Mr Rattenbury said the bill had been through more than 50 drafts, partly as a result of negotiations with Labor, but to no avail, when Labor refused to support his much more open process for handling and releasing government information.

Change to freedom of information laws were one of the agreements in the power-sharing deal Mr Rattenbury signed with then chief minister Katy Gallagher after the 2012 election, and remains one of the few items still outstanding.

He will now look for Liberal support, but the Liberals are yet to make up their minds, saying it would be discussed on Monday in their party room meeting.

"We've reached a point where the Labor Party has decided they will not support this reform," Mr Rattenbury said. "That's really disappointing at a time when the community is crying out for better transparency from government and this is a really strong way to improve that.

"So the question now will be whether the Liberal Party is prepared to come on board and match their rhetoric of demanding greater transparency."

Mr Rattenbury said he had tried to meet Labor's concerns, including more protections for cabinet documents, but Labor wanted more classes of documents exempt. Its counter proposal had been so far from the reform he wanted that it was no longer in the spirit of what he was trying to do.

"I hoped this would be a 17 to nil vote, that was always my aspiration on this legislation," he said. "But ... rather than simply giving up through being unable to win the Labor Party's support, I will try my chances on the floor of the Assembly."

But Attorney-General Simon Corbell said the Bill went beyond the reforms agreed between Labor and the Greens and was significantly different from the Queensland Act, on which it was to be modelled. In particular, it would not sufficiently protect cabinet and legally privileged documents, he said.

Mr Rattenbury legislation was designed to bring about a "mind shift" to "a culture of transparency", he said, suggesting that even as a minister there had been times when he had wanted information released but had been constrained by the laws.

His legislation adopts the so-called "push" model where information is assumed to be available to the public unless certain criteria restrict its release. It allows informal release without forcing people to go through the formal hoops of an FOI request. It spells out that it should be "administered with a pro-disclosure bias".

Information can only be withheld if it is contrary to the public interest to release it.

Things that can't be taken into account when deciding the public interest include whether a release could embarrass the government, result in confusion or unnecessary debate (a reason often used to withhold information currently), or affect the frankness of public service advice.

The bill allows cabinet information to be withheld, including information created for cabinet and notes of cabinet discussions. Personal information can also be withheld, along with information that will hinder the administration of justice or "the protection of the environment", information that will "prejudice the economy of the territory", federal security information, intergovernmental information, trade secrets and business affairs, and some other categories.

It makes certain information openly available, including any report or study prepared for an agency by a scientific or technical expert, information about ministerial and staff travel and the minister's diary. It also requires summaries of cabinet decisions and the triple bottom line assessment for cabinet decisions to be published. After three years, incoming ministerial briefs, parliamentary estimates briefs, annual reports briefs and question time briefs must also be published.