The United Bermuda Party has been relentless in its call for this Government to exercise greater care and control over spending the public's money.

To date, we have seen no change in wasteful habits that have depleted the public purse and weakened the Island's ability to fight the effects of recession.

Why should this matter to working Bermudians?

Government waste and cost-overruns – more than $25 million on the Dockyard pier alone – is money spent that could have been used to cushion the impact of the recession on working families – a building project that hires laid off construction workers, for example, or to enroll more seniors in FutureCare.

The latest example of careless money management occurred on the last day of the Parliamentary session. The Government tabled financial statements of the Trustees of the Golf Courses for the years 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005. A close look at the statements shows the Auditor General rendered his opinion on each of these statements some three or more years after their financial year-end dates.

Let's first deal with the timing of these reports. If the Government was interested in holding its agents and agencies to account, then these reports should have been produced much earlier, but the auditor cannot audit accounts that have not been given to him.

What on earth justifies these reports being filed so late? Why are we getting a financial report issued to the public eight years after the fact? And what's with the process of the work? Why does it take nearly five years to complete and disseminate the data to the public? Businesses do it within months of their year-end. Five years? Is anybody in Government saying this is not acceptable?

Beyond the timing, which is inexcusable, the reports themselves reveal that our public golf courses are being operated with so little regard for the people's money that it raises questions about the integrity of the operations and the people managing them.

The Auditor General was so troubled by the numbers put forward in the various reports that he had no choice but to issue a formal denial of opinion.

What do I mean by this?

In the world of accounting, an auditor can issue one of three basic opinions. A clean opinion means the auditor is satisfied with the numbers put forward. A qualified opinion means the auditor is not satisfied with the numbers in some aspect of the financial statement audited. A denial of opinion – as has occurred with all four annual reports tabled in the House of Assembly – means the auditor could not verify any of the numbers submitted for auditing.

This is damning and serious.

The numbers presented by the golf course trustees show that revenues ranged from a high in 2001 of $6.3 million to the need for a Government grant to make ends meet in 2003. In 2005, revenues were $5.3 million, 17 percent below 2001.

On the operating side, $4.8 million in operating costs in 2001 rose to $5.7 million in 2005. The history, in short, shows the trustees taking a $1.4 million operating profit in 2001 to an operating loss of $237,000 in 2005.

These are the numbers the trustees reported. The kicker here is that the Auditor General could not sign off on the accuracy and completeness of figures on the very basics of operating a golf course – green fees, membership revenues, golf cart revenues, and even capital assets. Further, he did not receive sound evidence to support inventory, vacation pay and operating expenses including salaries, wages and employee benefits. What do the trustees think are their responsibilities?

The Auditor General, in short, was not satisfied with the numbers put forward by the trustees in any of the four years of reports tabled in the House of Assembly. As a result, he could not report with any assurance what happened to the public's money. He certainly could not say the golf courses are being well run.

How can the trustees get things completely wrong?

The trustees responsible for these reports have failed in their responsibilities to ensure the public monies they manage are properly accounted for and the benefits arising from their operations are appropriately deposited in the public purse.

The trustees must make their accounts available much sooner so that audits can be conducted in a timely manner. The current situation is simply unacceptable. The trustees, moreover, must recognise that they are entrusted to properly manage the public's money. In that regard, they must make sure the numbers they submit are supported with evidence.

If they do not, they should resign and the Government appoint trustees who have the interests of the public and the golfing community at heart.

Bermuda needs to do much better with the management of the public purse. Our public golf courses are one area where we can make a difference now. The trustees must accept that the golf courses are more than just a place where they play golf – they have a much higher responsibility.

Pat Gordon-Pamplin is Shadow Minister for Works & Engineering