Page:Kline v Official Secretary to the Governor General.pdf/20

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

16.

honours and the public interest in efficient public administration, which is supported by the scrutiny for which the FOI Act provides.

43 The first public interest or purpose is achieved by the exclusion from disclosure of documents relating to non-administrative matters. In relation to the Order, these must include all unpublished documents associated with the administration (that is, the operation) of the Order, involving, as it does, a confidential selection process in respect of all nominations received within a particular period.

44 The second public interest and purpose is achieved by exposing to public scrutiny documents of the Official Secretary which fall within the exception. The operation of the exception in relation to the Order must be governed by its general construction in application to that particular case. So applied, the exception can only be read as referring to documents relating to the management and administration of the resources of the Office and is consistent with the general non-application of the FOI Act to requests for access to documents of the Official Secretary.

45 The analogous exclusion of federal courts and specified tribunals, authorities and bodies from the general operation of the FOI Act, except for documents which relate to matters of an administrative nature, also involves a balance of conflicting public interests. There is a long-recognised public interest in the protection of judicial independence to enable holders of judicial office to exercise authority without fear or favour – judges work in public, are obliged to give reasons, and are subject to appellate review[1]. However, not every action undertaken by a judge in the discharge of the substantive powers and functions of adjudication is undertaken in public. For example, revision of an unrevised transcript of proceedings heard in open court may occur in chambers. That task is referable to the exercise of judicial, rather than administrative, powers and functions[2].

46 Similar policy considerations apply in respect of specified tribunals, authorities or bodies. Holders of office in such bodies also exercise authority without fear or favour. Determinations are made in public, but distinct conciliatory functions may depend for their success on confidentiality so as to


  1. Fingleton v The Queen (2005) 227 CLR 166 at 186 [38]–[39] per Gleeson CJ; [2005] HCA 34; Herijanto v Refugee Review Tribunal (2000) 74 ALJR 698 at 700–701 [13]–[16] per Gaudron J; 170 ALR 379 at 382–383; [2000] HCA 16.
  2. Loughnan v Altman (1992) 39 FCR 90.