Australia's Freedom of Information System Is Broken — and the Data Proves It
Across the federal government in 2025–26, agencies refused or withheld access to more than half of all FOI requests determined. This isn't a transparency problem. It's a transparency system that doesn't work.
The Law Says You Have a Right to Know
The Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) gives every Australian the right to access documents held by government agencies and ministers. The Act states that government information should be publicly available unless there is a specific, justified reason to withhold it.
The principle is clear: disclosure is the default. Refusal is the exception.
The reality, as measured by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner's own FOI Statistics Report for 2025–26, tells a different story. Across 62 federal agencies and ministerial offices, the rate of requests not granted in full — refused or only partially disclosed — was 81.6%. Only 18.4% of requests were granted in full.
Refusal is not the exception. Refusal is the norm.
The Worst Performers: Agencies Refusing Most FOI Requests
Ranked by refusal rate, 2025–26 financial year. Source: OAIC FOI Statistics Report.
What the Data Is Actually Saying
NBN Co: 100% Refusal Rate — on 14 Requests
NBN Co, a government-owned corporation that received $29.5 billion in public equity to build Australia's national broadband network, refused every single FOI request made to it in 2025–26. All 19. Not one document disclosed in full or in part.
NBN Co is subject to the FOI Act. It is funded by Australian taxpayers. The appropriate refusal rate for an agency whose sole purpose is public infrastructure is not 100%.
Australia Post: 87.1% Refusal Rate — on 62 Requests
Australia Post, a government business enterprise that holds an effective monopoly on letter delivery in Australia, refused or withheld access in 54 of 62 requests determined in Q1-Q3 2025–26.
This is an organisation that generated $8.5 billion in revenue in 2023–24 and receives government protection through the reserved services monopoly. The public interest case for disclosure is substantial. The disclosure record doesn't reflect it.
The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner: 57.4%
The OAIC is the body responsible for overseeing FOI compliance across the federal government. It investigates FOI complaints. It publishes FOI statistics. It advocates for transparency.
It refused or withheld access in 57.4% of the 195 FOI requests determined against it in Q1-Q3 2025–26 — higher than the national average. The regulator ranks among the most restrictive agencies in its own sector.
Department of Defence: 54.4% Refusal Rate — on 625 Requests
Defence is the highest-volume large agency in this dataset, with 625 requests determined. It refused or withheld access in 340 of those requests. Only 9 requests (1.4%) were granted in full.
National security exemptions are legitimate. But a grant-in-full rate of 1.4% across 625 requests is a disclosure posture, not an exemption strategy.
The Best Performers: Agencies That Actually Disclose
These agencies had refusal rates at or below 42% — demonstrating that low refusal rates are achievable.
The Best Performers Still Fail the Smell Test
The "best" end of this dataset has some genuine standouts. The Administrative Review Tribunal processed 2,122 requests with only a 6.6% refusal rate — largely because most of its requests relate to individuals' own case files. The National Disability Insurance Agency handled 2,540 requests at 19.4% refusal — the highest volume transparency performer in the dataset.
The Australian Taxation Office — 852 requests, 22.9% refusal, 214 granted in full — is notable because it handles high-sensitivity financial data and still outperforms most agencies.
But even the "good" performers carry caveats. The Department of Home Affairs processed 5,397 requests at 25.1% refusal — statistically impressive by volume, but only 21% were granted in full. For every request received, 75% ended in partial disclosure or refusal.
A Note on Methodology and Fairness
This analysis uses data published by the OAIC in its annual FOI Statistics Report. Refusal rates are calculated as (refused in full + refused in part) divided by total requests determined.
Small agencies with fewer than 10 requests should be read with caution — a single request can move the rate significantly. The pattern across large-volume agencies (Defence, Health, AFP, Attorney-General's, OAIC itself) is more statistically meaningful.
This analysis does not allege that any specific refusal decision was improper or unlawful. Agencies have legitimate grounds to withhold documents under the FOI Act — including for national security, personal privacy, legal privilege, and cabinet deliberations. The argument here is about aggregate patterns, not individual decisions.
