NATIONAL PARLIAMENT OF
DAILY HANSARD
FIRST MEETING – EIGHTH SESSION
The Speaker, Sir Peter
Kenilorea took the Chair at
Prayers.
ATTENDANCE
At prayers all were present with the exception of the
Ministers for the Department of Foreign Affairs, Lands & Survey and the
Members for
Mr Speaker: The
Honourable MP for Aoke/Langa Langa has sought permission to raise a point of
privilege and clarification.
Hon ULUFA’ALU: Mr Speaker, I
just wish to raise two matters – the first is on seeking clarification and the
other is a matter of privilege.
On the issue of seeking clarification from your Chair,
this is an unprecedented issue where a motion is stated on the Order Paper to
be moved by the Caretaker Prime Minister, which the action of such office in
the past has been restricted to the executive and not necessarily on the floor
of Parliament. It is in that context I
raise this for clarification so that it goes down on records properly because
parliamentary matters are matters of precedent and hence since there was no
precedent in the past you may be in the position to clarify this matter so that
it is goes down in the records as parliamentary procedure for future reference. That is the first point I would like to seek
clarification on from the Chair.
Mr Speaker, the second point is raised under Standing
Orders 25 - a matter of privilege, and it is in respect to this Parliament, the
dignity and respect that people accorded this Parliament. This Parliament is the last place in this
country
that
is supposed to be holy, sacred and respected because it reflects the
sovereignty of this country. I am
referring to the holiness that people of this country subscribe to this
institution, their Parliament, and in this context the actions that had
happened in this chamber seem to me to be undermining the sacredness, holiness and
the very sovereignty which is the essence of our democracy as a sovereign
people.
Mr Speaker, I refer to the incident where military forces
entered this very chamber assembling their riot gears and everything in this
chamber. Although they are operating
under the Facilitation Act, the scope that that Facilitation Act gave them was
really outside of Parliament and not in the chamber in here. They should have restricted their access
outside Parliament and not inside the chamber.
This is where it is called the holy of holies if you can remember the
words used in the Bible and therefore should be kept only for people who are
entitled to enter the holy of holies and not any military personnel or other
persons who are not warranted to be in such a holy and sacred place like
this.
I want to raise this because this really amounts to
complete annexation of the
There are a number of issues that need to be raised
and clarified in order for all of us to have a good understanding of these
things. As I said it is regrettable and
you yourself, Mr Speaker, would have noted what I am saying that these people are
assembling their riot gears in the very chamber itself. I am quite sure they have all the time in the
world to assemble those things outside of this chamber.
Hon Fono: Point of
order. Mr Speaker, the MP for Aoke/Langa
Langa should not confuse the public. The
Chamber means where we are sitting inside now.
I do not see any riot gears in this chamber. They are outside of the building and so he
should not confuse the public. Although this
is raised under matter of privilege he should say things rightly. What the Police and the security are doing is
outside of the building and not in the chamber and so he should withdraw his
statement that there is no riot squad in the chamber. My understanding of the chamber is where we
are sitting in right now and so he should not misinform the public again, Mr
Speaker.
Hon Ulufa’alu: There are
always others venues the honourable Member can correct my statement. The chamber includes this whole
building. The gallery is part of this
chamber. Where do you draw the limits of
jurisdiction? Whilst I have respect for
my honorable colleague for Central Kwara’ae, I think it is important to bring
this matter out so that relevant authorities can ensure what to do about it.
I am only raising it because it
affects the dignity, the holiness and the sanctuary of this chamber. I brought it up because it is part of this
chamber, the gallery is very much part of it. I am raising this matter because of that
concern and it is not for us to debate and argue about it.
With those few comments, Mr Speaker,
I thank you for your permission to allow me to raise this on the floor of Parliament
because this is where these matters are supposed to be raised and not somewhere
else.
Mr Speaker: In regards to
the first point you raised in relation to the Prime Minister who has kindly
vacated his seat, the Constitution is very clear that the tenure of service
under section 34(4) provides that whilst there is a vacancy, the Prime Minister
who has just created that vacancy can continue the function as a Prime Minister
until a Prime Minister is elected. So
whilst there is vacancy the function is served.
So there is nothing wrong for the Caretaker Prime Minister to continue
performing the role of a Prime Minister until the vacancy is filled by the
election of a new Prime Minister. I
think that is quite clear and nothing untoward in the current Caretaker Prime
Minister performing the role of prime minister in Parliament.
In providing that servings provision,
there is no language to the effect of limitation of his function and so I take
it that his function in Parliament includes the normal functions he would be
doing outside of Parliament.
As regards to the concern about the use
of the Parliament Chamber, for purposes other than the purposes it is intended
to, I have been drawn to that very important issue on Tuesday last week by my
staff that they understood that some gear that should not be brought into
Parliament were brought into Parliament, and I accordingly asked the RAMSI
officers to kindly remove them from inside Parliament to outside of Parliament.
