Dear Sir,

Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when ... well, you know the rest. I am writing today about the Pati legislation. This is the “Public Access to Information” Bill which was passed unanimously way back in 2010 by a Progressive Labour Party government and which finally came into effect in 2015 under a One Bermuda Alliance government.

This Bill progressed the island’s path towards a more open, accountable government, representing a milestone in government transparency. Well done, I say. So how did that go? It was received with high accolades at the time, and even Charles Davis, executive director of the US-based National Freedom of Information Coalition, remarked: “Everybody wins here except for those who wish to do the public’s business in the dark.”

Over the years, it is no secret that the media have regularly used Pati — thank you — and as a result we have plenty examples of eye-opening information on government spending, public contracts and sometimes questionable policymaking. So I say, when answers from the Government are not forthcoming, why not use Pati? I myself used Pati to get information for some of my Letters to the Editor. It is a valuable avenue that the people have available to them and it can provide us information on the activities of public authorities and the manner in which they make decisions.

Yes, democracy is a wonderful thing.

So when I read of the passing of the recent amendment to the Pati legislation — which puts search-time limits and fees on requests for public information — I was a little confused. Well, OK, annoyed. Can someone tell me which PLP government this is? The one that wants openness and transparency? Or the one that wants to discourage it?

I can tell you that the voting results on that Bill amendment tell quite a story. We had the opposition senators who voted no, the government senators voted yes, and then there were the independents who also voted yes, including some who felt the Bill took a step backwards on government transparency. Now, tell me how voting yes with a mindset such as that makes sense?

I am so tired of all the historical empty political promises when it comes to transparency and accountability on how the Government operates and spends our money. In 2017, when David Burt promised to beef up the powers of the Auditor-General's office so it could actually follow the taxpayers’ money spent, I was encouraged. That, among the many other laudable yet unfulfilled promises, was the one commitment to reform which I believed would be a key driver to government administration accountability.

Imagine an Auditor-General’s office that has a dedicated, paid, independent staff with the specific authority to track, investigate and report to the public on all those taxpayer dollars, which cannot be accounted for owing to missing government administration paper trails. So what about the existing Public Accounts Committee which has responsibility to resolve the Auditor-General’s concerns? It is useless, as far as I can see. Last I heard, it was underfunded and understaffed. But I digress.

You should know that in his very recent December 13 ministerial statement on the Pre-Budget Report for fiscal year 2025-26, Mr Burt as finance minister said that the Government expects to receive revenues of $187 million — conservative estimate — in 2025 from the new corporate income tax. He has promised to earmark some of these funds for many initiatives, including tax cuts, replacement of essential infrastructure and the launch of universal healthcare. Yet, the Government now deems it necessary to charge the public for information pertaining to how it spends our money. In essence, it will nickel-and-dime us for what is actually our right to know while providing a deterrent that helps to dwindle the number of public Pati requests.

In closing, I would suggest that every senator who voted yes to this Bill is forgetting or ignoring one glaring fact that stands out like a red beacon in the wilderness — it is the lack of public trust in our government administration. This trust is now at an all-time low, unsurprisingly, given the amount of damning and embarrassing fiscal policy information now out in the public domain.

How did we get that information? We got it because of Pati. This is why, especially now, the people are looking for even higher thresholds of transparency, certainly not lower.

So here we are. A step backward for the people’s right to know and a firmer grip on government secrecy, both being brought to you by an administration that constantly claims it is “building a fairer Bermuda for all”.

BEVERLEY CONNELL

Pembroke