MPs urged not to vote down public consultation on bills

(CNS): Campaigners objecting to the undefined referendum on cruise berthing facilities have written an open letter to all 19 MPs urging them not to support any attempt by the government to bring a proposed bill for the national poll or to amend the conservation act without the constitutionally required 28 day public consultation. “These two bills address issues of significant national importance and are highly contentious,” the local activist group CPR has said in its letter to the members asking them not to vote for the waiver the premier will need is she brings these bills to parliament next month.

“Given the current state of the government, which is operating under a quorum, but remains in disarray, it
would be unjustifiable and a violation of good governance principles to waive the constitutionally mandated 28-day notice and public consultation process,” they write in the letter echoing the sentiments of Andre Ebanks MP and his three colleagues who have said they will not support waiving the 28 days.

“Full transparency and public engagement are essential for critical matters of such gravity, and these processes must not be undermined,” the CPR have said.

The two contentious bills have still not yet been published.

However if the UPM beleaguered administration is hoping to waive the 28 day notice period then the bills could be gazetted at any time and if the Speaker agrees they will be placed on the order paper. It will then be down to the members to vote on whether or not the public get a say on what are undoubtedly very controversial issues.

Neither of the pieces of legislation have gone through any pre-drafting consultation with the public. But in the case of the conservation amendment bill it is understood there have been closed door discussions between some Cabinet ministers and selected developers. Even the department of the environment, CNS understands, has been kept out of the loop on the proposed draft bill.

At this stage however, there have been public comments from the minority UPM, especially by the tourism minister, Kenneth Bryan that he still wants to see both bills brought before the house before the election.

The CPR group are very concerned that the cruise question, “Should the Cayman Islands develop cruise berthing infrastructure?” is vague and lacks substance and the public cannot reasonably be asked to vote on a matter without critical details. From the proposed financial model design and costs to the environmental questions, not to mention the lack of a proposed location, this basic question will resolve very little in the realm of public opinion as the project cannot be based on principle alone. The where, what and how on a cruise berthing project are fundamental to its support or not.

“The logistical implications of accommodating two to three million cruise passengers annually must be addressed,” the non-profit told MPs as they questioned how such an influx will be managed alongside the cost of the supporting infrastructure. “Currently, George Town and the main tourist attractions lack the capacity to absorb such an increase without significant strain,” they wrote, adding that the question must be fact-based and clear. “The question must be unambiguous, straightforward, and clearly articulated, with transparency about the project’s beneficiaries and its broader impact on the Cayman Islands.”

CPR also pointed out that the government has still not developed standalone referendum legislation governing both Government and People Initiated Referendums in line with international best practice.
The constitution envisions a standalone referendum law and while the outcome of the appeal of Roulstone v CIG may not compel the government to have stand alone legislation, it is undoubtedly in the best interest of Cayman’s democracy, to have such a framework to guide the many intricacies of any national ballot.

“CPR is also concerned about the lack of any constitutional commissioners at this time and the absence of an independent body to provide oversight on constitutional matters like referendums,” they wrote in the letter.

Urging the MPS to insist on the 28-day notice period, particularly for the Referendum and National Conservation Amendment bills the activists said these are not routine legislative matters “but pivotal decisions that will shape the Cayman Islands’ future” they said adding that the public deserve clarity, transparency and meaningful participation in the decision-making process.

THe clock is running out for this administration to fulfil any of the commitments it has made on the catalog of unresolved and critical issues that thee original PACT group had said they were committed to dealing with at the beginning of their term. Instead almost from the get-go the members of this disjointed coalition were fighting among themselves and have struggled throughout to agree on a policy agenda and have sought to undermine each other throughout the last four years.

The push now when the government is in the minority to be able to claim some success is very late in the day and should any significant legislation that has not been through the usual full pre-final draft consultation with stakeholders and then through the open month long public consultation is more than likely to result in very bad laws that will need to be fixed by the next administration.

Even if the government steers through the referendum bill with support from the official PPM opposition the result is not binding and the next administration whatever form it takes can simply dismiss the result.

See the CPR letter in full below