CORRUPT practices, as old as mankind, are not defeated merely by the enactment of laws and the development of regulations, although the war cannot be successfully waged without adherence to, and strict enforcement of, such measures that are put in place.

Of course, corrupt practices are by no means to be equated with errors of judgement, or genuine mistakes, and it is a most dangerous and unfair position to adopt. It is agreed, however, that all such infections are inimical to the proper practice of governance. So that, a watchful eye is required to be trained constantly on all public activities and decisions, since there is, more often than not, a mere thin line between a corrupt practice and an alleged mistake or error of judgment.

The truth is, however, that it is in the mind of man and the attitude that he brings to the interaction with his fellow citizens, that the most powerful components of the arsenal of the fight against corrupt practices are to be found. Laws and regulations are necessary tools within the contract between the state and the citizen and between citizen and citizen as the proposed Charter of Rights and Freedoms stipulates.

But, the challenges will only be successfully overcome, if the citizenry sets its collective face against the monster.

An incisive tool in the fight against such practices is to be found in the kind of example that is displayed by leadership, within the social compact. And we may use this Report as a ready point of departure. For, what we have essentially done is to present to the public an example of what collaboration can do -- in this case, the sound impact of the Committee in the workings of Parliament.

The Opposition had early declared that, if this Bill had been presented for debate in its original form, we would not support it because the proposal would have offended the spirit and provisions of the constitution regarding the insulation of the prosecution regime within the system that we practice. Several stakeholders within the watchdog fraternity were also of the same view.

If the Government had gone ahead, over our protestations, there would have eventuated a political tug-of-war, because what the Government side would have been saying was that the Opposition did not wish to support the fight against corruption and was withholding support for a Government initiative and Manifesto promise in that fight.

The Government had promised and had intended to institute an Office of Special Prosecutor as a commission of Parliament.

We were able to ward off that tug-of-war by a process of deliberation and collaboration, within an atmosphere of listening to the other side, particularly when the protestations of the Opposition went to the heart -- the very core -- of the proposal that was presented. That is the axis around which the tasks of the Special Prosecutor must spin: independence and insulation.

It is because we regard it as our highest duty to guarantee adherence to the terms of the social contract in the fight against corrupt practices, that we insisted on the removal of the constitutional encroachment and protested any whittling away of the cover of independence that the prosecution regime must always enjoy. We were, therefore, most anxious to support the Bill. For, this is not meant merely to be a Special Prosecutor Act; it is meant to be a corruption prevention measure, with a Special Prosecutor as the conduit.

This Report, then, on the workings of a Joint Select Committee, presents to the public a prime example of what consultation and collaboration can achieve within the democratic process. There is no shame or ceding of authority in the consultation process. Rather, it is a display of confidence, concern and wisdom that must be present in inspirational leadership, and particularly, in the fight against corruption.

This, therefore, begs the question: when leadership goes off by itself and makes decisions which require the co-operation and concerted input of the citizenry, is that a corruption of the democratic process or an error of judgement? Either way, any such incursion into the province of good governance must be stoutly resisted. That is a seminal part of the terms of reference within which every single one of us within this Chamber must operate, and the Opposition cannot, and will not, shirk that responsibility.

The insidious nature of corrupt practices is to be found in its piercing encroachment on the enjoyment by the citizen of all aspects of the human and civil rights which are universally accepted, and to which the citizen is entitled. Corrupt practices inveigh against the most precious right to life; they assault the right to the protection of reputation; the right to privacy; the right to employment and freely to enter into contracts; the right to vote freely and without inducement; the right to have one's bank account protected against exposure except within closely guarded exceptions; the right to fair treatment by officials in the public sector; and the general right to expect honesty and fairness in dealing with our fellow citizens.

Therein lies the requirement for eternal vigilance; corrupt practices make life difficult - and far more difficult for the underdog. They disturb the societal balance. And there is a symbiotic relationship between the extent to which that balance is disturbed and the enjoyment of the rights that make for ease of living within the society. Corrupt practices are corrosive in nature.

It is not that this has been lost on Governments here in Jamaica, over the years, for several laws, rules and regulations have been put in place to challenge the monster. So, an examination of some of those initiatives only serves as a confirmation of my core thesis that it is the mind of man and the attitude that he brings to the interplay with his fellow citizens that provides the main bulwark against corrupt practices.

Since Independence, it may be said that the fight began within the regime of the 1970s. It gathered momentum with the advent of the Information Age, as we shall see:

The Parliament (Integrity of Members) Act was brought on stream during the 1970's. Not everyone agreed with the initiative -- and at least one Senator resigned, rather than submitting to the requirements and dictates of the new law. This proposed legislation will repeal that Act.

Some of us were not necessarily in agreement with that move -- others will most likely speak more fully to that issue. For my part, I was prepared not to hold to a strict position on the matter, provided our core objection was adequately met.

The Contractor General Act was passed during the 1980s, and there were challenges from the inception - See the book No Trophies Raise, by the first occupant of the Office. Whatever the criticism; whatever the drawbacks; whatever perceived or real inconsistencies that may arise from time to time, that institution has undoubtedly served to raise the consciousness of Jamaicans in the fight against corruption.

Then came the 1990s: there was the opening-up of the Committees of Parliament to the scrutiny of the public and to reporting on the part of the Press: this was an initiative that was anchored by the late Ken McNeil, when he re-entered the House of Representatives in 1989. Not every parliamentarian was in favour of that highly desirable building of transparency in the conduct of public affairs - the present prime minister was stoutly against the move.

It was during our time in opposition during the 1980s that Dr McNeil was commissioned to examine the Committee system as it operates within democratic societies. At that time, Committee meetings of our Parliament were held in private, away from the glare or scrutiny of the public, including the media fraternity.

Dr McNeil diligently immersed himself in that task, and very early in the second coming of Michael Manley, tabled a resolution in the House of Representatives aimed at revolutionising the approach to the workings of Committees in these Houses. It was a seminal move, which must be acknowledged as continuing to be of great service to our country and the way of doing things in this Parliament

During the 1990s, the Access to Information Act was brought into force. That enactment was meant to address the release of information on public duties and functions. This was introduced in recognition of the positive impact of this type of legislation on the practice of good governance that experience in the countries of North America and Europe and elsewhere had come to show.

The Canadians saw it as part of the maturing process of a nation, whereby the citizen has a right, and makes use of the opportunity to access information concerning how decisions are taken on his behalf, and the manner in which his tax dollar is spent, on the one hand, and the duty and willingness on the part of the authorities, on the other hand, to provide such information within the boundaries of the security of the nation and the imperatives of good governance.

The Corruption Prevention Act was brought into force with the establishment of the Corruption Prevention Commission.

It perhaps cannot be successfully argued that this institution was not under-resourced during its existence, and that requirement is also going to be one of the real challenges to the exercise of the duties of the Special Prosecutor. In any event, the Corruption Prevention Act is to be repealed by this proposed piece of legislation, and it is expected that the lessons have been learnt.

Tomorrow: The media brought in the sunlight