Kurt Farrugia, Head Of Government Communications

Should all government documents be open to the public without restriction? The simple, straightforward answer is no. Not all documents can be published but most of them should.

Kurt Farrugia.

This might sound shocking to many journalists, including myself who, until 2008, worked as a journalist by profession.

Obtaining government information (let alone official documents) as a journalist up till 2008 was like drawing blood from a stone. I had no way to demand, by right, a public document, even if it was deemed in the public interest. In the last legislature, the government would at no stage publish any public contracts. They did eventually publish some contracts but only after the Labour Opposition coerced the Nationalist government by dragging the issue to Parliament.

It was only through fear of losing power, because of the PN’s one-seat majority, that the scandalous BWSC power station contract, the Arriva contract and the employment contract of the Permanent Representative of Malta to the EU, Richard Cachia Caruana, were published. Other very important documents were not published because the Freedom of Information Act was, coincidentally, only introduced a few months before the 2013 general election.

We have gone a long way in releasing information that had not been published before this legislature. This government has published all its major contracts once these were finalised and delivered: the Henley & Partners contract, the public transport contract, the contract signed with the American University of Malta, employment contracts of persons of trust and ambassadors. Some of these were released through the Freedom of Information Act.

We also introduced new transparency measures.

However, the struggle between which documents are to be released and the timing of releasing such information will remain.

The 2012 Freedom of Information Act lists limited but important exemptions on the release of information. Reasons such as national security; international relations, defence matters, commercially-sensitive information, trade secrets, ongoing investigations or audits and personal data subject to the Data Protection Act are all exempt from disclosure.

There is another part of the law which invokes the concept of public interest for three categories of documents: internal working documents, documents which could adversely affect the financial and property interests of the government and documents that could affect certain operations of the government. Even here, the bone of contention will always remain: what is in the public interest?

The contracts in the energy and health sectors are a case in point where the government is being constantly asked to publish contracts immediately. The government has had a number of Freedom of Information Act requests about these contracts.

The Prime Minister already stated that public contracts will be published.

Should the government risk jeopardising such important deals for the future of our country for the sake of publishing documents ahead of time? Should the government publish energy-related contracts that are being scrutinised to the minutest detail by the European Commission?

In spite of all this, the government is committed to publish contracts without the public or journalists having to resort to a request under the Freedom of Information Act. It is a stark difference from what happened in the past legislature by the same people who now expect all documents to be published hoping that they might find fault somewhere by someone in some clause or another.

This government has gone a long way in opening up its doors for transparency. A lot still needs to be done. However, in the process, we have eliminated a lot of barriers and opened up government even more.

Journalists and the public will always want more access. The debate will never stop.

Jason Azzopardi, Shadow Minister Of Citizens’ Rights, Justice And Democracy

Jason Azzopardi.

Informational freedom is an essential right in every democracy. As any other right, informational freedom, including access to information, is not absolute and must co-exist with other rights and obligations.

Sometimes, such balance is hard to achieve. It is the role of our legislation to establish this balance, but not only. Proper administration and correct interpretation of the law is required.

It is useless to have a good law if such law is then not properly applied by our public institutions, the gatekeepers of the information which the public yearns to have.

Any law that is connected to information freedom must act as an enabler for the public to obtain information. Unfortunately, however, rejected freedom of information requests have become the order of the day under this administration.

Informational access should be a cornerstone of our democracy by which a real transparent government should operate. It is through the exercising of our right to information, especially through the Fourth Estate, that the government can be properly scrutinised and held accountable to its decisions.

Governments rest on the consent of the governed and citizens must have the ability to be informed not solely through what governments publicly declare in their press releases but by exercising their fundamental rights and seek and obtain from governments the information which makes them informed and, therefore, better citizens.

Our fundamental right to “receive and impart information” goes beyond our rights to say what we want or express ourselves or the ability to have unfettered access to information available online, bar some exceptions.

Our right to receive information, especially when the holder of that information is the government, should be considered sacrosanct and any information freedom law should protect that and not inhibit it.

A freedom of information law should not serve as a barrier to informational access as is mostly the case but the exact opposite.

The law should not be perceived as providing a litany of excuses by virtue of which the administration can reject reasonable and pertinent requests for information, which should exist in the public domain. Sometimes, rejected Freedom of Information Act requests do not even refer to the specific section of the law, thereby justifying the rejection.

Restrictions to the free flow of information have to be legitimate, justified and necessary in a democratic society. Experience over the past three years shows us that, in the majority of cases, one cannot reasonably conclude that the rejections to Freedom of Information Act requests were legitimate, justified or necessary. Perhaps, under this government, the term ‘democratic society’ has taken a whole new meaning.

We are tired of hearing of situations where the government simply says ‘no’ and shuts the door to information, especially matters involving millions of the taxpayer’s money. This was the last thing that one expected from an administration that was elected with the transparency and accountability tag lines. The people expect much better.

Certainly, at present, our Freedom of Information Act is not serving its central purpose, that of championing and promoting an open government. But is this the fault of the text of the law or of the public bodies that control such information and misapply the law?

Malta can always claim that, on paper, we do have an information freedom law but having such rights remain in the statute books is definitely not sufficient. Whereas, like any other law, the legislative texts can always be improved, it is a change in the government’s mentality that we need direly.