–puts Guyana at considerable disadvantage regionally

THE combined Parliamentary Opposition, A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and the Alliance For Change (AFC), yesterday rejected a Motion moved by Prime Minister Samuel Hinds to suspend several Standing Orders to allow the second and third readings, and eventual passage, of the Customs (Amendment) Bill.

The Bill seeks to amend the principal act of 1995, which imposed an environmental tax only on taxable goods imported into Guyana. The amendment would have seen extension of the tax to goods imported for the manufacture of items, which tax is payable at the time the importer, upon entry of the goods, furnishes the Guyana Revenue Authority with an import declaration. Taxable goods, in this instance, means every unit of non-returnable resin, metal, plastic, glass containers containing any alcoholic beverage or non-alcoholic beverage.

The Motion was necessary, given that the Bill was defeated last year, and according to the National Assembly’s Standing Orders, it cannot be brought again during the same Parliamentary session without the suspension of said Standing Orders.

BREACH OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

The Prime Minister noted that the Bill will also address Guyana’s current breach of international agreements brokered by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas.
The latter was the basis for the recent award against Guyana by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), in which Rudisia Importers won a US$6M judgement against Guyana for the imposition of an environmental tax.

Rudisia, a Suriname-based company, produces and sells beverages in non-returnable containers. Caribbean International Distributors Inc. (CIDI), a locally owned subsidiary of Rudisia, imports and sells the beverages in Guyana. The company alleged that the imposition by Guyana, in 1995, of an environmental levy or tax of $10 on all imported non-returnable beverage containers imported into Guyana was discriminatory, and amounted to a violation of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas (RTC) passed into Guyana law in 2006.

Mr. Hinds made it clear that the Bill will allow Guyana to “right itself” with the CCJ.

Attorney-General (AG) and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, in his contribution to the debate on allowing the Motion to be passed, stressed that the CCJ judgment is not something the Government will have to pay, but rather the Guyanese taxpayers.

Citing sections of the judgement, he told the House that Guyana will have to report on its compliance to the CCJ, and non-passage of the Bill could lead to additional punitive measures.

He disclosed that prior to the CCJ’s ruling, the Court had adjourned its meeting for several months to allow for the enactment of the Bill, with the understanding that Guyana’s non-compliance was a legislative issue.

Having been unable to pass the Bill last year, the CCJ pronounced in favour of Rudisia.

“I believe we should comply with the Order of the court,” Nandlall said.

REJECTED OPTIONS

APNU’s Shadow Finance Minister Carl Greenidge argued that the Bill is not one that ought to address the attention of the House until its impacts on the local private sector are known.

He said the main Opposition will not support the imposition of taxes on Guyanese.
Leader of the AFC, Khemraj Ramjattan, pointed out that last year there was a lengthy debate on the issue, and he expressed his party’s concern over the end impact on local consumers.

Foreign Affairs Minister Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett acknowledged these positions, and offered the suggestion that the motion be supported and when the Bill is read a second time it could be send to a Parliamentary Select Committee, where the Opposition is free to make amendments. She called for support on this basis, and reiterated the importance of the Bill’s passage to bring Guyana in line with international laws.

“We can negotiate in the Select Committee,” Rodrigues-Birkett offered.

APNU MP Basil Williams reiterated his party’s position of non-support, despite the Foreign Affairs Minister’s suggestion on the basis that Guyanese manufacture will have an added tax burden.

Despite objections to the motion to have the Bill read a second and third time, the combined Opposition agreed that Guyana needs to act to bring itself into compliance with international laws.

The Prime Minister, on this note, pointed out that Government and Opposition seem to agree on the need for compliance with international law, but differ on the approach. To this end, he reiterated the suggestion made by Rodrigues-Birkett for the motion to be supported and the Bill be sent to a Parliamentary Select Committee.

This was rejected once more, and the end vote saw 33 opposing the motion and 28 favouring it.
After the vote, House Speaker Raphael Trotman indicated that the rejection of the bill has not rendered it a “dead” bill, as there are other avenues that can be explored to have it move forward for consideration by the National Assembly.

He explained that the practice has been that the mover of the Bill refers the Bill to a Parliamentary Select Committee, and he referred to the relevant standing orders.

APNU’s Greenidge rose to make clear that even if the Bill were to be moved to a Select Committee, the APNU will not support it.
Government Chief Whip Ms. Gail Teixeira then said, “Having heard members expound in the press, expound on what this Bill can be and should be…once it goes to Select Committee, these changes can be made, unless the Opposition wants to kill the Bill.

“We are putting forward a reasonable proposal, and the Opposition can make changes in the Select Committee…we are appealing to the reason of this house.”

AFC’s Ramjattan added that the problem can be solved with a withdrawal of the current Bill and move to repeal Section 7 of the principal act.

The Speaker then intervened to make clear that the Bill’s consideration can wait until consensus on the way forward is reached.
Lamenting the state of affairs in the House, the Prime Minister moved a motion to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, in the interest of the importance of complying with international standards.

Given that there is no vote on the referral of the Bill to the Select Committee, the Speaker put the Bill’s referral to a vote, and the Opposition voted down the referral also.

Teixeira pointed out that this was a first for the Assembly; a point the Speaker acknowledged, but stated that rules allowing such a vote are clear.

(By Vanessa Narine)