So, that's more or less how today's Senate meeting went, and while there will be a raging debate on Church Senator Ashley Rocke's controversial motion, the bottom line is that there will be a public, televised Senate Inquiry on the Auditor General's Report. That's something that the general public has been calling for, and with the working compromise, it's now going to be a reality.
But as we told you, there were some amendments recommended by Senator Eamon Courtenay. Some were adopted, and some were rejected. 2 of the rejected recommendations caught our attention this evening. The first is the ability of any member of the Senate Committee to call anyone he or she deems important as a witness. The other is that a clearly defined budget was not identified in this first meeting.
When the hearing was over, Eamon Courtenay told us that he has some concerns about those 2 amendments which the Government's side of the Senate rejected:
Eamon Courtenay, PUP Senator
"We tried to get certain amendments to the motion that was put forward by senator Rocke and some of them were not taken. One, being of course the composition, we think that is critical. Second, is the ability of any senator to call for someone to be a witness that was not accepted. We also believe that it's important that the resources be allocated to the committee and that was again not supported. That leaves the motion very deficient and we will have to see how it is operated by the committee. It is going to be very interesting to see who is going to be the chairman of this committee. I think it is very clear to all who listened to today's proceeding that the church senator has completely aligned himself with the government and so we will have to see what is going to happen when that first meeting is called to see whether it is going to be truly independent. The jury is still out on that and we're going to see."
So, what is the Government's reasoning for rejecting those two recommendations? We asked Dr. Carla Barnett about the budget, and she told us that the reason why it was rejected, is that a responsible senate cannot give a blank cheque to this inquiry, which could seriously strain Government's finances:
Carla Barnett, UDP Senator
"It's difficult to approve a budget with no end, that's not how we would normally do it. I happened to have been financial secretary at the time of the last sets of inquiries. Funds are made available as needed. If you need to hire lawyers or accountants, the funds are made available, there's a commitment to have this thing done and done well. The process you go through to approve and this was going to be a supplementary expenditure, so you have to go through a process of preparing a budget and then that budget is going to be approved. Generally speaking the senate doesn't have control over money, we don't have the authority to give an open ended approval of money, that's outside of our..."
Daniel Ortiz, 7News
"Would you prepare, at this point, to commit to making sure that this inquiry, as a government representative, that this inquiry will not fail because of budgetary restrictions?"
Carla Barnett, UDP Senator
"Absolutely, that's the commitment going in."
So, what about that rejected recommendation which would have allowed for the Senate Committee Members to summon anyone they believe is a valuable witness in this investigation? The Audit Report names many persons who are either perceived to be agents of corrupt immigration practices, or persons who got irregular,visas, nationality certificates, or passports.
When we asked about the reason for rejecting that recommendation, which would have allowed for these types of persons to be called, Dr. Barnett told us that the Government's side is trying to ensure that there is no over-reaching on the Committee's part. She said that it is to protect innocent people who were unfairly called out in the audit reports:
Daniel Ortiz, 7News
"Why was the government side not prepared to give the far-reaching ability of the company to question whoever they feel necessary? Why was that not supported today?"
Carla Barnett, UDP Senator
"I think there were some concerns about the opening the door to over reach. I think the way the motion is now worded, it allows the committee to call all of the people named in the report, all of the people who are implicated in the report, but it doesn't say you can call anybody you feel like calling because that can infringe in areas that we may not be comfortable with. So there is no barrier to call in anybody that is in any way named or related in any way to the activities that we have reported in those reports that were completed."
Daniel Ortiz, 7News
"Can you allay concerns that these omissions are not intended to shield anybody, to protect anybody from this inquiry?"
Carla Barnett, UDP Senator
"You would have to read it yourself to allay yourself. I cannot allay your concerns, you have to look at it and think exactly what is there, but everybody who is named or replied in anyway in the report can be called."
Reporter
"Negatively or simply just in your case where your name came up?"
Carla Barnett, UDP Senator
"My name is just on a list but it's just on a list of passports for which they did not see the application forms. That doesn't mean I did anything. I went, applied and don't know where my form is. So there are instances like that in which there are a number of people whose names are in there like that who really have no business in front of the committee."
Dr. Barnett told us that the Senate Inquiry will begin as soon as the Committee's 6 members are identified.
Email
Print