|
By Vrinda Choraria, Sr. Project Assistant, Access to Information Programme, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
On 27th February, 2010, Nauru held a referendum to amend its Constitution that included amongst 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 legislation to enforce 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 legislation spelling out this right, it has been explicitly provided for in their constitutions such as the Fiji Constitution which 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 rega
rding 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 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 per cent 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 legislation should be initiated and drafted in consultation with the people who will ultimately use 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. Back
|
