CHANGES to the Access to Information (ATI) Act, due from 2011, are still outstanding and Opposition member of Parliament (MP) Gregory Mair wants to know when the Government intends to complete the process.

Government’s handling of the review of the Act, which gives access to the public to view and copy official documents not exempted under the provisions, has been a major source of disappointment for stakeholders, especially the media, which had hoped that recommendations of the last joint select committee would have been dealt with in Parliament by now.

The last review ended in 2010 and the recommendations were passed by both Houses of Parliament in 2011. However, approximately three years later, Cabinet has not signed off on the changes to the Act emanating from that report.

Mair, who was a member of the 2010 review committee chaired by then government spokesman on information, Daryl Vaz, has tabled a question in the House asking the minister to “advise, based on the report on the mandatory review of the Access to Information Act, done by a Joint Select Committee and tabled and approved by the House of Representatives in 2011, when the Bill amending the said Act” would be tabled in Parliament.

One of the main issues expected to be dealt with in Parliament when the new Bill is tabled, is the question of whether the ATI Unit has been observing the provision which requires that “the public authority must acknowledge all requests whether they are verbal (telephone, walk-in) or written (email, fax, completed request form or letter”).

The law provides for the citizens to also exercise their right to an internal review or appeal in writing if it is felt that the public authority has decided not to grant access to prolong disclosure, to withhold certain relevant documents, to amend personal information deemed incorrect, incomplete or misleading, and to charge certain processing fees. However, there is a general feeling that the process is too slow and costly.

In 2011, attorney-at-law Tanya Burke, who represented the Media Association of Jamaica (MAJ)/Jamaica Observer at the committee hearings, submitted that the media had experienced a number of challenges in accessing information via the Act.

She listed among these challenges the failure of public officers to respond to applications made under the Act; inordinate delays and unreasonable denials by public authorities. According to her, the limited categories of documents accessible under the Act, the cost of obtaining documents, the absence of whistle-blower legislation and inadequate sanctions, also posed major challenges.

The MAJ has also insisted that public authorities in violation of section 7(4) of the ATI Act, which stipulates that a public authority should respond no later than 30 days following the receipt of an application, should be sanctioned.

At a Jamaica Information Service think-tank last September, Damion Cox, director of the ATI Unit, emphasised that the changes would focus on ensuring that “public authorities apply a public interest test in relation to more categories of exemptions.”A public interest test is the process by which public authorities are expected to identify any relevant public interest.

Cox said that the public interest test would only be applied to two sections of the ATI Act: Section 19, which stipulates that an exemption can be applied to government deliberative process; and Section 21, which mandates that the test be applied to documents dealing with any

historical, archaeological, anthropological and natural resources, as well as national monuments.

Mair’s questions were directed at the Leader of the House of Representatives Phillip Paulwell, and answers are expected within 21 days.

— Balford Henry