Citizens were encouraged yesterday to submit freedom of information requests even when they believe the records they request may not be released.

Information commissioner Gitanjali Gutierrez, in a live online question-and-answer session with readers of The Royal Gazette, said though the Public Access to Information (Pati) Act had a number of exemptions preventing disclosure, many were subject to a public interest test.

One reader wrote: “I wish to see statistics from the Regiment that relate to conscription and conscientious objection. I am anticipating them denying it on the basis of national security or something.”

Ms Gutierrez replied: “You can’t know in advance how it will come out until you see an actual request and look at the specific public interest factors it raises. You won’t know how the request will be addressed unless you submit it, especially because of the public interest test.”

She said even for requests involving issues of national security, a public interest test would have to be applied.

“I would always suggest ... making the request ... Some public authorities have stated that records will be exempt under X, Y or Z exemptions but many of these exemptions are subject to the public interest — and this is a very context-specific test.”

Ms Gutierrez explained that when public authorities decide a request for disclosure should be denied under an exemption, they must “balance the public interest in disclosing the record against the public interest in keeping it withheld”.

The commissioner wrote: “The ‘public interest’ can be thought of as the ‘public good’ — not just what the public finds curious or interesting. The public good doesn’t have a precise, confined definition but there are parameters.

“The Pati regulations identify some public interest factors; it is not an exclusive list but gives examples. It includes records that would increase accountability, reveal maladministration, improve the effectiveness of public services, etc.

“The biggest distinguishing characteristics are that the disclosure would serve the ‘public’ good, not one person’s ‘private’ good and that it isn’t just interesting or feeds curiosity but weighs in on the public good. This is something you can see in decisions from information commissioners and courts internationally.”

She said there were some “absolute exemptions” not subject to the public interest test — such as Cabinet documents — but added: “Statistical, technical and scientific material in Cabinet records can be disclosed. The Pati Act wants the Cabinet to make the best decision possible; this means receiving conflicting opinions, arguments, information.

“All of that comes into the Cabinet, the decision-makers, and they make a decision. If all of those opinions and so on were disclosed, it could mean that in the future, advisers would be less frank in the advice to the Cabinet.

“The advisers might fear that it would be made public that they recommended a path that wasn’t taken.

“We don’t want to inhibit the exchange of views. But you can get the statistical, technical information because this doesn’t touch upon the opinions. It allows experts outside of Cabinet to look at the raw facts and also provide advice or assess the Cabinet decision for themselves. That leads to more input and better decisions.”

Ms Gutierrez began her hourlong discussion with readers at 10am, fielding questions about privacy, confidentiality and personal information, the Governor, legal privilege, time frames for requests, appeals and the obligations of public authorities under the Act.

She advised readers on how to make their requests specific and increase their chance of success and what to do if a public authority is unhelpful.

One questioner referred to Australia and the information office there being under threat due to lack of funding. “Are you well protected against a hypothetical party in power that may seek to cripple your office,” asked the reader.

Ms Gutierrez replied: “I would hope that we have worked long and hard for this right and that there is some recognition, especially, that the Pati Act came into being through multiple governments. It hasn’t been a product of just one segment of our community. We all should value the right — and safeguard it.”

The full conversation can be read on our website at www.royalgazette.com/ section/live.