Episode Transcript
[00:00:01] Speaker A: The best insight, instant feedback, accountability, the all new talk radio Freedom 106.5.
[00:00:07] Speaker B: And joining us is a gentleman who has spoken to us on numerous occasions about many different things. This morning he's here to speak to us in particular about what we can expect when it comes to our mid year review.
And also we'll be tapping into his expertise when it comes to several other discussions that we're having at this point in time. As welcome to our program, former minister in the ministry of Finance, Mariana Brown. Good morning to you. Welcome back to our show.
[00:00:37] Speaker C: Good morning. How are you?
[00:00:38] Speaker B: I'm fine. Nice to have you with us here this morning. There is a whirlwind of discussions surrounding finances in this country. We have a lot of experts now speaking about all the things that's supposed to take place between the minister of finance and the auditor general. And we are learning a lot of things about that relationship as the discussion unfolds. And I know that we will speak about the media budget review and all those things, but I would love to get your opinion. Yesterday, the minister of finance had a long press conference speaking about all of these things that are taking place. He announced a team to prove what really transpired and everything else. But he said something yesterday that I found, I don't want to use the term confusing, but I think it needs clarification from persons who may have the ability to clarify for us. And I'm going to quote, as was quoted in the Guardian newspaper on PJ five, what minister Colin member had to say. And he was speaking about his allegation that the opposition was spreading misleading information and speaking about things that couldn't be accounted for. And he said when a statement is made that documents are not provided, it does not mean evidence of a payment was not provided.
Can you, would you be able, I've been reading that over and over again, and I've been trying to get, and I've been scratching my head all morning long trying to figure out exactly what does that mean? Because logic suggests if the documents, which are the pieces of information, are not provided, that means the evidence wasn't provided. But the minister doesn't seem to think so.
[00:02:18] Speaker A: Well, there are situations where I can provide information.
I think I provided all the information that is required. But the person whom you provided it to doesn't think so in the circumstances, whose opinion counts most? Well, the person you're trying to convince, and if they say that you haven't provided the information and they're not satisfied with the information, then they are not satisfied with the information that you have provided, and in their opinion, and that's what the constitution requires of the auditor general, has to give an opinion. You may not like it, you may not agree with it, but the auditor general's opinion, and you can't change that. Unfortunately, what we're witnessing is an attempt to bully the auditor general into agreeing with what I have said.
And that's what it is.
[00:03:23] Speaker B: I mean, if you look at in.
[00:03:25] Speaker A: Terms of reference, the terms of reference is what he talks about. He talks about an investing and invest, an independent investigation or inquiry to arrive at the circumstances and to discuss or to give a report on what are the problems that the systemic error.
[00:03:44] Speaker C: Right.
[00:03:45] Speaker A: But two of the argument, two of the, how shall we call it, two of the terms of reference, include a reference into the conduct of the attorney general. I think that's the last thing that you want to put into terms of reference.
That is an attempt to find justification of what I have said is against. In other words, you want to, you want to, you want your referee, you appointed your referee any circumstances.
[00:04:13] Speaker C: Right.
[00:04:14] Speaker A: So I think once, once you understand that, right, then the sort of what one would call like statements which are completely opposed to one another that you just read there and you can't reconcile it. Well, that explains it.
He's trying to justify, the minister's trying to justify that what I have done is, or what my staff have done or what the staff have provided is sufficient. And the auditor general clearly has said, not.
[00:04:44] Speaker B: From that perspective, which is the most rationalized perspective, analyzing all that's in the public domain. It suggests to me, not as a talk show host, but as a citizen, that I should view with probably a pound of salt any report that's to come out of this investigative team for several reasons. And you made specific reference to the terms of reference and, well, I guess this is something that we will be discussing moving forward. There are two months to file the report and all these kinds of things, but tell us all of these discussions that are taking place now and all the back and forth and the pre action protocol letter now, this report that is to be compiled by this team to prove whatever else and so on, how does this, does this impact at all on the media budget review and the ability of the minister? It doesn't.
[00:05:40] Speaker A: It doesn't.
