Senators championed the demise of a final vestige of privilege as they approved corporations reform yesterday — but they lamented public turmoil surrounding the Municipalities Reform Act.

Independent Senator Walwyn Hughes claimed both sides — Government and the Corporation of Hamilton — were to blame for tensions over the law introducing equal voting rights for City residents.

Sen. Hughes said City Hall was "over the top" in its media campaign to block the bill; but he added Government could have quashed the bad feeling simply by confirming it was not plotting a takeover of the two-century-old municipality.

Mayor Charles Gosling had argued the bill would lead to "death by financial strangulation" by preventing his municipality levying wharfage and ports dues worth $7.5 million a year.

A motion proposed by United Bermuda Party Senate leader Michael Dunkley to remove that aspect of the bill was voted down six to five; Senate President Carol Ann Bassett joined the five PLP senators in dismissing Sen. Dunkley's suggested amendments, which Sen. Hughes and Independent Joan Dillas-Wright backed.

Progressive Labour Party Senate leader David Burch said Government would now do in Hamilton what it already does in St. George's: collect wharfage and port dues on the Corporation's behalf.

He echoed Minister without Portfolio Zane DeSilva's pledge that services would not be undermined, saying: "The trash will still be collected."

All senators declared their overall support for the bill, which gives all Hamilton residents the right to vote, reforming the original 1923 act that allowed one vote per residence but multiple votes to business owners with many properties in the city.

During the debate:

• Sen. Burch and fellow PLP Senator Thaao Dill condemned a "sense of entitlement" from a rich elite wanting to keep things the way they are;

• several senators were scathing over the media campaign culminating in last month's Save Our City rally, with Sen. Bassett calling for court action against those involved in "criminal behaviour";

• Government Senator Walton Brown said the $600,000-plus corporations review could have been done for less than ten percent the cost.

Sen. Brown said the legislation brings greater democracy and that City Hall used misinformation to trick residents into voting against it in a survey.

But he added: "Even Goebbels said propaganda had to be credible. This isn't even credible."

However, Sen. Brown said of a report by overseas consultants, which cost taxpayers between $600,000 and $800,000: "It's a lot of money. We could have got a university professor to do that study for less than ten percent of what we paid."

He added as a joke: "I could have done it for free."

Presenting the bill, Sen. Burch said it represented: "Not just reform for reform's sake, but reform to better serve the people of Bermuda. Reform to instill fairness and equity into matters electoral and financial."

However, he said public debate has been based on "rumours, leaks, half-truths and scaremongering".

"It is a fact that the bill before the Senate today does not contain one element forecast by the destructive media campaign waged against this Government," Sen. Burch told the Upper House.

"It clearly contains some elements that the corporations don't support and that can hardly be surprising. A three-quarter page ad appeared in the daily that said Bermuda Day is in jeopardy because of this bill.

"Not just Bermuda Day, but all parades that take place in the City and again the development of the waterfront. There is an element in such a threat that reveals the true nature of the resistance to this reform. It is an element of that goes to the heart of the rationale for this bill.

"This Country's national celebrations and national economic prosperity should not be held to ransom by an elite, undemocratically elected group whose sense of entitlement in even issuing the threat has no place in today's Bermuda.

"The lines drawn in this debate mirror the history of Bermuda. It is impossible to banish images of the oligarch setting out in horse and buggy to vote in every parish where he owned land.

"The suggestion that the word 'untouchable' is engraved in an Act of the Legislature is a convenient excuse for inaction. The accusation that the fulfilment of a two-year promise is somehow being rushed through is a deliberate scare-tactic."

Some have complained property owners should still be allowed to vote because they pay tax, but Sen. Burch insisted compromise was impossible because "universal adult suffrage is indivisible". He said of the removal of the Corporation's power to levy wharfage and port dues: "It has been suggested by some that this removes and does not replace 40 percent of the Corporation's revenue. That's not even a half-truth.

"The bill simply removes their power to levy it, not eliminate it all together. Is this some draconian plan devised in the dead of night? Is it an unprecedented arrangement, untested in modern times? No, it is what we promised we would do with St. George's and what we have done. We collect on their behalf; we have eliminated double taxation, eliminated duplication of services and supply an annual grant of $350,000."

