The Parliamentarian 2010: Issue Two - Good Governance: How governments can impact the future?

Cover:Layout 1 09/07/2010 11:05 Page 1

TheParliamentarian Journal of the Parliaments of the Commonwealth

2010 | Issue Two XCI | Price £12

GOOD GOVERNANCE:

How good – or bad – governments can impact the future of a country PAGE 118

PLUS Giving “public service” new meaning PAGE 122

Governance and democracy “Norfolk Island style”: At risk again?

PAGES 130

Yukon’s selfgoverning first nations

Branch spotlight: Eastern Cape Provincial Legislature

PAGES 134

PAGE 150

Inside front cover1:Layout 1 09/07/2010 11:16 Page 37

Calendar of Events 2010

July 12-16: 3rd International Parliamentary Conference on Climate Change, London, United Kingdom 14-16: Commonwealth Whips Meeting, Sydney, Australia 23-31: 35th Regional Conference of The Caribbean, the Americas and the Atlantic, Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago 24-31: 41st African Regional Conference, Mpumalanga, South Africa September: 10-19: 56th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference, Nairobi, Kenya October: 17-23: 8th Canadian Parliamentary Seminar, Ottawa, Canada 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.

Kenya ad:3-col feature 09/07/2010 14:23 Page 105

56

COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARY CONFERENCE NAIROBI, KENYA 10-19 SEPTEMBER 2010 TH

“PARLIAMENT AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE 21 CENTURY: THUS FAR AND BEYOND” ST

Contents:Layout 1 09/07/2010 09:21 Page 106

CONTENTS

2010: ISSUE 2 140

134

Journal of the Parliaments of the Commonwealth Vol. XCI 2010: Issue Two 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

Bad things happen: Risk management in the public sector

Yukon’s selfgoverning first nations

Giving “public service” new meaning

Resolving the energy crisis

Parliamentary government matters – for better and for worse Page 108

View from the Chair

Parliamentary democracy and freedom.

Page 110

View from the CWP Democracy remains undemocratic.

Page 112

View from the Secretary-General Migration and the Commonwealth.

Page 114

Assistant Editor: Lisa Leaño Front cover Clockwise from top: Sweden, Cuba, Singapore and Cambodia Images: Shutterstock® Printed in England by Warners Midlands, PLC, The Maltings, Manor Lane, Bourne, Lincs PE10 9PH 106 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two

Rt Hon. Mike Moore, ONZ Page 118

Lord Harries of Pentregarth.

Page 122

Faith in Politics: Rediscovering the Christian Roots of our Political Values Lord Richard of Pentregarth.

Page 124

Democracy between elections: Politics 2.0

Dr the Hon. Carolyn Bennett, MP. Page 126

Governance and democracy “Norfolk Island style”: At risk again?

Hon. Robin Eleanor Adams, JP, MLA. Page 130

Hon. Marian Horne, MLA. Page 134

Mr Humayun Akhtar Khan.

Page 138

Why internet governance matters Rt Hon. Alun Michael, MP. Page 140

The Elders Parliament – reaching out to older people Miss Danielle O’Neill.

Page 144

Women in the fight for the leadership Mr Neil Iddawala.

Page 148

Branch spotlight: Eastern Cape Provincial Legislature Mr Herlu Smith.

Page 150

Contents:Layout 1 09/07/2010 09:22 Page 107

162

150

NEWS Tasmania’s tied election Page 154

The essential characteristics of the Clerk of Parliament Mr S.N. Darkwa.

Page 156

Reorganizing the Clerk’s department Mr Paul Grice.

Page 158

Debating parliamentary privileges in India Shri Satish Kumar.

Page 162

Parliamentary news: Australia, Sri Lanka, Canada, United Kingdom, India, New Zealand and British Columbia Page 171

BOOK REVIEW House of Commons Procedure and Practice Second Edition

PROFILE Profile on Swaziland: Supplement included as an insert with this issue.

Annual subscription (four issues) UK: £36 post free.

Worldwide: £38 surface post £44 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.

Ed. by Ms Audrey O’ Brien and Mr Marc Bosc.

Page 168

Promoting sustainable forest management

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two | 107

Inside Issues:Layout 1 09/07/2010 09:25 Page 108

INSIDE ISSUES

PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT MATTERS – FOR BETTER AND FOR WORSE The Editor’s note

How often is it said that governments – and therefore Parliaments – don’t matter anymore in this globalized world where international business and intergovernmental regulators control everything? Too often, says the author of this issue’s first leading article, far too often – especially because it is completely wrong.

Government, says Rt Hon. Mike Moore, matters; it matters a lot. Debunking the international myth that globalization has swept domestic governance aside, the former Prime Minister of New Zealand says good government and a good Parliament are essential contributors to the development of a country. As a former Director General of one of the big intergovernmental regulators which many think run everything, the World Trade Organization, Mr Moore is ideally placed to assess development requirements. Good transparent government through a fully accountable and democratic Parliament is the difference between development and the lack of it, he says, pointing to examples of countries whose people have suffered from bad governments.

Speaking earlier this year to a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association-World Bank Institute seminar on financial scrutiny run by La Trobe University’s Public Sector

Governance and Accountability Research Centre, Mr Moore stressed that good governance requires good parliamentary oversight. Without it, bad things happen. This refreshingly simple message is repeated in this issue as Mr Moore encourages all Members to remember that conducting public business to benefit the public good will reap dividends for their countries.

Conducting it any other way won’t.

The myth that good or bad government makes no different to development is the first of two international myths debunked in this issue, the second coming later from a Member of the British House of Commons.

First, however, a parallel message to Mr Moore’s follows in the next two articles in this issue, both contributed by Lord Harries of Pentregarth. The former Church of England Bishop of Oxford, who now sits in the United Kingdom House of Lords, argues that it is not only public business that should be conducted for the benefit of the public good, but Members and bureaucrats should also conduct themselves in the pursuit of the same end. Writing in the aftermath of the U.K. Parliament’s “expenses scandal” which left Members of both Houses tainted by accusations of financial self-interest, Lord Harries calls for the revival of the “public

108 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two

service” motivation and points out this is equally true for private sector professions. In addition to his article written specially for this issue, we publish an excerpt from his new book, Faith in Politics. Lord Harries notes that the concept of devoting a professional life to public service for the betterment of others has its British roots in Christian values. Non-Christians throughout the Commonwealth parliamentary community will find similar values in other religions or philosophies as no creed has a monopoly on doing the right thing – nor a monopoly on doing the wrong thing, one reason why parliamentary oversight is so important for all governments.

One recent step in the evolution of parliamentary democracy was the expansion of the information flow between Members and the people. A Member of the Canadian House of Commons, Dr the Hon. Carolyn Bennett, MP, writes in this issue that the next evolutionary step is already being taken: “information” is growing into “involvement”. It is no longer enough, she says, to keep voters informed and to give them the means to voice their concerns.

People now want to see their views reflected in what their Parliamentarians and governments do and say. One of the key drivers in this new trend drove the previous trend and stimulated the

new trend: information and communications technology.

Fortunately, Dr Bennett explains, technological advances in communications created a need and supplied Members with the tools to meet it. We see later in this issue how technology is not always this helpful.

Hon. Robin Adams, JP, MLA, earlier this year replaced her career as a parliamentary Clerk with one as a parliamentary Member and was immediately elected by her legislative colleagues in Norfolk Island as their Speaker. She now finds herself presiding over a House whose role, she says, is under threat from the government of Australia. Norfolk Island is Australia’s smallest self-governing territory with its own distinctive identity, one that Ms Adams says most islanders would like to perpetuate through their local form of consensus government. Internal selfgovernment is being reassessed now partly because the island has been having economic problems. However, Ms Adams writes in this issue about the advantages she sees in maintaining its own form of government instead of being swallowed up by governance from Canberra which she fears will be the result if selfgovernment is curtailed.

Inside Issues:Layout 1 09/07/2010 09:25 Page 109

INSIDE ISSUES

Self-government is also an issue for people on the other side of the world, the First Nations of Canada’s northern Yukon Territory.

In the Yukon, however, the current movement is to expand it, not contract it. Hon. Marian Horne, MLA, a Member of the Yukon Legislative Assembly and its Minister of Justice and Minister Responsible for the Women's Directorate, elaborates on the expansion of internal selfgovernment within the territory to First Nations aboriginal people, including her own Teslin Tlingit First Nation. Internal selfgovernment of their lands and communities across Canada is contributing to the development of the country’s aboriginal peoples.

Ms Horne explains how selfgovernment works in the Yukon, including the relationship between the First Nations and their territorial government and Legislature.

The Yukon experience demonstrates one way to blend a traditional governance form with modern parliamentary-based governance. Members of the Parliament of Swaziland note this is exactly what has been happening in their southern African nation in recent years as it has reformed its Tinkhundla system of non-party consensus governance.

The Parliament and its Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) successfully hosted the CPA Executive Committee in mid-May, so to mark that contribution to Commonwealth parliamentary relations we publish with this issue a special “Profile” on Swaziland.

Hon. Prince Guduza Dlamini, Speaker of the House of Assembly, opens the “Profile” with an explanation of the Tinkhundla system. The relationship between Swaziland’s Parliament and its traditional leadership under H.M. King Mswati III and the country’s chiefs is different from the Westminster-style of government.

But Mr Speaker Dlamini argues that the parliamentary and

traditional systems work together co-operatively to provide stable good governance for the Swazi nation.

Despite the country’s record of stable growth, there was pressure for change around the turn of the millennium so a constitutional review was undertaken, including consultations with communities around the nation. A new constitution was then drafted and it came into effect in early 2005.

HRH Prince David, a former senior Minister who chaired the drafting committee, assesses here whether the changes have met the needs of the Swazi people so far, with some changes still to be fully implemented.

One thing that did not change in the new constitution was Swaziland’s bicameral system. The President of the Senate, Sen. the Hon. Gelane Zwane, explains why a bicameral parliamentary structure is so important for the nation, despite its relatively small size and the homogeneity of its people. One of its important roles, she notes, is to provide parliamentary involvement for the country’s traditional leadership.

Sen. Zwane, herself an Acting Chief for a time, stresses the importance that Swazis give to including traditional leaders in their parliamentary system.

The Senate also opens parliamentary doors to others who can contribute their special expertise but who may not be drawn to electoral politics. Prof.

Lydia Makhubu, a leading University of Swaziland academic, certainly falls into the special expertise category. A chemist who sat in the Senate, she writes here about principles which she says underpin both the Tinkhundla and parliamentary systems.

Finally, Swaziland’s geographic position surrounded by much larger neighbours South Africa and Mozambique does not isolate it from the need to improve its environment. Climate change is a top priority for Swaziland so Hon.

Siphiwe Kunene, MP, a former manager with the country’s large sugar refiner who came to Parliament in 2008 but already chairs its Agriculture Committee, describes the steps her country is taking to use its resources, including its energy supplies, sustainably.

Returning to the journal, energy use is also examined by a leading Pakistani opposition politician, Mr Humayun Akhtar Khan, who argues that Pakistan is not making the best use of its power generation potential, considering what he sees as its potential to produce the energy required by the country and its industries.

Returning to information technology and to debunking international myths, a United Kingdom Parliamentarian tackles another issue that many say cannot be affected by national governments: internet governance. Rt Hon. Alun Michael, MP, joins Mr Moore in debunking an international myth as he calls for a concerted effort by governments and MPs, working in various partnerships, to make internet governance work. The approach has worked and its future is before the United Nations this year.

One of the most innovative events in the promotion of parliamentary democracy in recent years occurred in May in Yellowknife, the capital of Canada’s Northwest Territories. The Speaker of the territory’s Legislature, Hon. Paul Delorey, MLA, launched an Elders Parliament, a special event similar to a Youth Parliament but for the territory’s older generation.

The Elders Parliament was such an enormous success that it is set to continue. Ms Danielle O’Neill from the Legislature’s communications office describes what happened.

We introduce a new feature in this issue: Branch Spotlight. This feature provides a quick guide to the structure, role and politics of the Parliaments and Legislatures

which comprise the CPA’s Branches. We begin with the South African provincial Assembly in Eastern Cape with an account provided by Mr Herlu Smith, its Chief Parliamentary Officer.

Branches which would like to appear in the Spotlight in future should contact me as soon as possible.

This issue also covers two electoral issues: the election of women to the Sri Lankan Parliament which, as Assistant Secretary-General Mr Neil Iddawala notes, lags behind many other Parliaments despite the fact that the world’s first woman Prime Minister was a Sri Lankan, and the recent election in Tasmania which ended in a tie.

Remembering that the CPA is an association of Parliaments, not just of Parliamentarians, we conclude this issue with four contributions focusing on those who administer Parliament, the Clerks or Secretaries-General.

Mr Sam Darkwa, a former Clerk of the Ghanaian Parliament, describes the essential qualities of a Clerk, while the Clerk of the Scottish Parliament, Mr Paul Grice, elaborates on a new management structure for his young House, a structure that fully reflects all of the Scottish Parliament’s functions.

From India, Shri Satish Kumar, an officer with the Haryana state Legislative Assembly and a Punjab University researcher, writes on parliamentary privilege in India.

Finally, we publish a report from the Clerk of the Commons in Ottawa, Ms Audrey O’Brien, on the new edition of Canada’s House of Commons Procedure and Practice. This is one of the Commonwealth’s “bibles” on how Parliament should operate properly which has just appeared in its second edition because, as Mike Moore would say, it matters how a Parliament operates – it matters a lot.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two | 109

View from the Chair:Layout 1 09/07/2010 09:27 Page 110

VIEW FROM THE CHAIR

PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM

uncomplimentary comparisons between China’s economic expansion as a I write this, “View from the Chair” having just returned from a closely fought one-party state and the western democracies apparent economic by-election in Sarawak which, despite all our efforts, we disappointingly lost stagnation. narrowly. Such are the swings and roundabouts of parliamentary Let me hasten to make clear that I am not suggesting that democracy for it is a system where the people decide who they want to parliamentary democracy is either dead or dying but it is at risk. It has represent them through exercising their right to freely cast their vote. I become increasingly plain to me that the attempts to suspect that Rt Hon. Gordon Brown had similar implant western democratic processes on under feelings after losing another closely fought election. developed or developing countries has proved to be and Whilst making that comment I must even-handedly is proving to be a counter-productive activity. One only congratulate Rt Hon. David Cameron on his has to look at the realities of the situation in Afghanistan appointment as the new U.K. Prime Minister. I am sure to support this contention. In part I support the view he will soon find out that governing is considerably propounded by Randall Peeremboom who defends the harder than opposing especially as he has to face, in East Asian model where economic development collaboration with his coalition partners, the pain of naturally precedes democracy. In other words you cannot managing his country’s public expenditure deficit. expect a replica of the western definition of parliamentary The reader might at this point be wondering what democracy and all its inherent systems and procedures if this has to do with freedom and democracy so let me half the people are struggling to survive. hasten to answer my own question. In a parliamentary If the principles and practice of parliamentary democracy the Parliament or Legislature, i.e. those democracy are to survive and prosper then we need to do elected representatives of the people, usually have Hon. Dato’ Seri Mohd. Shafie more than try to export the concept of democracy as a the residual power to limit, control or contain an Apdal, MP single transferable model. Instead we should promote the executive’s freedom of action. Put another way this is Chairperson of the CPA fact that democracy is probably the only defence there is the system of checks and balances that has Executive Committee and traditionally served to prevent tyranny and the erosion Minister of Rural and Regional against tyranny and the rapacious greed of unelected and self perpetuating autocracies or unelected political of personal liberties by an over-powerful executive.

