Interview with Premier Jennifer Smith, transcript.

How do you plan to spend your Christmas?

A: With my family as usual and friends...

Q: Are you taking work home with you?

A: I'm trying not to But I don't know. In fact I know I have some reading to do.

Q: Have you done all your shopping locally?

A: Not yet I do that on Christmas Eve, in spite of what your paper seems to try and announce...

Q: Which is that you did it abroad...?

A: I bought wrapping paper. I also bought cards.

Q: Do you get the sense that retailers are actually offering a better deal to locals?

A: Very much so...

Q: Since you made the call for them to reinvent themselves?

A: Well I don't know about that... they certainly are making an effort. I have had numerous comments about it from numerous people. So I'm aware of where there are sales and what's where. But I've had numerous calls from most people. I mostly give books.

Q: You mostly give books... ?

A: I mostly give books so I can assure whomever that Dame Lois' book of which I purchased a great number of in advance will be given out to many people... And they're usually local books. Some of the children will get Sidney the Sailboat from what I remember from what I've already got... I buy books all the time.

So I've got books for children. There's another one Tiny the Tree Frog...

Q: And they're normally local... ?

A: Yes I normally give out the local books - always.

Q: We know there's been an influx of new insurance business. And it doesn't seem likely to abate any time soon. Are there any plans going ahead to deal with possible stresses this growth might place on the Island's infrastructure...?

A: Well obviously, the plans are to remain as flexible as possible. In light of the fact that we do not know what the situation is... It's a changing scene, it's fluctuating all the time. And certainly we are always conscious of the impact on Bermuda's infrastructure, of the impact on housing, etcetera. We try not to be put in the position of making decisions independent of overall considerations. We like to look at things in total and work and operate that way. It does make for things taking a trifle longer. But it does in the end result in a better decision.

Q: I also wanted to talk to you about... going to the House the last few months, I've always wondered what politicians, especially leaders, what sense they have of what this country should stand for... Do you have a... ?

A: As soon as I know what the question is I'll try and answer it...

Q: If you could change Bermuda's motto what would you change it to?

A: I haven't given it much thought so I certainly can't answer it off the cuff like that?

Q: What do you think represents the soul of Bermuda?

A: The people I think everyone believes that. And what do I think of the people is that the question you would like to ask...?

Q: What do we all share as a country...?

A: What do we all share? I don't know that I would phrase it that way. I can answer the question what do I think of the people. But I don't know if I can say what we all share because somebody's going to come up and say I don't share that. But I think in general Bermudians are industrious. I think they are friendly, I think they are god-fearing.

And I think they are connected to the land in a way that makes them appreciate nature and appreciate the country in which they were born. And I think it is from this sense of appreciation that their friendliness, at least as reflected to visitors and others, comes out of that sense.

And I certainly can base that on the innumerable comments from almost anyone who's ever visited Bermuda... the first thing out of their mouth is about the people of Bermuda. And therefore my faith is in the people of Bermuda.

Q: That's our strength?

A: That's what I would say.

Q: Are you generally happy with the overall tone and tenor of parliamentary conduct?

A: And why would you ask that question?

Q: Well lately... Someone described her impressions as it being worse than a `hillbilly family feud.' There's an impression out there that there's too much rancour. What do you think?

A: Well you would have to first of all understand that my answer is based on the time I've spent in Government. I've been in the House since 1989 and was in the senate since 1980. So of course when I give a response, it is based on the fact that I've been there more than one year. Now I certainly can tell you without fear or fault that I certainly think the House was far more rancorous during the period of what was called by some... what was that period? Some people called them The People's Five and others called them something else...

Q: The Rebel Five.

A: The Rebel Five... That period stands out to me as far more rancorous than this period. And I can't help it if someone saw one comment which is a comment by one of my ministers which he knows was out of frustration about something that he knew and he felt that somebody was being duplicitous by saying something else in front of the House and so he finally revealed what he knew... That was one incident. This year, we've already been through almost 12 months... Well I'm sorry... I just don't, you know... because of one incident this House is far more rancorous than any other...

Q: I actually wasn't...

A: And if I thought back on any other issue, I don't really think there were any other incidents that high. But I certainly in context would not rate it as that period. And I know that those who have been in the House longer than I perhaps when I was in the senate would certainly feel that they had some periods... I can think of one when Harry Viera was there... when people like him and Dr. Stubbs... They've had some really - politicians would call it - `lively' debate.

