Milton Dick
The second unresolved question is that amendments (3) and (4), moved by the honourable member for Indi, be agreed to.
Helen Haines
To assist the House, I thought it would be useful to give some explanation, given that these amendments were debated last night in the Federation Chamber and there may be many members who didn't have a chance to hear that debate.
In a bill full of antidemocratic reforms that will worsen transparency and accountability, these amendments are particularly important because they go to the question of the expansion of cabinet exemptions. Under the bill that is before us, the test of exemptions is elastic and will be stretched in practice, meaning the public's right to access government information can be determined by whether the public servant thinks it would involve an exempt document. While you can appeal, many people will simply give up on that.
It's already incredibly difficult under the current FOI Act to access documents that have gone anywhere near the cabinet room, and years of litigation have established a very high threshold for the disclosure of documents involved in the cabinet process. I fully respect and support the principle of cabinet solidarity. There must be rigorous and appropriate protections for cabinet confidentiality where it's needed, but, under this bill, anything considered or even simply noted in the cabinet process will be exempt, rather than the previous definition, which referred specifically to deliberation and decision-making. I'm also extremely concerned that the previous 'dominant purpose' test will be replaced by a 'substantive purpose' test, increasing the threshold even higher.
Under these proposals, a document could be exempt simply because it helped to inform the minister in relation to an issue the cabinet will consider. I believe, and I think many people do—civil society organisations from right across the nation say that this is a long bow, way too long. This is a serious extension of what is considered cabinet confidentiality. My amendments seek to remedy that issue, and I really ask members of the House to think very carefully about what we're doing under these freedom-of-information laws, consider their vote and support these amendments.
Tony Burke
I didn't want to interrupt the member during that speech. I just want to note for the House that this entire debate of consideration in detail happened in the Federation Chamber last night and went for two hours. The minister was there, and, effectively, it sounds like we are about to repeat a debate that the House has had in the Federation Chamber, which is a formal part of this House. It's a formal part of our operations. If we're going to get into a situation where it is felt there is a need that whatever is debated in the Federation Chamber needs to be redebated here, that would be a fundamental change in the way the House has operated ever since the Federation Chamber was established. To that end, I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring in relation to the Freedom of Information Bill 2025:
(1) the House note that all proposed amendments to the bill have been fully debated in the Federation Chamber and returned to the House with unresolved questions;
(2) the unresolved questions on the bill being put immediately;
(3) the questions necessary to complete the remaining stages of the bill to be put immediately; and
(4) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister.
Andrew Wallace
I won't delay the House long. I just want to make it clear and make the point that this is why we tried to have the debate in the House the other day. Rather than going backwards and forwards between here and the Fed Chamber, these matters could have been dealt with in their entirety here. I won't take it any further—
Sharon Claydon
Okay, thank you.
Tony Burke
I move:
That the question be now put.
Milton Dick
The question is that the question be put.
Summary
Date and time: 9:52 AM on 2025-11-06
Allegra Spender's vote: No
Total number of "aye" votes: 87
Total number of "no" votes: 48
Total number of abstentions: 15
Related bill: Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025
Adapted from information made available by theyvoteforyou.org.au