PEOPLE EXPECT BETTER!
August 21, 2015 | By KNews | Filed Under Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom, Source
The Budget debates are a three-week-long exercise. Between the reading of the Budget speech and the commencement of the debate, there is a one-week intermission.
This week is used to give all and sundry the opportunity to study the Budget. It gives the opposition a chance to develop their assessment and it gives the government side the chance to assemble their policies and arguments in favour of the Budget.
The first week after this intermission is devoted towards the debate on the Budget. One week, in fact, is far too short, given the number of speakers. There have been complaints about the time allotted to opposition members, and the new government could have been more flexible and supported extensions.
They should open themselves to criticism and not do what was done to them when they were in opposition. Even if it means limiting the number of speakers, each presenter should be given the minimum of half an hour with one 15-minute extension. Fifteen minutes is much too short to develop the sort of arguments that have to be made in these debates.
The debate on the Budgets is followed by the work of the Committee of Supply. This is limited to seven days, bringing the total time for the whole process to three weeks.
When you have a five-month window to spend 221 billion dollars, three weeks can be a long time. It also takes up a lot of time.
This, however, does not justify the motion that was moved to reduce the time for the consideration of the estimates from seven days to three days. This should never happen. It sends the wrong signal about the government’s commitment to transparency and confirms the worst fears of the supporters of the opposition about the lack of democracy.
The coalition had promised that things would be different. They promised openness and transparency. What they have done via this motion is to shoot down those commitments and disgrace themselves. The government should show that it is different from the PPP and allow the full period for the consideration of the estimates. There should be no hurry-up Budget and no hurry- up process of trying to have the debates ended earlier.
The electorate that voted for the coalition is going to be very disappointed. They are going to be disappointed that the opposition can score valid points about the lack of openness by the new government.
There is already a great deal of disappointment over the performance of the new government so far.
Admittedly people had too much expectations of the new government. They felt that things would have changed rapidly. The government now seems unable to deliver what the people presumed would have been immediate change. The talk around the country is that there has been no change, just exchange. But some people prefer the exchange without the change. It matters more which parties are in power than what is done while in power. So the government knows that no matter what is done, it will enjoy significant support. It carries with it a great deal of goodwill. That goodwill is going to evaporate, however, if the government does not keep its promises to the people.
The honeymoon is over. People want to see openness and transparency. They want to see the estimates of expenditure subject to rigorous scrutiny. There is nothing to hide and therefore there should be no reason for limiting the time for consideration of the estimates.
Openness and transparency come at a price. The extension of the consideration of the estimates of expenditure to seven days is one price that has to be paid.
If the government wants three days for consideration of the estimates, it should extend the hours of the sitting of the National Assembly to compensate for the two days that are lost. This would be a reasonable compromise.