Senator Malaka Parker Brands Airport Charge Bill "the 3D's — Deceptive, Desperate and Dangerous" — as Opposition Refuses Support

Opposition Senator Malaka Parker mounted a forceful attack on the Airport Administration Charge (Amendment) Bill, 2026 during Thursday's sitting of the Senate, branding the measure "the 3D bill" — deceptive, desperate and dangerous — and declaring that the opposition benches would not support what she characterized as another creative tax grab dressed up as a routine one-page amendment.

"This is a highly contentious bill," Senator Parker told the chamber, rejecting the Leader of Government Business's framing of the amendment as simple and non-controversial. "This is how we are going to remember this piece of legislation... it is deceptive, it is desperate, and it is dangerous if we allow this amendment to pass under the guise of a simple, quote-unquote one-page amendment."

Why "Deceptive"

Senator Parker's charge of deception rested on what she called a false origin story for the US$10 increase to the airport administration charge on international passengers. Senator Parker clarified that according to the law an international passenger is determined by destination not nationality. Therefore, Antiguans and Barbudans who travel internationally will pay the increased charge contrary to the repeated assertions of the government senators. She also highlighted that the Prime Minister himself admitted in the lower house that the charge is relevant to Antiguan and Barbudan travelers.

The Prime Minister, she noted, told the lower house the increase arose from a mandate of the Eastern Caribbean Civil Aviation Authority (ECCAA). When she checked the authority's public records, Senator Parker said, the relevant discussion dated back to a 2020 meeting on sustainable funding at which the Prime Minister admitted Antigua and Barbuda was far behind in its contributions — but nothing in that meeting mandated raising airport taxes. "There's nowhere captured that they said that funding has to come from raising taxes at the airport," she said, adding that no other regional government has done so since 2020, and that St. Lucia recently reduced its airport charge to make travel cheaper. "He will have us believe that it is some type of regional mandate that all of the countries came together and decided on, and it is plainly not so."

Why "Desperate"

The bill, Senator Parker argued, exposes a government "creatively seeking to raise taxes" despite boasting of budget surpluses for three consecutive years. "We have a government that operates like drunken sailors, spending the people's money wantonly," she said, pointing to cronyism, nepotism and wasteful expenditure — language that triggered repeated points of order from the government benches and a protracted exchange with Senate President Alincia Williams-Grant.

Senator Parker traced the principal Airport Administration Charge Act of 2012 — passed by the United Progressive Party administration— to a single narrow purpose: funding the operational costs, capital expenditure, maintenance and upkeep of the airport. That purpose, she said, "has been totally corrupted and distorted." Under the amendment, she calculated, the airport itself would receive less than half of the new $10 — just $3.50 — with the remainder diverted elsewhere, including 6.25 per cent to the civil aviation authority, which she noted already receives navigation and communication fees.

Why "Dangerous"

The danger, Senator Parker argued, lies in where the rest of the money goes: the Climate Resilience Development Fund, which she repeatedly described as a "slush fund" — an allegation that drew fierce objection from government senators.

Pressed by the Senate President to substantiate the term, Senator Parker laid out her case: the fund was created in November 2023 not by an act of Parliament but by ministerial regulations — Statutory Instrument No. 45 of 2023 under the Finance Administration Act — and has therefore never faced parliamentary scrutiny. It is capitalized from the tourism guest levy, which she said yields over $25 million annually, a percentage of the revenue recovery charge, and, in recent years, the airport administration charge. Yet, she said, no report, no audited statement and no budget heading for the fund have ever come before the parliament.

"I bet you nobody on the other side can tell us how this fund gets money, or what that money is being used for," she said. "Millions and millions of dollars are going into it, and we are here today to pass another set of money to go into it again. We are not going to assent to that in good conscience."

The Senate President then ruled that Senator Parker had laid a foundational basis for her slush fund characterization.

A charge for the airport alone

Senator Parker said the opposition might have supported a clean increase dedicated to the now decade-old airport's maintenance and expansion — though even then, she said, the Airport Authority's own audited statements have not been reported on since 2019. Funding for regional institutions and the Supreme Court, she argued, properly belongs in the consolidated fund, "where there is proper oversight," not in opaque revenue streams.

"It is wrong for the government to bring legislation to increase taxes upon people without justifying the use of monies — millions of dollars that have gone before for the very said purposes," she concluded. "It would be irresponsible of us to support that."