A BBC reporter contacted this newspaper yesterday to ask in the light of a Daily Telegraph report headlined ‘Guernsey’s parliament declared unfit for purpose’ wasn’t our local coverage damaging the island’s reputation?

The answer, of course, is no.

Any harm that has been caused to it is solely down to the States itself.

As Wales Audit Office auditor general Jeremy Colman put it: ‘I found that there are significant weaknesses in the current governance arrangements. The weaknesses are the product both of inherent, fundamental structural deficiencies in the way Guernsey is governed and individuals being unwilling to accept the discipline needed to make things work.’

As critiques go, it could not have been worse. The island has been marketing itself for decades as a stable, well governed jurisdiction. Even yesterday, GuernseyFinance, the promotional arm of the island’s financial services sector, was trumpeting a ‘centuries-old tradition of political stability and good governance’ on its website.

The sad fact is that there is no good governance, islanders can have no faith in the States ability to deliver value for money and its sloppy internal financial controls represent a significant financial and reputational risk, according to the WAO.

And neither can the findings be dismissed. While the States is doing nothing about them, the Policy Council yesterday welcomed the report as ‘providing a thorough and objective analysis of the effectiveness of Guernsey’s current structures of governance’.

The other smokescreen actively being peddled by States members is that the auditor general’s comments are being used to camouflage a campaign for executive government.

What the WAO asks – and the Policy Council is ducking with the tacit support of a worrying number of deputies – are just two questions:

Can the current structures and procedures facilitate accountability and effective decision making, and can cultures within the States be modified to facilitate corporate ways of working?

If they can, or could be modified to do so, then the existing machinery of government can happily be retained.

The trouble is that no one, for reasons entirely of self-interest, has the courage to pose those questions.