Stefan Zrinzo Azzopardi, Former Labour Party president

The publication of documents pertaining to the activities of government is a subject of ongoing discussion. Each time a government does not immediately publish a document or parts of a document, there is a tendency to speculate about the reasons that led to the government’s non-compliance to such a request.

Over the years, various legislative interventions have loosened the rigid rules that historically favoured secrecy in government dealings. Until today, every public officer is bound by secrecy on matters of government and information can only be divulged according to established rules and procedures.

In my opinion, the Freedom of Information Act was a step in the right direction that has increased the level of transparency and access of the public and media to government documents. However, such access is neither automatic nor unlimited.

It is a well-known fact that there are various documents pertaining to government activity wherein important decisions are registered which are considered as classified documents. Such documents are not divulged until such a time when they are not deemed as classified any longer. The example par excellence is Cabinet minutes and documents.

I stated that the Freedom of Information Act was a step in the right direction, since it has not only clarified which documents may be published at the request of the general public, including the media. It has also established a procedure with which such a request may be made; a time frame within which to reply; and should the person requesting a document fail to agree with a refusal for the provision of the requested document, the Act also provides for a mechanism of redress.

From a political point of view, a refusal to publish a document or parts of it will obviously be considered and depicted as a case of lack of transparency.  The Labour government, notwithstanding that it has promised that various important contracts will be published within specified time frames, has been criticised that is has not lived up to its promise that it will act in a transparent manner.

As explained, the publication of documents has to be carried out accordingly to law and that it provides sufficient information in order that the necessary scrutiny can be carried out by all and sundry. However, the publication of documents in particular circumstances cannot be divulged at the request of any person. There are various considerations to be made prior to the publication of documents in an unrestricted manner.

The debate about the publication of contracts has been ongoing with reference to particular contracts some of which are being scrutinised by the European Commission as in the case of the energy agreement entered into for the provision of the supply of electricity by the private sector.

In order for the government to achieve more for our country, it is actively promoting initiatives that give the private sector, local and international, the opportunity to invest in our country thus sustaining our successful economic activity. Such negotiations and contracting with the private sector may necessitate that the publication of documents be limited to sections of the documents that are agreed to by the parties or that do not contain sensitive commercial matters, of which publication can be detrimental to the activity itself.

This route has been followed on various occasions in the past such as the BWSC contract wherein the previous administration had to obtain permission from BWSC to publish parts of the contract notwithstanding that requests for the publication thereof were made in Parliament.

The debate will surely continue on how and when documents should be published. The fact that the government does not publish certain documents in particular instances for valid reasons that are clearly explained should not however lead to a claim that government is not being transparent.

Angelo Micallef, PN election candidate

The wise Mahatma Gandhi once said that “truth never damages a cause that is just”. Words which Joseph Muscat’s Labour government would be wise to heed and follow.

Time and time again the government has been at best hesitant to publish contracts even if such contracts concern national property involving millions of euros in taxpayer money. Time and time again the government has attempted to create the mirage that it was publishing the relevant documentation only for it to emerge that the published material is so scant in detail that it can hardly be considered a published document.

The latest saga, involving the privatisation of Gozo’s General Hospital, Karin Grech Hospital and St. Luke’s Hospital, is the latest in a list of major decisions in which the general public has been held back from being able to scrutinise the finer details in the name of commercial sensitivity.

The argument to be made here is not one against respect for commercial sensitivity. Indeed genuinely commercially sensitive details can be detrimental for a business should such details fall into the wrong hands. Caution is thus not only advisable but necessary for the good running of the entity in question. However, using commercial sensitivity to place the government above public scrutiny is akin to saying that people should not be allowed to vote because some people might not be in the best possible position to make an informed choice. The blatant abuse of the privilege of commercial sensitivity is no less an affront to democracy.

With major institutions, such as public hospitals, energy provision facilities and facilities which in some way pose a risk to the general public, censorship in the name of commercial sensitivity needs to be kept at an absolute minimum as the greatest interest of the need for public scrutiny should prevail.

A government that feels comfortable censoring such documentation and abusing the argument of commercial sensitivity in order to place itself above public scrutiny is a government that is tacitly giving its blessing to corruption. A government which in some way or another, directly or indirectly, gives its blessing to corruption is a government that fears transparency and hence fears the very fundamentals of modern European democracy.

The system of accountability and checks and balances goes to the core of our democratic principles. This isn’t a matter solely about a piece of land or a particular company. This is a matter of principle which if we allow to decay will have many undesirable ripple consequences.

Labour has often tried to make the argument that it is not doing anything which has not already been done in the past. Isn’t that argument in itself self- defeating? Firstly, that line of argumentation does not deny that what Labour is doing is tantamount to a direct attack on accountability and transparency but merely arguing that it is not alone in such an attack.

Secondly, in March 2013 Labour was elected on a pledge of clean and accountable politics; a way of doing things which according to pre-election Labour had never been done in such a clean manner before. How is it then that suddenly the so-called ‘ways of the past’ are acceptable to post-March 2013 Labour? It is an argument akin to saying that I may be a thief just because my neighbour is a thief too.

Our country needs a breath of fresh air. A government that holds itself to account to the people. A government that does things in an above-board manner and hence does not need to resort to abusing legal principles in order to make public scrutiny a next to impossible task. Our country needs a Nationalist government led by Simon Busuttil as prime minister, who has made it crystal clear that such behaviour is simply not on.