(continued)
The public's "right" to know is permitted, but only to the extent it does not interfere with economic, administrative or other interests. This is plainly unsatisfactory where effective public participation is impossible unless these interests give way.
Public participation is something which is invited or permitted by government, and is strictly limited by the requirements of centralized representative government to consultation. Active participation through citizen-initiated referenda in decisionmaking is not possible. A lack of such positive participation can be seen as a cause for the growth in recent years in the number of campaigners willing to participate in direct action, often in breach of both the civil and criminal law. Such campaigners are marginalized. The authorities dismiss them as troublemakers and miscreants.
By some contrast, however, access to justice has opened up to individuals. While individual campaigners are still viewed with suspicion by the courts, NGOs and citizens with interests deemed legitimate are finding that the courts are allowing them standing in the primary process for challenging government decisions — judicial review. Unfortunately, such openness is restricted by the expense of going to court.
Important steps forward for public participation in decisionmaking would be the introduction of citizen-initiated referenda, and the right of third parties to appeal against planning decisions.
Access to justice would be promoted radically by the public funding of public interest cases (as is proposed) and a more robust approach to litigants in public interest cases bearing their own costs.
But at the end of the day, what is needed is a cultural shift. The legislation is only as good as the people enforcing it. If the proposed commissioner for information is more business-minded than environment-minded, important information will continue to be withheld. Similarly, public participation will be lackluster and access to the courts fruitless.