And I know that those even older than them would remember far, far more livelier debates even earlier. Anyone like Mr. Gilbert who sometimes writes for the media or Mr. Smith who is a historian. Mr. Gilbert, because he is a former clerk and who certainly has seen his share... certainly can tell you and your readers of incidents, actual live events that happened that were far more outrageous than anything anyone has witnessed today.

I'm certainly not advocating a return to those years. Or a return to those kinds of actions. I'm just saying that my reaction, my response arises out of my sense of these events and of knowing that.

Q: It's good to know that... because I just wanted your perspective on this...

A: There were far... listen to me... far, far quieter, kinder, gentler? Even though the speaker may not feel so because it would be his first time in that position and in dealing with it. But certainly he also would remember many other instances. I don't want to identify them but let me say they were far more active and I would have thought far more disruptive of the House myself.

And in fact I would say even the term from `98 was certainly less rancorous than the previous term in which I think a lot of personal comments happened and I really don't see a lot of personal comments coming from this House. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I'm just saying I don't see a lot of it. I don't think it is characterised by that.

Q: Have you ever spoken to El James about his refusal to sign the register of interests?

A: Now that's one of those `have you stopped beating your wife yet?' questions.

Q: Is it...?

A: Yes. So I would ask you to rephrase that question.

Q: Well, Mr. James hasn't signed the register of interests...

A: Yes you can start at that, that's one - that's a statement, yes...

Q: Does it concern you that one of your parliamentary colleagues is breaching...

A: Again. Of course it concerns me. But I don't think that is a good question.

Q: Why not?

A: Does it concern me? Of course. Am I concerned that somebody doesn't eat three meals. How could I not be concerned ? But I don't know what you...

Q: Has it been addressed by...?

A: Excuse me... I don't know what you might think are the powers of a leader but I can assure you that they are not so wide and so total as to be able to order people about. It is not that kind of situation. I am sure you are aware, as well read as you are, that you are aware of the phrase in the UK that the leader is first among equals.

What it means is that everyone is responsible for their own behaviour, etcetera.

But that they agree to operate within a certain context. Now most people will realise that there are several ways in which discipline happens - particularly if someone is a member of another party. And therefore it's usually not the leader, it's usually from the organisation. Because the organisation agrees various things and the organisation takes action.

And those actions come in various ways. So to just ask me am I concerned. Yes, I'm concerned.

Do I think Mr. James should have signed it? The fact that I signed mine and the fact that all the other MPs signed it, should mean something to anyone who analysing the data - i.e. the Progressive Labour Party Government have signed 25 of their members (and their senators) have signed this document and one hasn't.

I can with pretty much 90 percent accuracy then determine that the Progressive Labour Party is in favour of this. After all they voted for it in the House. They comprised the committee. And in fact I can tell you and I'm sure Mr. Moniz can back this up

I supplied him with various information I collected in my I supplied him with various information I collected in my own travels that dealt with the matter so... we are in favour of this....

Q: I'm not doubting...?

A: No listen to me. We are in favour of it... So to come and ask me when someone hasn't signed do I think he should have signed it when - I can go back. Government has supported it. Government initiated the committee, Government has voted for it, Government has signed it and all the rest of us have signed it. To me it's self evident. But I answered you and said : Of course I'm concerned about it. But, that having been said, Mr. James is a grown man who makes his own decisions. Now, it is clear to me and perhaps it just wasn't clear to you, that Government is in favour of this. And the Government has supported it.

Q: I wasn't doubting that at all... I was trying to get a sense of...

A: Well, like everything else in life, it's not a hundred percent. That would not be unusual in any other realm.... In fact the person you should talk to is the speaker because I don't know what the committee or the speaker have set up as what they're going to do next because it was in a trial situation and I know that the Speaker is looking at it again because we did a trial period and now he'll look at it.

Q: The legislative program going ahead. What are some of the remaining platform promises that you are particularly keen to get through besides electoral reform?

A: Whatever is remaining that we've agreed to do. Some of the things we've changed our minds about. Some of the things we're not going to do.

Q: What have you changed your mind about?

A: Whatever we've changed our mind about we will say that to the people... at the right time.

Q: You're not ready to say it now?

A: I can't think right off hand exactly what it is. But I know that everything that is in there will not be done. I can't think just right now exactly what it is, but I know that not all of them will be done. Some of them are continuing. Some of them are five year plans. That means action has started but it has not ended (emphasised). And some of them say we will review and we've reviewed. Or we will examine and we've examined. So I will be able to input on all of those things.

