A year later, the law has not been put on the books and no commencement date has been given.  There is no sign of “freedom of information act” preparation in any part of Government.

The PLP wants to be able to talk about PATI, but doesn’t want to comply with it.  While Bermuda has hummed, hawed and delayed, other countries have created their laws, implemented them, and even had time to improve them based on experience.

This leaves me wondering.  After 12 years in power are the PLP still this bad at leading Government?  Or do they have 12 years of constant circus they’d rather hide from PATI?

This allegation raises many glaring issues.  Among them it highlights that Bermuda needs real anti-corruption laws.  And we need to start taking the neglected official “Register of Interests” for politicians seriously.

However, the nascent law remains on ice and no timetable has been provided for implementation.

And I wouldn’t get your hopes up either.  I am told that this year’s budget includes a pittance for PATI.

Looks like they reset the dial again.  Is PATI a real commitment to transparency and accountability … or just a cyncial PR play?  In the same time that Bermuda has been humming and hawing, the Cayman Islands developed a law, implemented it, and now have several years of experience under their belt.

Waiting for PATI:  8 years and counting.

The reality is that Government has great masses of data that are not available to the public, either through reticence or the simple fact that Government does not remember it has them or doesn’t know how to make them available.

A look at the Government’s websites shows how far they have to go to take advantage of the Internet.

Meanwhile, the “real world” is jumping ahead.

• A local techie has started posting dribbles of Bermuda data online at http://decouto.bm/data/.
• And a group of “open data activists in the UK has just launched http://opencorporates.com/ to help people correlate company registrations with other databases that are openly available online.  They have started with the UK, Bermuda, and Jersey … aiming to show how the web of corporate relationships often spans international borders.  More information at the Guardian.

The NYT has an interesting article on India’s popular freedom of information access law pointing out that it may not have made a big dent in corruption, but it has given a powerful tool to citizens to resolve their complaints.

There is, however, a little warning from one of the law’s great supporters:

“But our accountability mechanisms are weak, and transparency has no purpose without accountability.”

I’d like to point out that PATI itself is not the end game;  it is just one step towards increasing the accountability of the budget-busting Bermuda Government.

Times change, and the PAC has unanimously voted to open its meetings to the public.  This is a very positive move.

The PAC is currently chaired by the UBP’s Bob Richards.  Other members include Patricia Gordon-Pamplin (UBP), Lovitta Foggo, Walter Lister, and Patrice Minors (PLP).

Thursday’s meeting is at 2.30 p.m. in the Senate chamber.

The PAC is tasked with reviewing the Government accounts and how they tie into expenditures approved by Parliament.  In general, government PACs are intended to focus on the adequacy of the accounts and on “value for money” rather than to comment on the merits of any particular policy.

In order to reinforce the transparency of this important step forward, the PAC should rapidly establish a website with a description of its duties, the schedule of its meetings as well as minutes, attendance records, and other documents related to its work.

UBP MP John Barritt then posed a question about several outstanding Parliamentary Questions that Government has so far chosen to ignore, relating to the controversial expansion of the Stonington/Coco Reef lease as well as the equally controversial Corporations takeover review.

The PLP frontbench quickly objected that the questions were out of order and the Speaker upheld the objection.

The message seems to be that we may have public access to information when the PLP Government feels like granting it.

The sooner the better.

For those interested, here are two successful examples of searchable parliamentary sites from the open source software world.  They do much to provide insight for voters into the workings of government, and to increase the transparency and accountability of the legislature.

• Canada – http://openparliament.ca/
• UK – http://www.theyworkforyou.com/

More transparency in the House dealings should improve the quality of debate, reduce the hotheaded bullsheet, and perhaps even raise attendance.

I still believe that meetings of the House and Senate should be video broadcast on Government’s costly CITV channel.

Let’s hope it incorporates the substantial feedback that was provided by both Bermudians and international experts in public access laws.

Meanwhile, the Cayman Islands Information Commissioner has launched a new website on their PATI law at http://www.infocomm.ky/

Take a look at it as a good example that small island country can introduce and operate a vigorous transparency regime without humming and hawing about it for years.

The MPs have had the draft since the House broke for summer recess last year, and one hopes the House will consider the changes as soon as possible.

The changes supported by both Barritt and Smith include:

• Provision for the election of Speaker by a secret ballot should there be more than one candidate
• An express requirement to attend meetings of the House unless excused by the Speaker
• A set Question Period of up to 60 minutes in length, after the period set aside for congratulatory and obituary remarks, in which questions may be asked of Ministers on issues of the day and without prior notice
• A time limit of up to 30 minutes per member after the lead member for Government and the Opposition have spoken on a bill – with provision to transfer time from one speaker to another if members wish
• The annual Budget debate to be extended by two further days
• The introduction of an electronic Hansard and other additional provisions for e-communication in the House
  

I support all of these amendments.  Given the importance of this years budget it is a pity that the House has evaded their adoption until, presumably, after the February 19 budget announcement.  And if you can’t get the full Hansard going, at least start posting the schedule, minutes, and draft legislation online.

It is also a dire shame that these proposals do not include opening up meetings of committees of the House – such as the Private Bills and the Public Accounts committees – to the public.  As the public legislature, all deliberations should be public!  This is not controversial:  open meetings are a staple of democracies around the world.  (Update:  I understand that the UBP strongly supports opening the committees but the PLP has resisted taking that step.  Why?)

It is ironic that Government wishes to “reform” the Corporations of Hamilton and St George in a great rush, but drags its feet on reform of its own House.  The Throne Speech talked about a project to tackle this in future with the aid of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.  Where’s that stand?  Or do we need another $800,000 American lobbyist to help us figure that out by July?

The PLP leadership refuses to allow the Public Accounts Committtee (PAC) of the House of Assembly to meet in public – an abberation among modern democracies.

And, it appears that the PLP members of the PAC are stifling its work by not appearing at its meetings, with a senior PLP member deriding it as simply “a talk shop.”

The PAC is the cross-party parliamentary committee tasked with scrutinising the spending of public money.  Its work is vital … particularly given the Bermuda Government’s spiralling budgets, skyrocketing national debt, and two years of audit Qualified Opinions.

I call on the Bermuda Government to open meetings of the Public Accounts Committee, and for all its members to actively participate.  It is irresponsible – and arguably unconstitutional – for the House of Assembly to neglect its duty to protect the public purse.  And the secrecy of the PAC’s workings allows the neglect and political games to continue.

“I wish to advise this honourable House that when I invite Cabinet’s further consideration of the bill it will contain a recommendation that it consider the issue of retroactivity.  Personally, I wish it to be clearly understood that I am in favour of retroactivity right back to the Sea Venture.”

If he supports retroactivity, then why did he – as the Minister responsible – propose a draft law that did not include it?

It’s positive that the PLP seems willing to correct this major shortcoming in the draft law.  Let’s hope that they also deal with the law’s loose handling of exemptions, it’s lack of whistleblower protection, and the negative resolution approach to removing public authorities from transparency under the law.

If the PLP is sincere in their Throne Speech commitment to “modernise the Legislature”, then the updating of the draft PATI law should be undertaken by a bipartisan committee of the House, rather than be decided solely within the confines of Cabinet.

Dr. Brown also announced that Government will kick off an internal review of Government’s record keeping practices – with a report due in mid-2010 – to help lay ground work for an eventual PATI implementation.