The Tribune

By RICARDO WELLS

Tribune Staff Reporter

rwells@tribunemedia.net

THE House of Assembly began debate on the long-awaited revamped Freedom of Information Bill, despite continued push back from civil society and opposition factions over the bill’s contents and potency.

A Freedom of Information Act was passed by the Ingraham administration shortly before the 2012 general election but did not have an enforcement date. When the PLP assumed office, the government said the legislation would need significant changes.

In December 2016, Minister of Education Jerome Fitzgerald tabled another version of FOI legislation.

However, the bill debated on Wednesday presented several “big changes” when compared to its predecessors, according to Mr Fitzgerald, the minister with responsibility for FOIA.

The Marathon MP asserted that this incarnation of FOI is vastly better than the “woefully short” aspirations of the legislation passed in 2012 - a piece of legislation he said the former administration “rushed” through Parliament to gain political points.

Mr Fitzgerald said the current PLP administration has done its due diligence to ensure that this current incarnation of the legislation is capable of standing in contrast to similar documents enacted across the world, contending that the changes made by the Christie administration would “stand up to any scrutiny”.

The Marathon MP said the government had considered all recommendations and applied the new legislation to every respectable benchmark it could find.

“I intend to show this morning that this FOI Bill, which will become an act, has had the input of the public and we are taking it very seriously,” he said as debate on the legislation began.

“We have benchmarked (this bill) against many other FOIA’s around the world and against the OAS (Organisation of American States) for best practices, Mr Speaker, and on all accounts, Mr Speaker, I want to make this clear, on all accounts, Mr Speaker, this is a FOI Bill that stands up to any scrutiny, anywhere in the world, Mr Speaker, and can be benchmarked against any piece of FOI legislation anywhere in the world; and is something we should be proud of, Mr Speaker.”

The new bill, according to Mr Fitzgerald, will expand the right of access to information to bodies who have had a nexus with The Bahamas.

Additionally, the act will expand the class of accessible documents to include factual and statistical policy documents; narrow the class of exempted information; makes recommendations for a stand alone whistle-blowers legislation; review the Official Secrets Act; repeal the veto power of the minister as put forth in the previous bill; repeal the information commissioner’s right to rule, allowing for a person to appeal for the right to certain pieces of information; and lastly, add a public interest test to gauge the want for other pieces of information.

Noting these changes, Mr Fitzgerald stated: “Mr Speaker, the bill seeks to reinforce and give effect to certain fundamental principles underlining the system of constitutional democracy.

“And that is as I said before, governmental accountability, transparency and public participation in national decision-making by granting the public a general right to access to records held by public authorities, of course subject to certain exemptions.”

Public push back

Earlier this month, the Organisation for Responsible Governance (ORG) said many recommendations from civil society on how to improve the Freedom of Information Bill had been disregarded by the Christie administration.

Addressing these claims yesterday on the floor of the House, Mr Fitzgerald denied that the Christie administration turned away any recommendations or input into the process, going as far as to say that he was “disappointed” at the level of public involvement once the government invited input.

Mr Fitzgerald said the level of involvement by all of these civic groups that claimed they wanted input into the process made him “unsure” over whether the groups in question actually cared.

He added that many of the groups that had the opportunity to speak up during the process opted not to, choosing to instead play the matter up in the press as the government attempting to strong-arm them into a bill that didn’t benefit the Bahamian people - a direct jab to the We March Bahamas movement, Mr Fitzgerald later admitted.

Mr Fitzgerald said for this very reason he rebuffed several invitations to meet with or appear in front of groupings interested in discussing the bill because he didn’t want to give the impression that there was political sway over the consultation process, adding that the Christie administration wanted the best bill it could get.

The government concluded the public consultation process on the bill last December.

On Wednesday, representatives from the coalition of groups working for a strong, fair Freedom of Information Act sat in on segments of the debate at the House of Assembly.

Matt Aubrey, executive director of ORG, said there is still work to be done to achieve the group’s four priority amendments - the selection process for the information commissioner to be independent of political influence; sufficient access to information about entities that receive substantial public funding; removal of all deterrents for those seeking information and the inclusion of all deliberative processes in which individual ministers, Cabinet or government committees receive opinions, advice or recommendations.

Mr Albury added that if civil society is successful in driving forward this effort for a selection committee for the information commissioner, it could open the door for more open, unbiased appointment processes across the board.

Debate on the bill resumes on February 8.