Freedom of Information

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ) (15:38): The Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Berowra proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The Government's culture of secrecy.

I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Mr LEESER (Berowra) (15:38): It has been a long afternoon in the House of Representatives today. We have seen the hubris of a government with a supermajority giving itself a pat on the back in question time and evading questions about aged care that were asked of them by the opposition and that were raised with us by our constituents. This lack of transparency from the government is what today's MPI is all about because it evidences a disturbing pattern of behaviour that we have seen ever since the election of the Albanese government in 2022. It is a cancer that is eating away at the heart of the Labor Party. It takes the form of a pervasive and malevolent addiction to secrecy.

This is a government that always tries to limit and control the message. We saw this in the misinformation and disinformation bill, and I'm sorry we're seeing it again in the FOI bill that is going to be before the House in a few days. This government proposed reforms to the FOI Act, and they seem to be the misinformation and disinformation bill all over again. This government wants to stifle what people will say and what people will see.

This government talked a big game, we will remember, in opposition. They said lots before they came to power. They said they were going to be so much better than how they've turned out. Prior to the election, Mr Albanese promised the Australian people that, if they elected him and the Australian Labor Party to office, he and his ministers would deliver transparency, integrity and accountability in everything they did. They're the standards he wanted Australians to judge him by. Let me say those standards again: transparency, integrity and accountability. But what have Australians come to see from the Albanese government?

Mr Ted O'Brien: The opposite.

Mr LEESER: We've seen the opposite. Former attorney-general the member for Isaacs loved preaching about accountability and integrity in opposition. Here's what he had to say: 'Appropriate, prompt and proactive disclosure of government-held information informs community, increases participation and enhances decision-making. It builds trust and confidence. It's required and permitted by the law and improves efficiency.' That was the member for Isaacs in opposition. They were making the point that transparency actually promotes frank and fearless advice. What about Minister Watt in opposition? He said:

We deserve answers and transparency. It's not negotiable—and it should not be negotiable—for the Prime Minister to comply with the standing orders and promptly answer these questions.

But, since he's come to government, he seems to have changed his tune. What about the Prime Minister? In the foreword to the Code of Conduct for Ministers, signed personally by the Prime Minister, we get this sort of sanctimony. He said:

Australians deserve good government.

The Albanese Government is committed to integrity … honesty and accountability and Ministers in my Government … will observe standards of probity, governance and behaviour worthy of the Australian people.

In making all that fanfare that he did in relation to his code of conduct, at clause 4, under 'Responsibility and accountability', he says this, and you only need to hear the words to see what a shadow between the promise and the reality there really is:

Ministers are required to provide an honest and comprehensive account of their exercise of public office, and of the activities of the agencies within their portfolios, in response to any reasonable and bona fide enquiry by a member of the Parliament or a Parliamentary Committee.

Is that what we've seen? Certainly not.

The tune now is very different. What we've seen, instead of transparency and accountability, has been the shutting down of information and shutting down of debate. We've seen a surge in FOI refusals. Now, only one in four FOI documents are fully released. The proportion of FOI requests that have been completely refused shot up by 27 per cent in the December quarter last year, and it's only increased since then. By 31 March this year, it had shot up to 31 per cent. Meanwhile, this government has presided over such a systematic maladministration of the FOI system that its own FOI commissioner, Leo Hardiman PSM KC, resigned his statutory appointment just 12 months into a five-year term. As was widely reported at the time, he was routinely ignored within his agency, and his very limited staff were being pointlessly diverted from FOI work. He gave a comprehensive and absolutely damning criticism of the government's approach when it comes to access to information. What's clear from the available evidence is that this government has been rejecting and ignoring ordinary requests for information on an industrial scale.

Then we have the non-disclosure agreements. Non-disclosure agreements have become a completely ordinary method in terms of the way this government conducts itself. We saw secrecy agreements in relation to workplace relations reforms, where Labor rammed through the wish list of its union paymasters. They gagged small businesses, employers and the industry groups that were directly targeted. Even on religious discrimination, hardly a matter of national security, we were told all too often by religious leaders that they were only being consulted on a confidential basis and they weren't given the full picture. Even Cassandra Goldie, the head of ACOSS, said in the Saturday Paper that legal gags have become routine with this government. She said:

Broad non-disclosure agreements needlessly stifle meaningful consultation and contribution from community sector organisations and people who hold direct experience and expertise of policies and services … Non-disclosure agreements also have a chilling impact on community sector organisations. Community sector organisations or individuals may sign agreements in fear of losing funding or being cut out of policy development processes.

