Silica secrecy: Navigating access to silica dust data under freedom of information legislation

Abstract Tunnel construction supports vital infrastructure development but can expose workers to serious health risks, including silicosis, from exposure to respirable crystalline silica (RCS). This study examines how Australia's freedom of information (FOI) legislation facilitates or hinders access to information that can support improvements in policy and practice, using RCS exposure of Australian tunnel workers as an example. A review was conducted of FOI requests submitted in 2023–2024 to government agencies. We assessed the availability of information and timeliness of decisions, and reported on facilitators, obstacles, outcomes, and variations concerning information access. Our experience identified operational hindrances including lengthy delays, varying interpretations between government agencies of what was in the public interest, and substantial efforts by third parties to prevent information disclosure. Despite these constraints, FOI use in one jurisdiction generated evidence of government knowledge that challenged prevailing narratives, prompted media and parliamentary scrutiny, and contributed to policy responses addressing RCS exposure in tunnelling. Points for practitioners Freedom of information laws are essential for accessing government-held information, particularly where it has important implications for public health. Public interest tests and disclosure decisions differ significantly across Australian government agencies, creating inconsistency in access to information. Practitioners should be aware of these differences and that obtaining access to information may involve significant delays and require the pursuit of review or appeal processes, reinforcing longstanding concerns about the suppression of data relevant to public health. Withholding information can delay recognition of risks, while greater transparency can support timely intervention and stronger evidence‐informed public health policy.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Australian Journal of Public Administration
Published
2026-09-06
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.70066
Primary Topic
Occupational and environmental lung diseases
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Silica secrecy: Navigating access to silica dust data under freedom of information legislation

Tim Driscoll, Kate Cole
Australian Journal of Public Administration
Occupational and environmental lung diseases
article

Silica secrecy: Navigating access to silica dust data under freedom of information legislation

Tim Driscoll, Kate Cole
article en

Abstract

Abstract Tunnel construction supports vital infrastructure development but can expose workers to serious health risks, including silicosis, from exposure to respirable crystalline silica (RCS). This study examines how Australia's freedom of information (FOI) legislation facilitates or hinders access to information that can support improvements in policy and practice, using RCS exposure of Australian tunnel workers as an example. A review was conducted of FOI requests submitted in 2023–2024 to government agencies. We assessed the availability of information and timeliness of decisions, and reported on facilitators, obstacles, outcomes, and variations concerning information access. Our experience identified operational hindrances including lengthy delays, varying interpretations between government agencies of what was in the public interest, and substantial efforts by third parties to prevent information disclosure. Despite these constraints, FOI use in one jurisdiction generated evidence of government knowledge that challenged prevailing narratives, prompted media and parliamentary scrutiny, and contributed to policy responses addressing RCS exposure in tunnelling. Points for practitioners Freedom of information laws are essential for accessing government-held information, particularly where it has important implications for public health. Public interest tests and disclosure decisions differ significantly across Australian government agencies, creating inconsistency in access to information. Practitioners should be aware of these differences and that obtaining access to information may involve significant delays and require the pursuit of review or appeal processes, reinforcing longstanding concerns about the suppression of data relevant to public health. Withholding information can delay recognition of risks, while greater transparency can support timely intervention and stronger evidence‐informed public health policy.

Australian Journal of Public Administration
The University of Sydney (AU), UNSW Sydney (AU)
Industry, innovation and infrastructure
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Occupational and environmental lung diseases
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.