Opposition Senator Karina Goodridge has chided the Protection of Older Persons Bill’s “vague drafting” and “excessive ministerial power” that could lead to legal confusion and unfair targeting of citizens.
While commending the government for addressing the “cry of the elderly” and recognising the vulnerability of those 65 and older, she argued that the legislation, as currently written, leaves too much to interpretation.
Her critique centered on Section 2 of the bill, which defines abuse. Its current language creates a “very large net” that lacks an objective legal standard, she suggested.
”I’m not seeing the objective test explicitly stated in the piece of legislation,” Senator Goodridge said. “And that test, of course, is the reasonable man’s standard.”
She further questioned the criteria for determining a “fit person” to care for the elderly, noting that the bill grants the minister the power to approve such individuals without clearly outlining the necessary qualifications.
”Why is this power given to the minister, and what qualifies the minister now to make that decision?” she asked. “Being clear would help us all to avoid any future issues… rather than having it subjectively determined.”
Leader of Government Business Senator Lisa Cummins dismissed the opposition lawmaker’s concerns regarding ministerial power, noting that the term “minister” refers to the office and its technical staff, a standard feature in Barbadian law.
Senator Goodridge also took aim at Section 10, which carries penalties of up to a $100 000 fine and five years in prison. She expressed concern that the bill might criminalise accidental or inadvertent behavior due to a lack of explicit definitions for specific crimes.
”If the punishments are to become onerous, then the crime must be explicitly defined with no room for misinterpretation,” Senator Goodridge argued. “We really don’t want to set that kind of precedent as a country.”
In one of the more contentious moments of her presentation, she highlighted Section 34, which suggests liability for distributors regarding the content of the publications they carry.
”Why is liability being rested there on the poor distributor?” she asked. “If I’m distributing a paper, then I could be liable. That didn’t make no sense to me in Bajan terms. It is asking the distributor to also have editor responsibilities.”
The senator’s deep dive into specific sections drew a sharp rebuke from Senator Cummins and Deputy President Liz Thompson. They reminded Senator Goodridge that detailed, clause-by-clause analysis is reserved for the “committee stage” of the debate rather than the initial reading.
Despite the procedural pushback and a brief exchange regarding her lack of experience in legislative drafting, Senator Goodridge remained firm in her defense of her analysis.
”I will give my opinion on the sections fairly in accordance with the knowledge that I have,” she replied. “Many times attorneys will say one thing and the next attorney will say the other… we have to ensure that any bill we are passing is properly drafted for us senators to accept.”
She urged the Senate to ensure the legislation is “properly defined” to avoid forcing the judicial system to settle ambiguities later.
”We care about the elderly,” she said. “But we have to ensure the legislation is properly defined and every section is clear so that we can avoid misinterpretation.”
(RR)
