Freedom of information implications of information sharing networks for critical infrastructure protection

Protection of “critical infrastructure” has become a major issue for govern- ments worldwide. Yet in Australia, as in many other countries, including the United States, an estimated 90% of critical infrastructure is privately owned or operated commercially – in other words, critical infrastructure protection is not the exclusive domain of government. As a result, information sharing between government and the private sector has become a vitally important component of effective risk management. However, establishing effective arrangements of this kind between the public and private sector needs to take account of existing regimes of access and public disclosure which relate to government-held documents; in particular, that which is established by freedom of information (FOI) legislation. This article examines the extent to which the current Commonwealth FOI regime is likely to act as an impediment to the private sector operators of critical infrastructure participat- ing in government-operated information sharing arrangements. By examining developments in other jurisdictions, principally the United States, the article considers whether amendments to the current Australian FOI regime are necessary to ensure effective participation, consistent with the underlying object and purpose of FOI.

Are the financial services external complaints resolution schemes subject to judicial review?

In Australia seven schemes (apart from the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal) provide alternative dispute resolution services for complaints brought by consumers against financial services industry members. Recently the Supreme Court of New South Wales held that the decisions of one scheme were amenable to judicial review at the suit of a financial services provider member and the Supreme Court of Victoria has since taken a similar approach. This article examines the juristic basis for such a challenge and contends that judicial review is not available, either at common law or under statutory provisions. This is particularly the case since Financial Industry Complaints Service Ltd v Deakin Financial Services Pty Ltd (2006) 157 FCR 229; 60 ACSR 372 decided that the jurisdiction of a scheme is derived from a contract made with its members. The article goes on to contend that the schemes are required to give procedural fairness and that equitable remedies are available if that duty is breached.