Financial front man of A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) Carl Greenidge says the combined opposition’s vote against Financial Paper 9/2011 on Thursday was as a result of government’s contempt for the National Assembly in returning it to the House without a single amendment.
The opposition on Thursday voted against the resubmitted items of Financial Paper 7 in the form of Financial Paper 9. The government said it is to contemplate the next steps as to how the Contingencies Fund will be replenished now that that spending has not been approved – for the second time.
The combined opposition in February, rejected four items amounting to $79 million in Financial Paper 7/2011 on the grounds that government had failed to provide the necessary information and explanations required by the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act (FMAA) of 2003.
“The reason we did not ask questions is because we did not believe that the paper should have been allowed. But with the Speaker [of the National Assembly] having ruled, we believe that it was contemptuous. The minister submitted the document un-amended, not a comma changed. In that situation there is nothing to be said,” Greenidge said.
“In addition, some of the information was deliberately misleading while others were illegal,” said Greenidge. “The PPP submitted the material in this way because they had become accustomed to breaking the law and having broken the law they had no intention of changing their ways. They hoped to get the AFC to support them,” he said.
“The PPP has re-submitted the papers without any change. APNU believes that these re-submissions are illegal even though the paper has been given a new number – 9,” he said.
According to Greenidge, Standing Order 69 of Parliament forbids bills being re-submitted. It states:
“Once the second reading of any Bill has been agreed to or negatived, no question shall be proposed during the same session for the second reading of any other Bill containing substantially the same provision…”
However, the Speaker at Thursday’s sitting of the National Assembly ruled against Greenidge’s efforts to have the financial paper deemed inadmissible in the House.
Greenidge said a number of requirements of the FMAA were not met to allow for the proper consideration of the paper. There were specific issues with each of the items. He said the National Awards ceremony was something the government would have known about in advance. The legislation requires that items for which contingency funding is being sought, qualify as being unforeseen or unavoidable and for which a delay in providing the funds could result in difficulties for the country.
“The Minister [of Finance] should have submitted what was the embarrassment that would have been caused if the provision was not approved,” he said. Greenidge noted also that the allocation originally budgeted was less than half of the amount requested through Financial Paper 7 and then 9.
Regarding the money for the workers of the General Register Office (GRO), Greenidge said the government had ample opportunity to bring the request to the National Assembly and have it cleared as soon as possible after September, when the spending took place.
Concerning the request for an allocation for the purchase of security equipment, he said, “We don’t know what the equipment is for.” He asked how the need for the purchase of this equipment could be unanticipated. “There was no explanation as to why it was urgent….”
Greenidge said there was a clear lack of disclosure with regard to the allocation for the specialty hospital. “The law requires that the entity to which money is paid is specified,” he said.
With regard to the cuts in the budget, Greenidge said the items of expenditure were rejected for a variety of reasons. “In truth, more items deserved to have been cut. There were, for example, items identified by the Auditor General as worthy of being cut and these included the Presidential Guard Service which the Ministry of Finance treated under the Estimates as a ‘local organization’ to which subsidies are to be paid, in other words an NGO.
“This is clearly illegal and the Auditor General has said so on several occasions, including in the 2010 AG Report.”
He said there is also the case of the so-called ‘Sport and Art Development Fund’ “from which the Minister of Sport operates a slush fund. We were not in a position to cut the allocation during the debate because the necessary 24 hours notice could not be given.”
Greenidge said APNU wanted to see the funds available to the government used to relieve the plight of the poor via reduced taxes and raising transfers such as Old Age Pensions and the minimum wage, implementing programmes for employment, training and cleaning up the physical environment in urban centres.
“These policies were mentioned in our speeches during the budget debate. They could not be forced into the budget measures by the opposition members on their own. In the examination of the budget measures, the House sitting as the Committee of Supply, APNU focused on the legality and appropriateness of the measures based on non-consultation as well as the misuse of taxpayers’ money and state revenues for partisan political purposes,” Greenidge said.
Regarding the cuts meted out to NCN, Greenidge said the money available to NCN comes from advertising and other revenues as well as from a state subsidy. “The need for the subsidy has not been justified by the government. Furthermore, there can be no justification for an entity funded with taxpayers’ money operating in an unprofessional and partisan manner as the NCN and its organs,” he said.
He said too that NCN is a commercial entity and it should not be given government funds to enable it to undercut private commercial operators. “NCN should find money from their operations to cover all their costs,” said Greenidge.
Similarly, he said that before GINA’s case can be reconsidered “they should look at the rules governing the old Guyana Information Service (GIS) and the BBC and adhere to them.” He said balance and fairness in the national interest should be their watchwords. “Let the Mirror do its own dirty work,” he said.
Greenidge said the Customs Anti-Narcotics Unit (CANU) and the State Planning Secretariat (SPS) “are outrageous cases.” He noted that the Auditor General for years has recommended that both be denied funds under the Ministry of Finance vote because they are not local organisations outside the government. “They should not be treated as NGOs in need of subsidies. In fact the SPS was closed years ago. It is maintained outside the system with taxpayers’ funds so that illegal hirings can be done outside the rules and control of the Public Service,” he said.
Greenidge explained that in the case of CANU the government asked for $98 million. The opposition agreed to $72 million under the Ministry of Home Affairs, but cut a second amount proposed under the Ministry of Finance (MOF), “because the government has been dragging its feet for years about bringing it out of the category in which it is illegally placed by the MOF.
“A customs and drugs enforcement agency is not an NGO, and should not be treated as a private agency.”
The LCDS cuts
Greenidge said there are three reasons for rejecting the projects grouped under the LCDS label. “First, there has been no justification for the odd grouping of projects and the even more odd organizational arrangements. What, for example, do these items have to do with LCDS?” he said.
Second, he said, the individual projects have not been discussed and approved by the representatives of the people. “APNU has not, for example been consulted on the offer on which the approach is based; neither has a broad cross-section of the country’s non-state actors.
Neither the Norwegians, the UNDP nor the World Bank have had discussions or consulted with these bodies in any meaningful way, if at all,” he said.
“Third, the economics is questionable,” he said.
“Why are Amerindian matters placed here when they have been funded in the past by Government of Guyana without the need for this LCDS fiction? The funds can be considered under a relevant expenditure head as in the past,” he said.
Greenidge said the approval of equity for the Amaila Falls project should be done on the basis of a specific economic and financial examination or feasibility study that will consider the financial arrangements, the organisational set up for safeguarding taxpayers’ interests and a consensus regarding the financial soundness of the project.
“That has not been done. Indeed, the opposition has not seen the performance contract. The government claims that their partners have insisted that it remain confidential.
If taxpayers are to be asked to foot a bill for a project that is the largest ever undertaken in Guyana and which if it goes wrong can leave the taxpayers with a debt burden larger than its GDP, none of the arrangements can be a secret to the taxpayers’ representatives,” he said.
“APNU is not opposed to a hydroelectric project for the generation of electricity. We are opposed to these secret arrangements with a nest of companies (private Chinese firms) and individuals (local Chinese friends of Mr Jagdeo, already the beneficiaries of much state largesse) who stand to benefit enormously from continued sweetheart deals on terms that may leave the state and therefore taxpayers carrying the burden.
If the deal is so good then it will stand the light of day,” Greenidge said.
Greenidge said that unless these circumstances change, the government cannot expect APNU to support these items if and when they are brought back to the Parliament.