Isn't this extraordinary from a Labor government that promised to be so different? The reason you ask someone to sign a legal gag is to enforce it against them or lock them out of consultation. This government should hang its head in shame.

Then we've had the secret manual. Can you believe this? We've had a government that has actually drafted a secret manual to help public servants avoid answering questions in Senate estimates. A document entitled Approaches to SEQoNs asked of all (or multiple) agencies was circulated among the agencies. Outrageously, rather than being responsive to this parliament as officials are required to do, this is a manual for obfuscation. Let me give you some examples. In answer to the basic question 'Has the department held any organised external retreats?', the response suggested by the Albanese government is, 'The data required is not captured centrally, and obtaining it would be an unreasonable diversion of resources.' In response to the question, 'How many staff within the department have put in place agreements to work on the King's Birthday or other public holidays?', they've said, 'Substitution arrangements for public holidays are locally managed and data on the number of employees who substitute a public holiday is not recorded centrally.' Thirdly, the response to 'Has the department engaged any external companies or individuals to provide training or advice to officials on the preparation of his Senate Estimates?' the answer is, 'This is not centrally recorded.' These are just three examples out of an 18-page document of evasion, deception and obfuscation, suggested by this government to avoid transparency.

What else have we seen? Flagrant flouting of the orders for production of documents in the Senate, such that the Centre for Public Integrity has made it clear that compliance with orders for production of documents in the other place has fallen to the lowest levels since 1993—those are the lowest levels in a generation. No government has been worse than this one on actually producing documents for scrutiny. Claims of public interest immunity—a claim used to oppose the release of documents—have tripled under this government and are being made every single week.

What else have we seen from this government? This government doesn't like transparency and it doesn't like being held to account, and we've seen this in the malicious and petty slashing of staff from those in opposition and on the crossbenches whose job it is to hold the government to account. This government broke with decades of bipartisanship to reduce the number of staff provided to the opposition and the crossbench. We're not talking about electorate office staff, which we all have as legislators—we're talking about the staff whose role it is to help members of parliament get across policy detail and hold the government to account. It's absurd, it's petty, it's a personal abuse of power, and it's all designed to shy away from scrutiny.

This brings us to the FOI proposals that we've read about in the papers today. I've had a briefing on the principles but I haven't seen the legislation. What has been reported overnight is a continuation of this very disturbing pattern of behaviour. At a time when transparency seems to be at a historic low, this government wants to push through laws designed to further restrict access to information and to charge Australians for accessing the documents that will hold government to account. I'm a pragmatic man. I will work with the government if there are sensible reforms in our national interest. But every Australian should be disturbed by a wholesale truth tax that will require Australians to pay to play to access information held by this government. A wholesale truth tax that requires Australians to pay to play on FOI sends a clear message that Labor believes that your information belongs to them, not to the Australian people.

Labor will try to defend this. They'll try to talk about AI bots—clearly, they know about AI bots if they're talking about them. They'll try to talk about vexatious AI requests—well, there are provisions dealing with that already. This is a government with a culture of cover-ups. All of these concerns point to an underlying culture that says the release of information must be managed and controlled. This is the culture that this government has built; a culture of secrecy, an allergy to scrutiny and a failure to keep to the standards that they themselves set in opposition. That's what they presented to the Australian people, and for that they stand condemned.

Mr HILL (Bruce—Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs and Assistant Minister for International Education) (15:48): I will give my friend the member for Berowra points for a valiant effort, but the troops look bored. They look sad, they look bored and they were looking at their phones. I'll give the member for Mallee a shout out; she was nodding appropriately. It's not easy to be a nodder in opposition, so well done.

Those poor souls watching the parliament from home, wondering 'What is this debate about?'—I think we've got one person left in the gallery—would be right to be confused at this debate. The opposition can choose for this hour of the parliament to bring any topic they like. They could talk about Medicare—well, they wouldn't want to talk about Medicare, they would have a nuclear explosion. They have one of their little nuclear meltdowns when they talk about Medicare. They could talk about the cost of living, energy prices, agriculture, defence, foreign affairs—anything that might have some relevance to the Australian people. But, instead, the Liberal and National parties choose to bring on this debate. It's their choice to bring on a debate at this hour about the culture of secrecy in government.

