Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi yesterday told Parliament that the Freedom Information Bill was "a strong good governance statement, one of the strongest in recent history" and one which would provide a quantum leap in good governance.

Introducing the Bill in second reading, Dr Gonzi said that much had been said on good governance but the real test was when one declared that he had nothing to fear in giving information to those who had a right to it. It takes courage to do so, he said.

The prime minister said the proposed act was already strong in itself. But coupled with the Whistleblower Act, the special Investigator to work with the Commission Against Corruption, and the strengthening of the role of the Ombudsman to coordinate complaints on the administration of the whole public sector, the Act was an instrument which would provide a quantum leap in good governance.

Dr Gonzi said the Bill was a nice new experience. But one had to mature as a country with the benefit of other countries' experience. "If others used methods, regulations and criteria, we must use it intelligently for our circumstances'" he said.

Earlier, the prime minister said the Bill was the result of the government observing and learning from other countries, but it had only come about when there were concrete proposals.

It was being acknowledged that the public had a right to information kept in government departments unless there was a valid reason not to divulge it, like threats on national security.

The government had taken various steps which led to this legislation. In 1995 the courts could demand government documents as evidence, followed in 2001 by the opening to public scrutiny of the sector of information about environmental affairs. There was also the Ombudsman who could request information.

Dr Gonzi thanked all those who had helped in the consultation process, among them The Times' editor Ray Bugeja. However, he would have liked to see more feedback from the public. Although Malta was relatively new in the area, the aim was to reach an acceptable level of freedom of information.

In addition to his duties, the Information and Data Protection Commissioner has been designated as the guardian of the Freedom of Information Act and responsible to see that this is observed by government entities.

The commissioner would be independent and have executive powers to enforce the law and revise and change decisions of public authorities. Dr Gonzi pointed out that the two entities had not been consolidated; although they had similarities they were also completely different.

The prime minister said that there would be an appeals court, and this would be the only place where the decision of the commissioner could be changed. The Bill stipulated that in some circumstances, the prime minister could hold back information, but he would then be accountable for this.

The laws of Australia, Canada, and New Zealand were consulted, as these three countries are considered as pioneers in the field of freedom of information. But the UK system was more easily enforceable in Malta.

This Bill, he said, would put Malta on the same level as other EU countries.

Dr Gonzi said the Bill gave right of access to every person who was resident in Malta for at least five years, and who is either a citizen of Malta or any other EU member state or a citizen of any other state which had treaties with the EU.

It must be acknowledged, the prime minister said, that Malta being a small country there were cases where it was impossible to disclose information.

This Bill ensured any unnecessary bureaucracy would be done away with. A simple procedure had been implemented to oblige authorities to assist any individual who had problems with filling the application for request of information.

Dr Gonzi said that it was true that some payment for documents could be requested, but the bill enforced that this could be no more than the cost of obtaining the information.

The information had to be given within 20 working days, with a possible extension of 40 working days when there was a valid reason. Where a request was denied the authority had to give the applicant a valid reason.

The Bill also stipulates that not later than a year after the coming into force of the Act, every public authority must publish a description of its structure, functions and responsibilities. The information must be up-dated annually.

Information could be withheld if this could harm the national security or the Maltese relations with other countries, prejudice law enforcement or public security, or cause difficulties to the economic situation of the country.

The exemptions were still always subject to public interest, and if the commissioner deemed that public awareness outweighed the possible harm then he could ensure that it was published.

Dr Gonzi stated that some authorities were exempt from this Bill, including those protected by the constitution. These included for example the electoral commission, the employment commission, the public service commission, the office of the attorney general, the national audit office, the security service and the broadcasting authority (in certain aspects only).

Any information related to local councils or the environment was already provided for under a separate law. However, they were also now enforced by the commissioner.

Dr Gonzi said the Bill does not confer any right of action in civil proceedings for failure to comply with any duty imposed under the Act. Dr Gonzi said the clause, which also formed part of the British Freedom of Information Act (2000), would be examined more closely in committee stage.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.