Albanese government worse than Morrison era at producing documents for public scrutiny, report finds
The warning comes after the centre assessed the government's response to freedom of information applications, a tool that allows anyone an opportunity to request documents that are not publicly available.
In 2022-23, for the first time, more FOI requests were refused than fully granted to applicants, the report found, which it said undermined the transparency principles of the entire system. The Albanese government was first elected in May 2022.
The report also found the number of FOI documents granted in full had fallen by more than half in just over a decade – from 59% in 2011-12 to 25% in 2023-24.
It found the rate of outright refusals nearly doubled, from 12% to 23% during the same period.
Further, when an FOI decision is challenged and reviewed by the information commissioner, the wait time has increased from six months in 2016-17 to 15.5 months in 2023-24.
The centre's director, Geoffrey Watson, called on the Albanese government to 'reverse this worrying trend to restore the public's right to know.'
'The alarming deterioration in transparency is deeply troubling.' Watson said. 'With the Albanese government's supermajority, the risk of entrenched secrecy becomes greater, undermining democratic accountability.'
The centre also found the Albanese government had a worse compliance rate with Senate orders for the production of documents than its Coalition predecessor.
'The Morrison government's compliance rate with orders to produce documents in the 46th parliament was 48.7% compared to the Albanese government's rate of 32.8% in the 47th parliament,' the report said.
'This represents the second-worst performance of any parliament since 1993'.
The centre also public interest immunity claims over documents have been steadily increasing. These claims are used by the government to withhold documents by arguing their release would not be in the public interest.
In the last parliament, one claim was made every week.
Prof Gabrielle Appleby, a board member of the Centre for Public Integrity, said 'ministers are hiding information from the Senate and the Australian people'.
'There appears to be no other good explanation for such a significant deterioration in the rate of compliance. This is corrosive of democratic accountability,' Appleby said.
The centre said that without an independent legal umpire, as exists in New South Wales, it was impossible to state how many of these public interest immunity claims were 'bogus and evasive or legitimate and necessary'.
Earlier this year, the federal government refused to release a 32-page document outlining its draft response to a parliamentary inquiry that called for sweeping changes to gambling regulation.
This week, the ACT independent senator David Pocock pushed for the documents to be published as part of a senate order for the production of documents.
The Liberals and the Greens have given their support to the order, giving Labor until the end of the month to comply or explain why they will continue to keep the documents secret.
In May, the information commission revealed the federal government was refusing freedom of information requests at a rate not seen for a decade.
At the time, Transparency International Australia chief executive officer, Clancy Moore, said the FoI system was essential to ensuring accountability and integrity, but refusal rates suggested 'important information about the functioning of government is being kept from everyday Australians'.
The Centre for Public Intergity report did note some improvements to the FoI system, including faster processing times and a reduction in the backlog of decisions awaiting review.
In 2023, the Australian Financial Review reported the prime minister's office had initally refused to release his ministerial diary under freedom of information laws as it would 'unreasonably divert' staff resources and unreasonably interfere with his job. The decison was subsequently reversed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
4 hours ago
- The Guardian
University of Sydney removes Palestinian flag from academic's window after accusing him of breaching policy
The University of Sydney has removed a Palestinian flag hanging outside an academic's office after accusing him of breaching its new flag policy. The 13-page flag policy, revised in June and formerly referred to as flag guidelines, sets out the university's requirements for flying and displaying flags and using university flagpoles. Under the policy, 'unapproved flags' must not be flown permanently, including flags that represent unlawful activities, aren't consistent inconsistent with university values, represent a political party or are considered to be 'otherwise unsuitable'. Dr David Brophy, a senior lecturer in modern Chinese history, arrived on campus on Tuesday to find his flag, which had been hanging from an external window of a large campus building, had been taken. Prior to this, he had received an email from the dean of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Prof Lisa Adkins, advising him the university was 'aware of a flag' they believed he had displayed on the outer wall of the A18 Brennan MacCallum building. 'We consider that the ongoing display of the flag is inconsistent with clause 2.8(1) of the Policy which confirms that unapproved flags can be displayed in such areas on a temporary basis only,' Adkins wrote on 26 June. 'To this end, we require you to remove the flag from the outer wall of the building by 4 August 2025. Should the flag not be removed by this time, it will be removed by Central Operations staff and will be treated as lost property.' Sign up: AU Breaking News email The flag policy notes flags must not be flown from university infrastructure without approval from the brand team, and that 'no structure or fixture may be attached to any building to allow a flag to be displayed without approval'. Staff will remove flags that are 'unapproved' considered 'inappropriate, dangerous or offensive' or contravene 'any university policy', the policy notes. A breach of the rules can be considered as misconduct. Adkins noted in her email to Brophy that if he wished to continue to display the flag he could do so in a 'non-shared indoor space', or apply for approval to display the flag outside. After receiving the email, Brophy replied to Adkins, along with the university's vice-chancellor, Prof Mark Scott, saying his conscience 'won't allow me to comply'. 