No need for sub-titles, Mr Editor, or interpreters. No need to read between the lines either. I shall try and keep it plain and simple and short. I tell my grandchildren all the time, as I did my children before them, two wrongs don’t make a right. I know, I know, you say that you didn’t start it and I hear what you say you heard, but that’s not the point. I want you to do better than that. Try, please.

Now you and I both know it’s an approach that requires a lot of patience, but in the long run you figure it is worth the time and the effort.

While it may not be easy, people might reasonably expect similar from those who are elected to lead. So I was as surprised as the next person when I learned of Government’s decision to walk out of the House on the reading of the Official Reply to the Throne Speech by the Opposition Leader – as well as by what prompted it.

I think we all like to think that people look up to their Government, and their members, not only uphold the bar on how MPs should conduct themselves, but to raise it when they can. They are not just another political party or opposition on the prowl for attention and political points. They won the election and with it the responsibility to serve all the people all the time, including and most especially perhaps, when representing in the House on the Hill.

To make the point another way: I recall when former Premier Alex Scott was chiding the then Opposition for its criticism on how his Government was conducting itself in matters involving the police service. “But you used to make the very same points yourself”, we told him. “True”, he admitted, adding with a wry smile: “But we were Opposition then. We‘re Government now.”

Exactly.

Okay, so they wanted to make a point about something grievous and outrageous the Opposition Leader is alleged to have said to a party member at the Sandys South polling station. Their MPs walked out to not only draw attention to those remarks but presumably to also demonstrate their contempt, not only for what he allegedly said but for the person himself. Well, they achieved both. But at what cost?

There was already a formal complaint with the Bermuda Police and an investigation apparently in train. That seemed like the appropriate and right step to take, in view of what was alleged, and to let the investigation take its course. Depending on how that proceeds, and the findings, further options for action may well present themselves, on and off the Hill.

A bad precedent has also now been set, and by the Government, which may come back to haunt them, if and when someone or some group finds something they have said to be offensive or disrespectful or both. It’s the old tit for tat.

All of this on the eve of the Sandys South by-election: You can be forgiven for thinking that the one had something to do with the other. One of the candidates was a woman and the incident occurred at the advance poll. Did party political considerations prevail and to what effect? Well, none of us will ever know for sure, but riddle me this: why when it came time for explanation of what had occurred in the House, it came from the OBA party chairman and not their leader in the House, the Premier? That was a tell, I think.

What’s even more telling is that the walkout took centre stage in the week in which we were still reeling from shooting incidents outside National Stadium and Somerset Cricket Club, and on the day the Auditor General tables another damning report on Government spending.

The BFA at least made a statement when they cancelled all games last weekend and called all clubs to a pow-wow on what further steps can be taken. SCC joined in with a meeting of their own and a promised crackdown on gangs at the club. Promising first steps.

As for that Auditor General’s report check it out for yourself. Go to www.gov.bm, look for publications under Auditor General. It is top of a long list (sad to say) and it makes for more than just interesting reading. It’s a tragedy, travesty even. The investigation relates to work that began more than six years at the Port Royal Golf Course which was budgeted at $4.5 million but by the time it was completed cost us $24 million. The report highlights:

* cost overruns (no surprise there);

* an absence of proper oversight and monitoring by Government and the Legislature (sound familiar?);

* unapproved financing (again) and,

* a total disregard for established practices and controls for government expenditures, including, wait for it, a lack of tendering and conflicts of interest involving one Board member who was also a Government Minister (unbelievable).

Here’s the one point I want to make this week. This horse has long since bolted the stable. The money is gone. The damage has been done and the Government responsible tossed out at the last election. What this so vividly demonstrates is that we need a better system on the Hill (and off) to provide oversight and monitoring from day one so as to hold those responsible to account as and when money is being spent. What we have now clearly is not working.

It’s long past time for an overhaul starting with the Public Accounts Committee, and there are no better place for PAC to start than with the new hospital and the proposed new airport deal.

Now there’s a walk (not talk) members should walk.