Information integrity is ‘the antidote to information disorder’, Australian Information Commissioner warns as FOI review requests surge 42%
Australia’s Information Commissioner has used the 2026 International Day for Universal Access to Information to warn that the sheer velocity and volume of online content is driving citizens back to government as the “single source of truth” — and that the resulting surge in freedom of information requests should be welcomed as a sign of democratic health. In a statement timed to the UNESCO observance, Elizabeth Tydd said the world is “in an age of ambiguity in which people crave certainty”, but leaders cannot reduce complex information to a headline. She said social media influencers have built enormous audiences by distributing information in bite-sized pieces over sustained periods, with their personal brands gaining celebrity and, “concerningly, credibility”. This “push model” of disseminating information has proved demonstrably effective at commodifying and distributing content, she argued, but it is failing on a vital measure: the global escalation in requests for information held by government. Her own office, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC), recorded a 42% increase in applications from members of the public seeking review of an agency’s decision on a request for government information in 2025-26. Tydd said the upsurge in community activation of the legal right to access information may reflect a recognition that governments often hold authoritative records, and can help people navigate questions of credibility and information integrity. “The responsiveness of governments globally, to the threat to information integrity may be a litmus test of democracy itself,” she said. “In this context, the fact that people are asking for information cannot be viewed as a problem – rather it is part of the solution for democratically elected governments.” The UNESCO theme for this year’s International Day for Universal Access to Information, held on September 28 — “Upholding Information Integrity in the Digital Age: The role of access to Information in addressing Information Disorder” — captured exactly the challenge facing democracies, she said.
Tydd argued that information integrity is the antidote to information disorder, and that it must be secured by constructing conditions for the creation, preservation and access to information that are both contemporary and enduring. In Australia, the right of access to information is enshrined in the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act), under which information can be released proactively to the community at large or reactively in response to a specific request. This right also provides a counterbalance to the current surge in conspiracy sentiment, she said, because it demonstrates that truth can be unlocked through access to government information and, in particular, government data. Such data can be digitally ingested as reliable datasets and consumed more readily by the community, allowing government information to inject accuracy into public debate and help people navigate the “abundance of opinion” that characterises social media platforms. The Information Commissioner drew a direct connection between distorted information and corruption, defining the harm that arises from online information distortion as “another accepted definition of corruption – harm”. This harm is central to Australia’s online safety reforms. Governments around the world are acting to introduce new guardrails, legislation and regulatory approaches to curtail the damage caused by misinformation, disinformation and information asymmetries. The OAIC’s mandate to uphold legal standards and protect public interests can foster responsible innovation in a complex digital environment, Tydd said, pointing to regulatory guidance including a soon-to-be-released Statement on Information Rights Preservation in Artificial Intelligence.
Australians place a significant value on the right to access information, according to the Association of Information Access Commissioners Community Attitudes Survey. Tydd cited survey results showing an overwhelming majority of respondents rated the right to access government-held information as important, with between 53 and 59 per cent rating it as very important. The survey also found that 86 per cent of respondents agreed that government must publicly report on any technology used to inform decision making, and 90 per cent agreed that government should report on the information it maintains. The top three reasons motivating requests for government information were ensuring that government remains accountable to the people (66 per cent), providing access to your own information and ensuring governments are more transparent about their spending (both 43 per cent), and providing information to promote fairness and justice (33 per cent). Tydd said these results are clear evidence of the Australian community’s concern to maintain integrity in government and to respect deeply entrenched Australian values of fairness and justice. The findings also reinforce the need for governments to be transparent about the use of automated decision-making and other technologies in public administration. In an era where algorithms can shape decisions affecting individuals’ rights and interests, the survey demonstrates that Australians do not regard transparency as optional. Rather, they expect the same openness from government when it uses technology as they do when it exercises traditional administrative powers.
The Commissioner’s recent report, Automated decision-making and public reporting under the Freedom of Information Act, highlighted existing transparency obligations under the FOI Act with respect to government use of automated decision-making (ADM). Those obligations, together with further transparency requirements under the Privacy Act that commence on 10 December 2026, respond directly to community concerns. Tydd also announced that Australian members of the Association of Information Access Commissioners have agreed to adopt a uniform digital icon to promote access to information. The seemingly small operational step could, if adopted by agencies, deliver transformational outcomes by giving the Australian community a nationally recognisable “open door” on government websites and reducing friction between citizens and agencies. The individual requests are not simply one-off transactions, she explained; collectively they contribute to the Commonwealth Integrity Strategy. In this way, the mechanics of access to information are themselves instruments of integrity, helping to maintain the public’s trust in democratic institutions. By making it easier for Australians to find, request and receive government information, the icon could encourage more citizens to engage with official records rather than relying on unverified or deliberately misleading online content. Tydd’s argument is that access to information is not merely a legal formality but a practical, operational feature of good governance — one that must be continuously improved if it is to keep pace with the changing ways in which people seek and consume information.
Tydd argued that governments can also learn from the “push model” that has made social media influencers so effective, using technology to proactively release information and meet community expectations. This would accelerate trust in digital services and advance Australia’s democratic system of government. Artificial intelligence, she said, can be an effective solution. It can lower the cost and other barriers to producing and disseminating disinformation, but it can also support information integrity, including by identifying disinformation. The provision of current and credible information to public-interest media, civil society organisations, fact-checkers and academics would improve the quality of their communications. Open data disclosures and enhanced proactive release systems will foster greater trust in government information. The OAIC, as the regulator responsible for promoting and protecting these important human rights, is well placed to work with both the community and government to meet the challenges of a rapid-paced digital environment and to promote productivity and efficiencies by maximising seamless access to information. Tydd described the proactive, technology-driven distribution of government data as “the secret sauce of social media” — the element that allows trusted information to spread just as quickly as viral misinformation, but with the crucial difference that it is accurate, accountable and lawful. In her view, governments must do more than simply respond to requests; they must anticipate the public’s need for reliable information and use modern tools to put that information directly into the public domain before false narratives take hold.
The OAIC’s 2026-29 Strategic Plan articulates the vision: “The protection of personal information and access to government-held information is lawful, transparent, trustworthy, fair, and accountable.” Tydd identified three strategic impacts the office will strive to achieve: addressing power and information asymmetries; promoting information integrity; and embedding fairness, accountability and transparency in new technology. In her closing argument, she used the imagery of an information system as a body: improved systems that harness technology to supply information are the arteries that carry information; building the capacity of government as a responsible steward of information is the muscle that moves information between governments and the communities they serve. Together, they support information integrity — “the heart of our democratic system of government”. Her remarks come at a time when online disorder and questions of trust in public institutions are high on the national and global agenda. Her message is both a warning and a reassurance: people are not turning away from democratic institutions by asking more of them; they are turning toward the one source that remains accountable, transparent and legally obliged to tell the truth. For governments, the challenge is to match the reach and efficiency of social media while retaining the integrity that only well-preserved, well-governed and publicly accessible information can provide. The 42% increase in review applications at the OAIC, the survey results, and the planned regulatory work all point in the same direction: a community that is actively, even urgently, exercising its right to know. Tydd’s conclusion is that this is not a problem to be managed but a democratic asset to be built upon, using every tool from freedom-of-information law to artificial intelligence.