Budget hangs in the balance .. Speaker to rule on cuts motion today

April 16, 2013, By KNews, Filed Under News 

, Source

The passage of the $208.8 billion budget was left hanging last evening as Speaker Raphael Trotman asked for time to decide whether the Opposition has the grounds under which to cut the budget.

Taking centre stage was the provisional ruling by Chief Justice Ian Chang that the National Assembly does not have the power to cut the budget; only to approve or disapprove.

Speaker Raphael Trotman

The Opposition has argued that the power to disapprove is the same as having the power to cut.

If he agrees that the law and Parliament’s rule book allows him to, Trotman would have to rule that the seven-seat Alliance for Change (AFC) can go ahead with its proposed cuts – $38 billion.

The opposition’s trump card was perhaps what came from AFC leader Khemraj Ramjattan.

He quoted from the statement of the Finance Minister Dr. Ashni Singh from April 17, 2012 when he said “”it is the legitimate right of the opposition to propose any change within the boundary of the Standing Orders.”

The Finance Minister had said, then, that the ruling PPP/C would defend the right of the opposition to question the estimates and make amendments.

That essentially chewed up Singh, and the rest of the government’s arguments that the opposition cannot cut the budget.

However, the budget cuts could be avoided, the AFC says, if the government comes clean on its spending,

The largest coalition block, APNU, which has 26 seats, has also indicated its intention to cut the budget, but has not formally laid a motion to this effect.

Both the AFC and APNU were adamant that they have the authority to slash parts of the 2013 budget.

Their position was taken despite a critical meeting between the Opposition and President Donald Ramotar and his advisors yesterday, which according to officials, did not find much progress.

Last evening after hours of arguments, Trotman said he will reserve a ruling to today.

Last year, almost $20B was reduced from the budget.

In allowing arguments yesterday, the Speaker ruled that while a court ruling has been made, he does not believe that it should “interrupt” the proceedings of the National Assembly.

According to Ramjattan, Parliament’s supervision over public’s money is an inherent right but that attempts continue to be made to “degut” the powers of the National Assembly.

He was adamant that the provisional ruling of the CJ, despite certain interpretations, allows for the budget to be cut.

He pointed out that the Constitution or law of the land, mandates the Minister of Finance to present the country’s financial estimates within 90 days of the new financial year to the National Assembly for approval.

Westminster
Ramjattan drew comparisons to the Westminster style of Parliament that Guyana has adopted, and quoted from several sections to bolster his arguments that the budget can be amended. He also cited sections of the Standing Orders or rule of National Assembly which gives members that right also.

“To take away that power is to denude us,” he said.

He also listed instances of other governments where budgets were reduced…places like Sweden, Australia, the US House of Representatives and Jamaica. “We are not alone. The Standing Orders are saying we can make amendments.”

Finance Minister, Dr. Ashni Singh, in rejecting the arguments of AFC’s Leader, insisted that the government’s position has not shifted. “The courts have now pronounced … we are guided by the courts of law.”

Khemraj Ramjattan

 

He pointed out that the Constitution also does not have provisions for what happens when the estimates are not approved, or reduced. It does not even contemplate the likelihood of non-approval.

Disapprove?
Shadow Finance Minister APNU Carl Greenidge also argued that the House has the capacity to control the public purse.

Greenidge found it preposterous that the Opposition can question the spending but not have the powers to disapprove it.

Gail Teixeira, Chief Whip of the ruling People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) disputed the contention that Guyana’s system was exactly like the British one. Rather it is a hybrid one, she said.

Teixeira insisted that the National Assembly can only approve or disapprove.

When APNU front bencher Deborah Backer got up to defend the authority of the House to cut, she said the controversy could have been avoided if the government was willing to engage in shared governance.

The Prime Minister insisted that the ruling PPP/C has always been for shared governance and building trust for political cooperation.

Backer said the arguments could have been avoided if the government was willing to have a genuine conversation “as to how we can sit down together to craft a budget that could have the support of the vast majority.”

“If the government was serious, we would not have been here,” Backer stated.

She said if there was compromise, both the opposition and the government would have won some and lost some.

She referred to Article 218 (2) which shows that when the estimates have been approved by the Assembly, a Bill to be known as the Appropriation Bill has to come to the House.

Given that Bills have been forever amended, she asked whether Attorney General, Anil Nandlall was saying that the House cannot amend a Bill.

Nandlall referring to the Chief Justice’s ruling on Parliamentary Standing Orders said that some Standing Orders are in violent conflict with the constitution. Ramjattan had argued that the Standing Orders allow for amending the estimates.

Nandlall argued that the Chief Justice did not deal with Article 171:2 (b) because it deals with existing charge. He says that charge is not there yet, because the budget has not been passed.

The Attorney General said that all sovereign powers of the Parliament, must comply with the four corners of the constitution.

Nandall harked back to the Chief Justice’s ruling regarding the Parliamentary Standing Orders, saying that the House even as “gatekeeper” cannot cut the estimates.

The Speaker then chipped in and took the Attorney General back to Article 171: 2 (b) of the Constitutions, which Ramjattan argued was not addressed by the Chief Justice. The argument is that that Article allows for cuts.

Cripple
The Attorney General, quoting the Chief Justice, says if the drafters of the constitution had wanted the House to exercise power to cut, they could have said so in the Constitution, as was done in India. But again, the Speaker intervened, saying that Article 113 (2) of the Indian Constitution of India provides three options: approval, disapproval or reduction of budget. The Speaker said that if the arguments of the Attorney General were to be held as true that would mean reducing the Committee of Supply of the Guyana Parliament to a rubber stamp.

Referring to an early argument by Ramjattan, the Attorney General said that if Standing Orders are law, they cannot collide with the constitution.
The Speaker pointed to former Speaker Ralph Ramkarran who ruled that the Standing Orders are just the same as written law. The Attorney General says that if Mr. Ramkarran did so rule, he is wrong.

The Opposition has argued that it could not have appealed the ruling of the Chief Justice because the ruling was preliminary. The Attorney General said that that argument is frivolous and vexatious and puerile.

The Attorney General went as far back as Esther Perreira elections petition case, in which Justice Claudette Singh ruled that once a citizen is 18 years or older, that citizen has the right to vote and no law passed in Parliament to introduce new requirements (at that time the use of a voter ID card or else a person could not vote) can take away that right to vote.

So, the Attorney General argued that the court has a supervisory role over Parliament.

APNU front bencher Basil Williams argued that the court has no jurisdiction to issue orders to the National Assembly.

He said that since the Chief Justice ruled that he could not direct the Speaker on the conduct of the Assembly, that’s the end of the matter.