Sound objectives behind Revenue Authority
Editorial
The reasons advanced by the state for the formation of the controversial Revenue Authority can hardly be faulted. The grouping of common functions of the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) and the Customs and Excise Department is expected to eliminate overlapping and result in savings to the Treasury. Revenue collection and tax administration would be simplified and a common data base would permit easier tracking of transactions for tax and other purposes. Restructuring of the various divisions is expected to yield higher income and customs revenues and bring more persons within the tax net. Moreover, the new authority would be expected to crack down on corruption - much complained of particularly at Customs - and poor service to the public. The opportunity would also be created to attract top quality staff to this leaner institution. It is on these objectives that the public must judge the formation of the Revenue Authority and decide whether the changeover was a judicious one. On these grounds we have no objections to the new configuration and look forward to the widest possible publicising of the Revenue Authority's activities and progress. The creation of the Revenue Authority has been greeted with strong criticisms by the Guyana Public Service Union (GPSU) and it has called for a day of rest today in protest at what it said was the indecent haste and "viciousness" with which the government had proceeded. The concerns of the GPSU must be taken fully on board by the government and dealt with expeditiously. On the other hand, the union must demonstrate its commitment to abide by the very rules it seeks to hold the government to. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the government proceeding with the birthing of the Revenue Authority in the caesura that followed Justice Carl Singh's decision on the challenge to Section Six of the Revenue Authority Act by former Comptroller of Customs Clarence Chue and officer Patrick Hyman. PPP/Civic governments have often been criticised for the sloth with which they have activated the levers of power, planned and executed decisions. It was different this time around. As the Comptroller-General Edgar Heyligar explained at a press conference on Friday, much preparatory work had gone into the planning for the new authority ever since it was thwarted by the Chue/Hyman court action in 1998. On this occasion the government was prepared to act and did so with uncommon efficiency. What the swiftness of the government action demonstrated was the continuing air of unease and distrust that exists between the social partners. The status of the majority of the GPSU's members at Customs and the IRD has been preserved in their shift to the Revenue Authority while 34 are to be transferred to other sectors of the public service and four persons - including Chue - are to be compulsorily retired. It was quite clear to all and sundry that the government's disposition to Chue made his position under the new scheme of things intenible. The concerns of the GPSU must be addressed within the matrix of established industrial relations procedures. The 55-day public service strike last year and the subsequent Armstrong tribunal award represent a watershed in relations between the government and the GPSU and quite clearly both will do their utmost to ensure that the rules and commitments are complied with to the letter of the law. The same way the GPSU wants absolute adherence to the Armstrong tribunal ruling it must also comply with established rules. Its protest over the decision by Justice Singh must have its sequel in the court and not outside government offices, ports-of-entry or in the streets. It can also not institute industrial action without conceding the requisite notification to the government and following the established procedures for settling these disputes. A positive atmosphere has been created by the government and the Trades Union Congress for guiding their future relations. It is our firm view that given the troubled government/GPSU relations last year, the two can benefit from the identical procedures and this flap over the Revenue Authority is a good place to begin.
|