It feels like we may have entered a parallel universe. I checked the calendar when I saw the topic. Is it April Fools' Day? No, it's 2 September 2025. Is it the 'International Day of Irony'? It is possibly the most ironic thing that this mob—who brought you the shame and cover-up of robodebt, who brought you secret ministries and cabinet committees of one, and who failed to introduce a national anti-corruption commission—choose to bring on a debate about secrecy. It is the silliest thing since Tony Abbott knighted Sir Prince Philip, which the comedians then thought may, indeed, be the death of irony because nothing could ever be funnier. But here we are.

I am really happy—and the government is happy—to have this debate with this mob. It is an own goal—that's a little tip to the tactics committee—to bring on a debate on secrecy when you are the Liberal and National parties inheriting the wreck of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison legacy. It reminds me of the old saying: never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. Now, you could quibble with two words there. You could quibble with the word 'enemy'—I did not describe the people on the other side as enemies; I described them as opponents. I wouldn't quibble with the word 'he' because, statistically and overwhelmingly, it's going to be accurate. But honestly, the mob who brought you the secret ministries—it's a serious point. It was funny. It was objectively the source of untold numbers of jokes, on social media and for the comedians around the country, that the former Liberal prime minister, Scott Morrison, swore himself in secretly as the Treasurer; the Minister for Home Affairs; the Minister for Science, Industry, Energy and Resources; and the Minister for Health. And, not content with that, he also secretly took on the finance ministry. He didn't tell anyone publicly, although he did tell quite a number of them. They're not going to be able to get away, if they want to bring on a debate about secrecy, by saying, 'Oh, that was that odious Scott Morrison character; he is gone.' The member for New England was all over it. Multiple members of the cabinet knew exactly what was going on. They knew exactly what Mr Morrison was like, and they knew what he was.

The inquiry by former High Court justice Bell said that the secret ministries were 'corrosive of trust in government'. The Solicitor-General found that the secret ministries of the Liberal government undermined the basic principles of our entire Westminster system of government and that it was a deliberate action. You don't accidentally appoint yourself as Treasurer, finance minister, home affairs minister and all the others. As I said, you can't blame Scott Morrison. The now leader of the opposition was a cabinet minister in that disgraced, degraded government that enabled this culture of secrecy, which corroded trust and corroded Australians' trust in government itself. No-one could have imagined that early last term, when this got revealed, we would have to introduce legislation into the parliament and debate the bill, week after week, to pass a law to say, 'You can't have secret ministers.' It seemed pretty obvious, as a basic principle of accountability, that Australians needed to know who the ministers were and that the parliament, from which authority for executive government flows, needed to know who the ministers were so they could hold them to account. You didn't think it would be necessary.

Then again, when I was chair of the audit committee we had to add an eighth principle—actually, it was when they had a majority, and I was the deputy chair—to the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines which said that ministers actually have to follow the guidelines. Even the now opposition, the majority, said, 'Yes, it's got pretty bad with the grants rorting. We probably should actually pass a rule that says you have to follow the rules.'

The previous prime minister was aided and abetted by his cabinet colleagues, as I said. I wouldn't be able to get away with recording in Hansard the description of the previous prime minister by Michael Keenan, the former cabinet minister who served alongside him, but you can google that. If you want to know what they were like, I encourage you, if you haven't read it, to read Bulldozed by Niki Savva. I actually read it when it came out and my step count that day was 506 steps, from the couch to the fridge to the bathroom and back again—so gripped was I with reading the inside account of the dysfunction that was the Morrison government, the trashing of democratic conventions and norms right throughout that period. Even John Howard had the decency and the common sense to criticise them. Yet when push came to shove, when a censure motion was brought to this House against the former prime minister for trashing the core conventions of the Westminster system, they walked out of the chamber. They couldn't even bring themselves to vote for it.

But it's not just domestic secrecy. Their lack of integrity and their addiction to secrecy trashed Australia's standing in Transparency International's global rankings—that is, the corruption perceptions index score. From 2013 to 2021, when this mob were in government, Australia saw the largest decline of any OECD country in Transparency International's rankings—absolutely shameful! On their watch, we fell from the seventh-least corrupt system in the world to eighteenth, it's a record low score for Australia. Why? Well, we heard a bit about FOI. The degradation of the FOI regime under the previous government certainly didn't help. There were absolutely savage cuts by the Abbott government when they were elected, completely stripping out the resources, and there was their failure to appoint a dedicated commissioner of FOI. They actually job-shared the privacy job, the FOI job and the information commissioner job with one person. So the same person who was supposed to be keeping stuff private was also responsible for making stuff available publicly. They failed to modernise the regime.

