The Albanese government's pre-election commitments to open government and transparency appear not to have made it through to key federal portfolios, which are failing the pro-disclosure obligations of the Freedom of Information Act according to the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO).

Three senior Commonwealth departments were examined for the report: The departments of Prime Minister and Cabinet; Treasury; and Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts.

The scope of report was 1,111 FOI requests seeking access to documents other than those containing the applicants own personal information, which were active at any time during 2024 across the three agencies.

The (ANAO) found that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C), Treasury and Infrastructure released documents in just 43 per cent of sampled FOI requests.

The report concluded administration of FOI Act requests by the audited entities has been only “partly effective in giving the community access to information”.

“It is not evident that entities are meeting their obligation to take reasonable steps to assist applicants make FOI requests. None of the internal guidance of the entities outlined what the entities considered to be reasonable steps to assist applicants. This approach is not pro‑disclosure,” the report concludes.

The audit also identified a pattern of “courtesy consultations” with ministers' offices not provided for in the FOI Act.

Infrastructure consulted its Minister's office on 82 of 197 sampled requests. PM&C consulted on 42 of 210.

The ANAO found a “lack of records in all three audited entities to be able to determine whether advice or feedback led to a change in decision by the decision-maker”.

Poor records management was identified as a key driver of compliance failures across the three departments.

The ANAO found that “The three audited entities are unable to demonstrate that they have met the obligation to take all reasonable steps to find requested documents Entities are not maintaining adequate records of the searches they undertake in response to FOI applications to assure completeness. Entity records also do not consistently support decisions to refuse access because records could not be located or do not exist.”

The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet acknowledged that record-keeping was an area for improvement and outlined that it undertook a ‘new weekly process to remind staff to save records appropriately’ including:

‘a weekly calendar appointment to schedule and remind staff to complete record keeping. This is in addition to a one-off records management day where a senior adviser paid for lunch for the staff who spent the entire day saving records for FOI requests to the official record repository; and

‘create and maintain SOPs [standard operating procedures] for repeated aspects of the FOI process’.

The Department of the Treasury advised ANAO in December 2025 that it:

‘has instituted regular filing time twice a week, and staff are regularly reminded to file their FOI matters completely and promptly’; and

is ‘also considering how we can make our record keeping more robust, including by investigating options for dealing with technical barriers to easier record management’.

Treasury issued its first FOI policy on 17 February 2026 after the audit work concluded. It had no finalised FOI policy or procedures in place at the time of the audit

Treasury's draft policy directed staff to send FOI decisions on Fridays. The ANAO found this delayed releases and breached the Act's “as soon as practicable” requirement.

PM&C's “Business Rules” document had no executive endorsement, no version control, no release date and made no reference to the objects of the FOI Act.

Infrastructure's June 2024 policy was the strongest of the three, with version control, formal endorsement and reference to obligations under the Archives Act 1983.

For 79 per cent of FOI requests examined by the ANO, the three agencies had not met their own requirements to evidence the reasonableness of document searches.

A record of the decision was not evident for 30 per cent of FOI requests examined.

The record of the decision provided to the applicant was not retained for 11 per cent of requests.

In 47 per cent of sampled requests, information in the case management system could not be verified to records.

The OAIC reported in 2024-25 that 43,456 FOI requests were received by agencies and ministers, a 25 per cent increase on the prior year.

Of 25,211 decisions made in 2024-25, 79 per cent were to refuse access in full or in part.

In the same period, 62 per cent of Information Commissioner reviews set aside the original decisions of agencies.

The OAIC has said this “high set-aside rate indicates there is more work to do to embed a pro-disclosure approach”.

Statutory timeframes were not consistently met across the three departments.

For 63 per cent of requests examined, the entities used statutory extensions beyond the 30-day decision period.

Even after extensions, 29 per cent of requests with adequate records were processed outside the statutory deadline.

Entity disclosure logs were also incomplete, with 8 per cent of expected disclosures not made and 23 per cent of published disclosures late.

Documents were exempted or information was redacted in 53 per cent of the sampled FOI requests.

Decisions to exempt a document or redact information were “often not recorded, beyond the decision notice to the applicant”, the audit found.

Entity records “do not demonstrate a pro-disclosure approach to FOI requests”, according to the report.

The full report is available here.