Kate Chaney
Curtin · Independent · Australia
“Digital platforms will have a legal responsibility to prevent harm, but the design of this commitment matters enormously, and I want to flag three things that the government must get right. First, there must be a single overarching duty.”
“The government gave stakeholders representing millions of Australians affected by gambling harm a single 45-minute consultation session on the exposure draft, with written submissions due the next day. Emeritus Professor Mike Daube, who took part in that session, described it afterwards as a charade.”
“A doctor who uses the phone, internet, fax, email or video conferencing to provide lawful VAD care risks prosecution and fines greater than $300,000. This means seriously ill patients must attend every consultation in person, travelling long distances while gravely unwell, often more than once, to make and confirm their request.”
“I rise to present a petition signed by more than 13,000 Australians. The petition has been considered by the Petitions Committee and found to be in order. It calls on this House to amend the Criminal Code Act so that it no longer applies to voluntary assisted dying, VAD.”
“She lived in one half of a single house divided into two separate dwellings. She got on well with the quiet single working man next door. This particular morning she was devastated and in shock. The man had hung himself in the shed where she found him, and left a note listing all the people he owed money to including the amounts.”
“No avenue to call up customer service at these companies and request this person be denied an account. Our nightmare never ends. There's nowhere to help us. The only option presented seems to dissolve the marriage and the family.”
The complete record
Every one of 846 lines we hold for Kate Chaney, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 17.
“It was an unspeakable horror to target Jewish Australians on the first night of Hanukkah, while they were celebrating the triumph of light over darkness. It confirmed the worst fears of Jewish Australians, who'd witnessed a rise in antisemitism in recent years, and it will remain a stain on our collective conscience. Today is about remembering and honouring those who lost their lives on that day, as a step towards ensuring it will never happen again. I would like to express the deepest condolences, from myself and my community of Curtin, to the families, friends and communities of the 15 people who were killed that day. Each of their lives tells a story of kindness, connection and courage.”
“In the eight years I lived at Bondi Beach, I loved the mix of people that you would see on your average Friday night: surfers; city girls catching up in bars; blokes doing laps of the strip in their muscle cars; families of all faiths picnicking on the grass; tourists, fresh off the bus from the airport, feeling the sand between their toes; and Jewish locals walking quietly to shul. It was sometimes rowdy, but it was usually civil. It was the messy promise of multiculturalism and optimism that made me feel proud to be Australian. The horrific antisemitic attack on 14 December was an attempt to break that promise—to frighten and divide us. Just as September 11 was an Islamic extremist attack at the symbolic heart of American capitalism, this was an attack at the symbolic heart of Australian pluralism and inclusion.”
“I'm hugely grateful to my whole team, my husband, my three kids, my extended family and the nearly 1,000 volunteers who gave up their time this year to keep Curtin independent. I'm also very grateful to the people of Curtin for the opportunity to represent them. Thank you for showing we can do politics differently in 2025. I look forward to 2026.”
“This year I farewelled Tony Fairweather and Louise Jones, who were foundational members of Curtin Independent and followed up with operational roles in my first term. Their integrity, vision, strategic insight and willingness to turn their hand to whatever was needed made the last three years and two campaigns possible. Thank you, Tony and Louise. My senior policy adviser Katherine Parkinson has been by my side since day one, making significant personal sacrifices, leaving her young children to travel with me across the country for every sitting week for 3½ years. I could not have survived these years without her humour, her intellect and her loyalty, and I will miss her terribly as she moves into her next, less travel-intensive, role.”
“We've held community events with Saul Griffith on electrification and Ken Henry on tax reform, a grants-writing workshop and an innovative online event using a new AI powered tool to all together community views on negative-gearing and CGT reforms. My community liaison team, Joe and Felicity, continue to go above and beyond for the constituents of Curtin, and, in the last five months, they have helped more than 250 people with their concerns with aged care, Centrelink, immigration and child support, as well as responded to nearly 2,000 emails. I'm so grateful that our team Chaney volunteers keep showing up—from a river clean-up to doorknocking and public pop-ups. On this last day of parliament, I want to particularly thank some team members.”
