THE APNU+AFC missed the boat on the first day of the consideration of estimates for the landmark $1.146 trillion Budget 2024, asking what could be deemed trivial questions instead of scrutinising major components of the government’s fiscal plan.

The opposition posed no real challenges to the ministers who stood before the Parliamentary Committee of Supply to answer questions regarding the various allocations for agencies and ministries.

Heavy emphasis was placed on areas where there were marginal increases in allocations for salaries, routine administrative functions, and other rudimentary areas. In the case of an increased employment cost, it was most times easily justifiable because of the 6.5 per cent increase in salaries.

Opposition Member of Parliament, Tabitha Sarabo-Halley, also faced criticism for her line of questioning when she enquired about revenue payments from the Lands and Surveys Commission.

Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance, Gail Teixeira responded by explaining that the question would have been more suitable for the subject minister during the budget debate.

Furthermore, Sarabo-Halley’s questions regarding conflict-of-interest policies between the Deputy Auditor General and the Minister of Finance were dismissed by Minister Teixeira again.

“This is rather a deviation from the norm of the estimates; we’re looking at figures. This is a policy issue which maybe the honourable member is not aware of, as she is not in the Public Accounts Committee. But I’m sure her members from that side of the House briefed them from time to time on the developments in the Auditor General in the PAC…,” the minister said.

Minister Teixeira referred Sarabo-Halley to the Auditor General’s Office website where she could find the relevant information, rather than bringing it up during the consideration of estimates for the 2024 budget.

These incidents reflect a broader criticism by Attorney-General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, who, during last week’s National Budget debate, lambasted the Opposition MPs for their “substandard” presentations and for spreading misinformation.

“Apart from the substandard quality of the presentations from the opposite side, a lot of misinformation has been peddled which must not be left on the record without a response and in some cases, repudiation,” Nandlall said.