ARTICLE 19 GLOBAL CAMPAIGN FOR FREE EXPRESSION The ‘mission statement’ behind the draft Policy, quoted on page 2, is: To provide a framework for the implementation of the Freedom of Information Bill and review of existing laws, regulations and procedures. However, paragraph 1.4 of the draft Policy states that, as part of its implementation, a Freedom of Information Bill is to be published. This leads to the important question: is the purpose of the draft policy to implement a Bill, or is a Bill needed to implement the draft Policy, and does it serve as a consultation document for that? Ordinarily, a policy for the implementation of legislation is published only after the relevant legislation has been adopted, or as a package when the legislation is first published. Neither is the case here. Although a first government bill on access to information was published as long ago as 2005, this was never tabled in Parliament and its current status is uncertain. The private members bill on freedom of information referred to above has not been discussed in Parliament either. As a result, there is currently no legislation to implement, whether current or under consideration, and this raises confusion regarding the question what the Policy is aiming at in terms of implementation. This confusion is reflected in the draft Policy itself. In many places, it reads more like a consultation document than an implementation policy. For example, the entire section regarding the establishment and functioning of the Information Commissioner discusses what the Act will do, not how it will be implemented. Similarly, Section 3.14, on exceptions and protected information, gives detail on policy considerations behind the legislation – not on implementation. However, other paragraphs do appear to aim to implement legislation and refer to the Freedom of Information Act as though it has already been adopted. For example, Paragraph 3.5.1 refers to the Freedom of Information Act as a relevant consideration for public authorities when developing an information policy framework, and Paragraph 3.5.2 states a number of minimum standards for such information policy frameworks. Yet these paragraphs raise the question how the government can predict to get legislation through parliament to provide for all of these in exactly the same detail as is stated in the draft Policy. We are concerned that the overall result is that, in its current form, the draft Policy is poorly suited either for the goal of consulting on or preparing the way for a freedom of information bill, or for implementing freedom of information legislation. If the purpose of the draft Policy is to start a lengthy consultation process on legislation, that would be cause for significant concern. Such consultation would cause further delay to the realisation of the public’s right to know without serving a real purpose: the government consulted around a draft bill in 2005, and in the two years since should have gathered sufficient responses and feedback to allow it to move ahead and either declare its support for the current private members initiative, or to have brought a bill of its own. We would therefore recommend that effective freedom of information legislation is introduced in parliament as a matter of urgency. The government should either declare its support for the private members bill that has been tabled, or urgently introduce a legislative proposal of its own, and the draft Policy should be reworked to provide a realistic strategy for the implementation of that legislation. We would be happy to provide technical support in this process as it progresses. -2-