[00:05:40] Speaker B: Okay.
[00:05:41] Speaker A: The difficulty with this is that there's a loss of credibility, and that's the difficulty with this report, the auditor general's report. And as far as the auditor general is concerned, the auditor general has done a work and has filed a report and she sent it to the speaker of the House, to the president of the Senate and to the minister of finance. The minister of finance is saying, I have not laid it in the house and therefore nobody is supposed to have a copy. All right. The statement there implies that it fell off the back of a truck or that it was leaked, which is another attempt to say, in effect, that the auditor general is not cautioned, is not kosher.
So that's what he's saying without saying it. He's not attacking the office directly, but he's laying sufficient groundwork as to literally pull the rock from underneath, under her feet.
Now, as far as the auto general is concerned, I've done my work. I do have to report again.
[00:06:48] Speaker C: And what.
[00:06:49] Speaker A: What you're really looking at here is a campaign to bring the auditor general into line.
[00:06:58] Speaker C: All right?
[00:06:59] Speaker A: That's what it is. Does it affect the media budget review? No.
The auditor general's rule kicks into position after the numbers have been done. In other words, at the end of the financial year, the Audit and Exchequer act gives the government freedom, freedom, free reign, until the timeline is reached where the report must be presented to the other general for the comment of the auditor general. So the media budget review is completely within the purview of the executive.
There's no external third party that can express opinion other than the fourth estate, or this is the press and other commentators on the, if not accuracy, but on the changes that are made in the media budget review. The thing to understand is that it is a review.
It is a review within the envelope of a budget and the appropriation bill, it cannot go outside of that. And if it does, it has. It requires the approval of parliament.
So. And even the changes require the approval of parliament. That's why it goes to parliament. And there's an agreement, and there has to be agreement in terms of what it contains. And we know there's a built in majority in part of the government.
So what does the media budget review entail? Well, it is a review of the expenditure for the year so far, and it identifies the projects which have started which have not started, some which need more money, things which need more money, which were under budgeted, and it shifts funds around to fit that. Now, the prime minister did call earlier this year, or did indicate that he would be asking the minister of finance to find additional resources, 100 million, to be precise, to be given to the police and the defense force to assist with anti crime activities.
So that's the one thing that one would. That we know of that would come in the budget, because their announcement would mean on that. So to find that hundred million dollars, some item of expenditure has to be suppressed, or alternatively, where the budget expenditure perhaps has not been used up in some other areas that will be switched over to fund this additional requirement. So there's no challenge to the media budget review on the basis of this dispute with the auditor general.
[00:09:40] Speaker B: We've heard in the past that the auditor general report contains things that need either further clarification or some people say, of course, for concern and everything else. This time around, we're hearing much more about some of these things.
[00:09:58] Speaker A: Well, you continue, sir.
[00:10:02] Speaker B: It has gotten to the point where there are calls from some sectors for the fraud squad to investigate and for police to investigate and all these kinds of things.
What do you say about those calls? Are those valid calls?
[00:10:16] Speaker A: Those calls are premature at this stage.
The auditor general's report does set the cat's amounts pigeons.
And that's one of the reasons why the minister of finance has found himself in this position, because what in effect, this buha means is one, I'm uncomfortable with what you represented.
I have been able to verify a percentage of what you are presented, and therefore, in these circumstances, I'm preparing a qualified report.
The auditor general's report normally will contain a list of deficiencies which were found which invariably mean either material value or material principle.
And what we should be doing is determining from year to year whether there's any improvement in the accounts or if the trend has gotten worse.
Invariably what happens is that we report, we complain about all the things that the auditor general has talked about and we forget about it.
There is no real systemic attempt at improvement.
That's point one.
Point two, the dispute, the major form of dispute, because there will be things in the auditor general report that complain about all different kinds of departments. You're under 24 ministries, there's a budget of 60, 50 something million dollar, billion dollars. You are going to find that they are going to be weak decision at some stage of the gaps. You will find that there are errors and mistakes will happen.
[00:12:11] Speaker C: Right.