“The crossbench has introduced 10 private members' bills, ranging in topic from climate to gambling to ebike regulation to responding to robodebt. These put pressure on the government, showing that change is possible. My private members' bills were to ban AI tools designed to generate child sexual abuse material, and to clean-up data harvesting in the postal voting process. Both demonstrate issues with clear solutions that the government needs to implement, but, of course, the most important thing to me is ensuring that the voice of our community is heard in Canberra and that the people of Curtin feel informed and engaged in our democracy. Since May, I've made eight Curtin submissions to committee inquiries, including recommendations on economic reform, productivity, aged care, Thriving Kids, net zero, the FOI Bill and electoral laws.”
“After I called for the establishment of an Australian AI safety institute to identify risks and support policymakers and regulators, the government announced a similar body would be established. As the government tried to undermine our freedom-of-information laws, it was the crossbench that proposed and debated amendments, drawing attention to the dangerous signs of increasing secrecy. It's now languishing in the Senate. Part of being a constructive crossbench is finding ways to improve or refine legislation. In the last eight sitting weeks, the crossbench has introduced 160 amendments to 10 pieces of legislation, drafted in consultation with experts and stakeholders. As a comparison, the opposition has introduced only 18 amendments to five pieces of legislation.”
“Additionally, after fighting for the huge number of older Australians who are waiting, we saw 20,000 home-care packages brought forward ahead of the delayed implementation dates. After repeated demands by the crossbench in the last parliament, the Treasurer agreed not to tax unrealised gains in the new superannuation laws. After I'd tried to split the education bill to ensure the integrity of the higher education system without an international student cap, the government saw sense and did the same thing. After advocating for tax reform in the last term, it's now finally on the agenda, and, after its inclusion in the Economic Reform Roundtable, momentum is building.”
“On the last scheduled sitting day of the parliamentary year, I couldn't be prouder of the constructive, positive and accountable way my community and the crossbench have contributed since the start of the 48th parliament. After eight weeks of parliament, the crossbench is already showing its impact. We've had some good wins this year already. The crossbench rigorously interrogated the EPBC bill, collectively proposing 119 amendments. The House knocked back 118, but I was pleased that one of my amendments was accepted—to improve the transparency of the offsets fund. Tomorrow morning we're expecting the bill to come back from the Senate with additional amendments, originally proposed by the crossbench in the House, to protect forests and prevent fossil fuel projects from using the national interest process.”
“My question is for the Prime Minister. The average house price has gone from four to nine times the average income in the last 25 years, locking younger Australians out of a home. If this government is trying to address the housing affordability crisis, are your policies aiming to increase, plateau or reduce house prices?”
“My question is to the Prime Minister. Australians are asking why the government has failed to respond to the Murphy review's unanimous recommendation to ban gambling ads. No-one in this chamber is seeking to ban gambling, despite what you've said, and when asked about reform you list actions that were announced before the Murphy review. Many members of your own party support an ad ban. Why won't you allow a free vote on a ban on ads for online gambling?”
“It recognises that Australian stories are not just entertainment; they are part of the fabric of who we are. They help us understand ourselves and each other and they allow the world to understand us. The government have listened to extensive consultation and years of advocacy and acted, and I commend them for that. I strongly support the bill and the amendment being introduced by the member for Wentworth. I look forward to seeing it strengthen our culture, creative industries and national identity for years to come.”
“I'll be supporting the amendment proposed by the member for Wentworth to exclude the amount of the producer offset from qualifying expenditure in order to prevent international streaming services from artificially reducing their Australian expenditure. That amendment would also ensure that Australian companies, rather than international companies, retain important intellectual property rights over the new Australian programs. It requires that the streaming services report on the subgenres of their new Australian programs to promote broader assessment and monitoring and to help key sectors of the screen industry, like children's programming and documentary production. I urge the government to seriously consider this amendment. To conclude, this is good, thoughtful, balanced legislation.”
