WHAT with the scheduled resumption of Parliament, the PC decision, and the continued if not heightened speculation of the will-he won't-he election, it has been quite the week, Mr. Editor. So far. These matters have all been the topic of conversation, assuming you get past hello and the weather, so let's see if I can't combine all three in the one column this week. First, the opening of Parliament: Some think the Premier's plan is to ask for a dissolution - and an election - not long after the reading of the Throne Speech.

That may or may not have been the case up until the ruling of the PC - and more on the decision later. The projected game plan under this scenario was to promise the earth and take full advantage of all the publicity and attention the speech usually attracts - from the free press, take note and a bow, along with, watch for it, the million dollar TV channel taxpayers now underwrite. It would be a springboard for the PLP election platform and if the call is made before next week the Opposition won't get the usual right of reply. The voters will presumably decide whether or not the call was an abuse of process(assuming the Acting Governor accedes to the request: it's his call too, under our constitution order) or just plain old politics, as usual, or as the cynics among us might say: politricks.

Over in the UK, Mr. Editor, as a matter of interest, I see that the Brown Government there is proposing that the PM first come to the House for approval. The proposal is part of their governance reform package to help bring an end to some of the politricks.

The other answer is to simply have fixed date elections to eliminate completely the politrickery to choosing a date. The Governor would be relieved of any decision - which might be much to the relief of the current acting occupant of the post.

Not that he has a lot of choice really: it has been over four years since the last election and we've had two PLP leaders serve as Premier, neither of whom has governed with a direct mandate from the electorate. You will recall that that honour was Dame Jennifer's back in 2003 - for all of a week.

Fixed date elections every five years would also mean that voters can comfortably plan their travels. Some of the current challenges with voter registration could also become a thing of the past -more on this below as well.

Fixed elections would not eliminate, but lessen the need for absentee ballots - which would still be needed for voters studying and working abroad or travelling unavoidably. But unfortunately the provision for absentee balloting remains one of the promises which the PLP have to date failed to deliver on - and that too, may have something to do with the changes in leadership. Dame Jennifer originally took up the charge when it was first proposed by the United Bermuda Party back in 2002. It was promised in the 2004 Throne Speech under The Man who succeeded her (temporarily, as it turned out), but pulled back for further study under Premier Brown when earlier this year the United Bermuda Party pushed once again in the House on the Hill for its introduction.

Reformation, Mr. Editor, I wish I could say it's just what the doctor ordered. Apparently it isn't.

Reformation is what the voters will have to deliver at the polls.

PLP, PC and ABC of reform

THIS brings me nicely on to the decision of the PC - and we all know now what those initials stand for now, don't we Mr. Editor? At the time of writing the Law Lords had still not given their reasons, but, in my view, and those of many others, the decision for disclosure rather than suppression of information must be the correct one - most especially in a society like ours which claims to be a democracy and one of representative government.

Disclosure has to be right where the information and/or allegations concern public property and/or, public money and/or public officials acting in the course of their public duties.

I cannot say that the decision is the end of the matter.

Nor is the publication of any further information. That's not good enough either - in my books..

I think the entire sordid and sorry mess from start to finish has shown up the deficiencies of our system of government and underscored the need for reform - meaningful and serious reform that is long overdue here in Bermuda.

The expenditure of public money and the operation of any Government department or of any Government funded quango should be subject at all times to review and investigation by an active, thorough and bi-partisan committee of the Legislature. It could take the form of the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Assembly, or a working sub-committee thereof, which would meet consistently and regularly, if not weekly, with all the necessary powers to summons Ministers and civil servants to account, and whose meetings should be open to the press and public.

Remember how this all started?

There were concerns and allegations which were aired on the floor of the House by Michael Dunkley. There was the usual and the predictable denial that anything was even wrong from the Government benches. But finally they were convinced and the Auditor General was brought in to conduct a specific and special audit. The House eventually got an initial report - I stress initial - because the Auditor General said at the time that he had gone as far as he could, but then he came up against matters which, in his view, required criminal investigation and so the police were called in.

