How serious is the PLP?
tribune242 editorial:
COMMENTING on our June 17 editorial - posted on The Tribune's website and headed: "Is this a gimmick for press headlines?" - a reader asked:
"Is it so, as the PLP claim, that the PM ended the Budget debate midstream in the committee stage? If so (and it was on TV for all to see) then is that not an example of denying the Opposition the right to freedom of speech on behalf of the Bahamian people?
"You don't have to like the PLP and you surely have the right to be an FNM partisan. However, in order to have some level of credibility, don't defend obvious wrong."
We are not defending an obvious wrong, nor do we intend to defend an opposition's attitude of arrogant entitlement -- that rules were not made for them.
In all facets of life to achieve harmony precedents are established and rules and procedures are followed.
So too in parliamentary debates. The debate to which our web site commentator refers is governed by constitutional rules. The rule that Opposition Fox Hill MP Fred Mitchell was trying to get around was one that does not allow amendment of a money bill that would change the state of the Treasury unless moved by a Cabinet Minister on the recommendation of the Cabinet. Mr Mitchell, not a cabinet minister, was obviously trying to exempt himself from acknowledging that this rule also governed the Opposition.
The Budget Communication was presented to the House on May 26 by Prime Minister Ingraham. The following week debate opened and all 41 House members -17 of them Opposition- spoke. At that time they could dissect and amend any part of the Budget they wanted. The Budget had to be completed before July 1- three days from now when it goes into effect. Well in advance of the debate government gave its timeline on how it proposed to proceed with the debate and projected when it should be completed. The Opposition had ample time to study the proposed Budget and if members had any policy issues they could have circulated draft amendments - including the one Mr Mitchell moved in the House -- for cabinet consideration. Obviously they did not do this.
After fully debating the Bill, the House resolved itself into a committee of the whole with the Speaker retiring from the chamber and the chairman taking the chair.
The Opposition, not having the numbers to defeat any part of the Bill, obviously decided to filibuster, and the filibuster started during examination of the estimates and expenditure of recurrent accounts. According to the Bahamas constitution, no amendment can be made to a money bill except by a cabinet minister with the full consent of the cabinet. As our readers know, Mr Mitchell is not a cabinet minister, and if he were serious he should have submitted his amendment for cabinet consideration well before the start of the debate-- he certainly had enough time to do so.
Because of the seriousness of the economy, the object of this Budget was to cut costs. Instead, Mr Mitchell proposed that funeral payments be increased from the present $650 to $1,300 per person for at least 1000 persons.
Mr Ingraham, obviously realising the Opposition's plan to delay passing of the Budget, warned Mr Mitchell that if he went down that road, he (Mr Ingraham) would move for closure. There is no debate on closure.
Not heeding the warning, the Opposition put the amendment. It was voted down. PLP MP Melanie Griffin by that time was on her feet with another motion -- the Opposition's plan to slow procedure became even more obvious as it appeared that one Opposition amendment was to follow another. The chairman ignored her. Closure was put. The Opposition packed their bags and left. The government continued to move the associated Budget Bills. It went through the Capital budget. So for the PLP to give the impression that the Budget process ended and nothing else was dealt with after they walked out, is just not true. The Budget was completed and passed after their disappearance.
However, what is of interest is that the item to cut parliamentary salaries was very high on the estimates of recurrent expenditure -- as a matter of fact it was Head 3. By the time closure came members were already on Head 44. This was an item about which the Opposition had expressed great concern. Government suggested cutting MPs' salaries by 5 per cent. Opposition Leader Perry Christie disagreed. He said the Opposition wanted salaries cut by 10 per cent. But Head 3 came and went and not a squeak from the Opposition about cutting anything. Why didn't they attempt to move a resolution on this one?
When FNM MP Carl Bethel pointed out this oversight, Dr Bernard Nottage, replied that a separate resolution on salaries was further down on the agenda and that is when they had intended to make their move to have parliamentary salaries reduced to 10 per cent rather than the FNM's five per cent recommendation. They missed the opportunity at Head 3 of the Estimates and skipped out of the House before their anticipated moment came for them to make a big splash by shaving a further five per cent off their parliamentary salaries for the sake of the people.
And so if they were really serious about increasing benefits for burying the indigent dead, and cutting their parliamentary salaries, all they had to do was follow the constitution and parliamentary rules. In other words there is no entitlement to bend the rules and no one is above the constitution -- not even the PLP.
Therefore we stand by our editorial of June 17 that in our opinion the PLP manoeuvres in the House were just gimmicks to attract headlines and impress the less informed.
June 27, 2010
tribune242 editorial
A political blog about Bahamian politics in The Bahamas, Bahamian Politicans - and the entire Bahamas political lot. Bahamian Blogger Dennis Dames keeps you updated on the political news and views throughout the islands of The Bahamas without fear or favor. Bahamian Politicians and the Bahamian Political Arena: Updates one Post at a time on Bahamas Politics and Bahamas Politicans; and their local, regional and international policies and perspectives.