Development, Malaysia dynasties. It is an unchallengeable fact that corruption is However much any Prime Minister might like to have endemic in most single-party authoritarian states. We dictatorial powers to overcome what the executive have to show that a parliamentary democracy has the perceives as a critical problem; in a parliamentary potential to secure the basic freedoms to own property, create wealth and democracy he or she still has to; persuade, argue, cajole and “whip’ the ensure personal liberty. ruling party members to agree to the measures.

Contrary to popular belief there is no sustainable evidence to show that However, there are some like Paul Collier, an Oxford professor, autocracies grow faster than democracies even allowing for China’s rapid who has asserted that in the absence of other desirables like the rule growth. At the same time we should recognize that democracies have to of law democracy may actually limit a country’s progress. Humphrey develop over time and some of the freedoms enjoyed by the more mature Hawksley recently wrote a book entitled; Democracy Kills – What’s democracies may take time to implant. For example, democracy as So Good About the Vote? that questions the whole basis of witnessed at Westminster has been developing for hundreds of years and democratic political systems. even now there is talk of the need for electoral reform. Democracy is not a Furthermore, the American lobby group Freedom House maintains that static or one-off model set in tablets of stone but a dynamic process that liberty and human rights have declined globally over the past four years as evolves and grows with the passage of time. some regimes have become more authoritarian even in some states Therefore, I suggest that in order to promote and defend parliamentary perceived to be democracies. There are also some writers who have made 110 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two

View from the Chair:Layout 1 09/07/2010 09:28 Page 111

VIEW FROM THE CHAIR

democracy as a preferred system of government we would be better advised to avoid trying to criticize one or another state for failing to live up to all the manifestations of freedoms and liberty that democracy promotes.

Instead we are more likely to encourage democratic progress if we simultaneously remove the barriers to wealth creation, support investment and encourage the entrepreneurs. Proselytizing about democracy to under

developed and developing nations surely does not sit well all the while the proselytizers continue to condone or turn-a-blind-eye to the situation where trade barriers and other unfair trading practices are preventing economic growth and inward investment. I think it is self evident that people are far more likely to embrace democracy if it brings jobs, freedom from poverty and the opportunity to succeed.

A Chinese electronics assembly factory; just one industry which has been integral to China’s economic expansion.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two | 111

View from the CWP:Layout 1 09/07/2010 09:29 Page 112

VIEW FROM THE CWP

DEMOCRACY REMAINS UNDEMOCRATIC

slaves to civilian autocrats who do not allow the voice of dissent in their Parties are seen to be the key institutions of representative democracy; but parties. Contenders will find it hard to contest against their own leadership. they are also perceived in some places to be increasingly incapable of This is against the spirit of democracy. performing those functions that are essential to a Intra-party elections are a means of internal healthy democracy. The seeming incompatibility accountability. They are a check and balance and a between these two propositions – simultaneously review of the progress of individual office-bearers. They maintaining that parties are necessary institutions for ensure the promotion of a true democratic spirit at the representative democracy but criticizing their grassroots level. Fresh leadership could be encouraged performance as inadequate with regard to their rather than maintaining dynasties, which is the case representative functions – is indicative of a changing particularly in Pakistan and in South Asia. role of parties in modern democracy and of changing Another article in the 18th amendment gives all conceptions of political parties themselves. powers to the heads of political parties instead of Pakistan’s recent 18th amendment to the parliamentary leaders. In the Pakistani context, this will constitution has many provisions which are against the enable political dictators to run their parliamentary spirit of democracy. It offers no room for the people’s parties through remote control. This will discourage the participation in the process for their emancipation and opportunities of consultations, debate and dialogue empowerment. Democracy remains incarcerated Ms Kashmala Tariq, MNA among the parliamentary parties on key public issues. within a ruling elite whose sole concern is focused on Chairperson of the They will have to accept the orders or dictation of the recycling power within its domain so that each Commonwealth Women head of their party or they will be shown the door. stockholder may have a stab at wielding it periodically.

Parliamentarians Through this amendment, all decision powers have been It shows the feudalistic mindset of our political vested in one person instead of in a consultative forum. leadership.

This too is against the norms of democracy.

My conscience did not allow me to accept The 18th Amendment merely recycles the democratic dictatorship. Representing the views of concentration of power from one set of authority to another within the true democrats, I had the honour of proposing eight amendments against established ruling order. The political parties are nothing but family the non-democratic constitutional provisions. I knew not many would stand concerns operating like a company with all the shares and assets up with me and vote with their consciences; but at the same time I did not concentrated among family members and the select ban of loyal and want history to remember me as a part of this sin. I am proud to say that in a unquestioning cronies. In Pakistan, almost all the heads of the political House of 342 Members, it was a woman who mustered the courage to parties are lifetime heads. challenge the dictatorial system which was being further strengthened.

People from different segments of society have resented the Article 17 (4) of the constitution read “every political party shall, subject infringement of their fundamental rights and have challenged the to law, hold intra-party elections to elect its office bearers and party amendment in the Supreme Court. In an ideal democratic society, this is not leaders.” This has been deleted by the consensus of all political parties’ a desirable situation where the supremacy of the parliament is challenged. leaderships. The deletion of this article is totally against the norms of If the political parties’ leaderships had the vision of true democracy, this democracy. unfortunate situation would not have arisen.

If political parties pledge themselves to the notion of a transparent The political parties need to promote intra-party democracy in order to political process in their own ranks, this will ensure the growth of new get rid of hereditary politics and dynastic legacies. Unfortunately, the leadership. In the absence of a constitutional guarantee of democracy political parties in Pakistan are led by the elite whose social penetration within political parties, there is a risk that political parties will became and connections with the vast majority are quite limited. The political parties victims of dictators who slaughter parties by forming factions or become 112 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two

View from the CWP:Layout 1 09/07/2010 09:30 Page 113

VIEW FROM THE CWP

bank upon feudal lords in the country to get votes. The class owning huge acres of land also has the financial and social muscle to influence the political verdict. The feudal lords and their allies constitute only five per cent of Pakistani agricultural households, yet they own 64 per cent of the farmland. The rest of the 95 per cent are thus the vote-bank of feudal leaders.

The plight of the people of Pakistan will remain unless a 19th Amendment is brought in to do away with the undemocratic provisions of the 18th Amendment. Otherwise, leaders will not be able to bare the undefeatable pressure of the oppressed which I am afraid will subvert the prevailing democratic philosophies. It is sad but true that democracy can remain undemocratic!

Badshai Mosque, Lahore, Pakistan.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two | 113

SG view:Layout 1 09/07/2010 12:31 Page 114

VIEW FROM THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

MIGRATION AND THE COMMONWEALTH and requested assistance from, fellow members In recent years, various Commonwealth countries regarding the problem of the influx of Africans into Malta, have discussed the issue of migration of people in the en route to Europe, saying that the small country’s world. While some countries have expressed fear that security system was being overwhelmed. Other uncontrolled migration fuels the threat of terrorism, Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth countries others have complained of the inability to enforce law have expressed similar concerns about how they could and order caused by the flow of immigrants. There are contain immigrants, particularly illegal immigrants. The also countries which have had their social services, United Kingdom government is now examining a new such as education and health, strained by a policy to limit or cap the number of immigrants, including disproportionate influx of immigrants. As a result of the legal immigrants, from non-European Union countries. situation, governments continue to enact laws to The majority of Commonwealth countries are non-EU regulate activities of migrants. In the United Kingdom, countries. the issue of immigration was one of the hotly Dr William F. Shija On the other hand, among the main reasons often contested areas among political parties for the general Secretary-General of the election of 6 May this year. The situation could be Commonwealth Parliamentary given by legal and illegal migrants for seeking to migrate to other countries, particularly industrialized countries, is similar in other parts of Europe. The issue is that there Association that they sought to benefit economically through are thousands of people in developing countries, who employment – any employment – and education. Some decide to seek employment in those countries being of the individuals further argue that they were migrating in similar fashion reported to be well-off; hence the strong migration movements across the as the early “explorers” did from Europe to Africa, India, Asia, the Caribbean globe. and elsewhere. They add that even in the contemporary times, there are At the 55th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference in Arusha, huge numbers of Europeans and Americans who are migrating to non-EU Tanzania, last year, one of our CPA branches, Malta, drew the attention of,

The Secretary-General’s Dr Shija with Prime Minister Raila Odinga of Kenya (right).

Dr William F. Shija greeting President Mwai Kibaki of Kenya, (right)

114 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two

SG view:Layout 1 09/07/2010 12:32 Page 115

VIEW FROM THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

countries in search of economic benefits, in the name of foreign investment and trade. Similar observations have been made in respect of immigration limitations in Australia, Canada and New Zealand. To those Commonwealth Members who have asked me questions regarding migration among Commonwealth countries, my reply, to some unsatisfactory, has often been that member states’ security and immigration laws have been tightened because of terrorism and other similar security and social concerns. Under these circumstances, how could the Commonwealth community balance between its values, principles and mission on the one hand, and the real problem of migration among its citizens on the other? To what extent could Commonwealth Parliamentarians assist to reconcile immigration policy and legal framework to sustain a more harmonious and productive relationship in the Commonwealth community? To the Commonwealth members in Europe, is the European Union more important than the Commonwealth?

Historically, various parts of the world have been populated by both legal and illegal movements of people. As a result, human capital, large tracts of land and other wealth in Africa and Asia were forcefully acquired through slavery and colonialism. The human settlement in Australia was not through free will and peaceful methods either, hence the Aboriginal complaints, which are often expressed in Canada also. In the Caribbean and the Americas, the post-slavery and indentured labour system is a direct result of migration through coercion, undue influence and exploitation.

These geographical areas make up the 60-year old Commonwealth of today.

The Commonwealth is a voluntary association of independent sovereign states whose mission is to consult and co-operate in the common interests of their peoples and in the promotion of international understanding, world peace and development. The 54 sovereign nations, with a population of close to two billion people, conduct their affairs without a constitution or charter. They are guided by common heritage, language,

culture, law and education. Which common heritage? The countries that were historically governed under the British Empire agreed later on to continue the relationship and engagement with each other through what are termed as “Commonwealth values, principles and priorities”, thus accepting the norms and conventions of equality, democracy, fundamental human rights, rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, freedom of expression and association, equality for women and, more recently, the need to eradicate poverty. The members believe in equal rights for all citizens regardless of race, colour, creed or political belief.

In this vein, for the past 60 years, Commonwealth members have been guided by their own co-operative declarations, such as the Harare Commonwealth Declaration (1991), which elaborated on democracy as a process which reflects national circumstances. There was also the Millbrook Commonwealth Action Programme (1995), which set out measures to further strengthen the Harare Principles, with particular emphasis on creating and building the capacity of democratic institutions, assistance in constitutional and legal matters, as well as supporting good government through public service reform. Then there were the Commonwealth (Latimer House) Principles (2003) which clearly defined the accountability and relationship between the executive, Legislature and judiciary. From a parliamentary perspective, executive accountability to Parliament is paramount to the overall process of good government.

I should further suggest that in the post-war period, the Commonwealth community was extensively utilized to rebuild and reform the political and economic systems of member states, some contributing or benefitting more than others. Human and material capital was mobilized and utilized to reconstruct the damages of a war-torn Europe. Skilled and semi-skilled labour was mobilized using the Commonwealth-wide network to repair the economies. The material wealth of land, minerals, livestock, fisheries, cultural artefacts, et cetera was utilized to strengthen selected economic structures of the Commonwealth. The socio-economic contribution was

Commonwealth gallery Dr Shija (right) with the Speaker of the Legislative Council of Brunei Darussalam, Yan Amat Mulia Pengiran Indera Mahkota Pengiran anak (Dr) Kemaludin Al-Haj, during a visit to Brunei in June.

Dr Shija with a Member of the Legislative Council of Brunei, Pengiran Setia Negara Pengiran (Dr) Haji Mohd. Yusuf bin Pengiran Haji Abdul Rahim.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two | 115

SG view:Layout 1 09/07/2010 12:32 Page 116

VIEW FROM THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

huge, perhaps not yet quite documented. In political terms, the Commonwealth family was the pinnacle of the global anti-apartheid movement in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, to the chagrin of the apartheid regime in South Africa. Even impoverished countries in the present-day Southern African Development Community region were happy to form and contribute to the “Frontline States” movement to fight the apartheid system. The wonders of history as they are, however, the then apartheidSouth Africa was one of the founding branches of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in 1911.

It is my view that in the present-day Commonwealth, consideration should be made to further facilitate and strengthen the relations that exist among the members. The declaration at the 2009 CHOGM in Port-ofSpain, Trinidad and Tobago, that an Eminent Persons Group (EPG) be appointed to appraise the status of the Commonwealth is a welcome decision. I believe that for the European Commonwealth partners, what is expected is not to neglect the Commonwealth to accommodate the European Union. Rather, it would be to the added advantage of the

European Commonwealth partners to embrace both their European neighbours and their distant partners in various continents of the world where the Commonwealth is represented.

To this end, I have been encouraged by the recent statement by the British Foreign Secretary, Rt Hon. William Hague, when he said on 1 July: “I would go even further now to say that the networked world requires us to inspire other people with how we live up to our own values rather than try to impose them, because now they are able to see in more detail whether we meet our own standards and make up their own minds about that” (Britain’s Foreign Policy in a Networked World: 1 July, 2010).

In practical terms, this is what is happening in the Commonwealth community. In my view, Mr Hague makes a very strong and realistic argument in favour of the Commonwealth network when he further states that Britain has unrivalled human links with India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and (numerous) African nations because of the membership of “one of the world’s longstanding global networks – the Commonwealth – which spans continents and world religions, contains six of the fastest growing

The Secretary-General’s

Dr Shija presenting a gift to the former Clerk Parliament of Zambia, Mr Chibeskunda, (right).

The Secretary-General with the Minister for disability in Tanzania, Hon. Al-Shymaa John Kwegyir, MP (right).

116 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two

SG view:Layout 1 09/07/2010 12:34 Page 117

VIEW FROM THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

economies and is underpinned by an agreed framework of common values”.

The Head of the Commonwealth is Her Majesty The Queen. This means that the members of the Commonwealth continue to respect Britain as their sincere partner and friend. I believe that it is on the basis of the principles and values of the Commonwealth to the letter that its membership is likely to rise, starting with the recent admission of Rwanda as an example. Rwanda is to be admitted to the membership of the

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association when the CPA General Assembly meets in Nairobi, Kenya, this September. I am glad that the CPA Parliamentarians will have another opportunity to discuss this important issue regarding migration and the way forward in a forging stronger partnership in the Commonwealth in the decades ahead.

It is further my view that because there are numerous future prospects for the Commonwealth, and because the British government now wishes to

positively proceed with Commonwealth engagement, I hope the discussion on the issue of migration within the Commonwealth will receive due attention, at least to ensure that the benefits of a long relationship are sustained. In other words, I recommend that migration within the Commonwealth should be seriously debated to remove any negative factors that may weaken the noble relations of the Commonwealth family. Also, ways should be found to remove the painful and humiliating steps that the U.K. Border Agency uses in the

handling the removal of citizens from sister Commonwealth states.

