Commentaries

AuthorJohn McMillan
Published date01 March 1983
Date01 March 1983
DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1177/0067205X8301400106
Subject MatterArticle
COMMENTARIES
MR JOHN
McMILLAN*
Back
in
1972-1973 when the idea of freedom of information legislation
was
first floated
in
Australia, a decision
was
made -and never seriously
challenged -that our legislation should
be
modelled on the United States
Freedom of Information
Act.
1 The result,
as
Professor Robinson points out,
is
that a remarkable parallel exists between the Australian and United States
legislation.
In
another respect too United States experience became relevant to
Australia at
an
early date. Proponents of FOI
in
Australia learned from a close
study of United States experience that legislation might not
be
received en-
thusiastically nor readily
by
some
key
Ministers and public servants.
Legislation, particularly strong and workable legislation, would
be
enacted
only if a vigorous and unyielding public campaign
was
undertaken. Indeed, the
fact that
an
Act
exists
in
Australia owes much to the campaign waged or sup-
ported
by
groups
like
the Freedom of Information Legislation Campaign
Committee, Rupert Public Interest Movement. the Australian Council of
Social Services, the Library Association of Australia, the Administrative and
Clerical Officers' Association, the Australian Consumers' Association, and
by
a small number of parliamentarians and sympathetic senior public servants.
It
is
those lessons that provide much of the context
in
which the Australian
FOI Act should
be
assessed. The Act
is
not just another administrative
law
reform, and certainly not one whose existence
is
attributable solely
to
the
wisdom, foresight or benificence of political leaders and their advisers. More so
than
in
many other areas, public, press and parliamentary pressure had a
strong influence
in
fashioning the Act more suitably towards the objective of
conferring upon the public a realistic and enforceable right against the govern-
ment administration.2
Just
how
well
that objective has been secured has been disputed. The
Australian Labor Party
in
opposition felt that the right of access
was
too con-
stricted, and acted quickly when
in
government to introduce
new
amendments.
In
turn, that Government has been criticised for having dropped from
its
list of
reforms some
of
those which
it
had earlier identified
as
the central planks
in
its
legislative reform programme. The time has not passed
it
seems when
we
can-
not usefully contrast Australian and United States FOI developments.
In
short, are there any lessons that can
be
drawn
-first,
about
how
satisfactory
the scope of our
Act
is;
and secondly, about future developments that might
merit our attention?
*
BA,
LLB
(ANU); Lecturer
in
Law.
Australian National University; Spokesperson for the
Freedom
of
Information Legislation Campaign Committee.
1 ForJa brief account of the history of FOI
in
Australia.
see
Freedom
o(
Legislation--
Report
of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and
Legal
Affairs on the Freedom of In-
formation
Bill
1978
and Aspects
of
the Archives
Bill
1978.
Pari
Paper
No
272/1979.
Ch
2.
2 For a discussion of the amendments made
to
the
Act
during
its
initial parliamentary
passage,
see
1 McMillan. "Freedom
of
Information Update". [ 1981] Rupert Journal, Nos 6
and
7,
30.
(A
publication
of
the Rupert Public Interest Movement Inc, Canberra. Australia.)

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT