The Tribune

ALTHOUGH the cost of hurricane damage by Matthew is estimated at $600m, Prime Minister Christie’s administration has negotiated a $150m loan with the banks to get reconstruction started. Mr Christie specified that the condition of the loan was “that the funds would be exclusively used for the reconstruction effort”.

We recall that VAT was also raised exclusively to bring down our national debt, but so far, although we hear how much money VAT is bringing in, Bahamians have had no assurance – nor any visible signs — that any of our VAT taxes has as yet been directed to the reduction of a debt that is going to be the ruination of this country.

We have heard much about lost millions on failed Carnivals, but no suggestion on the reduction of ministerial travel with their entourages to help reduce spending, nor of cut backs in any other areas that could and should be trimmed to help reduce our national debt. All we know is that the Central Bank’s report in July this year recorded that a 17.3 per cent increase in total government spending spiked a $125m rise in the national debt bringing it to almost $6.8 billion at the end of March. Since then the debt has continued to rise, and government has continued to spend. And now we are faced with the first hurricane repair loan of $150m. The question now is how is it to be managed to make certain that it is used for nothing but hurricane reconstruction?

Bahamians have reason to be concerned about who is going to manage this large sum of money and whether it will get into the areas of reconstruction for which it was intended – and not be used on the side as a political mousetrap. Remember with an election looming, the temptation is great.

On Wednesday, Mr Christie insisted that government had checks and balances in place to manage the loan. He seemed to resent those who doubted that his government was capable of fiscal responsibility in the management of the funds. He claimed doubting Thomases had ignored basic facts about his administration’s fiscal map.

FNM Leader Dr Hubert Minnis wanted a special committee to be formed to monitor how the government spent the $150m. Mr Christie saw no need for it. Didn’t the government have measures “enshrined in law” to protect those funds? He then referred to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), the watchdog of the public purse. It is true under the Westminster system of government, the PAC is the strongest and most respected committee of the House. But this is only so when the government respects and cooperates with the system. The PAC is only as strong as the government will permit it to be. The committee has the power to send for persons, papers and whatever else it might need to help members scrutinise public spending, but when the House refuses to cooperate with supplying the information, the committee cannot operate.

Last year, Mr Christie took the opportunity at the time of the BAMSI affair— when the agricultural dormitory burned down and it was found it was uninsured - to goad the Opposition’s Public Accounts Committee. “Mr Speaker,” he said, “if they feel that there are discrepancies and inaccuracies, even fraudulent manifestations at BAMSI, they have the power to send for persons and papers and they have the majority of the committee.” He then bragged: ”It is that committee we used to expose one of the grandest displays of uncontrolled expenditure on the part of the opposition when they were the government,” he said. This was when Mr Christie was Opposition Leader and the FNM was the government. But what he failed to acknowledge was that his opposition party only succeeded because the Ingraham government respected the checks and balances of our system of government and cooperated. The Christie government does not cooperate and has not made it easy for the PAC to operate. As a matter of fact if one goes far enough back in The Tribune’s files the record will show that a PLP government has never made it easy for the PAC to operate. For example, from 1982 to 1987 the PAC hung up its gloves because the PLP government had made it impossible for the committee to function. So for one whole term, the PAC did not investigate the government’s use or misuse of the public’s finances.

Today’s PAC, under the chairmanship of Mr Hubert Chipman, was asked to investigate the Urban Renewal Small Homes programme. The committee asked the Auditor General to go over the small homes expenditure and prepare a report.

When he submitted his report, this professional was treated with disdain by Mr Algernon Allen, whose programme was being examined. Mr Allen did not like the auditor’s report. He obviously felt that the rules should be different for Urban Renewal.

“I am of the firm view,” he said, “that the Auditor General has failed to appreciate the philosophy of Urban Renewal; more specifically, the philosophy and policy of the Small Home Repairs Project, thus making the erroneous statements in his Audit Report.”

Here was a professional man trained in finance, engaged to do a professional job, being asked to bring philosophy to the table, obviously so that the rules could be bent for Mr Allen’s “little darlings” and “precious pearls“. These were the people that the funds were meant to help, and it was for this reason that the auditor general was called in - to make certain that it was in fact the “little darlings” and “precious pearls” who were the only beneficiaries. It was to verify this that the auditor general was engaged.

In view of this, how can Mr Christie ask Bahamians not to be concerned about how this loan will be managed? Because we have all the checks and balances in place does not mean that without the closest scrutiny by persons who are respected in this community that the $150 million loan cannot be misused.

It is true that the rules - the checks and balances — are in place, but as our files will show, they are more often ignored than followed. Bahamians have lost trust in their government.