The Parliamentarian 2012 Issue Three - 60 years of the Queen's reign by The Parliamentarian

A CENTU

LENCE EL

OF EXC RY

~ C PA ~ 2

TheParliamentarian Journal of the Parliaments of the Commonwealth

2012 | Issue Three XCIII | Price £12

THE QUEEN: Celebrating 60 years as Head of the Commonwealth

PAGE 164

PLUS Cyprus and its presidency of the Council of the European Union PAGE 170

Cover.indd 1

The role of the Whip in a small Parliament PAGE 178

Fiji’s illusive democracy: paradoxes, dilemmas and hopes

The enduring significance of India’s Parliament after 60 years

PAGE 186

PAGE 196

09/11/2012 12:50:31

Calendar of Events 2012 October 29-31 CPA/WBI/IMF Global Seminar on Parliament and Extractive Industries, Vienna, Austria

November 1-5

Caribbean Staff Development Workshop, Kingston, Jamaica

6-10

Study Group on Public Accounts Committee, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

17-24 31st CPA Australia and Pacific Regional Conference, Rarotonga, Cook Islands

December 4-8

5th Commonwealth Youth Parliament, London, United Kingdom

2013 March 11

Commonwealth Day

17-22 CPA Executive Committee Mid-Year Meeting, George Town, Cayman Islands

August-September 28 August - 6 September

Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference, Sandton, South Africa

The publication of a Calendar of CPA events is a service intended to foster the exchange of views between Branches and the encouragement of new ideas. Further information may be obtained from the Branches concerned or the Secretariat. Branch Secretaries are requested to send updates of this material to the Information Officer (pirc@cpahq.org) to ensure the Calendar is full and accurate.

Inside front cover.indd 37

09/11/2012 13:32:35

In the next issue of The Parliamentarian... 58 COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARY CONFERENCE Colombo, Sri Lanka 7-15 September 2012 TH

“Ensuring a Relevant Commonwealth for the Future”

Sri Lanka ad.indd 149

09/11/2012 09:52:30

CONTENTS 2012: ISSUE 3

164

174 Journal of the Parliaments of the Commonwealth Vol. XCIII 2012: Issue Three ISSN 0031-2282 Issued by the Secretariat of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, Suite 700, Westminster House, 7 Millbank, London SWIP 3JA, United Kingdom Tel: (+44-20) 7799-1460 Fax: (+44-20) 7222-6073 Email: hq.sec@cpahq.org www.cpahq.org Publisher: Dr William F. Shija Secretary-General Editor: Andrew Imlach Director of Communications and Research

COMMENT

MAIN ARTICLES

Inside Issues

The Queen as Head of the Commonwealth parliamentary community

Supporting Parliament at all levels Page 152

View from the Chair Strengthening democracy through the CPA Page 156

View from the CWP

Honouring past women leaders Page 158

View from the Secretary-General

The Commonwealth and the Games Page 160

Designer and Assistant Editor: Lisa Leaño Front cover Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II at the Parliaments of (clockwise from top left) New Zealand, Ontario, Mauritius and New South Wales.

Page 164

Cyprus and its presidency of the Council of the European Union

H.E. Mr Yiannakis L. Omirou, MP Page 170

The role of the Chief Whip and other Whips in the Bangladesh Parliament

Vice-Principal Mr Md. Abdus Shahid, MP Page 174

The role of the Whip in a small Parliament Mr John Hargreaves, MLA Page 178

Norfolk Island and the Isle of Man strengthen historical ties: From mutiny to unity Hon. Robin Eleanor Adams, JP, MLA Page 182

Fiji’s illusive democracy: Paradoxes, dilemmas and hopes Dr Steven Ratuva Page 186

Printed in: England by Warners Midlands, PLC; New Delhi by Jainco Art India, and Singapore by Times Printers Private Limited 150 | The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three

Contents.indd 150

09/11/2012 13:41:40

186 196

NEWS The work of the Secretary-General of the Rajya Sabha Dr V.K. Agnihotri Page 192

The enduring significance of India’s Parliament after 60 years Shri S.N. Sahu Page 196

Establishing Hansard in Bermuda Ms Shernette Wolffe Page 200

Urgency in the New Zealand legislative process Ms Polly Higbee, Ms Claudia Geiringer and Ms Elizabeth McLeay Page 204

CPA Organization Page 225

Parliamentary news:

New Zealand, Canada, Australia, United Kingdom and India Page 209

Annual subscription (four issues) UK: £34 post free. Worldwide:£36 surface post £42 airmail Price per issue UK: £12 Worldwide:£13 surface post £14 airmail Opinions and comments expressed in articles and reviews published in The Parliamentarian are those of the individual contributors and should not be attributed to the Secretariat of the Association.

Promoting sustainable forest management

The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three | 151

Contents.indd 151

09/11/2012 13:41:57

INSIDE ISSUES

SUPPORTING PARLIAMENT AT ALL LEVELS The Editor’s note

Two of the characteristics often ascribed to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II are a dedication to duty and a love of the Commonwealth. A third should be her interest in the Parliaments and Legislatures of the Commonwealth as she has supported parliamentary imagebuilding through her frequent visits to Houses around the Commonwealth during – and before – her 60 years as the Head of the Commonwealth and Head of State of now 16 of its member nations. We open this issue with a pictorial record of some of Her Majesty’s parliamentary visits, including visits in 1951 to Canadian Legislatures when she was still Princess Elizabeth. Some of these visits have been historic: on a chilly April day in 1982, Her Majesty, as Queen of Canada, sat at a table outdoors on Parliament Hill in Ottawa to sign into law a new constitution including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as the then current and a future Prime Minister of Canada looked on; in 2001, she joined Australia’s leaders in front of the magnificent tapestry in the Great Hall to open the country’s spectacular new Parliament building, and in 2007 she planted a tree in the Parliament Garden in Kampala as Uganda hosted its first Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. Other visits have coincided with more routine parliamentary procedures: Her Majesty has

delivered countless speeches to outline government programmes and open new sessions of Parliament at Westminster, and in other Commonwealth capitals as well. Her presence, and the pomp and ceremony surrounding it, support efforts to demonstrate the significance of Parliament to people whose attention today is increasingly drawn to other pursuits. Her parliamentary visits could simply be evidence of a dedication to duty and a love of the Commonwealth. But the photographs we publish here and her agreement in 1990 to become Patron of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association suggest that Her Majesty actively supports and greatly prizes parliamentary democracy – sadly, far more than many of her subjects. The rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union (EU) rests with the government of Cyprus for the second half of 2012. The country’s House of Representatives is playing a prominent reinforcing role to use the experience and the contacts of its Members to provide parliamentary diplomatic support to strengthen the EU during the Cypriot presidency. H.E. Mr Yiannakis Omirou, MP, President of the Cypriot House of Representatives, writes here on the expansion of the parliamentary diplomatic role and how the House is striving to support the European Union and

to advance Cyprus’ political goals, including the re-unification of the eastern Mediterranean island which has endured nearly four decades of Turkish military occupation of 37 per cent of its territory. Parliamentary support is one of the key duties of a group of parliamentary party office holders who are often resented, disliked and sometimes even feared but whose job is crucial to the smooth operation of a House – the Whips. They play seemingly paradoxical roles: imposing discipline on Members so they toe the party line or stay in the Chamber while also helping them through personal or political problems, and orchestrating partisan stands against the party’s opponents while working behind the scenes with opposing Whips to make sure the business of the House goes through effectively. Two Members highly experienced in the art of whipping, one from a large House and the other from a small one, write in this issue on how they do their job and why that job is crucial for Parliaments which have a party system. Vice-Principal Md. Abdus Shahid, MP, records the difficult challenges faced by a Whip in the Parliament of Bangladesh, where mass walk-outs, noisy protests and boycotts are a way of life. From the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly, Mr John Hargreaves, MLA, reports many similar issues as Mr Shahid, despite

the fact that the A.C.T. Legislature’s total membership of 17, currently split among three parties, is smaller than most of Bangladesh’s parliamentary committees. Every Parliament and every Parliamentarian needs support, and that is what the Whips provide. Another Australian territory, Norfolk Island, is even smaller than the A.C.T. but its history stems from one the most famous naval events in maritime history, the mutiny on The Bounty. The Bounty crew, whose mutineers founded the Norfolk Island settlement, had a strong link to the Isle of Man, a small island on the other side of the Commonwealth; so the two small island Parliaments, Norfolk Island’s Legislative Assembly and Tynwald in the Isle of Man, have signed a cultural agreement to bring the two closer together. A new twist on the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association’s Branch twinning programme, this link will encourage the two small islands to support each other at a variety of levels, writes Norfolk Island’s Speaker, Hon. Robin Adams, JP, MLA. To the north of Norfolk Island is an island nation badly in need of Commonwealth support. Fiji Islands has been under a military government since 2006, only a few months after its Parliament hosted the 2005 Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference. The current regime has finally started a constitutional review

152 | The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three

Inside issues.indd 152

09/11/2012 09:56:06

INSIDE ISSUES

The President of the House of Representatives of Cyprus, H.E. Yiannakis Omirou, MP, (right) speaking with the President of the European Council, Mr Herman Van Rompuy.

process to start its long-awaited return to parliamentary government, so a prominent Fijian political science professor, Dr Steven Ratuva, writes in this issue about the ethnic and socio-political conflicts which Fiji has to resolve if this latest military government is to be its last. The principal support for every Parliament is its chief administrator, whether he or she carries the title of Clerk, Secretary-General or Secretary. Dr Vivek Agnihotri, who has just retired after five years as the Secretary-General of India’s upper House, the Rajya Sabha, describes

the duties required of the occupant of this extremely demanding position. His account is followed by a retrospective look at the Indian Parliament by a Joint Secretary in the Rajya Sabha administration, Shri S.N. Sahu. As Parliament celebrates its 60th anniversary this year, Shri Sahu’s examination demonstrates how India’s Parliament began at the forefront of the subcontinent’s politics and why it remains as the focus for so much of its intense political debate today. Keeping track of political debate

is vital in every Parliament where it is important to know what Members are saying, or have said. Bermuda’s Parliament has been hampered by a lack of a Hansard of the proceedings of either of its Chambers; but that has begun to be remedied. Ms Shernette Wolffe, Clerk of the Parliament, reports on the introduction of a Hansard in the House of Assembly as new software helps Parliament to keep a better record. Finally, Ms Polly Higbee, Ms Claudia Geiringer and Ms Elizabeth McLeay, academic researchers supported by the New

Zealand Centre for Public Law and the Rule of Law Committee of the New Zealand Law Society, examine the use of urgency measures in New Zealand’s Parliament to determine whether this sometimes necessary tool can be used more effectively. Urgent responses are required to deal with urgent situations; but the researchers examined whether the use of urgency measures was distracting attention away from the issues involved and whether public support for the parliamentary process was being eroded by possible excessive use.

The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three | 153

Inside issues.indd 153

09/11/2012 09:56:42

CPA CENTENNIAL GIFTS

CPA Centennial Globe: £30 each plus £7.50 postage and handling. Total: £37.50

CPA Centennial Mirror: £12 each plus £7.50 postage and handling.. Total: £19.50

The CPA Centennial Post it Note Holder: £8 each plus £7.50 postage and handling: Total: £15.50

The CPA Centennial pin specially designed to mark the 100 years milestone: £5 each plus £2.50 postage and handling. Total: £7.50

The CPA Centennial globe and post-it holder in their boxes

CPA souvenirs are available for sale to Members and officials of Commonwealth Parliaments and Legislatures by contacting the CPA Secretariat by email at: hq.sec@cpahq.org or by air mail at: Suite 700, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA, United Kingdom

CPA Centennial goods advert.indd 154

09/11/2012 09:59:30

Centennial of a Legislative Building Celebrations were held in September for the 100th Anniversary of the Alberta Legislature Building in Edmonton, the capital of the western Canadian province. The celebrations included a re-enactment of the original opening, a concert on the grounds with 15,000 people in attendance plus various other events. Photo courtesy of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta.

Alberta ad.indd 155

09/11/2012 10:41:07

VIEW FROM THE CHAIR

STRENGTHENING DEMOCRACY THROUGH THE CPA

Government Meeting, also due to take place in Colombo, will I write this on my return from this year’s 58th be equally successful. Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference (CPC) From the CPA’s organizational perspective, too, CPC which took place in Colombo, Sri Lanka, in September. was productive. All business meetings demonstrated Although the Annual Conference edition of The Members’ commitment to the CPA and its ongoing Parliamentarian will follow in December, I should like to modernization, with notable support for initiatives such take this early opportunity to express my gratitude to its as the establishment of the Commonwealth Democracy host, the Speaker and the Parliament of Sri Lanka, the Forum as a fringe conference at Commonwealth Heads of CPA Sri Lanka Branch and all others who were involved Government Meetings, a significant boost to Commonwealth in organizing the conference. The event was extremely Women Parliamentarians, the establishment of a regular well run, with a staff of over 200 dedicated to it by the Commonwealth Youth Parliament in the CPA’s event roster Parliament and government departments. and a resolution to the issue of the CPA’s status. I would also like to extend my thanks to those who Rt Hon. Sir Alan Haselhurst, MP On this last point, I am delighted that the General gave up their time to attend and contribute to this highly Chairperson of the CPA Assembly approved the recommendations of the Working eventful and productive meeting. In my opinion, the Executive Committee and Party, and am very optimistic that further progress will be highlight of the week was the day of thematic workshops, Member of the House of made at the Executive Committee’s next meeting which covering a range of challenges facing the contemporary Commons, United Kingdom will be generously hosted by the Parliament of the Cayman Commonwealth. Delegates and experts had the Islands next year. opportunity to debate and seek consensus on issues As we now return to our Parliaments and re-immerse ourselves in our day-tosuch as the Commonwealth Eminent Persons’ Group’s recommendation to day legislative and representative duties, it seems a fitting point to turn our eyes to appoint a Commissioner for Democracy, the Rule of Law and Human Rights, the happenings of the year to come before our next – 59th – annual conference. ways to tackle youth unemployment and the role of Parliamentarians in conflict resolution and peace-building. Also extremely topical was the final plenary, which This will be hosted by the Parliament of South Africa in Johannesburg in Augustexplored the phenomenon of social media and their impact on governance and September 2013, and in the run-up to this event I greatly look forward to working Parliamentarians’ relationship with their constituents. more closely with the CPA’s new President, Hon. Mninwa Johannes Mahlangu, It is evident that delegates attend this conference for a wide spectrum MP, Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces of South Africa. Highlights of reasons, all of equal import: whether to seek to learn from the specific over the next few months will include the 31st Australian and Pacific Regional experiences of other delegates, to build a network of Commonwealth colleagues Conference in the Cook Islands and the fifth Commonwealth Youth Parliament with whom to share expertise on a continuing basis, or to engage with the host which is part of the CPA’s ongoing commitment to engage young people in the nation, Sri Lanka, and its parliamentary and governmental systems. Commonwealth, parliamentary democracy and politics. My enduring impression from this CPC was that the expectations and Through these and our other activities, I hope that we shall continue to objectives of all who attended were met and, for many, exceeded. succeed in our efforts towards our collective goal: to promote good governance This gives me assurance that next year’s Commonwealth Heads of and advance parliamentary democracy both at home and abroad. 156 | The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three

View from the Chair.indd 156

09/11/2012 10:00:46

VIEW FROM THE CHAIR

Top: Rt Hon. Sir Alan Haselhurst, MP, speaks at the opening ceremony of the 58th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference in Sri Lanka; Bottom: The Chairperson (right) presents a plaque to Sri Lankan Speaker Hon. Chamal Rajapaksa, MP, to commemorate his term as President of the CPA.

The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three | 157

View from the Chair.indd 157

09/11/2012 10:02:08

VIEW FROM THE CWP

HONOURING PAST WOMEN LEADERS

and Commonwealth Office, through their High Commission in Bridgetown, When I became a candidate for the position of Chairperson of the Barbados, for funding this project as well as contributing to Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians, the main a workshop on strategies for attracting more women into focus of my campaign was proposing strategies Parliament which we expect to hold before year-end. The for persuading more women to enter Parliament. I consular officers concerned are well worthy of your thanks. suggested that a workshop module embracing the three I will always be grateful to Lennox, my collaborator, and Ms – Mentoring, Motivating, Mobilizing – be at the core of to Mrs Vernanda Raymond, Clerk of the House and the very such a strategy. helpful staff of Lericon Printers, especially Ms Watty and Mrs As to the mentoring part, I freely acknowledge that the Vidale. late Dame Mary Eugenia Charles, former Prime Minister of Of course, the former and present Parliamentarians the Commonwealth of Dominica, was my mentor and I am co-operated and assisted wholeheartedly in providing sure that just as Dame Eugenia was an influence on my information not available in formal records. I trust we have decision to enter politics, there have been other women in done justice to their service. politics in countries all over the world who have influenced There have been many other persons who in one the women of their country – and even beyond – to way or another assisted in this venture, by way of advice consider a career in politics. Hon. Alix Boyd Knights, MHA or howsoever, and I hereby publicly thank them all for the This led me to search for information on past women Chairperson of the assistance they provided. Parliamentarians in Dominica and, inevitably, to Dr Lennox Commonwealth Women The book was launched at the Parliament Building on Honychurch, a well-known historian in my country. While Parliamentarians and Speaker Saturday, 26 July, in the presence of the then President there is voluminous information on the political career of the House of Assembly, of the Commonwealth of Dominica Their Excellencies Dr of Dame Eugenia, not much, if anything, is known about Dominica Nicholas Liverpool, DAC, OCC, and Mrs Liverpool, Members other Dominican women Parliamentarians. After several of Parliament, many of the past women Parliamentarians meetings with Lennox, I was able to persuade him to and their families and friends. Their Excellencies were given collaborate with me on this project and the book, Women autographed copies. It is fair to say that the book has been very well received in Parliament in Dominica: Past and Present, is the result of our collaboration. locally. It is my hope, therefore, that the girls and women who read this book permit Summer holidays and Independence activities have delayed the authors’ themselves to explore the possibilities of pursuing a political career. planned visits to promote the book in schools around the island; but these visits In arriving at the content, we considered several factors, including: ministerial are expected to take place in the first quarter of 2013. Meanwhile, the book is positions, length of tenure and elected Members as opposed to appointed available for sale from the Clerk at the House of Assembly, Parliament Building, Senators. Dominica. Arrangements are also being made for sale via Amazon. It was felt that we would have to include a chapter on women Speakers, Of course I shall be informing women Parliamentarians, through whatever since they are in Parliament and Dominica has had three women Speakers media I can, on the outcome of the planned workshop and how this book has thus far. We also decided we should mention the women who ran but were not assisted the discussions. I am hoping too that this book inspires women in successful at the polls. Parliaments all over the Commonwealth to document the biographies of past While working on the book, it was pointed out that our Parliament has enjoyed and present women in their Parliaments. the benefit of three long-serving women Clerks of Parliament. A chapter was Such books could, for example, be taken to schools to begin the mentoring included on them as well. process that is so important in highlighting the need to have more women in In every such venture, financing is always an issue. We were lucky to Parliament. have been able to persuade, and are therefore grateful to, the British Foreign 158 | The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three

View from the CWP.indd 158

09/11/2012 10:02:51

VIEW FROM THE CWP

The first female and longest-serving Prime Minister of Dominica, Dame Eugenia Charles, meets American President Ronald Reagan in the White House’s Oval Office about the 1983 U.S. military intervention to restore order in Grenada.

The Chairperson of the CWP lighting a traditional oil lamp at the opening of the 2012 Small Branches Conference in Sri Lanka as Hon. Jacqueline Petrusma, MP, of Tasmania (left), CPA Executive Committee Chairperson Rt Hon. Sir Alan Haselhurst, MP, (centre) and Mr Dhammika Dasayanayake, Secretary-General of the Parliament of Sri Lanka, look on.

The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three | 159

View from the CWP.indd 159

09/11/2012 10:03:15

VIEW FROM THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

THE COMMONWEALTH AND THE GAMES Human beings have historically shared and interacted in many ways, including through sports and games. There are thousands of types of sports and games in various societies, spanning centuries of practice. Over the past years, many more games have been invented, modified and played. The sharing and interaction occur on a daily, monthly or yearly basis, or for a specific period. Sports and games involve men and women of all ages, races, religions and socio-economic statuses. Some writers have even dubbed sports and games as “spices of politics and international relations”. In the Commonwealth family, competitions in various sports and games are held every four years, commonly known as “The Commonwealth Games”. Some research on the life of the Commonwealth has revealed that some of our citizens know the Commonwealth only in reference to the Games.

Dr William F. Shija Secretary-General of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association

In the world of sports, the 2012 Olympics and Paralympics enabled the international community to “meet and exchange with a smile”. The CPA’s recent Sri Lanka General Assembly decision to support a resolution from the British Islands and Mediterranean Region to “recognize the unprecedented success of the London 2012 Paralympic Games and ask the Commonwealth Heads of Government and the Commonwealth Games Federation to consider how this experience can be incorporated into the organization of future Commonwealth Games” indicates how the Commonwealth community stands ready to further strengthen co-operation through sports and games. Every year, there are many other groups of sports and games competitions held in various geographical locations: Africa, Asia, Europe, the Caribbean and Americas, Australasia and the Pacific, and numerous other bilateral, regional and multinational sports competitions and friendly encounters.

The Secretary-General’s

Dr William F. Shija (left) speaking with the Director of the Political Division at the Commonwealth Secretariat, Mr Amitav Banerji.

160 | The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three

SG view.indd 160

09/11/2012 13:43:08

VIEW FROM THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

themselves earn medals or cups. There have to be clear policies and organization Actually, it is quite gratifying to find that the international community is often over the medium and long term for a nation to succeed in winning medals or softened through the sports activities of games such as cricket, football (including cups. soccer) for men and women, athletics, tennis, rugby and dozens of other games Policies and organizations need to be backed by a corresponding will of the which bring together individuals and groups from all backgrounds. In most polity; and this is where Parliament has to be involved to make a difference. For cases, these encounters are always socially and politically positive, to the relief example, sports men and women have to be trained while they are young. The and enjoyment of millions of people. I should actually add that sports and games training therefore has to be part of the school curriculum. The school curriculum should be considered as “political tranquilizers”. and sports training have to be linked The world of sports and games with the larger policy of food supply and further leads me to ask myself how, and dietary needs. Hungry and malnourished to what extent, should Parliament be Female athletes at the 2006 Commonwealth games in Melbourne. children would not undertake serious involved in the promotion of sports and sports training, leave alone compete. games? If indeed sports and games Usain Bolt of Jamaica says that yams have implications on youth activities and have contributed to his success; or, national pride, what should Parliament should we just assume that his “flight” do to ensure that a nation succeeds in abilities, and those of Ethiopians, competitions that are part and parcel Kenyans, Ugandans, et cetera, are in the of human life? Besides, competition family blood. in sports and games involves all sorts It appears to me that nations that of preparations: training, facilities, excel at Olympic, Paralympic and World time, motivation, experts, travel, et Cup competitions have set clear policies cetera. These facilities and needs on why and how they will participate and require funding, good organization and compete. This means that the individuals patriotism because, in the end, medals and organizations that are charged with and cups have to be won. preparations and training do so knowing The Olympic and Paralympic Games that policies and laws support their actions and funds would be appropriated and the World Cup competitions indicate how various nations invest their time for the purpose. I support Akua Djane, who writes her reflections on Africa’s and money to prepare to win at the events. Therefore, there must be a link participation at the London Olympics (New African October, 2012), when she between economic strength and success in world sports competitions. I may says that in order to win you need a winning attitude, training and investment. This be naive to assume that economic power allows a particular nation to access means that training and investment have to be first supported at the top policy the best facilities and experts available in the market to organize and prepare level, the Parliament. for competitions. However, economic power and large populations by cannot

Commonwealth gallery

The Secretary-General (centre) pictured with the Deputy High Commissioner of Tanzania, H.E. Chabaka Kilumanga (fifth from left), and a delegation of Parliamentarians from the Parliament of Tanzania.

Delegates from the Seminar on Parliament and Extractive Industries in Vienna, October 2012.

The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three | 161

SG view.indd 161

09/11/2012 13:43:23

VIEW FROM THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

The reason why I advocate that Parliamentarians be fully involved in promoting sports and games is also for the potential national economic benefits. Talent in sports has brought about countless gains to individual sports men and women through what they earn in the process. This has been demonstrated by those who have, for example, excelled in football by playing for various clubs at home and abroad. We have witnessed that the best wins are accompanied by lucrative prizes and commercial advertisement contracts. Similar to other investments, excellence in sports can earn substantial income to a nation.

There are many examples in the area of football, where many young men from poor countries have earned, and continue to earn, good income as players. In some cases, the income earned has been invested or offered to charities back home, thus economically uplifting their nations. The other need for investment in sports is the economic benefit through the expansion of the sports infrastructure. For example, we witnessed South Africa investing heavily in the preparation for the football World Cup in 2010. The sports infrastructure constructed in that country created jobs for the people and may now be utilized for several sports

The Secretary-General’s The Secretary-General (centre) pictured with the second Deputy Speaker of the Parliament of Ghana, Hon. Prof. Mike Acquaye (front row, third from right), and fellow Parliamentarians.

