The Erosion of Transparency: How FOI Reforms Signal a Broader Retreat from Accountability

Just 17% of Australians believe government is open and transparent, according to a recent study by the Australia Institute. This already low level of trust is now facing a significant challenge as the Albanese government pushes through reforms to Freedom of Information (FOI) laws, sparking accusations of a return to the “cult of secrecy” it once condemned. The changes, initially prompted by concerns within the eSafety Commissioner’s office about being overwhelmed by requests – fears that a deluge of inquiries might ‘jam something’ – are rapidly evolving into a broader reshaping of access to government information, raising fundamental questions about accountability in the digital age.

The eSafety Trigger and the Expanding Scope of Reform

The initial impetus for the FOI revisions centered on the eSafety Commissioner’s office, which faced a surge in requests following its controversial online safety regulations. While legitimate concerns about operational capacity existed, critics argue the government has used this as a pretext for far-reaching changes. The proposed reforms, as reported by The Australian and scrutinized by Michael West Media, extend beyond simply managing request volume. They include provisions that could allow for the automatic rejection of requests deemed “vexatious” or lacking sufficient specificity, potentially stifling legitimate public interest investigations.

This expansion is particularly concerning given the increasing reliance on FOI requests by journalists, researchers, and citizens to hold power accountable. As The Advertiser points out, the government’s actions represent a “deserved defeat” for the principles of open governance. The reforms risk creating a chilling effect, discouraging individuals from seeking information and further eroding public trust.

The “Vexatious” Clause: A Sword Against Scrutiny?

The definition of “vexatious” is at the heart of the controversy. Critics fear the government will exploit this ambiguity to shield itself from scrutiny, labeling legitimate inquiries as burdensome or frivolous. This echoes concerns raised by Pearls and Irritations, which describes the proposed changes as “unconstitutional” and an “evil” attempt to increase government secrecy. The potential for subjective interpretation raises the specter of politically motivated denials, effectively circumventing the intent of FOI legislation.

Beyond Australia: A Global Trend Towards Information Control

Australia isn’t operating in a vacuum. Globally, we’re witnessing a worrying trend towards increased information control, often justified under the guise of national security or operational efficiency. From the use of AI-powered surveillance to the tightening of restrictions on journalistic access, governments worldwide are finding new ways to limit transparency. This trend is fueled by several factors, including:

• The Rise of Disinformation: Concerns about “fake news” and foreign interference are used to justify censorship and control over information flows.
• Data Security Concerns: Protecting sensitive data is a legitimate concern, but it’s increasingly used as a rationale for restricting access to information.
• The Complexity of Modern Governance: The sheer volume and complexity of government operations make it easier to argue that full transparency is impractical.

However, these justifications often mask a deeper desire to avoid accountability. The Australian FOI reforms, viewed in this context, represent a worrying alignment with this global trend.

The Impact of AI on FOI Requests

The increasing use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) will dramatically reshape the FOI landscape. While AI could potentially streamline the request process, it also presents new challenges. AI-powered systems could be used to automatically redact information, identify “vexatious” requests, and even generate misleading responses. This raises concerns about algorithmic bias and the potential for systemic denial of access to information. The very “jamming” feared by eSafety staff could become a feature, not a bug, of the system.

Transparency is becoming increasingly difficult to achieve as governments leverage AI to manage and control information.

Preparing for a Less Transparent Future

The erosion of FOI laws demands a proactive response. Citizens, journalists, and civil society organizations must adapt to a future where accessing government information will be more challenging. This requires:

• Strengthening Investigative Journalism: Independent journalism remains a vital check on power, but it needs increased resources and support.
• Promoting Digital Literacy: Citizens need the skills to critically evaluate information and identify attempts at manipulation.
• Advocating for Stronger Transparency Laws: Continued pressure on governments to uphold their commitments to open governance is essential.
• Exploring Alternative Information Sources: Reliance on official channels alone is no longer sufficient. Cultivating networks and utilizing alternative data sources will be crucial.

The current FOI reforms are not simply a technical adjustment; they represent a fundamental shift in the balance of power between the government and the governed. Ignoring this trend risks a further decline in public trust and a weakening of democratic institutions.

The future of accountability hinges on our ability to adapt and defend the principles of transparency in an increasingly complex and opaque world. What steps will you take to ensure access to information remains a cornerstone of our democracy?