“Screen Producers Australia called this 'a landmark day', the result of more than a decade of advocacy built on the simple principle that Australian stories deserve a guaranteed space in our media landscape. As SPA put it, without clear local content rules, the ready availability of imported content risks drowning out our own voice. Of course, this is about audiences too. Australians want Australian stories. They want stories that reflect our identity, humour, complexity and diversity. They want programs that understand our communities because they come from our communities. This bill honours that. There are some small improvements that could be made to this bill.”
“More and more Australians watch content through streaming platforms, and those platforms have had no requirement to invest in Australian stories. This gap has left our screen sector increasingly vulnerable. Production has slumped, local commissions have declined and a highly-skilled workforce—actors, directors, writers, crew, editors, musicians and creatives—has faced deep uncertainty. The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance described today's reforms as 'a vital lifeline'. They stressed that the new content requirements will deliver safe and secure employment opportunities and offer real hope to thousands of creative workers who rely on a stable and sustainable production sector.”
“Streamers can equip their obligations over a three-year cycle, recognising the lumpy, project based nature of screen investments, and they must report annually to ACMA. Crucially, the bill brings streaming services into line with the free-to-air and subscription broadcasters who have carried these obligations for decades. In short, the bill guarantees that no matter which remote control Australians pick up, Australian stories will remain at their fingertips. This reform is not just a technical fix; it's a cultural safeguard and a cultural opportunity. For decades, Australia's local content rules have ensured we can hear our own voices and see our own communities, histories and quirks reflected on screen. But audience habits have changed dramatically.”
“I commend the government, and Ministers Burke and Wells in particular, for delivering the decisive action that Australia's screen sector has needed for far too long. The bill introduces for the first time a clear and enforceable Australian content requirement for the major streaming platforms like Netflix, Disney+ and Prime Video—the services that now dominate how Australians watch television. If a streaming service has at least one million paying subscribers in Australia, it will be required to spend more on new eligible Australian programs—either 10 per cent of its total program expenditure for Australia or 7.5 per cent of its Australian revenue. These eligible programs include the backbone of Australian storytelling—drama, children's content, documentaries, arts and educational programs.”
“We have fewer of these common cultural touchpoints, these collective Australian experiences that bring us together. Some of this is inevitable and positively reflects that we now accept a much broader range of ways to be Australian, and we have endless global choices available to us. But it also comes at a cultural cost, and this cost is not inevitable. TV stations are required to include some Australian content, which is how we get to hear more of our stories. But, until now, streaming platforms have not had this requirement, and this bill, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025, fixes that. This bill is a significant and long-awaited reform. It's a milestone for Australia's cultural life.”
“I didn't want my kids to learn to talk with an American accent; I wanted them to understand, embrace and share our unique Australian culture. Although my kids were too old for Bluey , I've watched it with my nieces and nephews and seen the same thing in today's toddlers. Bluey shows the best of us, reflecting our culture and values in a way that reminds not just kids but also adults who we are. Only a few years ago I loved watching Tim Minchin's Upright , a road trip across Australia that ended with a homecoming to Cottesloe, in my electorate of Curtin. The trees, the architecture and the vibe bring these stories into our lives and make them real to us. As our TV viewing patterns have changed, with far more choice, global content and streaming services, our cultural references are becoming more fragmented.”
“When I was in my early 20s, I was renting in Sydney, working hard and loving my life and my friends. Once a week I sat down with my boyfriend and we watched The Secret Life of Us on TV. I loved it. I felt like Claudia Karvan and Samuel Johnson could easily have been my friends. They sounded like my friends, lived similar lives and dealt with similar issues. We looked forward to Monday nights and chatted about it at work. It became part of the language and culture I shared with my friends and it brought us together. Later, as a parent of young kids, turning on Justine Clarke and Jay Laga'aia on Play School provided the window I needed to get a load of washing out, tidy up or lie exhausted next to my toddlers for a moment.”
