Information Disclosure Policy: A Toolkit for Pacific Governments (July 2006)
### EXPLANATORY NOTES Coverage of the policy Phased approach In countries where resources are scarce, a phased approach to implementation can be a good way of ensuring that reform proceeds, but at a pace that the bureaucracy can handle. In Jamaica for example, the Government adopted a phased approach to implementation of their new freedom of information legislation because personnel resources were scarce in their Implementation Unit. In the first 12 months, only around 10 Ministries were required to implement the law, while the rest followed in the next year. If Pacific governments prefer to adopt a phased approach, consideration could be given to specifically listing the bodies responsible for First Phase implementation, and then requiring that all other bodies have prepared for implementation by the end of the Second Phase. Key questions: Strategically, taking into account the current state of information management in the bureaucracy, resources constraints and the size of the bureaucracy, is it more appropriate to require all bodies to implement the Policy immediately, or would a phased approach be more realistic? If a phased approach is chosen, how many phases will there be? What bodies will be responsible for implementing during what phase? How will these bodies be chosen? What is the timeline for each phase (eg. 6 months - 1 year)? What on-going monitoring will take place to ensure phases are adhered to and lessons learned from initial phases can be incorporated into later phases? Bodies covered by the Policy In accordance with international best practice, the Policy covers all arms of government because they all - the executive, judiciary and legislature - have obligations of transparency and accountability which would benefit from openness. Although there is often an instinctive sense that the Head of State and/or parliamentarians should be exempt from disclosure, in fact, they play such an important role in national governance, that to exempt them from the Policy would severely reduce the Policy's effectiveness. Historically, it was not unusual for the Head of State to be above scrutiny, but in contemporary democracies, it is usually accepted that the Head of State - or at least their representative in government (ie. the Prime Minister, Governor-General or President) is answerable to the people. The monarchies in the Pacific may take a different approach. In time, the government may also wish to extend the Policy to cover information held by private bodies, at least where the body is performing public service or is being paid with public funds. This approach is increasingly being adopted internationally in freedom of information laws. Key questions: What bodies need to be covered by the Policy, in addition to those listed in the Model IDP? Eg. Local oversight bodies? Council of Chiefs? Special district offices? Government trusts? Specialised agencies (national museum, advisory groups, municipal bodies)? Should the Policy cover information held by private bodies, at least where they perform public functions or receive public funds? If a decision is made to exempt certain bodies, has an explanation been included in the Policy explaining why the body is exempt? This will be useful in helping the public understand the Government's reasoning. If a decision is made to exempt certain bodies, can the exemption apply to just part of the body not all of it (ie. a particular department/unit within the body)?
Commissioned by the Pacific Media and Communications Facility, an Australian Government, AusAID initiative managed by MDI International in association with MC Media & Associates