The combined Opposition yesterday again voted against $79.6 million in four items of supplementary expenditure in Financial Paper 9/2011 and in reacting to this, Minister of Finance Dr. Ashni Singh said that this was the acid test of the Opposition’s intention with regard to how they may treat an attempt by Government to restore the budget cuts.
A division was called for when the vote was taken and the Opposition defeated the Government benches 33 to 29, leading to the financial paper being rejected. Minister of Finance Dr. Ashni Singh said that the Government will now contemplate what the next steps will be.
The current expenditure items voted against were a $25.5 million allocation to the Office of the President for the hosting of the national awards ceremony and other events of the state, including the swearing-in of President Donald Ramotar and other members of his Cabinet, and an amount of $6.5 million to the Ministry of Home Affairs as payment for staff of the General Register Office for working overtime during the claims and objections period for elections.
On the capital side, there were amounts of $18.4 million for the provision of security equipment to the Office of the President and $29.1 million for land preparation for the Specialty Hospital that the Indian government is financing.
Greenidge had written the Speaker of the National Assembly on May 21 seeking to have the financial paper that brings back those items that had been voted against in financial paper 7 declared inadmissible for breaches of the Standing Orders (SO).
“It is clear that in the making of the above-mentioned opinion, you took account of Standing Order number 26 e and 69 of the House,” Greenidge said in addressing the Speaker in the letter.
He said SO 26 e on the admissibility of motions specifically prohibits the consideration of motions which revive discussion of a matter which has been discussed in the same session.
He said too that SO 69 states that once the second reading of any Bill has been agreed to or negated, no question shall be proposed during the same session for the second reading of any other bill containing substantially the same provision.
Greenidge’s letter to the Speaker said that the latter’s written opinion makes mention of the existence of these rules but suggested the option of resubmitting the paper for consideration of the House. “In view of the unambiguous form in which the SO have been drafted, it is inconceivable that you would have been inviting the Government benches to trample on the rules,” Greenidge said.
In delivering his ruling on the request to disallow the financial paper, Trotman said that while Greenidge’s argument was compelling he ruled that the financial paper was neither a motion nor a Bill, either of which would have ruled it inadmissible.
The Speaker said that there should be no fetter on the right of the National Assembly to approve or disapprove the request for authority to spend. “These rights, taken as they are, are meant to be a check and balance on each other. We must hold as sacrosanct and [they] must be recognized by all, including and especially the courts of law. Unless by an Act of Parliament, as was done with Section 24 of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act, the right of the Executive to seek approval for expenditure cannot be circumscribed or interfered with by the National Assembly,” he said.
“In the circumstances and for the reasons set out above, I rule that Financial Paper number 9 is properly before the National Assembly for its approval or disapproval,” Trotman said.
Speaking to members of the media after the defeat of the financial paper, Minister Singh said that at the very least the Opposition should have been interested in asking a question if they were interested in the development of the country. He said that this financial paper brought back to the National Assembly the four items that had been on Financial Paper 7/2011 which had been disallowed during a sitting in February, 2012.
He noted that the Speaker had ruled at the time that the Government could bring back the four items for reconsideration.
“The Speaker at the time was very clear and delivered a written ruling. We were guided by the Speaker’s ruling and brought back those four items. The National Assembly discovered today as did the people of Guyana that the Opposition speaking through Carl Greenidge wrote the Speaker objecting to his admission of this financial paper number 9/2011 on the principle that this matter was previously considered by the National Assembly and according to him could not be reconsidered. The Speaker appropriately disallowed their objections and overruled Greenidge’s arguments and found no merit and committed the House to pursue with the consideration of the financial papers,” he said. “The Opposition [sat] and refused to ask a single question to any of the items as if in defiance of the ruling of the Speaker,” said Dr. Singh.
The Minister reminded that the Opposition had assured that the items cut from the budget could be brought back to the House for approval and said that the actions of the Opposition yesterday are in direct conflict with this earlier assurance. “It says to the nation something very interesting. This is the very Opposition that when faced with public rejection of the cuts of budget 2012 said that the cuts could be restored if the Government brought [supplementary provisions],” he said.
“That is in direct contradiction to the arguments that Greenidge is now making that if the House has ruled on a matter then the House cannot reconsider the matter. [This reveals that] either the Opposition is in complete and total disarray or that the Opposition is completely insincere in their assertions to the people of Guyana,” Dr. Singh said.
Dr. Singh said the ‘test’ confirms what Cabinet Secretary Dr. Roger Luncheon said on the Government’s behalf when he said that the resubmission of the financial paper would be the acid test to gauge how the Opposition would treat the resubmission of items of expenditure cut from the budget. “The Opposition has revealed their true hand in this matter,” Dr. Singh said.
However, Dr. Singh said that the stance by the Opposition on the financial papers does not change the ruling party’s stance on being committed to the process of dialogue. “We will always remain willing and available to speak but it does say something about whether those sitting on the other side could be relied upon to honour their commitment,” he said.