“If we ignore these factors, we're not setting a fair price; we're setting nature up to fail. In too many jurisdictions—New South Wales, Queensland and overseas—offsets have ben chronically underpriced. That underpricing flows through the whole system. It means that restoration projects are underfunded from the start. It means that the offsets fund doesn't have enough money to deliver what was promised. And it means that we end up with a pay-to-destroy model dressed up as environmental reform. By clearly defining the factors that must be included in the offsets pricing method, we make the system transparent, predictable and credible. These amendments are about integrity—financial integrity and ecological integrity. They ensure that when we talk about offsets we're talking about real restoration, not accounting fiction.”
“My amendments ensure that the calculation of the offset price must consider a range of factors, including: the costs of establishing, maintaining and monitoring projects, which are the practical, on-the-ground expenses of doing the work; the costs of identifying suitable sites, including the time and expertise required to find land that actually supports restoration; the costs of acquiring that land, including stamp duty and transaction costs; contingency costs, acknowledging the fact that projects fail and that success often requires multiple attempts; the added costs of remote locations, where logistics and labour are more difficult; and the additional cost of scarcity: when suitable sites are few and far between, the price should rise accordingly.”
“Under these reforms the amount a developer pays into the offsets fund will be determined by a method set out in regulations. My concern is that, without strong legislative guidance, that method could again undervalue the true cost of restoration. That's why I'm moving these amendments that require that the method for setting this restoration contribution charge takes into account the full range of real-world costs involved in delivering a successful offset. When we talk about restoring ecosystems, the price isn't just the cost of planting a few trees. Restoration is complex, risky and expensive.”
“(2) If the regulations prescribe a method for working out the amount of bioregional plan registration charge, the regulations must take into account the matters in subsection (1). These amendments are about a critical but largely unexamined element of the EPBC reforms: how we price environmental offsets. If we get the price wrong, the entire system will fail. Offsets are meant to restore nature. But if the cost of environmental damage is not reflected in the price paid, offsets don't work. Across Australia we've seen what happens when offsets are underpriced. Developers pay a small fee, their projects go ahead, and governments are left with the impossible task of finding enough land, time and money to make nature whole again. The result is a growing ecological deficit—an environmental credit card that never gets paid off.”
“(2) Page 10 (after line 2), at the end of the Bill, add: 19 Methods prescribed by regulations (1) The method for working out the amount of restoration contribution charge that is prescribed by the regulations must take into consideration the following matters: (a) administration, such as ecological assessment, entering into a legal agreement to secure the site, rates and taxes that are applicable, and the cost of meeting reporting requirements; (b) forgone use, such as the opportunity costs for landowner due to forgone uses; (c) management, such as the cost of implementing the management plan during the maintenance period, including labour, materials and equipment; (d) insurance and risk, such as for infrastructure or equipment, such as fencing, and for unforeseen circumstances that may impact offset delivery).”
“I move the amendments circulated in my name: (1) Page 9 (after line 25), after clause 17, insert: 17A Review of methodology for calculating amount of restoration contribution charge (1) The Minister must cause a review of the methodology for calculating the amount of restoration contribution charge to be undertaken every 2 years. (2) The persons who undertake the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within the period (if any) prescribed by the regulations. (3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be published on the Department's website within 20 days after receiving the report.”
“We must build a system that restores rather than excuses, that protects nature and that delivers real outcomes to the Australian people. I commend the amendments to the House.”
