As far as parliamentary debates go, Mr Acting Editor, the Budget Debate is by no means the Hill’s equivalent of ‘The Harlem Shake’. Not even close. Never was, and likely never will be. Not without some serious changes. For sure it should be something more than the somnambulist’s dream that it has become over the years (or is it nightmare?).What it is meant to be is the Legislature’s review of Government’s Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure for the coming financial year; close examination of what the Government has committed to doing, and where it is putting our money and not just its mouth, the benchmarks, if you will, by which the Opposition and the public, can measure performance and bring about accountability.But as a participant for 18 years on the Hill, it seems sadly to have degenerated over the years as Ministers read from excruciatingly long and seemingly interminable briefs (briefs! What a misnomer) prepared by their civil servants, some of whom would even sit in the gallery, ostensibly not just to listen I suppose, but to answer any questions that might arise, but for which there was rarely time for answers, assuming other MPs even got an opportunity to ask them.Sound productive? I initially described it as like watching paint dry. I later modified that to watching paint. Judging from the news reports this week, early indications are that notwithstanding a new Government, the same old, same old persists. Pity. There was, and maybe there still is an opportunity here to change practice and to create a much-needed new precedent, what with a new Speaker and a new Government that promised to practice politics differently. It wouldn’t be that hard to achieve.First, there is nothing wrong with prepared briefs. It is important to share with the public what you have planned for the year. They can be shared ahead of the debate with the public, via press conferences and website postings, and with the Opposition; in fact, the practice of prior press conferences began some years ago and appears to be continuing. What the House should hear is a summary, the highlights of the plans for the year.Secondly, while the Opposition decides what will be debated, and for how long, there is no reason that the two sides cannot agree on how long the Minister will get to present a summary, how long the Opposition and other MPs will get to speak, and then how much time the Minister will get by way of a reply so as to answer questions that have been asked and address any concerns that have arisen.This might actually engender debate, Mr Acting Editor, and bring about more penetrating analysis and focus that has been sorely lacking when it comes to Government finances.What we so often hear is that our MPs should be working together — for the greater good of Bermuda. Even from the MPs themselves. For that to happen, members must be given opportunities to participate and to pink up in meaningful ways. The Budget Debate should be one of those places. Government must take the lead on this and set the new and better example. Transparency and accountability begins at home.It is not good enough to slough all of the heavy lifting on to the Accountant General or any Contractor General, if there is still to be one. Members of the Legislature also have a key role to play in helping to hold the Executive (Cabinet) to account as the spending occurs — or does not — as the case may be. Working together? Together, Mr Acting Editor, is one thing and it doesn’t always mean having to agree. But working is another matter entirely and it is the first and key word of that phrase.Way to goSpeaking of which, I note it was the Opposition that was first out of the gate with a proposal for a Joint Select Committee, this one to feature Immigration and presumably the hot button issues of term limits and work permits. The point was made that we are working from a 1956 Act that has been amended many times over the years and under which policies seem to come and go and probably could use an overhaul. It is also one of the useful ways to put MPs to work, together; not to mention the opportunity it also affords the public to listen in and to participate.The development and use of joint select committees is also happens to be something to which the OBA Government committed itself in its election platform.The question now is who will move the motion.It’s as good a place to begin as any.Ÿ Comments? E-mail jbarritt@ibl.bm