But have I concentrated on that... I'm more concentrated on fulfilling than I am looking at the things that we've said `okay, that's ongoing, that's going to take a longer, that's here.' I'm looking at what has not been done and saying is this coming forward ? And so I'm not focussed where you seem to be focused on. I'm focussed on having as many things on my plus side as done, as possible. And I'm quite satisfied, according to your newspaper - your review - that we've done 75 percent of that. Quite pleased with that.

Q: But I'm just asking what's...?

A: I don't expect to reach a hundred percent. That's all I can tell you. If I had my platform in front of me, if I knew you were going to ask this question I would have gone through it page by page and be able to answer you. But I don't want to answer you straight out of my head because what will happen is someone will get the platform, open it up and say `oh you didn't say this or that' and I've not done... which is why I like to know sometimes - you know generally. You don't have to tell me word for word. But if I have some idea I can prepare.

Q: Is the party in really good shape? Is it in as good shape now that it was in 1998?

A: Oh of course. I think it's in better shape.

Q: There is some perception that there is an inner core leadership circle that is becoming somewhat increasingly alienated from the rank and file of the party supporters...?

A: I thought you would have learned from the last time you all tried to put that out?

Q :Meaning what...?

A: I came up through the party through the branches. I'm connected to the party - that's how I operate. And if someone wants to say otherwise, that's nothing to do with me. I believe in actions. I can point to various newspapers printed by your publication, pre - what's this year - 2000 pre our annual delegates conference in the year 2000, that said I was not supported by the rank and file prior to when I was challenged at the annual delegates conference for leader and now you're saying the same thing...

Q: I'm not saying the same thing...

A: Well you're saying there's a perception...

Q: No, I'm not saying that same thing...

A: What are you saying...?

Q: I'm saying there's the perception that there is an inner core of leadership that is somewhat alienated from the rank and file supporters of the party...?

A: And what did I say...

Q: And some backbenchers...

A: I said you made that same comment in the year 2000 prior to the party's annual delegates conference when I was challenged for leadership. That same comment was made in your publication.

Q: Are you saying there's not any disenchantment...?

A: That's not what you said `is there none'. You said, I will repeat for you exactly what you said - that there is a perception that there is a leadership inner circle that is not connected to the rank and file. That's what you said...

Q: That is becoming increasingly alienated...

A: Whatever you said - all of that. And I said you made the exact same comment in the year 2000 prior to the annual delegates conference.

Q: Is there a sense of alienation?

A: How can I answer what someone else has told you is their perception? You may ask me...

Q: Are you not aware of...?

A: You may ask me, wait a minute, you may ask me: `Am I in touch with the rank and file of my party?' Very much so is the answer. But I don't know of this leadership inner circle to which you are referring. Whoever supplies you with your information you need to go back and get more from them. But I would note and I can find your old papers and go down through them that all of your information has been proven quite wrong.

And I would think at some point that you're going to start to say as people do about informers - 90 percent of the information you bring me is erroneous so you stop listening to everything they say to you. But, you know,it seems that what they say to you is in keeping with your perception. Or perhaps your paper's perception and so it gets in.

Q: Is The Royal Gazette any better off - in terms of the relationship between the PLP and the newspaper?

A: I would have to ask the public relations officer if his relationship is any better. Now would you like to know the relationship with Government?

Q: I guess what I'd like to know is... there has been that perception in the past. I'm trying to figure out whether it's the same today?A: Whose perception are you talking about?

Q: Well from the PLP - The Royal Gazette has been considered the PLP's worst enemy.

A: Says who?

Q: For example Derrick Burgess.

A: I'm not named Derrick Burgess. You can't ask me somebody else's question. Okay ? You ask me about what I've said. I cannot answer for other people. And suppose - this is hypothetical - if I said I have a wonderful relationship with The Royal Gazette. That would not mean if another minister said he had a horrible relationship with it that he was being untrue. Or that he didn't agree with his leader. I mean you know, I'm sure that Ministers may have different relationships... So for you to say there's a perception - whose perception?

Q: Do you think, though, the Gazette is fairer now, toward the PLP as Government, than it has been in the past?

A: I really cannot answer that.

Q: You have no opinion?

