Colakovski v. Australian Telecommunications Corporation

(1991) 100 ALR 111
(1991) 29 FCR 429
(1991) 23 ALD 1
(1991) 13 AAR 261

---

(Decision by: Jenkinson J)

Colakovski
v Australian Telecommunications Corporation

Court:

Judges: Lockhart J

Jenkinson JHeerey J

Subject References:
Administrative law
Freedom of information
Personal affairs
Evidence of criminal offence

Hearing date: 5 March 1991
Judgment date: 17 April 1991

Melbourne

---

Decision by:
Jenkinson J

I agree in the judgment of Lockhart J and in the orders he proposes.

In my opinion the circumstances of this case should evoke two reflections about the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth). The first is that no provision is made in the Act for restricting dissemination of information contained in a document to which access is granted. I say nothing as to whether in this case the use of such a provision, if it had existed, might have been appropriate. But it is not difficult to imagine circumstances in which the recipient of telephone calls of the kind made in this case would be thought to have a strong moral claim to access to information about the cALL ER's personal affairs which it would be unreasonable to disclose to other members of what s 3 of the Act calls "the Australian community". But nothing in the Act except s 91(2) qualifies the recipient's freedom to disseminate throughout that community information contained in a document to which he has been granted access. The second is that, in determining what is to be considered "the unreasonable disclosure of information" for the purposes of s 41(1), the provisions of s 14 of the Act should in my opinion be kept in mind. That section provides:

Nothing in this Act is intended to prevent or discourage Ministers and agencies from publishing or giving access to documents (including exempt documents), otherwise than as required by this Act, where they can properly do so or are required by law to do so.

Again I say nothing as to whether in this case reference to that provision would have been useful. But it may in my opinion be in some cases a consideration relevant to the determination of the reasonableness of a disclosure under the Act, a disclosure which may result in general public dissemination of the information, that disclosure may properly be made otherwise than under the Act to him who has a particular interest to receive the information, or some part of the information.