In summary, I am writing my view to appeal to all authorities of the “developed” Commonwealth to treat their family members as fairly as the members from the European Union. After all, many young men and women from the “developing” Commonwealth argue that their migration movements are based on being simply inquisitive, perhaps naively, to explore the world where colonialism came from and earn from it. After all, their counterparts did the same several decades ago.

Commonwealth gallery Left: Ten Canadian legislative interns paid a visit to the CPA Secretariat in June.

H.E Mwanaidi Sinare Maajar from the Tanzanian High Commission (left) with Dr Shija.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two | 117

Moore:Layout 1 09/07/2010 09:32 Page 118

RISK MANAGEMENT

BAD THINGS HAPPEN: RISK MANAGEMENT IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR In a globalized world where it is often said that governments don’t matter, one of the Commonwealth’s leading international figures argues that good governments can make all the difference – and so can bad, inefficient or corrupt governments.

Rt Hon. Mike Moore, ONZ, in Wellington.

Mr Moore was the Prime Minister of New Zealand in 1990 and Leader of the Opposition from 1990 to 1993. He held various other posts during 25 years as a Labour Party Member of the New Zealand Parliament until 1999. He was Director-General of the World Trade Organization from 1999 to 2002. He is about to become New Zealand’s ambassador to the United States. He holds several academic and international positions and was an Adjunct Professor at Australia’s La Trobe University in February 2010 when he addressed the Public Accounts Committee Programme run by La Trobe, the CPA and the World Bank Institute.

This article is based on that presentation.

Why is risk a factor in public sector management and why does it matter? Businesses and citizens factor risk into any decision they make. Confidence and trust is everything. Risk destroys and erodes confidence: the higher the risk, the greater the cost to tax.

Where there is high risk and opaque rules, this provides an opportunity for corruption, inefficiencies and for the incompetent to go unpunished. It bleeds an economy and distorts and destroys confidence. It is not a small thing; it is a big thing.

Economists write of the hazards to democracy when you have opaque, inefficient, costly bureaucratic rules inside our political system. There are ways to minimize that risk and lower the costs. In the absence of fair, predictable rules, bad things always happen.

Globalization and democracy In the main, the present thrust of globalization has been good for most people in most places. We

118 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two

have created more wealth in the last 60 years than in all of human

Rt Hon. Mike Moore

experience put together. Hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of extreme poverty. Life expectancy has exploded to the point now that more people die because of obesity-related diseases, than through starvation and famine, although there are varying holes in this picture. The challenge for us now is a moral, economic and political challenge to bring another two billion people into the global economy as citizens,

producers and consumers.

Some say that globalization means governments don’t matter anymore. If governments don’t matter, explain the differences between successful and failing economies. Governments matter! It is the quality of government that matters. The lessons of success affirm the consistent and the real.

There is an iron law of reality: good governance mitigates against risks.

Clear, predictable, transparent policies work. Democracy was actually a good idea: democratic societies are better off. There was a time when people talked of the authoritarian market: what you need is a big strong man. This is a fraudulent argument and no evidence supports it. Democracy, other than a moral good, is an economic good. We need to hold our politicians and our bureaucrats to account. And when we don’t, it’s unhealthy for them and fatal for us.

Education is a fundamental power of a democratic society. The London School of Economics has done studies that show that the higher the newspaper readership

Moore:Layout 1 09/07/2010 09:32 Page 119

RISK MANAGEMENT

A statue of New Zealand’s longest-serving Prime Minister, Richard John Seddon outside the Parliament building in Wellington.

in a country, the better the economic result. Now that means all sorts of things; but I think you get the point.

Equality, tolerance and social mobility are moral rules. But they are also economic rules. Societies with a high level of tolerance, equality and mobility tend to do better.

There has never been a war between two democracies. There has never been a famine in a

democracy. Why? Because the people respond: they hold politicians accountable. The politicians get worried at election time, they are forced to do something. The newspapers crusade, the churches go on the streets, the unions get agitated and that drives up a better result.

Democracy is more than a contest where the biggest tribe can win.

Democracy is also respect for those who loose. Just because you

win the election doesn’t mean that you have all the jobs. And the loser must accept the winner, and the loser must go into Parliament and struggle and battle and re-form to try to win again. And there is such a thing as a loyal opposition: you can oppose your government with everything you have within the constitution, within the balance of human rights, and you have to try to convince the people you could do a better job.

Successful societies History shows us that there are certain things successful societies do: the separation of church and state (a big thing); freedom of religion and – probably more important – freedom from religion; independent courts; property rights; an active civil society; an independent media making our lives impossible; accountable, replaceable politicians, and eventually strong, independent, competitive political parties.

However, everything in the end comes back to economic policies.

Policies that allow politicians to reward their friends always open the door to corruption at worst and inefficiencies at best. Competition is just not about the most effective allocation of resources to get a better result; competition ensures that businesses do well on a level playing field that we all understand.

Competition drives out inefficiencies in a transparent system. The lack of transparency and the lack of competition increase risk.

The government plays a role here. My case is not against government; my case is actually for government. But when government gets involved, as it surely must, it has to do so in an open, competitive way. We have learned that the more there is central control that is unaccountable and not scrutinized, the more difficult it is for businesses and citizens to navigate their way through. If businesses need a politician, a friend in the cabinet room, then we are going to have some trouble. My case is against privilege and for the open society. Every time a government or an agency produces a new set of rules, new regulations, something bad happens. If at every step there is a bureaucrat who wants a handout, or there is some politician who wants a share, that all adds to the cost. In some countries, it costs a year in production just to apply for a licence!

That is why, in most developing

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two | 119

Moore:Layout 1 09/07/2010 09:34 Page 120

RISK MANAGEMENT

countries, 80 per cent of the economy is underground. Smart businessmen who should set up a shop, should go on the main street, should set up a chain, can’t. They are locked in the back streets, and this is an economic crime against good people who are trying to do their best, and it happens in all our societies. We do it in New Zealand, even though I think we are better than most. Every time the Parliament meets, somebody else finds another reason for another form to fill in. People who are starting businesses find this very hard; they just want to bake some bread, cut hair, fix a car, produce some craftwork. So governments matter.

Trust in society History gives us the evidence of what works and what doesn’t. It provides a roadmap. And nothing is more important than the faith, trust and confidence people have in their systems and things like their currencies. Currency is fundamental. And most smaller countries are now smart enough to peg their own currency to the United States or some other currency. That’s the smart thing to do. If you don’t, bad things will happen, and the government will print more money and steal from the next generation.

It’s just not in developing countries where trust can be measured. Take Europe, one of the most successful countries is Sweden. The Swedes accept globalization and adapt to change more than any other people in the world. Why? Because they believe the government will have programmes and strategies to cope with this change.

In France, there is a lot of archaic bureaucracy and rules.

Here is a World Bank figure: if the French were as trusting as the Swedes, the French economy would be boosted by five per cent and its unemployment would drop by a third because of the reallocation of resources into more

effective areas. These are big things.

And the wealth of a country is not its resources. Rich countries are rich largely because the skills of their population and the quality of their institutions supporting economic activity. When you study successful economies in the West, you look at the capital cost of trust in institutions and their educational and other systems. In Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, individuals have automatic access to what the World Bank has said is about $440,000 of intangible wealth such as good education systems and universities.

So we have to strip out of the system the risks and the costs that allow temporary politicians to play expedient game with currencies, deficits and borrowing, especially around election year. We know something about this because we are populous politicians and we do it in my country. If it gets out of hand, you have countries printing 100 billion dollar notes.

Blurring the line between politicians and bureaucrats A successful, functioning, independent country has other characteristics: a functioning parliamentary system with the support and trust of the people. We all need independent audit offices and they need to report to the Parliament, not to the government.

That is one of the key jobs in the public service. We all need parliamentary public expenditure committees that are preferably chaired by a non-government Member of Parliament. These committees need to be properly resourced by experts.

We all need the best of our officers in our treasury departments, and we all need to have cabinet and parliamentary committees that examine the true costs of any new policy with its regulations or legislation. Too often, we pass regulations and legislation without knowing the full

120 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two

implications because we have got big hearts.

We need an independent, merit-based public service. There is in my country and a bit in Australia something cloudy beginning to happen: we have so many political appointees coming into Ministers’ offices and coming into departments that this is blurring the distinction between a department’s job and a politician’s job. If the distinction gets too cloudy, something bad will happen because then the politicians will only hear from people who agree with them, and we all like that. But a professional, independent and merit-based public service is to

“In 1945, Burma and Thailand had the same living standards. Now Thailand is 25 times richer per person.” give the politicians free, fair and frank advice. And if the politician who is elected says thank you for the advice but we will not accept it, then the public service’s job is to implement the will of the people expressed through their politicians.

That is not a small thing. And it is very hard in an intimate, small society to keep these distinct roles in two different rooms. The smaller the society, the more difficult it is.

The public service has to be managed by an independent commission that is in the end accountable to the Minister and answerable to Parliament. We need to pay our public service well.

We need to pay our politicians well, too, and it should all be public, not through expenses, but made well known. Look what has happened in England. In one Pacific state, we have travelling

MPs and Ministers whose daily per diem is twice the hotel bill so of course they will stay in the biggest most spacious hotel room – very bad. If we don’t show through our own life and our own experience some discipline, we have no moral authority when we ask governments to show the same discipline. This is not a small thing. I am not saying just give everybody a million dollars a year and they will be better people – that’s obviously not true. But give them what is fair.

Politicians should at least get as much as a headmaster and have a pension system to ensure they can get out.

Beware the “culture” trap It is difficult for an MP when the people they know, their supporters, call up to ask for some favour.

Unless the rules are firm, bad things can happen. MPs should be able to tell them they have to apply for it and the decision will be made by an independent authority, not by them. Politicians need these rules to protect them; otherwise, the pressure on them will be immense and bad things can happen. Unless there are clear predictable rules, bad things happen. The hardest thing for a politician is to say “no”; but we put unhealthy pressure on the public service unless we have those clear rules.

And there is a cultural problem here, too: people, who are from societies where a politician or a bureaucrat or a “gift” is important for their business and for their families, come into societies where it shouldn’t matter and they become the source of funding for political parties and politicians. That can cause problems such as we had in New Zealand recently where for the first time a Member of Parliament was convicted for corruption. Cultural respect is fundamental, but it can provide a cover for darker and more unpleasant things to happen. We need therefore to be absolutely firm. We need to be sensitive, but we also need to examine some of

Moore:Layout 1 09/07/2010 09:36 Page 121

RISK MANAGEMENT

our cultural inheritances because they can take us down a road that is bad.

As a socialist, I can understand why governments have monopoly systems. But it takes so much time to go through monopoly systems, where officials take-take-take, that the rich bribe their way through and the middle class pay poor people to wait in line for them. The cost of this is not right. In some societies, it costs millions in bribes and lost productivity just to stay in queues to pay power bills. These are huge costs.

Using new tools effectively But things are getting so much better. We now have the tools to govern in a way that was never dreamed of before. Today we can get around lengthy procedures and bribes to officials through egovernance so, for example, epayments can be made through kiosks. In India where there are a lot of illiterate people, they got

students to teach people how to do it and they did it.

Poor people are not stupid.

Poor people are not lazy. Poor people get it. They have to get it, otherwise they perish. If they are provided with the tools that we didn’t have before, all sorts of good things will begin to happen.

I am full of hope because we have lived through some fantastic times in history – nothing like it before! Twenty years ago, Mandela walked free at last and the world smiled. The Berlin Wall came down. All of Europe in the main is free. The great white tribes in Europe that used to fight each other and drag us into their tribal civil wars – that is highly unlikely now. All of Latin America, except Cuba, is roughly democratic. These are big things – we take them for granted.

In 1945, Burma and Thailand had the same living standards.

Now Thailand is 25 times richer

per person. At the time of partition in Korea, the North was richer than the South – they had all the industry in the North. In 1960, Nigeria had the same income per person as Singapore. In the 1960s, the World Bank and others predicted the countries that would do best in Asia were the Philippines and Burma. Things are improving and we have the capacity to improve them even more, building on those lessons.

Poor people will respond I flew into Cambodia a decade ago to get them to join the World Trade Organization. Its people had really suffered: a couple of million murdered, the wonderful capital of Phnom Penn with half a million people for hundreds of years had been decimated by Pol Pot. He killed intellectuals and those with university degrees. As a percentage of population, it was probably the biggest genocide. He put the country back to year zero.

Clockwise from top left: adaptable Sweden, struggling Cambodia, successful Singapore and undemocratic Cuba.

The new government was keen to join the WTO to gain access to all the commercial customs systems and trade facilitation systems to bring them up to world best practice, so we came into Phnom Penn at night, the city was in darkness, there were only a couple of hundred lights because the power and other systems were failing. As we drove through the city, what were the lights? The lights were cybercafés and kids were standing there queuing down streets for blocks trying to get their way into the cybercafés.

That inspired me and reminded me that the young people get it – we provide the systems, get out of their way, give them help, don’t push them down and they will surprise us.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two | 121

Harries:Layout 1 09/07/2010 09:41 Page 122

PUBLIC SERVICE

GIVING “PUBLIC SERVICE” NEW MEANING What has happened to the concept of “public service” which used to motivate people to stand for election of Parliament or to enter other professions? A former Church of England Bishop who now sits in the United Kingdom House of Lords examines how the concept drifted out of the public consciousness and how to get it back.

Lord Harries of Pentregarth, at Westminster Lord Harries was Bishop Richard Harries of Oxford from 1987 to 2006. On his retirement, he was made a Member of the House of Lords and sits on the Cross Benches.

Richard Harries is the author of Faith in Politics? Rediscovering the Roots of our Political Values published recently by Darton Longman Todd. An excerpt from the book follows this article, with the permission of the author and the publisher.

If there is one quality more than any other which is required now in those entering Parliament it is a revival of the concept of public service. More widely, we need a recovery of a sense of service throughout our society. Why has it all but disappeared?

The “service” culture The eminent historian, Mr Tony Judt argued in his recent book that the concept of a “public service mission” has disappeared and the reason for this is what he terms the worship of privatization in recent decades. Whereas in the past the state was the direct provider of many goods and services, many of these have now been farmed out, mainly to profit-making organizations. However I believe the historical roots of our present malaise go deeper than this.

Shortly after I became Bishop of Oxford in 1987, I spoke to the headmaster of one of our major independent schools and complained that his school, which had in the past produced many fine priests for the Church of England,

122 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two

now produced so few. “Ah, Richard”, he said, “The whole concept of service has gone.” That school had for 150 years produced people to go into the Foreign Office, the Civil Service, the armed forces, medicine and the church.

Now it is likely that half of them aspire to be merchant bankers and corporate lawyers.

The motto of the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, is “serve to lead”. That is fine, but it assumes that the world is divided up into leaders and the led. It was on the basis of this assumption that people joined the traditional professions and went out to serve the empire abroad, or church and state at home.

Emphasizing human rights and the private sector All this changed in the 1960s.

More and more people began to stand up for themselves, a rights agenda began to gain momentum, and people looked for communities characterized by mutuality, not one in which some serve and others are served.

Lord Harries of Pentregarth

Nothing in what I write should be taken as denigrating that. But the implication of this change was that the old concept of service became sidelined.