This government has boosted resources to the FOI commissioner—appointed an FOI commissioner—and overhauled the reporting to be more honest. There have been some silly media stories—a bit of hyperbole. That's because we changed the typology of reporting to properly distinguish between FOI requests that are released in part and those released in full. Unfortunately, some media outlets have muddled the reporting on that. But this week, proudly, the Attorney-General will introduce important reforms to improve and modernise FOI; to stop anonymous FOI requests—you'd think it would be pretty low-hanging fruit that you can't make an anonymous FOI request—to stop the secret FOI requests; to prioritise genuine requests; and to save dollars on the frivolous and automated requests. We heard the opposition's new little scare campaign—the truth tax. Remember he said it twice with emphasis for his social media cuts?

Ms Plibersek: Uh oh!

Mr HILL: Uh-oh! Here it comes—a new scare campaign. But he did say he'd work with the government, so we'll see where they end up, with a little bit of noise on the way.

I'll finish on this point. The big reason for the failure, under the former government, and the national shame of plummeting in Transparency International's rankings—the slump in transparency versus the jump we've seen under this government—was their failure for years to introduce a national anticorruption commission. Labor put principles on the table, and the then government had a little con trick. They drafted a bill; it was a ridiculous proposal. The former prime minister used to wave it around in here. We'd say, 'Well, introduce it into the parliament.' They wouldn't introduce it into the parliament, because they knew that a whole bunch of their own members would cross the floor and amend the bill with Labor. They didn't want that. Their bill, actually, was a giant con trick. It would've literally given the power to the government to decide whether Liberal MPs would or wouldn't be investigated by the anticorruption commission.

This government has proudly introduced a national anticorruption commission with teeth, with the powers of a standing royal commission, with a truly independent commissioner and with real power to investigate public servants, public agencies and members of parliament and their offices—and rightly so. The contrast could not be clearer. As a result of the actions we took in just our first term, we jumped to 10th place in the Transparency International rankings in 2024. Now, of course they go up and down from year to year because they're relative to what other nations are doing. But that big reform alone, which they in their decade in office refused and failed to introduce, has had a fundamentally important effect on our public administration, undermining the culture of corruption and secrecy that had built up. I'm sure other speakers can talk about robodebt—that fine little episode. But it has also helped to restore our international standing.

Dr WEBSTER (Mallee) (15:58): Here we are on sitting day 13 of the new parliament, and the Albanese government is already acting like a third- or fourth-term government, lacking in transparency and accountability—and very smug at it. The coalition opposition has been listening to Australians, and, as shadow minister for regional development, local government and territories and shadow minister for regional communications—and, formerly, as shadow assistant minister for regional health—I have consistently heard story after story from stakeholders that they cannot get in to see a Labor government minister. It's okay to see the minister's staff, but not the minister. I get replies to my letters to ministers from their chiefs of staff and other staff, not the elected minister. This is an arrogant and out-of-touch Albanese Labor government that think they can get away with anything. Yet, the Prime Minister said last month:

My government is unashamedly an open government.

In April, Mr Albanese said:

I'm not frightened of scrutiny and transparency.

If the Prime Minister isn't frightened, why all the non-disclosure agreements? Why launch the biggest attack on freedom of information in 15 years? Why slash the number of staff allocated to the opposition?

The Prime Minister said, on 25 November 2022:

We're shining sunlight on a shadow government that preferred to operate in darkness, a government that operated in a cult of secrecy and a culture of cover-up, which arrogantly dismissed scrutiny from the parliament and the public as a mere inconvenience.

Yet, we have seen cover-up claims unravelling in court in relation to the payout to Brittany Higgins concerning former senator Linda Reynolds and her former chief of staff Fiona Brown, just this week. At the Bush Summit in Ballarat on Friday, the Prime Minister told a sceptical farmer audience, many of whom were from my electorate of Mallee, 'I won't BS you'—I'm paraphrasing. If the Prime Minister is not misleading farmers in regional Australia, why is the government moving in an increasingly secretive fashion?

