Let me start with what is not in dispute. The cost of living in Bermuda is too high, and reducing it is a shared goal across both sides of the legislature. The Opposition has never argued otherwise, and nothing that follows should be read as indifference to what Bermudian families are paying for groceries and essential services. The disagreement is not about the goal. It is about whether this Bill achieves it, and increasingly, about how far the Government appears to be willing to go to avoid that question being asked properly.

This week, the minister's own personal social-media page put out a video that plays a real Senate roll call, the clerk calling five named senators individually for their vote, under the claim that we “voted no on the cost-of-living Bill”. On July 22, the question the clerk actually put to the Senate was a motion to defer the third reading to September so that this Bill could receive the scrutiny it had not yet had. No vote on the Bill itself has taken place. The Hansard records the exact question asked that day, and it does not support what the video claims.

Attaching a false vote to five sitting senators, by name, on a social-media page is not a matter I intend to let pass as a simple political dispute. Misattributing how a named individual voted on the official record of the legislature is serious, and one those five senators are entitled to have properly examined, including what recourse may be available to them. I will leave that determination where it belongs but I will not pretend it is a small thing.

I raise this not because it wounds, but because of what it signals. A government confident in its legislation defends it on the substance. It does not need to edit a clerk's roll call to make its case. When the defence of a Bill starts to require that, it is usually because the Bill cannot be defended on what it actually says.

And on what it actually says, the concern that should worry every person in Bermuda is unintended consequences, because this government has a recent, verifiable record of them.

The sugar tax was introduced with a genuine and reasonable aim to encourage healthier choices by making sugary products more expensive relative to healthier alternatives. Instead, the unintended consequence was an incremental rise in the price of goods across the board, not just the products it targeted, a cost increase this government has never fully accounted for.

Good intentions did not produce the outcome that was promised. They produced a broader price increase that fell on every household, healthy choices included.

This Bill carries the same risk at greater scale. Section 7A defines any price increase of 5 per cent or more within a fiscal year as requiring approval, a threshold the minister may move by order without a vote in either chamber, and it runs only one way: a 5 per cent decrease triggers nothing at all.

Retailers have told us directly they were not consulted on this Bill, the earlier Cost of Living Commission Amendment Act 2026 or the related May regulations. That is three instruments in four months, with no consultation ahead of any of them. Their operational warning is specific: a standstill period that does not match how perishable goods are priced, shipment by shipment, risks making fresh food the riskiest category to stock and processed food the safest, the opposite of what this Bill claims to achieve, and an unintended consequence Government has not modelled, disclosed or apparently considered.

That concern should not be mistaken for protecting retailers from scrutiny. Retailers should be expected to justify significant price increases, particularly on essential goods. But we are not protecting retailers from scrutiny. We are protecting consumers from poorly designed legislation whose consequences the Government has not demonstrated it understands.

This week, all three opposition senators attended a consultation meeting convened by the minister, despite reservations, shared by retailers themselves, about a process convened only after a Bill has passed the House and stalled in the Senate.

We attended anyway, because if there is a genuine opportunity to have unresolved questions answered honestly, the Opposition will take it rather than dismiss it on principle. We came prepared with the same questions raised previously. They remain unanswered.

The most important of those questions is also the simplest: what evidence has the Government produced showing that this mechanism will actually reduce what consumers pay at the checkout? That is ultimately the test that matters. Not whether the Government can say it has acted, but whether its action will actually make groceries and other essentials more affordable for Bermudian families.

That is the pattern Bermudians should see clearly: a government that means well but will not let the facts get in the way of defending its own legislation, and that has not shown it has learnt from the last time good intentions, particularly on the sugar tax, produced a worse outcome for the household budget. Bermudians deserve a Bill that has actually reckoned with what it will do, not one asking for their trust a second time while repeating the same promises that didn't hold up before.

The Opposition's position is straightforward. We will support legislation that genuinely lowers the cost of living in Bermuda. This is not that legislation. Between now and the September sitting, we will keep making that case on the substance, because that is the argument that should decide this Bill's fate.

• Victoria Cunningham is the Opposition leader in the Senate