Bermuda's newest political party yesterday submitted its views on Government's draft freedom of information bill — calling for it to be retroactive and include whistle-blower protection.

Bermuda Democratic Alliance said it supported in principle the introduction of FOI but had grave concerns about the fact that the proposed Public Access to Information (PATI) legislation would only cover records created after the date it becomes law.

The party says in its 11-page submission: "Whilst the Alliance understands that the task of providing retroactive information might be difficult at times due to the state of records held by public authorities, the Alliance recommends that PATI should apply to all information held by public authorities, regardless of the date of creation.

"It is the Alliance's submission that for full transparency to be truly effective, PATI must be retroactive."

It adds: "If records are in such a state, then perhaps PATI could be amended to allow for a grace period of two years for all public authorities to become 'record compliant'."

BDA's response to the draft bill also questions whether the Premier ought to be the Minister responsible for PATI, as outlined in the Cabinet Office's companion guide to PATI.

"This is a cause for concern given the fact that the implementation of PATI is a massive undertaking," says the party. "The Alliance submits that the responsibility be given to a Minister that is not as busy as the Premier."

BDA, whose members include MPs Shawn Crockwell, Mark Pettingill and Donte Hunt, as well as former senator Michael Fahy, also raises the issue of the Premier being able to exclude public authorities from PATI without the approval of Parliament.

The draft bill gives him the power to make such exclusions by way of regulations using the negative resolution process, a legal statutory provision often used in legislation which means the regulations have to be published in the Official Gazette but not agreed to by MPs.

The Royal Gazette has raised the same concern in its submission, as reported in yesterday's edition of the paper.

BDA argues that the negative resolution process is "not appropriate" in this case. "The Alliance submits that the powers given to the Minister are too wide and submits that an independent commissioner is either consulted prior to the regulations being enabled or in the alternative, an affirmative resolution procedure should be followed, thereby giving the Houses of the Legislature more oversight."

It also states that the draft bill makes too many records held by Government exempt from PATI and expresses disappointment that there is no protection for individuals who release information on wrongdoing in good faith.

Meanwhile, Home Affairs Minister David Burch discussed PATI during yesterday's Senate session. He said of yesterday's front page story: "The chatter in the community this morning, it is all about a headline which really is dishonest."

He said all kinds of bills were subject to the negative resolution procedure.

Referring to this newspaper's A Right To Know: Giving People Power campaign for FOI, he said: "I just think this whole Right to Know campaign is just so disingenuous. It smells to high Heaven, to high Hell. It would have taken more credibility if they had taken one step towards accurate reporting."

The Government Senate leader added: "To me and many of us in Government, I don't even need this legislation. I don't need this legislation to tell the truth, because it comes naturally."

Yesterday was the deadline for public submissions on PATI but the Cabinet Office did not respond to a question about how many responses were received in total. There had been 24 by the end of last week.