“The fund should have to advise the minister whether it can realistically deliver an offset. There should also be an excluded matters list, because you can't destroy the last of something and call it an offset. Thirdly, we need to price offsets accurately, and that's dealt with in another bill. Fourthly, there must be transparency around success and failure of projects, which we've already discussed. There also needs to be scientific oversight so that the advisory committee includes scientists who understand biodiversity, not just balance sheets. This reform package could really deliver what Australians have demanded, but that promise depends on integrity—integrity in how powers are used, how offsets are priced and how results are reported. The national interest shouldn't be a loophole, and offsets shouldn't be a licence to destroy.”
“That's the pay-to-destroy problem—a cheque is written, the project proceeds, and the promise of restoration fades into paperwork. Without strong guardrails, this fund risks becoming the single point of failure for the entire reform package, so I'm introducing a series of amendments to increase the likelihood it actually works for business, for government and, most importantly, for nature. First, limit the use of the fund. It should be the last resort, not the default, and my amendments ensure that there is another layer to the mitigation hierarchy. Proponents must seek to offset directly where they must follow principles such as like-for-like and net gain before using the fund, which does not have to follow the same principles. Second, ensure suitable offsets actually exist before money is accepted.”
“Ideally, this new pathway should be removed completely, but the legislation is complex, and in the time given I haven't been able to draft a complete removal of this new pathway. Another major weakness in this package is the offsets fund. On paper, it's a neat idea—the Restoration Contributions Holder. When a project can't fully avoid environmental damage, the developer pays into a central fund that delivers restoration projects on their behalf. In theory, it creates efficiency. In practice, it's risky. We've seen this model before in New South Wales, in Queensland and in the Pilbara, and it consistently underdelivers. Developers destroy habitat, pay into the fund and walk away. The fund then struggles to find suitable offsets, and nature ends up footing the bill.”
“This national interest pathway is an admission of failure, a way of saying, 'We can't balance environmental protection with economic development, so we'll just make it optional.' The amendments that I'm putting up today would put some safeguards around this power. First, if the government insists on keeping the new pathway, fossil fuel projects must never qualify. It would be absurd to claim that new coal or gas projects are in the national interest when science tells us they are fundamentally against it. Second, there must be full transparency whenever this power is used. The current bill would let the minister redact the statement of reasons, hiding the rationale for bypassing environmental law. If a project truly is in the national interest, the government should have the courage to explain why.”
“That means a minister could approve a project even if it causes unacceptable impacts, even if it pushes a species to the brink of extinction. Every environmental safeguard in this bill—the mitigation hierarchy, the net gain standard and the unacceptable impact test—could be waived by the stroke of a pen. This isn't a safeguard. It's a shortcut, and it undermines the integrity of the entire system. It's bad for the environment, and it's not great for business either. Investors can't make long-term decisions on the hope that they will be deemed to be in the national interest. They need certainty, not ministerial discretion. Let's be clear. You can't streamline approvals by cutting out the environment.”
“Under the current EPBC Act, the minister has what's known as a national interest exemption—a break-glass power, designed for genuine emergencies like natural disasters. It's a tool used rarely—only 31 times since 2000—and mostly in good faith. It's not perfect, but it's understood: it exists for extreme situations, not convenience. The new reforms go much further. They introduce a new pathway—a national interest proposal or approval that allows the minister to bypass almost all environmental safeguards whenever they decide a project is in the national interest. Unlike the original exemption, this one isn't limited to emergencies. It could be used for anything from housing to energy projects, with no clear limits on what the minister can take into account.”
“(15) Schedule 1, item 612, page 364 (after line 11), after the definition of environment protection order in section 528, insert: excluded matters list : see subsection 134AA(2). I commend the government for taking on the difficult task of reforming our national environmental laws. It has been more than two decades since the EPBC Act was passed, and it's well overdue for an update. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to restore trust, protect nature and deliver faster, fairer decisions for business. But that promise will fall flat if the reforms create new loopholes that make these reforms irrelevant, because even the strongest framework means little if you can simply step around it.”
