| APNU/AFC delays voting on 2013 Budget … another example of opposition’s abuse of its one-seat majority, says Dr Singh |  |  |  |
| Written by Gary Eleazar |
| Wednesday, 10 April 2013 21:58 |
THE Business Sub-Committee of the Committee of Supply that is slated to consider the 2013 National Estimates has been railroaded by the parliamentary majority using its voting strength, a move that has since been replicated in the Full House, effectively delaying the passage of the budget for several days. This position has since been condemned as ‘inflexible rigidity’ on the part of the combined opposition in its ‘abuse’ of the one-seat majority.  The National Assembly in session yesterday. (Adrian Narine photo) The House yesterday voted in favour of postponing the consideration and voting on the National Estimates, much to the disapproval of the government. Prior to the beginning of yesterday’s session of Parliament, the Assembly had been meeting long after the midnight hour with a 32/32 strength in the House, with none of the agendas put forward by government or opposition being granted approval. With the swearing in of its newest member yesterday, the combined opposition regained its o  Minister Dr. Ashni Singh Finance Minister, Dr Ashni Singh subsequently told members of the media that “what we have witnessed here is yet another example of the opposition’s abuse of its extremely slender majority in the House.” Dr Singh, in giving a recap of the events that led to the vote on the budget being pushed back, reminded that “since time immemorial, Parliament abided with the custom and practice that following the debate comes thereafter the consideration of the estimates.” This, he said, is a position that has never been challenged by the opposition in the House, even on the last occasion when it had slashed more than $21B from the 2012 Expenditures “On this occasion, they insisted that this interruption be granted, for whatever reason.” The finance minister said some have speculated there was a concern “about the fullness about their numbers, so they wanted to stall consideration of the estimates.” He said that regardless of the reasons, it is unfortunate that the opposition maintained its rigid insistence on a delay of the deliberations and displayed an “extremely alarming absence of flexibility.” The business sub-committee of the Committee of Supply was tasked with preparing the dates, times and sequence of the determination of the allocations for the various ministries, and according to Dr Singh, despite government indicating its willingness to compromise on a range of issues, the combined opposition used its majority in numbers in the Committee to “have its way.” Dr Singh told media operatives that while government maintained that the consideration of the estimates should have commenced yesterday, as is the practice, the opposition members of the committee, using its strength, pushed back the beginning of the voting and consideration to Monday. To have the estimates begin consideration immediately after the general policy debate is a “time hallowed and enshrined practice,” said Dr Singh. “The opposition insisted that they wanted the date to be next week Monday, without really indicating in a definitive way the reason for the delay.” He said that the members in the committee were unclear in proffering reasons as to whether it wanted more discussions among themselves or with government. On the matter of the amount of time and days being allotted for the consideration of each of the budget agencies, Dr Singh said government had indicated a willingness to accommodate the requests, given that it wanted to allow adequate time for questioning on any of the proposed expenditures. Another bugbear that presented itself for the negotiating parties was the sequence with which the allocations would be treated. Dr Singh reminded that this is also a time-honoured tradition that the sequence of the considerations is prepared by government. He said that the Speaker of the National Assembly, Raphael Trotman, had also indicated this position to the combined opposition but to no avail. According to Dr Singh, the Speaker made it clear that the government would determine the sequence and pointed to the fact that it is government that presented the estimates before the House and as such determines the sequence with which the consideration is done. This however did not find favour with the combined opposition, which has since set out dates, times and sequence for the consideration of the estimates when it presented its report of the committee for approval by the House. The government had presented its ‘minority report’ to the House, detailing its proposals on the consideration of the estimates, but this too was defeated in a 33 to 31 vote. “To our astonishment, an alarming lack of flexibility was displayed by the opposition, they were not willing to budge on anything,” a position Dr Singh called ominous, that did not augur well for “what is supposed to be a collaborative effort.” Meanwhile Leader of the parliamentary opposition, David Granger, had only a few hours prior indicated to media representatives that government “has all the cards stacked in its favour.” Granger said that on the estimates, the government has all of the documentation and data and has been preparing the estimates for the past year. “We have been given a short time, we have to consult our experts,” said the Opposition Leader. According to Granger, the opposition is prepared, “but at the same time we need to consult with our people, the time is too short.” He said that he does not believe that there is any reason to rush, given that the Parliamentary Standing Orders require that the estimates be approved by the end of this month.
|
| Last Updated on Wednesday, 10 April 2013 22:00 |