Dr William F. Shija talking to Mr Frederick Hyde-Chambers from Dialogue International.

The Secretary General (left) pictured with Mr Nick Lalich, MP, from New South Wales.

The Secretary-General (left) speaking with Mr Justin N. Bundi, Clerk Designate of the Kenyan National Assembly.

162 | The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three

SG view.indd 162

09/11/2012 13:43:37

VIEW FROM THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

and other events to benefit the nation economically and socially. We also see how the Olympic Village transformed east London with new infrastructure in preparation for this year’s Olympics and Paralympics. I believe that, managed and used wisely, the infrastructural investments for major sports events such as the

Olympics end up economically and socially benefitting the immediate community and the nation as a whole. I believe that, in the same spirit and planning, Scotland is going to benefit by refurbishing its sports infrastructure for the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow in 2014. I wish to end my view with a call

to Parliamentarians to fully engage in shaping the policies for investment in the sports and games sector. I believe that this policy approach would enable their nations to unleash their young citizens’ talents to actively participate and benefit from the sports and games activities of their nations and the world. To me, effective

involvement in the sports and games arena has the potential for earning good income for individual athletes or players, as well as their nations. Full involvement has also the potential to promote social cohesion among the youth of nations and peace for the international community at large.

Commonwealth gallery

Dr William F. Shija greeting one of the five attached clerks attending a professional development programme in London, November 2012.

The participants and resource persons at the Constituency Development Fund Workshop in Tanzania, October 2012.

The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three | 163

SG view.indd 163

09/11/2012 13:43:51

THE QUEEN’S DIAMOND JUBILEE

This year is the Diamond Jubilee of the reign of Queen Elizabeth II, Head of the Commonwealth, Head of State of now 16 nations and a frequent visitor to Commonwealth Parliaments. To mark the anniversary, these photographs from Comonwealth Parliamentary Association Branches chronicle Her Majesty’s parliamentary visits, visits that started even before her 60-year reign. © PC Images, Canadian Science and Technology Museum CN Archives

Delivering the Throne Speech in the Senate Chamber of the Parliament of Canada, 1957, wearing her Coronation gown.

Talking with the Speaker of the Northwest Territories Legislative Assembly, Hon. Jeannie Marie-Jewell.

Receiving flowers in front of the Parliament buildings in Victoria, British Columbia, 1983.

At the opening of the CPA Conference, United Kingdom, 2000, as U.K. House of Commons Speaker Rt Hon. Betty Boothroyd and Australian Senate President Hon. Margaret Reid look on.

164 | The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three

Queen and the Commonwealth.indd 164

09/11/2012 10:08:43

Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Communication, Trinidad and Tobago

THE QUEEN AS HEAD OF THE COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARY COMMUNITY

THE QUEEN’S DIAMOND JUBILEE

Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Communication, Trinidad and Tobago

Pictured with the first Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, Dr Eric Williams (third from left), and Governor General Sir Solomon Hochoy, 1966 .

Sir Philip Bailhache (Bailiff) accompanying The Queen in Jersey, 2001.

Outside Parliament, New South Wales, 1992.

The Deputy Speaker of the Parliament of Uganda, Hon. Rebecca Kadaga, MP, greeting The Queen during a state visit in 2007. Leaving the state opening of the Parliament of New Zealand, 1986.

Arriving at the New South Wales Parliament with the Duke of Edinburgh for a royal visit in 1954.

Sir Harilal Ranchordas Vaghjee greeting Her Majesty in Mauritius, 1972. Delivering the 1977 Throne Speech in the Canadian Senate.

The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three | 165

Queen and the Commonwealth.indd 165

09/11/2012 10:09:13

THE QUEEN’S DIAMOND JUBILEE

The Provincial Archives of Alberta

Communications Nova Scotia/Shirley Robb

Visiting the Alberta Legislature in 1978 with the Duke of Edinburgh escorted by Premier Hon. Peter Lougheed (left).

Entering the foyer of Province House in Nova Scotia. accompanied by Premier Hon.John Patrick Savage (left), 1994.

The Queen in the Great Hall at the official opening of the new Parliament House in Australia,1988.

Opening the third session of the second Parliament of Ceylon in Colombo in 1954. © Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Sitting witth Prince Philip on former Speaker’s Chairs, Ontario 1984.

Opening the Parliament of Mauritius in 1972.

Being escorted by Speaker Hon. Tan Soo Khoon during a tour of the Parliament of Singapore, 1989.

166 | The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three

Queen and the Commonwealth.indd 166

09/11/2012 10:09:24

Walking with Speaker Lord Steele (right) and First Minister Rt Hon. Donald Dewar at the inauguration of the Scottish Parliament, 1999. With Prince Phililip, visiting the Alberta Legislature in place of her father, King George VI, in 1951 as Her Royal Highness Princess Elizabeth. Premier Hon. Ernest Manning welcomed them.

Greeting the crowds outside the Ontario Legislature, 2010.

Walking with the Speaker of Parliament , Hon. Tan Soo Koon, to meet Members of Parliament at the Old Parliament House, Singapore 1989.

With Premier Hon. Walter Shaw of Prince Edward Island on the balcony of Province House in 1964.

With Premier Hon. Greg Selinger of Manitoba (left), and Prime Minister Rt Hon. Stephen Harper (second left) at the opening of the Canadian Musuem for Human Rights, Manitoba, 2010.

Arriving at Parliament House, Brisbane, 1954.

British Official Photograph Crown Copyright Reserved

Inspecting a military guard of honour in New Zealand the day before the 1954 state opening of Parliament.

Brisbane Telegraph

The Provincial Archives of Alberta

The Provincial Archives of Alberta PA2401.1

THE QUEEN’S DIAMOND JUBILEE

At the opening of the 2nd independent Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago , 1966.

The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three | 167

Queen and the Commonwealth.indd 167

09/11/2012 10:09:40

THE QUEEN’S DIAMOND JUBILEE

Signing the new constitution of Canada including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on Parliament Hill in 1982 as Prime Minister Rt Hon. Pierre Trudeau (seated left) and a future Prime Minister, Hon. Jean Chretien, (left) look on.

Nova Scotia Archives. Photo Album No. 9

At the state opening of Parliament, United Kingdom, 1997.

Listening with the Duke of Edinburgh to the welcome address by Premier Hon. Angus MacDonald, Nova Scotia, 1951. The 12th Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories in the Chamber with Her Majesty in the Speaker’s Chair.

On Her way to open the third session of the Second Parliament of Ceylon, 1954.

168 | The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three

Queen and the Commonwealth.indd 168

09/11/2012 10:09:53

THE QUEEN’S DIAMOND JUBILEE

Pictured with the Premier of Western Australia Hon. A.R.G. (Bert) Hawke, Perth, 1954.

Planting a tree in the Parliament Gardens, Kampala, Uganda, with Speaker Hon. Edward Ssekandi, 2007. J. Clark, Tasmanian Government Film Unit

Opening the Cayman Islands’ Legislative Assembly and delivering a Speech from the Throne in the Chamber,1983.

Opening the Parliament ofTasmania in 1954.

With Speaker Alex Fergusson greeting First Minister Rt Hon. Alex Salmond, Scottish Parliament, 2007.

of me n. a Addressing the Legislative Assembly of Alberta during a royal visit in 2005.

Legislative Assembly of Alberta

Arriving in New South Wales, 1992, for the opening of the 2nd Session of the 50th Parliament.

The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three | 169

Queen and the Commonwealth.indd 169

09/11/2012 10:10:18

CYPRUS AND THE EUROPEAN UNION

CYPRUS AND ITS PRESIDENCY OF THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION As Cyprus takes centre stage in the European Union, its Parliament takes on an expanded parliamentary diplomacy role to help achieve the political goals not just of Cyprus but of the entire EU and beyond, writes the President of the House of Representatives.

H.E. Mr Yiannakis L. Omirou, MP, in Nicosia.

Mr Omirou is the President of the House of Representatives of Cyprus. A lawyer, he was first elected to the House for the Socialist Party EDEK in 1981, leaving the House in 1998 on his appointment as Minister of Defence, resigning from that post in 1999. He was elected again to the House in 2001 and has been a Member continuously since then, being elected as President of the House in June 2011.

For thousands of years, the island of Cyprus has rested in the Mediterranean Sea at the crossroads of three continents of the world, connecting Europe, Africa and Asia. Nature has placed Cyprus at a significant strategic location enabling it, throughout history, to be a bridge between the nations and the peoples of the western and eastern worlds. Because of its location, Cyprus has been contested and conquered by many powers. Due to its prominent location, Cyprus has shared its history with the European continent, as well as with the history of the wider Middle East. In modern times, Cyprus officially became a full member of the European Union (EU) in 2004. Today, Cyprus is at the helm of the European Union, having assumed the Presidency of the Council of the EU, for the second half of 2012. The assumption of the rotating presidency

and aim for an EU which will be more relevant to its citizens, based on solidarity, social cohesion and a better quality of life for them despite the disheartening financial crisis. Moreover, Europe in the world should come closer to its regional partners and other neighbours and the Cyprus presidency aspires to provide such an opportunity. H.E. Mr Yiannakis L. Omirou, MP

poses a particular challenge for the country in showing that it is an equally competent member of the EU family. The Cyprus presidency attempts to contribute constructively to the process of European integration and cohesion, whilst actively promoting policies which will: improve EU effectiveness and contribute towards a “Better Europe” through sustainable growth and job creation

The Cyprus presidency This challenge will enable our small country to show its significant capacity as an EU member-state and also display our capabilities to contribute actively in the European integration process on behalf of the Council of the European Union. There are “inherited” topics in the agenda for the six-month term of the Cyprus presidency, as well as some that were put forward by the European Commission and other institutions of the Union. The central

170 | The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three

Omirou.indd 170

09/11/2012 10:13:07

CYPRUS AND THE EUROPEAN UNION

theme of the Cyprus presidency, that of a “Better Europe”, has been based on the EU principles and values of solidarity, which is needed to respond to the Eurozone crisis, as well as effectiveness, which refers mainly to development.

Among the most important issues for negotiation is the Multi-Annual Financial Framework 2014-20 and legislative proposals pertaining to the financial sector and the deepening of the European Single Market. The Cyprus presidency is also expected to promote green and viable development through the 7th Action Plan for the Environment, the effective exploitation of natural resources and the promotion of the Integrated Maritime Policy, as well as the issue of the Common European Asylum System and the integration of third-country nationals, legally residing in EU member-states. Moreover, the Cyprus presidency is expected to emphasize the southern dimension of the European Neighbourhood Policy, aiming at the revitalization of political and economic co-operation of the EU with Mediterranean countries and, naturally, further promote the enlargement process, including and supporting the accession negotiations of candidate countries, including

Turkey, provided it fully respects and implements its EU obligations, among which are the recognition of the Republic of Cyprus and its effective contribution to the solution of the Cyprus problem. The House of Representatives of the Republic of Cyprus, within the parliamentary dimension of the presidency and in the framework of co-operation between national Parliaments and the European Parliament, will host several interparliamentary meetings. The selection of these inter-parliamentary conferences was made after considering Cyprus’ contribution to the 18-month programme of the Trio Presidency (Poland, Denmark, Cyprus) and Cyprus’ role as a bridge of dialogue between the EU and the countries of the broader Middle East region. These meetings include conferences of Chairpersons of justice & home affairs, social affairs, finance, agriculture, human rights, the Common Foreign and Security

Opposite page: The ceramic tile composition that decorates the entrance hall of the House of Representatives in Cyprus; Above: The façade of the House after its renovation and extension; Left: The parliamentary gavel and the Plenary Chamber and gallery in the background, as viewed from the President’s Chair.

The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three | 171

Omirou.indd 171

09/11/2012 10:13:26

CYPRUS AND THE EUROPEAN UNION

The renovated Plenary Chamber.

Policy (CFSP) and Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), as well as COSAC Chairs (Meeting of the Chairpersons of the European Affairs Committees) and COSAC Plenary. The COSAC Chairpersons Meeting which was held in Limassol on 8 and 9 July, focused on issues relating to the priorities of the Cyprus presidency of the Council of the EU, including the completion of the Multi-annual Financial Framework 2014-20 and on the Energy 2020 Strategy, with

particular concentration on issues pertaining to security of energy supply. The COSAC Plenary Meeting was scheduled to be held in Nicosia from 14 to 16 October 2012. In addition, the Cyprus presidency hosted the inaugural Meeting of the Interparliamentary Conference for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) in Paphos on 9 and 10 September 2012. The deliberations of the

meeting focused on the priorities of the Cyprus presidency in the fields of foreign policy and defence, current issues of foreign policy, as well as the “Arab Spring”. Beyond these eight Conferences in the course of the six-month presidency, the Cyprus House of Representatives will also host, in April and February 2013, the EU Speakers Conference and the Meeting of the Secretaries-General of EU Parliaments respectively.

The Cyprus problem Regrettably, Turkey insists on freezing relations with the Presidency of the Council of the EU, during the entire duration of the Cyprus presidency. This provocative decision, by Turkey, to boycott the Cyprus presidency constitutes an insult to the entire EU and its institutions and comes in direct contrast with Turkey’s efforts to advance its own EU accession process. This stance has been condemned by the European Council as well as by the Council of the EU and has been strongly criticized by the President of the European Council, Mr Herman Van Rompuy, and the President of the European Parliament, Mr Martin Schulz, during their recent visits to Cyprus. Sadly, the direct negotiations of the last four years have not led to progress with regard to a settlement of the Cyprus problem, due to the continuing intransigence of Turkey. This stance needs, more than ever, to be denounced loudly and clearly by the international community and the European Union as the danger of a complete deadlock for the negotiations looms through Turkey’s strategy and tactics. These policies aim to maintain the illegal status quo on the island, a product of Turkey’s 1974 invasion and continuing occupation, but also to promote the unacceptable solution of two separate states, a notion which defies all pertinent United Nations Security Council Resolutions and constitutes a gross violation of all EU values and principles. Parliamentary representatives of EU member states will meet in Cyprus, an EU, Commonwealth and UN memberstate with 37 per cent of its territory under foreign military occupation by a candidate EU country. Turkey is the single country in the world which does not recognize the Republic of Cyprus and refuses to have any kind of relations with it, while it still hypocritically remains one of the three guarantor powers for Cyprus’ independence and territorial integrity. For the past 38 years, Turkey continues to maintain on the island tens of thousands of heavily

172 | The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three

Omirou.indd 172

09/11/2012 10:13:44

CYPRUS AND THE EUROPEAN UNION

armed troops, perpetuating the illegal secession of its puppet regime in the occupied northern part of the island, keeping one-third of the population of Cyprus displaced while exploiting their properties, not co-operating to ascertain the fate of missing persons and destroying and looting the cultural heritage of the island. In addition, in a planned effort to alter the country’s demographic structure, Turkey has implanted in Cyprus over 200,000 settlers, this constituting another war crime according to the Geneva Convention of 1949. As a result, the number of Turkish Cypriots now living in the occupied area is far outnumbered by the total number of Turkish troops and settlers. The Turkish Cypriots also resent the occupation, but are not able to express themselves freely, especially in what concerns a possible solution of the Cyprus problem. Cyprus’ support for Turkey’s European aspirations – provided it fulfils its EU obligations, as all candidates are expected to – is driven by the belief that, if and when Turkey complies with European rules and norms, in particular with respect to human rights, it will become a democratic, transformed country. Such a development would benefit the wider region, the EU itself, Cyprus and, not least, Turkey’s own citizens. A bridge between the EU and the Arab world Despite its own political problem, Cyprus can act as a bridge for dialogue for peace and stability between the EU and the countries of the Middle East. It can contribute to a better understanding of the “Arab Spring” and its significant developments and direct impacts onto the world. The EU will thus have a greater input concerning the transformation of the wider region. Active involvement in the Middle East peace process, with Cyprus’ possible help, will indeed bring a step forward to fruition the target of Europe being closer to its neighbours, as envisaged in the European Neighbouring

Instrument (ENI) and the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM). The island can also serve as a much-needed platform in the region for the business sector between Middle Eastern and other countries. Despite its small size, Cyprus has proved to be a reliable actor on the international scene. Historically and more so in recent decades, Cyprus has cultivated and sustained very good relations with all its neighbouring countries. It has therefore been able to contribute indirectly in the promotion of EU principles and policies. In the advancement of the democratic and economic reforms which the “Arab Spring” countries are currently struggling towards, Cyprus has proudly taken the opportunity to be a bridge between Europe and the Arab world as a venue for their contacts, providing a concrete example of such a vision. It has proven to be a successful virtual transfer-belt for the principles of democracy, fairness and freedom, as well as for the respect of human rights and the rule of law. Cyprus on the energy map At the same time, Cyprus now has a unique opportunity to create an actual physical link between the eastern tip of the European continent and the EU and its Middle Eastern neighbours. This was made possible through its recent offshore exploratory drilling in its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and the discovery of rich hydrocarbon deposits. This discovery has also opened up great opportunities for co-operation with the countries in the Eastern Mediterranean, both on a political and an economic level. In this respect, Cyprus has concluded agreements with a number of neighbouring countries – such as with Egypt in 2003, Lebanon in 2007 and Israel in 2010 – delineating the respective Exclusive Economic Zones in line with international law and particularly the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. According to initial positive results in Cyprus’ EEZ last year, there are approximately 100 billion Euros

worth of natural gas recoverable from one single plot. A number of major international energy companies have also expressed their interest in exploring the remaining 12 plots, in the second round of licensing for exploratory drilling in other parts of the Cypriot EEZ. In addition, Cyprus hopefully foresees that its co-operation with certain neighbouring countries will expand to include investments in infrastructure for the servicing of the production and distribution of natural gas by Cyprus, thus significantly contributing towards greater energy security and economic stability of the region and of Europe on a wider scale. Turkey, however, once again has reacted aggressively to these prospects, making overt threats and insisting not to recognize the Republic of Cyprus or its sovereign rights to explore its own EEZ. It also has threatened with economic and other repercussions foreign companies hoping to invest in this context. A few months ago, Turkey even proceeded with exploratory drilling for hydrocarbons on land in the occupied part of Cyprus. This act violates the sovereignty as well as the laws of the Republic of Cyprus. In addition, Turkey unlawfully licensed TPAO, the Turkish Petroleum Company, to proceed with hydrocarbon activities within Cyprus’ EEZ. The United States, the Russian Federation, the EU as a whole and separate member-states, including the United Kingdom, have spoken out clearly, recognizing Cyprus’ sovereign rights to its EEZ and condemning Turkey’s threats and illegal actions. The Republic of Cyprus has stressed, on every occasion, that eventual benefits deriving from the country’s natural resources will be enjoyed by all Cypriots, Greek and Turkish Cypriots alike, once the Cyprus problem is resolved. It is up to Turkey to stop threatening that the talks for a solution will collapse if Cyprus proceeds with its surveys and exploitation of the said reserves. It is up to Turkey to truly contribute to a lasting solution to the

problem and not just pay lip service to it through its usual rhetoric. Seeking international justice and stability We profoundly regret Turkey’s threats against the Republic of Cyprus. Turkey’s stance is in stark contrast with its own declared dogma of “zero problems with its neighbours” and its pursued role as a model state, a fervent defender of international law and a peace mediator in the region. It is crucial that international law prevails in this highly sensitive region, in a way that natural resources, including Cyprus’ oil and natural gas deposits, act as a catalyst for peace, stability and prosperity. Regardless of the challenges and difficulties ahead, Cyprus continues its efforts for the reunification of its people, its economy and its institutions, for the common benefit not only of all its citizens, GreekCypriots and Turkish-Cypriots alike, but also of the wider region and the European Union. A just and viable solution to the Cyprus problem should be based on pertinent UN and Commonwealth resolutions and the values and principles on which the EU was founded, safeguarding the human rights and basic liberties of all its lawful citizens. The exploitation of Cyprus’ EEZ is a vital chance for greater prosperity and development for all Cypriots. The Cyprus presidency of the Council of the European Union as of 1 July 2012 has taken off successfully. Cyprus and its House of Representatives are working towards achieving a “Better Europe” for the benefit of all European citizens and its neighbours, bridging gaps, enhancing solidarity and cohesion through promoting practical, handson measures and legislation so that inherited disadvantages may turn into comparative advantages for the next generations. (A separate webpage has been set up for the parliamentary dimension of the Cyprus presidency at www.cyparliament2012.eu).

The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three | 173

Omirou.indd 173

09/11/2012 10:13:56

WHIPS IN THE BANGLADESH PARLIAMENT

THE ROLE OF THE CHIEF WHIP AND OTHER WHIPS IN THE BANGLADESH PARLIAMENT Whips in the Parliament of Bangladesh do not have to worry about their Members voting the party line; but they do have to focus on keeping opposition Members in Parliament for the good of parliamentary democracy, says the Government Chief Whip.

Vice-Principal Mr Md. Abdus Shahid, MP, in Dhaka.

Mr Shahid is the Chief Whip of the Bangladesh Parliament. He was first elected to Parliament for the Awami League in 1991. A management graduate, he pursued a career in teaching and now is a member of the Senates of two public universities, National University and Dhaka University. He chairs several parliamentary committees and government institutions.

After the birth of Bangladesh as an independent nation in 1971, the Father of the Nation, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, established parliamentary democracy in the country following the Westminister parliamentary system. The Parliament of Bangladesh is a unicameral Legislature consisting of 350 Members, including 50 reserved seats for women, elected from singleMember constituencies. The concept of whipping was inherited from the colonial British rule where the Whips played a very active role in the effective management of Parliament. About the role of the Chief Whip and other Whips in the British Parliament, Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice says: The efficient and smooth running of the parliamentary machine depends largely upon the Whips. Certain duties are common to Whips

Mr Md. Abdus Shahid, MP

of all parties; but by far the most important duties devolve upon the Government Chief Whip. Realizing its importance, the whipping system was introduced in Bangladesh’s Parliament but with some changes. Here both the ruling and the opposition parties appoint a Chief Whip and other Whips who are responsible for the party’s discipline

and behaviour of Members on the Floor of the House. The Government Chief Whip and other Whips are appointed from among Members by the President, as proposed by the Prime Minister. Usually they direct the party Members to stick to the party’s stand on certain issues and direct them to vote as per the guidance of the senior party Members. The Chief Whip of the ruling party is the key person in the management of the House. A senior advisor Similar to the whipping system practised in the Indian Parliament, the Chief Whip is directly responsible to the Leader of the House. As M.N. Kaul and S.L. Shakder put it in Practice and Procure of Parliament: “The Chief Whip is the eyes and ears of the Leader of the party so far as the Members are concerned.”

174 | The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three

Shahid.indd 174

09/11/2012 10:15:24

WHIPS IN THE BANGLADESH PARLIAMENT

He or she has to keep the Leader informed of the Members’ opinion and desire and convey his/her wishes to the party Members. He has to lead the Members of Parliament in all parliamentary affairs as directed by him. The Chief Whip’s main duties include advising the government on parliamentary business and maintaining close liaison with the

Ministers concerned. Another major duty is the mapping out of the time of the session. The responsibilities of the Chief Whip and other Whips have been chalked out in the Bangladesh (Whips) Order 1972 which reads: 5. (1) The Chief Whip shall be responsible for: a) Keeping Members of the Parliament supplied with

information about the business of Parliament; b) Securing the attendance of the Members at the session of Parliament; c) Arranging the business of each sitting of Parliament; d) Performing such other functions as may be assigned to him by the government or as may be prescribed;

Above: A bazaar in Old Dhaka, Bangladesh.

The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three | 175

Shahid.indd 175

09/11/2012 10:15:38

WHIPS IN THE BANGLADESH PARLIAMENT

“It is time all the political parties realized the necessity of working together to make Parliament effective.“ e) Maintaining cohesion within the governing party and to build relationships with other political parties; f) Making sure that each of the political parties is properly represented on the various committees; g) Maintaining sound relations between the various political parties, and h) Attending to disputes between political parties. (2) A Whip shall perform such func tions as may be assigned to him by the Chief Whip or the govern ment or as may be prescribed. In the Warrant of Precedence of Bangladesh, the Chief Whip enjoys the same status as a cabinet Minister and is entitled to all the privileges and facilities provided to the same. The Whips enjoy the status and privileges of a state Minister. Planning the agenda and timing The Chief Whip and his team have an important role in party business within the Parliament. Regarding the running of the House, the Speaker gives some certain instructions in the light of the Rules of Procedures. It is convenient for the Speaker to talk about this with the Leader of the House through the Chief Whip since he is the best informed person in the Parliament as far as the volume of work and its progress and the fellow Members are concerned as the Chief Whip maintains direct and intimate communications with the MPs. The Chief Whip has to keep special attention to ensure that the

decisions taken in the Business Advisory Committee Meeting prior to each session are implemented in the stipulated time. The Chief Whip receives the co-operation of fellow Whips in this job. On days when Parliament sits, the Chief Whip plans the day’s agenda and sorts out procedural and other details in consultation with the Speaker. He/she has to make sure that the minimum number of Members required to conduct the business of the House, is present. He also organizes the lists of party Members who wish to speak on specific Bills and motions and other discussions as and when necessary which are approved by the Leader of the House in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. The Chief Whip passes the lists to the Speaker before the debate begins. Later he and the other Whips meet and finalize everything.

