This is the tale of two extraordinary pieces of legislation, Mr. Editor, Public Access To Information (PATI) and the Media Council Act, which underscores once more what's wrong with the way we go about the country's business and what we must do to fix it. Ironically, both were tabled on the same day in the House on the Hill. Both have the potential to be far-reaching in effect. Each of them impacts one of the most important rights under the Bermuda Constitution Order. It is freedom of expression, which includes the right to communicate ideas and information and opinion without interference.

Neither of these Bills should be taken lightly, regardless of whether or not you believe that they will enhance or infringe on our rights. In fact, pause for a moment, put aside the arguments, for and against, and consider instead the history that preceded these two pieces of legislation. It is an instructive contrast and constitutes my lesson for this week on the need for good, strike that, better governance.

Thumbs Up

First, PATI: The Bill purports to give the people of Bermuda greater and better access to information from their Government, and it does. Don't get me wrong; it's not as comprehensive and as progressive as I would like it to be, but it is a model with which we can work and we can build on. But look closely at what it took to get where it is, and I am going to give credit where credit is due.

The United Bermuda Party held out the promise of freedom of information laws in its election platforms dating back to 1998. In 2003, former Premier Alex Scott took up the cause. There was a Green Paper for discussion in 2005 and we were promised legislation within the following 12 to 18 months.

It didn't happen. There was a change in leader for the PLP and it soon looked like that might be that, but it wasn't. A draft Bill was eventually tabled in the House and presented for public review and comment. It was made available online. Leading experts on freedom of information laws were also brought in by Government and by a concerned group of citizens to stimulate discussions on how the draft Act might be improved. There were as a consequence over 400 submissions.

You will recall two of the more critical issues: retroactivity and the power to make regulations by way of the negative rather than affirmative resolution procedure. The tide for retroactivity was pretty strong and Premier Brown promised pretty quickly to make it so. I note too that the new revised PATI has also reversed position on regulations. They will now first have to come to Parliament for review and approval before implementation and that includes the critical power to add or delete who will be or won't be subject to the Act. There are some other positive modifications too, although you wouldn't be able to tell from reading the explanatory memorandum. Pity. The changes should be highlighted and available somewhere for review. This is where a Legislature website is absolutely critical and essential. We ought to be taking better advantage of what technology today can provide by way of the Internet. I have had readers pestering me for copies, no problem, who also want to know what's changed and what hasn't.

On the bright side, I have already listed a few. There are more, briefly: an express right of judicial appeal; protection against liability for mistakes made in good faith; an important word change from the permissive "may" to the imperative "shall" when it come to disclosure that is in the public interest. On the other not-so bright side, again briefly: no whistle-blower provision; still too many blanket exemptions from disclosure, and no disclosure where prohibited by other statutes; a public interest override for the Governor but not the Cabinet; and a 30 (too long) year wait before all exemptions expire. There are more, I am sure, on both sides of the ledger. The drafters know but neither the list nor the amended Act was made available on line for further public review. The changes may come to light upon debate in the House which, you might think, is too late in the day.

Sadly, there is nothing new in this practice. It's the way things have been done around here for donkey's years. But it makes constructive debate and discussion difficult, and that is reason enough for change in my books. In this case, it also undermines what to this point has been a very comprehensive, and arduous, but welcome process of consultation, not just with members of the Legislature but with the public as well.

Thumbs down

This brings me to the second piece of legislation: the Media Council Bill. Something of the sort was promised in a Throne Speech a while ago. We heard nothing since. There was apparently some initial consultation with members of the press. The public was never invited in on this one. Then blam! Suddenly, out of the blue, we get presented with a Bill not for review, or for discussion, but for adoption. Contrast that with the consultation that enveloped PATI. It is striking, particularly in light of negative comment which it has already generated on and off our shores which, in my view, is warranted. It's also revealing; perhaps unintentionally. It wasn't that long ago the Premier reportedly said that he didn't intend to take up any legislation that did not have the support of his parliamentary caucus, and yet members of that caucus were reported this week saying that they had not discussed it prior to tabling. You have to ask: what gives?

No answer may come, Mr. Editor. But we can draw our own conclusions, and what we ought to conclude is that there is a better way to govern. Draft legislation ought to be subject to public review and comment which can be achieved not just by commitment, but by practice through the use of the open committee system, and by technology through the development of a Legislative website, which is expected to follow the introduction of electronic Hansard.

PS You want to know how bad it is getting information around here? A reader who was after his own copy of the Book of Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure for the current year, reports that he finally was able to purchase one. Apparently, it wasn't easy and it was only through persistence that he succeeded — long after the Budget Debate had concluded. It truly is time for a change.

Line of the week, possibly the year: David Cameron was reminded at his first press conference at which he announced his coalition government that he had called his new number two, Nick Clegg, his idea of "a good joke", to which the PM replied: "We are all going to have to eat some words and I cannot think of a better diet on which to govern the country."

Hmmn. I wonder: What's on the menu here?

Comments? Write jbarritt@ibl.bm.