When the bill passed through Parliament two weeks ago, hundreds of mainly white protesters rallied outside the House of Assembly, with Mr. DeSilva booed and subjected to chants of "coward" as he refused to confront the crowd.

Eyewitnesses said they saw some men thump and shake his car, with the Minister later describing their behaviour as racist. For weeks leading up to the debate, posters had gone up encouraging people to oppose the bill, which was dubbed in adverts "a Brown/DeSilva takeover".

Sen. Burch grabbed the headlines when he ripped up a letter from Mr. Gosling and returned it to him in the same envelope, marked Return to Sender.

Sen. Hughes told the Senate yesterday: "It's unfortunate that we have had this issue cause such turmoil."

He said Government had given away little information about its plans, adding: "It's perhaps not surprising the Corporation reacted the way it did.

"In retrospect, seeing the bill as we now see, which only became public three weeks or so ago, in listening to some of the comments bandied around — the response of the corporations seems over the top.

"In retrospect, it hurt them. The things they published were not based on fact. If you don't know, it's better just to be quiet.

"But there was nothing to stop the Government to have quietly said, this is not our intent. But that wasn't said. Had it been said, most of that rhetoric would not have been said."

Sen. Bassett said the rally was a result of a breakdown in communication.

"I had to imagine that very few of them really knew what was in it [the bill]. Had they known what was in it, it might have been a different atmosphere," she said.

"I do not condone or support the atmosphere in that march."

She said the group should be criticised as black men were at the infamous Wellington Oval machete fight of 2004.

"Proceedings should be brought against those involved in criminal behaviour," she said, adding that photographers should hand over any evidence of people attacking Mr. DeSilva's car. That whole campaign did not progress what they wanted to. In fact, it probably made a lot of people against what they were trying to get across."

Attorney General Kim Wilson criticised the Corporation's "smear campaign", saying one advert appeared in this newspaper citing misinformation even after the bill had been tabled.

She said the Senate was making history by removing the last element of voting rights in Bermuda.

Sen. Dill said the PLP has been trying to bring about social justice since the 1960s, but the marchers were trying, in part, to protect the unfair status quo.

"For those who oppose this bill, their stated values and actions literally align with and are borne out of the anti-civil rights, wealthy power brokers from before 1966," he said.

"This bill couldn't be more valuable, self-evidently so, because it is in keeping with Bermuda's growing history with a PLP Government at the helm of real, meaningful democratisation.

"Just as those who are opposed to it are part of our less admirable history of attempting to stagnate and slow down the progression of social justice."

The bill initially stalled in PLP caucus because of concern from backbenchers who claimed they'd been left out of the loop by Premier Ewart Brown and Mr. DeSilva.

PLP Senator Marc Bean said he was cautious at first because he supports smaller governments and didn't want a takeover. But he said it took him five minutes of reading the bill to realise it was a good thing.

"I'm very proud of the bill," he said. "We should try to stay focused on the facts as presented on the bill and not get caught up on the discussion with the propaganda."

He said the bill removes vestiges of special privilege, but said of protesters: "In terms of your behaviour of a few weeks ago, I forgive you. Forgive them father for they know not what they do."

Criticism from the UBP was moderate, with Sen. Dunkley saying the media campaign had probably aggravated Government, and that the march had resulted in allegations of "very poor behaviour".

Sen. Dunkley noted the Corporation of St. George had kept quiet over the issue and pointed out that municipality relies on Government for resources.

He also complained about a lack of communication and the fact the bill was debated just one week after it was tabled.

UBP Senator Suzann Roberts-Holshouser said boundaries had been put up based on an emotional need to defend oneself.

She said changes could have been brought in more gradually, as seen with the bit-by-bit introduction of PACE legislation to modernise policing.

UBP Senator Jeanne Atherden said people had made assumptions about the bill in the absence of clear information and dialogue.

And Independent Senator Joan Dillas-Wright applauded Government for bringing reform but warned it means businesses are now paying taxes without representation. She said such businesses should not be ignored because they play a part in building the city.