Editorial
A Breach of Protocol?
Several media reports over the past weekhave highlighted the controversy between Leader of GovernmentBusiness, the Hon. Kurt Tibbetts and four former members of ExCoover the state of Government finances.
By now it is known that the four Mrs.Julianna O'Connor-Connolly, Mr. Truman Bodden, Mr. Tom Jeffersonand Mr. John McLean have taken issue with statements attributedto Mr. Tibbetts, from a 27 November press conference, which providedinformation on the level of surplus/deficit the new administrationhad found, budget shortfall and outstanding bills of the Government.
The action by the four, to dispute Mr. Tibbett'sstatemnt and to otherwise criticise him publicly in the media,prompted the Leader of Government Business to respond likewise,with a press conference to "set the record straight."His earlier presentation in November, Mr. Tibbetts said, had beenmisrepresented by one particular newspaper report.
It may be argued, that since the informationrelating to government finances were already in the public domain,that the four former ExCo members were quite appropriate in issuingto the media their rebuttal of Mr. Tibbett's presentation, ascarried by the press.
Yet to do so, some three weeks after thestatements were made, hardly seems to be in the best interestof ensuring that the public has the correct information, withwhich to form its opinions. The issue seems to have been furtherclouded with information, which purportedly did not representfull disclosure.
We are compelled to question the actionof the four in making this an issue to be tried in the media andthe court of public opionion, as a matter it would seem, of firstresort.
Perhaps there are other avenues officialgovernment channels - through which the debate could have takenplace with Mr. Tibbetts, especially given the fact that one ofthe four Mrs. O'Connor Connolly - is presently a memberof the Legislative Assembly.
If the Leader of Government Business, (orany other public official, for that matter) provided what is saidto be erroneous information to the public, as the four contend,then rightly so, those in the know should seek to correct thisin the most expeditious and least embarassing manner to all concerned,ensuring that full disclosure is made.
Whether this kind of action comes from theoffice of the Accountant General, an independent audit, or evena Commission of Enquiry is a moot point.
In other places there are certain proceduresfor handling matters like these. One may refer to New Zealand, where a pre-audit of all governmnet finances is conducted priorto an election, so that an incoming administration knows fullywell what it is inheriting from the previous one. It should benoted that even the UK government is moving in this direction.
It may be worth considering that all mattersof financial reporting be addressed by the Financial Secretary who in effect acts as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, orunder different arrangements to an elected Minister of Finance.
It is clear, that in the weeks and monthsahead, the Government will have to do all it can to ensure thatthere is full disclosure, not only of its finances, but its actions,in the interest of the accountability and transparency that ithas promised. This will also be a necessary approach, to hedgeagainst any repeat of the kind of public confusion and controversythat have so far dogged the new Government's attempt at disclosureof public finances.
What has resulted from the handling of thematter, translates unfortunately to little more than a publicquarrel between present and former government members, and a distractionfrom the business at hand.
It smacks of a kind of partisan politicalmentality that does not augur well for the country's economicdirection.