That was a pity about PATI, Mr Editor: one of the first public steps to see the light of day and it was very much a misstep – and that’s putting it mildly. It went beyond the usual foot in mouth when the identity of a PATI user/requester was revealed publicly. A Cabinet minister, no less, breached that key provision on the floor of the House.

Okay, sure, there was the subsequent apology for what was termed an inadvertent mistake, but by then the damage was done. The bell cannot be unrung.

There are implications. First, the legislation is pretty clear. The identity of those who make requests cannot be disclosed; at least not publicly, unless the person who made the request consents. This is for good reason.

Inquiring minds are meant to feel free (as in comfortable) to ask questions and seek answers without fear of either exposure or recrimination of any sort, and any person who “knowingly” contravenes the Act may be liable to prosecution. For those who didn’t appreciate the point, they do now, I bet.

The independent Information Commissioner has already expressed her concerns — as well she should. I share those concerns. The Commissioner is in charge of PATI and responsible for its implementation and development. The Commissioner has launched her own investigation — and rightly so. PATI is in its early stages and the findings as well as the outcome of that investigation will be crucial not only to the integrity of PATI, but its future credibility. I don’t think that is overstating the case either.

The pity is that people to this point may have gotten the wrong message. The last thing they want to know is that their names, and not just their requests, may be made known to a minister and, by extension, to those who sit collectively around the Cabinet table. But the temptation to know and reveal may be too great. That certainly appeared to be the case when the MP who made a request was named in the House.

His name was obviously dropped to advance some point — and at best, as far as the listening public could tell, it appeared to have been offered up as some sort of justification for avoiding a set of parliamentary questions; in effect, to stonewall, if you will pardon the expression.

An unsympathetic public may think this no big thing. They are, after all, big boys and girls up there on the Hill who are quite capable of taking care of themselves and can (and do) give as good as they get. But that’s not the point. The point is legislatively mandated confidentiality appeared to have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.

It was an MP this time. People may well wonder what exposure they will suffer should they seek information that reflects badly on the government of the day.

Happily, there are those for whom this will not be an issue. Bless them. Like the Take Back Our Park group, which is fighting to save the Botanical Gardens from over-development.

Kudos to the group for showing us how PATI can be put to effective use. They were told that “numerous studies” had been undertaken before determining that the Botanical Gardens was the most suitable location for a new maintenance yard complex: a 20ft domed water tower, two new buildings, a water truck filling station, a vehicle/truck washing station, a training room and storage facilities.

So the group asked for copies of those studies, specifically for reports on environmental impact, noise and visual impact, as well as for any financial analysis on site comparison. They told us that they were told that no such information was on file at Planning. Go figure.

That was also an incredible tell. If there are such reports — and there ought to be — then they should be with Planning and available for all to see and review.

There are literally thousands of us who have been this way before. Some years back, someone, somewhere, came up with the harebrained idea we could build the new hospital in the Botanical Gardens.

I was the MP for the area. We were told it was not possible to build it on the current site: but that’s another story, but worth remembering mind you. What was the story (and still is) is that the Botanical Gardens is meant to be protected parkland (by statute) where development, if necessary, is to be very limited, both in nature and in scope.

I am not surprised that the group’s petition has gathered more than 3,000 signatures — and, in the spirit of PATI, I disclose an interest, Mr Editor. Mine is one of those signatures. You know the name.

And PS, to REALIST, thank you: if the cap fits, wear it.