Smee ) 216 IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) ) ) GENERAL DIVISION No. 118 of 1983 No. 189 of 1983 BETWEEN: JENNIFER MAY McDONALD HARRIS Applicant D: AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION and KEITH CAMERON MACKRIEL and MICHAEL H. COSBY Respondents ORDER JUDGE MAKING ORDERS: Beaumont, J. DATE ORDERS MADE: 17 July, 1984. WHERE MADE: Sydney. THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. I direct that the first respondent give the third respondent access to the balance of the reports referred to in Order 1, being the documents remaining in respect of which access, to this point of time, has been denied pursuant to Order 2 made herein on 4 October 1983. 2. No order as to costs. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA No. 118 of 1983 ) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) ) ) No. 189 of 1983 GENERAL DIVISION BETWEEN : JENNIFER MAY McDONALD HARRIS Applicant AND: AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION and KEITH CAMERON MACKRIEL and MICHAEL H. COSBY Respondents CORAM: Beaumont, J. DATED: 17 July, 1984. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (ex tempore) In this matter, 1n my reasons for judgment dated 4 October 1983, I indicated, at pp.33-34 thereof that I proposed: "To reserve general liberty to any party to apply for further relief, 1f necessary. I have in mind, in particular, the possibility that a question may arise as to what 18 purely factual material and as to its severability ..." I interpolate that this question was dealt with separately, and went on appeal, and the appeal was dismissed. I go on to say at pp.33-34: "... and the further possibility that the third respondent may wish to seek access to the balance of the material in the reports after the corporation has resolved the matters concerning the applicant raised by the Ombudsman and now awaiting determination. It 1S not and could not be suggested that access by the third respondent to any part of the reports should be denied after that determination is made (see s.36 (6)(c))." The matter has now been restored to the list and brief argument has occurred on the question whether the third respondent should now be given access to the balance of the material mentioned. In that connection, Mr. Jones, who now appears for the A.B.C., has tendered some corres- pondence, and has adopted what, I think, would be des- cribed fairly in the circumstances which have arisen, as a neutral position. In particular, Mr. Jones has tendered a copy of a letter written by the Chairman of the A.B.C. to the Commonwealth Ombudsman dated 28 June 1984. In the course of that letter, the Chairman says: "As part of the overall restructuring, the Board, at its meeting on 25 May 1984, resolved as follows: '(a) An Establishment and Systems Review of the structures needed for the Radio and Television Legal Units should be conducted and recommendations will be presented to the August Board Meeting. (bo) A position of Legal Officer to handle con- veyancing and property related matters in the Engineering and Property Directorate, should be created. (c) The positions of Principal Legal Officer (Position No. 110965), Senior Legal Officer (Position No. 170658) and Legal Officer (Position No's 101248, 136913, 177326) shall be abolished.' The Board takes the view that the proposed new arrangements for the provision of legal services, though constituting only a small part of the fundamental re-organisation of the ABC, could be seen as a satisfactory resolution of the relevant matters which you referred to the former Chairman of the Commission, Professor Kramer. Should you require any further information, I shall be happy to provide it. I would be grateful if you would let me know whether the provision of the above information will enable you to complete your investigation." In the circumstances, a question arises as to what was meant by the reference to "the matters concerning the applicant raised by the Ombudsman and now awaiting determination", appearing at p.34 of my reasons for judgment dated 4 October, 1983. In my view, it was clear that the matter there referred to in terms of a determination, was a determination not by the Ombudsman but by the A.B.C. itself. My judgment, read as a whole, I think makes that clear enough. So far as the Ombudsman's determination 1s concerned, that, of course, 1S a matter for him; and whether he has completed his investigations 1S a matter which calls for no comment as far as I am concerned. In my opinion, it 1s clear from the letter dated 28 June, 1984 from the Chairman of the A.B.C. to the Ombudsman that, so far as the A.B.C. is concerned, the matter is fully determined. In those circumstances, in my view, the condition precedent to access being granted to the third respondent of the remaining documents has now been fulfilled. For those reasons, 1n my view, a direction should now be given under which the third respondent has the access required. In the circumstances, the order I make is as follows: 1. I direct that the first respondent give the third respondent access to the balance of the reports referred to in Order 1, being the documents remaining 1n respect of which access, to this point of time, has been denied pursuant to Order 2 made herein on 4 October 1983. 2. No order as to costs. G om ay tat 2 oes ys a ul , Sos CR ae Preceud 3 PAGES G Sala vu eo ty af sasens for ee gier. bora cf Tis th Usograble Mi Jucuce Peeunonri i 47 - Associate Dated _ oT vy : ~ . teed