NaRRA bill gets House's go ahead after marathon debate

The House of Representatives descended into chaos late Tuesday, following the suspension of Opposition legislator Dr Angela Brown Burke, who was accused of lifting the Mace, marring the deliberations ahead of victory for the Government which used its majority to pass the contentious NaRRA bill.

The Opposition called for a divide on the proposed legislation – the National Reconstruction and Resilience Authority bill – designed to guide Jamaica’s reconstruction efforts following the passage of Hurricane Melissa that left western Jamaica devastated.

After the votes were tallied, there were 31 approvals from government legislators, while 15 opposition members voted against the bill. Sixteen members were absent.

The voting came after a robust nine-hour debate and deliberations, with 20 amendments made to the bill during the committee stage before being passed. The House adjourned at 1:50 a.m.

The bill had been introduced by Prime Minister Dr Andrew Holness but was piloted through the closing phases by Works Minister Robert Morgan.

However, the proceedings took a sharp turn during committee deliberations after Speaker of the House Juliet Holness instructed the Parliamentary Marshal to remove Brown Burke, who reportedly lifted the Mace.

“You don't ever do that, member,” Holness said as she summoned the marshal and ordered the St Andrew South Western representative removed from the chamber for “disorderly conduct”.

The precise nature of Brown-Burke’s interaction with the Mace was not immediately clear.

“At no time can you grab the Mace in Parliament. Not even in jest, member,” she said, adding “and, not in protest either” after a comment from an opposition member.

Opposition members closed ranks around Brown Burke who refused to leave, triggering a minutes-long standoff.

The Speaker subsequently called for a five-minute recess after which the St Andrew South Western MP left the House.

Earlier in the run-up, Member of Parliament for Westmoreland Eastern Dr Dayton Campbell issued a sharp criticism of the proposed legislation, arguing that while the Opposition supports the urgency of reconstruction, the bill as currently drafted replaces legislative safeguards with “executive assurances,” which, he said, will result in a dangerous concentration of power.

He noted that despite Government promises, JAMRROC, NaRRA’s oversight body, was not written into the bill.

He argued that the bill creates a structure where Dr Holness, as prime minister and portfolio minister, has total control over appointments, remuneration, and project approvals, with no governing board to provide a check on power.

“There is... no legal requirement for independent monitoring. No reporting schedule. No obligation to publish oversight reports. Instead, what the bill is, it says that the minister may give direction to the Authority. And the Authority shall comply. That is not independent oversight. That is executive control,” said Campbell, the Opposition spokesman on Agriculture.

According to Campbell, the bill represents a blank cheque where a procurement framework is absent. He said, instead, the Government intends to exempt NaRRA from the standard Public Procurement Act via ministerial order.

The Westmoreland Eastern member of parliament further criticised the lack of statutory requirements for tendering, conflict of interest provisions, or the mandatory disclosure of contract awards.

He noted that the bill allows the Authority to bypass existing environmental and planning laws and argued that if a state agency resists a directive, the minister can issue a “stepping order” to grant approvals himself.

Campbell warned that this could sideline professional judgment and environmental safeguards in the name of speed.

He said while the Government claims the bill promotes transparency, Section 14 creates criminal penalties for disclosure, while failing to mandate the publication of contracts, performance dashboards, or directive notices.

However, neighbouring MP for St Elizabeth South Western Floyd Green countered arguments from opposition members, asserting that Hurricane Melissa victims are “sick and tired” of political grandstanding regarding landfall locations or “the beginning of the end,” demanding instead a focus on rebuilding.

Green, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, argued that recovery is currently fragmented across too many agencies.

He said NaRRA is designed to be a single framework to align housing, infrastructure, and economic recovery.

He defended the argued centralisation of power under Section 12, stating that approvals which usually take years must now take weeks.

“The Opposition calls it overreach, we call it readiness,” declared Green.

