If a public meeting flops in the middle of town does it mean that we don't care? That's the question being asked after only seven ? yes seven ? people turned up for last week's Government sponsored public meeting on the Public Access to Information initiative (PATI).

Most people almost certainly do care about having access to information over how our business is conducted, but they'd rather not have to think about it.

In fact, most people would probably prefer to not think much about Government at all, they would rather it just got on with what it's supposed to do quietly, competently and efficiently, so they can get on with their lives; but then that wouldn't be Government would it?

So along comes PATI. The announcement was widely greeted as a welcome but long overdue step in the right direction, an opening up of the inner workings of Government to those who it serves. But judging by the public meeting turnout it's not the type of thing that fires up the populace, just the policy wonks.

As laudable as the PATI initiative is, the announced target date of the year 2011 for its rollout is unacceptable ? a little public access to efficiency might be in order. This legislation isn't so complex that it should take six years to implement. It's not rocket science? or building a school, so why is PATI on the Berkeley timetable? Six years is far too long, six months would be more like it.

Cabinet might be basking in the glow after embarking on this path, but what they won't say is that at the end of the day all they'll simply do is adopt and adapt existing legislation from another jurisdiction. But if only seven people seem interested who can blame them for slow-tracking it?

The lack of existing PATI legislation however is not an excuse for Government's refusal to disseminate information over the past few years, obstruction that continues today.

We don't need PATI to begin providing access to information at all. That doesn't negate the need for the legislation, which will formalise the process, but a less secretive Government is the problem. No doubt, they'll protest that accusations of secrecy are unfair and off-base when they are the ones who are introducing PATI legislation. But are they?

PATI legislation doesn't have to be in place for the Premier to release the years old and still unseen performance bond from the Berkeley project, or the documentation that the $700,000 premium was collected? The controversial and secretive Cuban cultural memorandum can be released before PATI is completed. The absence of PATI legislation isn't standing in the way of the publication of the controversial Coco Reef lease and its subsequent re-draft. The Government is.

And we can't forget Parliament. If the Premier and his Government are so committed to openness, why do House committee meetings remain closed to the public? It's been well over a year since the Public Accounts Committee recommended that their sessions be held in the open, yet Government hasn't lifted a finger to make it happen.

Considering that Parliament is the people's House, the lack of information that comes out of it is astounding. There are no transcripts of what is said in Parliament, the only sessions that are televised are the inconsequential ceremonial ones, and the most comprehensive written record of Parliamentary proceedings are the scant House minutes.

Public access to information is more than legislation; it's a philosophy. Openness, transparency and accountability might be the Government's favourite buzzwords, but actions speak louder than words, and that's been in short supply.

But PATI isn't the only area that the PLP Government only says one thing and does another; consider the cherished but clumsy PLP battle cry of: 'one man, one vote of equal value'. It's hard to argue against that right? Not if you're the PLP, who continue to go to incredible extremes to prevent Bermudians from having one vote of equal value on Independence.

And how do you reconcile a Government that talks about public access to information but repeatedly signals its desire to regulate the media and free speech?

If the Premier and his Cabinet are serious about open Government they'll provide access to the information that they've been suppressing for years? immediately. Additionally, relatively little effort and money is required to implement the simple reforms that are so sadly lacking in our archaic legislature and legislators, the first step in any move to provide better public access to information.

PATI is a welcome initiative, but it doesn't get our secretive Government off the hook.