A: I don't read the Gazette so I don't know. I often get tear sheets about those things that I need to know... So if you find me making a comment about something I've read, don't come back and say `you said you don't read the newspaper'. I don't read the newspaper... because I used to read the newspaper from cover to cover, I could even tell you what was on `Well, I Never' ... But I don't do that anymore. I see those things that I need to see.

Q: Is that time constraints?

A: Pardon?

Q: What's the reason for that?

A: I can't (laughing). I finally had to face up to the fact that I'm not going to get through the stack that I've been keeping trying to think I can get back to - I just literally cannot. And apparently nobody else really does that. I mean most people get what they need to see.

But because I'm a reader, I would read everything - I mean that's what I do. But I really cannot do that. It's not just your newspaper. I don't read any of them. I'm not even reading all of the magazines I used to read. I have a lot of work related reading to do.

Q: Can I ask you about the whole CARICOM initiative, I know you've explained quite a bit...

A: I have nothing further to add to what I've already said.

Q: Right. But my question is what are your objections specifically to having a bipartisan look at it?

A: We have already. Let me see, when was my first statement on this? The year 2000? And I have been following from the year 2000 to date the statements and sayings on... And in the year 2001 after I've said what Government is going to do somebody suggests this. Well, sorry it's too late and too little. It's unnecessary. Because the House is going to debate it and at that time if they have something to add they may add.

But I don't think we need to have both groups look at it. I mean, first of all, whenever I get information, that information is disseminated. Now if someone wants to say that I have information that I am keeping secret from them then I can't help that. The person is in fact calling me a liar.

But I have said that every-time I get information I've disseminated it. In fact I've set up a committee to disseminate the information.

And the reason they're not disseminating information is beAnd the reason they're not disseminating information is because they don't have it either.

As we're getting it - the latest thing that happened I made a statement in the House which was we got - what was that called, that came from the UK?

John Drinkwater: Letter of entrustment.

A: We got a letter of entrustment. That's the last thing that happened.

Q: Letter of what?

A: Entrustment. Don't look at me like that. I attached a copy of it to all the statements. So your people should have it.

Q: In your last statement to Parliament?

A : The last time I made a statement on CARICOM, it was on that and that was attached to the statement and it was given out to all...

Q: I'm not accusing you of not being...

A: I'm just letting you know. I'm just letting you know. Everytime I get information I hand it out. Because that's the whole point - I want people to be informed. I would certainly welcome...

Q: So the answer to the question `what's your objection to a bipartisan'

A: I don't have an objection. You see you start your question on a premise. And this is why I have my real difficulties with your questions. What's my objection - who said I have an objection to it? I voted against the Opposition's motion. Why did I vote against the Opposition's motion ? Because their motion came after Government had already said what they were going to do and it was a duplication of effort. That's why I voted against the motion.

Q: Quite clear... How likely is it that independence is going to be on the next general election platform?

A: I really have no crystal ball...

Q:You have no crystal ball...?

A: I don't. If you had asked me in August how likely is it that terrorists would have attacked the US and destroyed the World Trade Center I would have said unlikely. I don't know what the future holds so if I were to answer your question and say I think not I don't want your newspaper saying `the Premier said no and now blah, blah, blah...' - which is what happens. I don't know. I don't expect so but I have no crystal ball.

So you ask me a question which I've answered every-time you come. Maybe this is why you don't get to come. Because you ask the same question and you get the same answer. I mean it would be nice at some point to have some different questions. Yeah, because I've answered the question several hundred times. I usually try and keep it exactly the same way and therefore what I have to do for the next visit - and you're going to have a next visit - is take out your last interview, get a copy of it and just underline all my answers so I can give it to you again.

And I'll be all prepared.

Q: That wouldn't be an interview then, would it?

A: That's what I say. That's exactly what I say. That's exactly what I say. But I'm trying to bring the point home to you.

Q: But you made the point as well - things change. So asking you the same question at a different time.

A: What has changed about that ? What has changed about that? Tell me. What has changed that would change this Government's opinion of that question. What?

Q: I don't know...

A: What has changed of it?

Q: You're privy to a lot more information than I am.

A: As I said before. This Government puts out all the information it has. Now, if you don't think so, I can't help you - we do. So I have no information you don't have. And quite often you have information I don't have. So unless you are about to tell me something I'm unaware of, my answer remains the same.

Q: We've just celebrated the 20th anniversary of the Human Rights Act. And the point was made by the Minister that it was an evolving act. Now there are people who are wondering why in 20 years, there hasn't been an amendment that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

A: Well first of all I cannot answer for 20 years - we have been in power for three years.

