Information Disclosure Policy: A Toolkit for Pacific Governments (July 2006)
### EXPLANATORY NOTES Responsible officers Minister It is important that the Minister responsible for implementation has a strong commitment to the new information disclosure regime. Different countries have made different ministers responsible, including the Prime Minister, Minister for Information, Minister for Constitutional Affairs, Attorney General or Justice Minister. Key questions: Which Minister within government has the best set of available expertise, resources, portfolio responsibilities and personal commitment to lead implementation? IDP Implementation Unit The Model IDP suggests that an IDP Implementation Unit be set up to guide and monitor implementation of the Policy. Such units have been common in countries implementing new information disclosure regimes, to ensure that proper attention is given to bedding down the new Policy. Otherwise, often a disclosure policy will just sit on the shelves gathering dust. Both Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago - two small islands states with similar experience to Pacific countries - set up implementation units to implement their new freedom of information laws. Due to resource constraints, each unit only had 2-3 staff members. With limited staff, the units nonetheless developed training modules and undertook training for officials, developed guidance materials for officials and systems to help process applications, liaised with senior officials to fix problems, collected statistics and developed public awareness materials. In the United Kingdom, a section was set up within the Department of Constitutional Affairs. In Uganda, the Ministry for Information is taking the lead. In South Africa, the National Human Rights Commission was made responsible for training public officials, conducting educational programmes, monitoring implementation and reporting to Parliament. Where countries already have a dedicated Government Communications Unit, this may form the basis of the IDP Implementation Unit. Alternatively, if there are departmental press/information officers, consideration may be given to seconding them into a single unit to support implementation. Consolidating press/information officers into a single unit may create efficiencies for the entire bureaucracy, reducing duplication and streamlining processes and outputs. Commonly, implementation units are put in the Prime Minister's Office as a sign of their importance and to encourage other departments to take their work seriously. Key questions: What personnel resources are available that could be dedicated to supporting implementation of the new Policy? Where do they currently reside (in a single department/ agency/unit or scattered throughout the bureaucracy)? Is it possible to task an existing department/agency/unit with implementation? In which ministry? If not, could existing press/information staff be brought together into single implementation unit with resources to focus on implementation? Could this conflict with their existing obligations/duties? If so, how will this be managed? Action Plan An immediate way of signalling the government's commitment to implementation is by developing and publishing a detailed plan of action identifying key implementation tasks, the agency/ies responsible for actioning them and strict timelines for completion. Experience has shown that it is most efficient for a whole-of-government Action Plan to be developed by an implementation unit (see above). This ensures that implementation activities are consistent across the government. An IDP Implementation Unit could take the lead in developing an Action Plan. However, the Action Plan needs to be developed participatorily, to promote whole-of-government ownership of the final Plan and its activities. Key ministries - particularly Ministries which may be concerned about new openness requirements, such as the Cabinet Office, Home Ministry and/or the Police Ministry - should be brought into the process so that they are on-board from the outset and their concerns can be addressed and overcome early on. One of the most important elements of any Plan is DEADLINES. Clear dates need to be included for completion of various implementation steps. The IDP Implementation Unit then needs to monitor these deadlines and ensure that any slippage is queried, explained and if necessary, sanctioned and remedied. Key questions: What are the key activities which need to be undertaken? By whom (which organisations, which officials will be responsible within the organisation)? By when? What resources are available for implementation? How can these most effectively be deployed? How can money be targeted for maximum effect (eg. one computer v 10 filing cabinets)? What support will need to be provided to organisations to help them with their implementation activities? Could the IDP Implementation Unit develop detailed guidance notes and training to help officials with implementation (eg. on records management, proactive disclosure, processing requests)?
Start Date | End Date | Activity | Responsible Officer | Status
Departmental Information Officers (DIOs) The Model IDP sets in place a system which requires each organisation to nominate a Departmental Information Officer (DIO) to be responsible for the Policy. DIOs usefully operate as a central contact point to promote the law within their organisation and as a resource which officials can draw on if they have questions regarding the law. Designating specific officials as contact points is a useful strategy because they can be used as an embedded resource to promote transparency within their organisation. Rather than outsiders from other departments or oversight bodies trying to explain the law to sceptical officials, DIOs - who have the trust of their colleagues and understand the intricacies of the organisation and its information needs - can work with the IDP Implementation Officer to perform this role. To do so effectively however, governments need to ensure that DIOs have sufficient time and resources to discharge their duties, and that their new role is recognised within the promotions and rewards systems within the bureaucracy. Key questions: What level of officer should be nominated as a DIO to ensure that they have sufficient authority and knowledge of the organisation to promote implementation amongst their colleagues? What about geographical spread - should DIOs be allocated across the country? IDP Advisory Group In countries with small bureaucracies, it can be an effective means of getting officials on board with a new policy to set up an advisory group which brings together the key implementers responsible for managing implementation of the Policy within their organisation. The Model IDP sets in place a system which requires each organisation to nominate a Departmental Information Officer (DIO) to be responsible for the Policy. These DIOs could usefully be brought together to regularly share implementation problems and innovations. This approach has been successful internationally. In Jamaica for example, their Access to information (ATI) Implementation Unit set up the ATI Association of Administrators, which brought together Information Officers from various agencies to regularly discuss the challenges they were facing and share lessons learned and good practice. Likewise, in Scotland, the Government set up the Freedom of Information Implementation Group, which consisted of senior officials from the Executive as well as a cross section of Scottish public authorities. The Group was set up in 2001, four years before the Scottish Act came into force, and was tasked with preparing for and assisting with implementation. Key questions: How many organisations will be implementing the Policy? Is it feasible for the DIOs from each organisation to meet regularly to discuss implementation? If DIOs cannot meet in person, is it feasible to set up an on-line discussion group for DIOs? Alternatively, could the IDP Implementation Unit run a phone or radio chat-line for DIOs? What about DIOs stationed outside the capital? IDP Stakeholders Group To be practically effective in facilitating the public's right to information, it will be important for implementation approaches to take account of the local needs of the community. To do this, governments would do well to develop strategies which promote government-community implementation partnerships. For example, in Jamaica, the Government's Access to Information (ATI) Implementation Unit set up an ATI Advisory Committee of Stakeholders, which drew together representatives from civil society, the private sector and the media. The Committee met monthly with the Director of the ATI Unit - and even the Minister at times - to promote non-governmental monitoring of the ATI Programme, the provision of recommendations to the Government on best practices and to provide assistance to the ATI Unit that its individual members were in a position to render. For such monitoring bodies to be effective, they require strong commitment from government representatives, who need to be active in listening to and acting on their recommendations. Key questions: What organisations within the country should be invited to regularly meet with the IDP Implementation Unit to talk about implementation? It is important that a cross-section of views is represented - what organisations will bring in views from women, youth, rural people, the media, business, etc? If civil society is not consulted via a regular meeting, is it possible to set up a feedback system (via the government website, radio talk shows, writing to the IDP Implementation Unit, calling a Feedback Line) to encourage comments from the public and civil society?
Commissioned by the Pacific Media and Communications Facility, an Australian Government, AusAID initiative managed by MDI International in association with MC Media & Associates