NATIONAL PARLIAMENT OF
DAILY HANSARD
THIRD MEETING – EIGHTH SESSION
The
Speaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter Kenilorea took the chair at
Prayers
ATTENDANCE
At prayers all were present with the exception of the
Ministers for Department of Justice & Legal Affairs, Education & Human
Resources, Mines & Energy, Communication, Aviation & Meteorology,
Provincial Government & Constituency Development and the Members for
STATEMENT OF
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
MOTIONS
Motion
No. 4
Hon HAOMAE: Mr Speaker, I beg to
move that the National Parliament resolves to recommend to His Excellency, the
Governor General, to invoke his powers under section 129 of the National
Constitution, to consider appointing a tribunal for purposes of investigating
the reasons for the reported dismissal of the Commissioner of the Royal Solomon
Islands Police Force.”
Mr Speaker, at the
outset allow me to state that the motion is not been
moved at the behest of any foreign power or powers…
Hon OTI: Point of order. I thank the MP for Small Malaita for observing
the point of order raised from this side of the floor.
Mr Speaker, in relation to the motion, I would like to
get your clarification from the stand point of whether the wording of this
motion and its intentions would be contrary to Order 27(3)(b) in so far as the Parliament
making a resolution for the Governor General to invoke his powers under section
129 of the Constitution. The only two
authorities that can influence the Governor General are first of all subsection
7(c) of section 129, and in relation to this particular case the Governor General
acts in his own deliberate judgment.
Whether Parliament making a recommendation out of this motion through a
resolution would not impinge on the powers of the Governor General particularly
subsection 7(c), by Parliament passing this motion Mr Speaker.
Mr Haomae: Mr Speaker,
point of order. The motion is merely
saying to ‘recommend’ and so it is consistent with section 27 of the Standing
Orders, and it is not in conflict with the Constitution. The motion is also asking for consideration
and that matter of consideration is in line with the Constitution. Also when the Governor General exercises the
powers in his own deliberate judgment, that is after a
tribunal has made recommendations. The
motion is in line with the provisions of the Constitution.
Hon Oti: Mr Speaker,
Parliament would therefore agree that for purposes of debate it can pass this
resolution but it expects no action to be taken on it.
Mr Speaker: It is a
private member’s motion. It is not a
government resolution and so it is up to the government to take any step on the
basis of its judgment on the legality or the constitutionality of it
thereafter.
I
think the point raised by the honourable Member is what I was going to say that
he was merely asking Parliament to recommend appointing a tribunal not really
asking the Governor General to use his powers.
Of course, the Governor General has the final authority to act on this
particular thing but then he acts following the views of a tribunal.
I
feel that for purposes of proposing investigating under a tribunal, there is no
real difficulty with the motion itself because it will be up to the government to either follow it or not because it is for the
consideration of the government.
Attorney General: Mr Speaker, if I may
contribute to this. Section 129 of the Constitution
does provide for the Governor General to exercise his powers in appointing a
tribunal. But if Parliament were to be
allowed to debate this motion in the frame in which it is couched, it is
basically asking this House that makes legislations to contravene its own
legislations for this reason. Section
129 of the Constitution says that the Governor General has the powers to
commission a tribunal to investigate into allegations against the Commissioner
of Police, who for his removal based on inability or to perform the functions
of his office or for misbehavior. So it
is specific, it is to investigate into these allegations made against the
Commissioner of Police. That provision
does not empower the Governor General to appoint a tribunal to investigate into
reasons for the reported dismissal of the Commissioner of Police. These are two different issues altogether,
and the way this motion is framed contravenes section 129. If it is rephrased in accordance with the
intention of section 129 in which the Governor General can exercise his powers freely
then it will not contravene section 129.
But as it is couched, the Governor General does not have the powers to
appoint a Tribunal to investigate into the reasons.
Mr Speaker: Are there any
suggestions of amendments so that we can be in line with the Constitution? Any suggested amendment? Would the Attorney General suggest some
wordings so that we can be in line with the Constitution so that we are not in
breach of the Constitution?
Attorney General: Mr
Speaker, this is not my motion. The Honourable
Member should be qualified and he should know his laws to couch a motion in the
proper wording.
Mr Speaker: We are trying
whether we can find a proper wording.
Mr Haomae: Let us propose it.
Hon Sanga: Mr Speaker I would suggest that the honourable
mover of the motion look at the ingredients of section 129 and then set forth
the grounds on which he is trying to substantiate the motion for debate. He should also bear in mind that if the
Governor-General receives instructions from Parliament he would want to know
the basis on which he is obliged to invoke section 129. I think he needs to rephrase the motion so
that he takes into account the ingredients specified in section 129.
