The Claim
“Illegally failed to respond to freedom of information (FOI) requests within the statutory 30 day deadline in 92.5% of cases.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The Guardian article reports that Scott Morrison's Prime Minister's office met the FOI statutory 30-day deadline in just 7.5% of cases during the 2019-20 financial year [1]. This means 92.5% of requests did not meet the deadline, making the numerical claim mathematically accurate.
However, the claim's framing as "illegally failed" requires scrutiny. The Guardian article clarifies that when FOI requests are not decided within the statutory timeframe, they are "deemed to be refused" under Australian law—this is a legal mechanism, not an illegal act [1]. The article explicitly states: "Typically when an FOI request is not decided in time, it is simply deemed to be refused. Departments and ministers face no penalty for treating FOIs in this way" [1].
The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) 2019-20 annual report confirms that FOI deadline compliance deteriorated across government during this period. Across all Australian Government agencies, 79% of FOI requests were processed within the lawful timeframe in 2019-20, compared with 83% and 85% in the two previous years [2]. The Prime Minister's office performance (7.5%) was significantly worse than the government-wide average.
Missing Context
The claim omits several important contextual factors:
The COVID-19 Impact: The 2019-20 financial year (ending June 30, 2020) coincided with Australia's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The OAIC annual report explicitly acknowledges this context: "In some agencies, FOI staff were redeployed to work in frontline customer service roles while the internal redeployment of other staff to meet service delivery needs made it difficult to obtain documents to satisfy FOI requests and to engage with decision makers, many of whom assumed additional responsibilities as part of their agency's response to the pandemic" [2].
The PM's office statement cited in the Guardian article stated: "Processing these FOI requests requires dedicated resources and a significant allocation of time. This needs to be balanced with competing and time-critical national issues, especially during the Covid-19 crisis" [1].
The Deemed Refusal Mechanism: The claim's use of "illegally failed" is misleading. Under section 15AC of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth), when an agency does not decide a request within the statutory period, the request is automatically "deemed refused" [3]. This is a legal provision, not an illegal act. An applicant can then request the OAIC to review the deemed refusal [1].
The No-Penalty System: The Guardian reports that "ministers face no penalty" for not meeting FOI deadlines [1], meaning this represents poor administrative practice rather than legal violation. However, the OAIC can conduct reviews and investigations into systemic failures.
Comparison to Other Ministers: Michael McCormack's office (Deputy PM and Minister for Infrastructure) performed similarly poorly at 17% deadline compliance, and the Home Affairs Department processed only 66% of requests within statutory timeframes [1]. This suggests a systemic issue rather than one isolated to the Prime Minister's office.
Source Credibility Assessment
The Guardian: A mainstream, reputable news organization. The article cites data "provided to the Guardian" from the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner [1], making it reliant on official government statistics. The Guardian is a broadly center-left publication but maintains professional journalistic standards for factual reporting. The reporting appears accurate based on corroboration with OAIC official reports.
OAIC 2019-20 Annual Report: The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner is the independent statutory regulator for both freedom of information and privacy in Australia [2]. This is an authoritative primary source. The report contains official FOI compliance statistics reported by government agencies and ministers themselves.
Labor Comparison
Search conducted: "Labor Prime Minister office FOI compliance statistics" and "Kevin Rudd Labor government FOI deadline"
Finding: No directly comparable statistics were found for Labor Prime Minister offices. However, a 2024 Centre for Public Integrity report reveals that the Albanese Labor government has performed worse than the Morrison government on FOI compliance [4]. According to this recent analysis:
- Fully granted FOI requests plunged from 59% in 2011-12 to just 25% in 2023-24 under the Albanese government
- Outright refusals nearly doubled to 23% in 2023-24
- The Albanese government is described as "more secretive than the Morrison era" [4]
Additionally, the Australia Institute reported that "the Albanese government is processing fewer FOI requests than the Howard Government did two decades ago" and costs per request have dramatically increased [5].
This comparison is important: it suggests FOI compliance deterioration is not unique to the Coalition and may reflect broader systemic pressures on government administration rather than a partisan problem.
Balanced Perspective
The Legitimate Criticism: The 7.5% deadline compliance rate for the Prime Minister's office is genuinely poor. It represents a significant deterioration from previous years and is far below the government-wide average [2]. FOI specialist Peter Timmins quoted in the Guardian makes a fair point about "tone at the top" - when the highest office doesn't prioritize FOI compliance, it may set a poor example [1].
