Representatives of unions in Aruba maintain that a negotiation agreement is not final and can always be adjusted before any Kingdom Act is formalized, including the proposed Kingdom Act HOFA or not.
In the current debate on the Kingdom Act HOFA, unions question the use of the term “consensus Kingdom Act,” pointing out that no real consensus has existed in Aruba’s Parliament.
Jose Figaroa, representative of the United Unions, explained that there is an important difference between a regular Kingdom Act and a consensus Kingdom Act. A consensus Kingdom Act arises from agreements between countries within the Kingdom—in this case Aruba and the Netherlands—based on a common desire to regulate a specific matter and must be negotiated accordingly. For example, the “administrative agreement” should have been negotiated, but the AVP–FUTURO government did not do so.
However, Figaroa emphasizes that consensus must be present throughout all phases of the legislative process. “Consensus must exist from beginning to end,” he stated, adding that according to their assessment, this did not occur in the current process of the Kingdom Act HOFA.
The unions also stressed that an agreement reached during negotiations does not mean it cannot be reviewed or modified. There is still room for adjustments before the law is formally enacted and if it is to become a Kingdom Act.
This position reflects the broader concern within the union sector regarding the lack of participation and consensus in the process and reinforces the call for more dialogue among all parties involved.
The discussion on the Kingdom Act HOFA continues to develop in Aruba, with various social and political actors calling for greater transparency, participation and respect for the democratic process before any final decision is made.