\n\t\t\t\t
![\"Our](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/australia\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/20260430173443699192-original-copy.jpg\")
\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\nTransparency experts, and robodebt royal commissioner Catherine Holmes, have argued, however, that governments have and continue to use the FOI Act to thwart access to information even when it is in the public interest.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Holmes herself recommended a different section of the act be repealed entirely \u2014 s.34, which gives blanket protection to briefs and documents prepared for cabinet consideration \u2014 and the Albanese government deliberately pretended that this was never an official recommendation, erasing it from all communications responding to the report.<\/p>\n
\u201cNothing I have seen in ministerial briefs or material put to cabinet suggests any tendency to give full and frank advice that might be impaired by the possibility of disclosure, and the cabinet minutes which are in evidence are sparing in detail, with a careful mode of expression revealing nothing of individual views,\u201d Holmes wrote in her final report on robodebt<\/a>.<\/p>\n Public servants and ministers have long made similar arguments about any advice prepared for any reason, and the FOI Act provides conditional exemptions for this material.\u00a0<\/p>\n Wells argued to the commissioner on May 1 last year, less than a fortnight before a cabinet reshuffle moved her to the role of communications minister, that disclosing the documents in this matter would create an environment \u201cin which there is a chilling effect on the open consideration of all options available to the minister\u201d and \u201cestablish a precedent\u201d to release such advice.\u00a0<\/p>\n Linacre rubbished this claim, however, in a decision made on August 7, obtained by Crikey but not yet published online.<\/p>\n \u201cHaving regard to the minister\u2019s submissions, it is apparent that the minister essentially contends that disclosure would result in the inhibition of frankness and candour,\u201d she wrote in her decision.<\/p>\n \u201cFrankness and candour arguments have been specifically discussed in \u2026 review decisions and the FOI guidelines relevantly explain that \u2026 agencies and ministers would generally have to demonstrate that the circumstances are special and specific in order for such a claim to be successful.\u201d<\/p>\n \n\t\t\tRelated Article Block Placeholder<\/p>\n \t\t\t\tArticle ID: 1255985\n\t\t<\/p>\n \t\t\t\t\t\t\t The decision went on to explain that, other than a \u201cgeneral assertion\u201d that staff would be unwilling to give \u201crobust and frank written advice\u201d if it were to be disclosed, Wells had not \u201cprovided sufficient evidence\u201d to show this would be the case.<\/p>\n \u201cSimilarly, the minister has not adequately explained why the circumstances in this case warrant a departure from the assumption that public servants are obliged to provide robust and frank advice at all times,\u201d the decision says.<\/p>\n Linacre found the public interest in this case outweighed any factors in favour of exemption and ordered they be released.\u00a0<\/p>\n The matter relates to almost $8 million in contracts awarded<\/a> to private consulting firm Miles Morgan Australia (MMA), to help \u201ctransform\u201d Meals on Wheels services ahead of controversial aged care support at home changes.\u00a0<\/p>\n What started as a reform program quickly turned into a farce, however, as MMA became locked in escalating legal threats with some Meals on Wheels services and peak bodies, and the government lost control of a software platform it had paid for them to build.\u00a0<\/p>\n MMA was awarded its final $1.6 million contract extension while it was trading insolvent. The ATO issued a notice to the Department of Health in early 2024 advising that part of this final payment was being taken by the tax office to pay creditors.\u00a0<\/p>\n The FOI which has now been addressed by the commissioner related to Minister Wells\u2019 response to questions from this journalist, writing then for The Saturday Paper, about whether it was aware of various issues with awarding these contracts, a process the Australian National Audit Office later found \u201cfell short of ethical standards\u201d.\u00a0<\/p>\n Despite giving complete clearance for my own details, such as my name and role included with my emailed questions, to be released as part of the FOI, Wells\u2019 office also redacted these.\u00a0<\/p>\n This culture of FOI trickery appears to be ingrained across the federal government, and separate state and territory governments across the country, as shown in remarks made by former Australian Public Service commissioner Gordon de Brouwer, who argued the act had failed because public servants didn\u2019t want to write anything down in order to avoid it being released under FOI laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n In December, he told a Senate estimates hearing that public servants will sometimes give their \u201cgenuine thoughts\u201d on a \u201cyellow sticky\u201d attached to a more prosaic brief, and that the real advice then conveniently disappeared.<\/p>\n \n\t\t\tRelated Article Block Placeholder<\/p>\n \t\t\t\tArticle ID: 1261353\n\t\t<\/p>\n
\n\t\t\t\t![\"Robodebt](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/australia\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/20260210130031229394-original-copy.jpg\")
\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n
![\"ANU\u2019s](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/australia\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/20240530169564613993-original-copy.jpg\")
\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n