LADIES and gentlemen, and Mr. Editor too, today in the House on the Hill we reconvene for the annual Budget Ballet, an event not on the Bermuda Festival Calendar but on the Parliamentary Calendar, which features by way of an opening act, a grand pas de deux, the Minister of Finance leading first and her Shadow from the Opposition following next Friday.

According to the choreography, which hasn't changed much over the years ? and by years, I mean decades, Mr. Editor ? there often follows a series of long monologues by Ministers of the Government, reading from lengthy scripts put together by swivel servants, whose Shadows get to respond in kind . . . and in length if they're lucky. The rest of us poor sods may not even get an opportunity to get a word in edge-wise, such is our lot as the cast ensemble.

They call this the Budget Debate . . . and unlike the real Festival down the road, it's free: The debate that is, whether listening on the radio or watching from the public gallery. Or not. Your choice.

The excitement, if any, is born out of the anticipation we all have as to what will be in the Budget, the first to bear the entire imprint of Finance Minister Paula Cox ) , who succeeded her late father in the post just prior to last year's presentation.

There will likely be the obligatory news video of the Finance Minister making her way up to the House on the Hill with the Budget firmly tucked inside Ministerial briefcase, and the obligatory pose, usually halfway up the steps, for Saturday's . The props, Mr. Editor, like the choreography never seem to change. Not much.

But no matter how you slice it, Mr. Editor, the Budget is the news story of the day. I mean, if it's anything like last year's, it will be a $700-million production. It should warrant attention ? and close scrutiny too.

Parliament is meant to provide that close scrutiny. That won't begin to happen until next week when the Opposition delivers its Reply through its Leader, Dr. Grant Gibbons, who also happens to be the Shadow for Finance.

If past practice is any indication, Mr. Editor, we'll all likely scurry off the Hill soon after the Budget is presented: the Government to explain and defend initiatives in press conferences and the Opposition, after an initial comment or two, to prepare for next week's curtain call.

We call next Friday The Economic Debate: when members get to speak on both the Budget and the Economy and the direction of both. Different directions? We hope not, but you never know.

Meanwhile, the actual debate of the various Ministries ? and their proposed expenditures for the next financial year ? won't begin until Monday, February 28.

The Rules provide that some 42 hours be set aside for this next phase of the plot, acts of scrutiny they are meant to be, as we meet three days a week for two weeks to get to The End. The fun part here, and I exaggerate a touch Mr. Editor, is that the Opposition gets to decide how much time, if any, is allocated, and to what departments and in what order.

But the allocations are not meant to come as a complete surprise to the Government: we are to let them know the order and the times sufficiently well in advance so as to be primed and ready to roll . . . to roll out those briefs, which are hardly ever brief, but often longer in self-aggrandising spin than they are in actual substance.

Questions for Ministers? Maybe.

Answers? Unlikely.

You were thinking of what: An actual debate? Sorry, Mr. Editor, not in this production ? and this, ladies and gentlemen, and you too Mr. Editor, is how our Parliament works in the year 2005.

IF you're thinking there must be another way, don't think again. Reform of the rules of the House of Assembly doesn't appear to be high on the Government agenda, if it is at all. On the other hand, even their own members return from Commonwealth Parliamentary Conferences, year after year, and share with us reports, year after year, that tell us how behind the times we really are in the way in which we run our House of Assembly.

I could go on and on about the need for reform ? and how you don't need to be Independent to bring Bermuda up to date. But I won't. I have already, elsewhere, with recommendations.

Let's try a new tack, shall we?

The Man Who Wants To Be Prime Minister showed some inclination to think and act outside the conventional box when he established the Big BIC (Bermuda Independence Commission): You might say it showed a streak of independent thought.

Now while he and I disagree on the need or the mandate to pursue Independence, the approach did appear to be an attempt of sorts at some sort of bipartisan, community-based effort to tackle an issue of concern to the community (which, granted, Grant, is only an issue because he made it an issue).

What about employing this approach on major issues that are of real and actual concern to the voters of this country, Mr. Editor? Here's a couple that might benefit from bipartisan, broad community-based, investigation spearheaded by backbench MPs from both sides of the House on the Hill:

: Why just an expert from the UK under the Central Policy Unit? Plenty of home-grown talent here: former Environment Minister Arthur Hodgson comes to my mind as well as the man he hired to consult on the issue Pauulu Kamarakafego (aka Dr. Roosevelt Brown). What became of his work anyhow? Sustainable development strikes me as an ideal probe for a 12-person committee drawn from all sectors of the community.

: We've tried everything else so far haven't we? Minister after Minister, seem to come and go, and go, and go, and go quite a lot, it seems, and with them a multiplicity of sound-good, feel-good ideas that never quite seem to deliver where it counts. Here. Who remembers the Fly/Cruise dream? Gombeys at Davos? Argentina and the South America push? Africa? Now the Miami Heat and a Bermuda shorts fashion show.

Some of the ideas seem as far-flung as they are far-fetched. We're told we're creating a buzz. What we need is more people in the form of visitors.

Add to this the turnover in Tourism personnel in recent years, and David Dodwell's call for an independent Tourism Authority is looking better and better. Maybe it is time to turn tourism over to the professionals, people with a stake in the industry, who make a career and a living out of tourism ? and let the amateurs, as enthusiastic and as hard-working as they may be, get out of the way.

(our youth and gangs): Given recent headlines in the newspaper and on the news, need I say more? This is a community issue that does cut across political boundaries, and cries out for a bipartisan approach.

I'm certain there are other issues that could be added to the list: Housing is but one more that comes immediately to mind.

What does this approach bring, Mr. Editor?

Consultation, participation, and involvement.

Openness and transparency too, if we opened the work of parliamentary committees to the public. But that gets me back to where I started: the long overdue need for reform of the way in which we do the people's business in Bermuda.

BUT before I get carried away, committees can kill too ? if not seriously deep six a good idea. Absentee ballots are a prime example. It's now been well over two years since the Opposition introduced a motion in the House calling for absentee ballots which the Speaker called on us to withdraw because the then Premier, Jennifer Smith, said her Government was about to set up a committee to review how the franchise might be extended.

The Opposition had put forward a paper prepared by interested students who had looked at the issue and who had recommended postal ballots and provided some sample legislation by way of example.

The Government committee came back six months later and agreed with the students. Postal balloting was preferred. The 2003 election came and went. No absentee balloting. The last we heard ? in the November Throne Speech ? was that the legislation was still in the works. Here's hoping it comes out of committee coma . . . soon.

PS Mr. Editor: once again we don't need to be Independent to be progressive.

LISTEN, you wisecrackers out there, the only reason the proposed elevator won't be going to the top floor in the House on the Hill is because there's only one room up there, in the tower ? and it's empty. If you must know, the second floor is where the action is: the House, the public gallery and a court-room.

It's also been a long time coming.