Careful with CoE changes

LEGISLATORS on April 22 called on the Government to amend the Commissions of Enquiry Act.

Senators unanimously approved a private motion brought by Independent Senator Anthony Vieira, SC, imploring the State to improve “the efficiency and effectiveness of the public inquiry process.”

That reform of this important piece of legislation is overdue is acknowledged. It dates to 1892.

Some of its penalties are laughable by today’s standards. For instance, people who blank orders are fined $2,000. This is for proceedings often meant to ventilate million-dollar, in fact billion-dollar, issues.

But when the Government, Opposition and Independents all suddenly agree to overhaul a law – and when ministers say they plan to do so swiftly – forgive us for being worried.

If all concerned are not careful, they might throw the baby out with the bathwater.

For instance, during debate on the motion, Attorney General Reginald Armour, SC, noted a major problem with enquiries is the expense.

“We have to deal with exorbitant costs,” he said.

Senate Leader Dr Amery Browne echoed this, asking of decades of the convening enquiries, “Did the candle cost more than the funeral? Did we get value for money?”

Because the public rarely sees the implementation of the recommendations of these proceedings, there’s a cynical view that they are little more than field days for lawyers, even if they address important matters.

Yet any legislative remedy capping the expenses of an enquiry would bring dangers. These quasi-judicial bodies need to be free to hire the expertise they need, including forensic capabilities.

If ballooning legal fees are to blame for costs, it is for the authorities to stop this. For instance, why do multiple state companies and ministries hire separate legal teams? Are they not all subject to the Solicitor General? The Cabinet?

More reasonable, we feel, as a cost-saving measure might be the establishment of a permanent secretariat to centralise administrative functions.

But this assumes a state of permanently running enquiries.

Meanwhile, there are ways to bolster accountability other than making drastic changes.

Former parliamentarian Trevor Sudama has, in one example, this week noted it may be useful to set up a “medical ombudsman” to tackle healthcare reviews outside the highly closed and overlapping worlds of doctors and lawyers and away from the caustic demands of litigation.

If the law is to be changed, it should be changed to compel governments to publish reports within a set timeline.

This could be done with the caveat that publication will be delayed only by the advent of formal charges – not mere police investigations – relating to a matter.

If the public is guaranteed sight of a report, then there would be tremendous pressure on all legislators – like the various senators who came together this week – to act on a report’s findings.