Since Tuesday last week I have not
noticed any repetition of bringing these things back into Parliament unless it
is for their normal Police function of the
Hon
This is a meeting of Parliament and so where do you
really draw the line here? In as far as executive
functions are concern then I think the definition and the line you are trying
to clarify may hold water. But in terms
of a meeting of Parliament this is where clarification is needed to be
made. This is a meeting of Parliament and
not a function of executive, and that is what we want clarification from your
chair on.
Mr Speaker: We do have a
Parliament still in existence. This is the
Legislature and we are meeting as a Parliament, but we do also have an
Executive Government, caretaking still.
Therefore, the honorable Prime Minister has every reason to attend Parliament
as a Caretaker Prime Minister under the servings provision to which I referred
to earlier - section 34(4) of the constitution.
His function is not taken away from him just because he vacated the
office until a new Prime Minister is elected.
That is very clear.
And his responsibility includes answering of questions
in Parliament and since Parliament is meeting and so he is here in Parliament
to respond to any issues raised by Parliament.
I hope those rulings are clear, but
of course that is the Speaker’s view unless the Attorney General may wish to
make further clarifications.
Hon HAOMAE: Point of
Order. Mr Speaker, I wish to seek your
indulgence to clarify sitting arrangements in Parliament at this point in time
because some of our Ministers in caretaking capacities are still Ministers but have
not resigned as Ministers of the Crown and are sitting on the other side of the
Opposition Bench.
For purposes of the dignity of Parliament which my honorable
colleague for Aoke/Langa Langa has subscribed his views on that point, I wish
to seek your clarification as to whether it is proper parliamentary practice
for a member of the Cabinet to sit on the Opposition Bench when he is yet to
resign as a Minister of the Crown.
Mr Speaker: I suppose in
terms of sitting in Parliament it is up to the Member’s freedom to sit wherever
he wants to sit
(hear, hear)
and
so that does not affect his appointment as a Minister wherever he sits in
Parliament. Of course, by convention we
know the areas that Government normally sits but as I said officially it does
not affect his official appointment wherever he sits.
Mr LILO: Point of
Order: Mr Speaker, I do appreciate your
ruling on the question of the responsibility of the Caretaker Prime
Minister. But I think we have to understand that the
bedrock of democracy is really the majority rules. Now in a situation where the Prime Minister
no longer commands that majority, it serves no purpose for us to come to
Parliament and try to transact business.
We know that we would not have a democratic decision on it, and that is
majority decision on any parliamentary business. I think that is really the gist of the matter
that is being raised by the Honorable MP for Aoke/Langa Langa and also the MP
for Rendova and South New Georgia.
The point is whether or not the Prime Minister has the
majority or numerical strength to pass any business in Parliament. By the look of things that is exactly the
basis upon which the Prime Minister resigned yesterday knowing very well that
he doesn’t command the majority on the floor of Parliament. I think it would
set a very bad precedence if we allow the caretaker Prime Minister to organize
and prescribe government business knowing very well that at the end of the day
it will have no effect on the decision that is required on the floor of
Parliament because obviously the Opposition well vote against that business.
I think we have to have a clear understanding and
ruling on this that in a case where we are required to achieve a result in
Parliament, which is a democratic one in Parliament then we have to look at
what is the strength on both sides. The
Prime Minister has resigned yesterday simply on the basis of number and if you
allow Parliament to continue today with minority rule then obviously it would
be undemocratic.
I humbly appeal to you, Mr Speaker to make a clear
clarification on this particular issue which I think will set a precedence.
Hon Haomae: Point of
order Mr Speaker, I think you have already made a ruling on that point. If the Honorable colleague, the Member
raising that point wish to clear it in the courts of law he may do so.
Mr Speaker: May be I can
try to clarify this point before we talk about courts. The situation that has be fallen our country
at this time happened when a meeting of Parliament is in process. We do not have a Prime Minister officially
now because he has resigned under section 34, of course, as read with section 136
of the Constitution he has resigned. If
I understand the news correctly yesterday the resignation was official because
His Excellency the Governor General has received it and so we do not have a
Prime Minister per say.
The provision I referred to, which is provision 34
says that “during any period when the office of the Prime Minister is vacant,
the person who held the office immediately before the vacancy arose shall
continue to perform the functions of a Prime Minister until a person is elected
to the office of Prime Minister in accordance with the provision of schedule 2
to the Constitution”.
Whilst we do not have a Prime Minister per say, the
person who held that particular office before the vacancy, the functions he
performed are served under this particular provision, and that is why we refer
to him as the caretaker Prime Minister.
Now because Parliament is meeting, obviously he is not
required not to attend Parliament. Of course, there must be a caretaker
executive and the Opposition, and hence we are all here. There is no question about the Prime Minister
who has vacated his office performing his duty until a new Prime Minister is
elected. I think that is very clear.
