IN THE ABSENCE OF A SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET . . .

“  . . . have we had a “change of government” or simply a “change in name” of government? If it is the former (i.e., a change of government), then what should change?”

“ . . . if they can manipulate the constitution to circumvent the appointment of a deputy speaker, then they can also manipulate the estimates of expenditure to accommodate their “5-to-Stay-Alive” without parliamentary approval”

As I drove through Canaries last evening and I saw evidence of the commencement of the construction of a new bridge, I became thoroughly disillusioned about the tricks that “government” plays on the people. I also wondered how many St. Lucians feel like me.

When I hear the “decree” to summarily stop ongoing works on all major projects WITHOUT A SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET designed to recommission those works, I become even more disillusioned. I also wondered how many of you felt like me!

When I see the roads of Choiseul (and islandwide) being potholed, I asked which “government” caused that to happen? I wonder how many of you tried to figure that out!

When I “hear” government reducing VAT by 2.5% without simultaneously passing a supplementary budget to compensate for the shortfall in revenue, then I asked what the heck is happening? How do we explain what is happening in terms of “responsible and mature fiscal management” of this country? Hence, the question is: in the absence of a supplementary budget, how will government meet its fiscal targets?

Given all of the above, I therefore ask: have we had a “change of government” or simply a “change in name” of government? If it is the former (I.e., a change of government), then what should change?

If what defines a government are its projects, programmes and policies enshrined in a law referred to the “estimates of expenditure”, then which government is currently ruling this country?

That is the conundrum facing the country?

The conundrum becomes even more complicated with the implementation of the “5-to-Stay-Alive”: if government claims they have fully implemented it, then how is that reflected in the estimates of expenditure? The Minister if the Ministry of Finance (MIMOF) claimed government does not need a supplementary budget to implement changes in “anything”!

Let’s forget about the fact that MIMOF may be “parliamentary novice”! Let’s focus on the implications of his pronouncement! What does his pronouncement generally imply? Does it imply a “flexibility”, a “resilience or a “responsiveness” of the current estimates to seamlessly absorb even the “5-to-Stay-Alive”? Or is it “the creativity and imagination” of the current government on display where they are able to manipulate the “law” to fit their whims and fancies? Indeed, if they can manipulate the constitution to circumvent the appointment of a deputy speaker, then they can also manipulate the estimates of expenditure to accommodate their “5-to-Stay-Alive” without parliamentary approval.

That takes me the relevance of the office of Director of Audit (DOA)! Have there been infractions? . . . and is the office of director of Audit equipped or suited to deal with potential infractions? And if the Office of the DOA is ill-equipped to deal with the fiscal infractions, then what other mechanisms do we have? Even more importantly, what constitutional mechanisms are at our disposal to deal with the potentially “constitutionally awkward” positions which are likely to confront us?

Government can only demonstrate they are serious not by only “doing things right” but “doing the right thing the right way”. In the case of the reduction and repeal of VAT, the right way is to craft a supplementary budget. The cat and mouse the MIMOF is playing does not augur well for governance. It is petty bluff.