The Australian government should operate as good corporate citizens. It is required to model good behaviour for other businesses to follow, yet what do we see in my electorate of Mallee and across regional Australia? Non-disclosure agreements—one after the other—secrecy, division and families that no longer talk to each other. Indeed, the Leader of the Nationals shared today an ageing farmer's one dying hope that his farming sons will speak with one another again. Why have they stopped talking to one another? They stopped talking over positions on the Albanese government's reckless railroading of regional communities with energy projects. These energy industry cowboys, the majority of them foreign owned, have been trashing social licence, which is a fact I think all serious observers of the energy debate acknowledge, including former and current Australian energy infrastructure commissioners. Social licence is being trashed because these energy industry cowboys are signing farmers and landowners up to non-disclosure agreements using divide-and-conquer tactics. We have seen the same from the Albanese Labor government: using selective consultation on key policy debates; keeping people in the dark, not taking the Australian community with them; and obfuscation and spin over energy prices, pretending power bills are going down, while they're actually going up. The lived experience of all Australians is power prices going up and energy reliability going down while emissions are flatlining.

This Labor government is a government that is loose with the truth, using eye-watering amounts of taxpayer money to cover for their policy failures on energy, and pretending it is good for Australians. It is anything but, and the government's culture of secrecy is dragging Australians into the Dark Ages.

Dr GARLAND (Chisholm) (16:03): I am really pleased to speak on this topic, because I know that maintaining—and, in fact, since we came into government, having to restore—the conventions of democracy is really important to me and my community. I remember when I was first a candidate in 2021 how appalled my community were at the absolute failure of those opposite to have delivered a National Anti-Corruption Commission when they were given the privilege of being in government. Our government's commitment to restore trust and integrity to federal politics is really important and it was recognised earlier this year, with Australia back in the top 10 nations in Transparency International's corruption perceptions index. We know trust declined over the years that those opposite were in government, and it is really important to me and my community—and our government—that we restore that trust.

Australia's reputation was absolutely trashed by those opposite, and we fell in the ranks for the first time in almost a decade. We had the worst result, in terms of corruption perception, of any OECD country and the worst result in Australia's history. This is simply appalling. This index is a very important independent measure. It acts as a barometer of global integrity and a powerful reminder for us in this place about what is at stake when corruption is allowed to take root. We saw that for ourselves in this country. We saw that there was a link between corruption and people's faith in government being dismantled. Their participation in democracy was undermined because of the corruption of the previous government. Our commitment to transparency is unwavering—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): Just a moment—a point of order?

Mr Wallace: I ask the speaker to withdraw that comment. She is making a direct allegation against the former government as being corrupt. There is no evidence of that whatsoever. Corruption is a criminal offence. The speaker is accusing the government of criminal—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's not an opportunity for debate. You've raised your point of order, and I've listened. Thank you. I will ask the member to withdraw that statement.

Dr GARLAND: I will withdraw that, but I'll also clarify that this is an independent measure and that Australia dropped to 18 in the rankings of Transparency International's corruption perception index. That is a matter of fact.

Mr Violi: On a point of order, for the withdrawal there's no commentary required, and perception is—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. Your point of order is denied.

Dr GARLAND: Our commitment to transparency is unwavering. Following the 2022 election, we immediately embarked on necessary reform to restore public trust, strengthen accountability and ensure that integrity remains at the core of our public institutions and democracy. I actually am pretty pleased that those opposite are so agitated about allegations or perceptions of corruption, because I think it is very important that we all work together to make sure that we never again see those dark days that we saw under the previous government.

Within months of coming to government, we legislated to establish a national anticorruption commission—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me, Member for Chisholm. What is your point of order, Member for Fisher?

Mr Wallace: My point of order is that the speaker is acting against the standing orders. She has again—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am listening very carefully—

Mr Wallace: No, just hear me out, Madam Deputy Speaker. The speaker has impugned the former government and members who are still members of this House as having been involved in corruption.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have listened very carefully. Your first point of order was taken. Your second point I do not accept. I am listening very carefully to the statements and references to a report that has been cited. You might not like that; I accept that. But it is not casting imputations against you.

Mr Wallace: It's not the report.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sit, please. You do not have the call.

Dr GARLAND: As I said, within months of coming to government we legislated to establish the National Anti-Corruption Commission. People in my community and across Australia had waited for years for the former government to implement its promise to deliver a Commonwealth integrity commission. Our government has delivered that. I'm really proud that we've delivered that and that that became our priority, rather than having a prime minister who decided to swear himself into secret ministries. That was an absolute distortion of this system that we need to always defend so that the public has trust in what we do here.

