Transparency advocates are preparing for their biggest battle since the fight for a national anti-corruption commission over what they label a government attack on freedom of information.
Attorney-General Michelle Rowland proposes to overhaul freedom of information laws by introducing an application fee, banning anonymous requests and changing the law's objective, which could challenge its pro-disclosure leaning.
Commonwealth laws allow members of the public to request documents from federal departments and ministerial offices about the mechanisms of government, with some public-interest exclusions such as national security.
The Centre for Public Integrity has pilloried the bill saying while there is major need for system reform, the proposed legislation fails to tackle problems the public faces and strays further from transparency.
The Albanese government says the reforms are needed to curb a large number of vexatious and frivolous requests draining resources.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the scheme needs reform as it was created in the 1980s and there was now "artificial intelligence that can produce 1000 FOI requests in a matter of minutes".
"This reform is necessary if government is going to be able to function," he told parliament on Wednesday.
The government also claims the system's integrity is under attack from AI bots and foreign actors and criminals in order to gain sensitive information.
Eyebrows have been raised at these explanations with the Attorney-General's Department failing to substantiate the claims at a parliamentary hearing.
"There has been no evidence presented to parliament or the public to justify the reforms," the centre's research director Catherine Williams said.
The threat of a document being released "spurs good advice" as public servants would need to stand by their work with "sunlight being the best disinfectant", the Judiciary Project director Gabrielle Appleby said.
Former Australian public service commissioner Andrew Podger agreed, saying making documents public would ensure public servants were giving their proper assessment to ministers.
"The very fact of things likely to become public ought to be an incentive to make sure that when it becomes public, it's seen that I provided professional advice, I used my expertise, I didn't fluff this issue or show signs of cowardice," he said.
Professor Appleby also slammed the government for failing to consult with the sector, branding it "entirely one-sided" as it only heard from public servants.
"There is no input from users of this system who have many legitimate concerns with the way in which their the system operates, the delay of the system, the cost of the system, the different ways in which exemptions are applied," she said.
The only groups to publicly support the bill are Labor and government departments.
Prof Appleby branded it major failure on a fundamental democratic issue.
"It's not overblown to say this is the biggest integrity and transparency fight since we had the NACC," she said.
The government's legislation appears dead on arrival, with crossbenchers and the Greens vehemently opposed and the coalition recording its opposition to fees becoming "a transparency tax" but says it's waiting for a full security briefing.
"Labor has no friends for this bill," Greens senator David Shoebridge said.
Labor needs the support of at least one of these two parties for the reforms to pass the Senate.
Stakeholders and crossbenchers call for a comprehensive review of the system, a recommendation made by numerous former inquiries.
