SERIOUS business this, Mr. Editor, campaigning - and some of it should be taken seriously. Very seriously. On the other hand, there's also some of it that is intended to be taken seriously but shouldn't be. Curious as to what's what? OK. Let's start with the serious first: the most recent raid on the office of the Auditor General. What's that got to do with the election? Nothing, one likes to think, although thinking is what gets us, ahem, into trouble, if you know what I mean.

Personally, I thought the cat was already out of the bag. The Son of Soil has come clean -pardon the expression - and revealed not only his identity but why he chose to go public with what he had on the BHC (with the promise - is it threat? - of possibly more to come). He also put the lie to all those grand conspiracy theories the PLP wanted everyone and their brother to believe, which is that it was all the orchestrated work of the United Bermuda Party and the news media, working in cahoots. But, as if that wasn't enough, Harold Darrell feels so strongly about the issue he has also taken on the role of Son of Spoil, throwing his hat in the ring in the PLP-held constituency of Pembroke West Central. This, Mr. Editor, has not gone down well in some quarters - and my theory is that somebody has got to be made to pay.

However, I don't expect that it has escaped everyone's notice that the courts of the land, from the Supreme Court of Bermuda to the Court of Appeal to the Privy Council in London, have all ruled consistently, and clearly, in favour of disclosure. Nor should it escape their notice. They have paid for the privilege, courtesy of the Progressive Labour Party Government which spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of their money, taxpayer's dollars, so they would not know what they now know.

The right of the public to know what their Government has been up to, is an important right. This is what transparency and accountability are all about - and why there must be mechanisms and tools in place to ensure that this will be so.

While we still await the written reasons for their decision, who can forget the incredulous comments of one of the law lords who heard the case. Referring to the reported comments of then acting DPP Kulandra Ratneser, Lord Justice Hoffman said: "He's quoted as saying it's unethical but not criminal., If that's so, surely the public has a right to know if their politicians behaved unethically?".

The Auditor General has a key role to play in this. The work of the office is part of the system of checks and balances (pun intended) through which the public gets to follow the money. This is why the independence of the office is so crucial.

Nor should we forget that it was the Auditor General who was first called in to investigate the BHC scandal by then Premier and leader of the PLP, Dame Jennifer Smith, in response to the claims which were first brought to light on the floor of the House on the Hill by now leader of the United Bermuda Party Michael Dunkley.

Let me refresh a few memories: a thorough review was requested which the Auditor General suspended when he recommended that the police be called in to investigate further.

There were limitations to what he could do under the Audit Act. He had no access to the records of companies, businesses or people with whom the BHC did business. Neither did he have the authority to require non-Government people to provide him with information or explanations.

"It was because of these limitations, and because the Premier [Dame Jennifer] asked me to do so", he wrote in his initial report of May 2002, "that I reported in April 2002 to the Director of Public Prosecutions when I believed I had sufficient findings to warrant a Police investigation into possible criminal activity.

" The Police are not subject to the investigative limitations that I am", the Auditor General also wrote, " and the Police and my staff are liaising as their respective work progresses."

Liaison, huh? Well, that was then, I suppose, Mr. Editor, and this is now.

Nevertheless, the Auditor General only suspended his review so that the police could make their enquiries. "My investigation is ongoing", the Auditor General observed in his May 2002 report. "I will include any significant further findings, and those included in this report, in a future report to the House of Assembly at an appropriate time."

We have long since passed the appropriate time.

The Auditor General is not only entitled to documents arising out of the police investigation, the office was in my view obligated to obtain and review for the purposes of completing the review they were asked to do in the first place.