Those of a Marxist orientation went further and suggested that the concept of service was there simply to ameliorate the harshest aspects of the class conflict and this needed to be exposed for what it was so that society could move on to one based on true equality and fraternity. This Marxist analysis is only half correct, for the fact is, as we saw in the old Soviet Union, in any and every political

Harries:Layout 1 09/07/2010 09:42 Page 123

PUBLIC SERVICE

is clearly best if those who exercise power are indeed motivated by a real sense of service, rather than their own self-interest.

The debate between direct state provision and the state’s delegation of its responsibilities to private companies will always be a matter of balance, on which I make no comment.

The point is that, however the balance is struck, a concept of public service is desperately needed both as part of the ethos of political parties and as part of the ethos of private companies operating under the aegis of the state.

arrangement there will always be some concentrations of power and privilege. If this is inevitable, then it

Seeking a new attitude to public service In short, what is needed is a shift in outlook of our whole culture.

The problem is not going to be solved simply by more direct

state provision. In particular, given the recent scandals and the exposure of naked selfinterest operating in the minds of some recent Parliamentarians, often on the borders of legality, it is those in new Parliaments who can begin to give a lead in bringing about the change in our culture which is so much needed.

Former Primer Minister Harold Wilson famously remarked that the Labour party owed more to Methodism than it did to Marx.

Most people who went into it were driven by a fierce passion to better the lot of the vulnerable and deprived.

The historic Tory party also had its idealists, those driven by a strong sense of noblesse oblige. I love the remark of Alec Douglas Hume’s mother: “I think it is so

Above: The privatization of many services has somewhat overshadowed the concept of public service; Left: The U.K. Parliament – public faith in it was damaged by the expenses scandal. good of Alec to do Prime Minister.”

It is of course false to romanticize the past, and we cannot simply repeat what was present then under our very different circumstances and with a rather different social base.

But it is disastrous if the general public is convinced that all politicians are simply in it to pursue their own interests.

A new moral milieu, a different spiritual environment in which the old concept of public service takes on new meaning and is seen to be a reality, is badly needed.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two | 123

Book excerpt:Layout 1 09/07/2010 09:44 Page 124

BOOK EXCERPT

FAITH IN POLITICS: REDISCOVERING THE CHRISTIAN ROOTS OF OUR POLITICAL VALUES Lord Harries of Pentregarth.

Richard Harries is the author of Faith in Politics? Rediscovering the Roots of our Political Values published in 2010

by Darton Longman Todd (ISBN 978-0-232-527872). This excerpt is reprinted here with permission.

The loss of trust in politicians has been widely commentated on.

Less noticed, but equally serious, is the indifference to our political institutions and values. However it is vital for the health of our country that we have some confidence in our political way of life. This book looks at some of our key concepts like the rule of law, human rights and democracy itself and argues that they are not just the invention of the 17th century enlightenment, valuable though that contribution was, but are deeply rooted in our Christian culture and faith. This raises the question of what it means to live in a secular age, and what kind of contribution faith communities can appropriately make in the public sphere. Another concern of the book is to recover a moral vision for society which goes beyond an emphasis on free choice and a belief in every man or woman to their own good.

However difficult, we need to work a notion of the common good.

Here are three short extracts from the book.

The legal and the moral Six elements in the expenses scandal are identified, going back to a failure of successive governments to put up the pay of MP’s to what many of them could earn outside.

Sixthly, this scandal reveals a moral climate in which people are guided only by what they think is

124 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two

legal, with what is legal being pushed as far as it can, without any thought as to whether it is also honest. For whilst the legal is underpinned by the ethical, what is ethical goes far wider and deeper.

The defense of MPs’ time and

again was that they had done nothing illegal. Perhaps they hadn’t; but what they had done certainly seemed morally unjustified to most of the population. In this respect the moral climate of Parliament is no different from that of the rest of society. For in recent decades so much of society has been characterized by such an attitude, with the only question being asked as to whether something is within the law.

What this analysis reveals is that a moral dimension goes through every aspect of life. But in particular it shows that what is legal is not enough. There is a moral law as well as human legislation. In

many others spheres also it has been realized that the letter of the law is not enough, for example in financial regulation. The best companies seek to create an ethos or moral milieu in which the right thing is done, not one in which people push their luck as far as they can stretch the law. What this also brings out is that some institutions are now amongst the major carriers of values in our society, the professional associations, the best companies, the best schools. They have a major challenge in trying to create an ethos in which certain forms of behavior are expected, because they are operating in a moral climate that believes keeping within the law is all that matters.

Good laws express a moral vision, but they do not contain it. The moral vision goes wider and deeper and, for a Christian is ultimately grounded in the wisdom of God. Equality The movers behind the French Revolution of 1789 believed that liberté, egalité,and fraternité went together, and that if you achieved one, the others would begin to follow. They thought that if only the old feudal inequalities were done away with, there would be equality, and from this there would flow genuine freedom of choice and true human community. The old order kept people in their place,

Book excerpt:Layout 1 09/07/2010 09:44 Page 125

BOOK EXCERPT

and severely limited their choice.

With choice opened up, it was assumed that everyone would prosper. In fact, as we know, this has happened to only a limited extent. Opening up choice for everyone has in fact led to inequalities of many different kinds, most obviously in the continuing divisions between the rich and poor as reflected so starkly in figures on health and mortality. Men living in certain parts of Glasgow have a life expectancy that is ten years less than people living in the South East of England, and what is particularly shocking is that over the last 30 years this gap has widened, not narrowed.

One result of what has actually happened in the economic sphere, is that today there’s an assumption that choice and equality are essentially opposed to one another, and there has been a sharp polarization between those advocating policies offering more choice and those who stress state action to achieve greater equality.

However, I believe that it is a mistake to think that these values of choice and equality are always mutually incompatible. A market economy depends on the value of equality as it does on freedom of choice. For in stressing choice, we are stressing the fact that every individual consumer is equally free to choose. American Professor of Philosophy, Ronald Dworkin said that “under the special condition that people differ only in preferences for goods and activities, the market is more egalitarian than any alternative of comparable generality”.

The qualifying clause is, however, crucially important.

People do not differ only in their preferences, but also differ hugely in the opportunities open to them to take advantage of those preferences. So while I think it is important not to see choice and equality as mutually conflicting values, we have to always bear in mind the context in which people make their choices. As one of the

greatest of all theorists of equality, R.H.Tawney once put it, “the existence of such opportunities in fact, and not merely in form, depends, not only upon an open road, but upon an equal start”. Or, “equality of opportunity is fictitious without equality in the circumstances under which men have to develop and exercise their capacities”.

English writer G.K. Chesterton once remarked that the average Englishman was less interested in the equality of man than he was in the inequality of racehorses. I am not sure that is still true, and whilst there is no great support for a flat notion of equality, people are offended by great and growing inequalities.

In particular at the moment there is a widespread sense of moral outrage against bankers who whilst being responsible for the near financial collapse of the banking system, resulting in millions being dispossessed of their homes and losing their jobs, have safeguarded their obscene bonuses and pensions. Not least of the ill effects of such stark inequalities is that this leads to a failure to achieve true human community, the third of the three values championed by the French revolutionaries.

Democracy Perhaps the most powerful defense of liberal democracy in the 20th century was put forward by Reinhold Niebuhr, who hugely influenced a whole run of Democrats, most recently U.S. President Barack Obama.

The nature of democracy, its strengths, weaknesses and Christian justification, was a lifelong interest for Niebuhr. It was, however, in The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness, published in 1945 that his thought on this subject received its most systematic formulation. It also contained his famous aphorism: “Man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but

man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.”

The justification of democracy in the first part of Niebuhr’s aphorism, “Man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible”, the enlightenment one, was, in Niebuhr’s view inadequate by itself, for it was based on an over-optimistic view of humanity which assumed that conflicts could always be resolved and progress achieved. Hence the sub-title of The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness is A Vindication of Democracy and a Critique of its Traditional Defenders.

For Niebuhr the best vindication of Democracy was based on an awareness of our tendency to oppress one another and the consequent need to control political power. Hobbes and Luther both had a realistic sense of the way human beings do violence to one another, and from this followed their call for strong government to stop people tearing themselves apart. What they failed to point out is that potentially the biggest oppressor of all is government itself, hence the paramount need to have some way of checking, balancing and controlling it. From this springs the classical separation of powers into the executive, the Legislature and the judiciary, together with fixed elections and other mechanisms.

In Niebuhr’s classic defense of liberal democracy, the children of light, are Western thinkers of the enlightenment and their followers in subsequent ages, who believed there was a capacity for altruism in human beings, who argued that real progress could be made in the human lot and who thought that through education and reason most problems could be solved and most disputes settled. For Niebuhr this was all foolishness.

The Children of darkness are wiser, because they know the power of human egoism and the ineluctable tendency of human beings to expand their interests at the

expense of others; but they are children of darkness because in their moral cynicism they act as though this is the only force at work. The only sound basis for democracy is one that takes our tendency to human aggrandizement at the expense of others realistically into account but which sets this in a moral framework provided by the children of light. So, as he put it: “The preservation of a democratic civilization requires the wisdom of the serpent and the harmlessness of the dove. The children of light must be armed with the wisdom of the children of darkness but remain free of their malice. They must know the power of self-interest in human society without giving it moral justification.

They must have this wisdom in order that they may beguile, deflect, harness and restrain self-interest, individual and collective, for the sake of the community.”1 Niebuhr argued that historically democracy was the joint achievement of Christian and secular thought, forms of Calvinism and Christian sects on the one hand and rationalists on the other.

He also believed that Christianity contributes three insights of permanent validity. First, a basis for authority outside government itself, as expressed in the biblical notion that we are called to obey God rather than Caesar, second; a noninstrumental view of human beings, where all individuals are of value in themselves for themselves, and must never be treated simply as a cipher in a larger scheme of things; and third, an awareness of our human sin, whereby the ordinary struggle to survive is turned into a drive for prestige and power. This is the insight that liberal idealists totally failed to see.

Endnote 1

Niebuhr, R The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness, p.34.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two | 125

Bennett:Layout 1 09/07/2010 09:46 Page 126

INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY

DEMOCRACY BETWEEN ELECTIONS: POLITICS 2.0 Treating ICT simply as a fast way to send information and administer an office will fail democracy and alienate people because democracy today is all about keeping the people involved, not just informed. A leading opposition Member of the Canadian House of Commons provides some tips on how information and communications technology can provide Parliamentarians with highly effective tools to do that.

Dr the Hon. Carolyn Bennett, MP, in Ottawa Dr Bennett has been a Member of the Canadian House of Commons for the Liberal Party since 1997. A physician, she has been opposition spokesperson on health issues and was Minister of State responsible for Public Health from December 2003 to February 2006.

In the April 7 edition of The Hill Times, Mr Pascal Zamprelli, a member of Canadians Advocating Political Participation, reflected on the importance of the Canada 150 Montreal conference as a “gamechanger” for politics in Canada. He wrote: “Politics 2.0 is about a culture change in Ottawa. It is politics moving from a one-way spectacle, where politicians spew talking points at voters, to a more direct, unfiltered, two-way exchange between public servants and the public they serve. It is open, inviting, transparent political processes; it

126 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two

Dr the Hon. Carolyn Bennett

is an informed and engaged citizenry; it is policy driven by a mix of best evidence and broad consultation. And its time is now.”

When he says “the time is now”, I think he is pleading for all elected representatives to become more comfortable with technology and demonstrate that they can engage citizens where they are – online.

Town Hall meetings and neighbourhood coffee parties will always be important; but information and communications technology have had an invaluable and transformative role in the parliamentary and constituency work of elected representatives.

Being “connected” to the electorate has become the new norm for “representative” democracy.

Bennett:Layout 1 09/07/2010 09:46 Page 127

INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY

It has been a long time since Canadian Members of Parliament went off on the train to Ottawa and did their best to act in the interests of their constituents but with very little interaction other than letters and phone calls from the truly engaged.

MPs only began to open constituency offices during the Trudeau years (Pierre Elliott Trudeau was Prime Minister for all but nine months between 1968 and 1984). Before that, there was no real expectation that a “representative” democracy meant that representatives were able to consult broadly on issues of national importance.

Communicating electronically – both ways There are now very few Members of Parliament without a Blackberry but still too few who truly are taking maximum advantage of the fabulous new tools that can provide a much improved “democracy between elections”.

As a doctor, I knew that the patient knew their body best and that hopefully I knew the system best. It was a partnership: 2 + 2 = 5! I would ask what’s wrong and listen and together we would develop a plan. As an elected representative the questions are the same: what’s working and what’s not. As Canadian writer and

urban theorist Jane Jacobs said: “Good public policy comes when the policy makers can see in their mind’s eye the people affected.”

I remember how impressed I was on one of my Sunday night MSN chats with how informed the participants were on the proposed reforms to the Copyright Act. They attached relevant website links to their posts and explained that as “downloaders” they saw a big difference between “piracy” and stealing content from artists “with the intent to disseminate” and their one time only behaviour. They thought the new law should reflect that.

Ursula Franklin, another

Social networking sitescan be a good way for Members to communicate, provided it is a genuine two-way discussion.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two | 127

Bennett:Layout 1 09/07/2010 09:47 Page 128

INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY Economics, to participate in a conference on e-democracy. His position was that one of the cornerstones of democracy has been to provide public spaces in which citizens can discuss ideas.

He suggested that the “web” provides a new and important space. He reminded us all that citizens “don’t want to govern; they just want to be heard”. He talked about “civic efficacy” and “two-way accountability”.

Since that time, most Parliamentarians have become excited about the prospect of Democracy 2.0 and the new internet technologies affording them the opportunity to be far more effective.

Canadian author, has said that good governance should be fair, transparent and take people seriously. The transparency part to me is a given: it is providing all the possible information that citizens will need to make an informed decisions.

But “taking people seriously” means that politics has to move to the next step – an actual two-way communication, sending AND receiving. Interactivity is the touchstone of Politics 2.0. Citizens, particularly youth, know when they are being humoured or manipulated. This must be a genuine process, or what pollster Frank Graves called “assured listening”.

Dr the Hon. Carolyn Bennett speaking in the House of Commons.

For example, in 2001, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development produced a paper called “Citizens as Partner”. It describes three levels of engagement: 1) Information – citizens are informed, 2) Consultation – citizens get to express their suggestion, 3) Participation – citizens get to decide.

About that time, I was invited by Professor Stephen Coleman, then at the London School of

128 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two

Website basics The bare minimum for MPs is a website. It must be updated frequently. Stale information is a complete turn-off.

The keys to successful websites are “stickiness” and “traffic”. Great websites have people who come often and stay to view thoughtful content. Speaking in the House, media articles and explaining a vote are all components of a Member’s transparency. However websites also allow Members of Parliament to quickly clarify their position or refute misinformation, such as, “The National Post missed the point again”, with the actual speech or document attached. It is also particularly useful to have your newsletters provide “links” to relevant websites. Politics 2.0 means websites would also include links to YouTube, Flikcr, Facebook and Twitter.

Furthermore, I believe that MPs should have two websites: a nonpartisan one for their parliamentary function and a second one, hosted by their constituency association, for partisan events, fundraising and party membership.

In 2002, as Chair of the SubCommittee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities, I undertook an innovative e-

consultation on the future of Canada Pension Plan Disability. We had a fantastic website with all the background information and three tools: Issue Poll, Tell us Your Story and Give us Your Solutions. We then invited some of the thoughtful e-participants to an in-person meeting to vet the draft report. It was a highly successful experiment.

