THIS GOVERNMENT has spoken often of its commitment to transparency in governance and this was reiterated as recently as last Thursday in the Throne Speech delivered by Governor-General Sir Howard Cooke at the State opening of Parliament.
Unfortunately, the government often acts with equal frequency in undermining its stated commitment.
We note for example, that after years of public discussion and
lobbying, the Access to Information Act was enacted in Parliament. This piece of legislation ostensibly allows members of the public greater access to information relating to how government agencies and public servants go about the business of governance in the country. However, the draft rules set out by the Access to Information Tribunal, at the very least, run counter to the spirit in which the act came into force.
For one thing, the discrepancy in punitive fines proposed for offences by the public as against public servants is disconcerting. Rule 27 purports to create an offence for any person 'who fails to comply with any order or requirement of the Appeal Tribunal.' The proposed punishment on conviction is $500,000. If an officer of a government agency, on the other hand, is convicted of a similar offence, they would be liable to a fine of only $50,000. Why the discrepancy?
Perhaps this is proposed on the premise that commercial entities such as media firms would, in the main, be the ones seeking to appeal to the tribunal. The fact is the specific legislation is intended to benefit the public at large and not organisations or commercial firms.
Additionally, we note the tribunal's power to levy costs against applicants if the view is taken that an appeal was 'unfounded and frivolous or vexatious'. With the possibility that costs could include that of submissions to the tribunal including those incurred by the party or body against whom an appeal is made, we believe the stage is effectively being set to discourage the public from seeking information.
Why should the public stand the legal costs for a public agency particularly if its representatives have been uncooperative and obstructionist?
We would urge the Government to rethink these draconian proposals and to put on the table rules that are consistent with the spirit of the Access to Information Act. The draft rules should be withdrawn.
Openness and transparency in government redound to everybody's benefit except those bent on corruption.
Let's just do the right thing.
THE OPINIONS ON THIS PAGE, EXCEPT FOR THE ABOVE, DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE GLEANER.
