by Rick Lowe
On Second Thought was a weekly column this blogger wrote for The Bahama Journal from July 7, 1998 through September 7, 1999. Some of them might be dated by now, but I republish them here for what they are worth.
On second Thought! August 31, 1999.
Laws bloody laws
One of the most important principles of Parliamentary democracy is to ensure that Members of Parliament are accountable to the people by whom they were elected. (FNM Manifesto ’92).
In recent years we have had an unending flow of new or revised legislation. Unfortunately there is little public discussion of the contents. In fact, I submit that our Government now discourages public discussion!
The Minimum Labour Standards Act has been circulated several times among a “select committee” appointed by the Government to make recommendations. Copies had to be “leaked” to various people in the private sector to get different opinions. A new seat belt law is apparently about to be tabled. An “appointed” group too supposedly vetted this. I work in the automotive industry and our association has not been asked for comment. A community service bill was presented to Parliament and the Senate. I wonder how many people actually offered comment. What about the new Police Act?
The list goes on and on, and I would be willing to bet that a handful of appointees decided what is best for all of us. I do not wish to detract from the valuable effort the citizens who committed their time and effort to review these laws made, but what I find objectionable is the secrecy that surrounds this process.
What I find even more offensive is that my Government committed to “Circulate simplified drafts of pending major legislation to stimulate public discussion” and this is not being done. Presumably the legislation presented to date has not been “major” or committee’s sworn to secrecy represents the “public discussion.”
Although I am no expert on the proceedings of the House, I understand that any document presented to Parliament is available to the public. Just try to get one. Even the Agenda of the business to be conducted by our “Representatives” is not available. Unless my interpretation of what “available” means is incorrect.
A perfect example of the code of secrecy
Numerous companies I am familiar with were recently asked to provide monetary support for the launching of a new bill that is about to be presented to Parliament. Being presumptuous I called the relative department and suggested that in order to solicit support for an effort like this, a copy of the proposed legislation should be provided.
The reply was, shall we say…interesting. The gist of the response was that a copy could be sent to me but I could not provide copies to anyone. Of course I indicated that I would provide copies to all and sundry because I feel it is important that people are aware of what their Government is considering. Aghast the gentleman explained that he appreciated my honesty but Cabinet has not authorised the release of this information to the public.
In retrospect I should have immediately attempted to reach the Minister responsible to ask for a copy but I decided to pass on this one.
If Cabinet is supposed to be representative of the community surely there should be no problem with circulating draft copies of legislation to receive input from the wider community…not only from those whom they favour at the moment or the special interest group of the day.
How many laws are beneficial?
When I retire I think I will attempt to count the laws that exist on our books to determine how many of them are actually beneficial…not to mention the cost to administer the bureaucracies created. Evidence from all over the world suggests that the fewer laws the better.
Another quagmire created is when laws are left open to wide interpretation. These are dangerous and seek to erode the freedoms we have grown accustomed to. They may answer a political need today but they will surely be used to prevent legitimate transactions in the future. This could happen because of a personality clash or the unintended interpretation by a bureaucrat or judge that may not have been privy to the reasons for establishing the law in the first place.
The unintended results of over regulation
We have come a long way in recent years, let’s not fall back into the cloak of secrecy that surrounded the former administration. We promised a free flow of information and accountability and we should deliver. Being open is not easy, but it certainly beats hiding behind laws that only serve to make people believe that the Government is taking care of them…and do little else. We cannot continue to make excuses for our moral failures.
Walter Williams summed it up this way in a column in December 1994 titled Leviathan Run Amok. I would suggest the FNM consider his opinion when passing all the laws they are processing. Just as ever increased import tariffs cause people to violate them, they may eventually turn law-abiding citizens against the government they elected.
“Republicans should take a hard look at Washington’s regulatory apparatus. One criterion for abolishing regulatory laws is to ask first whether they are constitutional: do they violate the Tenth Amendment? The second is a cost-benefit analysis to see whether the regulatory benefit equals the real-world cost. If Republicans don’t help us, then we should do just as the founders did in response to King George’s edicts – disobey them. “Williams,” you say, “are you advocating disregard of these laws?” Yes, I am. There is no moral obligation for any of us to obey immoral or unconstitutional laws. But if you’re caught, be prepared to pay the price.”
