Commentaries
| DOI | 10.1177/0067205X8301400104 |
| Author | Sir Clarrie Harders |
| Date | 01 March 1983 |
| Published date | 01 March 1983 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
1983] Commentaries
31
The
earlier pieces
of
the
"New
Administrative Law" were not political
dynamite. They righted wrongs; they made it less likely mistakes would be
repeated; they sensitised government to needs and demands; but ordinarily
they did not do political damage, and when they did it was inadvertent and
usually minor. Information
is
more interwoven with power than that, and quite
different considerations fuel the open government movement. Mr Curtis's paper
touches on these questions and much else.
The
paper contains a great many
valuable insights into both the history and the current content
of
open govern-
ment in Australia.
It
has been a rewarding paper to read, and it has set the
seminar
off
on an admirable sound foundation.
Sir CLARRIE HARDERS*
My
first and quite unnecessary comment
is
that if anyone can speak with
authority about Freedom
of
Information
("FOI")
in Australia and about the
origins
of
the Commonwealth's Freedom
of
Information Act in particular it
surely is Mr Lindsay Curtis. I recall many
of
the events
of
1973 onwards into
1979 when I retired from the Public Service. Especially I recall the long haul
that was commenced in 1973 with the assistance
of
Mr Tony Mondello, the
legal adviser to the United States Civil Service Commission, and that even-
tually reached fruition in 1982 with the passage
of
the FOI Act. All through
that period Lindsay Curtis was more closely associated than any other public
servant with the project. He has given
us
the benefit
of
that experience in an
interesting, able and fluent paper.
My
second
and
equally obvious comment
is
that
the FOI Act
is
here to stay.
Lindsay Curtis has said
we
are undergoing a revolution. I believe the
revolution has already taken place. Some
of
us
may find it rather difficult to
live with the consequences. I do not, however, see any really substantial
alterations being made
to
the Act one way
or
the other.
That
is
something that
just
has
to
be recognised. There
is
no
point in knocking
one's
head against a
brick wall. The fact
of
the matter
is
that governments did not in the past
sufficiently practise freedom
of
information.
To
take
just
one
illustration-
it
was
not
until 1979 that the Commonwealth Attorney -General's Department,
often referred
to
as one
of
the first Departments
of
State created in 190 I,
published an Annual Report. I blush as I say this, and I blush even more when
I add that the Report was
not
published until after I had retired. At least,
however, [ had had a large
part
in
its preparation as my successor kindly
acknowledged in the Foreword.
Mr Curtis has said
1 that what began as a simple concept has resulted in a
very complex piece
of
legislation.
It
is
indeed a very complex piece
of
legis-
lation. A
few
months ago I was asked by the law firm with which I am now
associated to give a talk on the Act to the firm's partners and solicitors. I found
•
LLB
(Adell; formerly Secretary to the Attorney-General's Department, Canberra; partner in
Freehill Hollingdale and Page, Canberra.
'L
Curtis, "Freedom
of
Information in Australia" (1983)
14
FL Rev 5, 23.
To continue reading
Request your trial