12:14 PM |
Title – 6732 NAURU: Opinion – A case for the right to freedom of information
Date – 30 March 2010
Byline – Vrinda Choraria
Origin – Pacific Media Watch
Source – Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative via Pacific Freedom Forum, 29/03/10
Copyright – CHRI
Status – Unabridged
‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑
* Pacific Media Watch Online - check the website for archive and links:
www.pacmediawatch.aut.ac.nz
* Post a comment on this story at PMW Right of Reply, or on Pacific Scoop:
www.pacific.scoop.co.nz
pmc@aut.ac.nz
* Pacific Media Centre on Twitter - http://twitter.com/pacmedcentre
Opinion:
NAURU REQUIRES RTI LAW DESPITE ‘NO’ IN REFERENDUM
www.humanrightsinitiative.org
By Vrinda Choraria, Senior Project Assistant, Access to Information Programme, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
YAREN, Nauru (Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative/Pacific Media Watch): On 27 February 2010, Nauru held a referendum to amend its Constitution that also included among other things the constitutional guarantee of right to information. The Constitution of Nauru (Referendum Amendments) Bill however was voted against by the people of Nauru thereby denying itself a fundamental human right of accessing information held by the Government.
Right to information is an internationally recognised human right representing a touchstone of participatory democracy. This law, commonly referred to as freedom of information (FOI) law in the Pacific region – provides a means by which people can come to know about their entitlements, identify when their rights are being violated and hold governments to account for corruption and non-fulfilment of their constitutional and international human rights obligations. In the Pacific and down under, both, Australia and New Zealand have had legislations to operationalise this right since 1982. More recently, in 2008, the Cook Islands enacted the Official Information Act providing impetus to other small island nations in the Pacific to have a freedom of information legislation. Tonga, in 2008, established a Ministry of Information (MOI) with the prime task of distributing news and information from the Government and to act as a depository for accessing Government and public information resources. While some other countries are yet to draft a legislation spelling this right, it has been explicitly provided for in their constitutions like the Fijian Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of expression which includes the “freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas”. Papua New Guinea is the other Commonwealth Pacific Island country to make a specific reference to a right of access to government documents in its Constitution.
Having the right to information has the potential of turning things around for Nauru since most of Nauru’s challenges today, can be linked to the dire dearth of access to information. In the report of the Independent Commission on Constitutional Review, it was clearly pointed out that the public has lost trust in their public institutions and they expect much greater accountability. Systems like a right to information regime, that enable citizens to be part of, and personally scrutinise, decision-making processes reduces their feelings of powerlessness and helps in cementing trust in the government.
Establishing mechanisms for bringing about transparency in governance cannot be prolonged when poor and indigenous communities who are so heavily reliant on their local natural resources for survival, have often been excluded from decisions about its use and sale. Decisions regarding this have been made by governments dominated by urban elites who have then co-opted the benefits. For instance, environmental degradation of Nauru was led by countries like Australia due to intensive phosphate mining in the trusteeship and mandate era, for which Nauru demanded compensation at the cost of waiving its right to appeal on issues arising from either the administration of the island during that era or phosphate mining itself. In return Nauru got Australian dollars amounting to 107 million and no one knows where that money has gone as Nauru still remains confronted with environmental challenges.
In the particular context of Nauru, one of the most important corollaries of having an information regime will be to tackle corruption. Here, the Treasury has gone without producing accounts for years and the public has no knowledge of where that money has gone. According to a Pacific wide study done by the World Bank in 2009, Cook Islands, has been the country most effective in handling corruption. Nauru, on the other hand, is able to control only about 45% of its corruption despite being one of the smallest countries in the region. By way of exercising their right to information, Nauruans will be able to demand information on how every penny that is collected from them as tax is used.
Nauru can give itself a fair chance of releasing itself from the shackles of poverty by demanding information that affects their day-to-day activities from those entrusted with power. Experience shows, much of the failure of poverty reduction and development strategies to date can be attributed to the fact that, for years, they have been designed behind closed doors by governments who consulted with ‘experts’ but shut out the very people who were supposed to benefit. World Bank figures indicate, Nauru is among the highest receivers of aid per capita in the world, ranging from more than US$1000 per person to nearly US$5500 in 2007. And still its people today face bigger livelihood challenges than any other country in the world. Nauru has also continuously lagged behind in development indicators like education and participation in decision making process. In a 2009 Pacific Economic Survey, AusAID found that Nauru was experiencing retarded progress in achieving many of its millennium development goals (MDGs). One of the seriously affected MDG, in this regard is Nauru’s commitment to providing by the year 2015, children, anywhere, a full course on primary schooling.