Q: Right, absolutely. Okay. So my question is then...

A: Yes, let me hear your question.

Q: Is there likely to be that amendment?

A: I can't answer if there is likely to be that amendment. But what I can say is the area of human rights, as the Minister said, is an evolving one. And I certainly know that the Minister and those concerned with human rights are looking at various issues. In fact I know that the Attorney General, I believe it was last year, maybe it was this year, attended a meeting on human rights. So I would have to find out where they are on that. But I certainly don't know in detail what is going on.

But I do know it is a constantly evolving area - I know that they are attending meetings where they are discussing human rights. I know that they are constantly looking at making sure that Bermuda is very forward thinking with our human rights. But in answer to Your particular question I cannot answer that. Certainly, I would have thought that, in terms of equity, that if you were concerned about the fact that for 20 years something has not happened, you would have asked people who were there for 17 of those years.

Q: Yes.

A: So I guess I would see you doing that and I'll make sure somebody gives me a copy of that one.

Q: I'll forward you a copy of it. But I have been asking. It seems that - my perception is that it's a sensitive issue and nobody wants to touch it - there's a sense that the church has a lot of power in public policy. That's not a question but...

A: No you're not asking a question. You made a statement - raising your voice at the end of a statement does not make it a question.

Q: Is that a fair comment on the way Bermuda politics has gone about its business dealing with issues such...

A: I cannot answer that question. You talk about Bermuda politics and it's clear to me often when you mention it that you're not talking about Progressive Labour Party Government - you're talking about someone else. And yet you want me to respond. You can. Our Progressive Labour Party Government's politics were outlined for you all to see in our platform and have been followed since then. I think they show that we are concerned about the social well-being of the country and of our people. Areas where there needed to be things done that's where we turned our attention. Certainly we haven't righted all wrongs and corrected all injustices in our three years. Nor should we be expected to - correct all our injustices in our three years. If you really want to know anything about the party, go and look at the legislation we've presented and passed from year one to date, and you'll be able to talk about (inaudible).

Q: CURE is very important to you.?

A: Why are you saying that?

Q: I'm making an assumption, actually. Is it?

A: Everything in Government is important to me so start there. So you can't single out one. If you want to single out any area of Government, everyone knows it's education. So don't single out anything else.

Q: Let's talk about education, then. Is there...

A: I'm not going to talk about education because we have a new Minister who is coming to grips with her new ministry very quickly and who has a number of ideas and plans.

Q: I just want to ask you simply - given the status of education now, a lot of teachers I've spoken to consider there's a crisis in public education. Is that over stretching the point?

A: Now you start with a statement and then you change it. Give me your question again from beginning to end.

Q: Would it be overstating the point to say that public education is in crisis?

A: I think so. Yes.

Q: Would you say... How would you characterise it?

A: You have to make sure everybody has the same opinion or the same definition for the word crisis. I don't call it a crisis. What someone else may consider a crisis I don't consider a crisis. So you can't have me comment on somebody else's feeling. You can ask me what I think but it cannot be a comment on what some other people think. You can ask me what I think but it cannot be a comment on what other people feel. Because everyone defines crisis differently.

Q: I am asking you what you think.

A: I would not define it as a crisis. I would not define it as a crisis. I am not responding to the fact that you said a number of teachers have said. Let's get that clear. Is that clear?

Q: Yes. Absolutely

A: So the headline's not going to say `Premier disagrees with teachers...'?

Q: No...

A: Because first of all one tends to have a different viewpoint when one deals with something on a day-to-day basis.

Q: Absolutely...

A: So I'm not arguing their viewpoint. I `m doing it from the point of someone who is dealing with an overall government. Would I say that it's in a state of crisis? I would not say so. And I would talk about why I wouldn't say so - not why somebody else says it is. And one of the reasons I don't say so is I know the different attitude to education that this Government has brought into the administration. And that's one of the reasons I say that. And that's an attitude of working with the teachers and working with schools to correct the remaining problems. We didn't find education in a 100 percent healthy state and then take it to where they're in crisis today. What we found was an education system where when we came in, hundreds of students were being suspended from school, fights were taking place down at the bus terminal in Hamilton, shoplifting was on the rise, store owners were complaining to the media, there was widespread truancy. all kinds of things. Now I happen to know from where I sit.

Q: Was it in crisis then?