[00:12:13] Speaker A: You want to deal with the errors, but more appropriately, you want to address the systemic weaknesses. Now, the cause of the brouhaha is an error which in total appears to be about $3.4 billion, of which .6 has been identified, which leaves another $780 million on the loose.
Now, this error is in regard to revenue.
When you take into account that the revenue is determined on a cash basis, that is near cash basis, meaning checks and actual cash received, that's a significant error.
When this error was discovered.
The deadline is four months after the fact that they deliver information to the auditor general.
Everything in the public domain suggests that this error was picked up as a. When somebody did an oversight review, who is not normally involved in the process, it would appear to be the budget department.
And it. So there would have been difficulty between the treasury and the budget department. Budgets is a division in the Ministry of Finance.
The treasury is a division as well in the Ministry of Finance. More, more on the accounting and receipt side. Budgets is just what it is, is budgets. They check any budget, right. How it was done was allocated and stuff. Treasury is actually the controller, if you want the cash controller, right. And the treasury deals with the central bank, who is the government's bank.
Now, the minister in his press conference yesterday, see, this error goes back to a system which started in February 2023.
February 2023. And you picking up an error as a result, an overview control in, after the numbers have been sent to the other general in February and March.
I mean, I'm, I'm, I'm alarmed.
I'm very alarmed because it meant that the normal controls which should apply that between February 2023 and the end of your financial year, um, to the September.
Well, that's how many months? That's, that's seven months. And then eleven months later, you still haven't picked up the error. And somebody doing an overview abroad, overview check says, hang on, something is wrong with the numbers. Go back and check and by the time you all sort it out and you determine that there's an error and it brought to the other. If you do as a general, what would you do?
I would be very annoyed, I would be very confused, I would be very concerned.
And that's the sit and that's what we really deal with here. The minister has put a paper over it and try to, because it's embarrassing.
It would appear that the problem exists inside the decentral bank and quite frankly, the client of the central bank, the treasury division, the government of Trinidad, won't do their work either.
Now that's what the circumstances are. And in those situations, if I won auditor general, by the way, I'm a qualified accountant. I grew up in what you ordered practice, mind you, it might have been a long time ago, but the principles don't change.
They don't change a heck of a lot. There may be more standards and so on with regard to how they direct you. And the auditor general is a qualified accountant.
So it's not to say that she's not aware. She herself must be very concerned in the circumstances and systemic weaknesses.
And that's the difficulty.
The investigation is a way of saying, well, okay, let me get somebody who's independent, and I could depend on him and you all could depend on him to look at the situation.
But two items of the terms of reference already, confusion as to express an opinion and you as a general.
[00:16:32] Speaker C: Right.
[00:16:32] Speaker A: The key problem here is what are the systemic weaknesses?
[00:16:39] Speaker B: And it does not seem as though the terms of reference for this, this probe will get to the bottom of that.
[00:16:48] Speaker A: Well, if people are professionals and don't stick, I mean, you pick a judge, right. Supposedly independent. Well, all right, good. Let's accept that the judge is independent for the time being.
[00:17:02] Speaker C: Right.
[00:17:02] Speaker A: But finance is not the judges purview.
[00:17:05] Speaker C: Right.
[00:17:06] Speaker A: But he is an independent party.
[00:17:08] Speaker C: Right.
[00:17:08] Speaker A: To review. And so the person who is the vice chair, who is a author general, or was a director in the general's department, would have the necessary, ought to have the necessary skill and care to be able to determine what the issues are.
[00:17:25] Speaker C: Right.
[00:17:26] Speaker A: And what we really should be focusing on is how to correct it to make certain that this does not happen again.
[00:17:35] Speaker B: Yeah. You've been very meticulous in explaining to our listeners, and I think this discussion was warranted because there's so much swirling around that sometimes in all the voices you lose focus of what the important elements are. And I do hope that after you've explained it as clearly as you have about what the real issues are, it shapes the discussion with more pointed focus moving forward. I don't know if that's going to happen, because in this country we like bacchanal more than we like facts and figures, but we'll see how that goes.
[00:18:12] Speaker A: The difficulty is that most people don't pay attention to detail.
