The Australian political landscape just took a sharp turn toward secrecy, and it’s happening on two fronts simultaneously. While the federal government quietly backed away from promised Freedom of Information (FoI) reforms, the Victorian state government is moving to tighten the screws on how the media reports on high-profile criminal defendants. If you care about knowing what your elected officials are doing behind closed doors, or if you believe the principle of "open justice" is dying, you need to pay attention. This isn't just bureaucratic shuffling. It’s a fundamental shift in how information flows from the halls of power to your screen.
The Federal FoI Retreat
The Albanese government came to power with a platform built on transparency. They promised to fix a broken system where Freedom of Information requests go to die in a pile of "processing delays" and "national security" redactions. But that tune has changed. In a move that surprised transparency advocates, the government recently dumped proposed changes meant to streamline the FoI process and empower the Information Commissioner.
Why does this matter to you? Because FoI is the only tool journalists and citizens have to see the actual documents behind government decisions. When the government "dumps" changes meant to make this easier, they're essentially saying they're comfortable with the status quo. The status quo is a system where a simple request for data on climate spending or offshore detention costs can take three years to process. By then, the information is politically useless.
The government’s excuse usually centers on resources and the "vexatious" nature of some requests. That’s a weak shield. If the system is overwhelmed, you fund the office of the Information Commissioner properly. You don't scrap the reforms that would make the office functional. This retreat suggests that once a party moves from opposition to government, the desire for "sunlight" evaporates remarkably fast.
Victoria and the Suppression Order Crackdown
While Canberra retreats on transparency, Melbourne is looking to redefine privacy in the courtroom. The Victorian government is currently investigating ways to curb the use of suppression orders, but the conversation has a double-edged sword. On one hand, there's a push to stop the "reflexive" granting of orders that keep the public in the dark about criminal proceedings. On the other, there's a growing movement to protect high-profile defendants from "reputational damage" before a verdict is reached.
The tension here is palpable. You have a legal system that's supposed to be open by default. Yet, in Victoria, suppression orders have been handed out like candy in recent years. This creates a "secret court" culture. High-profile figures—politicians, business leaders, or celebrities—can often afford the legal firepower to argue that any reporting on their charges will prejudice a jury.
The proposed changes in Victoria are aiming to find a middle ground, but the risk of over-correction is high. If the pendulum swings too far toward protecting a defendant's "privacy," we lose the ability to hold the powerful accountable. Justice shouldn't just be done; it must be seen to be done. When a court decides that the public shouldn't know who is being tried for a serious crime, it erodes trust in the entire judicial branch.
The Cost of a Culture of Secrecy
When you combine the federal FoI failure with the state-level push for tighter court reporting, a pattern emerges. It’s a tightening of the net around information. This isn't a conspiracy; it's just the natural inclination of institutions to protect themselves from scrutiny.
Think about the Robodebt scandal. Without FoI and persistent journalism, the scale of that disaster might never have surfaced. If the government of the day had been even more successful at burying documents, thousands of Australians would still be under the thumb of an illegal debt recovery scheme. Transparency isn't a luxury. It's a safety mechanism.
The current trend is worrying because it suggests that both major parties and various state governments are increasingly viewing the public's right to know as an inconvenience rather than a right. They treat information like a commodity they own, rather than something they hold in trust for the voters.
What Real Reform Should Look Like
If we wanted a system that actually worked, we’d stop tweaking the edges and go for structural change. For FoI, that means "deemed refusals" should be actionable immediately. If a department doesn't respond in 30 days, it should be an automatic win for the applicant, forcing the department to prove in court why the data should stay hidden.
In the courts, suppression orders should have a "sunset clause" by default. They shouldn't be permanent shields. They should expire the moment a jury is empanelled or a verdict is reached, unless there's a life-and-death reason to keep them active.
We also need to look at the "chilling effect" of defamation laws in Australia, which are some of the harshest in the world. Even when a journalist has the facts, the threat of a multi-million dollar lawsuit—often funded by the same high-profile defendants seeking suppression orders—is enough to kill a story.
Taking Action on Your Right to Know
Don't wait for the government to fix itself. It won't. If you want to see these changes reversed or improved, you have to make transparency a voting issue.
- Support independent media that invests in "boring" investigative work. These are the people filing the FoI requests that the government is trying to ignore.
- Write to your local MP about the FoI reforms. Specifically mention that the "dumping" of the changes is a breach of trust.
- Pay attention to the Open Justice reforms in your specific state. Follow groups like the Liberty Victoria or the Grattan Institute, which track these legislative shifts.
- Use the system. Anyone can file an FoI request. It costs money and time, but the more people who demand their data, the harder it is for the government to claim the system isn't broken.
The battle for transparency is a marathon. Every time a reform is dropped or a new suppression order is signed, the "open" part of our democracy shrinks just a little bit more. We’re at a point where the default setting of the Australian government is "private." It’s time to demand a return to "public" by default. Stop letting them hide behind the excuse of administrative burden. The burden of a democracy is meant to be on the state, not the citizen trying to understand what their government is doing.
