If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. It’s an old saw, readily understood by most, which I have always rather liked, Mr Editor, and that’s because I also happen to think the reverse is true.

That’s why, for those who wonder, I go on from time to time (actually pretty regularly, I will concede) about the need for parliamentary reform and why I believe it was one of the keys to changing the way in which we run our government and conduct our politics.

I realise there are other competing priorities. I hear you: it’s about the economy stupid. Okay, I get that too.

If things do not pick up around here soon, er sorry, and I am trying hard not to be overly pessimistic, if they don’t pick up at a better rate we could be looking at broke all right, that other kind of broke, the one where we find that we don’t have enough cash to fuel our economy, to generate more jobs for all and to fund our government.

We are still looking at a pretty big wish list. Mind you, there are some keener minds than mine out there (note: some, not all) who are telling us they see green shoots in the garden and tout this as evidence that we are turning the corner.

To a lot of folks it is looking like a very wide corner. Unless I miss my guess here, it is probably also fair to say that the One Bermuda Alliance Government has pretty well staked its political life on turning that corner.

They were elected on the promise of creating more jobs: 2,000 was the number I believe they mentioned in their election campaign.

The party also promised to get costs under control, trim Government expenditure, reduce the deficit and get us back, if possible, to balanced budgeting.

That too is a tall order as they themselves are finding out, now elected and in charge. But they believe they are making some headway.

The Finance Ministry recently issued a first quarter report that told us current account spending was down by about seven per cent and revenue up by just over two per cent for the same period last year. The deficit is still a drag though at $2.185 billion — and hopefully not counting.

But this is only a quarter and, if you’ll excuse the expression, a quarter does not a dollar make. It is still a hard road ahead.

All of which got me to thinking again about the SAGE Commission and to dust off my copy of their report.

SAGE floated some strong and controversial recommendations.

Privatisation was one, the potential for which seems that much closer with the draft Bill that Government has out there for review.

We have already had early reaction as to how this might go down.

Positions are hardening already, particularly from the principal players, and there are declarations of red lines that will not be crossed, etc, etc. We are all familiar with the script.

It’s at this point that I ask, rhetorically: where’s the dialogue?

I am not talking about private meetings or consultations behind closed doors, but rather meetings that are open for public participation whether by questions, speaking or just listening.

You may recall the public meetings which the SAGE Commission held prior to production of their report and the opportunity this afforded voters to get engaged.

You may not recall any of the public meetings which Government promised. I believe that that is because there weren’t any.

There wasn’t much of a debate on the report on the Hill in the House either.

It was late in the evening and featured little direction from Ministers on where Government might be headed and what the Cabinet thought of the recommendations. It is in these such voids that speculation is born and suspicions fuelled.

People start to fill in the blanks, some come by it honestly, naturally, others with their agendas in mind. It is in this context that I underscore the need for parliamentary reform.

Contemplate, if you will please, the difference that it might make if voters are given the opportunity to participate at the early stages, to ask questions and/or to present their views, to engage in an open exchange with policymakers and each other.

This is the role that could have been fulfilled by a joint select committee of the Legislature, exploring the SAGE report and recommendations with the voters, the taxpayers, the people who count.

This is the route that could also be taken to examine privatisation.

Consider our new hospital wing for example, the most obvious example of a PPP (public private partnership) going up right under our noses.

That could and should have been under constant and open review by parliamentary committee like that of the Public Accounts Committee.

It would be most useful and instructive to know exactly how that is working out for us and what lessons, if any, can be learned for future possible projects.

These are more than just lost opportunities. These are approaches that could net different results, if not in substance then in attitude when it comes to tackling the controversial and the difficult issues that have to be tackled as we explore any and all possibilities for turning the corner.

I can think of any number of other issues that qualify: gaming and the lost referendum, PRCs, so-called commercial immigration and immigration generally.

I’m just saying, Mr Editor. In my books, a little goodwill goes a long way.

Ps — To all those who labour, and that’s all of us, have a good holiday weekend.