A: I happen to know from where I sit that truancy is down, greatly, you got a statement on that. I happen to know that - I don't believe I've heard you say anything about the bus terminal in Hamilton and student fights for some time. Remember I don't read it so nobody's giving me any clippings to say this is the case, But I don't know about any store owners complaining about widespread shoplifting from students coming in their shops after school in their uniforms and doing things. I haven't heard about that. Are their still students who (inaudible), yes, we've not completed everything. But I happen to know by measurable standards there's been improvements. There's been improvements in attendance. There's been improvements even in the academic, based on the things that have been incorporated in the system. They may be tiny, little measurement steps, but it is progress nonetheless. And so, yes, if you want to call me a Pollyanna, then I'll be called a Pollyanna. I looked at what was and have there been improvements - are we all the way? No. We're not all the way. Do I think it's fast enough for people who have been waiting 20 years? Of course not. But is it the best that we can do? Yes. Because as much as I'd like to be I'm not a miracle worker. And I don't believe anyone is. But because we are approaching it from a very human viewpoint of trying to change what had been entrenched, and things that were widespread we have I think a realistic measure of how much progress we can make.

Q: Communications. You hired a communications consultant. Can you tell us what kind of results have been delivered ? or what kind of positive changes have been made generally...?

A: Well, it's still ongoing. It's still ongoing. I've told you that he's come to help us with the change we wanted to do concerning the Government and our communications system. We've had a review of that system. We have a plan. I don't think they have as yet hired a new director, have they Mr. Drinkwater?

Drinkwater: I don't think so.

A: I know they have a new plan. I guess, looking to staffing it up. You're not going to see, I don't think, the changes you're looking for until the department has been properly staffed to do the service that we expect. But do we have a plan? Yes.

Q: What are the key elements of that plan?

A: Of the top my head? I cannot tell you because I do delegate things and I'm not the one looking at all of that. Did I read it ? Yes. After I read it I passed it on.

Q: Did anything jump out at you?

A: No. Well what jumped out is it's where I think it should be - it's going to reflect the current communications arena, which is this electronic media - you'll all get your stuff digitally, I understand. So it's going to be a service that will service Government's needs but it also has to be realistic and be able to provide what is taken. I think, based on the assessment, that it was very much a department which was created in response to a no longer existing media situation, i.e. primarily press - print media. And I don't think it's been changed in its delivery from that time. So the change will be current. I mean telecommunications has changed a lot of things.

Q: A more modern...

A: I'm not talking about modern - in terms of being able to deliver what is realistic. In terms of being able to deliver what is realistic, in terms of being able to work with Government departments etcetera.

Q: Is there a problem with the parole board. What we're hearing is - and I haven't been able to get the Minister to actually respond to this. But...

A: Isn't the parole board new?

Q: Yes, it's fairly new but it hasn't met yet.

A: Yes isn't it new. It was just set up.

Q: In October...

A: Right. Didn't we just have a change in Ministers? Right. I don't know of any problems but I certainly know it's a new board that I expect to be set up and start to take effect. When all the boards normally do. So if you have information, and you want me to respond to you have to give me the information first. You can't ask me a plain question.

Q: I guess the question is it was expected that they would have met by now...

A: Oh no. Who expected that?

Q: Prisoners who are up for parole... and their advocates.

A: Sorry. Obviously, one would think that if you were talking to them you would say to them, yes that may have happened in October under the other Minister but also on October 29? I changed the Ministers so obviously there's been a change. And furthermore we also normally do boards in December so if you bring in somebody new to start in November then you do give them an opportunity to reflect on their post. So I don't know exactly what's happening. I would imagine if there was some difficulty then the head of the prisons would have spoken to his PS and then his Minister and they would have worked something out because prior to that you only had a Treatment of Offenders Board, you didn't have a parole board. And it was an attempt to make that whole system work better that it was set up. I'm sure that's what affected it.

Q: Absolutely - it makes sense now that we have an answer. But...

A: What you mean now that we have an answer? I could have thought of that myself. I could have said, `in October, wait a minute what happened in October? Ministers were changed'. Have you been called by the head of the prison to inform you, because Ministers are not dealing with everything. There are several ways for you to ask a question like that. And I certainly won't deal with it unless a Minister brought it to me.

Q: Well I guess it all boils down to communication and accessibility.

A: So you couldn't reach the permanent secretary...?

Q: I did. he never got back to me.

A: Then you should have faxed him the questions. You should have gone to GIS...