Parts of the government’s freedom of information and privacy reforms are “unworkable”, says the president of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Gillian Triggs, and legal and advocacy groups have roundly condemned the changes.

The federal government has introduced a bill that would abolish the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC), which conducts freedom of information reviews and investigations into government agencies and hears complaints.

As part of the changes the role of the privacy commissioner, which now sits within the OAIC, would become part of the Australian Human Rights Commission.

But at a Senate inquiry on Monday into the amendments, Triggs told the committee that the proposed model for integrating the privacy commissioner, Timothy Pilgrim, would allow the commissioner to sit apart from the AHRC’s formal structure, but would still draw from its funding.

The privacy commissioner, unlike all the other human rights commissioners, would be directly answerable to the attorney general rather than the president, in what Triggs described as a “separate bubble”.

Triggs told the committee: “The way I believe it is envisioned is that the staff would be made available to the privacy commissioner but would not be made available to the other commissioners.

“If this bill is passed we will continue to do what we are doing … but we will have this bubble in the middle of it.

“That is simply unworkable, for the way in which the financial requirements operate.”

The abolition of the freedom of information review role of the OAIC would also mean that reviews of government decisions could go only to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, for which it costs $800 to file applications.

The government’s legislation has been strongly objected to by the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Privacy International, the Open Australia Foundation, Liberty Victoria and Guardian Australia in separate submissions to the inquiry.

The Queensland integrity commissioner, Richard Bingham, has also broken ranks and thrown his support behind the OAIC.

“Most right-to-information systems across the country are not working as effectively as they might, both in terms of meeting their broad objectives and in terms of efficiency. Some of the issues have been identified in reports published by OAIC,” he said in a written submission.

“In my view it would be a mistake to disband the OAIC without addressing the issues identified in these reports, with a view to enhancing transparency and openness in government generally.”

The chairman of the Australian Press Council, Julian Disney, also appeared at the inquiry and said: “If small government is the philosophy to be pursued it seems a strange way to achieve it by reducing the effectiveness and accountability of what remains, and that effectively is what this does.”

Australia’s Right to Know Coalition made a submission on behalf of Fairfax Media, AAP, News Corp, the MEAA, the West Australian and several other media organisations. Their submission was more critical of the review functions of the OAIC, which led to significant delays in processing freedom of information reviews and complaints.

The coalition has always maintained that applicants should have the option of appealing directly to the AAT to allow speedier resolution of decisions.

The ABC’s freedom of information editor, Michael McKinnon, who appeared on behalf of the coalition, raised significant concerns about the prospect that if some legislation does not succeed in passing applicants could be left without any review options at all, due to the closure of the OAIC.

“Unhappily and reluctantly we support some form of bill getting through in order to create a review process,” he said.

He added that the coalition did support the role of an information commissioner – although he stressed there were alternative models that could be used to allow them to operate more efficiently.

A freedom of information consultant, Peter Timmins, who runs the Open and Shut resource, said that the case “had not been made for disbanding of the office of the Australian information commissioner”.

“We lose the champion and advocate for open government,” he said. “In disbanding the functions we are not replacing that function.”

The OpenAustralia Foundation, which runs the right-to-know site that facilitates freedom of information requests, also submitted to the committee that its analysis showed there was still a “systemic culture of secrecy” around FOI that would be exacerbated by the abolition of the office.

“For accountability, citizens need access to a free merit review system administered by an effective independent office. We already have that office, in the office of the Australian information commissioner,” its submission said.