FREEDOM OF INFORMATION IN AUSTRALIA, CANADA AND NEW ZEALAND
| Published date | 01 June 1989 |
| Author | ROBERT HAZELL |
| Date | 01 June 1989 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1989.tb00721.x |
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION IN AUSTRALIA,
CANADA
AND
NEW ZEALAND
ROBERT
WELL
In
1982,
Australia, Canada and New Zealand introduced freedom
of
information
(~01)
laws. The author visited all three countries
in
1986-7
to study how the legislation was
being used, and
its
impact on the workings
of
Westminster-style government. A table
summarizes the main features
of
the legislation. The article discusses the different appeal
mechanisms; the implications for ministerial accountability; the level of take-up; the different
categories of user; administrative costs and benefits; staffing requirements, refusal rates,
fees, etc. Apart from requests for personal files, the level
of
demand
has
been relatively
low; ministerial accountability remains unchanged; the legislation has successfully protected
government secrets; and the overall cost has not proved
too
great.
FOI
has not realized
its more ambitious objectives, such as increasing public participation in government
decision-making; but
at
the same time,
it
has
not
fulfilled many
of
its opponents' worst fears.
Freedom of information is generally thought
of
in the United Kingdom as a
Scandinavian or American phenomenon. When the last Labour government was
forced to consider legislation, in the dying days of the Lib-Lab pact, it was mainly
the European and American models which were referred to; and it was their
differences from the Westminster system which the government invoked in its
1979
Green Paper on Open Government as the main reason for not following their
example. But in the late
1970s
the British government was not alone amongst
Commonwealth countries in considering how to reconcile the Westminster principle
of ministerial accountability with a statutory right to information.
At
the same
time that the Labour government was rejecting legislation as being incompatible
with the Westminster system, plans were well-advanced to introduce freedom of
information laws in Australia and Canada, and New Zealand was not far behind.
British work on the subject stopped with the election
of
the Conservative govern-
ment in May
1979,
but the other Commonwealth countries camed on, and by
coincidence
-
or Commonwealth
Zeitgeist
-
all three legislated in
1982.
Australia
enacted its Freedom of Information Act
in
March, Canada its Access to Information
Robert Hazel1 is Director
of
the Nuffield Foundation, but at the time of writing was an Assistant
Secretary in the Home Office. In 1986-7 he visited Australia, Canada and New Zealand on a civil
service travelling fellowship. The comments
in
the article are the author's own personal observations,
which are not necessarily shared by the British government or any other government. This paper
was a 'commended entry
in
the 1987 RIPA Haldane Essay Competition.
Public Administration
Vol.
67 Summer 1989 (189-210)
0
Crown copyright 1989. Reproduced by permission of the Controller
of
Her Majesty's Stationery
Office.
190
ROBERT
WELL
Act in June, and New Zealand its Official Information Act in December of 1982.
Like the
UK,
they were concerned to protect the fundamentals of the Westminster
system; and the legislation was regarded as sufficiently innovative for each govern-
ment to pledge a review of its operation after three years.
This article draws on the review material as well as on personal interviews to
describe how the legislation has worked in its first few years. The reviews generated
a great deal of information about its impact, in particular in the evidence
sub-
mitted by individual departments. In Australia and Canada there was a lengthy
first stage of evidence-gathering by a parliamentary committee; in New Zealand
the review process was brought forward by the Labour government elected in 1984,
and resulted in the Official Information Amendment Act of
1987.
The article will
not describe the legislation
in
any detail, but will concentrate on how the legislation
has been
used;
to what extent it has realized its objectives; and what its impact
has been on the workings of government.
SUMMARY
OF
THE
LEGISLATION
For readers who
are
interested, Table
1
compares the
main
features
of
the legislation
in the three countries. The table also includes a summary of the legislation
in
Victoria and Quebec (which both legislated in 1982), and Ontario (which legislated
in 1987). Occasional reference will be made to the provincial legislation, which
in these three states is highly sophisticated: the other Canadian provinces which
have legislated (Nova Scotia, New
B.mswick,
Newfoundland and Manitoba) have
adopted rather simpler models (Rowat 1983). New South Wales introduced
legislation in 1989.
Data protection
and
privacy
The Canadian legislation also includes a detailed code of data protection principles,
as does that in Quebec (column 17
of
Table
1).
The Canadian Privacy Act imposes
tight controls on the collection, retention and disposal of personal information by
government agencies, and on its
use
and disclosure.
It
goes much further than the
UKs
Data Protection Act because it applies to
all
manual records as well as
computerized data. Australia introduced its first Privacy Bill in 1986, a second
in 1987, and eventually legislated in 1988; and New Zealand is preparing similar
legislation. Although important,
this
privacy legislation
will
not
be
discussed further
here. The focus of this article is on access to information (including personal
information) held by government, and for this purpose the Canadian Privacy
Act
will
be
subsumed with the Access to Information Act. Despite the differing titles,
the legislation in each country will be referred to generically as freedom of
information legislation, or
FOI
for short.
Official
Secrets Act
It tends to
be
assumed in the
UK
that
FOI
could not be introduced without reform
or repeal of the Official Secrets Act. Experience overseas shows that this is not
the case. Only New Zealand has amended its Official Secrets Act; in Australia
To continue reading
Request your trial