Now that the APNU+AFC government has begun to release the reports of audits into state corporations and other entities, it is all the more indefensible that a 56-day hiatus in Parliamentary sittings has been set. Surely a government that is only 10 months old and replaced a much criticised one which held office for 23 consecutive years must have a robust parliamentary agenda to implement its manifesto promises and begin rectifying and updating legislation.
The Leader of the House for Government Business, Prime Minister Nagamootoo has not laid out convincing reasons for the lengthy delay. The important work of Parliament must not be set back unnecessarily by training for parliamentary staff and a visit by parliamentarians to the UK House of Commons. Neither of those two events can be deemed to be important enough. The extended adjournment of the House also reflects the thinness of the government’s mandate and its inability thus far to strike a compromise with the opposition on legislative matters which should be passed unanimously.
Many matters contained in the APNU+AFC manifesto remain unaddressed, prime among which is the seminal issue of constitutional reform. At several points in its manifesto, the coalition underlined the urgency with which this matter is to be addressed. In one section of the manifesto it said that within three months of taking up office it would appoint a commission to amend the constitution and in another section it ventured that it would immediately appoint a constitutional reform commission comprising all major stakeholders whose mandate would be to “undertake the urgent task of fashioning comprehensive reforms for early implementation”.
As far as the public can gather, the coalition has gone only so far as the development of a road map on the way forward for constitution reform. That road map is still to be presented to the public 10 months on. This is one area that should have seen a fully engaged Parliament working round the clock to get this process in train given its importance and the emphasis that the coalition had placed on it. The coalition has not kept its promise in this area and its silence on this matter reflects its de-emphasising.
There are a number of other commitments which should have been addressed. These include the appointing of an in situ parliamentary counsel in the aftermath of the controversy over the role of the Attorney General’s Chambers in relation to the vetting of legislation for transmission for presidential assent. The coalition appears comfortable with the current arrangement which it had strongly criticised while in opposition.
There was also a commitment in the coalition manifesto to appoint a parliamentary committee dedicated to making recommendations for the continuing reform and improvement in the working of the parliamentary system. One would have thought that this committee would have been established as a matter of urgency.
A permanent law reform commission is still to be established as promised by the coalition and had this been done an intensive process would have no doubt begun to update a range of laws and have these presented to the National Assembly for approval. Parliament is also supposed to receive recommendations from a specialised NIS task force on restoring the viability of the Scheme, according to the coalition manifesto. In addition, the sectoral parliamentary committees should have much work to do on subjects such as the Commission of Inquiry (CoI) into the sugar industry and the ongoing concerns about prison security. Both of the reports on the sugar industry CoI and the Rodney CoI should have already been scheduled for debate in the House.
The point is that there is limitless work to be undertaken in the National Assembly and there is also the expectation that under this government the legislative branch will assume an even higher profile. President Granger’s addresses to Parliament on the border controversy with Venezuela is reflective of this.
So the release of these audit reports by the Ministry of Finance finds Parliament in an enforced recess when there should have been a hive of activity. The forensic audit findings about the extent of fiscal concessions granted to the Chinese logging company Baishanlin is a case in point. After having much to say while in opposition about the conduct of Baishanlin, the government has disturbingly approached the matter with little urgency. The audit report released on Thursday should lead to immediate action and one would have thought that the parliamentary sectoral committee on economic services would be tasked with reviewing the report and providing the impetus for a parliamentary debate on Baishanlin.
Given the range of pressing matters facing the government and country, from the drought to sugar, Prime Minister Nagamootoo should seek to have Parliament meet long before the May 4th date and he and his government should define a detailed parliamentary agenda for the rest of the year so that the public would be aware of its priorities.