They are more interested in the personality issues and all this. And this, unfortunately, is how it has been played that the other general is not on our side and the other general is causing confusion and so on and so forth.
[00:18:34] Speaker C: All right.
[00:18:35] Speaker A: That might be an unfortunate byproduct of what our role is in the constitution. In the constitution, she doesn't have a boss. Section 116 says she takes direct.
[00:18:46] Speaker C: Right.
[00:18:46] Speaker A: It just happens that she's female in this particular instance.
[00:18:49] Speaker C: Right.
[00:18:50] Speaker A: She, she takes direction from nobody. And she's entitled, in accordance with section 116, to ask or whatever books and records required to allow her to come to an opinion. Now, the auditor next checker act gives a timetable.
And the problem, the legal problem with creatures of statute is that they must operate within the legal envelope that is provided in the act. So if the access shall.
That's what she could. She must do.
[00:19:25] Speaker C: X.
[00:19:26] Speaker A: She doesn't have discretion.
[00:19:28] Speaker C: Right.
[00:19:29] Speaker A: And that's probably part of the problem.
[00:19:31] Speaker C: Right.
[00:19:32] Speaker A: They were asking you, the general, to exercise some discretion and he was prepared to do that. I could. I could see that happening. And then perhaps some good sense prevail and say, okay, good, well, I'll take a look at it again.
But then I am not satisfied that the information you presented to me within this window of the act is sufficient to give me comfort or to satisfy me that you have done everything that you need to do.
When the minister was making his presentation to the Senate, he was very careful to speak only of $2.6 million. The auto generals response to the pre action protocol letter said 3.4. So there was a difference of 780 million plus plus plus.
[00:20:25] Speaker C: Right.
[00:20:26] Speaker A: Which is not small.
[00:20:28] Speaker C: Right.
[00:20:28] Speaker A: The principle, however, is important.
[00:20:32] Speaker C: Right.
[00:20:32] Speaker A: So what you're trying to do is to limit the amount of damage and say, well, there's only seven majority.
And the principle, again, the timeline suggests that all the controls which were required do not affect. Now, let me give you an example of why I mean, and what I'm saying. What I'm saying.
Every day people move money around the world, right? Purposes of trade, a settled trade to pay for bills, to pay for finance and so on. The money center banks, like the bank of New York City bank, all the banks, they deal in billions of dollars of transactions, billions, in fact, in a daily basis. Trillions, right? You talk that trillions, right? Just to stress the. Imagine trillions in multiple types of currencies.
Those transactions must be reconciled on a daily basis. If you allow that to backup the system, interlock, jam, it fails. So there is a treadmill and these things are reconciled electronically.
This has been in position for more than 25 years.
So the central bank is introducing a system which is common practice internationally for 25 years, and you do pick up an error until eleven to 1311 months later.
I'm not comfortable.
I'm not comfortable at all.
[00:22:11] Speaker B: The development of pre action protocol letters left, right and center.
How do you think they're going to impact know what is taking place?
[00:22:26] Speaker A: The unfortunate problem in this is that the attorney general is required to uphold the constitution.
He is also an advisor to cabinet.
So therefore, in these circumstances, he is expected to bring a certain degree of wisdom.
Wisdom means that you pour oil on troubled waters and you attempt to rationalize the situation and do what is required within the ambit of the law to fix matters.
The motion brought before parliament on Friday the last Friday in April and last week Monday was sufficient to suggest that there was a legal mechanism to give the auditor general room so that she could satisfy her statutory responsibilities.
But the deadline for the auditor general's response is April 30, and you are passing the bill on April 29.
Now, if you're the auditor general, you would be waiting for them.
You're not certain that they will do x, Y and Z. And if you have sent me a preaction protocol letter and you have attempted to pressure me into falling into line, what the suggestion, the suggestion and implication is that they only consider this legal option after they won't able to push her into a corner and she didn't stay there.
[00:24:19] Speaker C: Right.
[00:24:20] Speaker A: She responded, which is what one would expect any circumstances. Well, because if you send me a preaction protocol letter, under existing rules, if I do not respond to the letter, whatever is in your letter as an allegation is deemed to be true, because the Lord takes the position that a failure to respond and silence means agreement.