The Legitimate Explanation: The timing during COVID-19 is significant. Government agencies were genuinely stretched responding to a national health emergency. The OAIC itself acknowledged that pandemic-related staff redeployment made it "difficult to obtain documents to satisfy FOI requests and to engage with decision makers" [2]. While this does not excuse non-compliance, it provides context that the claim omits.
The Legal Reality: Describing non-compliance as "illegal" is technically inaccurate. The deemed refusal mechanism is a statutory provision, not a violation of law. However, systematic non-compliance with FOI obligations could constitute a breach of administrative law principles if challenged through judicial review, though no such challenge appears to have been mounted against the Morrison government's FOI record.
The Broader Pattern: The claim focuses on Coalition misconduct, but recent Labor government performance is demonstrably worse on available metrics [4][5]. This suggests that whatever systemic issues affect FOI compliance during Coalition governments also affect Labor governments, and may reflect:
- Increasing FOI request volumes outpacing agency capacity
- Resource constraints in FOI processing teams
- Competing governance demands during major events (COVID-19, natural disasters, etc.)
- A possible need for legislative reform to make FOI processes more efficient
Key context: This appears to be a genuine administrative failure by the Morrison government's office, but it is not unique to the Coalition, not a legal violation, and occurred during exceptional pandemic circumstances. The claim's moral framing is justified (poor transparency is a legitimate criticism), but the legal framing is not.
PARTIALLY TRUE
6.0
out of 10
The numerical claim (92.5% failure rate) is accurate based on OAIC data. The Prime Minister's office did perform extremely poorly on FOI deadline compliance during 2019-20. However, the claim contains significant issues:
Calling it "illegal" is technically incorrect. Non-compliance with statutory deadlines results in a "deemed refusal" - a legal mechanism, not an illegal act. Applicants can challenge deemed refusals through OAIC review [1][3].
The COVID-19 context is omitted. While not excusing poor performance, the pandemic genuinely impacted government operations and this was acknowledged as a factor by the OAIC [2].
The claim lacks comparative context. Infrastructure Minister Michael McCormack's office performed even worse (17%) [1], and contemporary Labor governments are demonstrably worse on FOI metrics [4][5], suggesting this is a systemic issue not unique to the Coalition.
The claim conflates poor administration with illegality. Bad practice and legal violation are not equivalent. The correct characterization is poor FOI deadline compliance, not illegal conduct.
Final Score
6.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The numerical claim (92.5% failure rate) is accurate based on OAIC data. The Prime Minister's office did perform extremely poorly on FOI deadline compliance during 2019-20. However, the claim contains significant issues:
Calling it "illegal" is technically incorrect. Non-compliance with statutory deadlines results in a "deemed refusal" - a legal mechanism, not an illegal act. Applicants can challenge deemed refusals through OAIC review [1][3].
The COVID-19 context is omitted. While not excusing poor performance, the pandemic genuinely impacted government operations and this was acknowledged as a factor by the OAIC [2].
The claim lacks comparative context. Infrastructure Minister Michael McCormack's office performed even worse (17%) [1], and contemporary Labor governments are demonstrably worse on FOI metrics [4][5], suggesting this is a systemic issue not unique to the Coalition.
The claim conflates poor administration with illegality. Bad practice and legal violation are not equivalent. The correct characterization is poor FOI deadline compliance, not illegal conduct.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (6)
-
1
Scott Morrison's office met freedom of information deadlines in just 7.5% of cases
Deputy PM Michael McCormack met the statutory 30-day timeframe in just 17% of cases, new data shows
the Guardian -
2
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner Annual Report 2019-20
Our annual report sets our activities and how we performed against our Portfolio Budget Statement targets and the priorities in our Corporate Plan 2019-20
OAIC -
3
How do I finalise my reasons for a decision if my FOI matter has deemed refused?
Sparke Com -
4
Albanese government worse than Morrison era at producing documents for FOI requests
The alarming deterioration in transparency is deeply troubling.” – Geoffrey Watson, Centre for Public Integrity
The Centre for Public Integrity -
5
Howard government puts Albanese government to shame on Freedom of Information
The Albanese Government announced today they want to charge people a fee for putting in a freedom of information request.
The Australia Institute -
6
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) - Section 15AC - Deemed refusal of request
Federal Register of Legislation
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.