PFP: Brison’s disregard for Council of Advice report not surprising
Menu

PFP: Brison’s disregard for Council of Advice report not surprising

L to R: MP Peterson and MP Gumbs L to R: MP Peterson and MP Gumbs

SINT MAARTEN (PHILIPSBURG) – After reviewing an advice rendered on the proposed Tourist Health Levy drafted by Member of Parliament (MP) Rolando Brison, Party for Progress (PFP) MPs Melissa Gumbs and Raeyhon Peterson have joined the Council of Advice in strongly opposing the continuation of the legislative procedure for the realization of the initiative national ordinance. The faction issued the statement after reports in The Daily Herald that Brison had been “invited” by the Parliament of Curacao to discuss the law.

The Health Levy seeks to charge a USD 30 premium on arriving tourists, with half of that amount being made available for SZV to use in any manner it sees fit. In the 12-page-long advice - which was issued on January 25, 2022 - the Council urged MP Brison not to take the draft law any further in the legislative process.

“The Council essentially wants the MP to stop the legislative procedure for the draft law. This is one of the harshest conclusions that the Council can issue,” explained MP Peterson. “In general, the Council does not want to shoot down an initiative law. Instead, the advice is normally meant to help the lawmaker improve the draft by suggesting areas where it could be strengthened. However, their very clear-cut conclusion essentially declares that the initiative law is so flawed that the legislative process should be discontinued.”

The Council found the draft law to be completely inadequate in many important ways, specifically questioning whether the country had a legal basis to stand as a commercial insurance company, or if SZV could even provide insurance coverage for such low premiums. At various times, the Council characterized the draft law’s assumptions and provisions as “misleading” and “unsubstantiated”. It also noted that it gave unfair competition to private companies.

In fact, there is so little consideration for the provision of healthcare in MP Brison’s draft law that the Council forcibly states:

“The driving force of the current draft law seems to be mainly focused on the levy and collection of discretionary income, as opposed to the creation of a fund to cover the medical and financial risks associated with admitting large numbers of visitors during the coronavirus pandemic … The term ‘health tax’ is therefore very misleading. The levy is only partly related to the so-called COVID-19 risk, but the other part is actually a disguised tourist tax under the name of a health levy. This entails necessary objections, not only from a legal point of view, but also from an insurance point of view.”

The Council contends that the draft law would abuse the current health crisis to make a profit. “If insurance coverage is possible for half the price, double this criterion should not be charged. According to the Council, the current health crisis should not be abused. In addition, no statement is made as to whether the SZV, with a USD 15 rate, can both offer insurance and cover its operational costs. The financial section [of the draft law] in particular falls short for these reasons, partly due to insufficient explanation of the expected concrete policy conditions, mandatory reserves, and legal solvency standards that apply to insurers,” it was stated in the advice.

“Without this key piece of the financial puzzle, it is very likely that this supposed revenue-generating measure will actually cost us in the long run. It is a charming idea, thinking about the streams of money that would flow into the coffers of SZV. But the MP forgets about the aspect of the necessary bills deriving from the responsibilities and obligations of SZV as an insurance company. When a tourist gets sick, SZV would then need to provide care, and as it stands neither the MP nor SZV has indicated whether this is possible,” MP Gumbs points out.

“We already have a mandatory insurance plan for tourists in place, which is run by insurance companies who already operate on the island. So there is no financial risk to the country as it stands. Under this draft law, we would be directly responsible for the health costs, for which we don’t know if the revenues will be enough to cover,” added MP Peterson.

PFP is not the only group that is opposed to the draft Health Levy. In response to circulating media reports, the airport’s operating company (PJIAE) wrote a letter to the Council of Advice on January 21, 2022. PJIAE objected to the Health Levy on behalf of the aviation industry, arguing that an additional tourist tax is likely to have a negative impact on passenger numbers.

“It gives the impression that as we are rebuilding our airport,” Gumbs says, “there is damage being caused to it, in advance. Interestingly enough, IATA’s own position on tourism taxes is that it ‘strongly opposes any form of tax or fee where the resulting revenue is not reinvested in the aviation industry and is merely meant to increase general government revenues.’ While SZV is not ‘government,’ per se, it is also not part of our local aviation industry. Are we willing to tempt a fall-out with IATA and thus, all major airlines, over this?”

“At this point in the legislative process of a national ordinance for Sint Maarten, I do not see the logic behind presenting it to the Parliament of another country within the Kingdom. It’s blatantly obvious that this is all for personal promotion, because in reality it makes no sense, as the Parliament of St. Maarten has not even discussed the law. Does the MP believe that, if presented, this law will be passed? If so, that shows complete disregard for the actual legislative process, as well as for all other members of Parliament, especially those who actually consider the advices rendered from our High Councils of State,” Peterson concluded. “I would urge all my colleagues to consider these developments carefully, because if we take our Council of Advice seriously, this law should not see the light of day on the floor of Parliament.”

back to top

Soualiga Radio