'I go through the day now with gruesome images of emaciated children running through my mind,' Brophy wrote on Monday. 'At a time like this, ethical obligations far outweigh any ad hoc institutional policies, particularly those transparently aimed at stifling opposition to an ongoing genocide. 'I'd like you both to reflect on the moral weight of what you're doing and withdraw the instructions to remove the flag.' Brophy told Guardian Australia he had received no 'direct explanation' as to why 'it's such a bad thing to have this flag up'. The flag was removed when he was not in the office, he said, and as of Wednesday afternoon he was yet to receive a response to his email. 'I've filed a lost property report, and I'm hoping security will be able to locate my flag,' he said. 'I'd like to think the outer facing window of an office at a university was a place where some kind of display of opinion was still possible. 'But the whole flag policy was introduced precisely in response to people like me hanging Palestinian flags … they're hiding behind their policy to justify the action.' A spokesperson for the University of Sydney, who echoed the rules laid out in the email initially sent out to Brophy, said Palestinian flags had not been banned from campus and that the flag was removed from his office because 'unapproved flags of any kind can only be flown from university infrastructure on a temporary basis'. 'The flag is being held safely for collection,' they said. 'We expect Palestinian flags to continue to feature on our campus, including as part of [Thursday's] planned National Student Strike for Palestine.' The national president of the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU), Dr Alison Barnes, said university leadership 'should be standing with staff to defend and uphold these cornerstone principles, not introducing policies that undermine them'. Barnes said there had been increased reports 'across the country' of new measures which had a 'chilling effect on free speech and academic freedom at universities'. The University of Sydney introduced a string of new measures on protests after commissioning an external review into its processes, following the disbanding of a pro-Palestinian encampment, and amid concern from Jewish bodies, including the Australasian Union of Jewish Students (AUJS), that it had not adequately addressed antisemitism on campus. The measures, which included requiring three days notice for demonstrations and banning staff and students from holding banners on campus without prior permission, faced backlash over curtailing freedom of speech. The NTEU's University of Sydney branch president, Dr Peter Chen, said the university's new policies had 'reduced freedom of expression, academic debate, and rights to industrial organising on campus'. Peter Wertheim, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry's co-chief executive, said academics who displayed visible flags and political symbols on campus were not just making a statement about their own views. 'They are deliberately confronting other people who share their working and learning environment with those views, even against their wishes,' he said. 'Such coercive behaviour is a grounds for disciplinary action in most workplaces, and the same rules should apply at universities.' Wertheim said freedom of expression did not include the right to make campuses 'threatening and exclusionary for other employees or impressionable students'.
The Guardian
4 hours ago
- The Guardian
Donald Trump's war on statistics is an authoritarian attack on democracy and countries like Australia should call it out
Whether it be the judicial system, universities, or health organisations, Donald Trump cannot abide by anything that does not confirm his world view. So it was not a shock when late last week he came for statistics – or, more pointedly, the person in charge of the economic statistics. On Friday, the US's Bureau of Labor Studies released the July US employment figures. They were not good. Just 73,000 non-farm jobs were added and annual employment growth was the worst it has been since the GFC years (excluding the pandemic): If the graph does not display click here In response, Trump did what any autocrat would do when told bad news: he shot the messenger – at least only figuratively. Trump argued that Erika McEntarfer, the commissioner of labor statistics, had faked bad figures purely to hurt him. And so he fired her. But this should not be dismissed as 'oh that's just Trump', nor should we just sigh and say we have been in a fact-free era for nearly a decade. Reality might be hanging on to the political debate for dear life, but this move threatens to fling it off the cliff. The BLS data is vital for understanding not just what is going on in the USA but to guide other nations – like here in Australia. For example, Australia is doing very well compared with the US. Unlike the US, our employment rate is higher now than it was before the pandemic: If the graph does not display click here These comparisons can influence future policies. For example, we did very well during the GFC; the US did not. We also did much better during the pandemic than the US. They also give insight into the future. The US is still the world's biggest economy and – as we have seen with inflation – what happens there, often happens here, in Australia: If the graph does not display click here If Trump doesn't like weak employment growth numbers, you think he'll be happy with inflation data that shows his tariffs are causing higher prices? And this is not just some academic exercise. US welfare