The budget debate is over, at least in the lower Chamber, and will be debated by the Senate in time for the new fiscal year commencing July 1, 2008.
In this earlier post… noting some of the positive things I had seen, but having watched replays of more of the contributions, there was very little sincere discussion of the merits of the budget and how it might be improved or changed.
It seems that personal ego is more important than improving the process where Parliamentary debate is concerned.
Let me explain.
There were instances where one member would indicate something that was going at at a government ministry, and a member opposite would attempt to take credit for the programme.
Don’t get me wrong, self worth is important, but when a group is supposedly trying to improve things, letting personal egos get involved certainly doesn’t help.
In addition, there were no alternative policy positions offered by the Official Opposition, only objections or questions that seemed designed to provoke, rather than move things in the right direction.
If they sincerely listened to each other and made an earnest attempt to improve the way government and its agencies work, maybe the stage won’t fall apart.
Supertramp, the British rock group, had it right in their song If everyone was listening from their Crime of the Century CD.
The opening verses and chorus go like this:
The actors and jesters are here
The stage is in darkness and fear
We’re raising the curtain
And no ones quite certain whose play it is
How long, how long, how long
If only we had listened then
If we’d known just how right we were going to be
Well we dreamed a lot
And we schemed a lot
And we tried to sing of love before the stage fell apart.
If everyone was listening you know
There’d be a chance that we could save the show
Who’ll be the last clown
To bring the house down
Oh no, please no, don’t let the curtain fall.
Do you think they had seen our Parliament in action when they penned this song?
We in the Bahamas seem to have become a whole hearted “Depletive” society.
To define where I’m going with this:
de·plete {di-pleet] Pronunciation Key –
–verb (used with object), -plet·ed, -plet·ing. to decrease seriously or exhaust the abundance or supply of: The fire had depleted the game in the forest. Extravagant spending soon depleted his funds.
WE are creating nothing new, idea wise or tangible, and are now pillaging what is left of our society, and its rules.
Case in point, The Budget address.
Aparently, some things mentioned by the P.M. with respect of customs duties and tarrif rates become immediatly active or implemented, some others do not.
Fair enough, but how are the public to tell the difference?
It would be logical to assume that things would become active from the 1st of July, the start of the fiscal year, which aparently is correct, but again, some things are immediate.
It would also seem helpful for these changes to be gazetted, but obviously cannot be until passed.
But what about the immediate things?
Can you help Rick? Where would I find this indicated or spelled out in law?
Min of Finance couldn’t help with this question. I was given the concept of imediate V. to be, but no help in determining how to determine the difference.
O.K. so I learned that, aparently there is some Statutory enactment or document that covers those things that are to be enacted immediatly. It should be presented to the house concurrently with the Budget communication. It cannot be vetoed but can be amanded later. One would think it should be gazetted but obviously cannot be until the budget has passed.
Also, nothing can be enacted as law until published, or else you give creedence to being ignorant of the law as a defence.
All in all, I’m a bit confused as how can I follow the law unless I’m appraised of the law? I think research is in order, and I’m not sure I’ll like what I learn.