It is regrettable that this has not become the norm. All committees should have interactive websites and the capacity to webcast every hearing. Pictures and profiles of each committee Member on the site are important to put a human face on the good work of parliamentary committees. This experiment was an excellent collaboration between the Library of Parliament and the House of Commons; it needs to be the new norm.

Political parties have also created interactive websites like the Liberal “En Famille” to host discussion and show live Town Hall meetings with MPs on a variety of topics.

Google and Google News Alerts are important for MPs to find out what is being said about them.

Occasionally these “postings” need to be responded to. Most are often not worth it!

MSN During Canada’s 2004 election, I was encouraged to do an MSN chat every evening with the young voters. After the election was over, a number of the regular participants asked if I would continue the chat on a weekly basis. Since then, every Sunday night at 9 p.m., I talk to whoever wants to talk to me. I have learned a great deal from these young people. During the 2005 Hurricane Katrina disaster in the southern United States, they guided me to the websites and the New Orleans public radio station so I could listen into the actual advice and news on the ground.

Bennett:Layout 1 09/07/2010 09:48 Page 129

INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY

Web technology provides Parliamentarians with the tools to communicate with their constituents.

Facebook Facebook has been an interesting democratic phenomenon, particularly in view of the huge success of a truly grassroots initiative, the Canadians Against Prorogation of Parliament site consisting ultimately of over 200,000 outraged citizens.

Many Members of Parliament use their facebook site to profile the content already on their website. Others like Hon. Bob Rae have used the site for proper discussion on matters of importance such as the situation in Sri Lanka. Other MPs like Hon. Keith Martin have started facebook groups on issues like maternal and child health.

Twitter Twitter has become an important way of letting people know “what you are doing”. It is important that MPs understand that no one really wants to know what you think of the weather today or that you’ve gone for yet another run. I think it is important to use the tool to reflect on a fast-breaking issue, or retweet an insight, or draw attention to an important article or give the URL for the conference you are attending.

It is also a great way to let people know about a new longer document posted on your website.

When my father died in October, many followers were grateful to find out right away and understand why I wasn’t in Ottawa. When my mother died a number of years ago, there were upsetting articles presuming that I had “skipped” a difficult vote. Twitter made sure that didn’t happen this time.

The search tool can also be important to find out what is being said on issues of interest – during last summer I found out that a paediatric unit in Alberta had been closed just by searching “H1N1”.

Elluminate Michael Furdyk from Taking IT Global has been very helpful in suggesting various ways of being connected across the country. As my party’s critic responsible for senior citizens matters, I was able to use the Elluminate software to hook up 29 constituencies across the country to give feedback to our Leader and Hon. Ken Dryden, and to Sen. Sharon Carstairs on her Interim Report on the Senate Committee on Ageing.

Each site was asked to pick three of the 84 recommendations

in the report. It was exciting to see the consensus from coast to coast.

Almost every site mentioned affordable housing. The next morning I was able to demonstrate “assured listening” by rising in the House of Commons at Question Period and asking a question of the Minister on affordable housing.

Everyone who had participated was then made aware of their “civic efficacy”.

From the Change Commission for the Liberal Party, to our consultation on a Comprehensive Food Policy for Canada to advice on indicators for the health goals for Canada, Elluminate has provided an effective way of “taking the pulse” of the nation in real time.

Tools for a positive transformation Tracking the successes of citizens engaging with their representatives will become even more important. We need to become much more diligent in efforts to show, for example, the relevant citation in Hansard based on a thoughtful intervention from citizens.

Feedback processes are evidence that citizens were heard

and are essential to the successful use of these tools, like showing citizens who attended a Town Hall meeting that it was worth their while coming out to speak with their MP. We have to demonstrate that the technology can lead to better public policy because this new “public space” can bring together unusual coalitions presenting real solutions. There is no question that the technology can put a more “human” face on politicians who people may never have the opportunity to meet in person.

If we use these tools as gimmicks or for sheer partisan gain, we will fail. Technology must never be used to automate bad practices. We must use it to positively transform our tired democratic processes and a cynical population.

If we can use this technology to develop more timely and honest relationships between citizens and their representatives, we can look forward to a more robust democracy in which citizens feel that their representatives are more relevant and responsive.

It should mean that great people will run and citizens will vote, maybe even online.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two | 129

Adams:Layout 1 09/07/2010 09:49 Page 130

GOVERNANCE AND DEMOCRACY

GOVERNANCE AND DEMOCRACY “NORFOLK ISLAND STYLE”: AT RISK AGAIN? Australia’s South Pacific island territory faces challenges to its internal self-government which the Speaker of its Legislative Assembly argues poses a threat not just to its consensus form of government but to the character of the community itself.

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.

Introduction The Norfolk Island Parliament – a nine-Member Legislature known as the Legislative Assembly of Norfolk Island – welcomed the opportunity offered by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in late 2008 for Commonwealth Parliaments to assess how they measure up against the CPA “Benchmarks for Democratic Legislatures”. The opportunity has allowed for reflection on how our Legislature conducts its parliamentary business and whether or not all of the Benchmarks are appropriate for us.

We came to the conclusion that in the few cases where it could be said we do not “measure up” that it in no way means that we are “doing it incorrectly” or that it is not best practice for our community. It just means that we are different in how we go about doing our parliamentary business! The yardstick is whether or not the basic tenets of democracy are

130 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two

Hon. Robin Eleanor Adams

working for the overall advantage of the community they are designed to serve.

Prior to my election on 17 March 2010 to the Thirteenth Legislative Assembly of Norfolk Island, and to the Office of Speaker on 24 March 2010, I served as the Clerk to the Legislative Assembly of Norfolk Island for 26 years, and before that as the Deputy Clerk. It is my personal view that democracy on our Island is alive and well and is the envy of many other Parliaments of similar size.

You are excused if you wonder “who and what” this Norfolk Island is. Flying over the South Pacific from Brisbane Australia to Auckland New Zealand, you could blink and miss us - we are so tiny geographically; just 8 kilometres by 5 kilometres “as the crow flies” with a total area of 3,455 hectares. But our lack of size and population – which fluctuates today between 1,700 and 2,000 people plus some 500 to 800 visitors weekly – in no way diminishes the independence, resourcefulness and vibrancy of the people who make up the multicultural tapestry of the Norfolk Island community today. Norfolk Island is an external territory under the Commonwealth of Australia.

Our history To understand who we are today you need to understand our history.

You might have heard of us because of the mutiny on HMS Bounty in 1789 and the fact that the descendants of the mutineers migrated en masse from Pitcairn

Adams:Layout 1 09/07/2010 09:50 Page 131

GOVERNANCE AND DEMOCRACY

Island to Norfolk Island in 1856 to make it their new homeland. (We argue to this day that Queen Victoria ceded Norfolk Island to the Pitcairners!) And we continue to this day to pride ourselves on two very significant firsts in British legislative history on Pitcairn Island: equal voting rights for women in 1830, years ahead of any other British Empire or Commonwealth constitution, and compulsory education for all children. The Islanders were a self-governing people when they arrived but that right was to be taken away in later years by outside authorities. For a broader overview of our political history we invite you to read articles about our governance arrangements since 1856, and the uncertainties that continue to undermine the evolution of

democracy on Norfolk Island.

(Issue 2 of 2006; Issue 4 of 2008 and Issue 3 of.2009 of The Parliamentarian) These articles were written of necessity to draw Commonwealth attention to the fact that democracy could be said to be at risk in Norfolk Island for reasons not supported by the Island’s Parliament.

Norfolk Island has a hybrid system of representative government: it is a mix of Westminster, consensus and direct democracy. People exposed to an adversarial system of government, such as used in Australia and New Zealand, can find ours hard to fully understand. Space does not permit a full overview of how our Parliament works but some examples of our parliamentary “differences” may be helpful.

Our parliamentary “differences” Direct democracy is alive and well in Norfolk Island and is exercised through a referendum or an initiative under the Referendum Act 1964. In a community with 1,100 voters the referendum process can work with relative ease. Norfolk Island has since 1979 used citizen-initiated referenda on six occasions and government-initiated referenda on 10 occasions.

Members of the Legislative Assembly can vote according to their conscience on every issue, unlike Parliaments with adversarial government. All Members have a deliberative vote only, including the Speaker who, along with the Deputy Speaker, is chosen by vote of the House.

The House also determines the number of Ministers of the government to be appointed by the Administrator (Governor) and, of equal importance, the House may determine whether the Administrator should remove a

Above: A coastal view of Norfolk Island; Left: The island’s tourism logo.

Minister from office if the Members are unhappy with the performance of the Minister.

The number of Ministers has varied from one Assembly to the next, ranging from two through to six in one Assembly. Some would view a ministry of six out of nine Members as being inappropriate.

That is not necessarily the case on Norfolk because of the fact that we have collegiate government, not cabinet solidarity, as Members of the Assembly stand in the main as independents. In fact it is not uncommon during question time for a Minister to ask a question of another Minister or to vote against another Minister. This practice is consistent with consensus government.

From time to time, Ministers, including the Chief Minister, have also been the Speaker.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two | 131

Adams:Layout 1 09/07/2010 09:51 Page 132

GOVERNANCE AND DEMOCRACY

Question time can be robust and penetrating, and sittings are broadcast live island-wide, and replayed the following evening. The community is very quick to ask its own questions of the Legislature and of the ministry in the local press if unsatisfied with responses given or issues raised which cause community concern.

Ministers go on radio on the morning after a sitting and the public is invited to send in questions for them to answer.

The challenge However, our different way of doing business in our Parliament continues to create problems for us with the Commonwealth of Australia and so, in 2010, Norfolk Island is again having to defend its style of governance as a consequence of Commonwealth legislation – the Territories Law Reform Bill 2010 – having been introduced into the Federal Parliament on 17 March – the date the Island went

to the polls to elect its new Parliament.

The Bill makes some serious incursions into the evolution of internal self-government for the Island and is being vigorously opposed by the Norfolk Island government. Australia’s ongoing desire to “normalize” Norfolk Island according to the Australian “norm” continues to be a matter of concern. The Norfolk Island government is committed to persuading the Commonwealth not to proceed with the Bill and took the opportunity on 8 April to present its case against the Bill to the Federal Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories to whom the Commonwealth Bill has been referred for inquiry.

The government has the following concern about changes proposed by the Bill: •

132 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two

The expansion of the veto power of the federal Minister and the reduction of the

authority of the Norfolk Island Executive Council regarding advice to the Administrator as to the exercise of powers conferred on the Administrator.

• The creation of new Commonwealth public service positions notionally attributable to Norfolk Island (which effectively return to the colonial rule in place before 1979).

• The imposition of a fixed form of government on the Norfolk Island community by: 1. Removing the ability of the Legislative Assembly to select, structure and allocate portfolios to the executive Members of the Legislative Assembly who form the Norfolk Island government; 2. Imposing a form of Norfolk Island government focusing on a Chief Minister with power to appoint and remove Ministers; 3. Limiting the number of Ministers that might be appointed;

Above: The first sitting of the Legislative Assembly after the 2010 election.

4. Enabling the Chief Minister to be removed by the Administrator if “in the Administrator’s opinion, there are exceptional circumstances that justify the Administrator so doing”, and 5. Limiting the power to allocate or reallocate Ministerial Portfolios to the Chief Minister.

• Reducing the Legislative Assembly’s power, as the elected representatives of the Norfolk Island community, to enact legislation by: 1. Empowering the Administrator to reserve all proposed laws, regardless of character, for Governor-General’s assent; 2. Empowering the federal Minister to veto all advice from the Norfolk Island Executive Council to the Administrator

Adams:Layout 1 09/07/2010 09:52 Page 133

GOVERNANCE AND DEMOCRACY

regarding proposed laws that previously were under the sole authority of the Executive Council, and 3. Empowering the federal Minister (in addition to the existing power conferred on the Governor-General) to introduce a proposed law into the Legislative Assembly.

• Facilitating the non-democratic and non-judicial removal of the Legislative Assembly by enabling: a. The dismissal of individual Members of the Legislative Assembly by the Administrator for “seriously unlawful conduct” or “grossly improper conduct”, and b. The dissolution of the Legislative Assembly by the Governor-General if, in the opinion of the GovernorGeneral the Legislative Assembly is “incapable of effectively performing its functions” or “is conducting its affairs in a grossly improper manner”.

• Reducing the legislative capacity of the Legislative Assembly through the use of Commonwealth regulations to: a. Override Norfolk Island laws regarding standards of conduct applying to Norfolk Island public servants; b. Repeal or alter items in Schedule 2 or 3 of the Norfolk Island Act 1979 without the current requirement for a Legislative Assembly resolution approving such regulation; c. Override existing Norfolk Island electoral laws; d. Override existing Norfolk Island laws regarding public moneys and public stores, and e. Overriding existing Norfolk Island laws regarding financial management by entities falling within the control of the Norfolk Island government.

• Unilaterally imposing a new financial framework as to the

Public Account of Administration and related public sector entities.

The Norfolk Island government has proposed that the passage of the Bill be deferred so that alternative provisions can be formulated that are more appropriate to Norfolk Island’s unique circumstances. These alternate provisions need to be enshrined in Norfolk Island legislation rather than in that of the Commonwealth of Australia.

The future?

The question is how do we, once and for all, arrive at a place where the Commonwealth of Australia and the Territory of Norfolk Island are on the same platform about the Island’s future. What is the vehicle that will achieve this outcome?

Emeritus Professor Maev O’Collins, posed the following answer in her 2004 paper titled “Norfolk Island and the Commonwealth of Australia: Continuing the Uneasy Relationship?” presented in the Australian National University Emeritus Faculty Lecture Series: “A continuing challenge is to devise and maintain open processes of dialogue and consultation between the Parliament of Australia and the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly. Ensuring that the Norfolk Island community is directly engaged in the process may also serve to establish a sense of ownership and responsibility. If the process of implementation included a two-way mechanism for ongoing consultation, aimed at achieving acceptance and endorsement, as well as any mutually acceptable modifications, both Norfolk Island and Australia would be the winners.”

The answer proposed by Professor O’Collins supports the view expressed by me in the leadup to the elections on 17 March: “It is time to build bridges and mend fences. It is time for the

Front from left: Chief Minister Hon. David Buffett, AM, and Administrator Mr Owen Walsh; back row from left: Tourism, Industry and Development Minister Hon. Andre Nobbs, Community Services Minister Hon. Tim Sheridan and Finance Minister and Attorney-General Hon. Craig Anderson.

Commonwealth government of Australia and the Legislative Assembly of Norfolk Island, on behalf of the Norfolk Island community, to return to the negotiation table with mutual respect for one another, and in their deliberations on our Island’s future, to be always mindful of the uniqueness of Norfolk Island and its historical origins. Constructive

respectful dialogue must form the basis of any discussion on Island issues, including governance, finance and environmental sustainability.”

I equally support the view of Hon. Paul Neville, MP, in his debate on the Norfolk Island (Amendment) Bill 2003 in the Australian House of Representatives on 4 March 2004: “We have to be careful that we do not put layers of bureaucracy in place for an island of 3,000 people such that we destroy the very character of the place and the people. That would be a cultural tragedy of monumental proportions.”

We encourage you to visit our World of Norfolk and recommend you learn more about us by visiting www.theworldofnorfolk.com.au.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two | 133

Horne:Layout 1 09/07/2010 09:55 Page 134

SELF-GOVERNANCE

YUKON’S SELFGOVERNING FIRST NATIONS Canada’s First Nations of aboriginal peoples have emerged from federal government control to self-governing status in barely half a century. A Minister in the Yukon Legislative Assembly, who belongs to a First Nation, describes the legislative path her people have followed to regain the governance of their communities which they lost with the arrival of European settlement.

Hon. Marian Horne, MLA, in Whitehorse.

Ms Horne, the Yukon’s Minister of Justice and Minister Responsible for the Women's Directorate, is a citizen of the Teslin First Nation.

She was first elected to the Canadian Northwestern Territory’s Legislative Assembly for the Yukon Party in 2006.

An accountant and businesswoman, she was a manager with the Teslin Tlingit Heritage Centre and the Teslin Housing Authority prior to being elected to the territorial Assembly.

Hon. Marian Horne

First Nations self-government has become a prominent issue in Canada over the past several decades, especially in Yukon.

Eleven of the 14 First Nations in Yukon have settled their land claims. Self-government agreements are changing the face of governance in the Yukon and altering the relationship between the governments of First Nations, Yukon and Canada.

Yukon, as a territory, has also

134 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two

been assuming more responsibilities. The federal government devolved responsibility formerly held by the Northern Affairs Programme for public lands, water, forestry, mineral resources and environmental assessment to the Yukon government on 1 April 2003 by way of the Devolution Transfer Agreement.

Stripped of self-governance Aboriginal peoples in Canada are defined in the Constitution Act,

1982, as Indians, Inuit and Metis.

About 25 per cent, or 8,500, of Yukon’s 34,000 citizens are of First Nation ancestry.

We, as First Nations have governed and followed our cultural beliefs and traditions since time immemorial.

Traditional leadership roles and responsibilities have been the underlying laws of our societies.

Citizens inherently knew their role and responsibilities within the community and respected

Horne:Layout 1 09/07/2010 09:55 Page 135

SELF-GOVERNANCE

Teslin totems in Yukon.

the role and value of other citizens. Honor and reverence for everything, from the smallest blade of grass at our feet, to the birds in the skies, to the Creator of all living things was innate and as sure as our very existence. It was our way of affirming our spiritual connection to the land and Creator.

Up to the 1950s, government policies attempted to assimilate First Nations peoples into the larger non-aboriginal society.

Primary decision-making power was the responsibility of the Canadian government’s Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or with the department. Canada viewed us as children, as wards of the state and treated us as if we had no sophistication or capacity despite the fact that we had governed ourselves for countless generations.

By divesting us of rights and responsibilities, Canada took away

our ability to be full citizens. First Nations people could not vote provincially until 1949, or federally until 1960, nor stand for election.

They could not pursue claims in court. We were totally under the control of the federal government.

This had devastating consequences for our culture.

In the 1950s, we saw the beginning of transferring of Indian Affairs programmes to bands, provinces and other federal agencies. The devolution of

programme continues to the present day, as does the drive of First Nation’s people for selfgovernment which began during the 1970s and led to today’s selfgovernment agreements.

Our inability to exercise our old governance system forced us into change and adjustment within our nation. In spite of policies and laws put into place, the traditional values, identity, institutions and practices of the First Nations people endured.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two | 135

Horne:Layout 1 09/07/2010 14:24 Page 136

SELF-GOVERNANCE

Reviving a right Self-government is seen as a way to regain control over the management of matters that directly affect First Nations and to preserve the unique cultural identities. It is referred to as an "inherent" right, a pre-existing right rooted in First Nations peoples’ long occupation and government of the land before European settlement.

First Nations people do not seek to be granted selfgovernment by Canadian governments, but rather to have Canadians recognize that First Nations governments existed long before the arrival of Europeans and to establish the conditions that would permit the revival of their governments.

In 1973, the modern process began when the Yukon Native Brotherhood, formed by the 12 Yukon First Nation bands in place at the time and led by Chief Elijah Smith, presented “Together Today for Our Children Tomorrow” to Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. This presentation was the beginning of the negotiation process between the government of Canada and Yukon First Nations. Later that year, the Yukon Native Brotherhood and the Yukon Association of Non-Status Indians created the Council for Yukon Indians (CYI) to negotiate land claims on behalf of Yukon First Nations. CYI has since become the Council for Yukon First Nations (CYFN).

Twenty years later on 29 May 1993, four Yukon First Nations signed the first Final Agreements, including my First Nation, the Teslin Tlingit Council (often shortened to TTC). Since then, seven more have settled. Today, the White River First Nation, Liard First Nation and Ross River Dena Council, which is also in my constituency, remain bands under the federal Indian Act. Individual agreements Yukon First Nations migrated from being Indian Act bands to

Left: A Teslin Tlingit child; Right: Mr Sam Johnston, the prior chief of Teslin Tlingit Council and a former Yukon Speaker.

becoming self-governing First Nations by way of a series of negotiated agreements and plans.

The Umbrella Final Agreement was negotiated first and is the model upon which each First Nation’s Final Agreement is based.

It creates public government institutions, defines the quantum of settlement land and includes a commitment to negotiate selfgovernment agreements.

Final Agreements are based on the Umbrella Final Agreement with specific provisions for each First Nation.

Financial agreements provide for financial compensation, identify settlement land for each nation and outline land and resource ownership.

The Umbrella Final Agreement Implementation Plan lays out activities, timeframes and resources that have been agreed upon to give effect to the final agreement.

A self-government agreement establishes the First Nation government as a “legal person” and ensures that the First Nation has a constitution which sets out its governmental structure so the First Nation has the capacity to act and govern itself.

136 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two

Upon achieving selfgovernment, the Indian Act no longer applies, the band ceases to exist and the First Nation government stands in its place as a legal entity.

Self-governing First Nations (SGFN) are recognized governments, having many of the authorities and responsibilities of both territorial and municipal governments. Yukon First Nations have considerable powers. For example, for my First Nation some of our laws are linked to our citizenship and apply no matter where we are in the Yukon; other laws are land-based and apply to everyone on our land, whether they are TTC citizens or not. Citizenbased laws that apply to our citizens no matter where they live in the Yukon include child welfare, health care, language, culture and education.

The First Nation also has the authority to make land-based laws in relation to our Settlement Land, and these laws are applicable to anyone on Settlement Land. Examples include land use and zoning, lands and natural resources such as forestry and wildlife, and business activity.

Extensive authority Our Final Agreements also speak to trapping, land access for harvesting and commercial harvesting, forestry, water, non-renewable resources and heritage resources.

Our First Nation governments provide autonomous governance and programmes for all our citizens through the Yukon. We collaborate with Canada and Yukon in a government-to-government relationship to ensure our citizens receive programmes and services comparable to those provided across the territory.

We have rights and benefits under the Final Agreement and power over our lands, resources and the management and administration of our government.

We are responsible for programme and services design, management, delivery and spending.

We are responsible for developing and maintaining a constitution that acts as a legal framework that defines our government including decisionmaking, legislation development processes and our leadership selection. It also recognizes and protects the rights and freedoms of their citizens. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Horne:Layout 1 09/07/2010 14:25 Page 137

SELF-GOVERNANCE

also applies to First Nations governments.

The First Nation can negotiate for anything within the scope of their law-making powers, whether or not the First Nation has made a law related to the matter. Yukon laws are displaced by First Nation citizen-based and land-based laws.

Yukon laws apply until a First Nation makes a law on the same subject. The Yukon law then ceases to apply to the extent a First Nation law deals with the same matter.

Government to government A First Nation can make laws regarding property taxation on settlement land. A First Nation can also make laws for other direct taxes such as income or sales tax.

Some Yukon First Nations have negotiated sharing agreements with the governments of Yukon and Canada for the Goods and Services Tax (GST) and income tax.

For instance, the Yukon government is in the process of renewing tax agreements with the First Nations governments to collect taxes on their lands. Under the current 10-year agreements, the First Nations keep 95 per cent of the income tax collected on their settlement lands every year.

Each First Nation’s Final Agreement sets out that First Nation’s share of financial compensation from the government of Canada.

Negotiations take into account matters such as population, own source revenues, economies of scale and prevailing fiscal policies.

Each First Nation can negotiate, with the governments of Canada and/or the Yukon to assume responsibility for programmes and services for their people.

As an example, the administration of justice agreements may include provisions in relation to adjudication, civil remedies, punitive sanctions (including fines, penalties and imprisonment), prosecution, corrections, law

enforcement, the relation of SGYFN courts to other courts and any other related matter.

The government of Yukon created the Yukon Forum to formalize the government-togovernment relationship between the government of Yukon and self-governing Yukon First Nations. The Co-operation in Governance Act recognizes that First Nation and Yukon governments both have jurisdiction and authority over many similar matters. The Yukon Forum is the place for dialogue among these governments, to encourage co-operation and collaboration in governance within Yukon's boundaries.

Land management In total, the Yukon’s 14 First Nations have 41,438 square kilometers of settlement land in the Yukon. This amount represents 8.5 per cent of the territory. That land is divided into two categories: •

•

25,899 sq. km. is Category “A” land, which the First Nation fully owns including both surface and sub-surface (mines and minerals) and exclusive fish and wildlife harvesting rights; and 15,539 sq. km. of Category “B” land on which the First Nation has rights to the surface.

Yukon Government retains the sub-surface rights; the Yukon public has access to this land for non-commercial fish and wildlife harvesting.

Some treaty rights, such as harvesting, extend over a much wider area within what is called the traditional territory of each First Nation. A traditional territory is the area claimed to have been traditionally used and occupied historically by that particular First Nation. Some areas were used by more than one First Nation and these areas are called “overlap” areas.

Provisions allowing for access,

taxation, development assessment, surface rights and many more aspects of land use are also set out in either the individual Final Agreement or the companion SelfGovernment Agreement.

Governments have to consult with First Nations about the use of non-settlement land when the use may have a significant impact on adjacent First Nations’ land.

Each First Nation Final Agreement provides for establishment of a Regional Land Use Planning Commission to recommend a plan for both Settlement and Non-Settlement Land. The Yukon Land Use Planning Council was established through the agreements to deal with land use planning for all areas covered by Final Agreements.

Involvement in Yukon government institutions Final Agreements establish several boards or committees with significant responsibilities. All of the boards and committees have guaranteed First Nation representation, usually half of the membership. For example, the Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board is the primary instrument for fish and wildlife management in the Yukon. A Renewable Resource Council is the primary instrument for fish and wildlife management within a traditional territory.

Other institutions are the Heritage Resources Board, the Surface Rights Board, and the Land Use Planning Council.

Conservation and sharing are the guiding principles of Chapter 16 of the Final Agreements, which deals with fish and wildlife. We have the right to harvest any number of all species, in all seasons, for subsistence reasons within our traditional territory.

Each First Nation administers and manages the rights of Yukon Indian People harvesting within its traditional territory. Consequently, a First Nation member also has the right to harvest in another First

Nation’s traditional territory when given permission by that First Nation.

The government of Yukon can limit a First Nation’s ability to harvest, but only for very specific reasons, like public safety, public health or conservation, and then only after meeting strict consultation requirements prescribed in the Final Agreement.

A rapid but rewarding journey Our First Nations Elders, many still alive today, did not see a non-First Nation person until the Alaska Highway pushed through in 1943. They had never heard the English language, but most learned to speak the language fluently in very short order. I was born that year, in a tent at a harvesting camp on top of a mountain. I have seen incredible changes during my life.

Sometimes when I recall instances in the past, it almost seems surreal that things happened so quickly.

Indeed the road to selfgovernance has been challenging and extremely bumpy at times; but it has been rewarding and is starting to yield benefits not only for First Nation citizens, but also all other Yukon residents.

During the Klondike gold rush in 1900, Chief Jim Boss wrote urgently through an interpreter: “Tell the King very hard, we want something for our Indians because they take our land and game.” It would be rewarding to have him return for one day to show him the King did indeed read his letter and today we not only sit as active Members of the “King’s” government but we also have our own self-government.

More information on land claims and self-government can be found at: www.eco.gov.yk.ca/landclaims/ overview.html.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two | 137

Khan:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:14 Page 138

ENERGY ISSUES

RESOLVING THE ENERGY CRISIS The Secretary-General of the Pakistan Muslim League highlights the factors behind the country’s power generation level and recommends how the government could improve production if it reconsidered its priorities.

Mr Humayun Akhtar Khan, in Islamabad.

Mr Khan is the Secretary General of the Pakistan Muslim League. He was elected four times to the National Assembly of Pakistan between 1990 and 2007 and was Pakistan’s Commerce Minister from 2002 to 2007 and Investment Minister from 1997 to 1999. He is an actuary and businessman.

Mr Humayun Akhtar Khan

The total installed power generation capacity in Pakistan is about 20,000 MW, which at any point in time about 75 per cent of it is normally operational. Pakistan’s demand is around 15,000 MW. The operational capacity and demand seem to match. Why is it then that we are only able to produce a little over 10,000 MW these days leading to huge load shedding and industry closures? A variety of factors come into play. The 6,000 MW potential from hydel sources is not generating more than 2,200 MW due to water shortages. Gas shortages for IPPs and Gencos have resulted in another 1,000 MW shortfall. The circular debt owed to power producers, oil marketing companies and gas utilities is another factor.

Pakistan benefitted from the economic peak from 2002-2007 with GDP growth averaging seven per cent per year, per capita income doubling and exports increasing by over 100 per cent. However, while the economic planners were doing a good job, the energy planners of that regime could not keep up the

138 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two

pace. The new government has not been able to come up with any crisis management plan either. Half its term is already gone and besides accusing the previous government for all the ills of the country, the only energy policy we have seen is rental power plants. This policy has been declared non-transparent and incapable of meeting the shortages of power by the Asian Development Bank. The current energy summit only brought out, primarily, energy conservation measures.

All the ten new IPP plants currently being commissioned were financially closed in the last government, despite the fact that the IPP policy of that time left the entrepreneur at the mercy of NEPRA for tariff determination.

The IPP policy of the PPP government in the mid 1990s might be blamed for non transparency but the fixed tariff basis on which proposals were solicited is something we should move towards. Six hydro power plants on which work is currently going on, five in the public sector and one in private sector, started in

the previous government.

Another flawed policy of the last two decades was the successive governments disallowing WAPDA to upgrade its existing generation infrastructure nor to set-up new power plants while waiting for it to be privatized.

This, coupled with an inadequate IPP policy and lack of political will to go for big hydel projects, has landed us in the current state of affairs. The last government towards its end started the policy of rehabilitating existing public sector power generation infrastructure and allowing WAPDA to set three power plants at Nandipur, Chichokimalian and Guddu. Guddu was financially closed in 2007 but since then the new government has not been able financially to close the other two projects in the public sector.

