The wheels of government can move excruciatingly slowly, but they do move, so this newspaper welcomes news from Attorney General Sen. Kim Wilson that a draft of Bermuda's Public Access to Information Act is now ready.

That's an advance from November, when the Attorney General – who has always been supportive of the legislation – said a consultation draft was being prepared.

The hope is still to have the legislation before the House of Assembly this year, and that would be a tremendous way to mark Bermuda's 400th anniversary.

Bermuda lays claim to having one of the longest functioning parliaments in the Western Hemisphere. Over the centuries, its imperfections have been ironed out, to the point where the lack of freedom of information legislation is a glaring omission. In earlier years, it could easily and rightly have been claimed that there were other more pressing priorities; that argument can no longer be made.

That's why The Royal Gazette is once again promoting Sunshine Week, which promotes the importance of and value of freedom of information laws where they do exist, and pushes them to be enacted where they don't.

Last year, when this newspaper launched its "A Right to Know" campaign and promoted Sunshine Week for the first time, it was claimed by some Government officials that there was no need for such legislation because Bermuda residents already had all the information they needed.

That argument surely cannot be made now. Yesterday was a case in point. The Public Accounts Committee of the House of Assembly met in emergency session to discuss the findings of the Auditor General's special report.

This report has caused a good deal of controversy. The PAC is the right venue for MPs from both parties to debate the report and to make the recommendations to Parliament as a result. But the public will never know what was said in that meeting by their elected representatives because they are barred from attending. That cannot be right. Nothing that is said there can possibly be viewed as being so sensitive that the public should not hear it. But they will not. And they cannot use PATI to get access to a transcript of the meeting because they do not have the legislation.

That's just one example, and in fairness, there has been progress on public access. The joint select committee on education reform has held open meetings and few would say they are not now better informed than they were.

The Corporation of Hamilton, while still holding its meetings in private, at least makes its decisions public.

These are small but significant advances, and MPs including former Premier Alex Scott and Opposition MP John Barritt deserve enormous credit for pushing these initiatives forward when the fainter hearted would have given up.

Last year, we argued that freedom of information laws are not just abut journalists and the media, even though they are likely to be beneficiaries. We said then: "Freedom of information legislation gives the public a legal right to ask the Government, and other bodies, for information on public issues and problems of importance to them."

But, as Mr. Scott has repeatedly said, PATI Can also build trust between private individuals and Governments by showing how carefully decisions are taken and why.

We said then and repeat now: "PATI does not stand alone; it is part of a mindset and commitment to open government, in which decisions taken in private should be able to stand up to public scrutiny.

"It should take away the sometimes arbitrary nature of what information will be released to the public and what will not. Instead, there should be a clear and accessible mechanism for the public to get the information it needs.

"... We urge you to support this initiative, not because it benefits the media, but because it will benefit you."