Mr GREGG (Deakin) (16:13): It was somewhat surprising to hear an analysis of a culture of secrecy from the coalition, the very folks that brought us a secret minister for health; a secret minister for finance; a secret minister for industry, science, energy and resources; a secret minister for home affairs; and a secret treasurer. I recall a culture of secrecy also at a time when we were raising the very serious issue of robodebt, when it was just responded to with doubling down and attacks rather than genuine introspection. Introspection is something we certainly have not seen from those opposite.

We don't have to go very far back down the time tunnel to remember a party of government promising to deliver an anticorruption commission, getting into government in 2019 and failing to deliver.

The promise of an anticorruption commission was key to restoring integrity in government. They failed to deliver it, but I'll tell you who did deliver it: the Labor Party. When the Albanese Labor government was brought in, we introduced the National Anti-Corruption Commission. It is now here, it is in effect, and it is doing its job. We've also introduced changes to the Public Service Act to ensure that ministers are no longer giving directions relating to the employment of staff. And we've addressed another fundamental institutional problem created by those opposite with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal—a body there to ensure the integrity of government decision-making and the lawfulness of government decisions. It had become an opaque and overly politicised institution, so fatally damaged that it had to be replaced. The new Administrative Review Tribunal introduced by the Albanese Labor government finally has some transparent appointment requirements to make sure we are appointing members on merit—those who are qualified to do the job and can serve the Australian public by providing good decisions relating to the application of executive power. That is true accountability.

We have also begun the process of reforming whistleblower protection laws. Tranche 1 is already in effect. We're working on tranche 2, and we'll ensure that whistleblowers are protected, as we would expect in a democratic society. We're also rejuvenating the Open Government Partnership, introducing the third national plan promoting accountability and transparency in government and doing reforms to make sure the culture in this place around personal behaviour is also improved. We did the hard work on delivering the Respect@Work report. We have made the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service an independent statutory body to ensure that the culture in this place of poor behaviour being swept under the rug is gone. It was to ensure the standards that reasonable people in Australia expect of any workplace are adhered to in this place as well. The way we treat each other matters, and, when misbehaviour occurs, people should be held accountable. That is something that we are pursuing not just with rhetoric but with action.

The culture of a government can be seen in what it does. The culture of the Albanese Labor government is of delivering cheaper medicines; delivering free TAFE; delivering more housing; delivering changes to the five per cent deposit scheme to ensure that every first home buyer can get themselves into the market; and delivering on paid prac for people studying nursing, social work and other courses, like teaching. We have so many positive plans, and as a government we are not talking about sitting around eating each other up, like the coalition does every time the words 'Medicare' or 'environment' are mentioned. We are focusing on delivering the promises made to the Australian people.

A point has been made about changes to the freedom of information legislation. This will be going to committee. There will be every opportunity for all sides to contribute to the discussion about that bill, as is normal process. It will be a transparent, open, democratic process. Changes to the bill may well occur in response to that good-faith engagement. Rather, we have what has become a daily piece of performative, confected indignation and outrage without any sense of personal insight or introspection. We just see another day rallying against a topic which, really, the Liberal Party when in government performed a lot worse in. So, when we're getting a lecture from the Liberals and Nationals about secrecy, perhaps think back just a few years. Where were we before? We can think about the leadership of the secret Minister for Health, the secret Minister for Finance, the secret Minister for Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, the secret Minister for Home Affairs and the secret Treasurer when we think about the character of the previous government and what change in culture the Albanese Labor government has brought in. I can say that it is overwhelmingly positive.

Finally, we have a restoration of key institutions. Finally, we have a restoration of faith in the transparency and accountability of government in Australia. As my friend the member for Chisholm pointed out, we're back in the top 10 on Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index. Things are improving and will continue to improve.

Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (16:18): The Albanese government is introducing a truth tax. A federal Liberal government introduced the Freedom of Information Act in 1982. Since then we have had transparency in government so that Australians can access information about themselves, governments and government programs. But the Albanese Labor government is betraying its commitment to openness and transparency by now introducing new provisions which make it harder for Australians to access information about government programs and insight into how their government is conducting itself. The Albanese government is seeking to hide information about its deliberations from the public and from journalists to minimise scrutiny. Freedom of information laws are under attack, making it harder than ever to access basic information about government documents. It will expand the range of confidential documents, shielding ministers and, of course, bureaucrats from scrutiny of information.