payments are indexed to inflation, so the official data vitally affects the livelihood of many people. Trump thinks when he closes his eyes the rest of the world disappears. But not measuring inflation or unemployment or global temperatures doesn't disappear the problems. And loss of trust in official data will affect business investment decisions, borrowing costs and – as with all attacks on institutions – faith in democracy. For example, in Australia, the Australian Bureau of Statistics has revealed that in the past year the cost of living for all households except 'self-funded' retirees rose faster than did inflation: If the graph does not display click here This is not the greatest news for the Australian government – no politician likes data that says things might be worse than what they previously argued. Cost of living, unlike inflation, includes mortgage repayments. Despite falling interest rates, repaying a mortgage is still around 4.4% higher than it was a year ago, and since March 2022 mortgage repayments have accounted for nearly half of the increase in cost of living: If the graph does not display click here Does it help the Australian government for the ABS to reveal this? Not really. It could blame our Reserve Bank, but generally governments are blamed for high interest rates. It certainly doesn't help the government for the ABS to release figures that some journalist like me can use to show that the value of wages are 8.6% lower than they were in March 2021 when you use cost of living rather than CPI: If the graph does not display click here That type of information makes life hard for the government – but so it should! In a democracy you have to face your critics, argue your case and convince voters you have the best plans and way forward. Political parties are already working hard to make you question reality. But at least till now, even in the US, where Trump would like there to be a new kind of maths where prices can fall by more than 100% (1,000%, 1,100, 1,200, 1,300!!), reality has been counted and presented. The end of impartial economic data would not just be another case of Trump 'flooding the zone'. It would be a fundamental attack on democracy, designed to ensure those who are suffering from his polices are not able to demonstrate that things are worse – either for them or for the nation. They are the actions usually associated with authoritarian regimes, and we should not shy away from making that clear. Greg Jericho is a Guardian columnist and policy director at the Centre for Future Work
The Guardian
4 hours ago
- The Guardian
Hundreds more CSIRO jobs on the chopping block as experts raise fears over impact on science
Hundreds more jobs could be axed at Australia's national science agency, sparking concerns the country is gutting its research capability just as the Trump administration makes deep cuts into the sector in the US. The latest potential research job losses at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) follow 440 positions being cut last financial year and earlier deep reductions under the Coalition government, including 300 in 2016. They coincide with the Trump administration slashing science agencies in the US, with warnings the loss of expertise could have global ramifications in health, climate science and weather forecasting. The Community and Public Sector Union said the Australian cuts were at odds with the Albanese government's promise to prioritise economic productivity and urged the government to instead increase investment in the CSIRO. Susan Tonks, the union's CSIRO spokesperson, said: 'There's a clear disconnect between the government's talk about boosting productivity and their failure to support the very institution that helps deliver it.' Sign up: AU Breaking News email A CSIRO spokesperson confirmed the agency was 'reshaping its research portfolio' with a goal of making it more financially sustainable, but did not indicate how many jobs might be lost. They said the changes were in part due to the end of Covid-19 'safety net' funding and other government savings measures, and would 'ensure we are focused on delivering the science Australia needs now and into the future'. David Karoly, a University of Melbourne emeritus professor who previously worked at CSIRO, said the cuts were not being offset elsewhere. He said Australia had lower levels of industry funding in research than comparable countries. 'There's a dilemma as to whether Australia wants to support the research infrastructure that's needed to support ongoing research activities in science,' he said. 'The simple answer is Australia doesn't appear to want to do that.' The latest cuts were understood to primarily affect the CSIRO's agriculture and food research unit, with reductions in health and safety, IT and business development. Research unit staff were expected to be informed about funding and staffing changes by October. The May federal budget papers showed an expected 450 person reduction in CSIRO staff, from 5,945 in 2024-25 to 5,495 this financial year. The union said the cuts were the worst since 2014, when the Abbott government oversaw an estimated 20% reduction in staff. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion Tonks said the agency's staff were experiencing 'deep anxiety' over the CSIRO's strategic direction and the cuts were 'directly undermining Australia's ability to innovate, compete and grow'. 'This will continue to be the case as long as this government sits on its hands while hundreds of staff at the CSIRO are shown the door with little to no explanation,' she said. 'If this government is serious about productivity, it must step in, stop the cuts, and back our country's peak science institution.' The CSIRO also confirmed it would sell its stake in the Indian Ocean Marine Research Centre, in Perth's northern suburbs, by the end of 2025. The agency said it was a 'small partner', owning about 15% of the Watermans Bay site. A spokesperson said the agency remained 'committed to the Indian Ocean Marine Research Centre partnership'.
