Be careful what you wish for. Funny that, Mr Editor, but the admonition is probably best appreciated on hindsight.

I have in mind here PATI, the Public Access to Information legislation which became effective (finally) on April’s first, April Fool’s Day — and whether there was any significance to that date remains to be seen.

People have been asking me what I think about it: quite a lot, actually.

I was a long-time advocate from the Opposition benches, back when the PLP was in power. It couldn’t happen fast enough, as far as I was concerned — and I was concerned.

The public is best served when there are no secrets (and certainly no more than may be necessary, which has to be few); and best served when those in government who make decisions know that there can be no secrets, and that what they do in the dark will come out in the light of the day.

That’s the sunshine of public scrutiny (love that phrase, folks) which truly is the best disinfectant. It is also the key to good, scratch that, better governance.

I can’t say that I would have crowed the day it became operational. It had been in the works for far too long.

The call for PATI was first taken up by the PLP in 2003 which led to a discussion paper in 2005. The “discussion” seemed to last an awful long time, on any view. Contrast that with what happened in one of our offshore competitors, the Cayman Islands: they took a little over two years, if I recall, to go from an election promise to reality.

There was a time when we led the way on governance in dependent territories. Oh well, we are there now and PATI could well lead to a sea shift in the way we conduct our public business.

However, the proof won’t come in the pudding, but rather in the eating. How so?

I expect a good number of Bermudians were wondering as to the necessity and value of an Information Commissioner in the current economic climate (no Ag Show, etc) notwithstanding the recent news of her gracious voluntary reduction in salary.

There are also the hundreds of thousands of dollars that will be spent on the new bureaucracy PATI brings.

They are right to wonder, and they are not alone. A recent article in The New York Times, no less, highlighted the associated costs to the UK Freedom of Information Law headlined: “From A to Z (Asteroids to Zombies), British Just Want Facts.”

The second thoughts of former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair are featured. He was a long-time advocate starting from when he was in Opposition, who when he became PM piloted the legislation through the Commons. But it seems he changed his mind after a few years in power, claiming that the UK Freedom of Information Law (their PATI) utterly undermines “sensible government”.

Say what?

“Three harmless words”, he wrote in his memoirs of the UK Act. “I look at those words as I write them, and feel like shaking my head till it drops off my shoulders. You idiot. You naive, foolish, irresponsible nincompoop”.

Well, you can’t get any clearer than that — but maybe that’s to be expected from those who have to contend with requests for information.

His view was that it gave enterprising journalists another stick with which to beat his Government and that probing inquiries deterred colleagues from speaking their minds behind closed doors.

Two quick comments: (1) journalists are on the front-line and we expect them to lead the way on this — it’s their job and their role in a democracy; (2) and of course there is a price to be paid — there always is.

The NYT article made the point: best estimates for a period of one year showed that 48,727 requests for information cost around $20-million, based on an average 7.5 hours being spent on each individual request at a cost $430 to process each one.

Critics are quick to point out that there are other priorities on which the time and money could be spent: like seniors.

That’s to overlook the benefits. The law’s existence and its operation is meant to bring about a change in culture, away from secrecy and closed doors, and towards transparency and open government.

It was for instance how one UK journalist was able to spotlight how MPs abused parliamentary expenses. I think there’s little chance that will occur again.

The theory is that the right to information saves money because requests do uncover waste, and that, coupled with the threat of exposure, will deter extravagant spending.

It’s a theory that may prove hard to prove. We’ll see when requests start to roll.

I will forgive you for not holding your breath. The same theory is meant to justify an active, robust Public Accounts Committee and a far more searching annual Budget debate than is currently the case.

PAC should be leading the way (it may have an Opposition chair but the Government has a majority of members), and PAC should be on top of not just past expenditure but current as well.

As for the (yawn) Budget debate (which it isn’t), it should not be stymied by excessive Government briefs and reorganised to make it what it should be.

It is not just by legislation and words that we see commitment to open government, Mr Editor, it’s by deeds.