This is not some sort of subjective comment. The Centre for Public Integrity has found that, in the year 2011-12, 59 per cent of documents were available unredacted; now, it is just 25 per cent. This is not a change that is being introduced to try and boost transparency or information about government data or policy advice. This change is clearly about covering up government activity. And they're imposing new taxes to limit access to information, to limit the capacity of Australians to ask basic questions of their government. That's why the Albanese government is introducing a truth tax, because what they're doing is denying information to Australians. In 2022-23, more freedom of information requests were denied than granted, showing a shameful position of secrecy, and a cloud of secrecy has now descended upon the Albanese government. There is a clear pattern of deception and a pay-for-play approach to information under the Albanese government. That is why this truth tax must be defeated. It's a direct attack on the transparency and information available to the Australian people.

The truth tax that's being put forward by the Albanese government is one of the most corrosive things that we have seen in our parliamentary democracy. We have seen an active choice wherein the Labor Party is seeking to impose a new cost to limit access to information for Australians in relation to simply knowing, so that there can be proper scrutiny and accountability, what ministers who sit on government benches are doing and the information that's being provided to them as part of normal government decision-making. I understand that, when they're in government, they're sitting there and they do not want to be questioned. I understand that they do not want people to ask for basic bits of information. I understand that they do not like questions at question time. I understand that the Prime Minister likes to come into this chamber, throw his weight around and give his Castro-like responses to basic questions about the operations of the healthcare system or the aged-care system or how his government is operating. But the reality is that we live in a democracy. The parliament of the people of Australia is not the National People's Congress. The job of members of parliament—whether they are opposition members, Independents or members of minor parties, they have a right to ask questions and simply hold the government to account, just as journalists have a right to ask basic questions of government and to submit freedom of information applications so that there can be proper scrutiny of how a government is making its decisions.

But the answer, despite the promises of this government—they said they'd be the most transparent in Australian political history—is pulling the curtain of secrecy down behind them so that people cannot see deep into the heart of this government, and they're putting up cost barriers to limit the capacity of everyday Australians to see what this government is doing. Of course, big corporates will be able to afford the fees, but it will be average Australians, already struggling under the daily pressures of the rising cost of living, who will not be able to hold their government to account. This is the problem, and, of course, it sits against a backdrop of everything else this government has already done, from cutting the staff of the opposition so there can be less accountability in this chamber. We are seeing a government that is becoming increasingly drunk on their own power, because they throw out arguments about why they need to limit access to information with no substantiation and no evidence. This truth tax must be defeated.

Mr NG (Menzies) (16:24): The Albanese Labor government has taken significant steps to restore transparency and trust in government. We recognise how important this is in an era of increasing misinformation and polarisation, particularly at the fringes of society, and as usual we see those opposite peddle that fear and misinformation.

We have established new standards of transparency and accountability. We created the National Anti-Corruption Commission in July 2023. For the first time at the federal level, we have an independent watchdog with broad powers to investigate serious and systematic corruption across ministers, MPs, staffers, public servants and contractors. Those opposite went to the 2019 election promising a national anticorruption commission, and then they left the Australian people waiting for three long years. It wasn't until we came to government that this important measure was put in place to ensure integrity in our federal system of government.

After years of secrecy and inaction under the coalition, the National Anti-Corruption Commission represents a strong commitment to integrity in government. Equally, in our first term, we announced the robodebt royal commission. This inquiry showed the depth of the coalition's culture of secrecy and contempt of Australians. Only under Labor were $1.7 billion repaid to more than 430,000 victims of this illegal scheme, confirming that we put people first, not profits.

Beyond these reforms, we have also introduced stricter rules on grants to prevent rorting, reversed secrecy around National Cabinet to restore freedom-of-information accountability and legislated emissions reductions targets to bring credibility back to climate policy. Over nine years of government, the coalition stacked the Administrative Appeals Tribunal with so many unqualified party hacks that the only way to salvage this important essential function of reviewing government decisions was to abolish the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and put in its place the Administrative Review Tribunal, where members are appointed according to qualifications and merit. We've also re-established the Administrative Review Council—a key robodebt recommendation. We've strengthened the Public Service Act to protect agency independence, and we are reforming the freedom-of-information system to ensure it works fairly and effectively. This stands in stark contrast to the coalition's culture of hidden and secret governments.

