A committee of parliamentarians reviewing the Access to Information Bill last week rapped Beth Aub of Transparency International Jamaica for allegedly denigrating the reputation of legislators in the law making process.

But Aub, general-secretary of Transparency International Jamaica stuck by her comments and accused legislators of being thin-skinned.

Nearly two weeks ago, Aub charged during a live radio broadcast of a seminar on anti-corruption strategies that the law making process, as it related to the Access to Information Bill, was corrupt.

The seminar was organised by Jamaica Labour Party affiliates, Generation 2000 and the Jamaica Institute for Public Education.

She pointed to the poor attendance of committee members and the adversarial posture of the legal technicians to the committee and alleged that the United States-based Carter Centre was secretly drafting laws for the Jamaican government.

Colin Campbell, chairman of the committee and minister of information, raised the issue during Wednesday’s sitting of the committee.

“There are 16 members on this committee. As chairman, I could not expect that at all times all our members are going to be here because members substantially have other parliamentary activities,” he pointed out.

“And some people who are even members of the executive from time to time have to carry out duties,” he added.

“But it is not to be believed that because somebody isn’t here that the work of the committee isn’t proceeding along the rules,” said Campbell in the presence of Aub and her husband, Martin, who were seated in the visitor’s gallery.

The couple represents the non-governmental organisations (NGOs), Transparency International, Jamaicans for Justice and the Farquharson Institute of Public Affairs, who have made a joint submission on the Access to Information Bill.

Campbell continued:

“In particular… this committee has never functioned without the presence of a quorum… I can’t say that at all times people will be here, but substantially our members are contributing and they have, at all times, given the benefit of their duties.”

He denied Aub’s assertion about the involvement of the Carter Centre in the local law making process and indicated that the body only assisted in the public education process.

Said Campbell: “At no time have representatives of the Carter Centre been involved in writing our legislation. Our legislation is written by the chief parliamentary counsel. It is presented to Parliament and any amendments are done within the chamber.

“Therefore, it is not accurate and, in fact, (is) almost irresponsible to be saying that our laws, for some time, seem to have been written by the Carter Centre people.”

Opposition member, Olivia Grange, who attended the anti-corruption seminar, disclosed that the representatives of the Carter Centre denied any involvement in drafting laws for the Jamaican government during a conversation with her.

Legislators said they had absolute confidence in the technical staff, who Aub charged were supplanting the role of the parliamentarians in framing laws.

“I have come to respect the intellect of the persons from the various agencies,” noted committee member Fitz Jackson.

He said he was struck by the “depth of the advice” and the willingness of the technical staff to accommodate, in a legal way, the concerns that members of parliament put forward.

“We have confidence in the technical people,” Grange added.

“(But) that does not necessarily mean agreement, because we certainly disagree often with the advice that’s given,” noted her colleague, Anthony Johnson.

Canute Brown, government member, who is an attorney, spoke with feeling.

“I happen to have the privilege to be the member of a profession that takes pride in preserving our integrity,” he said.

“I don’t see the lawyers appearing before this committee having any interest, pecuniary or otherwise, in having any particular legislation enacted or having any legislation structured in any way to satisfy any personal interest,” he said.

Jackson was clearly rankled by Aub’s criticisms: “I am of the personal opinion that it goes beyond negligence and borders on mischief making or to fulfilling some other agenda beyond what is stated on the surface.

“(This practice) does not serve Jamaica well. Any utterances that can serve to divide people in this country cannot be in the interest of this country and I will question the sincerity of such persons for such kinds of utterances.”

Aub was allowed to address the committee, but she stuck by her earlier comments, while upbraiding the legislators for being fearful of criticisms.

“I am not withdrawing anything I said. What I have said, I have seen,” declared Aub. “There have been good things and we are moving on, but we do it very slowly.”

“I am a fifth generation Jamaican. This Parliament is mine! And the members of this parliament are supposed to work for me as they are for the other people of Jamaica.

“So there is nothing in here that I cannot criticise and will not criticise. It is mine and it is all Jamaica’s,” declared Aub.

“It is not for the Parliament to feel that the Parliament is beyond criticism.”

But Campbell assured her that the criticism of parliamentarians was not at issue as that was a normal and expected occurrence.

“We perfectly respect your right to criticise,” said Campbell. “I perfectly understand that you want a good Bill and for that we are at one.”

“But all I ask, in terms of appreciating the process, is let us just have a common understanding of where we are going lest we become mired in the sideshow which is not necessary.”

Aub said that parliamentary representatives should not put themselves up for selection to joint select committees if they did not have the time to serve.

“The technicians are exactly as I have seen it through most of the sessions… There has been argument back and forth over things that the members of the committee should be putting forward themselves and they should be asking the advice of the technical people.

“I had said I only felt that the technicians did this because the members of the Joint Select Committee, all of them, were not here fighting their own battles.

She also charged that the legislators were modeling the Access to Information legislation off the oldest existing model — the Australian — while ignoring later legislation in other jurisdictions, a charge which Campbell denied by pointing to the South African and other later laws that were being consulted.

Meanwhile, the grouping that Aub represents proposed, in a revised submission to the committee, that the Access to Information Act include a ‘public interest test’ which requires that exempted documents be disclosed if, on balance, disclosure would result in less harm to the public than non-disclosure.

The pre-eminence of disclosing information that is in the public interest was advocated earlier by representatives of the Norman Manley Law School Students Association.

The NGOs have also amended their submission to exempt from disclosure the identities of persons who offer advice or participate in consultations or deliberations of the Cabinet.

The NGOs have proposed the granting of powers to the Appeals Tribunal to “compel compliance” with the provisions of the Access to Information Act and to state clearly that all decisions under the Act are subject to judicial review.

They also want the legislation to make it a criminal offence to conceal, falsify or destroy an official document for the purpose of preventing its disclosure.