The Tribune

THERE is something of a debate going back and forward between the PLP and the FNM over a recent trip to Bermuda – and it misses what should be the fundamental point.

The issue starts with the recent trip by Prime Minister Philip “Brave” Davis to Bermuda. According to Foreign Affairs Minister Fred Mitchell, this was at the invitation of the Premier of Bermuda, E David Burt. Burt is also leader of Bermuda’s Progressive Labour Party – another PLP.

Mr Mitchell said it was a standard official trip. However, communications director Latrae Rahming said the costs were covered by the PLP – the Bahamas version – and that any questions about the cost of the trip should be directed there.

On the front page of today’s Tribune, FNM leader Michael Pintard highlights the “definite conflict” in the two statements.

Now, it is perfectly normal for civil servants to have their travel paid for by the government, but there were also PLP party officials on the trip, who do not have a role in government and would therefore not normally have such travel costs covered.

The debate, something of a political tug-of-war, is over who paid – and who should have paid.

So what is the point that is being missed in all of this? That ever-elusive issue of transparency.

Above the matter of where the payment should have come from is that we ought to be long past the point where such things as travel costs remain a mystery.

Every government trip ought to have costs detailed so we can see if they are worth the amount being spent. Not just the overall amount being spent – but there is no reason why each trip shouldn’t have its budget, its actual cost, and the members of the entourage detailed.

We have already seen that this administration has exceeded its allocation for travel costs. Last month, The Tribune reported that the $11.8m spent by the government for travel in the 2021-22 fiscal year bust the Budget allocation by 11.1 percent.

But never mind just travel cost – where is the commitment to transparency at all?

The Freedom of Information commission seems to be lost at sea somewhere, we have no reporting of contracts awarded by this administration as it quickly changes the laws that requires it to do so, and how about finally revealing who did or did not make their financial declarations as required by law?

Transparency is a word that seems to only exist in Opposition, quickly abandoned by either party whenever they get into office.

So this particular argument? Yes, we should absolutely know who paid for the trip, and if it was a government trip that should be itemised – who went, how much it cost, and how much was budgeted. If it is a private trip, then fine, that’s none of the people’s business – but make that clear.

But this shouldn’t be an isolated discussion. Clarity over costs and members of the retinue should be standard, detailed after every trip.

If we get an answer to the circumstances of this trip, that’s not going to help for the next one, or the one after that.

If public funds are being used, then the public deserves to know how.

So, yes, give us some answers. But better yet, give us a commitment to govern in full view of the public eye, not selectively presenting information when it looks good.

Have public funds been misused to ferry party personnel on this trip? We shall find out, hopefully – but a clear promise to show how our money is being spent would let us see if it is being used the right way or not on every trip, not just this jaunt to Bermuda.

We do not have to settle for scraps from the table. There is no reason the public should not have a seat at the table, and be treated as equals.

Let’s see the big picture.

NIB rates

We applaud Myles LaRoda for giving an update on the progress – or lack thereof – with regard to a decision on what to do about the NIB contribution rate.

It appears that can keeps on getting kicked down the road. There’s been no decision yet, despite funds steadily dwindling in the NIB pot.

An actuarial review has predicted the fund could be depleted by 2028 – and credit to Mr Laroda, the minister of state with responsibility for NIB, for telling it like it is.

There are suggestions that delaying fuel hedging over at BPL has played a part in the increased costs for electricity we are all about to face.

Delaying the rehabilitation of the NIB fund could lead to more costs just the same – putting off the action until it has to be more severe to correct the problem.

What action will our government take? There’s another area where things are far from transparent.