Premium
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE OMBUDSMAN
Author(s) -
HAZELL ROBERT
Publication year - 1995
Publication title -
public administration
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.313
H-Index - 93
eISSN - 1467-9299
pISSN - 0033-3298
DOI - 10.1111/j.1467-9299.1995.tb00827.x
Subject(s) - freedom of information , parliament , commonwealth , jurisdiction , accountability , government (linguistics) , law , public administration , administration (probate law) , political science , open government , code of practice , transparency (behavior) , politics , engineering , philosophy , linguistics , engineering ethics
In an article in Public Administration five years ago I reported on the operation of the new freedom of information laws in Australia, Canada and New Zealand (Hazell 1989). Despite these Commonwealth precedents, under Mrs Thatcher's premiership the British government maintained that freedom of information was incompatible with the Westminster system of ministerial accountability to Parliament. Under John Major that line has softened a bit, and last year the British government took an important step towards freedom of information, with the introduction of its new code of practice on open government. The code of practice will be policed by the Ombudsman; and this article considers the implications of this novel extension to his jurisdiction.