In such a scenario, it is imperative that the people of Nauru demand their right to information. Although a vital opportunity in this regard has been lost by way of negative vote in the referendum, yet, all is not lost and Nauruans can give themselves the very crucial right to information by way of enacting a law. Such a legislation should be initiated and drafted in consultation with the people who are ultimately going to be using this right. Meaningful dialogue must be called for with those in charge of decision making and awareness campaigns should be conducted across the country for people to recognise the importance of information for addressing the lingering issues of governance and accountability.
* See also: Nauru closer to freedom of information laws
www.rnzi.com/pages/news.php?op=read&id=44928
Nauru considers freedom of information rules
www.rnzi.com/pages/news.php?op=read&id=44871
Nauru Parliament votes to change constitution
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:o_1xZA07EdcJ:www.naurugov.nr/parliament/projects/constitution/Mediarelease.pdf+Nauru+right+to+information&hl=en&sig=AHIEtbTG27hsW7jdSkKb5io4s-y2R2ZP1Q
Nauruan constitutional referendum, 2010
[Source: Wikipedia] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauruan_constitutional_referendum,_2010
A constitutional referendum was held in Nauru on 27 February 2010. Voters were asked to vote on amendments to the constitution, most notably a change to a directly elected president (instead of one chosen by parliament) and a strengthening of human rights legislation (but also a clarification of the distribution of powers and other, less notable amendments). A two-thirds majority is required for the amendments to pass.
The referendum was part of a large-scale constitutional renewal; the referendum had to be held to approve changes to some especially protected parts of the constitution, while other changes were made by simple parliamentary vote. Any changes would only take effect on the day of the next general election, likely in May/June 2011.
Turnout was 78%, with almost 4,400 votes cast; the constitutional changes were rejected by majority of two thirds, almost 3,000 votes.It was considered immediately afterwards whether another referendum might be held at a later time.
Comment on this item: www.pacific.scoop.co.nz
+++niuswire
PACIFIC MEDIA WATCH ONLINE
PACIFIC MEDIA WATCH is a media and educational resource compiled by the
AUT Pacific Media Centre for the Pacific region.
(c)1996-2010 Creative Commons
Items are provided solely for review purposes as a non-profit
educational service. Copyright remains the property of the original
producers as indicated in the header. Recipients should seek permission
from the copyright owner for any publishing. Copyright owners not
wishing their materials to be posted by PMW please contact us. The
views expressed in material listed by PMW are not necessarily the views
of PMW or the Pacific Media Centre.
For further information on joining the Pacific Media Watch listserve,
Or unsubscribing, go to:
http://lists.apc.org.au/listinfo.cgi/pacific_media_watch?apc.org.au
Email:
Fax: (+649) 921 9987
SnailMail: Pacific Media Centre, School of Communication Studies, AUT
University, Private Bag 92006, Auckland 1142, Aotearoa/New Zealand
Website: www.pacmediawatch.aut.ac.nz
_______________________________________________
Pacific_media_watch mailing list
Pacific_media_watch@lists.apc.org.au
_______________________________________________
Pacific_media_watch mailing list
Pacific_media_watch@lists.apc.org.au
--
----------------------------------------
pacific islands media association
pima.nius@gmail.com
aotearoa, new zealand
----------------------------------------
The pima.nius googlegroup is a facility for discussion and distributing information. Content sent by this googlegroup are forwarded from various networks and media publications.
DISCLAIMER: These emails are unedited and discussions made through this googlegroup are unmoderated. Announcements made through this googlegroup do not constitute endorsement for the organisations, individuals or opinions featured. Please check the integrity of organisations and individuals before exchanging personal information with them.
- - - - - - - - -
comment here:
http://groups.google.com/group/pima-nius/topics?hl=en
send an email comment here:
pima-nius@googlegroups.com
unsubscribe:
pima-nius+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
more options
http://groups.google.com/group/pima-nius?hl=en?hl=en
- - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pima-nius+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject.
0 comments:
Post a Comment