The Chief Whip also consults the Speaker and decides on the sitting arrangement of the ruling MPs. When a Bill is brought by a Member, private or government, to the House for discussion, it goes through the Chief Whip. Political give and take on both sides In forming the Parliamentary Standing Committees, the Chief Whip plays a significant role too. Usually the committees are formed according to the proposal of the Leader of the House. But if there arises any objection or disagreement to the formation of any committee, the Chief Whip and the Opposition Chief Whip settle that through informal discussion. Under the direction of the Chairman of the parliamentary party (Leader of the House), the Chief Whip calls the meetings of the

parliamentary party as well. In the Parliament building there is a specific room for holding the meeting of the ruling party which is controlled and managed by the Chief Whip. The Chief Whip is usually a senior parliamentarian who has huge experience in parliamentary affairs. Therefore, young MPs often seek advice and suggestions from him/ her. Even on other than parliamentary affairs, they receive this guidance and support. The Chief Whip and the other Whips pass the opinions of the backbench Members on to the party leadership. They help Backbenchers communicate with the cabinet and individual Minister as well. So far, in the Bangladesh Parliament the post of the Opposition Chief Whip is not officially recognized but a parliamentary responsibility. The main Opposition Leader recognizes the party Whip as the Opposition

176 | The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three

Shahid.indd 176

09/11/2012 10:16:01

WHIPS IN THE BANGLADESH PARLIAMENT

Left: Mr Shahid speaking at the opening of a workshop in 2009. Right: Water features in the design of the Parliament of Bangladesh.

Chief Whip on the Floor. He/she has to keep close contact with other Whips of the opposition parties. Like the ruling party Chief Whip, the Opposition Chief Whip assists the Speaker in implementing the decisions of the Business Advisory Committee, works as a spokesperson of the opposition in the absence of the Opposition Leader and Deputy Leader on the Floor and organizes the lists of the party’s MPs and other opposition parties’ Members intending to speak. He or she calls the meeting of the parliamentary party as well. Keeping Members in the House Members of Parliament run a very busy day, no matter whether they are on the ruling or opposition side. Every day they are visited by lots of people from their constituency who come with many different issues ranging from complaints, to requests

for personal help, to development projects in the area and so on. They have to attend many social and religious programmes in addition to managing the political activities assigned to them by the party. But being representatives of the people, their top-most duty is to attend the Parliament sessions and talk for them. Even if they do not take part in the debate, they have to remain present and vote in support of their party. For the government MPs, this vote is a lot more important, particularly when the strength of the ruling party is not that great in proportion to that of the opposition parties taken together. This is where the Chief Whip and other Whips play a key role. They make sure that all party Members turn up to vote. However, keeping the party MPs in line is not a big deal for the Whips in Bangladesh’s Parliament since the MPs cannot vote against their party as stipulated in Article 70 of the Constitution, which says: A person elected as a Member of Parliament at an election at which he was nominated as a candidate by a political party shall vacate his seat if he: (a) Resigns from that party or (b) Votes in Parliament against that party. The Whips are responsible for carrying on the smooth organization of the parties inside the House. They

have to keep a constant eye on the proceedings of the House and have to be ready to face any emergency in the House. They are quite visible as they move around the Chamber speaking to colleagues, organizing the business of the party and making last-minute decisions with colleagues, officials and the Speaker or the Leader of the House. Usually, the Whips sit where they can be easily accessible to other party Members. The challenge of working together The Chief Whip and other Whips are influential Members of the party who enjoy the respect and confidence of their colleagues. When individual Members have personal problems such as serious illness, they seek the advice and support of the party Whip. The Chief Whip, usually being the Chairman of the House Committee, deals with all questions relating to residential accommodation for Members of Parliament and supervises the facilities for accommodation, food, medical aid and other amenities accorded to Members. Accordingly, he makes sure that the Members are being provided with these supports. A walkout from Parliament, or even boycotting Parliament, is a common strategy followed by the opposition in Bangladesh’s

Parliament. The Opposition Chief Whip plays a vital role in carrying out such plans in accordance with the party policy. Unfortunately, opposition walkouts and boycotts have become a much-used tactic of the political parties in Bangladesh. In recent years, this has been affecting the progress of Parliament affairs and democracy to a great extent. The near permanent boycott of Parliament by the opposition is one of the major obstacles in the way of the establishment of effective parliamentary democracy in the country. It is time all the political parties realized the necessity of working together to make Parliament effective. MPs must feel that their main duty is to represent their constituents in Parliament, for which they have been elected and work accordingly. This is where the Chief Whip and all other Whips can contribute substantially. They have to increase communications among themselves and minimize the differences and help all the parties arrive at a mutual understanding. They must work hand in hand to make sure that the MPs come to Parliament and make it the centre of all activities. Using their experience and expertise, the Whips have to ensure it without further delay for the greater interest of the parliamentary democracy in Bangladesh.

The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three | 177

Shahid.indd 177

09/11/2012 10:16:18

WHIPS IN SMALL PARLIAMENTS

THE ROLE OF THE WHIP IN A SMALL PARLIAMENT Whips are often resented for enforcing party discipline and requiring Members to be present in the Chamber when they would prefer to be working elsewhere. But, counters an Australian Capital Territory Whip, in small Parliaments they are essential not just to the smooth operation of Parliament but also to the ongoing effectiveness of Parliamentarians as individuals facing seemingly insurmountable political, professional and personal challenges.

Mr John Hargreaves, MLA, in Canberra.

Mr Hargreaves has been an Australian Labor Party Member of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly since 1998. He entered the Assembly after a career in the public service and has served as a Government Whip and has held several ministerial posts.

In 2010 there was an inaugural meeting of the Commonwealth Whips Network initiated by Mr Alex Somlyay, MP, and Mr Roger Price, MP, both Whips from the Parliament of Australia, sponsored by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and attended by Whips or their equivalents from a range of Commonwealth jurisdictions. I attended for the Australian Capital Territory (A.C.T.) Legislative Assembly. This meeting discussed the operations of the various Parliaments and included large Parliaments such as the United Kingdom, mediumsized Parliaments such as New Zealand and small Parliaments such as Bermuda. We drilled down into the operations of the Parliaments and distilled a series of imperatives to be addressed by Whips or their equivalents in their Parliaments. We identified common themes and common deficiencies. This comingtogether by experienced and newly

Mr John Hargreaves, MLA.

elected Parliamentarians was a most useful exercise and those present expressed a desire that more such gatherings occur in the future. The purpose of this paper is to describe the duties and responsibilities of a Government Whip in a small Parliament. It covers such matters as the formal processes of Parliament, the need for dialogue between the elements of the Parliament and the responsibilities Whips should carry regarding pastoral

care of their colleagues, be they executive or non-executive Members. Whilst it is different in some Parliaments where Whips can be cabinet Members or Managers of Government Business, or where some Ministers can also be Whips, in most small Parliaments such as the A.C.T. Legislative Assembly the Government Whip is principally concerned with non-executive business. This is to say that the processes of interest to Whips centre on private Members’ business. The processes of Parliament which come within the spectrum of a Government Whip’s duties concern parliamentary business, parliamentary precinct business and pastoral care for Members. In examining these three facets, a role definition emerges; but as with any organizational system, roles are evolving ones changing with time, technology, environment and political imperative. The following would describe the essentials applicable in a small

178 | The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three

Hargreaves.indd 178

09/11/2012 10:17:19

WHIPS IN SMALL PARLIAMENTS

From left to right: There are many similarities in the role of Whips in large Parliaments like Westminster, mediumsized Parliaments like New Zealand and small Parliaments like Bermuda.

jurisdiction and are a distillation of the roles Whips have played in the A.C.T. Legislative Assembly since the first Parliament in 1989. Parliamentary business The Government Whip has the following responsibilities for parliamentary business as a Member of the government benches and is a

backbench role. Opposition Whips and Cross Bench Whips play a similar role and assist their colleagues and Leaders. The role has many elements. The management of time in the House entails: • The prediction of the length of times for debates; • The development of knowledge

of Standing and Temporary Orders in relation to time limits of debates; • The development of understanding of Standing and Temporary Orders in relation to precedence and order of debates; • The development and consultation on conventions applicable to time limits and orders of debates , such as no-confidence motions, censure mo-

tions and matters of grave concern, matters of public importance (MPIs), Assembly business on executive business days, private Members’ business and legislation debates, and • Consultation with segments of the Chamber regarding the finishing times for the day’s business and the commencement of the adjournment debate.

The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three | 179

Hargreaves.indd 179

09/11/2012 10:17:46

WHIPS IN SMALL PARLIAMENTS

Left: The entrance of the A.C.T. Legislative Assembly building in Canberra. Right: The Assembly’s Mace.

• The management of speaking time for Members involves: • Consultation with Ministers and Members on speaking lists and times; • Discussion with other segments of the Chamber regarding speaking lists, speech times, provision of amendments; • Consultation with fellow party Members on the distribution of speaking opportunities for Ministers and Members;

• Consultation with and advice to party Members on the motions for non-executive business, MPIs, and questions without notice (QWON), and • Monitoring and advising on progress of question time and advising the Chief Minister on such progress as well as providing ad hoc questions without notice as required. The management of absences through pairing arrangements means: • Liaising with caucus Members on

requirements for absence; • Advising on appropriateness of absence if not for health, family or ministerial duties, and • Advising the Speaker and the Assembly of pairs in operation and pairs concluded. Whips assist Ministers in time management in order that their departmental support resources are deployed efficiently and are not subject to time wastage. Whips

compile time predictions per item of business, advise Ministers and Cabinet Office of predictions, in order that advisers and departmental officials are aware of the times speeches and their presence in the gallery are required. Liaison with the cabinet support section requires: • Liaison with Cabinet Office on compilation of the daily programme for sitting weeks, and

180 | The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three

Hargreaves.indd 180

09/11/2012 10:18:01

WHIPS IN SMALL PARLIAMENTS

• Negotiation of finishing times and thus commencement of the adjournment debate; • Informing the Clerk if business is to continue beyond the conclusion time specified in Standing Orders, and • Advising all government Members and staff of extension of debates beyond that time. Assistance is also provided to the Manager of Government Business in his or her management of the government business agenda and associated time management of that agenda.

• Advising the Standing Committee on Administration and Procedure on items of business scheduled for debate, where the government is ready or not ready for debate. Liaison with the opposition and the cross-bench regarding the time management of non-executive business of the House includes: • Negotiation of numbers of speakers;

Parliamentary precinct business Whips from each party assist the Speaker in the conduct of parliamentary precinct business in a variety of ways. As a Member of the Standing Committee on Administration and Procedure, the Whips assist the Speaker in the management of the precinct which would include: • Advice on compilation of precinct budget; • Precinct security; • Car parking; • Office allocation and management; • Advice on Members’ entitlements

where they are within the province of the Speaker; • Advice on proposals for change to Standing Orders or operational procedures; • Process and charges relating to access to precinct facilities, and • Media access. Pastoral care business Whips from all sectors of the Parliament should provide a pastoral care service not only to their own party colleagues but also, in conjunction with fellow Whips and outside assistance, to all Members of Parliament. These services would include: • Providing interpretations of Standing and Temporary Orders, the Companion to the A.C.T. Legislative Assembly Standing and Temporary Orders and related authorities (in our context these are Australia’s House of Representatives Practice and publications by Odgers on Australian Senate practice and Erskine May on United Kingdom House of Commons practice); • Providing advice and/or counselling to Members where they appear to be in personal difficulty regarding the performance of their parliamentary duties; • Providing training for newly appointed Ministers and newly elected

Members on the processes and procedures in the Chamber and in the precinct; • Providing training and or mentoring for junior Members and their staff on parliamentary procedures and processes; • Providing advice to Members on questions of probity and conflicts of interest, both perceived and real, and • Providing advice and counselling or referral to Members where they appear to be experiencing difficulty in their private affairs and where this can have a detrimental effect on the Member. Smoothing the path, parliamentary and personal Whips play a complex role in the conduct of business in Parliament and provide a support service to Members. These roles are often either not understood or misunderstood; yet when they are delivered effectively, they enable the smooth conduct of business, a counterpoint at times to the often hostile environment within the adversarial parliamentary system operating in most Commonwealth countries. The services of the Whips provide a safety check on the welfare of Members as they struggle to survive in an emotion-charged, stressful and – dare it be said – dangerous profession.

The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three | 181

Hargreaves.indd 181

09/11/2012 10:18:23

MUTINY TO UNITY

NORFOLK ISLAND AND THE ISLE OF MAN STRENGTHEN HISTORICAL TIES: FROM MUTINY TO UNITY Two small island Legislatures on opposite sides of the Commonwealth establish a connection based on one of histories most famous – or infamous – naval sagas.

Hon. Robin Eleanor Adams, JP, MLA, in Kingston.

Ms Adams is the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Norfolk Island. She was the Clerk of Norfolk Island’s Legislative Assembly from 1984 until 2010 when she was elected to the Assembly.

Hon. Robin Eleanor Adams, JP, MLA. The story of the mutiny on the Bounty in 1789 is a tale of conspiracy, adventure and romance, a tale that today links two Commonwealth Parliaments. Hollywood has produced at least three movies with high-profile actors taking on the roles of Captain William Bligh, lead mutineer Master’s Mate Fletcher Christian and Midshipman Peter Heywood.

Although the story ends with the descendants of the mutineers living on Norfolk Island today, the intriguing story unexpectedly starts on the Isle of Man. The historical ties between Norfolk Island and the Isle of Man are set in motion with the marriage on 4 February 1781 of William Bligh to Elizabeth “Betsy” Betham whose family lived in Onchan on the Isle of Man. After their marriage the Bligh’s lived in Douglas where their daughter Mary was christened at St Matthew’s Church. The family later moved to Lambeth in London. Peter Heywood was the son of a former Deemster (Judge) of the Isle of Man, who was Steward to the Duke of Atholl. The family lived at the Nunnery in Douglas, a very prestigious family home. History also tells us that Fletcher Christian’s ancestors came from the Isle of Man and it is said that the

Christian family had been prominent there for probably a thousand years. Tynwald Hill was owned by the Christian family for centuries. The annual outdoor sittings of Tynwald - the Manx Parliament - are held on Tynwald Hill. This dates back to the Viking settlements which began in the eighth century AD and history records that no other Parliament in the world has such a long unbroken record. However Fletcher Christian was born in Cumbria, England. Bligh, aged 33, was given command of the Bounty in 1787 to bring breadfruit trees from Tahiti to feed the slaves in the West Indies. Heywood went aboard Bounty aged 15; Christian had just turned 23. While the Bounty was well equipped to carry the breadfruit plants, the arrangements for the crew were less than desirable - their quarters were dark and cramped - and so the scene was set to breed discontent.

182 | The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three

Adams.indd 182

09/11/2012 10:19:00

MUTINY TO UNITY

On arrival in Tahiti, the crew of the Bounty enjoyed a laid back lifestyle, grand hospitality, a pleasant climate and a picturesque setting whilst collecting the breadfruit. They were there for 23 weeks. On their way back from Tahiti, Bligh’s harsh naval discipline was immediately reinstated - the consequence - mutiny aboard the Bounty! In a small longboat with 18 loyal men Bligh was then set adrift, left to find his way back to England, with only his sextant, by courtesy of Christian. Christian and the remaining crew were left with the Bounty. Both Bligh and Christian, in harsh conditions, sailed their vessels ably to safety; Bligh to Timor, where they got passage back to England, and Christian to uninhabited Pitcairn Island via Toobouai and Tahiti. In Tahiti, Christian and his men collected their former sweethearts and some Polynesian men.

Heywood and 15 others decided to settle in Tahiti; later to be discovered and taken back to England to stand trial even though he played no part in the mutiny, Heywood stood trial where he was found guilty and given the death sentence. Heywood’s sister, Hestor, affectionately known as Nessy, worked tirelessly for his acquittal and release which came on 27 October 1792. Heywood applied to be readmitted to the Royal Navy and went on to have an accomplished career. On Pitcairn Island, Christian and the community grew into what was described as “the world’s most perfect and pious race”; the first to give women the vote in 1838 and, it is said, the first to make education compulsory. At 193 persons, they had outgrown small Pitcairn Island and in 1855 Queen Victoria offered them Norfolk Island as their homeland.

The Pitcairners arrived in their new homeland on 8 June 1856. From mutiny to unity While the rest, as they say, is history, descendants of the Christian family are still residing on both Norfolk Island and the Isle of Man. The story continues to be told and to unfold with the signing of a Cultural Agreement on Tynwald Day on the Isle of Man that took place on 5 July 2011 by the then President of Tynwald, Hon. Noel Cringle, OBE, MLC, and by me as the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Norfolk Island. The cultural agreement has now been in place for just over 12 months and it has been a rewarding strengthening of connection between the two islands. As I said on signing the agreement: “Our connection with the Isle of Man has many concurrences

Opposite page: The Isle Of Man flag flying beside the Norfolk Island and Australian flags at the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly Complex on 5 July 2012 to acknowledge the Isle of Man’s National Day. Above: Mutiny scene from “Fletcher’s Mutiny Cyclorama”, a 360° panoramic painting on Norfolk Island.

The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three | 183

Adams.indd 183

09/11/2012 10:19:14

MUTINY TO UNITY

This page: Norfolk Island celebrates its Anniversary (Bounty) Day every 8 June when Islanders re-enact the landing of the Pitcairn community at Kingston Pier in 1856 [Photo by Robin Nisbet Photography]; Right: Dignitaries seated on Tynwald Hill on Tynwald Day 2012, Isle of Man.

throughout history; the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly was established in 1979, the very same year that saw the Isle of Man celebrate one thousand years of the establishment of their Parliament”. Both Parliaments now acknowledge the others National Day in a number of meaningful ways and this is intended to develop in future years. Youth and the future Another important aspect of the agreement is educating our young people, with a goal of having an exchange student programme put in place. In the meantime, links are

underway to engage and educate our islands’ youth from the creation of a specific online social media site, where students of the Norfolk Island Central School are soon to connect with students of the Isle of Man’s Castle Rushen High School; enabling them to discuss their way of life and the roles that both Parliament and culture play in their individual areas. Hon. Juan Watterson, ACA, MHK, Chairperson of the Executive Committee, of the CPA Isle of Man Branch, said of the new social media site: “I am delighted that the Isle of Man and Norfolk Island continue to build bridges that span the globe using the latest technology. We look forward to our young people

connecting via social media building on the face-to-face meeting between our youth representatives at the Commonwealth Day observance. Despite being on opposing hemispheres, we share much in common as small island states. The CPA acts as an excellent forum for our young people to explore what connects us and what makes us different to give us a fuller appreciation of our place in the world.” In a time where we have “Generation Connect”, it seems even more appropriate that Norfolk Island and the Isle of Man have connected through their cultural agreement. Hon. Clare Christian, MLC, President of Tynwald, said: “The

cultural accord provides a platform for our two communities to start sharing information on heritage, governance, business and culture, including music and dance. I look forward to strengthening the connection with Norfolk Island in the years to come.”

184 | The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three

Adams.indd 184

09/11/2012 10:19:36

MUTINY TO UNITY

Uniting the island states Debate continues even to this day - who was right in the Bounty saga? Was it Bligh for his approach to discipline or was it Christian for his stance against oppression? However, no matter the readers’

view, the fact remains that, today, the tale of the Mutiny on the Bounty in the 18th century has brought our two islands together in a positive way in the 21st century. As the Chief Minister of Norfolk Island, Hon. David Buffett, MLA, a Pitcairn descendant,

said: “Our intertwined history of conflict on the high seas, determined and hardened attitudes, one family against another. “This persisted for generations. More recent enlightened thinking has brought realization that old enmities

need to be put behind us, our conflicts converted to strands of friendships and our future governance be based upon greater conversation, co-operation and cohesion. Thus a cultural agreement, in a new age, has been created and applauded.”

The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three | 185

Adams.indd 185

09/11/2012 10:19:51

FIJI’S DEMOCRATIC RENEWAL

FIJI’S ILLUSIVE DEMOCRACY: PARADOXES, DILEMMAS AND HOPES As Fiji moves back toward a democratic form of government, a leading Fijian academic examines why a country that seemed to be a model stable multicultural society has suffered two and half decades of coups and military governments, and whether its next democratic renewal will be more successful than past attempts.

Dr Steven Ratuva, in Auckland.

Dr Ratuva, a Fijian, is a Senior Lecturer in Pacific Studies at the University of Auckland in New Zealand. He is also the President of the Pacific Islands Political Studies Association. Dr Ratuva has been part of international research teams on ethnic conflict, inequality, territorial disputes and armed conflict. He has been an international expert advisor and consultant on development, governance and security for a number of international organizations and an advisor for the United Nations Committee on Decolonization and the UN Department of Political Affairs.

The current constitutional reform process in Fiji and the optimism for re-democratization in the wake of the 2006 military coup needs to be understood in a broader historical, socio-economic and political context. The colonial legacy After 96 years of British colonial rule, Fiji became independent in 1970 and for the next 13 years enjoyed peace and prosperity which was the envy of many post-colonial states. When Pope John Paul II visited in 1986 at the prime of Fiji’s democratic grandeur, he made the declaration that all countries in the world should emulate Fiji’s exemplary experience as a multicultural, tolerant and peaceful country. However, he spoke a year too soon because in May 1987 the first of a series of coups took place. It was the result of years of shimmering tension in a country where the relationship between the two major ethnic groups, the indigenous Fijians (i-Taukei) and Indo-Fijians, was characterized by a complex interplay between zero-sum competition over political power (if one gains, another loses), ethnic entrepreneurship by ethnic elites, socio-economic

Dr Steven Ratuva

inequality and manipulation of sociocultural differences. About 57 per cent of the population of 850,000 is composed of indigenous Fijians, 37 per cent Indo-Fijians and six per cent belong to other minorities such as Europeans, Chinese, Pacific Islanders and people of mixed background. The Indo-Fijians were brought to Fiji by the British to provide labour for the burgeoning sugar plantations between 1879 and 1920. Ethnic differences on their own were not the reason for the tension but rather how these differences were manipulated by ethnic elites as a basis for open competition for political power and control over resources. The volatile

mix of ethnicity, struggle for political power, economic inequality and resource competition led to a series of coups. It is generally understood that Fiji has had four coups: two in 1987, one in 2000 and one in 2006. I argue that there were two in 1987, two in 2000 (one by George Speight and other nationalists and another by the military when it removed the President), one in 2006 and another one in 2009 when the military re-imposed power after the Supreme Court declared the 2006 coup illegal. The politics of ethnicity A number of factors helped to spawn antagonistic ethno-politics during the colonial period which continued even after independence. These included the British “protectionist” policy which kept indigenous Fijians within the subsistence enclave under the tutelage of chiefs and the monarch, the racially-based structure of the colonial division of labour based on Indian labour, Fijian land and European capital and the separate system of political representation. The separate administration for indigenous Fijians impeded their social mobility at a time when other

186 | The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three

Ratuva.indd 186

09/11/2012 10:20:32

FIJI’S DEMOCRATIC RENEWAL

ethnic groups were allowed to pursue education and commerce in earnest. The resulting socioeconomic inequality contributed to ethno-nationalist grievances in later years. Trans-ethnic social and political intercourse was discouraged and instead, under the so-called native policy, indigenous Fijians were kept under the direct patronage of the British and provided a convenient buffer against the Indo-Fijians who were seen as a threat to British interest because of their demands for equal rights and independence.

By the time of independence in 1970 ethnicity had become an important factor in parliamentary representation, political party formation, electoral mobilization and political out-bidding by communal leaders. The state itself became a site for ethnic contestation rather than negotiation while control of state power became the target of zero-sum gamesmanship. Ironically, this was encouraged by the 1970 constitution which was originally intended to provide ethnic balance and stability

through reserved parliamentary seats. Out of the total of 52 seats, 18 were reserved for indigenous Fijians, 18 for Indo-Fijians and 8 for other minorities. About half of the individual ethnic groups’ seat allocation was elected by the group itself and the other half was elected through universal suffrage. The two major ethnic-based political parties, the multiracial but indigenous-Fijian-dominated Alliance Party and the Indo-Fijian dominated National Federation Party (NFP), were the vehicles through which communal politics was expressed.

The Parliament of Fiji Islands in Suva.

The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three| 187

Ratuva.indd 187

09/11/2012 10:20:48

FIJI’S DEMOCRATIC RENEWAL

The Alliance Party ruled Fiji for 13 years following independence under the philosophy of multiracialism expressed in a number of symbolic gestures such as the official declaration of Christian holidays, Hindu Diwali holiday and Prophet Mohammed’s birthday as national holidays. However, the notion of

multiracialism had two potentially negating tendencies: the first was peaceful co-existence of different ethnic groups and the second was preservation of distinctive political and ethnic identities. The harmonious balance between the two was maintained as long as indigenous Fijians controlled political power. This was tested for the first time in 1987.