There are a couple of other good reasons why this should be so:

(1) Those comments of the then acting DPP when he observed at the conclusion of the police investigation that while in his view none of the activities he reviewed were unlawful, some of them might well be considered unethical;

(2) The DPP's further comment that, based on what he had seen, there might be a number of civil remedies which the BHC might want to employ for recovery of funds; and

(3) The reported comments of MP Nelson Bascome, who was Housing Minister at the time and whose portfolio included the BHC, who declared in his first major interview since Terrence Smith was convicted for stealing $1.2 million of taxpayers' money from BHC: "I don't think justice has totally been done." ( "Bascome: Let me in from the cold", The Royal Gazette, Monday April 24, 2006)

I know, I know: but the PLP Government keeps crowing about the turnaround at BHC and the clean bill of health which the Auditor General has given. True, but what they conveniently overlook is the $8-million which appears to have been written off - yes, let me repeat, eight million dollars - and can you imagine the dent that could have put in the housing crisis? - and which helps make things look better than they really are.

We need to hear from the Auditor General on just what was written off and why - and, more importantly, why recovery cannot be pursued.

Before I close on the subject Mr. Editor, riddle me this too: in view of the allegations which have been made, which we have all read, and the seriousness of them, how is it then that the Auditor General can be targeted for not only questioning but arrest and detention over allegedly stolen documents, while Government Ministers were never even interviewed by police about alleged activities at the BHC?

No one is above the law indeed, Minister Burch.

Fragileprivilege

IN one of those ironies you could not script, Mr. Editor, it was only a week ago that the National Audit Office in the UK published its report on managing risk in the overseas territories, of which Bermuda is one.

One of their findings was that parliamentary scrutiny of Government spending appears weak.

No surprise there really. It was one of two understatements that caught my eye. The other may not have been intended.

The UK Comptroller and Auditor General observed in the report that some audit officers had expressed concern with preserving their independence, and that the Auditor General in Bermuda had described it as a fragile privilege, not ensured by legislation alone.

You think? I wonder whether the comment was made before or after the first raid?

No matter. What's clear, Mr. Editor, from the record, and from experience, is that the Bermuda system of governance is in need of reform, starting with, but not ending with, the strengthening and the provision of greater resources for the office of the Auditor General. Parliament's Public Accounts Committee - the body charged with parliamentary oversight of Government spending - is next.

Me and mycrayons

HERE's the bit I find hard to take seriously, Mr. Editor. It was early in the campaign, before the writ had been dropped and the election called, that I was being described in PLP press releases as a member of the old guard of the United Bermuda Party who engages regularly in the slash and burn politics of personal destruction. (Well, what the heck, I am 57 years old, and I am one of the oldest and longest sitting members in the United Bermuda Party slate of candidates. But slash and burn?)

Next I was likened to a crayon - as were all of my colleagues - by Premier Dr. Brown in his now famous speech - or is it infamous? - which he gave at the annual PLP Banquet to kick off the campaign. He complained about how we mix up the Crayola box for our TV advertisements but yet I, John Barritt, am never prominently displayed. I complain too, Mr. Premier, but it seems our campaign wants to give what limited air time we get to the new not the old candidates.But most recently, I was "outed" on the PLP website as a United Bermuda Party stalwart, one of four members who run the United Bermuda Party (you wish: I don't), and, catch this, a son of the aristocracy. There's no denying, Mr. Editor, that I am white. But the son of an aristocrat? That's a new one on me, but please don't mention it to my father. He will wonder just who they are talking about. But we all understand. This is Bermuda politics. Not that it has to be that way.

"Of late there has been an embarrassing abundance of racially inflammatory comments by politicians, talk show commentators, and members of the public to another", wrote someone very recently. "This type of dialogue does nothing to progress the country on any front and actually sets us back. Before we use racially constructed language in our discourse we should first assess whether, if said in reverse by someone of the opposite race, it could offend us", the writer suggested. "If it could offend that should be your guide to refrain from making the comment".

The observation and sage advice was penned by the another Brown of the PLP, Walton: but, mind you, that was before the decision of the Privy Council and the Premier's speech to start the 2007 Christmas campaign. You're right to wonder whether it will be anything other than Merry.

PS Mr. Editor, please note that this is a "View From Off the Hill" while I am out and about on the campaign trail.