No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 January 2025
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. 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 enthusiastically 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 supported 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.
1 For a brief account of the history of FOI in Australia. see Freedom of Legislation — Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on the Freedom of Information Bill 1978 and Aspects of the Archives Bill 1978. Parl Paper No 272/1979. Ch 2.
2 For a discussion of the amendments made lo the Act during its initial parliamentary passage, see J McMillan. “Freedom of Information Update”, [1981] Rupert Journal, Nos 6 and 7, 30. (A publication of the Rupert Public Interest Movement Inc, Canberra. Australia.)
3 (1978) 142 CLR 1.
4 Commonwealth v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1980) 32 ALR 485.
5 Eg, Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act. 1975 (Cth), and Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, 1977 (Cth).
6 Freedom of Information, supra n 1.
7 Sen Deb. Vol 90, 2379 (29 May 198 I); see also Sen Deb. Vol 86, 817-818 (11 September 1980).
8 See the Attorney-General's Second Reading Speech, regarding the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 1983: Sen Deb. 1179 at 1180 (2 June 1983)
9 A good summary of examples is contained in the Appendix to “Freedom of Information Trends in the Information Age” (1982) 3 Journal of Media Law and Practice 144.
10 In earlier Parliamentary debate the ALP Opposition had proposed that the security intelligence agencies be made subject to the Act (though this stance was never fully articulated): see Sen Deb. Vol 90. 3250-3251 (12 June 1981).
11 Particularly through US Congressional hearings — see, eg, Desmond Ball, A Suitable Piece of Real Estate: American Installations in Australia (1980) 25.
12 See “'The Austeo Papers”, National Times (6-12 May 1983) 3.
13 See Sen Deb, Vol 90, 2391 (29 May 1981).
14 For a comparable example of judicial “backsliding” in a Crown Privilege context see, eg, the judgment of Lord Denning MR in Air Canada v Secretary of State for Trade [1983] 2 WLR 494, 506-509.
15 Executive Order No 12356; discussed in KM Brown, “Government Classification: An Overview”, Freedom of Information Center Report No 469 (Uni of Missouri at Columbia, 1983).
16 Discussed in J McMillan. “Making Government Accountable — A Comparative Analysis of Freedom of Information Legislation Statutes — Part III” (1983) 17 NZLJ 286. 287.
17 See. eg. R Nader. M Green. and J Seligman. Taming the Giant Corporation (1976) Ch V.