes government "should prioritise fixing whistleblowing laws rather than making information less accessible"
• Leading constitutional law scholars and former senators
• Guardian Australia, ABC, Crikey

What Genuine Reform Would Look Like

The evidence overwhelmingly indicates alternative solutions would actually fix the FOI system:

1. Proper Resourcing

• If Howard processed 34,000 determinations for $25 million, while Albanese processes 21,000 for $86 million, the problem is internal efficiency
• Invest in clearing the OAIC backlog instead of making the system harder to use

2. Proactive Disclosure Culture

• New Zealand, Queensland, and ACT all proactively release Cabinet documents within weeks without undermining government effectiveness
• Tasmania is conducting an independent review recommending "automatic release of cabinet advice 30 days after decisions are made"
• Establish informal administrative access schemes like the ATO's tax document service

3. Technology and Enforcement, Not Restriction

• Shadow Attorney-General Julian Leeser: "technological issues require a technological solution"
• Current provisions already handle the negligible abuse that exists (11 vexatious declarations in OAIC history)
• Penalties for agencies that systematically breach obligations—not penalties for requesters

4. Narrow Exemptions, Not Expand Them

• Supplement Cabinet exemption with legislated public interest test
• Reduce disclosure timeframes from 30 years to 10 years
• Ireland's FOI law: Cabinet exemption doesn't apply to decisions over 5 years old

The Orwellian Double-Speak

The Bill is being framed as "improvements" to the FOI framework while actually "dramatically undermining" and "nullifying" it. Bernard Keane calls this "positively Orwellian" and a "sign of hubris" from a government "using its huge majority and political dominance" not for reform but "to protect itself against accountability."

The Centre for Public Integrity notes: "The Prime Minister had previously declared that he was not frightened of scrutiny and transparency, and that he led an Open Government. But what we see in this Bill is a government that is winding back important developments in the Australian public's right to know."

The Bottom Line

The case against the FOI Amendment Bill 2025 is overwhelming:

• The government's core justifications are demonstrably false—the AI claim proven incorrect, foreign actors claim lacking any evidence, vexatious abuse statistics showing negligible problems
• The real crisis is government obstruction—access rates collapsed from 59% to 25%, costs quadrupled despite fewer requests, review times tripled
• It contradicts the Robodebt Royal Commission by expanding the very Cabinet secrecy provisions the Commission said should be repealed
• It moves Australia in the opposite direction from international best practice while democracies worldwide eliminate fees and strengthen access
• It faces serious constitutional concerns about burdening political communication without proportionate justification
• Expert opposition is unprecedented and universal across legal scholars, transparency organizations, journalists, and civil society

This isn't about modernization. It's not about efficiency. It's not about protecting the system.

This is about a government with a supermajority using its political dominance to shield itself from accountability. It's about ensuring you can't find out what they're doing until it's too late. It's about making sure the next Robodebt can happen in the dark.

Albanese promised transparency. He's delivering opacity. He promised to enrich democracy. He's impoverishing it.

---