THE only thing missing, Mr. Editor, was the black glove - although on reflection perhaps a clenched-fist salute might have also added a little more flourish for a grand finish. Otherwise, and in every other way, the Premier's performance was, well, so '60s. In fact, for a moment there I thought I was 18 years old all over again last Friday in the House on the Hill (I wish) when the Premier shared his views on the UK's planned review on Bermuda.

The analysis was so '60s too.

Royalist or revolutionary: really!? It's been a while since I heard anyone using those terms. For the most part, Bermudians have actually always been pragmatic, particularly on the issue of Independence - maybe even mercantile..

What price convenience is the wrong question. It's about advantage - the advantage which we as a people and a country obtain by remaining a British Overseas Territory whether it be through travel or study or employment or business generally.

Now if it really is $2-million we are looking to save, the money we do pay to fund Government House may well pale in comparison with the cost of services we do obtain through the U.K., or perhaps more significantly, in comparison with the costs of funding those same services should we decide to go it on our own. I betcha too that there are plenty of people out there, who would like to see the Bermuda Government save $2-million in spending (and then some), and they would have no trouble naming some of the obvious places in which to begin: travel, consultants, credit cards, not to mention security entourages (which my colleague Pat Gordon Pamplin did) to name but a few. We won't get into the overspends like Berkeley and other capital projects - and by the way I'm not sure we heard much in the way of concern back then about over-spending from the top or from within.

But if the Premier is going to push independence at every twist and turn - which seems to be his plan, even when it appears to cut across the bow of the Deputy Premier and Finance Minister who earlier in the same week said that she understood - welcomed even? - the UK review. Such reviews are all a part of being an offshore financial centre, a player in the village call global. It isn't just the UK taking a close look at us - and others- these days. We can expect continued scrutiny from the alphabet soup group of watch-dog (or is it bulldog?) organisations: like the IMF or OECD or FATF or CFATF and now BO of the US of A. The list is endless and it is powerful - and we know why. They are about money aka tax revenue and not political status, and there are some in those groups who really would like to bring us to our knees.

But if the Premier is going to persist in pursuing independence - and we know how much trouble that little word "if" can lead to: as my mother used to love to remind me, if pigs had wings they'd fly, but they make unlikely birds - then it's probably also fair and reasonable to wonder as to just what sort of government the Premier and the PLP (presuming everyone's on board) would like to see in place of what we've got; and by government, notice the use of small 'g'. I do not mean what brand of PLP or UBP Government.

Inquiring minds want to know what system of governance is being proposed. It's a topic that very much interests me, as you know Mr. Editor. Will we have more of the same? Or to use the language of the Sixties : will we just replace one master with another ?

You would like to think that we can and that we will improve on what we have - and you have heard me go on about this before. The fact is we can actually make changes now.

I raise this in the wake of the news last week that the Auditor General has been given back those infamous, celebrated files of the Bermuda Housing Corporation, his receipt of which initially led to his arrest and overnight detention following a shocking daytime raid on his office last summer.

The claim was that the files were stolen. As to whether anyone may yet be charged - it appears that the Auditor General won't be - remains a matter for speculation. The police investigation is apparently still on-going - which permits the police to continue to take this view with respect to the entire BHC affair - as a spokesman was quoted as saying last week in The Royal Gazette: - "Based on the history of the BHC investigation and all of the legal action that has imitated (sic) from the investigation, it would not be prudent at this juncture for us to comment on any issue surrounding this investigation".

Official speak you think for this is the end of the line.

It ought not to be.

The news prompted me to go back and dust off my copy of the Auditor General's first "special" report into the affairs of the Bermuda Housing Corporation which was published over six years ago, back in May 2002.

You may recall (or maybe not, it has been that long) that the Auditor General called in the police to assist in his investigation. He explained then that there was a limit to how far he could go in a probe of allegations of kickbacks amongst other things. He had no lawful access to the records of companies, businesses or people with whom the BHC transacted business; nor the authority to even ask for information or for explanations.

Now it is not my intention to re-hash here all of the allegations which we heard or read over the years. It is also true - and this is the official line out of London, I believe - there were no charges after what has been termed " a thorough police investigation by senior figures in the local service (with external assistance from New Scotland Yard)." On the other hand, there was the comment of the then acting Director of Public Prosecutions who in a candid but telling moment told us that while some activities may not have been unlawful, they may well have qualified as unethical; and moreover that perhaps our laws needed up-dating in light of what occurred. That call, as far as I am aware, never went anywhere further.

Excuse me, Mr. Editor, but … the BHC is a legislated public body with an important purpose, the provision of homes for people in need, and, need I say, is funded by money raised from the taxpayers. The people of this country are entitled to know what went on and they should not have to rely on the news media as the means of first report or only report of what went on.

There may also be some valuable lessons to be learned here: legislation and/or codes of practice that need to be up-dated or put in place; and/or a means by which civil servants or others can raise any concerns which they may have whether for advice or action or both. In some countries the latter is addressed through Whistleblower legislation - which is becoming common place in modern systems of governance.

I conclude with what is becoming a long-standing plea. There is a role here for an active and robust Public Accounts Committee, that bi-partisan committee of the House of Assembly, which could initiate such inquiries and call on the Auditor General to complete his investigation now that he has unfettered access to the police files and to relate, where he can, what the police found and to recommend what, if anything, can be done to improve the system of checks and balances we do have (or don't) and to do it all in the sunshine of public scrutiny.

I'm down, man, for that.