SEAN DOUGLAS Sunday, November 1 2009

LEARN these three key words: red herring, smokescreen and filibuster.

These are the ways in which governments, including this Government, divert attention from themselves.

A red-herring means to divert attention from a key issue onto something else. A smokescreen raises so many extraneous matters as to obscure from view what is really vital. A filibuster means simply to out-talk the available time for debate and so deprive your parliamentary opponents (or probing reporters at press conferences) from having their say.

Two Fridays ago, the Lower House saw all three strategies cunningly used by Prime Minister Patrick Manning to defend himself and his Government from what appears to some to be the indefensible – that is, charges by Diego Martin West MP Dr Keith Rowley of the PM ignoring his complaints about Udecott’s non-accountability in awarding billions of dollars in contracts.

Manning put others in the firing line (“red herring”), introduced other issues (“smokescreen”) and used a variation of the filibuster to get himself extra time to speak that had been denied to all other MPs, including the Opposition.

Last Friday, it was the turn of the red herring to be used, led by each of Information Minister Neil Parsanlal and the normally quiet Sport Minister Gary Hunt.

The country may be seeing a move by the Government to try to rattle its critics, using the old adage, “the best form of defence is attack”.

Mr Hunt queried the lead story on Friday in Newsday which quoted him at Thursday’s post-Cabinet news briefing announcing $650,000 to support the TT Cricket Team for the Twenty20 Cricket Tournament in India. Newsday also quoted TT Cricket Board CEO, Forbes Persaud: “We have received no money specifically for Airtel Champions League but we have been given at the start of the year for developmental programmes and team preparation.”

Newsday said TTCB uses its finances and is then reimbursed by the State. Newsday added Persaud said the Tourism Development Company has pledged $100,000, saying, “We have not received the money as yet but we have that commitment in black and white.”

Minister Hunt however, read aloud in Parliament on Friday a statement by Persaud bizarrely alleging that the Newsday story gave the impression to the public that the TTCB did not receive any financial support from the Ministry of Sport to prepare the national team for India.

It’s amazing Mr Hunt and Mr Persaud could say this when the front-page of Newsday in a one-foot long space, wrote the headlines, “Govt gave $650,000 to Ganga’s Team for Twenty20...”, adding that Persaud said the sum was not specifically for the Twenty20 but more broadly for the TTCB’s overall developmental programme.

Persaud’s statement read by Hunt on Friday said, “I wish to state quite categorically that this is not true. According to our records, to date funding received as well as funding authorised for payment from the Sport Company to the TTCB for National Team preparation for 2009 is approximately $913,679.01. Included in this sum is funding for team preparation for the T20 tournament in India.”

But surely the words “included in this sum” suggests there is nothing in Mr Persaud’s statement that denies Newsday’s reporting of his remarks in our Friday edition.

Mr Hunt hit the Newsday story as being “misinformation”, in what he called, “this sour affair”.

But if anyone was guilty of misinformation, it certainly was not Newsday!

If the crux of Mr Hunt’s grouse is whether the Government paid monies in advance or will do so retroactively, the letter read out by him shed no light whatsoever. It simply said the “funding received” and “funding authorised” totals $913,679. Despite Mr Hunt’s heated charges of misinformation, he gave no evidence whatsoever of any breakdown in costs between monies in advance and monies owed.

Last Friday also saw Information Minister Neil Parsanlal try to send Independent Senator Dana Seetahal to the Privileges Committee for a press column where she asked whether or not Speaker Barry Sinanan had done his job properly the previous week in the heated debate on a Bill to validate the Uff Commission of Inquiry into Udecott.

Some wondered if this was another red-herring.

This was the debate where Prime Minister Patrick Manning spoke of a “raging bull”, a “jilted lover”, “hate, bitterness, acrimony”, “the tyranny of the lynch mob”, “bullying”, a political “tag-team”, and the “capo di tutti capi”. Mr Manning was thought by some to be hitting below the belt in his remarks.

Some might argue that Manning violated Standing Order 36 in three ways. Firstly, S.O. 36(4) says, “It shall be out of order to use offensive or insulting language about Members of either Chamber of the Legislature.” Secondly, S.O. 36(5) says, “No Member shall impute improper motives to any other Member of either Chamber.”

Thirdly, S.O. 36(10) says, “The conduct of the Governor, Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives or of judges or other persons engaged in the administration of justice shall not be raised except on a substantive motion moved for the purpose...”

These three rules, like all Standing Orders, are to be enforced by the Speaker under his authority under S.O. 42(1) which says, “The Speaker in the House and the Chairman in Committee shall be responsible for the observance of the rules of order in the House and committees respectively...”

The attempt to send Ms Seetahal to the Privileges Committee might be said to simply look like the latest of the Government’s red herrings (to divert attention away from Government’s failings including the PM’s speech in the Validation Bill) that have been aimed at reporters/journalists, and now a columnist.

A fortnight ago, the Government also sent two top TV6 journalists to the Privileges Committee for what seemed to be a trivial matter involving firstly an argument over whether two elected MPs plus one Senator can be referred to as “several MPs”, and a comment about whether Mr Sinanan was or was not being even-handed in referring Government and Opposition MPs to the Privileges Committee.

In the Seetahal matter, Sinanan on Friday recused himself, and Deputy Speaker Pennelope Beckles is still due to rule on whether or not a prima facie case has been made to send her to the Privileges Committee.

Meanwhile, instead of picking on innocent commentators perhaps the Government would like to instead assure those of us who are wondering: Whatever happened to proposals to allow persons who are insulted in Parliament to have a right of reply through having a statement of response read out by the House Clerk?

Hopefully there will be less red-herrings, smokescreens and filibusters in the two Houses, but given the example set by Mr Manning the previous week, and the apparent defence of it now by the device of purportedly upholding the dignity of the Speaker, one shouldn’t hold one’s breath.