Opposition rejects Govt’s attempt to impose new tax

…we are overtaxed in this country – APNU’s Williams

By Gary Eleazar

The political opposition yesterday prevented government from going ahead with the Customs (Amendment) Bill, which it

Prime Minister
Sam Hinds

argues will impose a further tax on Guyanese.
Government insists that it is only seeking to amend the laws to bring the country into compliance with the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramus.
The matter stems from a ruling by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), which found that an Environmental Tax charged by Guyana under the Customs Act was discriminatory. That tax stipulates that $10 be charged on each non-returnable bottled beverage imported into Guyana.
The amendment proposed by Government seeks to reduce the tax on what is imported into Guyana to $5, but also impose a $5 tax on each beverage in a non-returnable bottle produced locally.
Prime Minister Samuel Hinds yesterday brought a motion to fast track the second and third readings of the Bill, but it was roundly rejected by the political opposition.
A second and third reading of the Bill would facilitate a debate and vote on the Bill.
Following a vociferous back and forth between Government and Opposition members, Speaker of the National Assembly Raphael Trotman put the motion for a vote which was met with a resounding “no.”
A division of votes, requested by Prime Minister Hinds, saw 33 members of the House rejecting the motion while 28 voted in favour.
Carl Greenidge, the financial spokesperson for A Partnership for National Unity (APNU), was the first to object to the motion even engaging the House. He was of the opinion that CARICOM never called on the Government of Guyana to impose a tax on Guyanese.
According to Greenidge, what the CCJ found was that the tax is indiscriminate and that measures should be taken to address this – an option being the complete revocation of the tax.
Alliance for Change (AFC) Leader, Khemraj Ramjattan, also rose to voice his objection to the new tax on Guyanese and reminded that the matter has already been the subject of lengthy debate.

AFC MP,
Khemraj Ramjattan

“It would be a tax on our manufacturers…we indicated to Government that all manufacturers don’t want additional tax…our local manufactures would have none of that.”
According to Ramjattan, the new tax, if implemented, would have to be passed on to consumers. “Do we really want to do that?” he emphasised.
At this point in time, the Prime Minister sought to make the point that the motion was not about the Bill but rather a tool to clear the way for a debate and vote, but this did little to sway the opinion of the majority of the House.
Attorney General Anil Nandlall sought to bring to the attention of the House, the court case against the State by a Surinamese company Rudisa Beverages, which Guyana lost and must comply with the rulings by October 30.
One of the judgments of the court was to address the discriminatory tax, and according to Nandlall, the Bill would bring Guyana into compliance. His appeal was met with a plethora of heckles such as “you want to tax the people of Guyana” and “revoke the tax.”
Nandlall argued that when Guyana reports to the CCJ in October it will have to report on whether the House has passed the Bill.
“When we fail to comply we can be exposed to even more punitive measures…We have a court order we should comply.”
Greenidge immediately rejected Nandlall’s position, which he insists was an attempt to mislead the House. He was adamant that the judgment at no time called on Guyana to impose a new tax, and pointed out that one of the options available is to revoke the provisions for the tax, and that would also bring Guyana into compliance.
Ramjattan, who also supported Greenidge’s position, pointed to the CCJ ruling. He noted that it says that no State can be allowed to carve out an exception to treaty obligations and that Article nine of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas simply requires “appropriate measures” to be taken.
According to Ramjattan, one such measure is to repeal the tax altogether.
Foreign Affairs Minister Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett also sought to intervene on behalf of the Prime Minister, to solicit support for the passage of the motion to have the Bill debated and voted on.

APNU MP Basil Williams

According to Rodrigues-Birkett, the members of the House are all cognizant of the history of the Bill and the fact that Guyana is in contravention of World Trade Organization, the Economic Partnership Agreement, as well as the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramus, and as such she suggested that the motion be approved and the matter referred to a Special Select Committee.
She said that in such a committee, the members of the three parties could negotiate a suitable Bill.
This too was rejected.
Basil Williams of APNU in his objection to the debate and possible vote on the Bill declared, “we are overtaxed in this country…we are not going to Committee.” He argued that what Government was looking to do is impose a tax on local manufacturers and in that way it would no longer be discriminatory.
Following the 28:33 vote, Speaker Trotman was quick to point out that the Bill remains on the Order Paper at the stage of First Reading.
According to Trotman, the Bill is not dead, but rather, the House voted to not allow it to proceed.
When the matter came up for a Second Reading again, nearing the conclusion of yesterday’s sitting another unprecedented occurrence obtained.
According to Trotman, since there has not been a second reading as yet, it was up to the person piloting the Bill to choose to send the Bill to a Special Select Committee.
Greenidge however, opted to table another motion that the House, not agree to the Bill being sent to the Special Select Committee.
According to Greenidge, if the needs of the country are to be met immediately then the tax has to be revoked.
In the end the opposition prevailed given their voting strength in the House.
Following the vote, Government Chief Whip, Gail Teixeira, wanted it placed in the records that this was the first time something of this nature happened and while Trotman agreed, his response was “the rules are the rules.”