Information Disclosure Policy: A Toolkit for Pacific Governments (July 2006)
### EXPLANATORY NOTES Monitoring and reporting Monitoring It is increasingly common in access to information regimes to specifically require that implementation needs to be regularly monitored. Monitoring is important - to review and evaluate how effectively public bodies are discharging their duties, to distil best practice and replicate it, to identify areas for improvement and to gather information that can be used to support recommendations for reform. In practical terms, this means that all bodies covered by the Policy need to set in place monitoring systems to collect information about the processing of applications. Ideally, the IDP Implementation Unit will develop a monitoring system. It could be paper based, whereby all DIOs and other processing officials maintain systematic notes of how they handle cases. It could also be computer-based, whereby information is entered into a database that can then easily be used to provide monitoring reports and statistics. Ideally, the information collected will be published every month on the government's website, so that the public can have ongoing information on how effectively the Policy is being implemented. Key questions: What body is best positioned to take responsibility for monitoring implementation – the responsible Minister? the IDP Implementation Unit? the Ombudsman? A combination? What systems need to be put in place to ensure that relevant implementation information is collected from organisations covered by the Policy? Who will be responsible for developing such systems? Who will provide training to officials on their monitoring duties? What systems need to be put in place to ensure information derived from monitoring activities is analysed and problems fixed and improvements made? Annual Report At a minimum, monitoring information needs to be collected together in an annual report so that there is a regular, informative record produced of how effectively organisations are implementing the Policy. Reporting regimes vary. Some countries require every single organisation to prepare an annual implementation report for submission to parliament, while others give a single body responsibility for monitoring - a particularly effective approach because it ensures implementation is monitored across the whole of government and allows for useful comparative analysis - and still others prefer a combination of both. The Model IDP suggests that a single body - the Ombudsman - is tasked with reporting on implementation. The Ombudsman was chosen on the basis that the office is independent and will therefore be well-positioned to produce an impartial assessment of how well implementation has proceeded. Alternatively, the Auditor-General could fill this role. Where the Ombudsman does not have sufficient resources to undertake annual reporting, the IDP Implementation Unit and/or the responsible Minister may be made responsible for reporting. The Model IDP requires that the Annual Report is tabled in Parliament and then referred to a committee for consideration. This approach is designed to encourage the Report to be widely considered. The Report will only be useful if it is actually read, discussed and acted upon. Key questions: Taking into account resource constraints, is the Ombudsman the most appropriate body to be given responsibility for annual reporting? What if the IDP Implementation Unit worked with the Ombudsman? If not, who else could efficiently perform this function? What parliamentary committee should be given responsibility for considering the annual report? Is the committee properly resourced to undertake this work?
Commissioned by the Pacific Media and Communications Facility, an Australian Government, AusAID initiative managed by MDI International in association with MC Media & Associates