The Tribune

By MALCOLM STRACHAN

GOVERNMENTS – and the Prime Ministers who lead them – can have good weeks and bad weeks.

When Philip “Brave” Davis spoke in November 2021 at the international climate conference in Glasgow, for example, it was one of his best weeks in government. He announced himself on the world stage in that moment and became a figurehead for the fight against climate change.

I said as much in this column at the time, saluting him for speaking so plainly, and noting the plaudits Mr Davis received for his speech.

Last week, however, was a bad week. In fact, it could be one of the worst this government has experienced.

The least important issue he faced last week involved the possible need to fire his Minister of Immigration. It cannot be a good situation if that is not the top of the list.

Keith Bell promised to give a list of answers to questions over issues at his department in the House of Assembly, but he didn’t show. Instead there was a press statement from the ministry, which not only did not answer all the questions but raised contradictions. For example, both the ministry and the hotel owners say that workers at the Colonial Hilton were in the country legally – but previously immigration officers and Mr Bell himself confirmed there were issues. Mr Bell himself acknowledged that immigration officers encountered “a number of irregularities with the status of workers” that “required immediate action”. Add to that the fact that only three out of 65 people detained produced passports or identification – and all three of those had irregularities – and it certainly doesn’t look like business as usual. Where were the passports or IDs of the other 62 people? Did the workers have access to their own documents?

As Mr Bell failed to live up to his promise to show up and give answers, his party chairman, Fred Mitchell, threw some oil on the fire by saying his advice to Mr Bell was not to give any answers at all. That certainly does not help the PLP to appear accountable.

And there were more issues revealed in the statement, where it seems decisions were made on permits for people without knowing whether or not they were in custody. Immigration does not seem to know who it has in the detention centre. Right hand and left hand are apparently strangers.

Like I say, though, this is not the biggest issue of the week for the government. Nor is the continued question of the ongoing police probe into an MP for an accusation of rape. Nor is it the news that the government is forking out $120m a year of taxpayer money in salary and payroll errors – with an error rate in payroll of about ten percent. Ten percent. Imagine that.

No, the worst thing from last week is the government’s abject handling of the Protection Against Violence Bill.

As the bill reached the House – to the surprise of some who had not been given significant notice – a statement was issued by a collection of women’s leaders and groups.

It read: “The House of Assembly is set to begin debate on the Protection Against Violence Bill, 2023 on Thursday, July 27, 2023. This bill is not the bill that women’s rights groups worked on for more than a decade. The bill we worked on and consented to was the Gender-Based Violence Bill.

“This bill was replaced at the last minute with the Protection Against Violence Bill. The new bill does not contain key provisions that would further help protect women and girls from violence. These provisions were in the Gender-Based Violence Bill.

“We call on the government to suspend debate on this bill and to present to Parliament the Gender-Based Violence Bill that so many Bahamian women worked hard on over the many years.”

The signatories included Women United, BUYDC, Women of Strength Association, Everyone Counts Organisation, Marion Bethel-Sears and Therese Turner-Jones.

Mr Davis was apparently disturbed and disappointed by the opposition – but he really should not have been. In June, FNM Senator Michela Barnett-Ellis said that the Protection Against Violence Bill was less comprehensive that the previous Gender-Based Violence Bill – reduced to 24 pages from 68 pages and asked why the government had “walked away from the existing draft legislation” and to explain the new draft and “not to discard almost ten years of work”.

Hers was not the only voice to point out the changes between the two bills and to express frustration over the differences, and over a lack of thorough consultation with all concerned. One activist on Twitter said that Minister of Social Services and Urban Development Obie Wilchcombe had been specifically told that the process was not a proper consultation and that there would be “national embarrassment” if they continued.

The government appears to have leaned on advice from the Bahamas Crisis Centre – an excellent organisation but not the only one and certainly not representing all views. Mr Davis himself acknowledged as much, saying: “I think that’s probably the problem. They are not all on the same page.”

Given how the marital rape legislation seems to be in a state of perpetual delay because the government is off consulting pastor after pastor, it is to say the least a bad look that it would not take the same approach when consulting women.

So what did the government do in the face of this late surprise – for them – of opposition to the bill? Did it pull the bill to be able to give more time for consultation? Of course not – it pushed through the bill anyway and never mind what women actually say. National Security Minister Wayne Munroe muttered something about how the bill would help with increasing reports of sexual assaults – well, so would a marital rape bill but I don’t see that being rushed into law.

There have been suggestions that amendments can be brought later to add to the bill – but given it has taken ten years to get here, how long do we think those amendments will take?

So, a bad week. A missing minister, no accountability, millions gone astray, and a failure to listen to women on a piece of legislation specifically affecting them.

The last of these I feel is the biggest blow to the government’s reputation. We have just finished Independence celebrations, and a strong thread throughout those was highlighting moments in our history, prominent among them women’s suffrage, voting rights and the women who pioneered parts of our society. Would this government have risen to the challenge of lifting major barriers to women in the past? Or are we falling short of the standards set by those who went before us? As we honour the achievements of those who built this nation, what are the achievements we will make to match our predecessors?

Last week’s evidence is no comfort that we will continue to raise the bar.