The coup culture The first coup in May 1987 followed the shift in the political gravity away from indigenous Fijian political control after the defeat of the indigenousFijian-dominated Alliance Party to the predominantly Indo-Fijian NFP-Labour coalition in the April 1987 election. The Fijian military, more than 90 per cent of whom

were indigenous Fijians, intervened on behalf of indigenous ethnonationalist groups clamouring for the reinstatement of indigenous political rule and the creation of an i-Taukei (indigenous Fijian) state. These demands were inspired by the doctrine of paramountcy of Fijian interest devised during the colonial era to refer to protection

188 | The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three

Ratuva.indd 188

09/11/2012 10:21:04

FIJI’S DEMOCRATIC RENEWAL

The Fijian army, which is more than 90 per cent indigenous Fijian, led the first military coup in 1987.

Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group Concluding Statement New York, 28 September 2012 1. The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) held its Thirty-Eighth Meeting in New York on 28 September 2012. 2. The meeting was attended by: Hon. Sato Kilman, MP, Prime Minister of Vanuatu; Sen. the Hon. Bob Carr, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Australia; Hon. Dr Dipu Moni, MP, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bangladesh; Hon. John Baird, MP, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Canada; Hon. A.J. Nicholson, MP, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade of Jamaica; Hon. Bernard K. Membe, MP, Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation of Tanzania; Hon. Winston Dookeran, MP, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Communications of Trinidad and Tobago, and H.E. Andrew Bangali, Ambassador of Sierra Leone to Ethiopia and the African Union. 3. CMAG Ministers unanimously elected Hon. Dr Dipu Moni, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bangladesh, as the new Chair of CMAG.

Fiji

of special indigenous interests relating to culture, land, political rights and preferential development. These special privileges were later encapsulated in the militarysponsored 1990 constitution which replaced the abrogated 1970 constitution. Amongst the preferential development initiatives were affirmative action policies to address

the socio-economic gap between indigenous Fijians and other ethnic groups; but allegations of widespread corruption by indigenous elites led to the collapse of many affirmative action projects followed by criminal investigations. As a result of demand for a more multi-ethnic reform, the 1990 constitution was substantially

4. CMAG reiterated its commitment to supporting and encouraging Fiji’s reinstatement as a full member of the Commonwealth family, through the restoration of civilian constitutional democracy. 5. Ministers welcomed continued progress in Fiji, including completion of the first phase of voter registration and commencement of the constitutional consultation process. Ministers welcomed the broad-based national dialogue on Fiji’s future taking place through that process, and commended the Constitutional Commission on its work to date. 6. Ministers emphasized the importance of a constitutional process which is fully independent, inclusive and without pre-determined outcomes. 7. Ministers expressed concern about remaining restrictions on human rights and the rule of law, and urged the government of Fiji to address these in order to create the environment necessary for credible constitutional consultations and elections. 8. Ministers reaffirmed the Commonwealth’s readiness to provide assistance to Fiji in appropriate ways and encouraged further high-level interaction between the Commonwealth and Fiji. 9. Ministers noted the decisions of leaders of the Pacific in relation to Fiji at a number of recent meetings, and reiterated the Commonwealth’s commitment to working in consultation and co-operation with regional and international partners.

amended, resulting in the 1997 constitution which had a number of “progressive” provisions relating to the Bill of Rights and social justice. Still this did not satisfy the ethno-nationalists who, with the help of a military unit,

staged the 2000 coup after Mr Mahendra Chaudhry, the first IndoFijian Prime Minister, won the 1999 election, the first under the 1997 constitution. The military staged a counter-

The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three | 189

Ratuva.indd 189

09/11/2012 10:21:21

FIJI’S DEMOCRATIC RENEWAL

coup by taking over state authority and arresting the nationalist coup leaders who held Mr Chaudhry and his parliamentary Members hostage for 51 days after baiting them into signing a non-binding agreement. The military later set up an interim government headed by Mr Laisenia Qarase, a prominent indigenous Fijian public servant. Mr Qarase’s Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua Party (SDL) won the 2001 election and immediately put in place the 20-Year Plan, an affirmative action programme for indigenous Fijians which was initially endorsed by the military because it was a way of appeasing the indigenous nationalists. The military moves in However, relations between the SDL and the military started to deteriorate as a result, mainly, of a dispute over the contract extension for military commander Commodore Frank Bainimarama and a controversy regarding Bills to facilitate national

Relationships amongst the indigenous Fijians and Indo-Fijians has always been reasonably harmonious, partly as a result of the multiracial experiment of the Alliance Party after independence.

reconciliation and release from jail of the 2000 coup perpetrators and to transfer ownership of the foreshore from the state to indigenous Fijian tribes. The military saw these Bills as undermining the interests of other ethnic groups as well as posing a major national security threat and it removed the government in December 2006. The military justified the coup as a “clean-up” campaign to rid Fiji of corruption and racism and put in place a social engineering framework called the People’s Charter as a guide for political, social and economic reform. Civil state institutions were effectively militarized through the

appointment of military officers as regional commissioners, chair of boards, heads of various government ministries and state companies and as ambassadors. They were directly accountable to Commodore Bainimarama as their “civilian” head as Prime Minister and as their military commander. The militarization of the public service also led to the weakening of the indigenous Fijian middle class as many highly educated professionals were removed and replaced with those considered more loyal to the regime. After the Fiji Supreme Court declared the coup “illegal,” in on 9 April 2009, the military through the ailing President repossessed power the next day and removed the constitution in the process. The judiciary and other constitutionally established institutions and bodies had to be reinvented to ensure the sustenance of the state as a functioning entity. A series of decrees were enacted, including the draconian Public Emergency Decree 2009 which was eventually repealed and replaced by the Public Order Act 2012. The act was later amended in July 2012 to allow for a freer and more open political environment for civil education and public consultation on the constitutional process in the build-up towards the 2014 election. On 3 July 2012 the electronic registration of 660,000 eligible voters for the 2014 general election started. Three weeks later on 25 July the five members of the Fiji Constitutional Review Commission (CRC) were sworn in by the Chief Justice, setting in train the constitutional review process starting with the public consultations on 3 August. These events marked the beginning of a new process towards re-democratization since the military usurped power in December 2006. What went wrong? The crisis which has beset Fiji’s parliamentary democracy goes beyond the simple ethnic discourse often portrayed in literature on Fiji politics. While ethnicity played a very powerful role in terms of political mobilization, elites on both sides of

the ethnic divide tried to generate maximum political capital by acting as ethnic entrepreneurs through nurturing and perpetuation of ethnic consciousness. Ethnic-based parliamentary representation made ethnic contestation seem natural. Because of this, political competition over state power assumed blatantly ethnic forms. The state thus became the site for ethnic contestation and political parties in power were always associated with a particular ethnic group. The mix of power struggle and ethnic consciousness became a volatile cocktail. Another important factor was the representation of perceived and real socio-economic differences in the form of ethnic grievances, scapegoating and violence. The success and preponderance of IndoFijians in commerce and education and perception of a conspiracy to keep indigenous Fijians marginal fuelled ethnic tension in an explosive way. Perhaps one of the most misunderstood forces was the doctrine of the paramountcy of Fijian interest, the claim that indigenous Fijians had the natural right to rule and to educational and development privileges because of their indigenous status. This was no longer seen as an equity creation affirmative action project but an inalienable primordial and divine right which was reinforced by the conservative Methodist church and used by chiefs as a way of bolstering their hegemony. The Great Council of Chiefs, set up by the British as an advisory body in 1876, played a crucial role in preserving chiefly authority and encouraging ethno-nationalism. The perceived fear and distrust of Indo-Fijian domination as well as a reaction against perceived Indo-Fijian racial prejudice against indigenous Fijians further strengthened the paramountcy mind-set. The role of the military has been central in the political upheavals. The line of demarcation which separated the civilian state and the government has not been very clear because a large number of indigenous leaders

190 | The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three

Ratuva.indd 190

09/11/2012 10:21:46

FIJI’S DEMOCRATIC RENEWAL

were in the military and the military has always been seen as representing the indigenous Fijian interests. It was not until the 2000 coup that the military moved away from the pro-indigenous stance towards a more independent position. However, the paradox was that it became too “independent” for the civilian government to control. The challenge for the new constitution is how to bring the military under civilian control. Having stated these, one of the questions to be asked is: why hasn’t there been any all-out civil war in Fiji as in the Solomon Islands or even Rwanda or Kosovo? Tension in Fiji was very much limited to power contestation amongst the ethnic elites and did not necessarily trickle down to the masses. For any civil war to erupt, tension has to be bred and nurtured within the community. Relationships amongst the grassroots indigenous Fijians and Indo-Fijians was reasonably harmonious, partly as a result of the multiracial experiment of the Alliance Party after independence. Secondly, the indigenous Fijian culture has a very strong restraining, forgiving and peace-building capacity. Many Indo-Fijians looked to indigenous Fijian chiefs for support and safety at the time of the coups. Paradoxically, indigenous Fijian culture can be used for ethnonationalist mobilization and for transethnic conflict resolution. Thirdly, the reaction of Indo-Fijians in the face of aggressive indigenous ethnonationalism was not to reciprocate with force but rather to appeal to legality or migrate. The potential for peaceful integration is embedded in both communities and would go a long way in nation building. Dilemmas of the constitutional review process The election scheduled for 2014 is important not only for the purpose of internal re-democratization but also as a pre-condition for Fiji’s acceptance by the Commonwealth, which suspended it in 2009, and by the Pacific Island Forum from which Fiji was expelled in 2009.

The stages of the election process are: (1) civic education (May to August 2012); (2) Public consultations (July to September 2012); (3) Preparation of initial draft (October to December 2012), and (4) Constituent Assembly (January to March 2013). A Constitution Commission (CC) of three women and two men has been appointed and is now reviewing the constitution. It is chaired by Prof. Yash Ghai of Kenya, one of the leading constitutional experts in the world and someone with a long association with Fiji. Other members are Prof. Christina Murray of South Africa, Ms Taufa Vakatale (an indigenous Fijian), Ms Penelope Moore (a Euro-Fijian) and Prof. Satendra Nandan (an Indo-Fijian). Because of its complex ethnic configuration, South Africa has had a strong appeal to Fiji over the years and was one reason for Prof. Murray’s appointment. Although the members do not fully reflect the population of the country, the commission work has been received with overwhelming support by the military as well as supporters and opponents of the coup because it provides an opportunity to move Fiji away from the current political quagmire towards re-democratization. The Fiji Constitutional Process Decree (CPD) 2012 gazetted on 18 July 2012 formalizes the CC and provides a number of “non-negotiable principles and values”. These include: common and equal citizenry, secular state, the removal of systematic corruption, an independent judiciary, elimination of discrimination, good and transparent governance, social justice, elimination of ethnic voting, proportional representation, a voting age of 18 and the concept of one person, one vote, one value. However, the debate has been whether these non-negotiable principles should be imposed by the regime or whether principles should be left to the people to decide

through the consultation. Another issue is whether members of the Constituent Assembly should be appointed by the Prime Minister, Commodore Bainimarama, as the CPD suggests or whether it should be left to the various organizations and communities to decide. An area of tension between the CC and the government is in relation to the perception of the “independence” of the CC. In response to Prof. Ghai’s statement that there are still restrictions in place, Prime Minister Bainimarama accused the CC of listening too much to his opponents and urged them to be “completely independent”. In a political situation of political hostility and suspicion, the notion of independence becomes susceptible to politically driven and arbitrary interpretations. A possible electoral and parliamentary solution Perhaps one of the most significant issues to address for long-term stability is political representation because it has often been the trigger for ethnic tension. All the coups since 1987 immediately followed elections. The problem was the incompatibility between election results and expectations of ethnic groups. A solution would be to move away from the zero-sum system to proportional representation and power-sharing to keep ethnic mobilization and ethnic entrepreneurship at bay. One way of doing this is to have a list system where each political party is constitutionally required to put up a multi-ethnic line up which represents the national demographic distribution of 57 per cent for indigenous Fijians, 37 per cent for Indo-Fijians and six per cent for other minorities. There should also be reserved seats for women to ensure more gender balance. This ethnic and gender balance should be manifested in membership of Parliament and cabinet. This would not only provide visible and institutionalized representation based on equality and fairness, it would also make sure that every community’s concern is taken care of. It would

address indigenous Fijian fear of being politically overwhelmed and the minority groups’ and women’s fear of being marginalized. The Great Council of Chiefs, which was abolished by the regime for its support of indigenous nationalism, may still have a role as a cultural body, separated from direct political involvement. Resolving the underlying issue Perhaps one of the major issues is the distinction between state-building and nation-building. The constitutional review process is aimed primarily at institutional state-building with the assumption that having a fair and just set of institutions and norms will somehow “trickle down” and shape people’s political values and culture. While this is commendable, there really hasn’t been any attempt at nation-building through inter- and intra-community dialogue, national reconciliation and consensus-building to address tension, distrust and social disconnect within the community as a result of the 2006 coup. This should have been integrated into the constitutional review process to ensure long-term sustainability. One of the problems in the past was that after every coup, Fiji quickly moved towards elections, prodded by threats of expulsion from international bodies and sanctions. There was no time to address the fundamental tensions and fractures which led to the coups in the first place. It is important that conflict resolution mechanisms should be integrated into the constitution to ensure peaceful relations and sustainability and avoid conflict becoming public and uncontrollable. Civic education on multicultural engagement should be integrated into the education system as a way of transforming the political culture. For long-term sustainability, internally devised rather than externally imposed solutions are absolutely necessary. The current reform heralds in new hopes for a bright future. But without national reconciliation and uncertainty about the future role of the military, how long will the exuberant optimism last?

The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three | 191

Ratuva.indd 191

09/11/2012 10:22:07

THE RAJYA SABHA

THE WORK OF THE SECRETARYGENERAL OF THE RAJYA SABHA India’s “Council of States”, the Rajya Sabha or upper House of the Parliament of India, has 245 Members and 1,600 staff divided into almost 60 different sections. Heading the Secretariat of this House is a vital position in India’s democracy that requires political acumen and a wide range of abilities, including the fortitude to work extremely long days.

Dr V.K. Agnihotri in New Delhi

Dr Agnihotri was the Secretary-General of the Rajya Sabha, the upper House in the Parliament of India, from 2007 to 30 September 2012. He was Secretary for the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs from 2003 to 2005 and an Administrative Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Principal Bench) of New Delhi from 2006 to 2007.

Each Parliament around the world relies on the efficient functioning of a well organized and competent administrative body to conduct its business smoothly. The efficacy of the Secretariat, which looks after the dayto-day administration and legislative needs of Parliament, reflects the ability and resourcefulness of the head of the organization, which in the case of the Indian Parliament’s upper House, the Rajya Sabha, is the Secretary-General. The post is entrusted with a wide range of duties and functions which necessitate vast knowledge and rich experience of parliamentary procedures, practices and precedents. Role and position of the Secretary-General Each House of India’s Parliament has its separate Secretariat which functions under the direction and

control of its Presiding Officer. The Secretary-General of the Rajya Sabha functions as the head of the Rajya Sabha Secretariat and advisor to the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. As the head of the Secretariat, he or she is expected to be conversant with all matters that have a reference to the Rajya Sabha and its business, whether they relate to some constitutional issue or some procedure that should be followed in a given situation. As advisor to the Chairman in matters concerning the Rajya Sabha or its Secretariat, he is the repository of accumulated wisdom of the House, and the custodian of its culture, traditions and precedents. He is, therefore, expected to possess certain special abilities, traits, orientation and aptitude. The Secretary-General is the third most important functionary of the Rajya Sabha after the Chairman and

Dr V.K. Agnihotri.

the Deputy Chairman. He is chosen and appointed by the Chairman. In the Warrant of Precedence, he holds the rank corresponding to the Cabinet Secretary, who is the senior-most bureaucrat in the government of India. He is seated just below the Chairman’s seat in the Rajya Sabha Chamber, to be available for consultation and advice on procedural

192 | The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three

Agnihotri.indd 192

09/11/2012 10:22:53

THE RAJYA SABHA

matters. He is also assisted by competent supporting personnel of the Secretariat. In the beginning, the post of Secretary, equivalent to the Secretary to Government of India, was created for the Rajya Sabha in 1952. It was redesignated as Secretary-General in 1973 but continued to remain equivalent to the post of Secretary to Government of India. In 1990, on the recommendation of the Committee of Parliament appointed by the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha and Speaker of the Lok Sabha (India’s House of the people), the pay scale, position and status of the post of Secretary-General was made equivalent to that of the post of the Cabinet Secretary in the government of India. Appointment and privileges The Chairman of the Rajya Sabha

appoints the Secretary-General from among those who have made their mark by long years of service in the Parliament, state Legislatures or the civil services. Once appointed, if he is already in parliamentary service, he may continue in his post until 62 years of age. The Chairman in his discretion can appoint any other suitable person as Secretary-General on a contractual basis, in which case the terms and conditions of appointment would be governed by the contract. In his capacity as the Officer of the House, the Secretary-General enjoys the privileges of freedom from arrest, save on a criminal charge. He cannot be obstructed in the execution of his duty, as it would amount to a contempt of the House. The House treats as breach of its privilege not only acts directly tending to obstruct the Secretary-General or other

officers in the performance of their official duty but also any conduct which may indirectly deter them from doing their duty. He is answerable only to the Presiding Officer of the House and his action cannot be discussed inside the House.

Above: Parliament House in New Delhi, home to both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha.

Parliamentary responsibilities The work mandate of the Secretary-General falls under two main categories: parliamentary responsibilities and administrative responsibilities. Many of the responsibilities are prescribed in the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States (Rajya Sabha), but others have evolved in the form of practices and conventions. The Secretary-General’s primary responsibility pertains to the sessions of the Rajya Sabha. Whenever a session of the House is The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three | 193

Agnihotri.indd 193

09/11/2012 10:23:07

THE RAJYA SABHA

Central Hall in Parliament House where both Houses of the Indian Parliament meet together.

called, he issues, on the basis of the Summoning Order of the President, a summons to each Member to attend the session. When the President arrives to address both Houses of Parliament assembled together, the Secretaries-General, Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha, along with the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, Speaker of the Lok Sabha, Prime Minister and Minister of Parliamentary Affairs, receive the President at the gate of Parliament House and escort him or her to the Central Hall in a procession. Similarly, the SecretariesGeneral join the procession when the President departs. After the conclusion of the President’s Address, the SecretaryGeneral lays on the Table of Rajya Sabha a copy each, duly authenticated by the President, of the Hindi and English versions of the Address. This is done so that the Address forms part of and is incorporated into the proceedings of the House. According to the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States, the SecretaryGeneral is responsible for the arrangement of government business in such order as the Chairman may

determine, in consultation with the Leader of the House. He prepares a List of Business for each day of the session. He circulates the List of Business, lists of admitted questions, notices, bulletins and other papers for the use of every Member. Every notice, such as the notice of a question, motion, resolution, Bill, amendment, question of privilege, calling-attention or short-duration discussion, et cetera, has to be given by Members in writing, addressed to the Secretary-General. He communicates direct with the Minister and Secretaries of the Ministries and the departments of the government of India and Members in connection with the business of the House or any matter likely to come up in the House. He also causes to send to every Member a notice of the date for the election of the Deputy Chairman and receives notices which any Member may give proposing names for this office. In the event of a quorum not being present at the commencement of a sitting, even after the quorum bell has been rung for quite some time, the Secretary-General brings the matter to the notice of the Presiding Officer and, under his orders, informs

the Members present in the House about the time when the House will meet next. When a division takes place, the Secretary-General sets the process in motion, explains it if so directed by the Chairman and presents the totals of “Ayes” and “Noes” to the Chairman. The Secretary-General receives petitions, documents and papers addressed to or intended for the House and reports to the House petitions, et cetera received by him and admitted by the Chairman. If a Member wants to present a petition, he has to give advance intimation thereof to the Secretary-General. A Minister wishing to correct any inaccuracy in the information given in answer to a starred, unstarred, shortnotice or supplementary question or in a debate has to give notice to the Secretary-General of the intention to correct it, accompanied by a copy of the statement in that regard. For the elections to the offices of the President and Vice-President of India, it has been the established practice that the Secretary-General of the Rajya Sabha/Lok Sabha is appointed as Returning Officer. The Secretary-General causes to be prepared and published a full report of the proceedings of the House for each of its sittings, including bulletins, resumés of the business transacted and the Journal of the Rajya Sabha, apart from the complete text of the Debates of each session. The Secretary-General keeps a roll of Members of the House which must be signed in his presence by every newly elected Member before taking his or her seat. The SecretaryGeneral has the custody of all records, documents and papers of the House, committees and the Secretariat and does not permit any such paper to be taken from Parliament House without the permission of the Chairman. Communicating outside the House The Secretary-General signs messages to be sent from the Rajya Sabha to the Lok Sabha, reports to the House messages received from

the Lok Sabha and also lays on the Table copies of the Bills received through such messages, if the House is in session, or otherwise, communicates such messages to Members through a bulletin. The Secretary-General also certifies all Bills to be transmitted or returned to the Lok Sabha. In case of urgency, he authenticates Bills, in the absence of the Chairman, before they are presented to the President for assent and lays them on the Table of the House after they are assented to by the President or returned by him/her. Where prior sanction or recommendation of the President is required under the constitution for the introduction or consideration of a Bill or an amendment, the Minister or Member concerned has to communicate in writing to the Secretary-General the President’s sanction or recommendation. The Secretary-General also lays on the Table copies of the communication between the Prime Minister and the President regarding the resignation of the government. In the case of a Member resigning from the House or where a seat is declared vacant by the House, the Secretary-General causes the information to be published in the Gazette and forwards a copy of the notification to the Election Commission to fill the vacancy. When it is considered necessary to take evidence of a witness, the Secretary-General issues summons to the witness to appear before the House or a committee. Orientation courses for New Members and the media The Secretary-General organizes orientation courses for the newly elected/nominated Members in the Rajya Sabha biennially to familiarize them with various aspects of parliamentary practice and procedure. The programme consists of discussions and lectures on specific topics conducted by eminent Parliamentarians. Orientation sessions on specific topics, such as use of computers and iPads, question

194 | The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three

Agnihotri.indd 194

09/11/2012 10:23:25

THE RAJYA SABHA

hour et cetera are also organized from time to time. Owing to the need to provide better understanding to the media about parliamentary functioning, the Secretary-General has been organizing an orientation programme for media persons intermittently since 2003. The programme seeks to familiarize journalists with the conduct of business in the House and the practice and procedures being followed. This would directly help them in putting the proceedings of the House into a proper perspective in electronic and print media. Media orientation consists of lectures and panel discussions on relevant topics such as: the role of the Rajya Sabha in Indian polity, raising matters of public importance through questions and other devices, press and parliamentary privileges, the committee system in Parliament and the use of information technology in Parliament. Sessions are conducted by eminent Parliamentarians and Officers of the Rajya Sabha. The programme has been well received and well attended by the media. On one occasion, by popular demand, a “website familiarization programme” was also conducted within the orientation programme. Administrative duties The Secretary-General heads the Rajya Sabha Secretariat, under the overall control of the Chairman. Article 98 of the Constitution of India ensures the independent status of the Secretariats of the two Houses of Parliament. Clause Article 98(3) enables the Presiding Officers to have a say in the framing of rules for recruitment and conditions of service of the persons to be appointed in their respective Secretariats. The Secretary-General exercises powers vested in the Chairman, including the determination of the strength, method of recruitment and of qualifications, et cetera for the various categories of posts. He is the appointing, disciplinary and appellate authority for certain classes of officers and staff of the Secretariat.

