Rome wasn’t built in a day. Neither apparently was the Casino Gaming Act. This, Mr. Editor, is legislation of elephantine proportions: some 100 plus pages of over 200 clauses that any reasonable person might regard as complex, if not complicated, most especially for those not versed in legalese, and certainly difficult to digest in one sitting whether in the House or out.

You have to wonder though as it highlights once again the shortcomings of the way our Government can do business on the Hill — and why change in the way business gets done is long overdue.

Labour has been long — and tortuous to this point. Two years ago we were poised for a referendum on the introduction of casinos. There was a draft referendum bill on the table when a general election was called. Both parties had campaigned that a poll was the way to go. For about a year under the new OBA Government, nothing – except promises that a vote would soon come, followed by publication of the loaded question voters would be guaranteed to answer yes. Keeping this long, long story short, we next learned, earlier this year, that the OBA had been trying to persuade the PLP behind the scenes to join hands on gaming, scrap a referendum and have MPs decide the issue instead. I seem to recall something about the urgency of now and the need to get on with it to create jobs.

But when that plan didn’t work — the PLP didn’t go along with it, they were sticking to their promise of a referendum – the OBA scuttled the promised vote and tried unsuccessfully to pin their decision on the PLP.

Jetgate aside (or ‘Deadgate’ as the OBA prefers to remember that sad sorry sideshow) things have been pretty quiet ever since. We have been told of telephone polls that seem to indicate that a majority now support the introduction of casino-style gambling. But beyond that very little until the introduction in the House of the Casino Gaming Act two weeks ago, and even then it came with little fanfare or explanation – an certainly no public meetings before or since that I can recall.

That’s strategy for you. Government can take the gamble and bang it through with their numbers.

But whether you are for or against this major piece of legislation, like it or not it will usher in the business of organised gambling in the form of three casinos (to start with) that merits not just intense political debate but close examination as well.

Even a cursory overview gives the reader a quick idea of the enormity of the elephant: -

•A Bermuda Gaming Commission of five members with a staff that will include a Chief Executive Officer and a small army of inspectors.

•Their job will be to make sure those who own and operate these casinos are suitable people and that they are run “free from criminal influence or exploitation” i.e. “honestly” and, further that they contain and control “the potential of a casino to cause harm to minors, vulnerable persons and society at large”.

You might think this a tall order. It is. You might also think you are entitled to know more on how this will be done. There are to be rules and regulations ranging from who can be licensed and employed to how the casinos are to be run, including but not limited to how the ‘games’ are to be run and how accounts are to be kept. There are also provisions for exclusion orders to keep some people out.

This brings us on to the establishment of a Problem Gaming Council whose job it will be to:

•appoint a panel of “assessors” who will decide who gets excluded or not from casinos;

•exclude on the basis that a would-be player may cause “serious harm” to family members because of “problem gambling”; and,

•publish “educational materials” and/or “carry out research” on casino gambling.

Wow! This, I presume, is what they call responsible gaming. The price we are all going to pay for its introduction. This is no mouse. The impact will also be elephantine.

But whether for or against, at the very least the Bill should get a thorough going over on the Hill.

There will of course be a general debate on the principle (everyone gets to say whether they are for or against) and then examination in a committee made of the whole House (everyone again) clause by clause by clause.

It could make (should make?) for a long day and night if the aim is to do it with one sitting. Questions may be asked and answers may come via the Minister who can be fed information from drafters sitting in the gallery. The process is exhausting and passage can often come simply by attrition.

Contrast that with how the House handles private bills. There is a smaller committee of the House, made up of members from both sides, headed by the Deputy Speaker, which vets bills around the table before they come to the whole House for approval. Most importantly, they get to hear directly from, and ask questions directly of those who have drafted the bills. Amendments can re-thinks also often occur.

You might think that this is just the sort of exchange we should have when it comes to public bills, i.e. Government legislation, around the table, in full view and hearing of the public. Readers might think this a more reasonable approach with a major piece of legislation like casino gaming – and to let the public in on the dialogue by posting comments and questions. For my money, it is an approach that could also lead to a marked change in performance and behaviour. No harm in that is there Mr. Editor?