It might be laughable, Mr Editor, were it not so sad. OK, maybe “laughable” is not the right word, but a wry smile would not be out of line.

This Commission of Inquiry is needed, we are told, because Bermuda’s reputation is at risk. Moreover, so the line goes, those recent reports of the Auditor-General have not, to say the least, painted a pretty picture, and made us look like something less than the first-class, world-class jurisdiction that we like to think that we are. Ouch.

We have heard pretty much the same argument as to why we need a new airport. Whether it is an argument that will fly on that project as well is open to question.

But that’s not to say we don’t need a Commission of Inquiry. Clearly, we do. We do – and let’s be clear on this – because the system of accountability that we have in place has simply not been working like it should. As far as we can tell from what successive auditors have told us over the years, and, repeatedly I may add, proper procedures and practices have not always been followed and, also apparently, have not been enforced.

“As in the past,” the Auditor-General wrote in her most recent report (key words, in my view), “the issue is not whether controls exist, but, rather, that the controls are ignored or overridden, with those responsible seemingly immune to the imposition of penalties and sanctions built into financial instructions.” Her concern, and ours as taxpayers, is that this sorry state of affairs has created opportunities for waste, misappropriation or, worse, fraud and theft. Questions and suspicions abound – and have done for some time now.

An independent commission will be expected to investigate in detail, something no authority has been apparently able to do to this point.

There will be some challenges along the way, some of which the Auditor-General highlighted in her most recent report:

• No paper trails: a noted absence of supporting documentation, as in actual contracts and agreements

• Lack of any formal analysis of spending priorities, as well as any formal assessment of which programmes best fit (or not) with the Government’s overall objectives in support of budget decisions.

• Concerns about the timeliness and accuracy of financial information on which decisions are based

There have also been complaints about being denied access to audit material, a necessity for any auditor, which presumably will not be an issue for the Commission of Inquiry, given its powers to summons witnesses and to call for the production of documents, and “to examine witnesses and parties concerned on oath”; powers provided under its enabling statute, the 1935 Commission of Inquiry Act.

But — and let’s be clear about this, too — so many of these issues are well known and have beset our government for some time now. They are, in a word, systemic; about which something should have been done and could have been done long before now.

There are some who like to think these problems are now behind us with the recent change in government. Think again and, by way of example, think of the proposed airport project and the apparent conflict and disagreement between the Accountant-General and the financial secretary over what was and was not agreed — and, more importantly, whether financial instructions were being followed.

Members of the Government who served in Opposition, and vice versa, know only too well from experience the challenges.

No Commission of Inquiry is needed to do some of what needs to be done — and in light of recent pronouncements by the leaders of both parties, you would think this achievable. In no particular order:

• The Office of the Auditor-General needs to be strengthened and given the support needed to make reviews current

• A robust Public Accounts Committee, increased in size to include one or two independent senators, which begins to work hand in glove with the Auditor-General in monitoring and examining current government expenditure

• A revamped annual Budget debate that provides greater opportunity for a critical look at what’s proposed for the coming year based on what was done (or not) the year before

• So-called Civil Service “reform” that is apparently under way, about which we hear little from time to time. But quite what this entails, and how it can be tracked, remains a bit of a mystery. It should not. It ought to be one of those matters subject to scrutiny by the PAC — or any other legislative committee struck for the purpose — and by way of public hearing.

Governments that are open to public review and scrutiny on a continuing and systemic basis make for accountability and transparency that are both meaningful and real. These are the true hallmarks of a first-class, world-class jurisdiction. A Commission of Inquiry is not, Mr Editor. On the contrary, it stands as evidence of what we are lacking.