He exercises financial powers and initiates budget proposals relating to the Rajya Sabha and its Secretariat. He is the chief accounting authority for the money sanctioned by the House for expenditure under the Demands for Grants of the Rajya Sabha and its Secretariat and this responsibility is discharged by him through and with the assistance of the Pay and Accounts Officer, who works under his supervision. The Secretary-General functions as Secretary to all the parliamentary committees serviced by the Secretariat. He either attends committee meetings himself or causes his officers to attend them. He supervises all the Secretariat work of the committees and gives directions, wherever needed. The Secretary-General also ensures that the secretarial work of the House and its committees is performed by qualified, competent and experienced officers and is organized and conducted properly and smoothly under his guidance and control. Duties of the officers are not rigid and do not fall in watertight compartments. Their duties are flexible and may be expanded or changed under the orders of the Secretary-General. Allocation of work among the officers of the Secretariat is the sole prerogative of the Secretary-General. He is assisted by a hierarchy of officers, such as Secretary, Additional Secretary, Joint Secretaries, and Directors who, with the assistance of subordinate officers and staff members, perform the entire gamut of functions of the Secretariat. The Secretary-General renders parliamentary services and facilities to Members. This duty extends to giving guidance to Members in their parliamentary work. Members of various political parties approach him for advice. To a very large extent, he has to render such services, on demand, objectively and impartially. In addition, international relations are assuming new dimensions and

parliamentary diplomacy has become quite prominent in today’s world to address security, development, environment protection, human right and other issues. Likewise, interparliamentary co-operation is also increasing. The Secretary-General represents the House in various international fora. A day in the office of SecretaryGeneral A typical day of the Secretary-General during a session starts early in the morning when he apprises himself, through scanning of newspapers, about various political, economic and social issues. He also goes through different parliamentary papers/bulletins regarding issues which are likely to come up before the Chairman, the House and in various committee meetings including the Business Advisory Committee and Leaders meeting. A day in the office is not a typical desk job of going through files and making decisions, but a long haul of meetings of committees, interaction with Members, receiving representations of officers and employees of the Secretariat, taking decisions regarding matters pertaining to the House and so on. Before the Secretary-General can call it a day, it is quite late in the night, particularly during sessions when there is no fixed closure time. To look into the SecretaryGeneral’s multifarious responsibilities, the Organization and Method (O&M) Section of the Rajya Sabha Secretariat was asked by the Secretary-General to conduct a Work Study of the Secretary-General, Rajya Sabha. The study involved collection of work sample for two weeks during a session as well as non-session periods in April 2010. In a calendar year, it was calculated that the Secretary-General, on average, works for 13 and a half hours a day during sessions while during non-session periods he works for 10 and a quarter hours a day. To make an in-depth study of the

Secretary-General’s parliamentary duties, the O&M Section again took a work sample for two weeks during non-session and session periods in February 2011. In a nutshell, the Secretary-General was found to spend just over 40 per cent of his total working hours on parliamentary duties. The most revealing feature of the work studies is the fact that almost 40 per cent of the Secretary-General’s time is spent on work generated by the administrative sections and another 20 per cent is spent on dealing with matters relating to services provided to Members. The Survey did not cover a key activity relating to writing and reviewing more than 70 annual performance appraisal reports. On the whole, the daily schedule of the SecretaryGeneral leaves very little time for substantive academic and intellectual pursuits. High-level guidance Being the Officer of the House and occupant of the apex office of the Secretariat, the SecretaryGeneral is in a unique position to comprehensively understand the manner in which the proceedings of the Rajya Sabha are conducted, the Secretariat is run and its activities are organized. The guidance and directions of the Secretary-General provide coherence and unity of command to the organizational set up. They throw light on many subtle aspects of running the House, taking care of the requirements of the Chairman, addressing the concerns of the Members, streamlining the functioning of the committees and managing the business of the Secretariat. A book entitled Instructions and Observations of the SecretaryGeneral (2007-2011) has been brought out recently by the Rajya Sabha Secretariat to serve as a handy guide to deal with many emergent situations and adopt appropriate strategies for carrying out responsibilities assigned to different officers and sections.

The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three | 195

Agnihotri.indd 195

09/11/2012 10:23:37

60TH ANNIVERSARY OF INDIA’S PARLIAMENT

THE ENDURING SIGNIFICANCE OF INDIA’S PARLIAMENT AFTER 60 YEARS As India celebrates the 60th anniversary of its Parliament, a senior official of its upper House, the Rajya Sabha, reflects on how much India and its parliamentary democracy have accomplished – and how much remains to be done.

Shri S.N. Sahu in New Delhi.

Shri Sahu serves as Joint Secretary in the Secretariat of the Rajya Sabha, India’s upper House. He is a former senior official and Press Secretary to the late President of India, Shri K.R. Narayanan, and a former Director in the Prime Minister’s Office. The views expressed here are his personal views.

Shri S.N. Sahu

The commencement of the functioning of the Parliament of India on 13 May 1952 was not only historic but also an unprecedented event in the annals of representative government in the world. Never had a country as vast and diverse as India and with such widespread illiteracy and mass poverty attempted to introduce democracy for nation-

building. Indians always were in favour of shaping their destiny by democratic means. One of the demands put forth by the Indian leadership to the British colonial authorities during the freedom struggle was the introduction of more representative institutions. Distinguished leaders from all fields were unanimous that India could be governed and, more importantly, its society could be changed along progressive lines only by democratic methods. India is proud that it has survived as a parliamentary democracy without sacrificing the rights and liberties of the people thanks to the struggle to set up parliamentary institutions which date back to the 19th century. India has marched ahead today as a democracy primarily because of the strength and support of ordinary people of this country.

A substitute for revolution By embracing parliamentary democracy India has avoided violent methods for social change. A former Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, Shri K.R. Narayanan, described Parliament “as a mighty substitute for a bloody and violent revolution”. By preserving parliamentary democracy India preserves peaceful methods of social change. India’s Parliament has embodied the vision of our leadership to peacefully transform a country which was plundered by colonial rule and which suffered from a hierarchical caste structure described by Dr B.R. Ambedkar, the principal architect of our constitution, as “graded social inequality”. It is a by-product of the vision of our leaders who sacrificed for our freedom. Shri K.R. Narayanan, a former President of India, said Mahatma Gandhi gave India’s

196 | The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three

Sahu.indd 196

09/11/2012 10:25:31

60TH ANNIVERSARY OF INDIA’S PARLIAMENT

freedom movement a moral and mass dimension, Jawaharlal Nehru gave it an economic and socialist dimension and Dr Ambedkar gave it a challenging social and democratic vision. On the occasion of the sixtieth anniversary of our Parliament, the mass and moral dimension given by Mahatma Gandhi brought ordinary citizens, particularly women, to the

fold of the freedom movement. The economic and socialist dimension of Nehru modernized India. But when the constitution was adopted, Ambedkar warned that India would have to strive for one person, one vote and one value. There is still a need to follow Ambedkar who prescribed education, agitation, organization and the constitutional and parliamentary method. On the sixtieth anniversary

of our Parliament it is important to uphold parliamentary and constitutional method. On 13 December 1946 the real work of the Constituent Assembly began when the Objectives Resolution was introduced by the first Prime Minister of India, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru, to set the objective to establish, among others, parliamentary democracy. There

Opposite page: Parliament House in New Delhi; Above: The first Prime Minister of independent India, Jawaharlal Nehru (left), with India’s political and spiritual leader, Mahatma Gandhi, pictured in 1942.

The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three | 197

Sahu.indd 197

09/11/2012 10:25:45

60TH ANNIVERSARY OF INDIA’S PARLIAMENT is another 13 December which is extremely significant for India’s Parliament. On 13 December 2001, the Parliament was attacked by terrorists who struck first on the Rajya Sabha side. Consolidating the left and democratic forces Among several other factors behind the resounding success of parliamentary democracy in India is the consolidation of left and democratic forces. These forces have always stressed a certain ideology based on common humanity cutting across faiths, castes and regions of our country. The mainstream left parties such as the Communist Party of India, Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the Forward Block always swear that there is no alternative to parliamentary democracy in India. It was through the left parties that India got the vital lessons of managing a coalition politics and government, especially important today when India has decisively entered the era of coalition politics and government.

“Let the first 60 years of Parliament inspire India to have even better parliamentary standards free from blunders.” Yet the late President Narayanan, while addressing the Kerala Assembly, outlined the role played by Shri Achutya Menon of the Communist Party of India and who headed the coalition government. He quoted Shri Menon who expounded on the reasons behind the success of his coalition government, saying a coalition government could be successful if it had a common programme, a Code of Conduct for Ministers and above all the allocation of the portfolios for the Ministers done

The President of India speaking at the 60th anniversary of the first sitting of the Parliament of India in Central Hall. Right: Dr B.R. Ambedkar.

by the Chief Minister in consultation with the leaders of the coalition. It is the legacy of consolidating the left and democratic forces that was necessary for the defence of secularism, the economic upliftment of ordinary citizens and above all for the deepening of parliamentary democracy. In south Asia, people are acknowledging that a deficit of left politics is one of the reasons behind the repeated failure of democracy in several countries. The existence of left parties is woven around certain values and ideologies. If these values and ideologies decline, the edifice of parliamentary democracy would collapse. Other movements for social

justice and equality and the economic rights of the people launched in many parts of the country also nourished India’s grand struggle for democracy. These movements were often influenced by spiritual leaders and by foreign freedom movements, such as the French Revolution. One of the finest products of India’s struggle for independence is that its Parliament has now completed 60 years. Greater representation of women While celebrating the sixtieth anniversary it is important to be mindful of the challenges India still confronts. Issues raised by the

Members of the Rajya Sabha 60 years ago are still debated now in that House and across the world: environmental degradation, climate change, water scarcity, mid-day meal schemes for students to reduce dropout rates and promote their health, sustainable development and many more issues raised in 1952 have become global issues. Resolving these issues could require more sitting days and fewer sittings lost due to disorder and pandemonium. One of the methods to make parliamentary democracy stronger and more vibrant is to ensure greater representation of women in politics and public life. When Dr Ambedkar

198 | The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three

Sahu.indd 198

09/11/2012 10:26:02

60TH ANNIVERSARY OF INDIA’S PARLIAMENT

drafted the Hindu Code Bill he wanted to empower women. That Bill could not be enacted due to determined resistance from certain quarters. Nehru had written that even though a majority of Parliamentarians wanted to pass it, they were helpless before a small number of MPs who opposed it. Eventually the Hindu Code Bill was broken into several pieces of legislation and most of those were first introduced in the Rajya Sabha to keep the legislation alive. Being a permanent Chamber, it is not subject to dissolution and any legislation introduced there does not lapse. Again in 2010 the Constitution (108th Amendment) Bill for political

empowerment, sometimes known as the Women’s Reservation Bill, to reserve one-third of all seats for women in the Lok Sabha and the state Legislative Assemblies was introduced in the Rajya Sabha and passed by the House after its repeated failure in the Lok Sabha. On the sixtieth anniversary of Parliament, the cause of gender equality remains an issue. Restoring faith in Parliament A reported decline in the faith of the people in Parliament is worrisome. It is not confined to India alone. In the United Kingdom a huge disconnect is reported between people and Parliament. Young people in particular

have no understanding about the functioning the apex Legislature. The Speaker of the House of Commons has adopted a parliamentary outreach programme to bridge the gap between Parliament and people. The Chairman of Rajya Sabha can also consider adapting such a programme to reach out to our students in schools, colleges and universities. There is greater need to make the work of Parliament and parliamentary committees more research-oriented. Members and officials do not get enough research support. The culture of reading and writing has to be cultivated by those who are in Parliament. Democracy of our country, of which we all are justly proud, has to be directly beneficial to the citizens of our country. The movement for enriching democracy is all round us. Parliamentarians have to be mindful of appropriate conduct. They have to establish high standards of behaviour. The Parliament has to reclaim the faith of our people in the democratic process. The whole nation is justly proud of its independent Election Commission. In the year 2012, the Commission is asserting its autonomy

and even appealing to the Prime Minster to preserve and protect its constitutionally guaranteed status. On 21 May 1952, Pandit Hriday Nath Kunzru said on the Floor of the Rajya Sabha: “The Election Commission should not be treated as if it were a part of the executive machinery. It should be treated in such a way as not to think that it is subordinate to the Law Ministry.” The suggestion of a Rajya Sabha Member given in 1952 sounds so contemporary today. On 3 November 1917, Mahatma Gandhi famously said: “We ought to have Parliament this very day. We are quite fit for it. We shall, therefore, get it on demand. It rests with us to define ‘this very day’”. Thirty five years later, the day was defined and on 13 May 1952 the Parliament of India started functioning. Gandhi also wrote that when Indians would have a Parliament they would commit blunders in the initial stage but they would soon rectify those blunders and find remedies for poverty. By completing 60 years India has passed the initial years. Let the first 60 years of Parliament inspire India to have even better parliamentary standards free from blunders.

The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three | 199

Sahu.indd 199

09/11/2012 10:26:21

RE-INTRODUCING HANSARD IN BERMUDA

ESTABLISHING HANSARD IN BERMUDA

Bermuda’s House of Assembly improves its transparency and its outreach to the public – and to its own Members – by re-introducing a full Hansard of its proceedings using recording software as part of a modernization programme.

Ms Shernette Wolffe in Hamilton.

Ms Wolffe is the Clerk of the Parliament of Bermuda. A former librarian and teacher, she has been Clerk since 2003. This article was written with assistance from the Parliament of Bermuda’s parliamentary information officer, Mr Derek Lamb.

The Bermuda House of Assembly, the oldest Parliament in the Commonwealth outside the British Isles, dates back to 1 August 1620. The Governor at the time, Mr Nathaniel Butler, summoned a General Assembly in the old Town of St George. Since those days, our Parliament has progressed considerably and Bermuda now has a bicameral system on the Westminster model. The most notable watershed event in the evolution of Bermuda’s Legislature occurred on 8 June 1968 when a new constitution was enacted. Members of the Legislative Council and Members of the House of Assembly elected under universal suffrage for the first time in Bermuda’s history were convened under the new system of government provided for in the constitution.

Our Parliament continues to develop. Rapidly developing knowledge-based and technologydriven societies have placed Legislatures under close scrutiny in the areas of transparency, accountability, effectiveness and fairness. The House of Assembly is no exception. Our parliamentary procedures were in need of modernization. As an initial start we revised our Standing Orders. Our Legislature also took the bold step in May 2010 to introduce a parliamentary recording and transcription service – hence the rebirth of the Hansard. Reviving the report Historically, there was a Hansard at the House of Assembly which dated back from 1887 to the 1920s.

Through research it was determined that certain debates were transcribed sporadically in the 1940s. It is not apparent why this initiative was discontinued. Traditionally, Hansard reports were transcribed by hand while the House was in session and then a report was produced on a typewriter. This process was common before technology advanced to today’s computer-based system. Demands made by civil society organizations, constituents and nongovernmental organizations in our information-based society included frequent requests for excerpts from the proceedings of the House. This necessitated us to determine that having a Hansard would be the best course of action, to evolve Parliament into the 21st century. Before the decision was made, I coincidently met Mrs Janet Seffer

200 | The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three

Wolffe.indd 200

09/11/2012 10:27:19

RE-INTRODUCING HANSARD IN BERMUDA

Opposite page: The signature limestone, water-collection rooftops of Bermuda; This page: Ms Wolffe at the Table as Clerk of the Parliament.

of Janscription International LLC at a Regional Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) Conference in Cayman Islands. We discussed the operations of a Hansard. Through that meeting we

determined that a Hansard should be re-incorporated in our Parliament. I visited other Commonwealth Parliaments of a similar size to see the functionality of their Hansards. As a result, I gained some knowledge

on how our new Hansard should operate. The execution of a Hansard has enhanced Parliament’s visibility. Members can now read their individual verbatim transcripts and,

if desired, the entire debate. Before May 2010 this was not possible; the only information accessible for MPs was from newspaper articles, broadcasting outlets and the House of Assembly’s Minutes. It was evident that members of the public were disappointed that transcripts of proceedings were unavailable. Before the implementation of a Hansard, the public and university students locally and internationally sought information regarding debates for assignments and personal knowledge. However, they were hampered by not receiving full texts of debates. The main resource available was the Minutes of the House of Assembly, which identified which Member spoke and a summary of what was agreed during the House sitting. The Minutes only gave the readers a taste of the debate, not a full-course meal. Alternatively, another system already in place proved to be archaic. This process involved dubbing an audio recording to a video tape with a backup to a digital recorder that was housed and maintained at a government ministry. The system then advanced to recording direct to the hard drive of a computer or to a compact disc. However, there were key problems associated with this system relating to extracting and reformatting audio data. Moreover, the system was unwieldy and awkward to use, the quality of the audio recording was substandard and there was no video capability. Another resource available was the live broadcasting of proceedings over a local radio channel; but this did not allow the public to listen to past sessions. The final option was for the public to physically come to the House of Assembly and watch the debates first-hand. Watching debates was a useful tool, but it was not always practical as the public are not able to take notes. Our Standing Orders permit the media to take notes but people in the public gallery are not allowed to do so. The previous methods of obtaining information were helpful, but were not what the public needed.

The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three | 201

Wolffe.indd 201

09/11/2012 10:27:35

RE-INTRODUCING HANSARD IN BERMUDA

This page: The Parliament of Bermuda. Right: Certain debates were transcribed sporadically in the 1940s but the practice was discontinued.

impact on our final decision, the four main criteria were weighted 50 per cent, 30 per cent, 10 per cent and 10 per cent respectively.

They desired a detailed report, stating every word during the debate at the House of Assembly. The Hansard was an answer to many of our prayers. Hansard Steering Committee As a result of our decision to implement a Hansard, a Hansard Steering Committee was formed which examined possible solutions for creating and properly maintaining a Hansard. The committee consisted of information technology consultants and a project manager. The Deputy Speaker at the time, Hon. Dame

Jennifer Smith, JP, MP, and I, as the Clerk to the Legislature, completed the committee. All crucial decisions were discussed and resolved through this committee. The committee received a few proposals and also met and listened to presentations from various technology providers and decided on Sliq Media Technologies as the solution of choice for the House of Assembly Hansard. Vendors were evaluated based on four key criteria: risk avoidance factors, services provided, ability to delivery,

and both short-term and long-term costs. With respect to risk avoidance we primarily considered how the vendor’s product met our business requirements, the quality of product processes, strength of personnel and quality of existing clients, the extent of product customization required, product ease of use and the vendor’s financial capability, amongst others factors. Services provided by vendors were assessed in terms of the level of product documentation, initial and on-going training and overall customer support. In terms of the

Getting started and the process The solution created by Sliq Media, known as “Harmony”, consists of several applications streamlined to support an environment needed to capture our audio stream in a digital format and then have it segmented and reviewed for the purpose of transcription. Members’ voices are recorded through a system of audio logging devices that reside on an isolated and secure network housed in a newly constructed telecommunications closet located outside of the House Chamber. Additionally, a project of this nature required the installation of computer and other technology such as servers, software and microphones. The servers were installed to house the immense amount of data, as well as store the audio files. The servers

202 | The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three

Wolffe.indd 202

09/11/2012 10:27:48

RE-INTRODUCING HANSARD IN BERMUDA

ensure all data is duplicated, just in case the system should malfunction. The maintenance of our servers is provided by Quest Consulting Ltd. The Harmony software is from Sliq Media, which is a Canadian firm based in Montreal. Their software captures audio recording for the transcribers to write each report. Additionally, all the microphones were changed to provide higher resolution for sound quality and a higher amplified voice projection. We also received immense help from the British Columbia provincial Legislature. SLIQ workflow includes: • Audio, • Annotations, • Template and • Remote Access. The Sliq workflow offers audio recording, which is held on a database. The audio files are additionally available to the

transcribers for 90 days before they are archived. Also, the workflow enables word processor integration and integrated multi-channel audio players. This enables the transcribers to listen to audio from the Speaker’s microphone or the Floor. The Harmony workflow suite empowers transcription teams to easily and efficiently collaborate on production of transcripts from audio recordings. This module can be expanded to include video streaming, high-resolution recording and more. The Hansard reports are transcribed from the audio files that are captured by the Sliq Media software. Additionally, meetings are started through their online database, which is titled the SliqStream Event Centre. Once the Sliq Scribe Annotator is started, this part of the software enables the transcribers to determine what time a Member of Parliament spoke. Additionally the Annotator operator types the Member’s title and the first five words spoken. After the transcribers have written the draft report, the “Members Proof” or “Blues”, a copy is sent to all Members of Parliament. After the document has been carefully examined by Members of Parliament and the editor, an official report is compiled into printed bound volumes, with a complete index. Previous reports can be seen on www. parliament.bm. The hurdles When the Hansard Steering Committee was established, the main goal was to implement a Hansard in a relatively short time frame. We were confronted with a few obstacles before Hansard came live. One major obstacle was the installation of the audio and networking cables. The installation was a long and tedious process, as the contracted

company had to drill through certain solid limestone walls built over 180 years ago. This endeavour took approximately one week. After the walls were properly drilled, the cables were run from the first floor through the second floor. Next, cables had to be properly terminated and connected to the microphones to ensure highresolution sound quality. Through the support of the technicians this endeavour was finally completed with no time to spare – testing started 24

“Through great perseverance, our operation continues to run smoothly and has been doing so since the implementation date.” hours before the spring session on 6 May 2010. Finally, May 2010 marked a milestone in the history of our honourable House as we took this next bold step in the modernization of our Parliament. Then Deputy Speaker Dame Jennifer delivered a special report to the House lauding the accomplishments of this special project. Although the infrastructure was in place, a Hansard style guide had to be developed. The guide was prepared to provide information and guidelines specific to Hansard production and to address certain rules of grammar such as abbreviations, citations, diacritical accent marks and sentence constructions, to name a few. The Steering Committee also agreed to launch this initiative as a pilot project for the purposes of assessing the drafts and consulting with Members to finalize all decisions required to satisfy all stakeholders with the final product. Members and the public were

pleased and continue to sing the praises of the Hansard. The Speaker of the House, Hon. Stanley Lowe, OBE, JP, MP, called the Hansard development a “quantum leap”. One of our Members expressed his delight because Hansard transcripts were unbiased and more accurate and dependable than articles in the print media as journalists sometimes misconstrued Members’ speeches. Costs for Hansard Although the Hansard project has been a costly endeavour, it has been value for money and costeffective. The total capital cost of the project, including installation of the infrastructure, was Bermudian $357,000 (the Bermuda $ equals the U.S. $). The methodology, process and procedures surrounding the production of Hansard is continually being assessed and so far, all stakeholders including Members of Parliament are very satisfied. Additionally, transcribers, an editor and proof readers of JanScription International LLC, (six in total) produce the Hansard verbatim reports. We have also decided to outsource the Hansard production as it cuts down on cost tremendously as compared to hiring a full time complement of Hansard staff. Our information technology advisors maintain the software and servers on a regular basis. A truly valuable lesson learned from the entire experience is that it is important to hire staff with technical and project management expertise and sound knowledge of Hansard systems and technology. More to do Through great perseverance, our operation continues to run smoothly and has been doing so since the implementation date. The second phase of the Hansard production is to provide audio streaming of the proceedings which is to begin in November. It is also envisaged that there will be a Hansard for the Senate as well in the near future.

The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three | 203

Wolffe.indd 203

09/11/2012 10:28:10

PARLIAMENTARY TIME

URGENCY IN THE NEW ZEALAND LEGISLATIVE PROCESS There are times when governments need to use special procedures to complete parliamentary business urgently; but a New Zealand study points to the need for tight controls and consideration of alternative procedures which do not alienate the opposition or the public.

Ms Polly Higbee, Ms Claudia Geiringer and Ms Elizabeth McLeay

Ms Higbee was a research fellow at the New Zealand Centre for Public Law in 2010. She currently works as a solicitor in Wellington. Ms Geiringer is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Law at Victoria University, while Ms McLeay served for many years as Professor of Politics at Victoria University. She is currently a Senior Research Associate of the Institute of Policy Studies.

Canada’s Conservative government was criticized in February this year for limiting parliamentary debate through the use of time allocations, the 18th time since September 2011 (CPA, “Canadian Majority Rule Returns” First Reading, no. 19, February 2012). The tension between executive governments and opposition parties as to the use of parliamentary time is a theme in all parliamentary jurisdictions, including New Zealand where a recent study of the New Zealand phenomenon of parliamentary “urgency” has been completed. What is urgency? “Urgency” has been used for over a century in New Zealand’s Parliament by executive governments. At its heart, urgency is a means by which the House’s sitting hours are extended, and certain items of government business prioritised. An urgency motion may only be proposed by a government minister, and requires a

simple majority to be passed. There is no debate on an urgency motion. Once an urgency motion has been passed, the House is “in urgency”. This means that the House sits until the business listed in the urgency motion is completed (or a Minister moves a motion allowing the House to rise). At its most benign, urgency can be used to make progress on one stage of a piece of legislation. For example, the government business listed in the urgency motion might simply be to complete a reading already underway for a piece of legislation. However, used to its full extent, an urgency motion can provide for multiple pieces of legislation to be introduced and passed through all stages in one continuous sitting of the House. The Urgency Project Following the high-profile use of urgency in the first term of the fifth National Party-led government (2008-2011) an in-depth study of

the use of urgency was carried out at Victoria University of Wellington. Information was compiled on every use of urgency from 1987 to 2010, and 19 past and present participants in the parliamentary system were interviewed for the project. The Urgency Project looked at how often urgency was being used, by which governments and in what manner. Summarised below are some of the key findings of the project. The full results of the study may be found in Geiringer, Higbee and McLeay, What’s the Hurry? Urgency in the New Zealand Legislative Process 1987-2010 (Victoria University Press, Wellington, 2011). What is urgency used for? The predominant use of urgency is to make progress – i.e. to extend the House’s sitting hours in order to complete one stage of a Bill (albeit often one stage of a number

204 | The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three

Higbee.indd 204

09/11/2012 10:28:49

PARLIAMENTARY TIME

Opposite page: Wellington Harbour; Left: The statue of the longest serving Prime Minister of New Zealand, Richard John Steddon, outside Parliament.

of bills). The data backed up what the interviewees for the project emphasised: the main reason for using urgency was to push forward the government’s agenda. By implication, urgency (despite its name) is not predominantly, or even often,

used to respond to emergencies, or to urgent, unexpected government business. One of the more concerning uses of urgency is when urgency is used in a way that skips the select committee process. New Zealand’s

select committee system, where a Bill is sent to a multi-party committee for consideration and the hearing of public submissions after the bill’s first reading, is an important check on the otherwise ‘executive paradise’ enjoyed by New Zealand The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three | 205

Higbee.indd 205

09/11/2012 10:29:06

PARLIAMENTARY TIME

The Maori Committee room in the New Zealand House of Representatives.

governments. Given New Zealand’s unicameral Parliament, some writers have suggested that the select committee process compensates for a second Chamber. Reassuringly, the use of urgency in a manner that bypasses select committee consideration for a Bill is relatively rare. However, governments are not less likely to use this type of urgency since the implementation of a mixed-member proportional electoral system (MMP) in 1996. In particular, the recent increase in the use of this

sort of urgency (20 bills passed with no select committee consideration in the 2008-2010 parliamentary term, up from four bills passed with no select committee consideration in the 2005-2008 parliamentary term) is troubling. The effect of proportional representation on the use of urgency Since the introduction of MMP, single party majority governments have given way to multi-party majority and

minority governments formed through coalitions and confidence and supply agreements. Coalition members or confidence and supply partners act as “veto-players” on executive governments, most obviously in terms of policy. However, they also have an impact on the executive’s parliamentary powers. One of the key questions the Urgency Project sought to answer was whether the move to MMP had an effect on the overall use of urgency. Accordingly, the Urgency Project focused on

the period 1987-2010, providing a snapshot of pre-MMP single party majority governments and post-MMP multi-party majority and minority governments. MMP has had a profound impact on the use of urgency. The 19871990 parliamentary term had the highest use of urgency over the period studied, with 71.8 per cent of all Bills introduced to the House accorded urgency for at least one stage of their progression through the House. By comparison, the

206 | The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three

Higbee.indd 206

09/11/2012 10:29:22

PARLIAMENTARY TIME

Although further research is needed to establish a clear pattern of division based on party lines, there is some suggestion that the varying attitudes of support parties under MMP may account for such discrepancies. By contrast to the 1996-1999 parliamentary term, there is strong evidence that the Green Party had both a practical and cultural influence on the Labour-led governments during the 1999-2002, 2002-2005 and 2005-2008 parliamentary terms. It may also be that as support parties become more practised at extracting a price for their support on procedural motions, such as urgency motions, that the use of urgency will decline even further.

equivalent percentages for the postMMP parliamentary terms surveyed range from 22.7 per cent to 55.3 per cent . However, the impact of MMP on the use of urgency has not been consistent. For example, the 1996-1999 National Party led parliamentary term (which had 55.3 per cent of all bills introduced accorded urgency at some stage) is similar to the 1990-1993 pre-MMP term, which had 59 per cent of all bills introduced accorded urgency at some stage.