Mr Haomae: Point of order. I have not presented the motion yet. The reasoning is within the motion.
Mr Speaker: I think the
Attorney General has got a point.
Mr Haomae: I think the Government is trying to play up
with my presentation of the construction of how I presented the motion.
Hon Lilo: Point of Order.
The content of your presentation does not matter it is the motion. It is the motion that matters.
Mr Haomae: I have asked for a point of order Mr Speaker.
In
terms of what the honourable Attorney General has said, amendments have been
coming to this House all the time, but it is the human shortcoming that is
provided for, it is an universal thing. I am not too sure what she is trying to insinuate
in that regard. But what I am saying
here is that those reasons are in the motion.
When I present it then you will know whether it is true or not and
Parliament will give instructions to His Excellency. As I have already said it is only a
recommendation. I have not sit down yet and so you should not stand up.
Hon. Oti: Point of Order. The gist of this debate now over the point of
order is that the tribunal established under section 129 of the Constitution is
only there to investigate inability and misbehavior of the Commissioner of
Police, not to investigate anything apart from that or any reasons behind that. That is the contention. The tribunal can be established, we can debate
it but it is out of context in terms of the letter and the spirit of section
129 of the Constitution. Thank you.
Mr Speaker: Yes, I got it
from the Attorney General’s explanation that it does involve two issues. One issue is the purpose for the tribunal
under this particular section, and another issue is the suggestion of this
motion. They do not add up, they do not
meet as it were. I think it is not that
there is an opposition to a motion, it is whether or
not this motion being debated has no meaning to the purposes of the tribunal
under this particular section.
I
would suggest to the honourable Member that under section 31 he withdraws it
and then reword it for next Friday. I
think that is the best way out so that we may be talking about something that
is meaningful because we might be talking about something that has no
meaning.
Hon Sanga: Mr Speaker, to help the other side may I
suggest that since the declaration by the Minister for Immigration has already
been tabled as Parliament Paper No. 18 of 2007, I would suggest that he goes
back and redraft his motion to be in line with Section 62(2) of the
Interpretation and General Provisions Act as read with the definition of the
subsidiary legislation under Section 16, which reads “Subsidiary legislation means any legislative provision including a
delegation of power or duties made in exercise of any power in that behalf
conferred by any Act by way of bye-law, notice, order, proclamation, regulation,
rule, rule of court or other instruments”.
The
declaration by the Minister for Immigration and Foreign Affairs comes under the
definition of instrument such that if he invokes Section 62(2) of the
Interpretation and General Provisions Act then that is the proper way to go in
dealing with this particular case.
Section
62(2) says, “If Parliament passes a
resolution within three months after any subsidiary legislation is laid
before it to the effect that the subsidiary
legislation is annulled, the subsidiary legislation shall thereupon cease to
have effect but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously
done under the subsidiary legislation.
In effect
he should bring in a motion negative the declaration that was made by the
Minister for Immigration. I think that
is the right way to go instead of misguiding the Parliament in dealing with
this particular issue under Section 129 of the Constitution.
Mr Speaker: Thank you
honorable Minister. My ruling is having
understood the guidance of the Attorney General that we are discussing two
different things, because it is meaningless even if this motion is discussed. I think it is the language of it against the
purpose of that particular section that is important. As I said I would suggest to the honourable
Member if he withdraws it and comes back with a new format language that may be
agreeable, and may be even discuss it with the Attorney-General to help the
language of it for purposes of discussion, understanding that motions are
intentions and cannot cut across present legal provisions and regulations. That is my advice.
Mr Haomae: Mr Speaker, I understand that the Attorney
General was trying to be helpful in couching the wording so that it is
consistent. What I was trying to suggest,
Mr Speaker, is if Parliament can adjourn for about 15
minutes so that I can see the Attorney General so that the motion can be
coached in such a way that it is consistent with Section 129 and then we come back
and discuss it today because there is no business for today and so let us not
waste people’s time.
Sitting suspended until 2.00pm
Parliament resumes
Hon Lilo: Point of order. Mr Speaker, the
order that I am seeking from you is that in accordance with Section 67 of the
Constitution and consistent with Standing Order 12, I do not believe that we
have the quorum to continue with the sitting.
Mr Speaker: Objection on
the basis of no quorum has been raised and so we shall wait 15 minutes.
The House waits 15 minutes but no quorum gained
The House adjourned at 2.20pm