I am firmly of the view, and I speak without fear of reasoned contradiction, when I say that the Government has shown that its members are ill-prepared or even unprepared for the task of managing the affairs of this country.
It is difficult to come to any other conclusion after reading the full text of the 2013 Financial Statement And Budgetary Proposals. Its delivery and subsequent measures taken to implement some of the provisions have betrayed a fundamental misunderstanding of budgetary proposals among parliamentarians and public officers who are charged with the responsibility of implementation.
Normally when Government wants to enact legislation, it would introduce a bill in Parliament. When the measure is passed in both Houses, it is forwarded to the Governor General for his assent and published in the Official Gazette. Only then would it become the law of the land. However, when Government projects that its revenue would not be sufficient to meet its estimated expenditure, the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act provides a mechanism where the Minister of Finance can raise money quickly by announcing budgetary proposals in the House of Assembly. That act gives him power to levy a new tax or increase the rate of an existing tax for a four-month period before passing the relevant legislation. Section 2 (1) of the act states, in part:
For the purposes of this act, the expression “budgetary proposals” means any proposal made to the House of Assembly by or on behalf of the Minister responsible for Finance for the purpose of raising revenue to meet public expenditure.
Section 3(1) then provides that the imposition of a new tax or the increase of an existing tax shall be effective from the date specified by the minister in the budgetary proposal. It should be noted that the act does not allow the minister to decrease the rate of an existing tax. So even though widely welcomed, the decrease in the VAT for the tourist industry was done contrary to the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, and is therefore ineffective. But I am not surprised because I have come to expect that Government would ignore these legal niceties if and when it suits them. After all, they increased water rates by 60 per cent by ignoring the provisions in the Utility Regulation Act which required a rate hearing by the Fair Trading Commission. They got away with that and somehow believe they could do anything and not be called upon to account.
Another troubling aspect of the Budget is where the minister levied a temporary consolidation tax on gross incomes. He announced several rates of tax on different salary ranges but lo and behold, the Commissioner of Inland Revenue published different rates in a notice that appeared in the SATURDAY SUN on August 31. It appears as though the minister made a mistake but it cannot be corrected by a notice, in a newspaper, from a public officer. Only Parliament is authorized to make any such correction.
Before I run out of space, I would like to deal with a matter that suggests to me that Government is merely throwing out proposals hoping that some would work without thinking them through, which could only be described as Government by trial and error.
I am not referring to the announcement about the imposition of tuition fees at the University of the West Indies: the Prime Minister has already described any such move as retrograde, even before his Government had done it. I need say no more on that score, except to say when I was a small boy, I only knew two doctors both of whom were Caucasian. Free university education made it possible for poor black people to attend university to study medicine.
Neither am I referring to the reverse Robin Hood 50 per cent reduction in the Reverse Tax Credit that was paid to the poorest of the poor. Many of them look forward for that $1 300 to send their children back to school. Sadly, it appears as though politicians only care about poor people at election time.
Instead, I am referring to the announcement that effective September 1, 2013, a Special Entry Permit valid for five years at a time will be available to foreigners who own substantial residential property or investments in Barbados. Such persons are already qualified for immigrant status, under Section 6 of the Immigration Act, which does not expire at a cost of $1 500. The minister’s reason for charging these visitors in excess of $10 000 for something that others could obtain for $1 500 simply does not make sense. At Page 39 of the Budget Speech the minister said:
“At present foreigners who own property here are often given permission to enter the country for periods shorter than they would like, despite their clear ability to sustain themselves while on the island for the period requested. Despite instructions to the contrary, the entry periods permitted to such property owners continued to be inconsistently given. As a result these visitors have then to apply at the Bridgetown office of the Immigration Department for extensions of stay. Thus the ability of these visitors to stay for the periods of time they wish and can afford has been rendered subject to unnecessary bureaucracy . . . .”
That statement is most unfortunate as it suggests that immigration officers are refusing to carry out Government policy and that Government is impotent to stop them. And as a result, they have instituted measures to punish visitors because immigration officers refused to obey instructions.
Government needs to be honest and come clean with the public: we are not all mindless. Tell us that the country is broke, that they don’t know what to do and they are trying something.
• Caswell Franklyn is a trade unionist and social commentator.