Mather calls for full disclosure in legislative process

Territorial At-Large Representative Stacey ‘Buddha’ Mather strongly argued against bringing poorly drafted legislation to the House of Assembly, suggesting that bills should only be amended during the committee stage of parliamentary proceedings.

The committee stage is a closed-door session in the House of Assembly where lawmakers review bills line by line and make amendments.

During a debate on the recently passed Services Commissions Bill, Mather expressed concerns about the broader legislative process, particularly how amendments and regulations are presented to the House. He stressed the importance of legislators having access to complete information, highlighting a recurring issue where lawmakers receive only limited details about bills.

“These amendments to this bill, I believe, are for the long haul. I am not against it,” Mather said. “What I have an issue with is that I stood in this House when we were debating the Public Assistance Bill, and I expressed concern because as a sitting member, I get half of the story or half of the book, and I don’t get the other chapters to read, so I do not know what the end looks like.”

Mather hinted at complaints from other lawmakers that regulations were not presented to them when they discussed bills. He urged his fellow legislators to ensure that all amendments and related regulations are thoroughly reviewed and discussed before bringing any legislation forward. “Share what needs to be shared so that we can weigh in and it can be fixed,” he urged.

Mather pointed out the disconnect this often creates between lawmakers and the public, especially those directly affected by new laws. He shared the sentiments of public servants who had reached out to him.

“We can argue, we can change, we can adjust, but the people whom this bill will affect on the ground are not sitting in this House [of Assembly],” he argued.

Mather said he understood the concerns of those affected by the bill, such as Customs agents and prison officers, and what they were trying to achieve. “I understand what they’re trying to do. I don’t have a problem with it in its entirety,” he said. “But there are elements in it that I have an issue with, yet I haven’t seen what they’ve seen.”

Mather called for a change in how these stages are conducted, particularly stressing that all related regulations should be available during debates.