“(10) Schedule 1, item 323, page 212 (after line 32), after paragraph 177CP(1)(f), insert: (fa) to provide advice for the purposes of subsection 134(3J); and (fb) to maintain the excluded matters list; and (12) Schedule 1, item 432, page 234 (after line 29), after section 302A, insert: 302AA Production or extraction of fossil fuels Despite section 302A, the Minister must not grant an exemption for an action from a provision (including a regulation made under a provision) of this Part if the action involves the production or extraction of: (a) petroleum (within the meaning of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 ); or (b) coal. (13) Schedule 1, item 432, page 258 (line 30) to page 259 (line 8), omit subsection 302F(2). (14) Schedule 1, item 432, page 261 (lines 19 to 31), omit subsection 302J(2).”
“(7) Schedule 1, item 292, page 143 (after line 7), after section 157H, insert: 157HA Production or extraction of fossil fuels Despite section 157H, the Minister must not grant an exemption for an action from a provision of Part 3 or this Chapter if the action involves the production or extraction of: (a) petroleum (within the meaning of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 ); or (b) coal. (8) Schedule 1, item 292, page 145 (line 33) to page 146 (line 11), omit subsection 157N(2). (9) Schedule 1, item 292, page 148 (lines 20 to 32), omit subsection 157R(2).”
“(4) Schedule 1, item 291, page 137 (after line 19), after section 157A, insert: 157AA Production or extraction of fossil fuels Despite section 157A, the Minister must not determine that the taking of an action is a national interest proposal if the action involves the production or extraction of: (a) petroleum (within the meaning of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 ); or (b) coal. (5) Schedule 1, item 291, page 139 (lines 23 to 35), omit subsection 157D(2). (6) Schedule 1, item 291, page 141 (lines 10 to 22), omit subsection 157F(2).”
“(3) Schedule 1, page 97 (after line 27), after item 230, insert: 230A After section 134 Insert: 134AA Excluded matters list (1) The Restoration Contributions Holder must: (a) develop a list of matters protected by a provision of Part 3 for which no general restoration actions are likely to be available due to the scarcity of the affected matter; and (b) make the list available for public inspection on the Department's website. (2) The list is to be known as the excluded matters list .”
“(3J) In deciding whether to attach a condition to an approval of an action requiring payment of a restoration contribution charge in relation to a residual significant impact of the action on a matter protected by a provision of Part 3 for which the approval has effect, the Minister must seek advice from the Restoration Contribution Holder on whether it is likely that restoration actions directed towards protecting, conserving or restoring the affected matter in the bioregion where the affected matter is located can be delivered, and will result in a net gain.”
“(2) Schedule 1, item 230, page 97 (after line 27), after subsection 134(3G), insert: Conditions requiring payment of restoration contribution charge (3H) In deciding whether to attach a condition to an approval of an action requiring payment of restoration contribution charge, the Minister must: (a) consider whether it is feasible to instead attach a condition requiring the holder of the approval holder to instead deliver restoration action to compensate for the damage cause by the action; and (b) if the Minister considers that that is feasible, attach a such a condition.”
“(3AE) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (2)(b), the Minister must not attach a condition to an approval of an action requiring payment of a restoration contribution charge in relation to a residual significant impact of the action on a matter protected by a provision of Part 3 for which the approval has effect if the matter is on the excluded matters list.”
“by leave—I move amendments (1) to (10) and (12) to (15) together, as circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 1, item 228, page 96 (after line 26), after subsection 134(3AC), insert: (3AD) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (2)(b), the Minister must not attach a condition to an approval of an action requiring payment of a restoration contribution charge in relation to a residual significant impact of the action on a matter protected by a provision of Part 3 for which the approval has effect if the Restoration Contribution Holder has advised that it is not likely that restoration actions directed towards protecting, conserving or restoring the affected matter in the bioregion where the affected matter is located can be delivered and will result in a net gain.”
