Field, Chris; Hodge, Graeme --- "Accountability in the Modern State:Three steps forward and two steps back?" [2004] AltLawJl 1; (2004) 29(1) Alternative Law Journal 3

• OPINION
• ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE MODERN STATE:
• Three steps forward and two steps back?
• New Design

OPINION

ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE MODERN STATE:
Three steps forward and two steps back?

This issue of the Alternative Law Journal is concerned with accountability. More particularly, we have sought to examine accountability in the modern state; a state transformed by a sweeping economic reform agenda crossing the public, corporate and civil sectors.

Our first article by Graeme Hodge sets the scene for the edition by mapping out the accountability territory in the modern state. Graeme argues that the simple, but idealistic, ministerial accountability notion has been replaced by a more focused, but complex, network of guardians. Improvements, however, may have also brought new threats to treasured values of public accountability as stewardship has been progressively replaced by policy advocacy and managerialism.

Freedom of Information was initiated at the Commonwealth level some 25 years ago, and in Moira Paterson's view, successfully overturned an entrenched culture of bureaucratic government secrecy. Despite this, though, it has not achieved all its aims and following a rev1ew of some recent initiatives she concludes that new legislation does not go far enough, being still based on the notion of waiting for the public to request access to information rather than providing information using widely available new technologies.

Mark Davison then looks at the interaction of the role of the market and the human rights obligations of multi-national corporations (MNCs). He proposes that the goal of human rights compliance by MNCs be met through the use of consumer protect1on laws and laws relating to trade marks. To Davison, the power of the market may well provide strong leverage and yield effective results, particularly if we can commit public resources in the form of independent regulation.

Depending on your perspective, Victoria holds either an enviable or unenviable world record, with reputedly the highest proportion of prisoners held in privatised prisons. Valarie Sands tackles the issue of privatised prisons, investigating the claims made for improved accountability and concludes that a new model emphasising independent accountability is now needed.

The international move towards improved corporate accountability for environmental issues is the concern of the article by Ambika Zutshi and Carol Adams. They analyse whether voluntary guidelines by the corporate sector for social responsibility are effective. They suggest that strong regulatory and enforcement regimes need to accompany voluntary guidelines if businesses are to be accountable for non-financial outcomes and the environment is to be sustained.

Chris Field's 'The Death of Unfair Contracts' sounds like a promise too good to be true. And perhaps it is. But he argues we are now acknowledging that competitive markets, while beneficial to consumers on many levels, have not always delivered fair contracts and that we should intervene to correct this market failure.

Our last piece is a celebratory one - a reflection by Judith Dickson on 25 years of Clinical Legal Education at LaTrobe University. Judith takes us on a survey of those years and the journey not only highlights the evolution of that University's program, but also provides a reflection on the maturing of ideas as to how to best inculcate students with the requirements of ethical and effect1ve legal practice.

Reflecting on these offerings, we have barely touched the surface of potential accountability issues open for debate in the modern state. There are so many themes left untouched: the increasingly critical and prominent role of independent regulators; encouraging the better use of public accountability mechanisms by cit1zens often unaware of their existence; the reduced use of administrative law as government shrinks; and returning accountabilities currently monopolised by an enriching corporate managerial class to consumers, investors and other stakeholders. Perhaps such questions remain for future editions. Nonetheless, we trust that the art1cles presented w1ll encourage you to ponder the degree to which our progress in the accountability arena has taken us forward. Has it been, modifying the old saying, 'three steps forward and two back'? And does it now look more like a jigsaw to most citizens?

CHRIS FIELD is Executive Director, Consumer Law Centre Victoria and Chair, Australian Consumers' Association.

GRAEME HODGE is the Director of the Centre for the Study of Privatisation and Public Accountability in the Faculty of Law, Monash University.

©2004 Stuart Roth (cartoon)

New Design

Readers familiar with the Alternative Law Journal will notice this issue has a new look.

Now in our 31st year of publication we felt it was time for a change. We hope you will agree the new layout has a clean, easily read and contemporary look.

For this issue we had so many articles that were both topical and timely that the Briefs, Book Reviews and Legal Studies column do not appear-but they will be back. All your favourite columns are being continued, along with their Judy Horacek cartoon logos. We also introduce a new regular column, Asia-Pacific (pp.50-1), which aims to provide a forum for regional social justice commentary and legal critique, an important addition to our coverage of the domestic scene.

We welcome your feedback on the new design.