Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on McKinnon v. Secretary, Department of Treasury (2006) 229 ALR 187. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 3 page paper considers Australian administrative law by critically evaluating McKinnon v Secretary, Department of Treasury (2006) 229 ALR 187 and looking at the implications for freedom of information. The bibliography cites 4 sources.
Page Count:
3 pages (~225 words per page)
File: TS14_TEMcKinnon.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
interesting case which concerned freedom of information and may be argued as having some interesting ramifications. Michael McKinnon, the editor of The Australian newspaper brought an action under the
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) after the treasury refused to give him access to certain documents (Free, 2006). When the treasury refused to grant access under the Freedom of
information act they relied on an exemption that existed concerning internal working documents which would mean business affairs being revealed (Bannister, 2006). After an internal review a certificate was signed
stating that revealing the documents would be contrary to the public interest (Bannister, 2006, Free, 2006). McKinnon was granted access to some documents, but only a few, and wanted
access t the rest, taking it to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, then the Federal Court and finally the High Court McKinnon lost at all stages. The main issue of the
case is not what the documents were about, but who it is that has the right to determine what is and is not in the public interest (Lexis, 2007; Bannister,
2006). The decision of the High Court has meant that when further cases are referred to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal they will have little to do and give the
holder f the information seeking to use the exception the ability to do this as long as the conclusive certificate is accompanied by grounds that are clearly drafted which will
effectually preclude the ability of the tribunal to take any action. The approach where the tribunal needs to balance the different competing influences of freedom of information and public interest
is taken out of the equation and is no longer an influence (Bannister, 2006). The case may be seen as reinforcing the power of government and civil servants, it was
...