In terms of business in Parliament, my understanding
is that there is no business except a motion for adjournment that we are here
to pass, so that we can properly adjourn to the day when the elections will be
made, the election of the Prime Minister.
Mr KAUA: Mr Speaker, I
think what needs to be clarified is that when the Prime Minister has resigned
does that mean he is still the Caretaker Prime Minister which is different from
a Prime Minister that Parliament appoints and then waits a the new government
is in office? I think what needs to be
clarified is whether the Prime Minister who has resigned can still be called a
“Caretaker Prime Minister”.
Mr Speaker: That is the
point I have been trying to label all morning
(laughter)
for everyone to
understand. He has resigned and so he no
longer holds the post of a Prime Minister per say. But the serving provisions to which I referred
to allows him to perform as a Prime Minister until a new Prime Minister is
elected.
Mr Oti: Mr Speaker, whilst I concur
with your interpretation and ruling, the point made about a government in a
caretaking capacity, in reading section 136 of the Constitution there is scope
for withdrawal of resignation. But if
this is taken advantage of, then of course it would have made the exercise we
went through yesterday futile. That is
why the Caretaker Prime Minister bringing a matter to Parliament and has to
observe the fact that section 134 on resignation is a one-way traffic because
the savings provision in section 136 cannot be invoked whereby the person
submitting the resignation can actually withdraw on the impression that the
numbers are still there.
It is quite a fine line that has to be drawn that since
section 134 is a one-way traffic, the savings provision in section 136 cannot
be used to pretend that he still has the number.
Mr KEMAKEZA: Mr Speaker, thank
you for giving chance to this side of the House. With due respect to a lot of lawyers on this
side of the House, your ruling is final and conclusive. Any doubts about the law, nobody in here is
supposed to give legal advice in this House, Mr Speaker, but only the Attorney
General who is still here in the Chambers.
If that is the point raised by the so called Opposition then allow the
Attorney General to give his opinion but do not allow many interpretations of
the Constitution because we do not have the qualification to do that. Mr
Speaker. Your chair has made the ruling
Mr Speaker, since the Attorney General is here.
(Mr
Oti interjecting) I am not interpreting the Constitution, I am reading
what the Constitution says. Thank you.
Mr Speaker: The
Constitution also says that once a resignation is received it cannot be withdrawn. The resignation letter has already been
received as I said and therefore the person who made the application to resign
cannot withdraw it. Also section 136
does not provide for any acceptance of any resignation. Once it is received by the authority to whom
that resignation is entitled under the Constitution it takes effect. And as I have heard last night, obviously His
Excellency has received the resignation and therefore, it was proper and we do
not have a Prime Minister, but the savings provision here does provide for the
Prime Minister immediate before the vacancy to continue functioning as a Prime
Minister until a replacement is elected.
I therefore see no reason for continuing discussions on this issue as it
is, in my view, quite clear.
I wish to thank all honourable members, but I think it
is good that this issue is clarified on the floor of Parliament so that we do
not get entangled with it again in future.
Hon Haomae: Mr Speaker, I
wish to return for purposes of clarification on the point I raised
earlier. Were you saying that if I am appointed
Minister in the next government I can sit on the other side?
Mr Speaker: Yes, although
the Standing Order provides that it is unnecessary to be crossing the floor
unnecessarily.
Mr Darcy: Mr Speaker,
normally the motion of sine die is part of government business.
Mr Speaker: I got your point.
On the issue of the sine die motion, my clerk and I have decided that it
will not be moved by the current Caretaker Government. Today’s motion is one of adjournment so that
we can adjourn to the day or thereafter of the election of the new Prime
Minister, and whoever is our next Prime Minister might then raise the sine die
motion.
Mr Darcy: Mr Speaker, I
think you have now put us in the right direction and I welcome the decision
that it is a normal adjournment motion rather than a sine die.
Mr Speaker: You might see
it in the Order Paper because we are in the same meeting and it has been
notified.
MOTIONS
Hon Rini: Mr Speaker, I
seek your permission to suspend Standing Order 9 under Standing Order 81 to
move the motion that appeared in today’s Order Paper.
Mr Speaker: The question
is that Standing Order 9 be suspended under Standing Order 81 so that the
motion for adjournment today maybe moved, and the reason for it is that
yesterday’s motion of adjournment was for today and the provisions of Standing
Order 9 is that we can only adjourn to the next day. So the Prime Minister now is seeking us under
Order 81 to suspend Standing Order 9 so that he can move the adjournment beyond
tomorrow to whatever day, I think it is the 5th.
It was agreed that Standing Order 9 was
suspended under Standing Order 81 to allow Parliament to adjourn until Friday 5th
May 2006
Hon Rini: I beg to move
that Parliament be now adjourned until
The House adjourned until Friday 5th
May 2006