The member for Berowra referred to our freedom-of-information reforms that the Attorney-General will introduce to this parliament. The current freedom-of-information system is 40 years old and no longer fit for purpose. Like so much of what the coalition clings to, it's well out of date. We are committed to transparency and a robust freedom-of-information regime, but freedom-of-information costs have been increasing exponentially. In 2023-24 financial year, they increased a significant amount—23 per cent. This is not sustainable, especially in an age of vexatious requests. Our reforms will ensure that genuine freedom-of-information requests are prioritised, that anonymous freedom-of-information requests are no longer permitted and that the scheme itself remains sustainable and fit for purpose in an age of increasingly vexatious requests.

Those opposite, in bringing this question, show an incredible amount of hypocrisy. Let's talk about transparency in the last Liberal government. I referred to the robodebt scheme, introduced under the Abbott government. Over 430,000 Australians were issued with debts totalling $1.7 billion—many of them falsely. Mind you, at the time, the government hid internal legal advice in 2014 and 2015 warning the scheme was unlawful. Documents showing the Morrison government's and other ministers' direct involvement were buried until the royal commission forced their release. We are talking about government secrecy. The member for Berowra was in government during the worst of it. In 2019, we found that $100 million in community sports grants were allocated to mates ahead of the federal election—the famous colour coded spreadsheets directed at marginal seats. It was money meant for kids, clubs communities that was diverted for political gain. The Albanese Labor government is getting on with making government more transparent. (Time expired)

Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (16:29): It's always a privilege to be able to make a contribution to the matter of public importance. I thank those that have made a contribution to this debate. Any time we have a conversation about transparency and openness it's a good thing for the Australian public, and I am happy to be able to engage in this debate.

I have taken away a couple of points from the debate that I want to share with the room—in light of thanking those members who have made a contribution. We, as an opposition, need to make sure that we keep a light on the government. We need to make sure that the overwhelming numbers within the Australian Labor Party that exist in this chamber, which were so overwhelming and celebrated as a great victory—I think it was Lord Acton who once said:

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I think that was back in 1887. It has stood fast for that amount of time. With the numbers that are in this place, it is incumbent upon us, as an opposition, to shine a light when the light cannot get in. I come to the dispatch box on behalf of our fourth estate, who are raising this discussion, this matter of public importance, as a real concern. If those members in this house are genuine, they will have the conversation with the people who wrote their speaking points to revisit this.

In opposition, Labor promised to shine a light on politics and bring back accountability, but now it's rolling out the biggest attack on freedom of information that we have seen as a country in 15 years. The Albanese government wants to introduce what the previous speaker has referred to as a 'truth tax', charging fees on an FOI request that should be made public. I thought the previous speaker made a very valid and salient point about vexatious freedom of information requests, particularly if they were made by an anonymous party. I would agree. If they're anonymous, they're not going to put their name to it and we don't know what it's for, I wouldn't be giving them any credence. But, for those bodies that sit up there and are asking questions that should be made available, I would ask genuinely for the Australian Labor Party to reconsider their position. Plans to roll back scrutiny and normalise the use of fees for freedom of information are the latest in a series of attacks on transparency and accountability. It's the biggest attack on freedom of information in over 15 years, as I just mentioned.

Since assuming office, Labor has presided over a massive spike in freedom of information requests and a massive spike in their refusals. They've pioneered widespread non-disclosure agreements on stakeholder consultation. I was not aware that we had ever participated in that type of activity in government. I will stand corrected, but, for the public record, governments having non-disclosure agreements with working parties coming into open forums is just beyond the pale. They've produced a secret manual which they've circulated to public servants on how to give acceptable answers in estimates and repeatedly flouted Senate orders on the production of documents. They've limited parliamentary scrutiny through changes of standing orders. There's nothing wrong with that; that is the privilege of government. But don't come in and be the virtue of all things transparent when debate is being shut down and bills are being sent to the other place while we continue to debate what we'd hopefully think would be an outcome. They've slashed staff for those parliamentarians tasked with holding officers in government to account, and they've ignored the report of the parliamentary inquiry into access to information.

This is a real issue for the Australian Labor Party, and I would suggest that, while we agree on all things transparent, you revisit this for the sake of our nation.