SHORT day on the Hill, Mr. Editor, shorter column.The Progressive Labour Party only took up one piece of legislation in the House last Friday out of four pieces on the Order Paper. Mind you, only one of the four had been down the usual two weeks and thus eligible for debate, but it wasn’t the one they had us tackle.

Those would have the amendments to the Criminal Code to provide stiffer penalties for various sexual offences — which were carried over for a further week. Instead, the House on the Hill was asked to give its seal of approval to a Bill for which we had only a week to review and consider, entitled the Marine Offences Procedure Act.

Now I know it isn’t brain surgery that we are asked to perform each week on the Hill, Mr. Editor, but the precedent and practice of a two-week hold-over gives members sufficient time to not only review and consider, but to sound out stakeholders and the public generally on the merits of each legislative initiative.

But in this case, if you can believe it, we in the Opposition were prepared to work with the Government and make an exception, and make work when there otherwise wouldn’t be any. How’s that then, Mr. Editor? There’s one for all those people who wonder why we can’t get along together on the Hill.

This Bill also didn’t happen to be that complex or challenging or controversial — at least as far as we could tell on one week’s notice. It provided for the issue of tickets for certain marine offences and for the payment of fixed fines without the necessity of a Magistrates’ Court appearance.

The Minister In Charge Randy Horton (pictured, top right) — and his colleagues — came on like this was a Big Deal. He came armed with one of those pre-packaged, prepared briefs along with a flotilla of five civil servants and the Attorney General to provide support throughout the debate.

They wanted the public to think it was landmark legislation. The Minister in his Brief even took us on a tour of the practice in other jurisdictions like Down Under in Australia and then up north in Canada, but ignored the Bermuda experience.

As I know you know, Mr. Editor — as does most of the motoring public in Bermuda — this concept of on-the-spot tickets, and payment without a court appearance, has been around for some time now. The Traffic Offences Procedure Act — on which the Marine Offences Procedure Act was loosely based — has been in place for more than 30 years. It was passed by the same House on the Hill, different members, different Government, in 1974.

But hey, as they say, why let the facts stand in the way of a good story? It also didn’t stop those of us in the Opposition either from exposing where they seemed to be wet:

[bul] Some of the fines are pretty paltry for some of the offences for which offenders can be ticketed, like these two for example: $200 for operating a power-craft at a dangerous manner and at a dangerous speed, or $150 for operating the same without due care and attention (surely those people ought to have to go to court don’t you think?); and

[bul] Being able to operate some very powerful motor boats without having to qualify other than by being 16 years of age.

Incidentally, it wasn’t just the Opposition which made the point on the need for better education and proficiency for marine users. Cabinet Minister Wayne Perinchief weighed in as well, proving that he wasn’t all at sea, except perhaps with some of his colleagues at the Ministerial table.

It also made for this lively exchange between Opposition MP Maxwell Burgess and Transport Minister Dr. Ewart Brown.

Maxwell was stressing the education point.

“We need to devote more of our resources to teaching people right from wrong,” he said, “and not always be passing legislation that just punishes them for doing what’s wrong.” An attentive but amused Dr. Brown was prompted to interject from his seat. “That’s a novel idea,” he said — with all the sarcasm he could muster.

Well, said Maxwell — without missing a beat: “I know it may be novel to you, but it’s old hat to us.”Good mannersHAD it not been for the 12 members who did put their oars in the water — six from each side, Mr. Editor — we would have had a much earlier day after last week’s marathon. There was precious little else to keep us there: one Ministerial statement, this one from the Minister of the Environment, not on the rejection of HSBC building plans, but on the restoration of the Tulo Valley nursery, which we had read about and heard about in the news earlier in the week; plus an assorted number of congrats and obits which included effusive appreciation and thanks to the Speaker for the sumptuous annual dinner which he had hosted for Parliamentarians, current and past, and other assorted dignitaries, and others, last Saturday night at the Southampton Fairmont, some 12 hours after the House rose that morning with the sun but without breakfast.

It’s not only good manners but good practice, I think, Mr. Editor, to thank a hand that fed you — especially in the case of the Speaker who is after all the Man In Charge in the House on the Hill. Something concreteIT also helps to have a motion to adjourn, Mr. Editor. The Rules provide that each member can speak for up to 20 minutes on the issue or issues of their choice. The opportunity to do so at a reasonably early hour in the day was too good to pass up for several of us on the Opposition benches. Four of the more popular subjects — to us, Mr. Editor, not them — were Government’s failure to move on plans for a replacement hospital for the ageing King Edward; problems at the Post Office and still no new sub-office in Paget; and the overdue promises of new homes for those lottery winners at Southside.

Line of the day on this to Dr. Grant Gibbons: “The people are tired of all the promises and all the talk. They want to see something concrete for a change.”

However, the Premier always gets the last word on the motion to adjourn — and I want to thank him for drawing attention to an article which appears in the current edition of The Parliamentarian, a somewhat prestigious journal of Parliaments throughout the Commonwealth, which the Premier thought made the point better than he could, which was, he said, about the difficulty of meeting the expectations of the Opposition.

Turns out the article (printed below<$>) to which he was referring was one written by me — and I was referring to the expectations of voters, Mr. Editor, not the Opposition; although a good Opposition does gives voice to the expectations of voters when those expectations are not being met.

Oh well, I suppose that turnabout is fair play in the House on the Hill, Mr. Editor, where on occasion you do have to learn to take as good as you give.Nothing newTHE pace to legislation has not picked up any, Mr. Editor. On the contrary. No new Bills were tabled last week. While for some it continues to fuel speculation of an early election, it’s starting to look more and more like we will be stretching out the next couple of Fridays on one or two pieces of legislation and then cramming like you-know-what to complete a pile before we rise for the summer recess — which is to say that it also looks like nothing more than the sad and sorry same old, same old way of doing business in the House on the Hill.