Hon. Don-Hue Gardiner

Government Appointed Member to the House of Assembly Hon. Don-Hue Gardiner says the People's Democratic Movement (PDM) has been ‘intellectually dishonest' in their position on the Integrity Commission Bill.

Addressing a press conference at the Progressive National Party's (PNP) Headquarters on Airport Road , on Friday May 9, Hon. Gardiner described as unfortunate and dishonest, the Opposition public disagreement with some amendments made to the recently-passed Integrity Commission Bill, citing an agreement by all parties of the piece of legislation during the Committee stage.

In defending his decision request amendments as it relates to the penalties previously entailed by the Integrity Commission Bill, Hon. Gardiner said the punitive measures on the original piece of legislation were too harsh.

“I made recommendations reducing the penalties, in some cases from $50,000 to $20,000, and from fifteen or twenty years to ten and seven years to some cases, and in other cases as little as three years. The difficulty is this, persons who are convicted of manslaughter, which is killing another human being would rarely get more than seven years imprisonment. It is difficult to justify, in my mind, that person convicted for these offenses should be given a more substantial sentence, and so, I made amendments seeking to reduce the sentences as far as those are concerned,” Hon. Gardiner said.

Hon. Gardiner said at the time of the amendments' proposition, if there was any level of division among members the speaker would instruct the clerk to call each member by name and have them give voice vote as to how they would proceed. He said at that stage the Opposition could have said they were against it, but no one gave the impression that they were not backing the Bill.

“I have found their attitude on this particular issue somewhat disturbing. And I think it shows a measure of intellectual dishonesty by not raising any of these issues when they could. When persons voted nay or yea, you really don't know who those persons are. And it would seem to me that when this Bill was passed in the House that no one voted against, because I don't remember hearing anyone say nay,” Hon. Gardiner said.

Hon. Gardiner noted that he made the amendments to the Bill since the original Bill opened the door for innocent persons to be caught up in webs weaved by other persons in public life.

“At the time of my contribution in the House on the debate at the second reading of this Bill, I suggested that I would be seeking certain amendments when the Bill got the committee stage. I thought that given what obtained in the TCI prior to the passing of the Bill, and what obtains in the Commonwealth Caribbean, and in deed, what obtains in the United Kingdom, a large number of the sanctions that were being suggested in the Bill were being too onerous, especially as the Bill does not only apply to politicians, but also to persons at all levels of the civil service, as well.

“And some of them are very junior persons. Many of these people could find themselves caught up in legal problems because of a variety of reasons, which may not necessarily be illegal or corrupt. By view is that, holding them to such a level, as their bosses or as their political directorate was unfair and needs to be addressed,” Hon. Gardiner explained.

However, Hon. Gardiner, who cited some ‘measure of intellectual dishonesty' among the PDM members, said he was befuddled by the public objection of the Bill by them; especially immediately following its passing he was congratulated by two members of the Opposition, one of whom told him it was a good idea.

Hon. Gardiner said the impression he got during the Committee stage of the debating of the Bill, was that everyone was in agreement with it.

“The truth is, I have received a number of commendations or praise from the Opposition, including the Opposition Leader (Hon Floyd Seymour). And when this Integrity Commission Bill was passed, two members on the Opposition side congratulated me, and said they thought what I did in moving those amendments was the right thing to do, and it actually brought it more in-line with what the norms and what the society should expect.

“And so, I was a very perplexed, to say the least, when I learned that they were castigating me because of my stance in the committee stage of the House in moving those several amendments,” Hon. Gardiner told reporters.

The Government Appointed Member categorically stated that prior to him making his contribution on the floor, he did not signal to anyone that he would lobby for the amendments, his reason being that he did not want to be ‘whipped into following any particular line'.

Among the amendments are: penalties be reduced in-keeping with the norms that exist in the Commonwealth Caribbean and UK; members of the Commission be from the TCI, since there are qualified people here; local political members having a say in the appointment of one member each on either side; the Governor should consult not only the Opposition on certain matters, but also with the Premier; husband or wife is not obligation to testify against their spouse; and a period of 30 days to be substituted for 90 for persons in public life to declare their assets on assuming or demitting office, to the Integrity Commission.

Additionally, Hon. Gardiner said he recommended that the threshold of gifts reporting be increased from $5,000 to $10,000.

“Then there was the provision of gifts that made it illegal to not reporting a gift $5,000. The truth is a gift of $5,000 very little, and I thought that threshold should move to $10,000. And I moved that amendment and that was passed by the House,” Hon. Gardiner said.