So the other general finds herself in a position where I must respond.
And since the, the air has become poisoned, she's not going to wait for anybody with whatever solution you come up with at that stage of the game, I'm going to press on, which is what she did.
Now we find ourselves in a situation where the auditor general clearly has a report.
The report has already been done.
And the whole purpose of all of this is to put the order, general, either one to pour cold water on the other general report or two to publicly question bona fide.
That's what the, that's what, this is what the purpose of the investigation is, especially since those two clauses are put in there.
Now, at the beginning, when they started, for the first three days, the only voice that expressed concern on Monday night, Tuesday morning, Wednesday was mine. And then everybody kind of jumped in.
[00:26:01] Speaker C: All right?
[00:26:02] Speaker A: I didn't deal with these systemic issues.
I left them out. I'm simply, I was simply saying that this was unprecedented and it was not necessary.
There's a way to sort this out.
But at the time, I was not fully aware of everything else that had happened.
Now, in the full explanation that has come out and now that I've seen it, not the kid, the minister has been very careful with his explanations as to what the errors are, because to admit those errors in public is to raise a red flag.
And he has been careful to play down. Nobody's going to pay attention unless you're a technician and you've been in that business before, meaning that you've been in banking, you're in auditing, and you understand what these things are, or. I happen to be all three.
[00:27:06] Speaker B: Yeah. That definitely shapes your, your perspective and your ability to clarify some of these matters much better than some of the other people whose voices we've been hearing. Very, very loud. Um, do you think that this attempt for wonder, a different term, to strong arm the auditor general, is something that probably happened in the past with others who were not as, as willing to stand up and you gotta ask the question.
[00:27:39] Speaker A: It just appears as though we don't know.
[00:27:44] Speaker B: That's a scary thing. It is, because it appears. It appears as though the matter, the manner in which this matter has been approached suggests that, well, you know, we do this already. No big deal. Let me do it again.
And you can't help somebody from coming to that opinion.
[00:28:01] Speaker A: You can't help from somebody from being suspicious.
[00:28:03] Speaker B: Correct.
[00:28:04] Speaker C: Right.
[00:28:06] Speaker A: Because what happens, these circumstances bring out the cynic in all of us.
[00:28:11] Speaker C: Right. The.
[00:28:12] Speaker A: And the answers that you don't know.
Normally, in the course of any kind of audit, there's always some latitude.
[00:28:24] Speaker C: All right.
[00:28:25] Speaker A: I'm not going to change, I'm not going to change my opinion, but I will come to an opinion if the evidence is sufficiently credible.
And one would presume that that is what has happened in the past, because it has never reached the public air, one could presume that the circumstances were such that they never caused that level of confusion.
So they were always able to reconcile matters. And I would be preferred to take that point. I would prefer to look at it from that perspective.
So I have to say that this would have been unique.
And what is also different is the size of the area.
Size of the area is not small.
[00:29:16] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:29:17] Speaker A: $180 million is about, is about two or three six story buildings.
[00:29:24] Speaker B: Would you be able to stay with us until after eight for a bit? Because.
[00:29:28] Speaker A: No, unfortunately, I myself, I preside over an organization, and this morning I have a meeting with my auditors, too.
[00:29:36] Speaker B: Well, we're gonna have to have you back, because I appreciate greatly the detailed manner in which you have dealt with this issue, so that in the minds of our listeners, there is much more clarity now of what people should be considering. Unfortunately, we didn't even scratch the surface or even get to talk about the media budget review, which is what you brought here to talk about this morning. So we're gonna have another discussion on that some other time. I want to thank you. This is gonna have to drop the curtains. Have a couple messages to take us up to the top.
As always, very very inspiring discussion. Such thought provoking perspective that I think the listeners are going to leave this discussion with this one. I want to thank you for being with us here this morning. As always, thank you for your time.
[00:30:21] Speaker A: The best insight, instant feedback, accountability. The all new talk radio Freedom 106.5.
