It’s becoming increasingly apparent that Tobago House of Assembly (THA) Chief Secretary Farley Augustine is holding on to the old political standings of his mentor, late former chief secretary Hochoy Charles.
This is again reflected in Mr Augustine’s announcement during the THA Budget on Monday that the T&T Revenue Authority (TTRA) is not in the best interest of Tobago and, therefore, the THA will not support it.
This echoes Charles’ old views that there is something wrong with Tobago’s taxes being collected by the Central Government, as he firmly believed the THA should have collected its own taxes and use the money as it saw fit.
Charles, we know, saw Tobago as far more than the semi-autonomous zone the THA Act of 1996 affords it, as he believed the island to be almost independent of Trinidad in many ways.
His argument, which Mr Augustine has often put forward, was that Central Government didn’t care enough about Tobagonians and was not giving the THA enough money to operate.
Charles may very well have had a point, as his bitter battle with then-prime minister Basdeo Panday resulted in a squeeze of funds before Charles sought relief from the Dispute Resolution Commission, which ruled Tobago must be given a minimum of 4.03 per cent of the national budget.
Today, there is hardly any sound argument that supports the stifling of Tobago resources. Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley, being a Tobagonian, has not been known to treat Tobago as a bastard child, and has been pushing for more hotel investments on the island among other things.
It is, therefore, hard to understand why Mr Augustine believes the introduction of a new authority to improve tax collection is against the interests of Tobagonians, given that any increase in national revenue can allow Tobago the opportunity for bigger budgetary allocations.
The notion that money from Tobago is solely benefitting the people of Trinidad is something we’ve heard from Mr Augustine before.
This is the same “we against them” position Mr Charles promoted, as he felt Tobago should be allowed to stand on its own financially.
That argument has long been dismissed, as Tobago contributes less than one per cent to T&T’s revenue, much less than the allocations the THA gets in the national budget each year.
Charles had gone so far as to insist that Tobago, being separate from Trinidad, allowed the island to enjoy a wider Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), which extends 200 nautical miles from its shores and, therefore, boosts the nation’s offshore energy acreage.
His view was that oil and gas revenue collected in the areas where the EEZ extended from Tobago’s shoreline ought to go to the THA and not to the national purse.
This argument sought to diminish the country’s standing as a unitary state with a centralised government and was dismissed long before Mr Augustine became Chief Secretary.
If Mr Augustine, therefore, wishes to revisit these arguments, he must present a more sound case that does not stop with a pronouncement that Tobagonians should not be subjected to paying taxes under the TTRA as Trinidadians would.
The issue of whether Tobago is indeed getting a fair share of the national pie is always up for debate, but tax collection as it stands remains a Central Government matter, and any efforts to ensure it is done more effectively must transcend both Trinidad and Tobago.