Time and the legislative process One of the recurring themes of the Urgency Project was the issue of time and the legislative process; governments have a legislative agenda and find it difficult to find the parliamentary time to progress it. This raised fundamental questions about how the House operates, what is expected of MPs, why there is so much legislation, and whether the quantity of legislation is necessary. The tension between a government wanting to advance its legislative agenda, and a Legislature (or at least opposition parties) wishing to slow the agenda down, is not exclusive to New Zealand. It is difficult to make direct comparisons between Legislatures, but research into comparable Parliaments identified various tools used to expedite the process of legislation. Examples include: the use of the Main Committee in Australia to sit concurrently with the House in order to debate uncontroversial legislation; the ability to declare an “emergency Bill” in the Scottish

Parliament, and guillotine motions and programme orders in the United Kingdom House of Commons. Government tools to limit debate or fast-track legislation often attract criticism and backlash from opposition members. For example, the passage under urgency of controversial legislation centralising the local government bodies of New Zealand’s largest city, Auckland, was subject to thousands of computer-generated amendments by the opposition at the committee of the whole House stage. This filibuster-style delay tactic draws the public’s attention to the process the government is undertaking (or by-passing), although it can also have the converse effect of drawing public criticism of the opposition for being perceived to be wasting Parliament’s time. Reform in New Zealand The Urgency Project concluded by identifying two primary concerns with how urgency was being used. First, urgency was being used more frequently by certain governments to pass Bills without consideration by select committee under MMP, despite MMP dispersing power beyond one political party. Second, the benign use of urgency was combined with the controversial use of urgency. This made it difficult to identify potentially democratically troubling uses of urgency from those non-controversial uses supported by parties of all stripes. The members of the Urgency Project made a submission to the Standing Orders Committee, as part of the Committee’s triennial review of the Standing Orders. The submission made a number of suggestions for reform of the Standing Orders related to the use of urgency. Significantly, the Standing Orders Committee adopted the suggestion for a separate provision for extended sitting hours to allow progress on single stages of legislation (also proposed in 2009 by then Leader of the House, Hon. Gerry Brownlee, as a sessional order). The House voted to adopt the recommendation, and the House first used the new

extended sitting hours provision on 8 March 2012. Disappointingly, the proposal that the Speaker be required to approve any use of urgency which skips the select committee stage for a piece of legislation was not adopted as a recommendation by the Standing Orders Committee. Urgency as a procedural method for pushing forward the government’s agenda, and the responses urgency engenders in opposition parties, may contribute to a public disregard for the institution of Parliament. The public expects due process to be followed, but also that the parliamentary system will be flexible enough to allow genuinely urgent legislation to be passed without time being wasted by the opposition. Perhaps the best tool to keep all parties in check, absent stricter standing orders on the use of urgency, is an informed public and media. The complex and varying uses of urgency in New Zealand often obscure what is actually being progressed or passed in the House. It is hoped that at least by separating out the two major uses of urgency, the spotlight will more easily shine on governments whose procedural actions deserve scrutiny. Endnotes • The project was conducted under the institutional auspices of the New Zealand Centre for Public Law and the Rule of Law Committee of the New Zealand Law Society. The project was funded by the New Zealand Law Foundation, to whom the authors are grateful. • Lesley Zines, Constitutional Change in the Commonwealth (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991) at 47. • Sir Geoffrey Palmer, Unbridled Power: An Interpretation of New Zealand’s Constitution and Government (2nd ed, Oxford University Press, Auckland 1987) at 236. • For further comparisons, see the 2009 House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution report entitled “Fast-track Legislation: Constitutional Implications and Safeguards”. • See http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/Feat ures/8/7/8/00NZPHomeNews201203061How-does-the-House-extend-its-sitting-hours. htm for an explanation of the extended sitting hours provision.

The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three | 207

Higbee.indd 207

09/11/2012 10:29:44

CPA CENTENNIAL GIFTS

This superb limited-edition medal celebrating the centennial of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is now for sale on a ‘first come, first served’ basis. Approximately 4.5 centimetres in diameter, the medal features a map of the world listing each of the nine Commonwealth regions on the obverse and, on the reverse, the ‘winds of change’ centennial logo. Each medal is beautifully presented in an individual presentation box and comes complete with a numbered certificate of authenticity personally signed by the retiring Chairperson, YB Dato’ Seri Mohd. Shafie bin Hj Apdal, MP and the Secretary-General, Dr William F Shija. Only 150 of these rare medals will ever be made and they are for sale at £40 plus £7.50 postage and handling (total £47.50). Please send your payment and delivery address to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, Suite 700, Westminster House, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA, United Kingdom. Queries regarding the medal can be emailed to hqsec@cpahq.org

CPA Centennial medal advert.indd 208

09/11/2012 10:31:15

Parliamentary Report

NEWS AND LEGISLATION FROM COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTS INDIA: The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order (Amendment) BIll, 2012 Page 211

INDIA: The Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2012 Page 213

NEW ZEALAND: Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill Page 219

AUSTRALIA: Clean Energy Finance Corporation Act 2012 Page 225

AUSTRALIA: Personally Controlled Health Records Act 2012 Page 226

INDIAN PARLIAMENT COMMEMORATES THE TH 60 ANNIVERSARY OF ITS FIRST SITTING Page 210

NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT ON TRACK TO BRING DOWN DEBT LEVELS

SECOND READING ON THE HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM BILL IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

AUSTRALIA LEGISLATES TO PROCESS ASYLUM SEEKERS OFFSHORE

Page 218

Page 221

Page 224 The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three | 209

Parliamentary news report.indd 209

09/11/2012 10:32:19

PARLIAMENTARY REPORT

INDIA

PARLIAMENT COMMEMORATES THE 60TH ANNIVERSARY OF ITS FIRST SITTING A special sitting of the Parliament of India was held on 13 May 2012 to mark the 60th anniversary of its first sitting from 13 May 1952. On this occasion, both Houses of Parliament had very fruitful discussions on the theme ‘Sixty Years of Journey of the Parliament of India’. Addressing the sitting the Speaker of Lok Sabha, Smt. Meira Kumar said the discussion would add a memorable chapter in the history of Indian Parliament. She believed it was the unwavering belief of the anonymous common Indians in the system that was the key to the survival, sustenance and success of Indian democracy. The journey of 60 years had been successful because of them and it was they who decided the direction of Indian democracy. She reiterated that the Parliament of India epitomized the sovereign will of the citizens and was the supreme custodian of their fundamental rights and interests. Paying homage to the Founding Fathers of the Constitution, she said the Lok Sabha had stood the test of time and had made determined efforts in articulating and addressing the varied demands of the vast population. The first sitting of Parliament marked the beginning of an epoch of a new era of democracy. It was an unparalleled development in the long history of the country when hitherto marginalized people had an equal voice in managing the affairs of the country. The rich and the poor, the powerful and the hapless,

Smt. Meira Kumar, MP

all were given the right to vote. The Parliament had been a silent witness to the wave of revolution that changed things for good. With profound gratitude Smt. Kumar acknowledged the invaluable contributions made by past Speakers in evolving the rules and procedures for conducting the business of the House. She was happy to note that countries where democracy was in its infancy and also those where it was deep rooted wished to learn from India’s experiences. Despite ideological differences among members and their obligation to follow the party directions and try to live up to the expectations of their voters, she said that national interest should always be paramount. The manner in which the House had shown solidarity in the wars of 1962, 1965 and 1971 was an exemplary aspect of Indian democracy. The Parliament of India enacted far reaching and revolutionary legislations for establishing an egalitarian and

progressive Indian society. It had enacted nearly 3400 legislations and amended the constitution 97 times that included the landmark 73rd and 74th amendment Acts passed by the Tenth Lok Sabha. Making a mention of the increase in the number of women Parliamentarians from 21 in the First Lok Sabha to 60 in the Fifteenth, Smt Kumar said there was an earnest desire that the number might increase further. Efforts were also being made that all segments of society with their diverse socio-economic identities, ethos and genius, differences of ideas, interests, approaches and objectives received representation in the Parliament. She said the caste system needed to be rooted out as it did not go together with democracy. The Leader of the Lok Sabha and Minister of Finance, Shri Pranab Mukherjee, said the discussion would provide an opportunity to reflect on the

Shri Pranab Mukherjee, MP

situation 60 years ago and what had been achieved. The year 1952

210 | The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three

Parliamentary news report.indd 210

09/11/2012 10:32:38

INDIA was a milestone in the journey towards democracy and the story of Indian democracy was a unique one. India fought against one of the most powerful colonial powers but it was unique in the history that both the countries parted not with any hatred but with friendship. In a parliamentary democracy, it was not unusual to have confrontations and there had been confrontation in the federal structures, between the various organs of the State i.e. the Judiciary, Executive and Legislature. The House acted as a great shock absorber wherever there was such tension, dispute and dissent and over the years, a system evolved in which an amicable solution to all such confrontations was found out. He lamented that a handful of members throttled silent majority and called for a mechanism that would eliminate disruptions. Shri Mukherjee believed disrupting the House served no purpose and called for tolerance towards divergent views in the task of nation-building. The senior BJP leader, Shri L. K. Advani said becoming a great and successful

Shri L.K. Advani, MP

democracy was India’s biggest achievement and the country had been able to maintain it belying the apprehensions of all skeptics. For him reconciliation and tolerance of divergent views were the biggest virtues of democracy. There was mutual respect among people who believed in different

ideology and a way out to each and every problem could be found out through debate. The Chairperson of the ruling UPA, Smt. Sonia Gandhi (INC) said at independence and at one stroke, millions of poor and illiterate men and women, were given the power to change their

Smt. Sonia Gandhi, MP

destiny. She took pride in saying that India’s Parliament, elected by the largest electorate in the world and reflecting the aspirations of some 1.2 billion people had grown into a great representative political institution. She also took pride in the extraordinary range and content of the laws enacted by the Parliament over the last 60 years. Stating that the journey of Parliament had not always been smooth or without challenges, she said the conduct of members must rise to the highest ethical standards that were followed and demanded by the Founding Fathers of our nation. Smt. Gandhi also stressed that the integrity and independence of Parliament must be preserved and protected at all cost. Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav (SP) was happy that India was the largest democracy in the world and it was made possible due to the struggle and sacrifices made by the poor and illiterate people. Acknowledging the role played by the defense forces in protecting the country which in turn helped sustain democracy, he said the farmers, labourers and poor people were owed their dues. Shri Dara Singh Chauhan

THIRD READING: INDIA The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order (Amendment) Bill, 2012 Clause (25) of article 366 of the constitution of India defines “scheduled tribes” as tribes or communities deemed under article 342. Article 342 provides that1. The President may with respect to any State or Union Territory, and where it is a State, after consultation with the governor thereof specify the tribes or tribal communities which shall for the purposes of this constitution deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to the State or Union Territory. 2. Parliament may by law include or exclude from the list of scheduled tribes specified in a notification issued under clause (1) any tribe or tribal community, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification. In view of the above constitutional provisions, the first list of scheduled tribes in Karnataka was notified through the constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. It was further modified through the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders, (Amendment) Act, 1956, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Lists (Modification) Order, 1956, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976, the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order (Second Amendment) Act, 1991 and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 2002. At present, there are 50 communities appearing in the list of

scheduled tribes in Karnataka. To fulfill the long standing demand for considering the grant of scheduled tribes Status to the “Medara” community in Karnataka, the constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order (Amendment) Bill, 2012 was brought forward to achieve this objective. In Part VI of the schedule to the constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 pertaining to the State of Karnataka at entry 37 “Medara” was inserted after the community “Meda”. The Minister-in-charge of Bill informed Parliament that there had been a long standing demand for inclusion of Medara in the list of scheduled tribes in Karnataka. The State government’s proposals were considered favourably by the government of India, which was also supported by the Registrar General of India. Members supported the measure, but suggestions were made that the Anthropological Survey of India might prepare a final list of all the ethnic groups in India and report to NCST and the government. The Minister in his reply clarified that the Amendment Bill actually sought to correct an error that had taken place in 2002. As for the exhaustive list, the Minister stated that anthropological studies and ethnographic studies related to communities were the criteria recognized for inclusion of communities in the scheduled tribes list. The Bill was passed by Lok Sabha on 15 May 2012 and by Rajya Sabha on 21 May 2012. The Bill as passed by both Houses of Parliament was assented to by the President of India on 31 May 2012.

The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three | 211

Parliamentary news report.indd 211

09/11/2012 10:32:56

PARLIAMENTARY REPORT

(BSP) wanted the House to take a resolve to remove social and economic disparity from the country. He pointed out that the weaker sections of society were not getting due representation from the Parliament. Shri Basudeb Acharia (CPIM) argued that inequities had grown rather than diminished and unless there was state funding of elections, it would be difficult to curb the use of the money power which was influencing elections. He said starvation and illiteracy continued to be the bane of Indian democracy. Shri Anant Gangaram Geete (Shiv Sena) thanked the common people of the country, the poor, the farmers and the labourers for showing abiding faith in democracy, owing to which democracy had been successful all through these 60 years and would continue to be successful for centuries to come. He said Parliament had stood united whenever the country was attacked or ran into crisis or the security came under threat. Shri Sharad Pawar (NCP) agreed that there was a need to take some steps to alleviate poverty and to protect the interest of the farmers. Shri S.D. Shariq (J&KNC) said good words about democracy would not work unless there was a feeling of the pains suffered by the poor and serious efforts made to eradicate poverty, illiteracy, unemployment, communalism and social inequality. The Minister of State in the Ministry of External Affairs and Minister of State in the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Shri E. Ahamed (IUML) felt that a hugely diversified country like India could be held together only through democracy. Those sections of people who were disadvantaged and those who had been alienated should be given the opportunity to participate in the building of the nation. Shri P. K. Majumdar (RSP) saluted the people of India for keeping parliamentary democracy alive

INDIA and strengthening it despite of facing immense hurdles and provocations in the last 60 long years. He pressed for urgently bringing electoral reforms to keep the election process free from money and corruption. Shri Asaduddin Owaisi (AIMEIM) requested the government to begin an institutionalized dialogue between the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition to smoothly complete the outstanding agenda. He requested that members maintained the decorum and dignity of the House and not disrupt its proceedings, as well as giving adequate representation to the weaker sections, the oppressed community and the minorities. Shri Jose K. Mani (KC-M) said the laws made by Parliament in the last 60 years had far reaching impact in the society. Referring to the delegation of powers by the government to non-elected institutions, he pointed out the lack of a viable parliamentary oversight over their functioning. He suggested strengthening the committee system and devoting more time by the House for law making. For Shri Inder Singh Namdhari (Independent), keeping the country together in spite of so many languages, religions, castes and a huge population was the greatest achievement. Establishing an equitable society remained a challenge. He felt that the Speaker should be independent of the political affiliation and the impartiality of the Office of Speaker could be ensured if it was above party politics and the seat was not contested by any other political party. Dr Shashi Tharoor (INC) said the Parliament reflected India’s great diversity and embodied the idea that India was a country where differences could be transcended to find a consensus.

Only by fulfilling the needs of the people, and using the Parliament to work for the people, could the members of Parliament confront the challenge thrown by some civil society representatives who questioned the Parliament’s right to represent the people. The Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Smt. Sushma Swaraj (BJP) said so far as the journey of social thinking was

Smt. Sushma Swaraj, MP

concerned, the participation of all the sections of the society had grown in the House. As far as the journey of the political thinking was concerned, the House witnessed the change from a single political party government to coalition governments. The rise of regional political parties was the outcome of this political thinking and in the majority of States there were governments of different political parties. She, however, felt sorry that the representation of women in the House had not increased. While women were given 33 per cent reservation in local self-government bodies in rural and urban areas by passing constitution amendments bills, it was yet to be done in the Legislative Assemblies and the Lok Sabha. She hoped that the 15th Lok Sabha would be able to bring an end to this imbalance in terms of women representation. She was proud that the House stood collectively as a nation in time of crisis and that transfer of power in India had always been

through votes and not through gun and bullet. She believed challenges and problems facing the nation could be overcome by sitting together and not by launching an onslaught on democracy or Parliament. The Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, said the Lok Sabha was a true representation of the unique diversity and genius of the Indian people. The House voiced the tribulations of ordinary Indians and provided help by enacting laws that translated the social and economic ideals of the nation into practical reality. The Lok Sabha had scripted the development of the nation through debate and discourse tempered by the twin imperatives of idealism and pragmatism. The citizens were empowered by providing the Rights to Information, Education and Minimum Employment. Affirmative measures were taken to help the weaker sections of our society including the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, other backward classes, minorities and women. In times of calamity or crisis, Parliament had always demonstrated the ability to reflect the collective resolve of the nation and show solidarity with the people and the government. The Rules of Procedure and Conduct that had collectively evolved should be honoured in letter and spirit. Public disenchantment would only grow unless some ways were found to resolve the growing impasse in the functioning of Parliament. Democracy was based on the notion of a popular mandate but it should not be constructed as a populist mandate. Members had a sacred and solemn responsibility to the people who had elected them, and it must be kept in mind that the conduct and the actions the members took would determine the state of the nation, said the Prime Minister. The Speaker in her valedictory reference said this was a time

212 | The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three

Parliamentary news report.indd 212

09/11/2012 10:33:13

INDIA to reflect on the journey of 60 years and the House rose to the occasion by doing so. “Progress is not about counting milestones left behind, nor about sitting on our laurels, it is about looking up to the journey and challenges ahead with courage and determination. The proceedings of the day bear testimony to this determination and resolve”, she observed. Thereafter, the Speaker placed before the House the following resolution which was unanimously adopted: “We, the Members of Lok Sabha, meeting in a special sitting of the Lok Sabha to commemorate the 60th Anniversary of the First Sitting of Parliament: Remembering with gratitude, the immense sacrifices made by our freedom fighters in the nation’s struggle for independence, and the stellar role played by the founding fathers of the constitution in mandating equality, fraternity, justice, brotherhood of mankind and the uplift of under-privileged and down-trodden sections of society;

Dr Manmohan Singh, MP

Acknowledging with satisfaction and pride, the maturity of the people of India, who have cherished the democratic values and worked ceaselessly for the unity and integrity of the nation; Noting that in the last 60 years, the Parliament has, through epoch making laws, taken decisive steps towards ensuring equity and justice in all matters

THIRD READING: INDIA The Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2012 The Copyright Act, 1957 was enacted to amend and consolidate the law relating to copyrights in India. It was also enacted to meet with the national and international requirements and to keep the law updated. The Act has been amended five times: 1983, 1984, 1992, 1994 & 1999. The amendment in 1994 was significant given that it harmonized the provisions of the Act with the Rome Convention, 1961 by providing protection to the rights of performers, producers of phonograms and broadcasting organizations. It also introduced the concept of registration of Copyright Societies for collective management of the rights in each category of copyrighted works. The last amendment in 1999 introduced a few minor changes to comply with the obligations under the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). The government thereafter, proposed to amend the Act with the object of making certain changes for clarity to remove operational difficulties and also to address certain issues that had emerged in the context of digital technologies and the internet. The two World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Internet Treaties namely, WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT), 1996 and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), 1996 had set the international standards in these spheres. The member countries of the WIPO agreed on having the internet treaties in the changed global technical scenario and adopted them by consensus. In order to extend protection of copyright material in India over digital networks, it was proposed that the Act be amended to harmonize with the provisions of the two WIPO Internet Treaties, which India had not yet signed. Moreover, the main object for making amendments was that it was imperative to encourage creativity for the promotion of culture, enterprise and innovation so that creative people could realize their potential. Accordingly the government brought forward the Copyright (Amendment) Bill. These included: (i) Making the provisions of the Act conform with WCT and WPPT and ensuring protection to the copyright holders against circumvention of effective technological measures. (ii) Providing exclusive rights and moral rights to performers in conformity with the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT). Salient features of the Amending Bill include a change in the definition of key terms:

• “Rights Management Information” relates to the title or other information identifying the work or performance, the name of the author or performer, the name and address of the owner of rights, terms and conditions regarding the use of the rights that represents the above information but does not include any device or procedure intended to identify the user. • “Infringing copy” as a reproduction of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work or a copy of a cinematograph film made on any medium by any means or any other recording embodying the same sound recording. Other amendments accounted a change in Section 14 of the Principal Act detailing the definition of ‘copyright’. This included: • Sub-clause (i) of clause (c) of the said section relates to the exclusive right of the author in case of an artistic work to reproduce the work in any material form including depiction in three-dimen sions of a two-dimensional work or in two-dimen sions of a three-dimensional work. Section 31 of the Principal Act provides for compulsory license in works withheld from the public. If the owner of copyright in any Indian work has refused to republish or allow the republication in any media outlet, the Copyright Board may direct the Registrar of Copyrights to grant to the complainant a license. Two new sections 65A and 65B have been inserted in the Act. Section 65A deals with the protection of technological measures, while section 65B deals with the protection of rights management information. This section provides that any person, who knowingly removes or alters any rights management information without authority, or distributed, imports for distribution, shall be punishable with imprisonment and shall also be liable for a fine. It also provides that if the rights management information has been tampered with in any work, the owner of copyright in such work may also avail of civil remedies provided in the Act. The Amending Bill was welcomed by members of both Houses of Parliament. The Bill was passed in Rajya Sabha on 17 May 2012 and in Lok Sabha on 22 May 2012. The Bill as passed by both Houses of Parliament was assented to by the President of India on 7 June 2012. The copyright 1957 thus stood amended.

