Rd Snell

Customising Freedom of Information Law Reform in South Pacific Micro-States

Abstract This article highlights the importance of adopting a pluralist approach to developing freedom of information (FOI) schemes within specific states in an age of ‘adopter intensification’. The limitations of imposing universal ‘off the shelf’ schemes without addressing multifaceted and unique state requirements are highlighted. The South Pacific Region is utilised as an example that demonstrates adoption is merely the initial and simplest step in an ongoing process of adaption and implementation. Comprehension of the ongoing commitment required in implementing effective FOI schemes should exist prior to legislative conception. Draft schemes must consider not only the supply and demand element of FOI within specific states, but also their broader macro- and micro-level intricacies. Vanuatu and Tonga are used as examples to demonstrate that even where a pluralist and staged approach is undertaken progress can still be slow and problematic.

Australian Ombudsman: A continual work in progress

The transition in the roles, functions and activities of Australian Ombudsman from those contemplated at the start of the 1970s to current practice in 2006 has been remarkable. Early research on the Ombudsman in Australia argued that the office was an alien concept to Australia that had been remarkably successful in terms of receiving and resolving complaints and establishing a good reputation with the public, but that the office had received marginal attention in legal scholarship and had a problematic relationship with other parts of the administrative landscape. Australian Ombudsmen have transformed from an alien (and barely understood) import on the edge of public administration, assigned a secondary and assistant role, to being regarded as a central component of administrative justice. There has been a significant redistribution of focus and activity from an original complainant-focused, incident-based approach to an institution-focused and performance-based approach to investigation.

Natural justice: an alternative ground for intervention in corporate decision making?

This paper seeks to show that the existing regulation of corporate decision making fails to provide a comprehensive shield to minority shareholders. Instead of urging another addition to the plethora of statutory controls over corporations the authors suggest a more radical, but simple solution to this lacuna. This radical and simple solution would be to apply the rules of natural justice to corporate decision making, thus providing a safety net of last resort for minority shareholders who are unable to gain the protection of a statutory or common law remedy. TTiere is no doubt that at present the law governing the decision making powers of companies, at a board level or in the general meeting, are inadequate, at least insofar as procedural matters are concerned. As injustice may arise as a result of this inadequacy it will be submitted that the principles of natural justice should apply to company decisions. Against this backdrop this article considers the existing regulation of corporate decisions before examining the bases for the imposition of natural justice. The grounds for denying the implication of natural justice will also be discussed. Ultimately we will conclude that there is no insurmountable barrier to the application of the rules of natural justice to corporate decision making organs. The authors acknowledge that the solution we propose involves important policy considerations. This policy debate has been addressed in other articles.1 Our paper is based on the premise that once it is accepted that it is possible to move or adjust the private/public boundary then important advantages could occur to minority shareholders.