At the same time, he noted that the Authority will still operate under the Public Bodies Management and Accountability system and will be subjected to the Auditor General’s oversight.

Further, he pointed to New Zealand’s Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) established in 2011 to lead earthquake recovery in Christchurch

Green argued that, like NaRRA, CERA did not have a traditional board but was led by a CEO reporting to a minister.

He noted that the model achieved over $4 billion in public corporate programming and major reconstruction within five years.

He argued that the real risk is not a “strong” Authority, but a “slow and fragmented” response.

He criticised the opposition members for “demonising” the bill while arguing that “delay is danger”.

“Of course the Government welcomes suggestions that strengthen the framework. In fact, we have been clear, some of those suggestions have already been taken on board. However, what cannot be countenanced is an attempt to demonise the bill; to portray the bill as lacking accountability; and an attempt to delay the bill and delay the reconstruction of this country,” he said.

Green urged the House to pass the bill immediately to provide relief to communities like Darliston, Balaclava, and Burnt Savannah among others.

His New Zealand reference was a direct response to St Catherine South Eastern MP Dr Alfred Dawes who pointed to The Bahamas’ reconstruction efforts following the passage of Hurricane Dorian in which issues of irregularities reportedly surfaced.

“The Bahamas had stronger oversight and still fell apart. Jamaica is proposing weaker oversight and expects to stand together. The logic does not hold,” Dawes told the House.

He further raised concerns about the appointment of a CEO, arguing that this would be done by the prime minister, with no governing board holding fiduciary duties. He added that an advisory board has no power to override or dismiss.

He said the bill lacks the most basic governance safeguards for nearly $2 trillion in public funds.

Dawes also noted that the first independent review by the Auditor General would be delayed up to four years after operations commence, while Section 13 criminalises unauthorised disclosure without any express whistle-blower protection.

But Dr Holness countered his arguments concerning the CEO, noting that the position was internationally advertised and vetted by a high-level panel – including the Cabinet Secretary and Professor Gordon Shirley – to maintain a “healthy distance” from personal politics.

In closing the debate on the bill, the prime minister, who acknowledged a “deep mistrust” of government and executive power in Jamaica, argued that while executive power must be restrained to protect rights, it must not be “constrained” to the point of paralysis.

He noted that over-limiting the ability to execute prevents the delivery of prosperity.

He pointed to the COVID-19 pandemic, noting that while executive orders were necessary for public safety, they inevitably bred suspicion.

Dr Holness insisted that he was not seeking power for personal gain but for functional necessity of the reconstruction efforts.

The prime minister pushed back against the demand for a joint select committee, which he argued would take three to six weeks that the country does not have.

He stated that between 2009 and 2015, significant “money bills” and fiscal rules were passed under urgency without committee review, often with his support as Leader of the Opposition.

Further, he cited the Economic Programme Oversight Committee as a successful example of "social consensus" providing oversight where formal legislation might have been too slow.

At the same time, he argued that the country has already built the most robust anti-corruption and oversight framework in the Caribbean, referencing the Auditor General, Integrity Commission, and Public Administration and Appropriations Committee.

He said the challenge now is to ensure this framework doesn't “smother and suffocate” the bureaucracy, preventing the Government from delivering the recovery the people need after a disaster.

“The persons who are advocates for anti-corruption, they must continue to push. You can't ease up. Because you don't want Government to become relaxed. But the Parliament has to be careful that it does not smother and suffocate the effectiveness of the public bureaucracy by an over layering of procedures that have no relevance to outcomes,” said Dr Holness.

“So we have gone through this phase in our development where we have been highly focused on anti-corruption. We must continue, but we are now going into a different phase where we have to ensure that our bureaucracy is efficient.

“It is not a wiping away or an undermining or a dismissing of the anti-corruption framework. No, it is, we will continue to push that and continue to spend the billions of dollars on it but democracy must deliver prosperity,” he said.

kimone.francis@gleanerjm.com