NEWS | Wednesday, 29 October 2008

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

Opposition raises doubts over Freedom of Information law

Labour MPs have raised fears that the proposed law on freedom of information contains too many exemptions, and other restrictive features that will dilute the right to access.
Labour MPs Helena Dalli and Evarist Bartolo have pointed out the law might preclude certain groups of people from the right to freedom of information.
The proposed law will only afford the right to access to documents to anyone who has been a resident in Malta for five years.
“This definition of eligibility renders many people, such as EU citizens and migrants who haven’t lived in Malta for five years, ineligible. Why shouldn’t they have access to information under this law?” Dalli asked at a committee hearing of the bill.
An ambiguous reply came from parliamentary secretary for tourism Mario de Marco, who led the bill’s reading, proposing that anyone considered ineligible can get someone who is eligible – such as an MP – to apply for their request. “I think it’s a happy medium,” he said.
Which left the Opposition asking what the point of such a definition was.
De Marco said, “you have to draw a line somewhere… we decided to tie it in with residence so that not everyone (has access),” before being interrupted by Bartolo.
“We are being very… Mediterranean about this… you’re telling me a third party can apply for me?”
“Let’s be practical. You can get an MP to ask for the information,” de Marco said.

Exemptions
Bartolo and Dalli raised the issue over the vast exemption from the law, on documents held by Constitutionally-appointed bodies, namely: the Electoral Commission, the Employment Commission, the Public Service Commission, the Office of the Attorney General, the National Audit Office, the Security Service, or the Broadcasting Authority.
“I’m yet to be convinced of the need of all these exemptions,” Bartolo said. “What’s the legislator’s point?”
De Marco said Constitutionally-appointed bodies were able to regulate themselves. “You cannot interfere in constitutional institutions… in the case of the Broadcasting Authority’s exemption, this concerns documents over its Constitutional function,” he said, referring to its role to ensure political impartiality and the fair apportionment of broadcasting time between political parties.
“But what if I ask for documents of the BA’s internal monitoring, in order to assess whether impartiality has been properly safeguarded; how can I be denied such information?” Bartolo asked.
De Marco said that unless the documents do not form part of the essential nature of proceedings contemplated within the entities’ laws – such as for example when documents are required for hearings before the Public Service Commission – then they would be exempt from the law.
In an amendment, the Office of the Ombudsman was included in the list of exemptions. The Ombudsman said the law governing his office provided for secrecy of any information obtained for his investigations, unless they are used for proceedings or reports relating to an offence in this regard.
Committee chairman Francis Zammit Dimech said the law was not precluding people from asking for information from these bodies, “but if anything, it is not creating any additional obligations, either.”
De Marco added that it was “difficult for the government to impose itself upon institutions that are autonomous. That’s why there must be an element of self-regulation.”

Information Commissioner
Another issue raised by Bartolo was the conflicting role the Data Protection Commissioner would have if he is also appointed Information Commissioner, saying the former was responsible for privacy while the Information Commissioner’s role was to give access to information.
“We want the Information Commissioner to be a parliamentary officer,” Helena Dalli said, saying that like the Ombudsman and the Auditor General, the office would be answerable to parliament and not to the government, as the data protection commissioner is.
“I’m not saying the proposal doesn’t make sense, but I’m not seeing the conflict between the two roles… the problem we face here is to find agreement on both sides over who is to take up this role,” de Marco said, who conceded there was some overlapping of the roles.
De Marco said he did not exclude any discussion of the two roles being separate in the parliament’s select committee on the strengthening of democracy.

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below.
Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.