It is rather unfortunate but I have found it necessary to respond to misinformation placed in the public domain regarding my role and that of my Party in the drafting, presentation and carriage of the Retiring Allowances (Legislative Service) (Special Provisions) Bill 2015 passed January 27th last year.
Whilst I do not usually respond to attacks on my personal character and service to the people, my Party and I found it necessary to do so in this instance as this goes to the root of the misconception on the part of too many members of the public as to the role of the Opposition and the powers available to it in serving from this place.
I have never misled the people of this country and categorically deny all allegations that I am a liar and that I am compromised on any issue allowing myself to be limited and dishonest to obtain votes. On the contrary, I have had to speak to many tough issues over the years that has offended many as my role does not allow me to dodge issues and fly beneath the radar. I came to this office in 2012 with a pledge to serve my people fearlessly and selflessly.
To this end, I make the following statements:
The Leader of the Opposition and all other back benchers cannot bring money Bills or money Motions.
The fundamental issue at hand more importantly is the perceived role of the Opposition versus reality and the powers available to us. The money Bill alleged to have been brought by myself could not be brought. As I do not sit in Government and specifically in Cabinet, I am not allowed by the House Rules called Standing Orders to bring any money Bills or Motions. Non – Cabinet members cannot increase expenditure or make decisions on how the monies can be spent. That rest with the members of Cabinet which is comprised of the Governor, as Chair, the Premier, the Ministers, the Attorney General and the Deputy Governor. This is why we have had to craft the Motion as we did as it relates to Pensions and Gratuities and the issues relating to those civil servants who left the Service and have disputes of payments.
The wording in the old version of the Standing Orders and the new Standing Orders which governs who can bring money Bills and money Motions remain the same and was in place since the beginning of Ministerial Government:
PUBLIC MONEY
Except on the recommendation of the Governor signified by a member of the Executive Council the Legislative Council shall not:—
(a) proceed upon any bill (including any amendment to a bill) which, in the opinion of the person presiding in the Council, makes provision for imposing or increasing any tax, for imposing or increasing any charge on the revenues or other funds of the Islands or for altering any such charge otherwise than by reducing it, or for compounding or remitting any debt due to the Islands; or
(b) proceed upon any motion (including any amendment to a motion) the effect of which in the opinion of the person presiding in the Council is that provision would be made for any of the purposes aforesaid.
1. The Leader of the Opposition did not craft the Attorney General’s Bill
No member of the PDM nor myself assisted in drafting this Bill which was the sole work as usual of the AG’s Chambers when Bills are brought and especially for those brought by the AG herself who answers for the Public and Civil Service in the House.
2. The Leader of the Opposition nor any member of her Team did not bring any Money Bills or Motions
A copy of the Parliamentary Agenda shows the Bill was brought by the Attorney General on January 27, 2015. (Attached)
3. The PDM’s Position
There were prior discussions with myself which I raised with my Party as to whether we would be opposed to the MOF being allowed to retire as a former Chief Minister. This discussion included but expanded beyond the Parliamentary members and NO ONE expressed any objection to the allowance of the Minister of Finance to retire as a former Chief Minister.
During one of our many Pre Parliament meetings when the Bill was then crafted and presented, I raised the matter with my team and the objection was to the back pay and not to having a former Chief Minister retire as a Chief Minister like the others.
Our objection which I voiced in the House of Assembly as the lead on the Bill was to the back pay, how it was calculated and the justification for it.
There was a period where I was invited to bring a resolution to allow for the MOF to retire as a former Chief Minister but even on retirement, the increase in expenditure that would result barred me under the Standing Orders from assisting in this way.
We still believe that all former Chief Ministers should be allowed to retire at that level.
4. Request For Information Continues
The AG stated orally and it was contained in the Explanatory Memorandum of the House that the matter was raised with and approved by the Integrity Commission and that other pension anomalies were raised. Since February 9th 2015, we have requested information on the other pension anomalies, the calculations of the back pay and other queries from the Debate. These requests were made in writing by email again on April 1, 2015 and again as recent as last week March 6, 2016.
We invite the public to understand how government works, to access public records for truth: copies of Parliamentary Agendas and the Standing Order of the House are all public documents and then of course, all meetings of the House of Assembly are aired publicly over Radio, it is important to listen when you can.
We remain committed to serving our people honestly.
