When Labor swept to power on a promise of a more open and accountable Government, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese painted his predecessor Scott Morrison as a master of secrecy, castigating the former leader for shunning public scrutiny. Yet nearly 18 months into his tenure, the promise of greater transparency appears to be unraveling, with critics accusing the Government of curtailing reforms and bypassing parliamentary oversight.
Multiple sources, including senior Labor figures, say the Albanese Government has shut down a push for broader freedom of information (FOI) reforms championed by former attorney-general Mark Dreyfus. Instead, a narrower and more restrictive set of measures, introduced by his successor Michelle Rowland, has been promoted, drawing widespread opposition from stakeholders, crossbenchers, and the Opposition.
During his time in office, Mr Dreyfus identified what he described as a “fundamental need” to modernise Australia’s outdated FOI system, which allows citizens to request documents held by ministerial offices and departments. His proposals went beyond streamlining access—they aimed for a more holistic improvement in transparency, including making ministerial diaries publicly available, particularly after the 2022 Coalition ministries scandal.
That controversy saw Mr Morrison secretly appoint himself to administer five key portfolios, raising serious questions about executive accountability. Dreyfus’ reforms would have been a significant step in preventing similar power grabs. While the idea was progressive, it was not unprecedented, with comparable transparency measures already in place in other democratic jurisdictions.
Instead, Labor’s current approach, under Ms Rowland, proposes introducing processing fees for FOI requests, expanding document exemptions, and giving ministers broader refusal powers. According to government sources, these reforms are intended to curb a rise in FOI applications that, in some cases, are “frivolous or vexatious,” though critics argue the measures will make it harder and more costly for Australians to engage with the system.
The controversy has created a standoff in Parliament. The Opposition and crossbench have targeted the reforms, arguing that they effectively stifle access to information and undermine democratic accountability. As a result, there is currently no clear path for the bill to pass the Senate.
In September, Ms Rowland proposed the controversial reforms, catching transparency advocates off guard. Labor defended the move, citing the overwhelming growth in FOI requests, which, the government claimed, placed strain on departmental resources. The Attorney-General raised concerns about AI-generated bots flooding agencies with applications, while Cabinet minister Mark Butler suggested the framework could be exploited by foreign actors or criminals, posing a national security risk.
However, a parliamentary hearing revealed a lack of evidence supporting these claims. Officials from the Attorney-General’s Department could not substantiate the allegations that foreign actors or AI bots were targeting the FOI system. Stakeholders and lawmakers widely criticised the bill as “friendless,” with only government departments supporting parts of it.
Emails and briefing notes released under FOI reveal that the department had consulted with the national intelligence community, which warned that foreign adversaries may attempt to exploit legitimate government processes to gather seemingly innocuous information. The department recommended screening requests to deter such activity. However, no specific evidence or examples have been made public, and all requests are already heavily vetted, with sensitive or classified information redacted prior to release.
Sources within Labor suggest that senior ministers, including the Prime Minister, have been reluctant to make access easier, citing the potential for politically embarrassing disclosures. Mr Albanese’s office is understood to have influenced the restrictive nature of the reforms, with no indication that the broader reforms proposed by Mr Dreyfus before the 2022 election will be pursued. The Prime Minister’s office has not addressed questions regarding the decision to shut down the earlier proposals or its involvement in guiding the current package.
A Government spokesperson defended its record, stating: “Whether it’s establishing the national anti-corruption commission or strengthening protections for whistleblowers, it’s clear from our record that we’re upholding a high standard of integrity, transparency, and accountability.”
Yet critics remain unconvinced. The Centre for Public Integrity has called on the Government to use the new year to demonstrate a genuine commitment to transparency, urging robust public debate and comprehensive parliamentary scrutiny of complex legislation. Executive director Catherine Williams said the Centre’s 2026 priorities include monitoring the exercise of public power and ensuring that legislative processes are not rushed.
“The Government has attempted to wind back the right of Australians to access government information,” Ms Williams said. “Protection of the institutions of our democracy continues to be a significant priority.”
Some observers argue that the Government has failed this test at the first hurdle. Labor is pushing to ram through complex hate speech and gun reform legislation when Parliament reconvenes on Monday, following a fatal anti-Semitic terror attack in Bondi. The Government released draft omnibus legislation on a Tuesday, then held a snap inquiry allowing just two days of hearings and three days for public submissions. Critically, the committee conducting the inquiry excluded crossbench participation, limiting scrutiny to Labor and Coalition MPs.
“It’s a very complex piece of legislation, and it’s really difficult to get the balance right at a constitutional level and at the level of democratic rights,” said Gabrielle Appleby, research director at the Centre for Public Integrity. She noted this was part of a growing trend of “rushed legislative processes.”
Dr Appleby pointed to contentious environmental protection laws as another example. In that case, the Government struck a political deal with the Greens to pass reforms before the parliamentary inquiry’s submissions had even closed. She said these patterns of haste pose a threat to democratic norms and leave legislation vulnerable to undue influence by vested interests.
“Each of these bills goes to fundamental democratic concerns or they cover significant policy areas,” Dr Appleby said. “It’s why public consultation and proper parliamentary scrutiny are essential.”
Meanwhile, advocates of transparency have criticised the narrowing of FOI reforms, noting that access to government information is vital not only for accountability but also for the functioning of civil society and the media. They argue that introducing fees and expanding exemptions will discourage ordinary citizens and journalists from pursuing requests, undermining the principle of open government.
The standoff has also raised questions about Labor’s political priorities. While the party came to power promising openness, its legislative strategy and handling of FOI reforms suggest a more cautious approach, prioritising control over potential political fallout. Some former Labor officials and policy experts argue that this reflects a broader trend of executive centralisation, in which governments across Australia have become increasingly wary of releasing information that could be politically damaging.
For now, the FOI reform bill remains in limbo, with no clear path to passage through the Senate. Transparency advocates continue to push for more substantial reforms, warning that Australia risks falling behind other democracies in openness and accountability. At the same time, Labor faces pressure to balance the need for efficient governance with the public’s right to access information and the principles of parliamentary scrutiny.
As Australia enters 2026, the debate over transparency, oversight, and legislative process is likely to intensify. The Government’s handling of FOI reforms, hate speech legislation, gun laws, and environmental protections has highlighted the tension between political expediency and democratic accountability. Experts argue that without a recommitment to open processes, both in FOI and in legislative practice, Labor risks undermining the very principles it pledged to uphold when it came to power.
In the words of Catherine Williams: “Transparency is not just about releasing documents; it’s about creating a culture where the exercise of public power can be robustly examined. That should remain the litmus test for any government committed to democratic integrity.”
With the parliamentary calendar resuming and a string of complex and contentious bills set to be debated, Australia’s democratic institutions face a test of both resilience and principle. The coming months may well determine whether the Albanese Government can reconcile its rhetoric on openness with its actions in office—or whether secrecy and rushed legislative processes will define its legacy.
