ELEPHANTS, Mr. Editor, that's right elephants. I had them on the mind last Friday in the House on the Hill when we tackled amendments to the Prohibition of Gaming Machines Act ? and no, Mr. Editor, I don't mean the Carlsberg kind which some of you might be thinking I was thinking of.

There is no such imbibing on the Hill regardless of what you might think about how we sound. No, the elephants I had in mind were the real ones as in the following Swahili proverb: Whether the elephants make war or the elephants make love, the grass always suffers.

Why so? Because there we were, Government and Opposition, and the only two political parties represented in the House, agreeing ? yes, let me repeat, agreeing ? on the same course of action: an end to gaming machines by the First of July 2004.

The only argument ? if you can call it that ? was essentially one between lawyers. Those on the Opposition benches queried whether the amendments had gone too far, and that Government was running the risk of prohibiting the importation and use of not just gaming machines but computers and electronic devices which could be used for gaming.

We were all assured that the Attorney General and Director of Public Prosecutions had given the drafting their seal of approval: there was nothing to worry about. We'll see, perhaps soon enough if the owners and operators of gaming machines elect to take a punt and challenge the legislation.

The Premier led the debate and laid it on awfully thick.

"Will I be lecturing?" Mr Scott asked at the outset. "No," he said.

"Will I be preaching?" he continued. "No," he answered.

"But what about spin?" came the cry from across the floor ? and there was laughter all around.

"Yes, but just a little," beamed the Premier.

Well, a little soon turned out to be a lot. Premier Scott heralded the legislation itself as "a significant, bold and courageous step" and the amendments, to keep abreast of changes in technology, were further evidence of "our approbation (sic) of gambling".

Okay, then, what's the position on bingo, Crown and Anchor, the pools, betting on horse races, Mr. Premier? Oh, that.

"They are part of the Bermudian culture," he told us and so presumably those forms of gambling will continue unabated, unimpeded and . . . so I was wondering, Mr. Editor, do you think we'll see a push for (more) Crown and Anchor at, say, maybe, the beach as we look to broaden and foster the development of our culture? Any bets, people?

We were also told that this crackdown on gaming machines went straight to the heart of the Government's social agenda. The prohibition was to protect the weak and the vulnerable, those least able to afford to play but who tend to play the most. The Premier even came out against casinos under his Government.

"We have no intention of allowing any form of gambling," he said, "at this time."

Three very important words, those last three, to be sure.

Meanwhile, Leader of the Opposition Dr. Grant Gibbons, while declaring his party's support for the prohibition of gaming machines, thought that perhaps the time had come to examine gaming and gambling in all its forms and come to some decisions following a study by experts under a local Commission, and those decisions might even be made by way of a referendum if there was no clear consensus.

But the Premier and his Government quickly pooh-poohed that idea. We were told that even surveys of our visitors show that they don't want casinos or gambling in Bermuda ? which was the first we had heard of that. Unfortunately ? and surprise, surprise ? Minister of Tourism Ren?e Webb wasn't in the House on Friday to tell us otherwise.

Those of us in the Opposition seemed to recall that Ms Webb took another view. Much like the view Community Affairs Minister Dale Butler used to hold. However, he told listeners he had come to change his mind and was now in favour of prohibition; he had had a kind of epiphany, and he made reference to a passage from Joshua, and we guess like Saul to Paul he had a kind of transformation. We didn't however, catch the name change ? if there was one.

Cut and paste on the floor

EFICIENCIES in our system were once again underscored by the gaming machine debate. Government had a half a dozen or so further amendments which they wanted to make to the Amendment Act at the 11th hour. That is on the floor of the House during debate.

To their credit, Government through the Premier had shared with the Opposition Leader what was proposed a day or so before. There had also been some dialogue between the two leaders.

But still there has to be a better way than a cut-and-paste approach on the floor of the House ? especially when the two elephants agree. It makes you wonder why Bermuda cannot operate like other modern parliamentary jurisdictions and have any proposed legislation work its way on to the agenda through a bipartisan legislative committee of MPs.

It would also provide a means whereby the public could be given a right of input and ? dare I say it, Mr. Editor? ? had it been done in this case we might have avoided some of those last-minute amendments.

Incidentally, Mr. Editor, the idea of such a legislative committee was one of the proposals the Opposition put forward in their recent paper on reforms for the House.

Death by investigation

ISAPPOINTING is not the only word I would use to describe the Speaker's decision not to allow the Opposition motion on the Bermuda Housing Corporation. But fear not, Mr. Editor, it is the only word I will use here in this column.

The motion itself was straightforward enough. The Bermuda Housing Act requires the production of annual reports by the BHC, including financial statements. The Minister responsible is also required to table them in the House. There hasn't been one for the past three years.

Is it any wonder then that Shadow Minister Wayne Furbert brought forward a motion deploring the PLP's failure to produce these long overdue reports? But the Speaker thought it would be "unwise" to allow a debate at all on the Housing Corporation.

There was that special report by the Auditor General and an ongoing police investigation into events that date back well over two years. In the circumstances, the Speaker ruled he would not allow a debate on a motion that involved the BHC.

You might think that the House on the Hill is just the place where those in charge should be called to account for their actions. But the saddest fact of all? The Government MPs who stamped their feet in glee at the Speaker's decision, apparently happy and proud.

PS, Mr. Editor: It used to be that Government could stall, if not kill, a matter by sending it to committee. Not so, in the New Bermuda: now you need only call in the police to investigate and investigate and investigate and . . .

Ask and maybe you shall receive . . .

LOVE those Ministerial statements: This week we spotlight that of Labour and Home Affairs Minister Randy Horton just back from his first attendance at the annual ILO conference in Geneva.

It was a rather full report ? five pages ? of what he saw and heard, and he told us that his attendance and that of the entire Bermuda delegation "proved to be of considerable benefit". The cost, Mr. Editor? Oh, if you want to know that, sir, you have to ask a Parliamentary question.

. . . but there again maybe not

BUT asking doesn't always mean you get an answer, as my Opposition colleague Neville Darrell found out this past week. He and a back-bench colleague had asked a series of six questions of the Education Minister Terry Lister about the hiring practices at the Ministry and the Bermuda College. Mr. Darrell complied with the Rules and had them in ten days in advance.

On Friday, Mr. Darrell learned that the Minister didn't propose to answer them until July 2 as he would be away for the next two weeks.

Whatever happened to Acting Ministers? Accountability? Respect for the rules of the House?