Why the System Is Designed to Fail
Australia's FOI system has three structural problems that produce these outcomes regardless of which party is in government.
The burden of proof runs the wrong way
The Act says disclosure should be the default. In practice, agencies make an internal assessment of whether a document falls within an exemption — and there is no penalty for over-claiming exemptions. The incentive structure rewards caution, not disclosure. Agencies that refuse aggressively face no consequences. Those that disclose controversially face ministerial scrutiny.
The OAIC is underfunded and overloaded
The oversight regulator — the OAIC — handles FOI complaints, privacy investigations, and policy guidance with a budget and staffing level that has not kept pace with demand. FOI complaints sit in the queue for months or years. By the time a review is finalised, the information may be irrelevant. Delay is functionally equivalent to refusal.
Ministerial documents are a black box
The Minister for Health and Ageing refused 92.3% of requests. The Minister for Skills and Training refused 100%. The Minister for Disability refused 83.3%. Ministerial offices are formally subject to the FOI Act, but cabinet confidentiality and public interest immunity claims routinely cover any document that touches a policy decision. Effective exemption from accountability is standard operating procedure for ministerial offices.
What a Refused FOI Request Actually Looks Like
To make this concrete: here is a representative example of how an FOI refusal plays out in practice, based on the types of outcomes recorded in this dataset.
Applicant: A researcher or journalist asks a government agency for internal briefings on a programme delivering public services.
Agency response (30 days): Access is refused in part. Sections 33 (security), 34 (cabinet deliberations), 47C (deliberative processes), and 47E (certain operations) are cited. The released documents are largely redacted.
Internal review (30 days): Original decision affirmed.
OAIC review requested: Applicant lodges complaint. Current OAIC review queue: typically 12–24 months.
Outcome: 18 months after the original request, the OAIC finds in the applicant's favour on two of five disputed documents. The programme has since ended. The information is now largely historical. Accountability has not been served.
This scenario is illustrative. It is based on documented outcome patterns in the OAIC's published case database and annual statistics, not a specific individual's experience.
What Reform Looks Like
The FOI Act was last comprehensively reviewed by the Australian Law Reform Commission in 2015. That review produced 95 recommendations. The government response accepted some and deferred others. The refusal rate data suggests the fundamental architecture of the system has not improved.
Automatic disclosure
Require agencies to proactively publish high-interest document categories without an FOI request — procurement decisions, audit findings, ministerial briefings on programme delivery. Reduce the volume of requests by removing information from the request-only channel.
Reverse the incentive
Introduce costs consequences for agencies that over-claim exemptions. Currently, applicants bear all the cost and delay of challenging a refusal. Making agencies justify refusals quickly — or pay costs — changes the calculus.
Fund the OAIC properly
An FOI oversight body that cannot complete reviews within 90 days is not an effective accountability mechanism. The OAIC requires resourcing to match its statutory role, including the power to issue binding decisions without a court process.
Government accountability data — systematically tracked
Blackline Intelligence monitors FOI statistics, audit findings, procurement data, and budget performance across Australian federal and state government. Our briefs are built from official sources — not FOI requests that may never be answered.
Sources and Methodology
- Raw data available for download: data.gov.au — Freedom of Information Statistics Dataset. The Q1–Q3 2025–26 agency-level XLSX file is publicly available. Every figure in this article is directly computable from that file. Source: OAIC, published via data.gov.au.
- Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, FOI Statistics Report 2025–26. The OAIC publishes annual statistics on FOI requests and outcomes across all agencies subject to the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth).
- Refusal rate is calculated as: (access refused in full + access refused in part) ÷ total requests determined. This methodology follows OAIC reporting conventions.
- 62 agencies with 5 or more determined requests in the 2025–26 period were included in this analysis. Agencies with fewer than 5 requests were excluded to avoid single-request distortion.
- All dollar figures referenced (NBN Co equity, Australia Post revenue) are drawn from publicly available annual reports and budget papers. No FOI requests were submitted in preparing this analysis.