Over the next several days, we anticipate that both experts and non-experts will weigh in on the Ministerial Statement delivered in Parliament yesterday by Minister of Finance Chris Sinckler, speaking to its outlined measures and whether or not they will be enough to satisfy the demands of the economy until the end of the financial year in March.
Today, we choose to pay less attention to those measures and to look more at the rationale Mr Sinckler offered for reading the statement as opposed to presenting the much-anticipated annual Financial Statement And Budgetary Proposals. Like the experts and non-experts, we will have our say on the content in the coming days.
According to the minister, it had been his intention to make the Budget presentation in the House of Assembly this month, and in preparation for that event staff of his ministry had already begun “system-wide consultation with public and private sector agencies”.
He said: “On the whole, and with only a very few exceptions, we were able to complete those preliminary consultations on a variety of issues not only affecting our economy, but also geared towards assisting the country in further enhancing our efforts at fiscal consolidation, economic reform and the resumption of growth.
“Following this first round of consultations with our partners and a complete analysis of the existing situation in our 19-month stabilisation programme, the Cabinet has accepted the advice of the Ministry of Finance to defer the presentation of the Budget after the end of the programme in March, 2015.
“This decision will allow the ministry and its strategic agencies and partners to more properly consult on key policy initiatives that will impact on critical aspects of our economic, financial and social care sectors and our efforts for fiscal consolidation and growth.”
Our question is: Would it not have been more beneficial to proceed with the Budget, and the debate that would have ensued, in the process provoking a more widespread national debate that could have helped to shape policies moving forward, with particular emphasis on the next three months?
What about the input of the members of Parliament, of both the Lower and Upper Chambers, who could have added to the discussion on steps to close the fiscal gap in the final quarter of the financial year. We believe the views of members of the Opposition and the Independent members of the Senate can be as vital in the exercise as those of any of the “sectors” being consulted.
This Government has not been shy in suggesting that all Barbadians have a duty to demonstrate they are prepared to face the challenges together, but employing tactics that either by design or coincidence sideline key players, even if only for three months in this instance, runs counter to such public pronouncements.
It would appear, based on the minister’s statement, even without the benefit of statistics to pore over, that the “fiscal adjustment measures” are bearing fruit, and a full and robust debate at this stage could only add positives to the process.
Finally though, when Minister Sinckler declares that the delayed Budget will afford Government “the opportunity to initiate and complete a comprehensive review of the current programme to cover the final months of the exercise”, he only helps to erode any confidence that might exist in the administration’s modus operandi. Given the circumstances we have faced for the past few years, Government’s hands on the apparatus should be so continuous, firm and sure that it should always be on top of happenings. When dealing with such acute challenges, there can be no room to be lax – and the minister’s statement suggests this administration is not as aware as it should be.