PEOPLE should be wondering (if they are not already, Mr. Editor) just how and why it is that the Annual Report of the Auditor General on Government finances reads like déjà vu all over again.

This year's edition appears to contain many of the same criticisms, concerns and complaints that were made the year before and the year before, no, make that the years, before that.

There's a veritable litany which should sound familiar - because they are - and here's a partial list:

n $485 million in public spending unaccounted for in the absence of financial statements from a range of Government entities;

n Nearly $50 million in taxes and pension payments from companies uncollected, up from $25-million at the turn of the century (this one);

n Fourteen Government Departments (13 in 2006) overspending collectively by almost $13-million the appropriation provided for them by the House of Assembly (up from $10.7 million in 2006);

n Nearly two thirds of Government entities failing to provide auditors with annual financial statements;

n Across the board failure among senior officers to provide 2007 audited statements and information in a timely manner;

n $5.5 million of unexplained withdrawals on bank statements that had not been recorded in the Government general ledger; and

n Discrepancies in deposits: two large bank accounts used to deposit money from revenue-generating departments had $133 million recorded in the ledger but more than $134 million on the bank statements, meaning $1-million is unaccounted for.

Hello! Is anybody out there listening? Anybody watching?

The real pity is that the list is not exhaustive - and much of this is unacceptable. As the Auditor General himself has pointed out before, several times, this state of affairs would not be tolerated in most private businesses: indeed, it is hard to see how households in Bermuda could operate this way, at least not for very long.

This is how the Auditor General described the severity of the situation in his most recent report:

"Late financial reporting is a serious matter. It weakens legislative control. It is contrary to legislated requirements. It precludes managerial and Ministerial accountability. It frustrates effective management control. It prevents the preparation of consolidated financial statements. It creates an environment where fraud can thrive and remain undetected. In a well-run organisation it would not be tolerated".

Exactly.

Meanwhile, Minister for Finance Paula Cox responds - as well she should - and declares that Government is doing its best and changing where it can, as fast it can, reminding us that it is the Auditor General's job to point out what is wrong and not what's right, and that there are improvements which have been made and are being made. OK. OK, we understand - to an extent. Turning Government and Government practices around may be akin to reversing the Titanic. It isn't as easy as changing direction with a Boston whaler.

But excuses aside there is more that can be done and must be done.

Better checks and balances (no pun intended) are required, checks and balances that are independent of the Ministry of Finance and of the Government.

The Auditor General plays a critical role here - and just how critical we now know very well, given the way in which he and his office has been treated in recent years by the Progressive Labour Party Government, and remember he was their very best friend when they were in Opposition and leading up to their election to Government in 1998 as he simply did, well, his job.

This is how he himself described this phenomena , delightfully, in his most recent report:

"I have often observed that , in respect to legislative auditors, political parties while in opposition have a unique ability to recognise insightful courses of action, but that ability is mysteriously lost when they become the party of government."

But the Auditor General isn't meant to function alone.

The Public Accounts Committee of the House of Assembly - or PAC as we also call it - is also meant to play an important role here. It's a key committee of the House, provided for under the Rules, which state that:

"The Public Accounts Committee shall have the duty of examining, considering and reporting on -

(a) the accounts showing the appropriation of the sums granted by the legislature to meet the public expenditure of Bermuda;

(b) such accounts as may be referred to the Committee by the House; and

(c) the report of the Auditor for any such accounts."

Employment of the word "duty" might sound like arcane parliamentary language, but it is entirely apt. Five members of the House are given an important responsibility - backbenchers all of them, three from the Government and two from the Opposition. Government gets the majority of members for obvious reasons: they have the majority of members in the House and they are the Government. We all understand that.

But what's unusual about this committee is that it is chaired by an Opposition member - the only one of its kind in the House - and that member is the Opposition spokesman in the House for finance i.e. the shadow minister for finance.

It's a practice that dates back to the days of the United Bermuda Party Governments when the PLP Shadow Minister for Finance chaired the committee.

But this is neither an invention nor a practice peculiar to Bermuda. It is pretty well followed in parliamentary democracies throughout the Commonwealth.

In fact, it has got to the point where it is now considered standard operating procedure - one of the recommended benchmarks for democratic legislatures, published a couple of years back by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA), of which Bermuda is a member and was in fact the site of agreement on the final draft.

The CPA regards PAC as an important part of the financial and budgetary oversight network that Parliament is meant to provide.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work out that way in practice in Bermuda.

Meetings can sometimes be few and far between. Government members can and do decline to show and, in the absence of a quorum of three, there can be no meeting. So far this year, I am told, there has been but one.

Membership needs to be increased so PAC cannot be thwarted by Government no-shows. This was in fact a recommendation of PAC in its 2004 report to the House, that members be increased to seven but the quorum remain at three.

It may not surprise you that the recommendation remains just that - a recommendation. Some four years later, it has still not been acted upon. Government support is required and Government support has not been forthcoming.

The failure to meet strikes right at the heart of PAC's ability to be effective.

But if and when it does meet, it meets in private. This too, is contrary to modern practice. Meetings of committees should be open to the press and the public.

This is what brings about transparency and accountability.

One can only imagine what a difference it would make if this committee was meeting regularly and calling upon civil servants and their Ministers to account for policies and practices and they were being called to account for their decisions openly. Matters and situations like those reported on year after year in the Annual Report of the Auditor General, could be tracked and monitored on a more regular and sustained basis.

PAC is meant to be the legislative leash that helps rein in Government and to keep Government spending in check (pun intended this time).

If it sounds like hard-work and heavy lifting, that's probably right. But somebody has to do it and it is meant to be the job of the Legislature and your elected MPs.

If you're looking for a phrase that might best describe what this could potentially mean, I can think of no better than that which the PLP trumpeted, now some many years ago, a decade in fact, when they promised upon election as Government to operate in the sunshine of public scrutiny.

Words, Mr. Editor, just words.

NEXT WEEK: How to really make it happen.