When it comes to keeping a tight rein on information, the Albanese Government does a great job of practising what it preaches.

It’s recently introduced a Bill to tighten the screws on the Freedom of Information Act. While the Bill includes a host of housekeeping changes many of which may be sensible, these cannot conceal its black heart – proposals to include in the Act a list of “factors against giving access”. These would allow access to documents to be denied “whether in a particular case or generally” if a disclosure would “prejudice”:

• “the frank or timely discussion of matters or exchange of opinions…in the deliberative processes of government”
• “the frank or timely provision of advice”, and
• “the orderly and effective conduct of a government decision-making process”, a catch-all capacious enough to contain just about any excuse to deny disclosure.

The government has provided no evidence that the current disclosure provisions need to be further restricted. It’s 99% safe to assume there is none and that the government is providing a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

A spokesperson for the attorney-general claims that “the Albanese Government has introduced legislation to strengthen the Freedom of Information Act to ensure our FoI framework works in the interests of all Australians". Trump could be proud of that.

The detailed nature of the amending Bill looks as if it is much a product of a public service whose gripes have found a warm shoulder among ministers. It’s a disgrace that must have ardent advocates of freedom of information like former minister John Faulkner and former officials like Lindsay Curtis and Allan Hawke seething with resentment.

But the government is consistent. It is rarely short of “factors against giving access” to information with a list of such cases to its discredit that would stretch beyond the scope of the RAAF’s over the horizon Jindalee Operational Radar Network. Indeed, it may be that the Albanese Government is the least open since the Freedom of Information Act was ushered in by prime minister Fraser in 1976.

Recently, there has been a disturbing unwillingness to provide any explanation of the reasons for the departure of the secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Adam Fennessy.

When appointed on a five-year contract in August 2023, the prime minister said Fennessy “will be able to make an immediate contribution” to the department “and the broader Australian Public Service".

A mere two years later, the agriculture minister announced that Fennessy “will complete his term on Friday, 26 September”. She added some pro forma thanks, wished the former secretary “all the best with his future endeavours” and provided no reasons for his separation.

The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Public Service Commission were asked if Fennessy had resigned or was dismissed, whether any attempt had been made to find him another position and what were the details of any separation payment.

The Commission excused itself and PM&C invoked what it said was a “long-standing practice not to comment on individual staffing matters in consideration of the Privacy Act".

Asked to identify what sections of the Privacy Act would be offended by providing answers to the questions asked, PM&C said it “is subject to the Privacy Act which includes the Australian Privacy Principles. These frameworks govern our use, storage and collection of personal information. Personal information extends to employment information. It would not be appropriate to comment further".

While the Privacy Act would protect certain personal information about staff — medical records and details of staff appraisals for example — the Act would not forbid PM&C from answering the questions it was asked. It hasn’t identified provisions of the Privacy Act that would be offended by doing so because there aren’t any.

Long-standing practice has been to provide extensive commentary on individual staffing matters – appointments, promotions and salary details have all been notified in Commonwealth Gazettes and elsewhere. Until more recent times, dismissals were also notified in the Gazette with indications of relevant authorising sections of the Public Service Act. Even private sector companies routinely disclose details of separation pay outs to senior staff.

Mike Pezzullo, Kathryn Campbell and Renee Leon, on whom the Public Service Commissioner made detailed comments about the results of investigations into offences against the Code of Conduct, would no doubt be intrigued at the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet’s dissimulation and perhaps envious such a restrictive regime didn’t apply when they were under the hammer.

So why has Fennessy gone?

He could have:

• resigned but there’s no indication of that;
• been retired for reasons of medical incapacity;
• been dismissed because of poor performance – that would be a mockery of the prime minister’s praise for him and the judgment of those who recommended him a mere two years ago, Dr Davis, the previous PM&C Secretary and Dr de Brouwer, the Public Service Commissioner;
• offended against the Code of Conduct – there’s no sign of that either; or
• there could have been a breakdown in the working relationship with the minister although he’d only been working for Collins for two months – a short time in which to fall out.

The long-standing practice of disclosing as much as possible about individual staffing decisions is based on the importance of citizens being able to see that the public interest is being served by the strict application of merit to all such related decisions. PM&C’s unwillingness to provide any explanation as to why Fennessy has been, in effect, disappeared, shunts the public interest aside for no reason other than secrecy itself.

Moreover, this is unfair to Fennessy for it leaves scope for speculation about unsavoury reasons for what’s happened to him.

Perhaps Fennessy and his minister simply could not get on. In such circumstances, it’s perfectly reasonable to move secretaries out, although on the basis that every effort would be made to find them other positions, and especially so in this case as Fennessy and his minister had only been together, in a manner of speaking, for two months. PM&C’s stubborn muteness on this point reinforces apprehensions that if secretaries say things their ministers do not like, they will be sacked without explanation and with shadows over their reputations. And this is the genuine impediment to frank advice, not the chances of documents being divulged under the Freedom of Information Act.

How much did all of this cost in payout terms? While the reasons for the separation have not been explained, a safe bet might be around a cool million.

Dr Stephen Kennedy became responsible for advising on the appointment and tenure of departmental secretaries when he was appointed to be head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in June 2025. His handling of these responsibilities in Fennessy’s case is an inauspicious debut.

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.