Mid Ocean News (28 Oct. 2005)
UBP MP John Barritt's 'View From the Hill'
LIKE you, Mr. Editor, I am never surprised by the growing number of people who seem to have the answer to our problems, but not the solution. Independence for Bermuda, and those who push for it, appear to fit comfortably into that category. BIC included. Let’s go to the Report for an example of what I am talking about. This time it is about the way in which we govern ourselves – or, more accurately, the way in which we allow ourselves to be governed. The passage to which I am referring is found in a chapter entitled “Findings of the Commission” in a short section headed “Political”:
“The Westminster style of government has served Bermuda well; however, the challenges facing Bermuda today demand a change in this inherent adversarial approach”.
We could quibble about the use of the word “style”. But I think we know what BIC meant. It’s the system – and the Westminster system of parliamentary government is decried because, in the eyes of the Commissioners, the political parties (I assume they mean both PLP and UBP) spend too much time in the Legislature trying to score political points, and, further, according to BIC, the fundamental issue of what’s right or wrong for the country takes a back seat to the political balance sheet.
Strong stuff, Mr. Editor – and who am I to disagree? But the criticism is not new. We have it heard before – for some long numbers of years in fact, and not just under the PLP but the UBP as well. Speaking for myself, I think we do not spend enough time actually debating the issues of the day: too much time and effort in the House of Assembly has long since been given over to the laborious reading of lengthy statements and prepared briefs by Government Ministers. This worst trait is best illustrated when the annual Budget rolls around in February when you can see for yourself just how choreographed and predictable and tedious debate has become. But I digress. Back to the Report and the Commissioner’s recommendation:
“The challenges facing Bermuda today require that there be a change in this style of governance.”
A change in the style of governance: what’s that got to do with independence, Mr. Editor? Nothing, in my view. But as long as we are on the subject let me make a few of my own observations and, yes, this won’t be the first time I have gone on about the need for parliamentary reform in Bermuda. We can change the way in which we govern ourselves now. We don’t have to wait until independence. All we need is the will to change and a willingness to act. But the PLP Government has shown itself to be steadfastly uninterested, if not flat out against any suggestion of parliamentary reform. Attempts to bring about reform in the House of Assembly have either been rebuffed or allowed to languish without action within the Rules and Privileges Committee, a committee headed by the Speaker and controlled by a PLP majority.
This isn’t rocket science. Nor is it radical surgery. We have fallen well behind the modern practices and procedures of other parliamentary jurisdictions whether they are to the west of us, the east, the north or the south.
Meanwhile, selected local parliamentarians traipse off annually on all expenses paid trips to conferences and seminars organized by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, of which Bermuda is a member, where they are exposed to presentations on changes and improvements which have been made to the Westminster system of government, all of which have been designed to bring about and have brought about better governance.
But here, we continue to ignore the value of standing committees, comprised of members, backbenchers, from both sides of the House, who can monitor and investigate and, where appropriate, expose goings-on in Government. Here we continue to hold fast to holding meetings of committees behind closed doors. We are not just out of step with modern parliamentary practice either. We are falling behind because our Government chooses not to join us in moving forward.
Independence wouldn’t change a thing.
Try exasperation
What is it that BIC recommends in place of the Westminster system? Well, nothing, as far as I can see from their Report, except maybe independence. It isn’t at all clear. But we do get is a waffled discussion on “perceived scandals” and an oblique suggestion that maybe what we need is “a code of ethics”. I quote:
“Political leadership should exhibit the core values of any community. The mainly White-held view questioning Bermudian (Black) ability to govern may have been exacerbated by a series of perceived scandals. Whilst it is appreciated that at least some of these issues might have been politically exaggerated, the perceived failure of the country’s leadership to quickly and decisively embrace a national code of ethics for the governance of Bermuda, only serves to reinforce this fear. This sentiment is contributing to the negativity on the issue of independence. It is encouraging to note the PLP submission suggesting a code of ethics, and the Premier’s subsequent comments on this matter.”
That’s quite the mouthful, Mr. Editor. Exacerbation? Exaggeration? Why not try exasperation?
First, for someone who looks like me, and sounds like me (and I mean that in the ordinary sense of the words so there’s no need to spend four or five days scrambling through the collected works of William Shakespeare, Oscar Wilde - or Shaggy for that matter – to figure out what I mean), I am familiar with the criticism. I think I understand it: I pause. I reflect. I move on. I also have a constitutional duty to perform as a member of the Opposition.
