Wantoks,
Just to give West Makirans a glimpse of how your MP is performing on the floor of Parliament, I am attaching a first hand observation by one of the leaders of Solomon Islands, the Attorney-General, commenting on Waipora's manner and level of debate in Parliament. Read the article and make your own observations.
Dega
Wednesday, 10 March 2010 10:01
DEAR EDITOR – The Parliament Bills and Legislation Committee discontinued its review of the Timber Development and Marketing Authority Bill (TDMA) on Friday 5th March 2010 upon being informed that the Cabinet had resolved to withdraw the Bill to allow further time for more public consultations.
I listened to a short segment of the review on that day when the representatives of the local timber buyers appeared before the Committee.
I enjoyed listening to the witnesses who spoke about the world of timber marketing until I heard the familiar voice of Hon. Waipora.
The segment of the discussion revolved around the stated objects and reasons of the Bill upon an impromptu question by Hon. Oti. The objects and reasons are threefold, namely:
(a) to establish an authority for the purpose of timber development and marketing;
(b) to facilitate, promote and encourage down-stream processing of timber by communities;
(c) to ensure that communities get maximum benefit from their timber resources.
As I listened, I heard Hon. Waipora made defamatory remarks against the person(s) who drafted the Bill.
That would be the AG Chambers. That stunned me because the issues discussed at that Committee hearing were all policy issues, especially on timber marketing, and nothing turned on legal or legislative drafting issues.
Hon. Waipora remarks had no relevance at all to the productive discussion on the Bill.
Hon. Waipora can easily find better and relevant vocabularies in the English dictionary fitting for use by seasoned politicians and diplomats.
In a particular country, Parliament is literally translated as “House of the Wise”.
Our Parliamentary word, i.e Parliament, does not have the same translation, but nonetheless, it is expected that our MPs speak with wisdom, and so must find wisdom.
Hon. Waipora should have known by now that the AG Chambers does not deal with policy matters although it may, from time to time, be asked to advise on legal aspects of a policy.
In any event, I cannot see the need for a politician to make such thoughtless remarks against our Chambers or any public officer.
The relevant function of the Committee is to “review all draft legislation prepared for introduction into Parliament”.
That function does not give any member of the Committee any right at all to slander any person, whether a public officer or a member of the public.
If Hon. Waipora was of mind that the Parliamentary Privilege and Immunities enjoyed by our MPs gave him the right to make such remarks, may I inform him now that the ultimate object of such Privileges and Immunities is the survival of free institutions like Parliament.
The Privileges and Immunities enable the Parliament to carry out its functions effectively, hence ensures its survival.
Hon. Waipora’s remarks was neither vital to the effective performance of the Committee’s function nor the survival of the Committee.
The Parliamentary Privileges and Immunities have two aspects, namely, freedom of speech and freedom from impeachment or court proceedings.
He will, therefore, do well to know that the Privileges and Immunities are not rights to slander but rather protections against criminal prosecutions and civil suits.
The Privileges and Immunities are not swords or stones he could use to slaughter or stone anyone he likes.
On another matter, Hon. Waipora even told those who appeared before the Committee (local timber buyers representatives) that the Committee had power to stop the Bill from proceeding to Parliament.
I thought I heard another Committee member said that as well.
I do not know where the Committee derived the power from for the Parliamentary Standing Order 71 merely empowers the Committee to make a written report to Parliament on its observations and recommendations arising from its deliberations.
The Parliament can accept or reject the Committee’s report, or part of it, but the Committee has no power at all to stop the Bill from proceeding to Parliament.
The Committee will have to recommend an amendment to the Standing Order before it can have such power.
In the meantime, Hon. Waipora’s reading of the Standing Order is not only wrong but is also contrary to the statutory function of the Committee, i.e to make report to Parliament.
Hon. Waipora need not search in vain for such power now because the Cabinet had resolved on Thursday 4th March that the Bill be halted for further study and consultation.
The public need to know that the AG Chambers does not undertake public policy consultations but may attend if invited by a Ministry to explain a Bill to stakeholders consulted by the responsible Ministry.
Gabriel Suri
Attorney General
[source: http://www.solomonstarnews.com/viewpoint/letters-to-the-editor/3702-waipora-on-tdma-bill]
No comments:
Post a Comment