The Australian government is quietly relying on encrypted messaging to conduct sensitive business, even as it hardens its stance against public use of secure communications.
While the public faces increasing surveillance and legal pressure for using end-to-end encryption, senior officials are steering policy conversations into private digital spaces, shielding them from scrutiny under Freedom of Information (FOI) laws.
Since midyear, ministerial staff have been advising lobbyists, peak bodies and industry groups to avoid email altogether and submit reform proposals through the encrypted messaging app Signal.
Some of these exchanges have been requested using disappearing messages, ensuring there is no record retained on government systems.
Several sources confirmed to the Saturday Paper that this guidance is now common across a number of policy areas.
In addition to Signal, stakeholders have been encouraged to use phone calls for detailed conversations and limit the content of any written communications.
In at least one case, after a formal meeting, the follow-up came in the form of a verbal summary rather than the usual written recap sent by email.
While the government has maintained formal channels for official submissions, a secondary mode of policymaking is taking shape.
This mode operates out of reach of archiving protocols and public oversight.
One participant in this informal process described it as an effort to protect the early phases of policy development from outside scrutiny, arguing that “fluid thoughts and ideas” should be exempt from public record.
Yet the effect of these practices is to create a shadow layer of government consultation that leaves no trace and falls outside the accountability mechanisms intended to safeguard democratic participation.
The government’s preference for these tools is difficult to square with its broader record.
Authorities have been increasingly aggressive toward the use of privacy-respecting software by the public. In one case, a staff member from Session, a secure messaging platform, was approached by the Australian Federal Police at their home about the app and a specific user.
The incident prompted the company to relocate its operations outside Australia. At the same time, the Director-General of ASIO has publicly floated banning end-to-end encrypted messaging, and the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018 gives intelligence agencies broad powers to compel companies to assist in accessing encrypted communications.
Inside government offices, the same encryption tools are now being used to move sensitive reforms beyond the FOI regime.
This is occurring just as the Albanese government pursues major amendments to the FOI system itself. These would allow agencies to reject requests more easily, cap processing hours, and expand discretionary powers to label applications as unreasonable.
Transparency has already declined under the current administration, with FOI outcomes deteriorating compared to the previous government.
Analysts tracking the change say the volume of written material has dropped across several portfolios, and that ministerial staff now appear reluctant to receive anything that might later be made public.
A report from the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner confirms that encrypted apps are now widely used in the public service.
The experience of Session, a privacy-focused messaging app, shows the consequences of this double standard.
As we previously reported, following an unannounced visit from the Australian Federal Police to the home of a Session employee, conducted without a warrant and outside normal legal protocols, the company made the decision to relocate its operations to Switzerland.
That move was driven by what its leadership described as an increasingly inhospitable legal environment in Australia for services that refuse to compromise user privacy.
These views are unfolding in the same legal environment shaped by laws like the Assistance and Access Act 2018, which already empowers authorities to compel access to encrypted data.
The double standard is hard to ignore. Government actors increasingly rely on encrypted apps like Signal to avoid FOI requirements and keep conversations off the record, while at the same time demanding that those protections be dismantled for the public.
