Below is my PATI submission sent in today. It's by no means exhaustive, and this is a pretty complex piece of legislation, but I think it hits the main points.
I made a special effort to push for online access and electronic access to records, which I suspect may not be something which gets a lot of comment through the normal channels.
ATTN Cabinet SecretaryPlease accept this email correspondence as a submission relating to the draft PATI legislation. Please confirm receipt.
I would comment on the following issues:
1) Retro-activity of this legislation is critically important. There should be no start date for record eligibility subject to the Public Access to Information legislation.
With respects to older documents, every effort should be made to retrieve these and the decision to release should err on the site of disclosure.
2) The draft legislation is silent on the issue of whistle-blower protection. This is a critical component of our public access to information.
Whistle-blowers tend to be insiders who will therefore require protection from negative sanction or consequences. Government officials, whether elected or otherwise, who attempt to interfere with or intimidate a whistle-blower should be subject to sanction and penalties. These would include potential fines and/or termination of employment as determined by an investigative panel and/or the courts.
3) Section 6 - The Commissioner should be required to maintain an online and open database of FOI requests (the log); including the status of all requests, the date requested and any subsequent actions as a result of the request.
Documents released should also be published online and be accessible to the general public through a website.
If the request pertains to personal information deemed unsuitable for public release (medical information for example) the log should contain an entry to that effect rather than an omission.
The draft legislation puts to onus on individuals to request access to the log. The log should be accessible at all times, and in real-time, through an open online database. Access to the server logs of website visitor activity should not be accessible by government officials, elected or
otherwise.The ability to make requests online is vital. Individual identities can be protected and verified through digital certificates and digitally signed emails. The definition of a 'written request' should include electronic methods including email.
4) If it is not already the case, Government should make digitized records a priority and document retention enshrined in civil service procedures. Email should be considered a record and any emails sent or received on a government mail server should not be subject to deletion and should be archived as part of the public record. This would include mobile devices.
4) Fees for access to records should be low or non-existent so as not to act as a disincentive to FOI requests. Every resident is a taxpayer and as such should be considered a stakeholder who funds the public sector. As such anything other than nominal fees are inappropriate.
5) There should be no maximum number of requests for any individual or organisation.
6) Regulations should be made by way of affirmative resolution procedure i.e. vote in the Legislature, rather than negative resolution procedure, as is the case in the draft. Negative approach is inconsistent with spirit and purpose of Act.
7) All documents should be deemed releasable and exemptions should expire after 20 years (other than personal confidential information such as medical records).
8) Implementation of PATI legislation is a national priority and should be achievable within 12 months of passage by the House and Senate.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
