Despite strong objections from the opposition side of the House, in their rebuttal of Governance and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Gail Teixeira’s bid to amend the quorum for the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), the motion was late last night passed with the government using its majority.
For hours, both sides traded arguments for and against the motion with the opposition contending that the motion tabled by Teixeira is a ploy to stymie the work of the parliamentary committee.
At the conclusion of the arguments, the motion was put to the floor and voted on. Thirty-four members including opposition member of the Liberty and Justice Party, Lenox Shuman, voted for the amendment while 29 members of the coalition opposition voted against it. Two members were absent during the vote.
Teixeira’s motion sought to amend Section 95 (6) of the Standing Orders which speaks to the quorum of the Public Accounts Committee.
The section states that three members is the quorum on any Standing or Select Committee, including the Chairperson, “unless the Assembly otherwise directs.”
Standing Order No. 83(5) provides in the Parliamentary Management Committee for a quorum of five members, of which two must represent the government, and two must represent the opposition, one of whom shall be the representative of the main opposition party, and the Speaker and or the Deputy Speaker as the Chairperson of the Committee.
The motion contends that due to the role and functions of the PAC, it would be appropriate to amend Standing Order 82 to provide for a similar quorum formulation as in the Parliamentary Management Committee.
During the debate which started yesterday afternoon and concluded late into the night, Teixeira argued that what the motion attempts to do is to make sure in the Public Accounts Committee, there is a recognition of both sides. She stated that both sides of the House have an interest in scrutinizing the expenditure of a government. She believes that with the amendment, they will be able to enhance the way in which they operate.
She further argued that the 2-2-1 formula provides for greater participation in scrutiny of the Auditor General’s reports and secures representation of both sides. She pointed out that on two occasions while the government side of the House was absent, the opposition made decisions without their input. She made particular reference to the decision of the PAC to grant gratuities for the Members of the now expired Public Procurement Commission.
“The two times that we have not had a majority in the committee, or the two times we were not at meetings, decisions were made. It was almost as if there was this mystery view amongst the members. Look, they aren’t here. Let’s go through quick, quick, quick. It was like child’s play. You know when the cat’s away the mice will play,” she told the National Assembly as she defended her motion.
She added that the opposition side seems to be suffering from paranoia over the quorum since they have been notably absent from the Parliamentary Management Committee meetings.
Teixeira went on to state that the work of the PAC is not political and regardless of who is sitting in government, the expenditure of the public purse must be scrutinised.
”The PAC role and function is to make sure that we are able to scrutinise the accounts and to be able to have consensus in the decisions it makes for its report to go forward,” she said as she advanced her argument on the need for amendment for the quorum.
She argued that if the opposition side of the House is aiming to rush through the reports to get to current dates in order to scrutinise the current government’s spending, then they must dedicate the same energy towards reports from when they were in government.
Teixeira, who is also a member of the PAC, said there cannot be any double standards in the scrutiny of the Auditor General’s reports.
“It is about trust and confidence about making sure that there’s representation in the PAC… We can’t have it two ways, you want to rush through because you want to get to 2020 because you want to prove a point, but you don’t want to deal with serious transgressions, serious breaches that are going on regrettably under your tenure, your stewardship.”
Acknowledging that she failed to convince the opposition side of the House to support her motion, Teixeira emphasised that the PAC must aid in the transparency for the expenditure of the country and taxpayers.
“Therefore, scrutiny is important. Whether it’s a PPP/C government or APNU+AFC government, we must be scrutinised,” she declared.
Chairman of the PAC, Jermaine Figueira, in his contribution stated that the decision for the motion was birthed out of a decision of the government being absent from sittings.
Referring to the motion as “venom,” the Chairman opined that mischief is afoot as the government does not want to attend meetings.
“This committee is not primarily concerned about party or political affiliation, but it is more about doing the work expected to be done to improve financial governance. What the present construct does, Mr Speaker, it compels all sides to be present because the work will go on as it should. This is not what the PPP wants, they think the committee meets too often, and that it should not come to the 2020-2021 findings of the Auditor General report in a short time,” Figueira argued.
He advanced his arguments by stating that the motion is one in which his side will always have grave concern with for the future modus operandi of the committee, for good governance, accountability and transparency.
“This is happening at a time when major government investments are taking place without feasibility studies. Why this minister of governance likes dealing with the dead? You knock off the people now you want to talk about them every week,” Figueira underscored.
He pointed out that given the fact that the PAC has been meeting regularly since its establishment in the 12th parliament, there has always been a quorum for meetings to take place, despite members being absent from both sides. He said that the committee has been able to carry out its mandate at every meeting in an efficient manner.
“Mr Speaker, we see this deliberate, calculated and failed attempt to camouflage the intended action of this motion as another attempt to slow down the work of the PAC, by the PPP lead person on the committee, the mover of this motion, to ensure that fewer meetings are held, and on occasions if they do not want certain agencies examined, they can now prevent that by simply not attending PAC, as the aforementioned evidence speaks for itself,” the PAC Chairman argued.
He added that the tabling of the motion further convinces his side of the house that the “PPP/C administration is not concerned with good governance, is not concerned with transparency and is not concerned with accountability to the people of this country.”
Similar arguments were made by opposition members, Ganesh Mahipaul, Volda Lawrence, Khemraj Ramjattan, and Aubrey Norton, against the motion. They all argued that the motion aims to get rid of the good governance present on the committee.
Meanwhile government members, Anil Nandlall, Sanjeev Datadin and Dharamkumar Seeraj, argued that despite the amendment, the committee can still function with the independence and effectiveness that it is accustomed to.
