The Minister of Finance published a controversial opinion last week that she should not be held accountable for the Bermuda Government runaway expenditure, deficits, and debt. She implies that she does not have the support of Cabinet to enforce financial discipline and hides behind “collective responsibility”. She said:
I can indicate support or objection. However the sponsoring minister(s) knows that I cannot overrule their request unless I have others who join with me to support and uphold my position.
In the media today, past Finance Minister David Saul strikes down this weak defence, pointing out the Bermuda Constitution which says quite clearly:
95 (1) No money shall be withdrawn from the Consolidated Fund except upon the authority of a warrant under the hand of the Minister of Finance …
(2) No warrant shall be issued by the Minister of Finance for the purpose of meeting any expenditure unless— (a) the expenditure has been authorised for the financial year during which the withdrawal is to take place— (i) by an Appropriation law; or (ii) by a supplementary estimate approved by resolution of the House of Assembly …
The Minister has the authority to control expenditures, and the House of Assembly has the responsibility to reject or approve them. In my opinion, both authorities have not fulfilled their obligations.
Which leads to the question: “strong and quiet” or “quiet and pliable”?
UPDATE: Larry Burchall points out in the Bermuda Sun that buried in the Accountant General’s document this week is the note that Bermuda must repay a $200,000,000 loan in June of this year. Given that the PLP have already raided the Sinking Fund (set up to pay down loans), this means Government must carve out the cash from its budget … or more likely, get another loan to pay off the loan. No wonder the Premier is off jet-setting to India …
No Comments so far ↓
Sorry, we are not accepting Plantation Comments.