“The offsets fund represents a potential single point of failure for these entire reforms, so making sure that the public can see whether they're working or not will allow us to continue to improve these laws. So I thank the government for considering this amendment in good faith, and I commend it to the House.”
“That's what this amendment ensures—that this report is published within 20 days of reaching the minister's desk—because, if the public can't see the data, accountability disappears. And, without accountability, confidence in the offset system will crumble. We've seen this story before. In New South Wales and Queensland, centralised offset funds have struggled to deliver promised outcomes, and part of the problem has been opacity. The public couldn't tell if projects were working, or even where they were. We can't afford to repeat these mistakes at a national level. Offsets are meant to repair damage, not to hide it, and the only way to know if they're working is to measure, report and publish the results. This amendment makes sure that that happens.”
“That money goes into a central fund, which is then responsible for delivering restoration projects across the country. That means that we're asking Australians to trust that the offsets purchased on their behalf are actually delivering real, measurable gains for nature. And trust requires transparency. This annual report will provide the first real window into whether that trust is being earned, and it will show where the money is going, which projects are being funded, what impacts they're offsetting, how much has been paid and whether these projects are actually achieving ecological outcomes. It's not enough for this information to exist somewhere in the system; it must be publicly available.”
“I move amendment 11 as circulated in my name: (11) Schedule 1, item 323, page 229 (after line 12), at the end of section 177DI, add: (4) The Minister must publish a copy of the annual report on the Department's website within 20 days of receiving the report. I'm speaking today about the importance of transparency in the operation of the new environmental offset system and, in particular, the amendment requiring that the minister publish the restoration contribution holder's annual report within 20 days of receiving it, which is what this amendment is. Now, this might sound like a small administrative change, but it is in fact an important improvement in transparency. Under the new framework, developers can pay a restoration contribution charge instead of directly securing their own offsets.”
“The FOI system is part of the checks and balances that we put on governments to ensure that power is used in the public interest. We should not be making changes to this system without seeking the views of the public and the media, who hold governments to account. The consultation process for this bill was wholly inadequate, consulting only the public servants who can't help finding FOI requests painful to fulfil. Our FOI system is an essential part of our democratic checks and balances. Without looking at both sides of the ledger—the reasons for more transparency, as well as the reasons for less transparency—the government is doing the public a disservice in this bill. I commend the amendments to the House.”
“It should consider how best to create a robust system for resourcing, training, auditing and oversight of authorised officers responsible for those FOI decisions and how best to manage vexatious and frivolous requests. Also, it should consider how to address the potential impacts of artificial intelligence, both to improve FOI processing and to mitigate the impact of its use in generating vexatious and frivolous requests. Largely, it should consider how best to provide structural support for public servants to provide frank, honest, timely and evidence based advice. This review should be done by independent experts, not by representatives of the government who are focused on reducing the workload and reputational risk for government. It also needs to provide significant opportunities for public feedback.”
“A comprehensive independent review should be linked to the fundamental purpose of the FOI system, based on the principle that we need to maximise transparency and efficiency for genuine and lawful FOI requests. Within this context, it should consider how best to encourage greater proactive disclosure of information to the public, and thus reduce the need for formal FOI requests. It should consider how to maximise accessibility, transparency and efficiency for genuine and lawful FOI requests, including through setting an appropriate fee structure. It should consider how to improve the timeliness of dealings with FOI requests, including review processes, and ensure that exemptions to disclosure requirements do not go further than is required for good government.”
“The other half of the problem is that, in many circumstances, we need more transparency. There are many reasons to increase the information that's disclosed. Requests can take far too long to be answered. The proportion of FOI requests granted in full has dropped from 59 per cent in 2012 to just 25 per cent in 2024. There have been findings that this system is driving a culture of secrecy, a lack of ministerial engagement and inconsistent exemptions. Journalists and legal advocates report administrative torture, with excessive redactions and delays that compromise public interest reporting. These really crucial problems that require greater transparency are not addressed in this bill.”