Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh says the government is in “in completely uncharted territory” after the opposition delayed the approval of supplementary budget allocations over concerns about the legality of some spending.
Singh, who said that the decision may have implications on ongoing tripartite talks and budget preparations, told a press briefing immediately after yesterday’s National Assembly sitting that the country’s existing legislative framework did not cater for the situation. He indicated that there would have to be some examination of the way forward but noted that there was no legal time frame for the Contingencies Fund to be replenished.
Singh said that the stance adopted by APNU and AFC indicated their real positions on cooperation. Nevertheless, he said that the government will continue to engage with the opposition in the budget preparation but this would be done guardedly. “We will do so now with the shadow of today’s events lurking in the background,” the minister said, while adding that the stance taken by APNU and AFC questions whether they are genuinely interested in national development or more interested in scoring political points.
Singh, who was accompanied by Prime Minister Samuel Hinds, Junior Finance Minister Juan Edghill and Presidential Advisor on Governance Gail Teixeira, opined that the “clear and manifest unreasonableness” demonstrated by the opposition would in-evitability impact on the tripartite discussions. He noted that both APNU and AFC had in some instances been guilty of engaging in public posturing on matters that were being discussed at the tripartite engagements.
Teixeira, however, gave reassurances that the PPP/C government is still committed to discussions with the other parties. She said that members of the public should judge APNU and the AFC by their actions.
Meanwhile, Shadow Finance Minister Carl Greenidge said that the opposition voted against certain advances made from the Contingencies Fund because it was not satisfied that the money was spent within the ambit of the law.
The government could bring back the items to the House at a later date, after making the necessary revisions, he added.
“Those items that are not cleared… somebody has to be held accountable for them or they will properly document them and come back,” Greenidge said. “Our purpose here is to ensure that the government lives within the law; a law which they themselves fashioned and a law that requires that they provide explanations,” he added.
Greenidge indicated further that the stance taken by the opposition yesterday was intended to show the government that it could not continue using public funds without providing proper explanations as it has done in the past. According to him, many of the explanations given in the House yesterday were not satisfactory but the opposition “decided to go along with it taking out the worst cases.”
He said that while the government may want to make capital out of the opposition’s decision not to support certain expenditure, it must be noted that the money has already been spent by the government in all instances.