There’s no sense crying over spilled milk, right? Wrong — and certainly not when it involves taxpayers’ money and politics.

It seems also to depend, Mr Editor, on whose milk we happen to be talking about and how fresh or sour it was when it was spilled.

Take the Auditor’s Report on Port Royal Golf Course by way of example. You might think it an obvious case in point. It is certainly the case that makes my point. It is sour all right and not that fresh.

That’s the problem. The Public Accounts Committee, and anyone else who has an interest in finding out what went down (there’s always PATI), is chasing after a horse that has long since bolted the stable; although, looking on the bright side, we do still have the stable, thankfully, notwithstanding the lingering questions and fierce criticism over whether we got what we got at full value for our money.

The project was undertaken over a four-year period, now almost some five years ago. Five years ago. Three years after completion, the Legislature get a special report from the Auditor General who, following an investigation by her office, tells us that the project was completed some $10 million over budget and, surprise, surprise, that it featured “lack of oversight, cost overruns and inadequate accounting.”

Look, as taxpayers, we hate to think that this sort of management on Government projects is par for the course. But there is this impression to the contrary. Indeed, one Government member was heard to suggest that this was reason enough for them to pursue a public private partnership for a new airport.

This is not good. On any view. Neither is it acceptable to bemoan overspends of that magnitude long after the fact. Sure, we want to hold the people responsible to account, and call on them to answer for their decisions, and to explain why they did what they did — and publicly. That is one of the purposes of PAC.

But, your headline last week, Mr Editor, said it all, really: “‘No apologies for $10m overspend.” We know now, if we didn’t already, how it came to that, and arguably the Government of the day paid the ultimate price at the polls. But that doesn’t much help us today. Financially.

So, we come to the other far more important purpose to an active and robust PAC. Members of that committee need to get on top of contracts as they unfold and on top of projects as they are rolled out.

Overspends and deviations from budgets which have been approved by the Legislature need to be spotted, and ferreted out, as and when they happen.

Explanations and justification for changes need to be given by those responsible — and, by extension, met with either approval or rejection.

We need to catch these things surely before the milk is spilled — not after.

This is what our system of governance requires more of. Not less. I think, for instance, of the close eye that should be kept on the new acute care wing and the lessons it holds for any future possible public private partnerships.

The America’s Cup is another; or any other cup for that matter, that might overflow. Please, please, don’t make this personal or peculiar to this party or that. It isn’t about that. This is simply about the way it should be, regardless of who is in power and who is out. It’s about development of a better standard of good governance.

Ministers, who are the decision makers, must be called to account in this way to defend their decisions before a parliamentary committee like PAC which, for this very reason, is comprised of backbench members of the Legislature, both Government and Opposition.

It is their job to keep the Executive a.k.a. the Cabinet in check. It is their job to keep close account of the way Ministers and their Ministries spend our money.

It is what is meant to happen during the annual Budget Debate, but doesn’t, in part because of the way in which it is structured, coupled with Governments’ apparent refusals over the years to yield to what should be done. (Damn those briefs, which they aren’t.)

It is also what is meant to happen in between the annual Budget debates through PAC.

You will recall that the SAGE Commission also went so far as to suggest the creation of three joint parliamentary committees (Senators and backbench MPs) to closely monitor expenditures of three groups of Ministries.

You may also recall the promises of the One Bermuda Alliance, now the Government, to reform the way business is done on the Hill; not the least of which was to strengthen both the Office of the Auditor General, as well as parliamentary committees, “to work on major issues of the day.” Government expenditure, past and present, qualifies as one of those issues, does it not?

One final thought this week, Mr Editor, reflecting on recent events whether you be stumped or stonewalled: Sure, we all make mistakes, and voters can (and often do) forgive those who make mistakes, most especially and most assuredly when they admit those mistakes.

But patterns of behaviour, excuse me, they punish.