Government could pay your costs if it appeals
Senator Jacqui Lambie wants to stop people facing huge legal bills for asking to see government documents. It touches anyone who uses freedom of information to find out what the government is doing.
Official name: Freedom of Information and Other Legislation Amendment (Stop the Financial Coercion) Bill 2026
- Anyone can ask to see government documents under freedom of information law.
- If you win and the government takes you to the Federal Court, you could face a big legal bill.
- This bill would make the government pay your fair legal costs in those cases.
- It would also cover cases already in court that are not yet decided.
- It is a private bill from Senator Jacqui Lambie. It is still before the Senate.
Who it affects
- People who ask to see government documents: If they win and the government appeals, the government would pay their fair legal costs.
- Ministers and government agencies: They could still appeal, but they would have to pay the other side's fair costs.
- Journalists and community groups: They would face less money risk when a government appeal follows a win.
Winning access, then facing court
Under freedom of information law, anyone can ask to see government documents. The law dates from 1982. One of its goals is to let people check what the government does. It also says access should cost as little as is fair.
If the government says no, you can ask for a review. Two bodies can look again at the decision. One is the Information Commissioner, an independent official who handles these reviews. The other is the Administrative Review Tribunal. It reviews government decisions, like a court but less formal.
If you win there, the government can appeal to the Federal Court. An appeal asks a higher court to change a decision.
Senator Jacqui Lambie brought this bill. It is a private bill. That means it did not come from the government.
A $300,000 risk
Senator Lambie's notes say the government recently appealed two wins by people who asked for documents. In both cases, the government asked the court to make the person pay the government's legal costs.
The notes say court cases are very hard for people with no legal training. Hiring lawyers could cost about $150,000. If the person loses, they may also have to pay the government's costs. The notes say that could add up to a $300,000 bill.
The notes also say the government then offered a deal in both cases. It would drop the court case if the person agreed the earlier win was wrong.
The senator says a risk like that is enough to scare people off asking for documents.
Appeals after a tribunal win
The first change is to the law that sets up the Administrative Review Tribunal. It covers appeals to the Federal Court about freedom of information cases.
If the government starts that appeal, the government would have to pay the other side's fair legal costs. This applies whether the government wins or loses the appeal.
Say you win the right to see a report at the tribunal. The government then appeals. Under this bill, your lawyer's fair fees would be paid by the government.
Appeals after a commissioner win
The second change is to the freedom of information law itself. It covers appeals to the Federal Court after a review by the Information Commissioner.
The rule is the same. If the government starts the appeal, it must pay the fair legal costs of the other side.
South Australia does this now
The notes say South Australia already has a rule like this in its own freedom of information law. It applies when the state government appeals a win by its complaints officer.
The notes also say the High Court made the South Australian government pay the other side's fair costs in one case. The High Court is Australia's top court. It did this before it would hear the state's appeal.
Waiting in the Senate
The bill would start the day after it becomes law. A bill becomes law when the Governor-General signs it. The Governor-General stands in for the King.
The new rules would cover appeals started after that day. They would also cover older appeals that the court has not yet finally decided.
Senator Lambie brought the bill into the Senate, the upper house of Parliament, on 12 October 2026. The debate on its main idea began the same day.
The bill is still before the Senate. Senators would need to debate it and vote for it. Then the House of Representatives, the lower house, would need to pass it before it could become law.
Its journey through Parliament
| 14 Oct 2026 | Senate: Introduced and read a first time |
| 14 Oct 2026 | Senate: Second reading moved |