Status of the right to information in Pacific Island countries
Figure 5: RTI Institutional Support Framework Dashboard Country
Nodal Agency
Vanuatu
RTI law/Unit
Fiji
*ATC
Palau Cook Island
• • • •
Information Offices RTI law/Some Art. 36 No available data
Oversight Mechanism/Appeals RTI law/IC ATC (not operational)
No mention in law
No mention in law
No mention in law
No available data
No available data
No available data
No mention in law
Discretionary in law
No available data
No available data
Ombudsman/ independent consultant (every 3 years)
Except for Vanuatu, in all other PICs, information on key aspects of RTI institutional support was inaccessible. Two of the four laws are silent on the appointment of a nodal agency and there was no available data on what practical arrangements might otherwise be in place. Two of the four laws do not have or have inadequate provisions on the appointment/role of information officers and there was no available data on what practical arrangements might otherwise be in place. Palau’s law makes no provision for an oversight mechanism and there was no available data on what practical arrangements might otherwise be in place.
C. Implementation activities Unlike the enactment of RTI laws, there tends to be less focus on the quality of implementation and how well RTI laws work in practice to deliver the promise of greater public access to information, more efficient service delivery and improved governance. Consequently, there are far less standardized and recognized methodologies that measure implementation. This part considers the presence or absence, and the effectiveness, of specific factors in determining the quality of implementation. These are: • A national implementation plan that uses a whole-of-government approach to coordinate strategies; • Proactive disclosure; • RTI regulations; • Records and information management; • Training of public officers; 39