There was this police investigation, the results of which have never been fully reported to the people of this country. There are still a lot of unanswered questions as to what went on, and how money in the millions of dollars was spent, and on what?

While the police many have concluded their investigation, the Auditor General now has a duty and a responsibility to pick up where the police left off and to conclude his special audit - and report back to the House on the Hill for members to review and consider. To the extent he needs to have police files to complete the job, he should have them, along with any and all other resources he needs to complete his work expeditiously.

What we are now confronted with are continuing delays in the form of legal manoeuvres which have the effect of preventing members of the Legislature, on behalf of the people of Bermuda, from getting to the bottom of what occurred. We ought to be getting on with this for three good reasons: (1) through transparency to keep people informed; (2) to hold politicians and public servants to account for their actions; and (3) to convince people - if they still need convincing - that we need a better system of governance to ensure that this can't happen again, and of the need to elect people who are prepared to make those necessary changes. It's an understatement to say that the PLP Government has shown absolutely no interest in any such reform and their actions to date speak louder than words - and, to add injury to insult, they have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of the people's money, that is taxpayers' dollars from the public purse, defending the indefensible, and pursuing the inexcusable, all to prevent people from knowing what they have a right to know.

Voters' dirty little secret

NOW that I'm on a roll, Mr. Editor, voter registration is another area in governance in Bermuda that is overdue for review - and reform. A complete re-registration of voters may be a solution, as some are suggesting, but it is not the cure.

There are challenges that have come about as a result of the fact that we no longer have an annual voter registration. The list is one that dates back to pre-1998 and is now almost ten years old.

People move homes - that's a fact - and when they do they don't always change their registration. It is not high on their list of priorities at the time of moving. The same is true for people who leave the island for long periods of time.

People also die, without notice, although the Parliamentary Registrar (PR) is able to keep pretty good track of them through the newspaper and the Registry General which records births and deaths.

However, the system also relies heavily on scrutineers for each constituency (36), from each party, who under the relevant legislation are expected to regularly review and continually comb the voter's list to keep track of people who move in and out of the constituencies.

That's hard work - and even harder to initiate and sustain when there is no election on the horizon, although it's useful work if you are a sitting or aspiring MP: getting to know your constituency is a not a bad thing.

The United Bermuda Party made a big push this summer and came up with the names of over 500 people whom we thought were incorrectly registered. We were then met with the unwarranted and unjustified and misguided criticism of the Premier's spokesman who accused us of doing something sinister when in fact we were doing what was required - which is another indication of just where the PLP stands on the issue.

The voters' lists are updated and re-published in mid-June each year and you are expected to review and put in objections in the month that follows. I understand that the PR is still working through those objections.

But in the meantime that doesn't stop scrutineers from continuing to review and to alert the PR to names of people who have moved and who need re-registering. Of course the easy thing to do if and when you find them is to re-register them. But it's not always that easy: you often don't know where they have gone.

People also stumble on to this dirty little secret: a vote in a marginal constituency has far more impact than one in a so-called safe seat, and even though they no longer live in the marginal constituency may decide to stay registered there. That is the temptation under the current system.

It is hard work, Mr. Editor, keeping track. There is a fair bit of movement in Bermuda: in my constituency, I had just over 100 queries following review of June 15th draft, which is now down to 67 working with the PR office. Those sorts of numbers are critical in Bermuda where seats are won or lost by as few as 7 votes .

Ultimately it's up to the Registrar to decide whether a person stays or comes off the list because they are registered incorrectly and the most critical list will be the one which he produces when an election is called when there will be a further opportunity to object..

Sound unnecessarily complicated - like there ought to be an easier, if not better way?

After ten years, we're in need of a re-registration. The old annual registration had its drawbacks, the annoyance of registering every year and the expense being top of the list. But the one thing you could reasonably count on, was that voters were registered where they were living within 12 months.

What we need is a combination of what we currently have with a re-registration every five years, or at least before each election. If we all knew when the election was going to be held that too would make life easier, which brings me back to another reason why we in the United Bermuda Party favour fixed term elections. It helps cut down on the politricks.