Summing Up: Foi in Australia — First Term Report
| DOI | 10.1177/0067205X8301400206 |
| Published date | 01 June 1983 |
| Date | 01 June 1983 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
SUMMING
UP:
FOI
IN
AUSTRALIA
-FIRST
TERM
REPORT
THE
HON MR JUSTICE
MD
KIRBY CMG*
INTRODUCTION AND OUTLINE
This
is
the fourth in the series which the Faculty
of
Law
of
the Australian
National University has organised around the theme "Australian Lawyers
and Social Change". At the outset, I should congratulate the Faculty and
especially Professor Pearce for the persistence with the series. Anything done
to confront lawyers in Australia with the consequences and implications
of
a
time
of
rapid social change
is
to be applauded. I speak for all participants
in
thanking the lead speakers and commentators. Theirs have been valuable and
timely contributions. Especially, I would wish to thank Professor Glen Robin-
son (University
of
Virginia, United States) and Mr Stephen Skelly QC
(Department
of
Justice, Ottawa, Canada) for enlivening the proceedings with
insights from the two great English-speaking Federations, with whose legal
systems
we
have so much in common.
Summing
up
the discussion
of
this seminar, on topics so diverse and far
reaching,
is
a "forbidding" task.
To
contain these large debates within a brief
report requires the imposition
of
discipline on topics, at once novel and fast
expanding. I therefore propose to confine
my
remarks to the following:
* First, a
few
preliminary comments on the methodology
of
the seminar.
* Secondly, a brief recapitulation
of
the course the seminar took.
* Thirdly, an analysis
of
the rationale offered for the Australian moves
towards greater access to government information.
* Fourthly, a collection
of
the words
of
caution offered by the critics
or
scep-
tics.
* Fifthly, I shall collect some
of
the proposals for reform
of
the present
law
ventured during the discussion.
* Sixthly, I shall suggest a
few
pointers to an early evaluation
of
the reforms
-necessarily preliminary and tentative at this stage.
2 PRELIMINARY COMMENTS ON METHODOLOGY
•
Openness
of
debate
The first thing to notice about our methodology
is
that
we
did not ourselves fully practise the philosophy
we
have heard preached. The
seminar was not a public one, save for an opening ceremony that did attract a
few
strangers until they learned that
we
were not the Architects' Dinner. True
it
is
there were participants who were from outside the University and the
Department
of
State. There were even two journalists present as participants.
But they were under constraints and the seminar proceeded between the in-
vitees and behind closed doors. If, as seems to be the case, there
is
confusion,
ignorance and uncertainty about the Freedom
of
Information Act
("FOI
Act"), there
is
surely room for more open debate: at least allowing repre-
sentatives
of
the media and
of
special interests to attend, if they choose to do
• Chairman
of
the Australian
Law
Reform Commission; Judge
of
the Federal Court
of
Australia; member
of
the Administrative Review Council. The
views
expressed are personal
views
only.
To continue reading
Request your trial