Different day, same old story, Mr Acting Editor, except this time arguably a better result, depending, I suppose, on which side of the divide you are on. An Opposition motion to establish a bipartisan committee finally succeeded on the Hill. Can’t say I have been there and done that.But hey, the surprise wasn’t so much that the Opposition prevailed but that the Government failed in its initial attempt to take control of the motion. The OBA’s try to make it a take note motion (debate only, no decision one way or the other) failed spectacularly when they were unable to muster a majority with their own members.So it fell to the Speaker to cast the deciding vote and he did what Speakers are supposed to do in such circumstances: he voted to keep the original motion alive and before the House for decision.But the effort to take control may be far from over. Jostling for position on the committee has probably already begun, behind the scenes. The Speaker typically makes the appointments, presumably after consultation with leaders of the two parties. The mover of a successful motion usually ends up chairman, but that does not necessarily mean that he will be in the driver’s seat. The rules require that the composition reflect the balance of parties in the House and this should mean that Government will have a majority on the committee, no matter its size. But as those of you who have served on committees will know, the majority can and invariably does influence speed and direction. For sure, we will get to see the strength and resolve of those members of the Government backbench who are selected to serve. By practice and precedent, Ministers are deemed ineligible.Meanwhile, the adopted terms of reference are pretty wide: to examine and review “any matters” relating to elections.We already have a fairly good idea of what the Opposition wants to focus on, at least initially: the contentious issue of disclosure of interests in Government contracts, which all candidates (and Senate appointments) are required to do under the Bermuda Constitution Order, prior to election or appointment. Failure to do so can lead to disqualification and/or disappointment, provided a defeated candidate or elector or the Attorney General is prepared to take the matter up in the Supreme Court. There is no other means of investigation and enforcement which is not regarded by some, myself included, as entirely satisfactory.There are other important issues too, to be taken up: -- Whether the entire Parliamentary Election Act could use an overhaul (it can in my books) to better ensure among other things the accuracy of voter registration;- The need for an independent Electoral Commission (which could be established along the lines of the Boundaries Commission);- Absentee balloting;- The feasibility of online voting; and- Campaign financing and advertising.There is plenty of room there for examination and recommendation, and given the OBA’s initial resistance to the committee it will be both interesting and instructive to see how the next chapter unfolds. Stay tuned.A post script, Mr Acting Editor, from last week’s column on the issue of collective responsibility and the Cabinet: the way I saw it AG Mark Pettingill fulfilled his duty when he spoke in favour of and voted for the amendment. Some of us thought he went too far but as the Premier has kept him in the Cabinet we can reasonably presume that the AG said nothing that was out of step on what the Cabinet and OBA caucus agreed prior to debate, apologies notwithstanding.Finally, some perspective on this issue for the rabid partisans out there: imagine if former Premier Dr Ewart Brown had uttered some of those same words which the AG uttered, at the height of the Uighurs controversy. There would have been outrage from the one side and likely silence from the other. No prizes here for guessing which would have been which. Same old story, different day.