Government is being urged to rethink its draft freedom of information bill by critics who say its lack of retroactivity is "nutty", "disturbing" and could render it a "useless" law.

The proposed public access to information (PATI) legislation would not allow taxpayers to request information created by central government or other public authorities before the date it goes on the statute books.

Government describes the bill, which could go before MPs in the next parliamentary session, as "forward looking" but experts told The Royal Gazette it was unusual for a transparency law not to be retrospective.

Freedom of information laws in the US and the UK, as well as many other democracies around the world, are retroactive, meaning citizens can ask for access to any records held by government, regardless of their creation date.

Lucy Dalglish, executive director of US organisation Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said: "The fact that they are doing this kind of astonishes me. I think that's kind of nutty.

"I can't think of anybody's law that works this way. There might be some, but none of the laws I have ever worked with do."

She added: "That seems to me like it gives a free pass to anyone in government who in the past may have screwed up. It will completely block any oversight of [previous] government operations."

Natasha Bodden, acting freedom of information coordinator in the Cayman Islands, which passed an FOI law in 2007 — the only British Overseas Territory to have so far done so — confirmed that its legislation was retroactive.

"It applies to all records that are in existence," she said. "You can ask for anything, whether it was created last year, 20 years ago, ten years ago, whenever. That is international best practice."

Premier Ewart Brown announced in a televised address on Thursday that the draft bill was online at www.gov.bm and that public feedback was being sought. The proposed legislation — aimed at making central government and other public bodies more open and accountable — comes six years after the PLP Government first promised an FOI law in its 2003 Throne Speech.

This newspaper's A Right To Know: Giving People Power campaign has called for such a bill since January 2008.

Dr. Brown did not answer questions yesterday about why the proposed law lacked retroactivity and why no deadline date was given for public feedback.

Yesterday, organisations across the Island, including the Human Rights Commission, Amnesty International and the United Bermuda Party, tentatively welcomed the draft bill but said they wanted to study it in detail.

Opposition MPs Grant Gibbons and John Barritt said at first glance the lack of retroactivity was a major concern.

Former UBP leader Dr. Gibbons said: "The fact that the draft bill specifically excludes access to records prior to the coming into operation of the legislation is disturbing and would appear to seriously undermine the credibility and purpose of the bill.

"The lack of retroactivity also seems to be at odds with best practice established in other jurisdictions and hopefully will be removed following public consultation and before the bill is formally presented to the House."

Mr. Barritt, Opposition spokesman for legislative and public administration reform, agreed that the law needs to be retrospective. "[It's] very important and also very critical to any FOI law which is to be meaningful."

Local transparency campaigner Michael Hardy said: "The fact that the act is not retrospective makes it completely useless."

Justice campaigner and human rights advocate Carol Shuman said: "The legislation looks a bit weak, I suspect. However, that takes nothing from the fact that at present it's non-existent."

Newspaper columnist and journalist Tom Vesey said of the bill: "Overall, I like it a lot. It seems like a pretty sincere piece of work. After all these years, this is tremendous step forward for Bermuda.

"It won't guarantee openness and honesty and understanding in Bermuda public life but it's an essential ingredient."

He added: "I can see serious bureaucratic problems, especially for a small place, if it applies retroactively. And there might be some justified complaints that people shared information with government officials, or government officials recorded information, that they would never have done if they hadn't assumed it was confidential forever. On the other hand, it could cover up a lot of wrongdoing too!"

Attorney General Kim Wilson said she was pleased to see the draft bill, which she described as a "very detailed piece of legislation which was extremely time consuming in its preparations".

"Part of the said preparations required thorough scrutiny of legislation from several jurisdictions in order to produce the best model for Bermuda," added the Justice Minister. "As public access to information is both an essential part of modern government and a necessary tool to achieve inclusive governance, I am confident that PATI will prove to be a great benefit to governments and citizens alike."

Governor Sir Richard Gozney said: "I join others in welcoming the Bermuda Government's initiative and look forward to following the debate which is now likely."