OPPOSITION Leader Dr Peter Phillips yesterday said that Prime Minister Andrew Holness has given an “unfaithful representation” of a conversation between both men in relation to the Government’s initial decision to extend the waiting time for releasing Cabinet information into the public domain.

Amidst fierce public backlash to the decision, Holness had told the Jamaica Observer last Thursday that he had expected the Opposition’s support for the order resolution which was tabled in Parliament last week.

Asked whether he was assured by Dr Phillips of support for the order and the follow-up affirmative resolution, Holness said: “It was about principle and good governance, and I expected his support.”

But yesterday, Phillips, in a strongly worded statement, said that Holness was not telling the truth. Here is the full text of Phillips’s statement.

“I am taking the unusual step of directly contradicting the prime minister of Jamaica regarding his version of a brief private conversation which he held with me behind the speaker’s chair in Parliament two weeks ago.

In a public statement yesterday (Friday), the prime minister said “I briefed the leader of the Opposition that we would bring an order resolution and that the order resolution would increase (the waiting period) from 20 to 70 years.

I explained what had triggered it and that we would want his support, which he agreed to. Otherwise, I wouldn’t have gone through with it”.

This statement is untrue and is an incomplete and unfaithful representation of the conversation between us. The prime minister, in the brief informal conversation, indicated his Government’s intention to change the policy on the period of exemption of Cabinet minutes from 20 to 70 years.

I immediately told him the period was too long. The prime minister then indicated that 70 years was the international norm. This has turned out to be false. Upon checking the situation in a number of other Commonwealth jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, it has become clear that the prime minister was not candid in his response.

It is also clear that the general trend is to move closer to the provisions of Jamaica’s Access to Information (ATI) Act 2002. At no time did I tell the prime minister that the Opposition agreed or disagreed with his new policy.

As far as I was concerned, the prime minister was extending a courtesy in informing us of his Government’s intention to change the policy. In fact, unlike a constitutional motion, like the State of Emergency (SOE), passage of such a resolution in the Parliament requires only a simple majority.

The Government has that majority and does not require the Opposition’s concurrence. The prime minister has chosen to misrepresent this conversation and to breach long-standing conventions with respect to private discussions between the parliamentary leaders in order to divert attention from this grievous and unacceptable policy error which has been universally rejected by public opinion.

Let me state for the record, since the reason being given for the change is a request for Cabinet minutes covering the 1975/76 period. The People’s National Party (PNP) has no objection to documents for this or any period being provided to any applicant within the law.

The provisions of the ATI are clear and in any event, I would not expect any retroactive application of a new policy. It was a PNP Administration which passed the Act in 2002 with full knowledge that there would be full disclosures within the 20 years.

Once again, we are seeing a pattern whereby the prime minister chooses to breach trust and standing conventions by giving his own untrue and self-serving accounts of private conversations in an effort to show himself in a positive light.

This practice of his has brought to an all-time low the trust that ought to exist between parliamentary leaders. In my experience his conduct stands in stark contrast to the behaviour of all previous parliamentary leaders on both sides of the political divide with whom I have worked.”