The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three | 213

Parliamentary news report.indd 213

09/11/2012 10:33:32

PARLIAMENTARY REPORT

INDIA

President Mukherjee after the swearing-in ceremony at the presidential house, the Rashtrapati Bhawan, in New Delhi

and establishing an inclusive society in pursuance of our deep faith and commitment to the ideals enshrined in the preamble to the constitution, and a lot more remains to be accomplished; We do hereby solemnly reaffirm our total and binding commitment to the ideals cherished by our founding fathers, and resolve: (a) To uphold and maintain the dignity, sanctity and supremacy of Parliament; (b) To make Parliament an

effective instrument of change and to strengthen democratic values and principles; (c) To enhance the accountabil ity of Government towards the people through the oversight of Parliament; and (d) To rededicate ourselves completely to the sacred task of Nation Building.” There was a discussion in the Rajya Sabha also, which was initiated by the Prime Minister. At the end of the discussion, the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha,

Shri Hamid Ansari moved an identical resolution which was unanimously adopted by the House. India elects its 13th Head of the State Shri Pranab Mukherjee was sworn in as the 13th President of the Republic of India on 25 July 2012 by the Chief Justice of India in a solemn function held in the Central Hall of Parliament. On assuming the office of the President of India, Shri Mukherjee, in his

first speech, said the principal responsibility of this office was to function as the guardian of the constitution and he would strive to preserve, protect and defend the constitution not just in word but also in spirit. He said: “Development of the country to be real, the poorest of the land must feel that they were part of the narrative of rising India and poverty must be erased from the dictionary of modern India.” Terming terrorism as the fourth world war that the international community was facing, he

214 | The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three

Parliamentary news report.indd 214

09/11/2012 10:33:52

INDIA

said that India had been on the frontlines of this war long before many others could recognize its vicious depth or poisonous consequences. The president called corruption an evil that could depress the nation’s mood and sap its progress. He affirmed that the greed of a few could not be allowed to hijack the progress of the nation. Shri Mukherjee said that the country had achieved much in the field of agriculture, industry and social infrastructure, but it was nothing compared to what India, led by the coming

generations, would create in the decades ahead. The President envisaged an India where unity of purpose would propel the common good; where Centre and State were driven by the single vision of good governance; where every revolution was green; where democracy was not merely the right to vote once in five years but to speak always in the citizen’s interest; where knowledge became wisdom; where the young poured their phenomenal energy and talent into the collective cause. He was confident that what had brought India thus far, would take the country further ahead. India’s true story was the partnership of the people. India’s wealth had been created by farmers and workers, industrialists and serviceproviders, soldiers and civilians and its social harmony was the sublime co-existence of temple, mosque, church, gurudwara and synagogue; they were symbols of India’s unity in diversity. The veteran leader took an oath to a thunderous applause and thumping of desks by those in the packed Central Hall that included Shri Ansari, Speaker Kumar, Dr Singh and outgoing president, Smt. Pratibha Devisingh Patil. Afterwards he was offered a 21 gun salute marking the assumption of office of the highest constitutional post in the country. The President of India by virtue of the office is also the supreme commander of the defense forces. Shri Mukherjee was the candidate of the ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA) and defeated the Opposition NDAbacked candidate and the former Speaker of Lok Sabha, Shri P.A. Sangma in the elections held on 19 July. The election result was declared on 21 July. The President of India is elected by an electoral college consisting of the elected

members of both Houses of Parliament and the elected members of the Legislative Assemblies of the States. Born on 11 December 1935, Shri Mukherjee was first elected to the Rajya Sabha in 1969 and became a Deputy Minister in January 1973, becoming Minister of State later that year. He was re-elected to Rajya Sabha (2nd term) in July 1975 and became Union Minister in December. In 1980, he became the Union Minister, Commerce and Steel and Mines. He was elected to that House again in 1981 (third term), 1993 (fourth term) and in 1999 (fifth term). Shri Mukherjee was elected to the Lok Sabha for the first time in 2004 and re-elected in 2009. During this long period as a member of Parliament, he held several portfolios as a Minister and was also the Deputy Leader, Congress Party, Rajya Sabha, Leader of the House, Rajya Sabha, Leader of the House, Lok Sabha and Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission. Shri Mukherjee had resigned the office of the Union Minister of Finance on 26 June 2012 to contest the presidential elections.

New parliamentary committee constituted A new Committee of both the Houses, called the Committee for Welfare of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) was constituted in June 2012. It consists of 30 members, 20 from the Lok Sabha and ten from the Rajya Sabha. The members of the Committee are elected in accordance with the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote. A Minister is not eligible for election as a member of the Committee and if a member after his election to the Committee is appointed a Minister, he shall cease to be a member

thereof from the date of such appointment. The Chairman of the Committee is appointed by the Speaker from amongst the members of the Committee. The members of the Committee shall hold office for a period of one year from the date of the first meeting of the Committee which shall be reconstituted thereafter for one year at a time. The Committee has the mandate to consider the reports submitted by the National Commission for Backward Classes set up under the National Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993 and to report to both the Houses as to the measures that should be taken by the Union Government in respect of matters within the purview of the Union Government including the Administrations of the Union Territories. The Committee is also to report to both the Houses on the action taken by the Union Government and the Administrations of the Union Territories on the measures proposed by the Committee; to examine the measures taken by the Union Government to secure due representation of the OBCs, particularly the most Backward Classes, in services and posts under its control (including appointments in the public sector undertakings, statutory and semiGovernment Bodies and in the Union Territories) having regard to the provisions of the constitution. The Committee will report to both Houses on the working of the welfare programmes for the OBCs in the Union Territories. They will also consider and report to both the Houses on all matters concerning the welfare of the OBCs which fall within the purview of Union Government including the Administrations of Union Territories; and also examine such of matters as may deem fit to the Committee or are specifically referred to it by the House or the Speaker.

The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three | 215

Parliamentary news report.indd 215

09/11/2012 10:34:07

PARLIAMENTARY REPORT

CANADA

LEGISLATION INTRODUCED FOR SAFER FOOD The last few weeks before the 2012 summer recess have seen the introduction of new legislative proposals by the Conservative government of Rt Hon. Stephen Harper, MP, the adoption of legislative proposals that have been before Parliament for years as well as forceful objection from the Opposition parties on the Budget Implementation Bill. Rt Hon. Stephen Harper, MP New legislation In 2008, contaminated cold cuts from a Maple Leaf Foods plant caused a listeriosis outbreak causing 22 deaths, and leaving more than 50 people ill in Canada. In the wake of the crisis, the government appointed an independent investigator to examine the events that had led, and the response of the government, to the outbreak, and to formulate recommendations. With the introduction of Bill S-11, the Safe Food for Canadians

Hon. Gerry Ritz, MP

Act, on 7 June 2012, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Hon. Gerry Ritz, MP, stated: “I’m

pleased to announce that as of today we have addressed all 57 recommendations made by the independent investigator.” Bill S-11 would modernize the legislative and regulatory system for food commodities. It consolidates the Fish Inspection Act, the Canada Agricultural Products Act, the Meat Inspection Act, and the food provisions of the Consumer Packaging and Labeling Act. It also aligns inspection and enforcement powers across all food commodities. Maximum fines provided by these Acts would be increased from $250,000 to $5,000,000. Another government legislative proposal introduced shortly before the 2012 summer recess was Bill C-43, the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act. This proposal is aimed at facilitating the removal of dangerous foreign criminals from Canadian soil, and making it harder for foreigners who pose a risk to enter the country. On 20 June 2012, the day the Bill was

presented, Hon. Jason Kenney, MP, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, stated: “These measures are tough but fair. We want an immigration system that is open to genuine visitors, while at the same time prevents the entry of foreign criminals and denies them the ability to endlessly abuse our generosity.” Bill C-42, the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) Accountability Act, was

Hon. Jason Kenney, MP

also introduced late this June. This proposal would modernize the RCMP disciplinary process by establishing, among other things, an independent Civilian Review and Complaints Commission to investigate complaints made against the RCMP. The Minister of Public Safety, Hon. Vic Toews, MP, said: “The RCMP is recognized around the world as a symbol of who we are as Canadians, and what we value: professionalism, honesty, integrity and compassion. However,

216 | The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three

Parliamentary news report.indd 216

09/11/2012 10:34:27

CANADA

Bill C-42, the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) Accountability Act was introduced in June 2012, to modernize the force’s disciplinary process. Canadians’ confidence in the RCMP has been tested over the past few years and this legislation will ensure that the RCMP is fully accountable for its actions and is open and transparent in its service to Canadians.” Copyright reform The Canadian Parliament enacted a copyright reform act that had been long overdue to adapt Canadian copyright legislation to 21st century realities. In 2005, the previous government led by former Prime Minister, Rt. Hon. Paul Martin, proposed the first initiative to overhaul

Hon. Vic Toews, MP

the Canadian copyright regime and align it with the necessities

of today’s digital world. This initiative, as was the case with the 2008 and 2010 attempts from the Harper government to reform copyright legislation, had failed to be adopted by Parliament. In 2012, the “new” majority Harper government succeeded in having Bill C-11, the Copyright Modernization Act, adopted by Parliament. The Act will notably implement the rights and protections of the World Intellectual Property Organization Internet treaties. The 2012 Budget Implementation Bill The legislative proposal that monopolized most of the parliamentary debates and attention this spring was once again Bill C-38, the Budget Implementation Act (2012), also entitled the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act. The majority of the Harper Government in both the Senate and the House of Commons left little doubt as to the adoption of this Bill, but the Opposition had sworn to do everything it could to stop or defer this proposal. Bill C-38 is more than 400 pages long, and amends 70 statutes.

The Bill proposes substantial amendments touching on various and unrelated subjects such as the environment, natural resources and human resources. For example, the Bill streamlines the environmental assessment system, increases the retirement age from 65 to 67 years, and makes changes to legislation so that the pennies, which will be removed from circulation, keep their status as legal tender. The omnibus character of the Bill incensed the opposition parties who unsuccessfully tried to have the Bill divided in separate parts. The Bill was, however, referred to a number of parliamentary committees as opposed to one single committee, which is usually the case with an ordinary piece of legislation. In the House of Commons, Bill C-38 was referred to the Standing Committee on Finance as are all budget implementation Bills. The portion of the Bill that dealt with natural resources was sent to a subcommittee of the Finance Committee for examination. The Senate also undertook a prestudy of the Bill, a mechanism that entitles the Senate to refer a Bill that is still before the House of Commons to a Senate committee for examination. Contrary to normal practices,

Ms Elizabeth May, MP

the pre-study of Bill C-38 was referred to six committees. The Bill in its entirety was referred to the Committee on National

Finance, but specific parts of C-38 were referred to the Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, the Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, the Committee on National Security and Defence, the Committee on Transport and Communications, and finally the Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. The Opposition delayed as much as it could the adoption of Bill C-38. In the House of Commons, it forced the government to propose time allocation motions for the second reading, report, and third reading stages. At the report stage, which permits the introduction of amendments to the Bill in the House, the Opposition introduced 871 amendments to Bill C-38; Ms Elizabeth May, MP, Leader of the Green Party of Canada and its only elected Member in the House, led the charge by introducing more than 300 amendments. All proposed amendments were defeated, but only after the Opposition forced a recorded division on each group of amendments, which triggered a 24-hour voting marathon in the House. Bill C-38 received Royal Assent on 29 June 2012. The spring Royal Assent ceremony also saw four private Members’ Bills receiving Royal Assent by the Governor General: Bill C-278, the Purple Day Act: aiming at increasing public awareness about epilepsy; Bill C-288, the National Flag of Canada Act, encouraging the display of the National Canadian flag; Bill C-310, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, making various amendments to the criminal law offences relating to trafficking in persons; and Bill C-311, An Act to amend the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act, allowing personal importation of wine from a province to another.

The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three | 217

Parliamentary news report.indd 217

09/11/2012 10:34:44

PARLIAMENTARY REPORT

NEW ZEALAND

GOVERNMENT ON TRACK TO BRING DOWN DEBT LEVELS

Hon. Bill English, MP

On 24 May 2012 the Minister of Finance, Hon. Bill English, MP, delivered his fourth Budget, in which he stated that the government was “on track to post an operating surplus in 201415, when we will start bringing debt down to prudent levels”. However, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr David Shearer, in moving an amendment expressing no confidence in the government, said that Mr English

Rt Hon. John Key, MP

had “delivered a Budget that has the worst growth in 50 years, has 50,000 people going to Australia,

has delivered 50,000 more unemployed, and has 50,000 more people on benefits, costing us $1 billon. That is a zero growth Budget, a zero hope Budget, and a zero reason Budget for staying here in this country”. The Prime Minister, Rt Hon. John Key, MP, countered by saying that to believe Mr Shearer’s contention that New Zealand was not doing very well on a relative basis “you have to

a range of economists, over the next three years New Zealand will grow faster than the United States, the United Kingdom, the entire eurozone, Canada, and Japan. In fact, we will be growing at the same rate as the minerally very wealthy Australia over the next three years”. Dr Russel Norman, (Co-Leader, Green) called the Budget a “zero hope Budget” and said that the National government was “slowly grinding middle and lower income earners into the ground while giving generous tax cuts to the wealthiest. The current account deficit, the key marker of whether we are living within our

Mr David Shearer, MP

live on ‘Planet Labour’. On ‘Planet Labour’ New Zealand was not in recession in 2008. We did not have an overpriced housing market that was getting out of control; we did not have an export sector that had been in recession for five years. “On ‘Planet Labour’ the global financial crisis never happened. On ‘Planet Labour’ the Christchurch earthquakes never happened. The trouble is that that will not wash with anyone, because back in the real world New Zealanders actually know what is going on. According to

Dr Russel Norman, MP

means, is currently running at four per cent of GDP, and Treasury is projecting it to increase to nearly seven per cent by 2016. This one simple fact is an unmistakable sign of an imbalanced economy that is becoming only more imbalanced. “One of the most fiscally reckless parts of [the] Budget is National’s signature policy

218 | The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three

Parliamentary news report.indd 218

09/11/2012 10:35:04

NEW ZEALAND of asset sales. After driving the government books deeper into deficit with irresponsible topend tax cuts and poor-quality spending, [Prime Minister] John Key now tells us that we have to sell our assets to cover the fiscal hole that he created. In fact, asset sales make the government deficit worse and the national accounts worse. “The casino owners, the miners, the property speculators, the oil companies, those who pollute waterways or our atmosphere—they are all doing really well under John Key’s watch, but National has turned its back on the belief that we are all in this together”.

Hon. Gerry Brownlee, MP

Hon. Gerry Brownlee, MP, Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, expressed surprise about “the apparent lack of worry from other side of the House about New Zealand’s financial situation, and absolutely no recognition that there is throughout the world a crisis going on. New Zealand’s economy is one per cent of the world’s economy. We are like a little leaf on a large, tumultuous ocean that is being battered by a hurricane. “We are keeping our head up as a nation—no question about that—in quite a remarkable way. But for there to be a denial that the turmoil in the rest of the world’s economic activity is somehow not going to affect New Zealand is, I think, an abdication

of any chance of ever leading this country to any sort of economic better position”. However, Hon. David Parker,

Hon. David Parker, MP

MP, (Labour) responded that “John Key and the National Party always blame Christchurch or Greece for New Zealand’s problems. Greece and Europe have problems. Outside of Greece and Europe, average growth in the world has been 1.5 per cent per annum since National has been in government. Over that same period New Zealand has grown under one per cent—not one per cent per annum, but one percent in three years.” Hon. Clayton Cosgrove, MP, (Labour) said “If you are in business you would label

Hon. Clayton Cosgrove, MP

[government Members] as nuts. … They have a plan that flicks a few dollars—a lot of dollars—off the old folks, a few dollars off the youngest and most vulnerable, and flogs off our assets

THIRD READING: NEW ZEALAND Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill The Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill, a Member’s Bill in the name of Mr Michael Woodhouse (National)—originally introduced by Hon. Amy Adams, MP, (National)— had its third reading on 27 June 2012, and was passed with unanimous support. Mr Woodhouse explained that the Bill would “provide increased transparency and public accountability for professional third-party collectors who are in the business of collecting funds on behalf of registered charities”. He acknowledged the costs of raising funds, but noted: “a trend has emerged where fund-raising organizations are used by charities to assist with the collection process.” For that reason “those donating money do have a right to be given accurate information about the proportion of those funds that are retained by those groups”. Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga (National) said: “There is concern that a disproportionate percentage of donated money is retained by thirdparty collectors to cover their costs, and that the members of the public making those donations are not quite aware of this. “The concern has actually led to members of the public not donating, because of grave concern that their moneys are not going to the causes for which they are intended. “Media reports have shown that it is not uncommon for some collections to actually retain up to 90 per cent of moneys donated by the public.”

Hon. David Cunliffe, MP, (Labour), saying that the Bill “addresses an area of concern for the public, and that is why we are supporting it”. He explained that “the Bill was rewritten in the Commerce Committee to enable regulations to be made relating to disclosure by fundraisers making requests for charitable purposes. Currently there are no rules on what has to be disclosed, except that no misleading or deceptive statements may be made”. Mr David Clendon (Labour) called the regulatory approach involving ministerial discretion “the best available outcome”, and Mr Denis O’Rourke (New Zealand First) described the areas of regulation in the Bill: “Those include regulations for prescribing requirements for disclosure of information about the fundraiser, about the charitable organization itself, and about the relationship between those two parties, which can be very different in nature. “Also included are the financial benefits the fundraiser would receive, directly or indirectly, from the process, the amount of the donation included in the price of goods and also how the disclosure will take place, and how the financial benefit must be calculated and expressed. Finally included is the financial benefit that the fundraiser would not be required to disclose.” Dr Jian Yang (National) stated his belief that the Bill “will help restore faith in charities, which rely heavily on the kind generosity of New Zealanders, and ensure that their good work continues and that consumer rights are fully protected”.

The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three | 219

Parliamentary news report.indd 219

09/11/2012 10:35:22

PARLIAMENTARY REPORT

needlessly. And with their own logic they have not been able to sell that one to the public; 80 per cent of New Zealanders say: “We do not want our assets sold.”

Hon. Tony Ryall, MP

NEW ZEALAND seen in 100 years”. Mr Joyce said the partial asset sale programme would “raise between $5 billion and $7 billion to invest in highpriority infrastructure that will help grow our economy, important social infrastructure like schools and hospitals”. The Bill was split into two Bills, the State-Owned Enterprises Amendment Bill and the Public Finance (Mixed Ownership Model) Amendment Bill. Hon. Tony Ryall, MP, (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) moved their third readings on 26 June, and promised: “this government will maintain majority New Zealand control of these companies through its legislated 51 per cent

On 29 May the amendment expressing no confidence in the government was lost by 57 votes to 63. Part-privatization of energy assets The purpose of the Mixed Ownership Model Bill was to enable the sale of up to 49 per

Hon. Winston Peters, MP

Hon. Steven Joyce, MP

cent of the interests in four energy companies that are presently fully owned by the State. Moving the second reading of the Bill on 14 June, Hon. Steven Joyce, MP, (Minister for Economic Development) described the policy underpinning the legislation as “part of a wider economic programme to reduce debt, increase savings, and get our country through one of the worst economic crises the world has

shareholding, with a 10 per cent cap on any other shareholder.” He said the government expected that “85 per cent to 90 per cent of these companies at float will be owned by New Zealanders.” Mr Ryall responded to Opposition concerns about higher electricity prices, saying “what really matters is the level of competition, not the ownership.” He stated: “In 14 of the 21 power regions, the private companies are the cheapest.” However, Dr Norman argued: “There is actually very limited competition in the sector, so it is very easy for these companies to extract super-profits out of the electricity market. So the naive belief that we hear from the government that somehow perfect competition will lead

to lower prices is simply not true, and the evidence is to the contrary.” Long-serving Member Hon. Winston Peters, MP (Leader, New Zealand First) said: “The worst part is that we have been here before … Look at Telecom. It was sold for $4.25 billion in 1990, and delivered dividends to its foreign owners and its new owners of $15 billion. Nearly $9 billion of that went overseas.” Mr Cosgrove warned: “Once these assets are gone, they are gone. National Members try to bluff people by saying that they are going to buy other assets. They are going to buy schools and the odd bridge. Here is the problem with that, of course: you sell a revenue-generating asset, you buy a non - revenuegenerating asset, and at some point the money runs out. “What the government fails to tell New Zealanders is that, yes, you save $266 million in debt-servicing costs but you give up $360 million per annum in dividends. That is a loss to the New Zealand taxpayer of 100 million bucks.”

here, and New Zealanders understand this”. Ms Moana Mackey (Labour) commented that government Members “like to say that this is a great opportunity for mum and

Ms Moana Mackey, MP

dad investors. Well, mum and dad investors already own these companies. Most mums and dads I know are more concerned about how they are going to pay the power bill than trying to buy the power company. That is how out of touch the [National government] is”. Te Ururoa Flavell (Maori Party) said: “Let me make it clear that we strongly oppose the removal of the four state-owned enterprises from the StateOwned Enterprises Act, and the proposal to sell 49 percent of these important Crown assets, until historical Treaty settlements are concluded with all claimants who wish to include these assets in the redress package.” The Bills passed by 61 votes to 60.

Mr David Bennett, MP

But according to Mr David Bennett, MP, (National) “the public out there need to understand that there has been a distinction between capital and income dividends, and that you have seen the Opposition using a higher figure to inflate its argument. “The returns will still be taxable

Te Ururoa Flavell, MP

220 | The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three

Parliamentary news report.indd 220

09/11/2012 10:35:41

UNITED KINGDOM

SECOND READING OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM BILL On 9 July 2012 the House of Commons spent the first of two days debating the Second Reading of the House of Lords Reform Bill. The House of Lords currently comprises 765 active Peers and 51 on leave of absence or disqualified from taking up their entitlement to sit. The majority of Peers are appointed, either by the political parties or (for independent or “cross-bench” Peers) the House of Lords Appointments Commission. A further 89 Peers are elected by and from among those holding hereditary peerages. Finally, 26 Bishops of the Church of England are entitled to sit in the House of Lords. The government’s Bill would have replaced the current composition of the House of Lords with a Chamber 80 per cent of whose Members would be

Rt Hon. Nick Clegg, MP

directly elected by a proportional voting system. The process would be a gradual one, with changes

introduced over three electoral cycles. Most Members of the Lords would be elected for nonrenewable 15-year terms. The remainder would be appointed by the House of Lords Appointments Commission, by the government in order to serve in ministerial office or be one of 12 bishops who would retain their entitlement to sit. All three of the major political parties entered the last election with some form of commitment in their manifestos to make progress on House of Lords reform. The coalition agreement between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats contained a commitment to “bring forward proposals” for a wholly or largely elected body. The government published a draft Bill in the previous Session. A joint committee of both Houses reported on the draft Bill on 23 April 2012 – several Members of the committee dissented from the committee’s report and produced an alternative, more critical, report. The Queen’s Speech which opened the 2012/13 Session of Parliament in May 2012 committed the government to bring forward a Bill to reform the composition of the House of Lords. The Bill was introduced into the House of Commons on 27 June 2012. Opening the first day of debate for the government, the Deputy Prime Minister, Rt Hon. Nick Clegg, MP, (Liberal Democrat) said: “The House of Lords is an

institution that offers its Members a job for life; an institution that serves the whole of the United Kingdom, yet draws around half its Members from London and the southeast; an institution in which there are eight times as many people over 90 as there are people under 40; an institution that has no democratic mandate—none whatsoever—but that exercises real power. The House of Lords initiates Bills, it shapes legislation and, as governments of all persuasions know, it can block government proposals too. These reforms seek to create a democratic

Rt Hon. Sadiq Khan, MP

House of Lords, matching power with legitimacy.” Mr Clegg went on to argue that a reformed second Chamber would give the House of Lords “more authority to hold governments to account — a greater check on executive power. That does not mean emboldening the Lords to the point that it threatens the Commons…but it does mean bolstering its role

as a Chamber that scrutinizes government. It means forcing governments to treat an elected upper Chamber with greater respect”. Finally, the Deputy Prime Minister argued that the current arrangements of appointment to the House of Lords were unsustainable. He observed that “very simply, after a general election, new governments will always seek to reflect the balance of the vote in the Lords. But it is impossible to get rid of Members: the only way to leave is to die. So new administrations inevitably have to make more appointments to get the balance right. The current membership is 816. That will soon be over 1,000. Clearly, the status quo is unsustainable.” Speaking for the opposition, the Shadow Sectary of State for Justice, Rt Hon. Sadiq Khan, MP, (Labour), began by saying “I admit that while the country is stuck in a double-dip recession and millions are still out of work, this would not have been my priority if I were sitting on the government Benches, but unfortunately we cannot set the government’s priorities, and we are where we are.” He went on to say that he was “a supporter” of House of Lords reform, but described the Bill as “a bit of a mess”. The Shadow Secretary of State made a number of criticisms of the Bill, including arguing that a referendum should take place before the changes would be confirmed. He went on to say: “We have made it clear

The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three | 221

Parliamentary news report.indd 221

09/11/2012 10:35:55

PARLIAMENTARY REPORT

that we will be voting to give the Bill a Second Reading; we

Rt Hon. Sir Malcolm Rifkind, MP support the principle of reform of the House of Lords. As the government have decided to introduce this Bill, our job is to respond. We will oppose where we think things are not right and we will support them when we think they are the right thing to do.”

Mr David Heath, MP

However, Mr Khan indicated that the Labour Party would oppose the “programme motion” that the government had proposed for the Bill. The programme motion would have allowed 10 days of debate on the Bill in a Committee of the whole House. However, Mr Khan argued “a fixed period of time for the committee stage will not allow proper discussion of all 60 clauses and 11 schedules, and consideration of new clauses”. The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, Mr David Heath, MP, (Liberal Democrat),

UNITED KINGDOM pressed Mr Khan on how long he considered would be needed to scrutinize the Bill. Mr Khan did not give a figure, but concluded by saying “the government are not only trying to deprive the public of their say in the matter by not giving them a referendum, but seeking to deprive the people’s representatives of the chance properly to scrutinize the Bill”. The first Backbenchers to speak were two former Foreign Secretaries, Rt Hon. Sir Malcolm Rifkind, MP, (Con) and Rt Hon. Margaret Beckett, MP, (Lab). Sir Malcolm opposed the Bill, saying “the Bill is a puny measure. It is unwelcome and it will do far more harm than good to our constitutional structures and to the good government of this country. “The Bill will lead to the departure — the expulsion — of the vast majority of Cross Bencher and specialist Members of the upper House. We have been extremely well served by several hundred of our most distinguished citizens — industrialists, trade unionists, academics, diplomats, churchmen of many faiths, leading members of the armed forces — all of whom have carried out the task of revision, and only a small fraction of them can remain under these provisions.