The facts remain the facts.
Perceived scandals? Now there’s a kinder and gentler way of approaching some of the bigger problems generated by the PLP Government during their tenure – and I will come on to my list of them shortly. Perception doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true, I guess, and on top of that, BIC wants to explain some of them away as “politically exaggerated”.
Really, Mr. Editor, you have to stop and wonder where we would be without the Westminster system and the opportunity to try and air these matters in Parliament. Doesn’t anyone around here pay attention to, if not read the reports of the Auditor General? I am not just talking about the findings of his special reports into the Bermuda Housing Corporation (the one which we could not even mention in the House of Assembly for months and months and months because there was an on-going police investigation), or into the construction of the new Berkeley Institute, or the Stonington lease fiasco.
There was his most recent report of Government finances for the financial year 2003/2004 and this disconcerting, if not damning summary of what the Auditor General has found:
“The number of apparent or alleged frauds and misappropriations that have come to light in recent years in Government entities concerns me greatly. I worry lest it indicates a growing culture of opportunism or dishonesty by some in the public service.”
It ain’t a pretty picture, folks.
Speaking of the office of Auditor General, and the need for a change in the style of governance, Mr. Editor, BIC was conspicuously silent in its Report on the continued role on the need for an independent Auditor General in an independent Bermuda. Their silence was all the more curious in the face of the recommendation of the PLP in its submission that the Auditor General be appointed for a limited term of six to ten years by the Public Service Commission. If you ask me (and even if you don’t) this isn’t the sort of independence we need if we are going to improve on not just the style but the substance of governance in Bermuda.
A code of ethics? That must be a joke. The reasons are twofold: (1) The PLP shared with the Commission the contents of a 1995 Policy Paper (on Independence no less) in which one of their stated commitments was to “Establish a Code of Ethics for Cabinet Ministers”.
I kid you not. Now that they have actually been in power for seven years, and in a position to implement and apply such a code, nothing, nada, zip – and no further mention of it either in the PLP’s written submission to BIC, no explanation, no promise to pursue. (2) The Commission, having raised the issue, then sidesteps it by seeming to actually compliment the PLP by telling us that they were encouraged by the “Premier’s subsequent comments”.
As to what those comments were, and whether they were transmitted in person or by email, we don’t know. They were not reported – at least not in my copy of the Report. But, Mr. Editor, would it have made any difference if they were? Independent thinking I repeat Mr. Editor: we don’t need to be independent to bring about this sort of meaningful change. What we need, what we could use around here, is more critical, independent thought.
News to boot
We could have used some independent, critical thinking on two other issues that caught my eye in the BIC Report.
The first was this finding of BIC at page 9 of the Report: “Bermuda is a non-self-governing territory administered by the United Kingdom”. Non-self-governing, huh? Sounds like a pretty absolute description to me – and news to boot. What we do learn later in the Report is that we are non-self-governing, according to the definition supplied by the U.N., which BIC is happily prepared to swallow whole, notwithstanding the precedent and practice which has built over the years, which has seen Bermuda come to enjoy a large degree of internal self-government. In the face of that, BIC offers up the following justification: -
“The U.K. Government could revoke part or all of Bermuda’s Constitution at its will, without consultation with the Bermuda Government, and effectively rule through the U.K. Parliament”.
Yup, and if pigs had wings, Mr. Editor, they would fly, but they make unlikely birds. The second instance has to do with the comments on education.
I quote from page 39 of the BIC Report:
“The success of education today is judged largely on academic achievement. Of equal value, is the importance of individual self-worth, of core values and of a national ethic. As long as a society values insurance professionals over carpenters, bankers over teachers, or lawyers over hotel workers, it establishes a caste system, a system that erodes the self-worth of some in the community”.
I have never been the Minister for Education, nor have I ever been the Opposition spokesman for Education, but speaking as a parent and someone who works for a living, I suspect that we owe it to our children to ensure their self-worth comes from academic achievement, and in particular from a strong grounding in the fundamentals no matter what occupation or living they pursue.
We need greater not less emphasis on the need for academic achievement. We really need to be preparing our children for the real world in which Bermuda and Bermudians will compete, Mr. Editor, independent or not.
