MPs approve charging for Pati requests
Members of the public seeking information from the Government through public access to information will have to pay $60 if their requests will take more than 16 hours to process.
Under new legislation, Pati requests will be dropped if they require more than 100 hours for civil servants to research and craft a response.
Presenting the Public Access to Information Amendment Bill before the House of Assembly on Friday, Crystal Caesar, the Minister of the Cabinet Office, claimed that government ministries had been swamped by Pati applications.
She said it placed “an unreasonable burden on resources” and took up “considerable time and effort” by government officials.
The minister said the fee would deter organisations from filing “vexatious” claims that prevented civil servants from carrying out their day-to-day duties.
The tariff has been condemned by Gitanjali Gutierrez, the Information Commissioner whose office oversees Pati requests.
Ms Caesar lauded Pati, telling MPs the Government had “established a framework that creates transparency and accountability, and provides rights of access for government records”.
However, she added that the Government had received more than 1,200 Pati applications since its inception in 2015, with administrators struggling with the workload.
Ms Caesar said some “ill-defined” requests resulted in “thousands of pages” of paperwork.
She added: “Over the past nine years that Pati has been in force, public authorities have raised a number of issues.
“Many of these challenges relate to the management of the voluminous and sometimes complex requests, given the limited resources.
“The most frequently expressed concern by public officers involved in responding to Pati requests is the unreasonable burden on the stretched resources and the ability to balance regular business duties with Pati requests.”
Ms Caesar said that the new laws, which come into effect on January 1 next year, would help applicants to “narrow or focus” their applications.
While many PLP MPs took a free swing at unnamed organisations for “abusing” the Pati system, backbencher Jamahl Simmons took aim at The Royal Gazette and its foreign journalists in particular.
In a four-minute speech during the Pati debate, Mr Simmons said: “Pati never fed a child. Not one.
“Pati never housed a family. Not one.
“And the concern that we’re hearing today, I have to ask the question today, where was this concern for fairness when you all [the One Bermuda Alliance] slashed scholarships? Where was this concern for fairness when you tried to slash access to mammograms?”
He added: “I get it that the Pati legislation turns on your supporters. They really like it because it’s all about getting the PLP. Expose the PLP.
“But let's be clear, Mr Speaker. I’m a former journalist. In matter of fact, I’m a former award-winning journalist.
“So The Royal Gazette knows very well the number of times I’ve called them up and chastised them because of lazy journalism, journalism because of Pati requests alone.
“Because, and this is a pet peeve of mine, you can call me xenophobic but I don’t care, but when you have Bermudian reporters, they tend to have sources. They then tend to be able to ask the right questions. They then tend to be able to expose the facts.
“But when you have people, some of whom don’t even live here, sending in Pati requests and writing stories for The Royal Gazette, then that is not journalism.
“It is not. Anybody can do it.
“And so that’s been a bone of contention of mine, and the editors of the Gazette will know that I have chastised them for it because it’s lazy journalism and you find that once you get the answer they are very rarely able to take it past a daylong story.”
Mr Simmons said Pati seldom yielded “a Jetgate” or stories that could be stretched into “something substantive”.
“They get the answer, Jamahl Simmons took 20 flights, and it’s a one-day story, that’s all they got, because they’re not real journalists doing this.”
The minister was backed by a raft of government MPs maintaining that organisations were abusing the system.
Derrick Burgess, the Deputy Speaker of the House, led the charge.
He said: “I think that some organisations and people think that Pati is their own research department, which it’s not.
“Certain organisations will go there, get information, and if it’s not what they want, put a spin on it to make those who they don’t like so much damage their character.
“So what this Bill does ... OK, Pati’s available, but this is not their research department. You’ve got to pay.
“The organisations that constantly use this facility ... they can well afford it or they can get their own department.”
PLP backbencher Wayne Caines added: “The Pati legislation serves a significant purpose.
“We have to now make sure that it’s not being abused. There are entities in our country, and we all know who they are, that are abusing the Pati legislation.
“There are [government] organisations that cannot function because of the plethora of requests that are going in from specific organisations for their own design.”
Mr Caines added that government institutions could be hamstrung by Pati applications that were “duplicitous and used for mal-intent”, and put forward by organisations intent on “misusing it for their own narrative” and intent on going on “fishing expeditions”.
One voice of dissent from the Government's back benches came from Renée Ming, the former national security minister, who expressed concern that the fee would freeze out those on low budgets seeking information from the Government.
In an opposition response, Vance Campbell, for the OBA, questioned how the Bill created “a fairer” Bermuda.
He said: “Many of the clauses in this Pati amendment act are minor and procedural. For the most part, the One Bermuda Alliance has no question with these clauses.
“However, the OBA does have concerns when it comes to the charging of a fee. How does this make Bermuda fairer and better? How does it make the Government more transparent?
“How does it increase the transparency of public authorities? How does this improve the process of informing the public about the activities of public authorities, including how they make their decisions?
“The amendment proposing the charging of a fee could exclude those who cannot afford to pay the fee.”
The Bill was passed and will go to the Senate this week.
You must be Registered or to post comment or to vote.