Mr John Thurso, MP

What are we to replace them by? Essentially, it will be a sham democratic Chamber, consisting overwhelmingly of Members who

would rather be in this Chamber and who will be elected under a party list system that is an insult to the electorate.” Mrs Beckett also opposed the measures. She saw an elected second Chamber as a threat to

Rt Hon. Margaret Beckett, MP

the supremacy of the House of Commons. She stressed that she supported some further reform to the upper House – the abolition of the remaining Hereditary Peers and the introduction of Lord (David) Steel’s (Liberal Democrat) Bill to allow Peers to retire or be expelled for failure to attend or for certain offences. However, she went on to say that “in my years in the House I have never supported the establishment of a second House to second-guess this Chamber”. She argued that it would be impossible to defend the primacy of the Commons on, for example, finance and taxation if the second House were elected. She also argued that using a party list system for elections would amount to an extension of party patronage and that any change would require a referendum. Mr John Thurso, MP, (Liberal Democrat), supported the government’s Bill. He spoke of his own experiences of the House of Lords from his time there as a hereditary Peer and made two arguments in favour of reform. First, he argued that the Lords was not working as a scrutiny body. Other Members had referred

to the number of amendments made in the Lords against the government’s wishes as an example of effective scrutiny. He argued: “As we all know, when an amendment that is made in the other place arrives here we are told that the Lords have asked us to think again but, as they are not legitimate or elected, let us, the legitimate and elected House, strike it down.” Secondly, he rejected the argument that electing the Lords would impact on the primacy of the Commons. Instead, he said “for 50 years the ability in this House, and in Parliament as a whole, to hold the government to account has been diminishing. For me, the Bill is primarily about the primacy of Parliament as a whole. It is not a zero-sum game. Increasing the legitimacy of the Lords will increase the legitimacy of Parliament as a whole.”

Rt Hon. Alan Johnson, MP

The former Home Secretary, Rt Hon. Alan Johnson, MP, (Lab), also supported the reforms, whilst arguing for a referendum. He said: “I do not agree with Walter Bagehot’s comment that the cure for admiring the House of Lords is to go and look at it, but neither do I agree with the constant stream of self-regard that comes from those on the other side of Central Lobby about how it is the greatest, most expert revising Chamber ever to be devised in the world. They have certainly been very expert at preserving the status

222 | The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three

Parliamentary news report.indd 222

09/11/2012 10:36:15

UNITED KINGDOM quo. However, the consensus that we have been inching towards says that the status quo is indefensible in a modern, 21st century democracy, and that view is reflected in the proposals in the Bill.” Mr Chris Bryant, MP, (Lab) was also critical of what he saw as potential conflicts of interest between the professional backgrounds of many Peers and

that will be less expert, less diverse and more expensive

Mr Conor Burns, MP

Mr Chris Bryant, MP

their role in scrutinizing legislation relevant to their interests. By contrast Mr Jesse Norman, MP, (Conservative), criticized many aspects of the Bill. He argued that the government had ignored many key recommendations of the Joint Committee on the draft Bill. He urged the House to oppose both Bill and programme motion, “the Bill is a hopeless mess; it is in no sense a piece of Conservative legislation; it lacks any genuine manifesto commitment; it proposes a new upper Chamber

Mr Jesse Norman, MP

than the present one, let alone one after sensible reforms; and the issue is absolutely irrelevant to the overwhelming need to put out the fire in the economic engine room. I shall be voting against it and I would venture to suggest that the Bill is such that all MPs, Conservative or not, have a constitutional obligation to vote against it.” Mr Conor Burns, MP, (Con), resigned his position as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in order to vote against the Bill. He argued that “I want to start with this simple assertion: the House of Lords works. It does its job effectively as a revising Chamber, not as a rival Chamber, and that is demonstrated by the number of amendments made to our legislation in the Lords which we choose to accept here in the Commons.” The former Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Rt Hon. Hazel Blears, MP, (Lab), was also critical of the Bill. She saw the idea of 15-year terms as undemocratic and election by party list as promoting patronage by centralized parties. She argued that it would be better to abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a unicameral system. The second day of debate on the Bill was opened by the Leader of the House, Rt Hon. Sir George Young (Conservative).

He informed the House that, “we have listened carefully to the debate so far, confident that we will get a significant majority on Second Reading tonight. “But for Lords reform to progress, it needs those who support reform to vote for reform and to vote for that reform to make progress through this House. It is clear that the opposition are not prepared to do that, so we will not move the programme motion tonight”. Without the programme motion, the amount of time allowed for debate on the Bill in committee would be unlimited – potentially leaving it open to being talked out. Many Members interpreted the government’s announcement

Rt Hon. Hazel Blears, MP

as effectively conceding defeat on the Bill. Mr Pete Wishart, MP, (Scottish National Party) asked

Mr Pete Wishart, MP

“should we not just go home? The Leader of the House knows it

is all over; government Members know it is all over. We have more important things to debate and decisions to make today. Let us just say, ‘enough is enough,’ and

Ms Angela Eagle, MP

call the whole shooting match off.” The Leader of the House rejected this argument, saying that the government would re-examine its plans over the summer and come back with a proposal in the autumn. The Leader of the House also criticized the opposition, claiming that “before we had even tabled the programme motion, the Labour opposition said that they would vote against it”. The Shadow Leader of the House, Ms Angela Eagle, MP, (Lab) rejected this argument, saying “this government seems to spend so much time on inter-coalition diplomacy, however, that they keep forgetting to work with Her Majesty’s Official Opposition, and on issues of constitutional change, that is an insult and a mistake”. At the end of the debate, the Bill received its Second Reading by a vote of 462 in favour to 124 against. However, without the programme motion its fate remained uncertain. Indications over the summer have been increasingly that the government will choose not to move ahead with the Bill in the autumn, choosing instead to use the parliamentary time freed up for other legislation.

The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three | 223

Parliamentary news report.indd 223

09/11/2012 10:36:28

PARLIAMENTARY REPORT

AUSTRALIA

PARLIAMENT LEGISLATES TO PROCESS ASYLUM SEEKERS OFFSHORE In June 2012 the Australian Parliament was in deadlock over the legislative solution for dealing with the rising increase in asylum seekers. The matter has become critical because asylum seekers are risking their lives on the dangerous boat journeys to Australia. From 2001 to June 2012, 964 asylum seekers and crew have been lost at sea on boats carrying asylum seekers. Of this number, 604 people have lost their lives since October 2009. On 28 June, as a result of the parliamentary deadlock, the Prime Minister, Hon. Julia Gillard, MP, established an Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers, comprising Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston AC, AFC (Ret’d), Professor Michael L’Estrange AO and Mr Paris Aristotle to develop a way forward that would address the challenges that Australia faced over the short, medium and longer term. On 13 August the Expert Panel released its report containing 22 recommendations. Air Chief Marshall Houston said that the “panel believed the prospect of further losses of life at sea was one that demanded urgent and decisive action on the part of the Australian Government”. Some of the key proposals of the panel included recommending that Australia’s humanitarian programme be immediately increased to 20 000 places per year; that bilateral cooperation on asylum seeker issues with Indonesia be advanced; that Australia continue to develop its

vitally important cooperation with Malaysia on asylum issues; that a capacity be established in Nauru as soon as practical to process the claims of irregular maritime arrivals (IMAs); and that a capacity by established in Papua New Guinea (PNG) as soon as possible to process the claims of IMAs. In addition, the panel proposed that a ‘no advantage’ principle should apply whereby irregular migrants gain no benefit by choosing to circumvent regular migration mechanisms. In order to support regional processing, the panel recommended that legislation to support the transfer of people to regional processing arrangements be introduced in the Australian Parliament as a matter of urgency. The panel stated that “this legislation should require that any further designation of a country as an appropriate place for processing be achieved through a further legislative instrument that would provide the opportunity for the Australian Parliament to allow or disallow the instrument”. Upon the release of the report, the Prime Minister indicated that the government “has determined to endorse in principle, all of the recommendations of Angus Houston’s report”. In particular, Ms Gillard indicated that the government would introduce amendments to its current Bill before the Parliament. Ms Gillard stated that “those amendments will be to enable us to commence processing arrangements on

Nauru and on PNG. They will be amendments in the form recommended by Angus Houston. That is, amendments that enable the Parliament to make a determination about each country that becomes part of an offshore processing arrangement”. Ms Gillard stated that “I am prepared to further compromise from the government’s position in order to get things done. When our nation looks at what’s happening at sea as people attempt dangerous journeys to Australia, too many lives have been lost. And I’m not going to play politics or look at political scoreboards when too many lives have been lost”. On 14 August the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Hon. Chris Bowen, MP, advised the House of Representatives that the government would introduce amendments as foreshadowed by the Prime Minister. Mr Bowen indicated that he had discussed the opposition’s concerns with the Shadow Minister for Immigration, Mr Scott Morrison, Picture caption here MP, that “a legislative instrument should be prospective as well as retrospective and that there should be accountability in instances where a legislative instrument is tabled or prepared in circumstances where the House is not sitting or where the House is not able to consider the matter before the instrument is acted upon”. Mr Bowen advised that he and Mr Morrison had agreed on the amendment and

224 | The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three

Parliamentary news report.indd 224

09/11/2012 10:36:44

AUSTRALIA that, therefore, the Opposition would support the legislation and in affect guarantee its passage through Parliament. The Leader of the Opposition, Hon. Tony Abbott, MP, commended Mr Bowen and Mr Morrison for reaching agreement. Mr Abbott stated that “I thank the government and the Prime

Minister for finally, after four long years, accepting one critical element in the opposition’s policy to stop the boats. This has been a long, long time coming but if something is worth doing it is worth doing belatedly. It is worth this Parliament taking the time to pass the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore

Processing and Other Measures) Bill and to ensure that offshore processing at Nauru and Manus Island, which should never ever have been abolished, can begin again”. Mr Abbott noted that “as a result of the climb-down by the government, by the Prime Minister and by the minister, the legislation that this parliament is

now debating is effectively the opposition’s Bill, and that is why the opposition enthusiastically supports it”. Mr Abbott commented that “after 22,000 illegal boat arrivals, after almost 400 illegal boats, after tragically almost 1,000 deaths at sea and after $4.7 billion has been blown because of the government’s

THIRD READING: AUSTRALIA Clean Energy Finance Corporation Act 2012 The Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) will manage a $10 billion fund dedicated to investing in clean energy. The Minister for Energy Efficiency and Climate Change, Hon. Greg Combet, MP, stated that “the Gillard government has passed historic reforms to build a clean energy future which will strengthen the economy and protect our environment. The CEFC is a key part of the government’s plan. It will encourage private investment and help overcome financial barriers to commercialising and deploying cleaner energy technologies”. Mr Combet noted that the transformation of the economy will be most notable in the electricity sector. He commented that “it is expected that the sector will over time move away from coal fired generation to more renewable generation, with renewable energy growing from 10 per cent to 40 per cent of the generation mix by 2050, and conventional coal fired generation falling from 70 per cent to below 10 per cent; however, this will be a gradual transition”. The Minister stated that the CEFC “will facilitate increased flows of finance into the clean energy sector to support this transformation, removing barriers that would otherwise prevent the financing of projects”. The CEFC will receive $2 billion per year for five years from 2013-14 through the special appropriation in the legislation. The corporation will also be provided with three years of funding through the annual appropriation bills to assist with the establishment and operations of the corporation. The corporation is expected to be self-sustaining once mature. The CEFC will be managed by an independent board comprised of experts in areas such as banking, finance, economics and energy markets to ensure a robust and rigorous organization. The CEFC is an extension on the government’s carbon pricing legislation. As a result, the opposition were opposed to the CEFC legislation. During debate in the Senate, the Shadow Assistant Treasurer, Sen. Mathias Cormann, stated that the CEFC legislation “is part of the Labor-Greens carbon tax—the carbon tax we were promised before the last election that we would not get; about which the Prime Minister said five days before the last election there would not be a carbon tax under the government she led”. Senator Cormann noted that “now we have a massive carbon tax which will push up the cost of everything—electricity, the cost of living and the cost of doing business in Australia—which will make us less competitive internationally, which will shift jobs and emissions overseas, which will lead to lower real wages and which will have a $1 trillion impact on our economy between now and 2050”. Sen. Cormann described the CEFC as a $10 billion slush fund. He commented that “this is effectively another $10 billion in expenditure from a

government that have already delivered $174 billion worth of accumulated deficits and $145 billion worth of government net debts, and this is a government which in part because of this bill before the Senate today will have to seek the approval of the parliament to yet again lift the debt ceiling—on this occasion to $300 billion”. Senator Cormann noted that the Coalition was opposed to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation “because it is a complete waste of taxpayers’ money. There are precedents around Australia, example after example around Australia, which demonstrate very clearly why this sort of approach of governments picking winners—putting billions and billions of dollars taxpayers’ money on the line, pursuing ventures that essentially only have a very small likelihood of success—is a very bad idea”. He noted that “the government have never come across a bad idea that they did not want to fully embrace. When the government come across a bad idea which is likely to cause the loss of taxpayers’ dollars, they fully embrace it and try to make it law”. Senator Cormann commented that “we know that it is the Greens who have really been the power behind all of these bad initiatives that have come out of the government around carbon pricing and the clean energy slush fund and the like”. The leader of the Australian Greens, Senator Christine Milne, commented that “we are living in an era of revolution in energy and, contrary to the remarks of Senator Cormann, those who get ahead of the game are the ones who will profit most”. Senator Milne reminded the Senate that “in the Australian context, the Australian Greens have said clearly that global warming is a catastrophic circumstance that will lead to enormous costs to us as we proceed through this century”. She stated that “the opportunity is to transform the economy as quickly as possible to sever the link between economic growth and adverse environmental impact and resource depletion. It is time now to look at a future based on an investment in education and training and innovation, at a future which is transformative, that transforms Australia so that we power ourselves with renewable energy”. Senator Milne stated that “Senator Cormann talked about a so-called slush fund and about billions thrown out of the door. There is $7.2 billion thrown out of the door every year in Australia and Senator Cormann is a big supporter of that. They are fossil fuel subsidies: $7.2 billion a year thrown out the door in order to keep the coal-fired generators and the gas industry and so on operating”. She concluded that the Greens want to “depoliticise the provision of commercialisation support for new renewable energy and clean energy technology”. Senator Milne noted that the CEFC will be a statutory authority independent of government.

The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three | 225

Parliamentary news report.indd 225

09/11/2012 10:37:25

PARLIAMENTARY REPORT

border protection failures, the Prime Minister has finally seen the sense in what the opposition has been proposing all along and she has indeed picked up the phone to the President of Nauru—at last”. In the Senate the Leader of the Australia Green, Sen. Christine Milne expressed her party’s opposition to the legislation. Senator Milne commented that “I think it is a tragedy in Australian

AUSTRALIA public life that we have got to the point where the government and the coalition are trying to outdo each other on the level of cruelty and punishment they are prepared to inflict on refugees who are seeking asylum in our country”. Sen. Milne argued that the notion of seeking to deter asylum seekers-refugees from coming to Australia is flawed. She stated:

THIRD READING: NEW ZEALAND Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records Act 2012 The Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records Act provides for any Australian to register for an e-health record and they will be able to choose the settings for who can access those records and the extent of that access. The then Minister for Health, Hon. Nicola Roxon, MP, commented that the legislation “prescribes the circumstances in which e-health record information can be collected, used or disclosed and imposes civil penalties for knowing or reckless unauthorized collection, use or disclosure”. The Minister advised that “the Australian Information Commissioner will be the key regulator for the system and will have the capacity to conduct audits, commence investigations and impose a range of sanctions, accept enforceable undertakings and investigate complaints”. Ms Roxon concluded that “many people may see this system and legislation as being about technology. That is a mistake. It is about health care. It is about helping patients and doctors to prevent, cure and treat, and it uses technology to do that”. During debate in the Senate, the Shadow Minister for Ageing, Sen. Concetta Fierravanti Wells

advised that the Coalition will not be opposing the legislation. She indicated that the Coalition has a strong record on delivering on e-health noting that under the Howard Government “computerisation of general practice increased from 17 per cent in 1997 to 94 per cent in 2007”. She stated that “the Coalition has always supported the concept of shared electronic health records. Indeed, it was the Coalition that originally started the focus on a shared electronic health record”. However, Sen. Fierravanti-Wells noted that “unfortunately, despite the focus and direction that was established under the Howard government towards e-health, Minister Roxon and the Labor Party’s implementation of the system since taking government in 2007 has received severe criticism from industry for its poor management of the programs being developed. She noted that a Senate Committee inquiry into the legislation identified four key areas of concerns namely “functionality and interoperability of the system; confidence of consumers and clinicians in the proposed e-health system; governance and conflictsof-interest problems in the system designed to hold the health records of every Australian; and risk and patient safety”.

“Why are we putting in place this notional view of deterrence when we are talking about people who are genuine refugees? No amount of punishment that we give people is going to be worse than the situation from which they have run”. Sen. Milne further commented that “nobody is talking about open borders. What we are talking about is lifting the humanitarian intake to recognize that, when there are periods of war and persecution around the world, there is an increase in the number of people seeking asylum. “Australia, the land of the fair go, the generous country, takes less than two per cent of the world’s refugees, and yet we feel like we have to deter them because suddenly we are going to be overcome by this two per cent of the world’s refugees,” she said. On 16 August the legislation passed the Senate and was assented to on 17 August. Australian Green Party Leader step down On 13 April 2012 Sen. Bob Brown resigned as Leader of the Australian Greens and indicated that he would resign from the Senate in June. Sen. Brown was elected to the Australian Senate for Tasmania in 1996 and had a remarkable career as an advocate for the environment and human rights issues. Sen. Brown commented that “I have been contemplating parliamentary retirement for some time. I started 10 turbulent years in the Tasmanian Parliament beginning with the Franklin River blockade in 1983, and ending with the very successful Labor-Green accord of 1989-92: witness Tasmania’s Freedom of Information laws, economic reforms, educational outcomes and 650,000 hectares of new World Heritage wilderness.” Sen. Brown noted that “there have been 12 exciting years in

the Senate with the Greens since Tampa, defending international law on refugees and leading calls for self-determination in Timor, Tibet and West Papua. “We have spearheaded political action for the MurrayDarling Basin and other rural lands threatened by dams and mining, the nation’s wild forests and marine ecosystems, the Northern Territory’s right not to have a nuclear waste dump, the Kimberley, the Great Barrier reef, the Traditional Owners’ plea to protect the wild rivers flowing to Lake Eyre, and every city’s need for bikeways and pedestrian amenities and fast, clean, cheap public transport”. Sen. Brown concluded: “It is now time for me to hand on leadership to the experience and talent of my colleagues. I am, after all, 67. I want to leave of my own volition, content that the Greens will stay in good hands”. He advised that the “Party Room unanimously elected Sen. Christine Milne as Leader. Christine has been my great colleague and friend for the past 25 years and she will be a fantastic Leader of the Australian Greens”. Sen. Milne was elected to the Australian Senate for Tasmania in 2004. She was previously elected to the Tasmanian Parliament in 1989 and became the first woman to lead a political party in Tasmania in 1993. In selecting her as Leader, the party highlighted Sen. Milne’s “deep policy knowledge about climate change and her unparalleled experience with power-sharing minority governments led to the establishment of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee and its successful negotiations to design the Clean Energy Future package which will place innovation, opportunity and clean energy at the forefront of the transformation of the Australian economy for the 21st century.”

226 | The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three

Parliamentary news report.indd 226

09/11/2012 10:37:44

THE CPA ORGANIZATION

CPA ORGANIZATION Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Executive Committee and Secretariat, and Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians Steering Committee

CPA Executive Committee PATRON: H.M. Queen Elizabeth II (Head of the Commonwealth)

VICE-PATRON: H.E. Jacob Zuma (President, South Africa)

Officers President: Hon. Mninwa Johannes Mahlangu, MP (Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces, South Africa) Vice-President: Rt Hon. Cavaye Yeguie Djibril (Speaker of the National Assembly Cameroon) Chairperson of the Executive Committee: Rt. Hon. Sir Alan Haselhurst, MP (United Kingdom)

Rt Hon. Henry Chimunthu Banda, MP (Speaker of the National Assembly, Malawi)

Sen. Helen Polley (Tasmania)

Hon. Elijah Okupa, MP (Uganda)

BRITISH ISLANDS AND MEDITERRANEAN

Sen. the Hon. Chief Letapata Makhaola (President of the Senate, Lesotho)

Dr Pambos Papageorgiou, MP (Cyprus)

Hon. Abel Stronge, MP (Speaker of Parliament, Sierra Leone)

Deputy Michael George O’Hara (Guernsey) Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods, MP (United Kingdom)

Hon. Cletus Avoka, MP (Majority Leader, Ghana)

CANADA Vice-Chairperson of the Executive Committee: Dr Nafisa Shah, MNA (Pakistan)

ASIA

Treasurer: Hon. Marwick Khumalo, MP (Swaziland)

Hon. Rana Muhammad Iqbal Khan, MPA (Speaker of the Provincial Assembly, Punjab, Pakistan)

Chairperson of the CWP: Hon. Alix Boyd Knights, MHA (Speaker of the House of Assembly, Dominica)

Hon. Abdulla Shahid, MP (Speaker , The People’s Majlis , Maldives)

Regional Representatives

Hon. Dale Graham, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, New Brunswick )

Dr Nafisa Shah, MNA (Pakistan)

Mr Russ Hiebert, MP (Canada)

CARIBBEAN, AMERICAS AND ATLANTIC AUSTRALIA Hon. Fiona Simpson MP (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Queensland)

AFRICA Hon. Asser Kuveri Kapere, MP (Chairperson of the National Council, Namibia)

Hon. Gene Zwozdesky, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Alberta)

Hon. Barry House, MLC (President of the Legislature Council, Western Australia)

Hon. Julianna O’Connor-Connolly, JP, MLA (Deputy Premier, Cayman Islands) Dr the Hon. Kendal Major, MP (Speaker of the House of Assembly, Bahamas)

The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three | 227

CPA Organization.indd 227

09/11/2012 13:35:07

THE CPA ORGANIZATION BRITISH ISLES & MEDITERRANEAN

Hon. Hendrick Alexander, OBE, MP (Speaker of the House of Assembly, St Vincent and the Grenadines)

SOUTH-EAST ASIA Hon. Dato’ Seri DiRaja Syed Razlan Syed Putra, MLA (Perlis,)

Mr Andrew Tuggey (Parliament of the United Kingdom)

INDIA

Dr Lam Pin Min, MP (Singapore)

CANADA

Shri Sardar Harmohinder Singh Chatha (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Haryana)

Hon. Wee Choo Keong, MP (Malaysia)

Mr Blair Armitage (Parliament of Canada)

Hon. Kiyanilie Peseyie, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Nagaland)

CPA Regional Secretaries

CARIBBEAN, AMERICAS & ATLANTIC

TBC (India)

AFRICA Dr Thomas Kashililah (Parliament of Tanzania)

PACIFIC Ms Moana Mackey, MP (New Zealand )

ASIA Mr Dhammika Dasanayake (Parliament of Sri Lanka)

INDIA Shri T.K. Viswanathan (Parliament of India)

AUSTRALIA Mr Andres Lomp (Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia)

Suite 700, Westminster House, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA, United Kingdom Tel: (+44-20) 7799-1460 Fax: (+44-20) 7222-6073 Email: hq.sec@cpahq.org Secretary-General: Dr William F. Shija Director of Communications and Research: Mr Andrew Imlach Director of Administration and Finance: Mr David Broom

PACIFIC Ms Amy Brier (Parliament of New Zealand)

Hon. Ludwig Scotty, MP (Speaker of Parliament, Nauru) Lord Fakafanua (Speaker of Parliament, Tonga)

Ms Heather Cooke (Parliament of Jamaica)

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Secretariat

SOUTH-EAST ASIA

A full listing of the CPA Branch Directory can be found at: www.cpahq.org.

Mrs Roosme Hamzah (Parliament of Malaysia)

Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians: Steering Committee CANADA Ms Myrna Driedger, MLA, (Manitoba)

PACIFIC

PRESIDENT

ASIA

TBC (South Africa)

Hon. Sagufta Yasmin, MP (Bangladesh)

CHAIRPERSON

AUSTRALIA

CARIBBEAN, AMERICAS AND ATLANTIC

SOUTH-EAST ASIA

Hon. Alix Boyd Knights, MHA (Speaker of the House of Assembly, Dominica)

Ms Lisa Baker, MLA (Western Australia)

Hon. Glenys Hanna-Martin, MP (Bahamas)

Hon. Dato’ Noraini Ahmad, MP (Malaysia)

BRITISH ISLANDS AND MEDITERRANEAN

INDIA

AFRICA Rt Hon. Rebecca Kadaga, MP (Speaker of the Parliament, Uganda)

TBC (2012-2015)

Hon. Elizabeth Burain, MP (Bougainville)

Smt Chandresh Kumari Katoch, MP (India)

228 | The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three

CPA Organization.indd 228

09/11/2012 13:35:21

CPA SHOP CPA pens

Silver-plated photoframe, clock and pen in holder

CPA silver-plated cardholders

Inside back cover.indd 37

09/11/2012 13:33:04

GOT YOUR COPY?

THE PARLIAMENTARIAN

To subscribe to The Parliamentarian, please email pirc@cpahq.org. Members of Parliament: Please contact your Branch Secretary.

Outside back cover.indd 168

09/11/2012 13:31:34