The Tribune

THE importance of clarity in governance was highlighted last week in a brief row over the Department of Inland Revenue.

An advertisement that appeared in this newspaper warned that the department intended to seize and sell off properties with property tax arrears. The advertisement cited the language used in the Real Property Tax Act, a time period of seven months arrears or more, prompting a flurry of messages on social media from people wondering who this applied to.

In truth, as The Tribune’s business editor, Neil Hartnell, clarified in an article the following day, the government is looking to deal with “extreme cases” where taxes have gone unpaid for up to 20 years. The warning remains – that those properties could be seized and sold to pay the arrears.

The advertisement also prompted a political to-and-fro between party chairman – Dr Duane Sands for the FNM and Fred Mitchell for the PLP.

Dr Sands sent out a voice note warning “they are coming for your money” and criticising the government for not having “the intestinal fortitude” to discuss its push to collect taxes with the public.

He said: “This has been the year of the highest ever expenditure, the biggest Budget ever, and just a tremendous grab to get whatever revenue they can get their hands on. We’ve seen real property tax rates go up by triple digit percentages without any notice. We’ve seen additional expenditure, and they’ve just levied fee increases across many, many government services.”

Meanwhile, he contrasted the government demand for quick payment with the slowness it takes to pay out to creditors, saying Bahamians “sometimes had to wait years to receive what was due to them”.

Mr Mitchell fired back in typical fashion, saying that Dr Sands should have checked “before jumping to a false conclusion”.

However, he acknowledged the advertisement could be subject to “misinterpretation” and asked the tax authorities to release a corrected ad.

In the end, it seems this is only targeting a small amount of properties – but it makes clear several things.

First, there is the importance of clarity – a significant number of people wondered if this might mean them, even if they had just paid up their property tax recently. Some speculated it might be the government going after specific properties, such as the rundown buildings in Downtown. A little extra information from the start could have allayed such worries.

Secondly, though, it shows there is uncertainty over the government and its intentions. This was shown again when there was a call for rental property owners to register their properties with the government and the administration was forced into an assurance that there was no intention to add a tax for those properties once registered.

And third, if there is indeed an increase in efforts to raise money – and let us be clear, it is fair for the government to try to ensure unpaid taxes are pursued – then it should be accompanied by greater clarity on how our money is being spent.

Too often, we do not see a price tag attached to government activities – or detail on what brings that price tag to its total. We can see that in, for example, the prison project that has more than doubled in cost but for which information is still emerging to justify its $90m cost.

We can also see it in the numerous trips taken on the public purse. Prime Minister Philip “Brave” Davis has flown off again over the past few days – to Guatemala this time.

The notorious trip by the PLP to Bimini, funded by the government and belatedly repaid, never seemed to come to a satisfactory resolution – and who knows if we will ever see a proper accounting for how much the trip to London for the coronation of King Charles III cost.

Some may say it is too soon for the cost to be known – certainly the Bimini trip accounting seemed to take an age as the government waited for receipts, per diem details and so on.

And yet, elsewhere in the world, not only have such costs been made clear to the public, but the consequences of such spending have been felt.

In Papua New Guinea, a delegation of 30 people flew to the coronation – to criticism at home that the money would have been better spent on hospitals. It was reported that each delegate had a $14,000 allowance to cover hotels and airfares.

The foreign minister of Papua New Guinea, Justin Tkatchenko, is resigning after the controversy.

Is our accounting system so much worse than that of Papua New Guinea that we cannot get a clear answer on such costs? It is, after all, our money.

As we say, clarity is important – both in detailing the funds the government is generating from the public, and in telling the public how it will be, or has been, spent.

If Papua New Guinea can do it, why can’t we?