Auditor General’s Report - What we would have done differently

By Craig Cannonier, Opposition Leader, January 29, 2012

We don’t believe the people of Bermuda are surprised to hear about the misuses of public money revealed by the Auditor General’s report.

Over the years, we have seen enough to know that the system has been worked time and again for the benefit of friends and insiders.

Government pledges to strengthen good governance have been more a smokescreen than a path to better governance.

The OBA from the beginning has said it will reform government to make it more transparent and more accountable, so that people can have confidence the government is actually working for their benefit.

But those reforms are really just one part of the equation. To really make reform work, to make it stick, you need people who believe in it.

The reality is you can have all the rules you want, but if you’re not going to follow them, if you’re going to try to manipulate them, then Bermuda is never going to have a government they can trust.

At the end of the day, good governance comes down to people and the trust you have in them, and that is the issue at the heart of this report.

Here are a couple of examples of what an OBA Government would have done differently:

Missed opportunities at the BLDC

The public learned three days ago through the Auditor General about the misuse of public funds at the BLDC. The Premier learned about it more than a year ago. What does that say about her commitment to transparency?

An OBA Government would have informed the public immediately. We would have stepped up to the microphone as soon as possible to report what was going on with a pledge to keep people informed going forward. This is what transparency and openness mean.

This Premier did not do that. Despite talking many times about the need for transparency in government, she has been anything but transparent. Here was an opportunity to walk the walk but she did not.

The Auditor also reported that the BLDC chairman and Deputy Chairman defied the Finance Minister’s orders to vacate their positions and that the Public Works Minister took no action to support that order.

An OBA Government would not have tolerated such disrespect.

Public money funding private legal actions

Premier Cox argues that her decision to use public money to pay the expenses for two ministers’ private legal action was done to protect the integrity of the government.

If that was the case, then:

1. The Government of Bermuda needed to put its name to the action, not the names of Ewart Brown and Derrick Burgess, and
2. The Government should have sued for $1 in damages, not the $4 million sought by Messrs Brown and Burgess.

Seeking $4 million makes the action about enrichment; seeking $1 makes it about integrity.

As it was, the Government only backed away from the financing the action when the Auditor General raised questions about it. But to back away does not make sense if the Premier truly believed the Government’s integrity was at stake. Her action suggests she thought her decision to fund her colleagues’ private action was wrong.

An OBA Government would not have paid legal fees for a private action.