By John Barritt

Consultation, Mr Editor, I am all for it. Our people deserve the opportunity to be engaged on the issues of the day and the difficult decisions facing their government. I would even go so far as to say that as voters they are entitled. Attempts this week are therefore welcomed. They are steps in the right direction. But they are only steps and whether it is a question of too little too late — or more accurately perhaps, too much too late in the day — remains to be seen.

But what it does point up once again is what we really need is to make the process of consultation more than just an occasional feature of our system of government but rather a requirement that becomes a routine part of how we conduct public business.

Consultation should not be ad hoc, something which may or may not happen and which depends on the grace and favour of the government of the day or of any particular Minister. It needs to be embedded in our governance procedures and practices so as to make the process of consultation not only routine but genuine and meaningful.

It can easily be done. All that is required is the political will to make it happen.

I return to the theme of making better and more effective use of the backbench, both the Government and Opposition MPs; and given our limited numbers, senators too. There ought to be a standing committee whose job it would be to scrutinise any and all legislation coming to the Legislature. Call it the legislative consultative committee for want of a better term. Its chief role would include:

* Posting proposed legislation and policy changes on the parliamentary website for review and comment by the public at large.

* Holding public hearings where appropriate at which policymakers and draftsmen can explain in ordinary language what they are trying to achieve and why as well as answer questions arising.

* Inviting interested parties to make submissions whether stakeholders or interested members of the public.

The one obvious drawback to proceeding this way is the time this could take. But to that, I would point out:

* There often periods of time when the Legislature is not meeting, as for instance when they are on recess, which is currently the case, having gone down in mid-July but not scheduled to resume until the first week in November. That’s 16 weeks by my count.

* Convention on the Hill also dictates that legislation is not taken up until two weeks have elapsed following its introduction.

I don’t know about you, but that seems like time enough for more structured and deliberate consultation than we currently have.

It is worth the effort in my books; and it isn’t just about going through the motions for the sake of political genuflection so any one party or government can tick the box of having been there and done that. This is a matter of giving people the opportunity to be engaged on a regular and continuing basis. Coincidentally, and most importantly, it also provides a means to build trust, by actually trusting voters and giving them the opportunity to have their say.

This is critical when it comes to the more controversial and divisive decisions Government decides to tackle whether they be the SAGE recommendations in the form of public service reform, privatisation or mutualisation, and/or changes to work permit policies, PRCs and status. The list is not exhaustive. But this sort of approach is key if collaboration is to stand any chance of success: our parliamentary representatives must take the lead on this and convert consultation into standard operating procedure and make it an integral part of their job on and off the Hill.

There is a practical benefit too. It never hurts to measure twice before cutting.

A short postscript to last week’s column: one reader thought I was being a mite harsh when including the Bermuda Tourism Authority in my list of bodies that ought to be under the parliamentary microscope. BTA has only just gotten off the ground. But that misses the point. Parliamentary oversight by backbenchers ought to start right from the start so we all get to learn and evaluate going forward.

We don’t need to repeat past mistakes. On the contrary. We should be learning from them as we go. I have said it before, and I will repeat it again, the shame is that just this sort of examination is missing when it comes to public private partnership that delivered our new acute care wing on Point Finger Road.

It isn’t only a question of holding these bodies to account. The transparency that flows from a public accounting educates and informs the wider debate that voters are being asked to consider when it comes to schemes that are advanced as ways of making our government more effective, efficient and economical.

As mother used to say: you start off on the wrong foot, don’t be surprised if you end up on the wrong foot — or in Government’s case, the back foot.

Readers are invited to share your views s on The Royal Gazette website or write jbarritt@ibl.bm.