The Rental Power Plants (RPPs) were supposed to generate 2,250 MW of very expensive energy. Not a single MW has come on line to date. The government has not formulated any plan to utilize the vast Thar coal

Khan:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:14 Page 139

ENERGY ISSUES

More coal-fired power generation could improve Pakistan’s electricity supplies from domestic sources.

resources or for additional gas production or made any progress towards trans-national pipe lines (Iran-Turkmenistan-Qatar). India in the meantime manoeuvered its way into the Iran pipeline project only to use it for extracting the civil nuclear power deal from the U.S. They are least bit interested in this pipeline deal now and have succeeded in pushing Pakistan at least five years back in completing this project. The U.S. has now publically advised Pakistan to drop the IPI gas pipeline. There is not a single project in thermal, gas, coal and hydel power generation or development of primary energy sources which this government has initiated. In fact, projects that were ready for awarding, which would have significantly bridged the energy gap, have now turned into disasters.

The previous government, in a very transparent manner, brought together the world’s leading energy consultants to work on Mashal LNG project. LNG is not an openly traded commodity like sugar, wheat or oil. LNG supply contracts are very complicated processes where no exact

mechanism exists. In a very professional manner, the integrated project, which would have provided LNG to the country on a long term basis and would eventually have resulted in an LNG terminal in Pakistan, was floated.

Two major international LNG players came forward. After proper due diligence, one bidder was recommended. For over two years, the new government did not award this project and sat on it for reasons best known to them, while the country suffered enormous gas shortages. What the government did do eventually was to unbundle this integrated project and issue a tender for short term purchase of LNG. Nowhere in the world is LNG sold or purchased through such tenders. In 2007 the LNG market was a buyer’s market and if the new government had awarded the contract, considerably cheaper LNG could have been available in Pakistan. This act of the government has undermined the entire LNG project. Even after the Supreme Court decision of nullifying this contract, we will be lucky if serious global LNG companies would still be interested

in Pakistan. Without such supplies we are clearly heading for gas load-shedding which will be worse than the load-shedding the country is facing now.

What is required now is to have an optimum energy mix based on maximization of indigenous coal and hydel power generation.

Priority should also be placed on renewable energy sources like wind and solar particularly in remote and rural areas. The country’s current energy mix is oil 31 per cent, natural gas 51 per cent, coal five per cent, hydel 12 per cent and nuclear 0.7 per cent.

What we should strive for is oil 20 per cent, natural gas per cent, coal per cent, hydel 20 per cent, nuclear four per cent and renewable one per cent. Optimal capacity utilization from IPPs must be ensured. The IPPs which were set up in the mid 1990s are beyond the front loading periods of their tariffs. Also, the more power purchased from them, the lower the tariff. Contrary to popular belief that Thar coal is an inferior coal, technology exists in the world where such coal can not only produce energy, but in the process also natural gas. The brackish water in the Thar area can be converted into potable water during the process. Up to 10,000 MW eventually can be generated from Thar coal. Every sugar mill in Pakistan is capable of producing energy which can be sold to PEPCO, based on a process called co-generation. Co-generation uses technology where baggase, a byproduct of sugar manufacturing, and coal can be used to generate energy. As a modest estimate, 2000 MW can be added to the system through this source. The tariff for such energy projects should be attractive enough for entrepreneurs and financial institutions to finance.

Pakistan has an estimated hydel potential of close to 50,000 MW. Only a little over 6,000 MW has been installed. The big dams in the pipeline are Bhasha, Bunji and

Dasu. Pakistan should have built a big dam every decade. Mangla was built in the 1960s and Tarbela in the 1970s. Unfortunately, in the last three decades not a single big dam has come into existence. If the various political parties of this country can arrive at a consensus on as controversial an issue as the renaming of NWFP, could they not, if they were really concerned about Pakistan’s future, have reached a consensus on Kalabagh? One large dam is required just to overcome the losses due to silting in the existing dams. Any further dams would enhance the water storage capacity of the country.

Almost 8,000 MW can be generated through small/medium hydro units on rivers and canals.

Pakistan has developed good capability of nuclear energy both for peaceful and strategic purpose.

We must explore ways and means of increasing the share of nuclear energy from 0.7 per cent to four per cent per year. Seeking a civilian nuclear energy agreement from the U.S. should be our top priority.

All the water and power sector projects like Gomal Dam, Mangla raising, Thal flood water canal, Kachhi Canal, Rainee Canal, Satpara Dam, Kuram Tangi Dam, Mirani Dam, Sabazkai Dam, Jinnah Barrage, Allai Khawar, Khan Khawar, Duber Khawar, MalakandIII and Neelum Jhelum Hydro Electric Projects, were initiated in the last government.

There are a number of other sites, in various stages of study, for water reservoirs and power generation, both on Indus and Jhelum rivers and off-channel, which should be pursued vigorously. Also, there are small and medium storage sites in all provinces of Pakistan which must be pursued. Bhasha dam should be the number one priority of this country at the moment.

However, all this needs vision and capacity in a government, which cannot be seen anywhere at present.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two | 139

Michael:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:17 Page 140

INTERNET GOVERNANCE

WHY INTERNET GOVERNANCE MATTERS With the impending threat of internet cyber attacks, a senior Member of the United Kingdom Parliament highlights how joint working activities with governments, national Parliaments and international businesses help to maximize the worldwide benefits of the internet while containing and minimizing its potential for harm.

Rt Hon. Alun Michael, MP, at Westminster.

Mr Michael has been a Labour Member of the United Kingdom House of Commons since 1987.

He is a former cabinet Minister and was also a Member of the Welsh Assembly and the first Leader of the Welsh government after devolution in 1999. He was a journalist, youth worker, trade union official and Cardiff city councillor before entering the Commons.

In the last two decades the internet has turned into a phenomenon that affects everybody almost as much as the air we breathe. It has evolved from the preserve of academics and technophiles to become an unstoppable socio-economic phenomenon. The internet is now a virtually inescapable necessity which permeates every facet of modern life from entertainment and education to business and politics.

Indeed, the more common it becomes to rely on the internet the easier it becomes to overlook the fact that many people do not have access to it. Many people lack the necessary technical skills, while many others are fearful of what can often seem to be an unfamiliar and bewildering new environment.

There is also a significant disparity in the availability of internet access internationally. While large parts of the United Kingdom are covered by fibre networks offering highspeed broadband connectivity, many other countries are left to languish with connections offering a hundredth of that speed – or no

140 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two

Rt Hon. Alun Michael, MP

connection at all.

In addition to questions of access, there are also genuine worries about the maintenance and evolution of the internet’s technical architecture. There is an ongoing requirement to ensure common standards, connectivity protocols and domain name classifications – to make sure the internet operates effectively universally across the globe. There are also serious concerns relating to the management of online content in order to protect vulnerable users such as children in the case of inappropriate sexual content or child abuse images.

Online criminals exploit the speed and reach of the internet with incredible vigour so there is a pressing need for the development of coordinated international routines and approaches in dealing with the rising tide of online scams, phishing attacks and criminal behaviour on the internet.

With governments and businesses throughout the world becoming increasingly reliant on online channels and delivery mechanisms to engage with and provide services to the public, the threat of international cyberattacks (either state-sponsored or initiated by criminal gangs) has to be countered by more coordinated activity and intelligence sharing at a global level.

In response to these challenges there have been a number of developments at a national and international level to evolve cooperative mechanisms and jointworking activity.

Where it all started In 2005, as Minister of State at the Department of Trade and Industry

Michael:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:18 Page 141

INTERNET GOVERNANCE

progress – rather than locking all parties into some form of UN treaty or bureaucratic agency.

There were calls for a “visible presence” by those who saw “cooperation” as a vague concept – in fact it is a powerful and effective principle - and that led to the establishment of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as an annual event with an environment conducive to discussion and the building of consensus.

This paved the way for a cooperative template to be applied in the field of internet governance.

Indeed, the IGF process is now no longer dependant on just one annual event. There is gathering confidence worldwide that the Internet Governance Forum has created exciting and innovative opportunities for cooperation between stakeholders.

(DTI), I led the U.K. delegation to the World Summit on the Information Society in Tunis.

Initially, there was very little media interest – but the Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal both predicted that the talks would collapse as the Chinese tried to insist upon establishing a new international agency to “run the internet”. The United States’

response was to say “hands off” and indeed Condolezza Rice’s “heavies” were all over Whitehall like a rash in the run up to the conference.

Within an environment of rising conflict and disagreement surrounding the appropriate role of the internet, H.E. Nick Thorne (U.K. Ambassador and Permanent Representative, Geneva) and Mr

Above: Fibre networks offer high speed broadband internet connection.

David Hendon (Director of Business Relations, DTI) succeeded in promoting the idea of “dynamic coalitions” and “enhanced cooperation” as a better and more flexible way of making

The IGF model The IGF model was clear: four partners are necessary: first the industry (not least because those who initiate and promote internet engagement and innovation are essential to governance of the Internet. Second, government has to be at the table. In this context law enforcement and agencies of government and other public bodies are included as part of the hegemony of “government”.

But industry and government are not enough - and they cannot be allowed to “go it alone”. The leadership of these two “big beasts” has to be validated by the engagement of the two other players – the elected representatives of the public (Members of Parliament on a cross-party basis), and “Civil Society” in some significant form.

It is through that framework that the U.K. IGF has concentrated on developing examples of U.K. best practice and serving as a potential prototype model for other national IGF’s.

Athens 2006 Those who attended the first

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two | 141

Michael:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:19 Page 142

INTERNET GOVERNANCE

Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Athens in 2006 described it as a “talking shop”. The following year we set out to develop U.K. messages by bringing together people from industry, together with Parliamentarians across party and representatives of civil society as well as government.

Rio de Janeiro 2008 The team that went to Rio in 2007 therefore went with a joined up set of “U.K. Messages”. During that event we started to lose patience with a theoretical debate about what an IGF might achieve, and on behalf of the team I made the promise that the U.K. would establish its own IGF – the U.K. IGF – and come back with evidence of what the IGF itself ought to be able to achieve.

Hyderabad 2008 By the time we came back to the next event in Hyderabad in 2008, team U.K. had a good tale to tell: the remarkably varied winners of the Nominet U.K. Best Practice Challenge, outcomes from the

Parliament and Internet Conference, and the Parliamentary Internet Committee (PITCOM) competition results showing some extraordinary activity in primary schools and the first step towards creating the e-Crime Reduction Partnership for the U.K..

To our surprise we found that we weren’t the only trailblazers.

Regional IGFs were also being established in Asia, East Africa, West Africa and Europe – and national IGFs established in Australia, France, Germany and the United States are establishing a growing influence. The emergence of the Commonwealth IGF is in many ways the most ambitious example yet of the exciting developments in this area.

Progress at last So at last it seems that we are moving on from a situation in which people said that there was nothing that anybody could do - because the internet was so pervasive, so omnipresent, so international that everything to do with it was beyond control – to a situation where

142 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two

individuals consider how to eat the elephant in small slices, with confidence that it will make a real difference.

Sharm el-Sheikh 2009 Prior to the fourth IGF meeting in Egypt in November, the U.K. IGF undertook an open consultation with Industry, civil society and Parliamentarians as well as government in the U.K. about the priorities for action. Security remains top of the agenda for the U.K., with access and confidence the next.

Tackling online child abuse also remained high on our list of priorities and that has moved further up the international IGF agenda each year. There is also an increasing emphasis on bridging the digital divide and engaging the public – particularly young people.

There was great synergy between the contribution of young people in workshops led by the U.K. charity Childnet International and the Mubarak Peace Movement - an initiative led by the First Lady of Egypt, who attended part of the

event and gave a keynote speech about the engagement of young people.

In promoting the examples of U.K. Best Practice – identified through the Nominet Internet Awards – we also raised awareness of the significant British developments at the sub-national level through such initiatives as the Yorkshire & Humberside Business Crime Reduction Centre and the Wales e-Crime Forum.

The ongoing challenge In many ways the challenges that confront us are still similar to those presented in the old Indian parable of the ‘Blind Men and the Elephant’ where each man touches a different part of the animal and comes to a separate conclusion as to what creature he is dealing with.

Similarly, the internet is a huge space where everyone grasps one corner of what is familiar to them and immediate to their interests.

Happily there is an increasing willingness to admit that – even for experts – our knowledge is limited and our vision is, at best, only

Michael:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:19 Page 143

INTERNET GOVERNANCE

Left to right: Internet governance is an international issue bringing domestic regulators together in global settings: changing the guards in Athens; Sharm El Sheikh; a Brazilian dancer in Rio de Janeiro and local transportation in Hyderabad.

partial. It is only through the development of a multilateral, multistakeholder approach, engaging with governments, national Parliaments, international business and global “civil society” that we will be able to maximize the worldwide benefits of the internet whilst containing and minimizing its potential for harm.

Will the IGF mandate be renewed?

The initial IGF mandate was five years and it runs out in 2010. At the end of the mandate there is a danger that we will revert to the clash between U.S.A.’s view (leave it all alone) and the view taken by the Chinese and others who argue that the U.S.A. has too much influence over the Internet.

Some have maintained their view that a treaty and or agency should replace the IGF. However we fear that such an approach would be damaging and bureaucratic. It is encouraging to note that even China has now engaged constructively with the IGF process.

The next IGF meeting in Vilnius in September 2010 will do much to set the scene. Before that the mandate will be reviewed by the UN Commission on Science and Technology, in May and then subsequently reviewed by the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) in July. Both bodies will submit their final recommendations to the UN General Assembly which will then vote to renew (or revoke) the IGF mandate.

During the coming year we need to demonstrate convincingly that the partnership approach is making a real difference and has the capacity to take on the difficult issues. We have shown that online child abuse is better tackled by our type of partnership than through a legislative approach, but we need to go much further and the further development of the U.K. e-Crime Reduction Partnership is a key factor on the domestic front in showing that the difficult issues can be tackled effectively through a cooperative approach.

Internationally we need to

engage other national governments and Parliamentarians globally to ensure that the opportunity to stand up for the continuation of the IGF is not missed. In support of this I have sought to engage with the InterParliamentary Union and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to ensure that the grass roots enthusiasm for the IGF shown by a number of Parliamentarians across a broad spectrum of countries is allowed to “trickle upwards” to the ears of national governments.

At the end of the day, there are plenty of “facts on the ground” in terms of the efforts of civil society representatives, businesses and Parliamentarians working together to create national and regional cooperative frameworks to promote dialogue on internet governance issues.

These international tectonic plates of activity are quietly accumulating in momentum, but that progress is not always understood. Inevitably, the media tends to enthusiastically cover bad

news and earthquakes whereas unfortunately quiet, constructive, co-operative work rarely makes headlines.

So, we need to make sure that governments across the world wake up to what is already happening, before a unique opportunity to harness and build on these vibrant bottom-up initiatives is thrown away.

If the IGF mandate is allowed to run out, it will only be a matter of years, or even months, before it will be self-evident to all that “this wheel needs to be re-invented”!

Sadly that would send us right back to the starting blocks we were on at the beginning of the Tunis World Summit in 2005 – and I don’t see any logic on returning to the past when we’ve already been there.

As is too often the case, the organic development of internet governance has been fast and effective. But you can’t rush organic growth – and the internet is in a big hurry. That’s what makes the whole issue of internet governance such a big challenge.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two | 143

O'Neill:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:21 Page 144

ELDERS PARLIAMENT

THE ELDERS PARLIAMENT – REACHING OUT TO OLDER PEOPLE With the successful establishment of the Youth Parliament in the Northwest Territories in 1999, the province was again keen to introduce another initiative to reach a different audience, once again bringing the Legislative Assembly to the people.

Ms Danielle O'Neill, in Yellowknife.

Ms O’Neill is the Public Affairs and Communication Advisor for the Legislative Assembly in Canada’s Northwest Territories.

The Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories, Hon. Paul Delorey, runs several outreach programmes to familiarize the people of the Northwest Territories (N.W.T.) with the Legislative Assembly and its inner workings. The Mace Tour, Youth Parliament, and Elders Parliament create awareness about our distinctive system of government and put a human face on what can otherwise be a distant and impersonal institution: they bring the Legislative Assembly to the people.

In the beginning Prior to 1993, sessions of the Legislative Assembly convened throughout the N.W.T. in different community halls and school

144 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two

Ms Danielle O’Neill

gymnasia. The official opening of a permanent Legislature took place on 17 November 1993, and with it stopped the community travel.

Committees and Members continue to travel across the territory to hold public meetings and visit people, but these visits

lack the ceremonial weight of the previous travels. The Speaker designed the Mace Tour to recreate that sense of ceremony and to showcase the Legislative Assembly’s premier symbol of authority, the Mace. The Speaker brings the Mace to communities in the N.W.T. that lack easy access to the Legislative Assembly building.

There are a total of 19 constituencies and 33 communities in the N.W.T., many of which are not on the road system.

The Speaker chooses a different constituency to visit every year.

Accompanying him are: the MLA who represents the chosen constituency, the Commissioner of the N.W.T., the Clerk of the Legislature, the Sergeant-at-Arms and Legislative Assembly staff.

O'Neill:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:21 Page 145

ELDERS PARLIAMENT

They visit schools to display the Mace and give presentations on it and on their roles in the Legislative Assembly. The Speaker also meets with the elders, and offers an evening dinner for everyone in the community. Sometimes the Speaker will challenge the students to a healthy game of soccer or volleyball.

The Youth Parliament The N.W.T. has no political parties; each Member is elected as an independent. After each general election, the 19 elected Members hold a Territorial Leadership Committee (TLC) to choose a Speaker, a Premier and six Ministers. The remaining 11 Members are known as “Regular Members”. This form of government is practised in two of Canada’s territories, Nunavut and the N.W.T., and is called consensus government. To educate youth about consensus government, the Youth Parliament was introduced in 1999 for grades 9 and 10 students throughout the N.W.T.,

and has run for the last 10 years.

Through an application process, one youth is chosen from each of the 19 constituencies to come to the Legislature for one week.

During their week in Yellowknife, they attend meetings and briefings that prepare them for a mock “Session” in the Chamber of the Legislative Assembly. This programme educates youth about consensus government, about their Members’ roles in the Legislature, and about the workings of the Legislative Assembly as a whole. It also gives N.W.T. youth a voice, and a chance to debate issues of interest to them in a public forum. This programme gives youth the memorable and exciting experience of meeting people from all over the territory.

Because of the large land mass of the N.W.T., many residents do not get the opportunity to meet people from other communities, so this is one of the many benefits of the programme. While in Yellowknife, participants are chaperoned in a hotel for the week. During the

evening, Legislative Assembly staff organize activities for the young people. The Youth Parliament has been a very positive outreach programme designed by the Speaker and will continue to be offered for years to come.

The Elders Parliament After 10 very successful years of Youth Parliament, the Speaker wanted to initiate a programme that focused on a different audience. The Elders Parliament is another outreach effort by the Speaker’s Office in keeping with the Legislative Assembly Building’s dedication which reads: “This Legislative Assembly building is dedicated to the people of the north, to the wisdom of their elders and to the vision of their children.”

The Speaker felt that “the vision of their children” had been captured with the Youth Parliament, but “the wisdom of their elders” had yet to be addressed formally. The Speaker wanted the programme to allow elders across the N.W.T. to voice concerns on issues that

Left: Members of the Elders Parliament; Above: Madam Premier (standing) during a session of the Elders Parliament. affect them; it also showcases the territory’s distinctive form of consensus government. In February 2010, the Speaker announced that the inaugural Elders Parliament would be held from 2 to 7May 2010.

One elder was chosen from each of the 19 constituencies in the N.W.T. through an application process. Any resident of the N.W.T. over the age of 50 was eligible to apply. A selection committee from the Office of the Clerk chose the person who would represent each constituency. The successful applicant received a package from the Speaker which included a letter of congratulation and details about the Elders Parliament programme.

The Legislative Assembly of the N.W.T., with the assistance of Northern sponsors, covered all travel costs, meals and

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two | 145

O'Neill:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:22 Page 146

ELDERS PARLIAMENT

accommodation for the participants for the five days they were in attendance. The group, along with Legislative Assembly staff members, had breakfast, lunch and dinner together for the

week, which was a great opportunity for the participants to get to know each other better and to informally debate issues. During their week at the Legislature, the elders took part in various

146 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two

meetings and briefings, and also received presentations from various delegates. These included Mr Shaun Doherty with N.W.T. Parks and Recreation, who created an “Elders in Motion” programme

that works toward making elders more active. The elders were also given a presentation by the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, Mr Tim Mercer, who gave a detailed explanation of consensus

O'Neill:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:23 Page 147

ELDERS PARLIAMENT

government in the N.W.T. These meetings, briefings and presentations assisted them in preparing for their time in the Chamber.

In contrast to the Youth Parliamentarians, who have only one day in the Chamber, the elders had three days in the Chamber to voice their opinions. The Speaker wanted to give the Elder Parliamentarians the chance to decide who was going to serve as their Premier and Cabinet, so they held a “mock” Territorial Leadership Committee (TLC) on their first day in the Chamber. Participants were encouraged to nominate one another, or themselves, to sit on the Executive Council. Each elder who was nominated was given a maximum of 10 minutes to give a speech about what they would do if they were Premier of the N.W.T. Nominees were entered into a random draw to eliminate competitiveness and to encourage everyone to participate. Many of the elders wanted to be Regular Members because they felt that they could participate more fully in the debates during the “Session”, though the motions debated during the “session” were all free votes so all Members could express their views. There were a total of six elders who became part of Cabinet, with the Premier also being chosen by a random draw.

Once selected to sit on the Executive Council, the participants were ready to start their work as MLAs. The second opportunity to sit in the Chamber was during a Round Table Discussion on Northern Political Development with the Premier of the N.W.T., Hon. Floyd Roland.

This discussion allowed the elders to ask the Premier questions about the focus of political development in the North.

It also gave the Premier the chance to hear the elders’ opinions, wisdom and knowledge. This event was chaired by Speaker Delorey and was very well received by both

the Premier and by the Elders Parliament participants.

The third and final chance for the elders to sit in the Chamber was on the Thursday, when the “mock” Session took place. During the “Session”, the elders were able to present their Members’ and Ministers’ statements to the House and also to debate several motions.

The motions were drafted by the elders, and addressed the following topics: Supplementary Health Benefits for Seniors, the establishment of an Elders Senate and Secretariat, support for the Mackenzie Valley Highway, housing programmes and services for seniors, and community-based alcohol and drug treatment programmes.

These motions were based on issues that affect elders across the N.W.T., and the debate on these issues was open and honest.

During these debates, the elders focused on positive change in the N.W.T., as opposed to criticizing MLAs and current government programmes. Mr Glen Abernethy, MLA for Great Slave, was a Page during this event. “Being on the Floor of the Chamber during this monumental event was an absolute pleasure. It was so

interesting to hear what the elders had to say about the issues that affect them as elders in the N.W.T. There were some great ideas and suggestions that they gave, it’s impossible not to learn from their wisdom,” said Mr Abernethy.

The Elders Parliament was broadcast throughout the N.W.T. on the Legislative Assembly Television Network which broadcasts to 30 communities across the territory.

The N.W.T. has eleven official languages; the unique feature of the television network is that the legislature has the ability to broadcast in all of the official languages of the N.W.T. During Elders Parliament, there were three official languages being broadcast when the participants were speaking in the House.

Several of the participants chose to use French, or their Aboriginal languages for their statements and questions.

This programme was well received by all of the participants, some of whom didn’t want to leave. Here is what Dawna O’Brien from Hay River North had to say about the programme in her Member’s Statement in the House: “I would like to thank the

Left: Mount Harrison Smith reflected in Glacier Lake in the Northwest Territories; Above: The Elders Parliament in the Legislature’s Chamber.

Speaker of this House, the Honourable Paul Delorey, Former Commissioner Tony Whitford, Mr Tim Mercer, Clerk of the House and his absolutely wonderful staff…who made this dream a reality for us elders. Thank you, you have treated us royally.” The feelings were similar for all of the participants; the programme was a huge success and one that the Speaker is committed to continuing.

Youth Parliaments and Elders Parliaments will be held in alternate years with the next Elders Parliament scheduled for 2012. Speaker Delorey is already looking forward it: “I know that this programme will continue to be a success at the Legislature, there is so much we can learn from the elders in our territory. It was an honour to be able to listen to their wise words and to see through their eyes for one week. I look forward to seeing this programme happen for many years to come.”

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two | 147

Iddawala:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:25 Page 148

WOMEN IN PARLIAMENT

WOMEN IN THE FIGHT FOR THE LEADERSHIP Despite the fact that Sri Lanka produced the world’s first female Prime Minister and a subsequent female President, female political participation at the local, regional and national levels is still extremely low, notes the Assistant Secretary-General of the country’s Parliament.

Mr Neil Iddawala in Columbo.

Mr Iddawala is the Assistant Secretary – General of the Parliament of Sri Lanka.

Women currently occupy only 13 of the 225 seats in the 7th Sri Lankan Parliament, a mere 5.7 per cent, and constitute only 1.6 per cent of the country’s Ministers and Deputy Ministers. Women represent 52 per cent of Sri Lanka’s total population of 20,217,000 (2008 census) according to the Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka, and 56 per cent of registered voters are women, compared to 39 per cent of women represented in Bangladesh’s Parliament and 28 per cent women Parliamentarians in Pakistan. The literacy rate of women in Sri Lanka is 90 per cent and women are active in nearly every other aspect of society and the economy.

Sri Lanka enjoys an excellent record on women's health, education and life expectancy in the South Asian region, where women play a very active and supportive role, irrespective of party differences.

148 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two

Mr Neil Iddawala

The percentage of women Members in Parliament has remained the same since the grant of universal franchise, not more than six per cent in any given Parliament.

At the local government level, more shockingly, this statistic seems to be less than one per cent, yet at a grassroots level, women take the lead. During election time women play a major role being the backbone of those campaign organizations.

Considering the 225 political representatives who took the oath on 22 April 2010 as Members of Parliament, elected as well as nominated, only 13 were women.

Having been in the Parliament for nearly 21 years, Minister Hon. Sumedha G. Jayasena is the most senior woman MP among elected Members. She first appeared in the MP list in the Second Parliament of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka hailing from Moneragala for the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP). Under the Mahinda Rajapaksa regime she held the post of Child Development and Women Empowerment Minister.

Ms Jayasena became the Deputy Minister of Buddhist Affairs in 1994, a post she held till 1999.

She was the Minister of Women's Affairs from 1999 to 2000 and the Minister of Social Welfare from 2004 to 2005.

In 2004 she was given the ministerial post of Women

Iddawala:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:25 Page 149

WOMEN IN PARLIAMENT

Empowerment, where she received 45,837 preferential votes under the United People's Freedom Alliance (UPFA) from the Moneragala district.

The other woman Member who secured a ministerial portfolio was Hon. Pavithra Devi Wanniarachchi, securing 110,220 preferential Votes from the Ratnapura district and winning the second highest position from the UPFA. Her name first entered the Minister

The number of Sri Lankan women entering Parliament (pictured opposite) remains extremely low.

list in 1994 where she held the position of Deputy of Minister of health and Social Services till 1998.

From 1998 to 2000 she held the post of Deputy Minister of Health and Indigenous Medicine and was appointed Minister for

Land and Plan Implementation from 2000 to 2001.

From 2004 to 2007 Ms Wanniarachchi was the Minister for Samurdhi and Poverty Alleviation and Minister of Youth Affairs under the Mahinda Rajapaksa regime. On 23 April 2010, she was sworn in as a Cabinet Minister and appointed as the Minister for National Heritage and Cultural Affairs.

Most of these women hail from political families, with their fathers, brothers or husbands having engaged in politics.

Of the two ministers, Ms Jayasena entered politics following her husband's assassination and Ms Wanniarachchi hails from a highly influential political family, with her father being a former Cabinet Minister and GovernorGeneral, Mr Dharmadasa Wanniarachchi.

Three are former MPs – Ms Nirupama Rajapaksa from the UPFA, Ms Chandrani Bandara and Ms Thalatha Athukorale from the United National Front (UNF). Two new MPs, Dr Sudarshani Fernandopulle (UPFA) and Ms Vijayakala Maheswaran (UNF) took to politics following the assassination of their husbands and are entering Parliament for the first time.

Ms Rosy Senanayake, though not a new political figure also entered Parliament for the first time. She was the opposition leader of the Western Provincial Council and a strong UNP member for a long time. She was in diplomatic service in Sri Lanka and also held the post of Good Will Ambassador. Ms Upeksha Swarnamalini (UNF) is a complete newcomer to politics and was an upcoming actress in television dramas, and Ms Sriyani Wijewickrama (UPFA) from Digamadull – a very remote District – was elected to the 7th Parliament for the first time.

Ms Rajapaksa comes from the Hambantota district, and held the post of Tourism and Aviation Minister from 1994 to 1999. From

1999 to 2000 she was the Minister of Plan Implementation, and from 2000 to 2001 she was Deputy Minister for Women’s Affairs. Today in the new Parliament she is Deputy Minister of Water Supply and Drainage.

From the National list of the UPFA, actress Ms Malini Fonseka, a veteran women's activist of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party, Ms Kamala Ranathunga, and UNF Member Ms Anoma Gamage enter the Legislature for the first time as MPs. The increase of political wives and daughters taking centre stage gives voters a sense of familiarity and continuity, something a completely new candidate would find hard to muster.

On 8 March this year, President Mahinda Rajapaksa – addressing the celebration held to mark the international Women's day – said his government had focused its attention to increase female representation in Parliament. He argued that it was time to change the culture and make more space for women with academic, professional and social qualifications to get into politics.

The existing proportional representation (PR) system that prompts intense rivalry among the candidates of the same political party sometimes escalates in violence, which would naturally deter some women from entering politics.

The massive cost of election propaganda is another negative factor. As it is very difficult to gain votes from all parts of a district without an effective and costly propaganda, not many women candidates, especially those from outside the “system” can afford the vast sums required to campaign.

However, the real change will come only if women enter politics in large numbers, as they will bring with them experience, energy and enthusiasm as well as an alternative viewpoint when dealing with some of the major problems the country faces.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two | 149

Branch Spotlight:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:29 Page 150

BRANCH SPOTLIGHT: EASTERN CAPE

EASTERN CAPE PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURE The first in a new series for The Parliamentarian, the Chief Parliamentary Officer for the Eastern Cape Branch provides a brief overview of its Legislature’s history, powers and additional Branch information.

Mr Herlu Smith in Bhisho.

Mr Smith is the Chief Parliamentary Officer for the Eastern Cape Provincial Legislature.

A brief overview of the Legislature’s history The province of the Eastern Cape came into existence with the first democratic elections of South Africa in 1994. The Legislature of the province was established on 27 April 1994 as a unicameral Legislature, together with eight other provincial Legislatures in terms of section 124 of the interim constitution of South Africa Initially, the Legislature consisted of 56 Members, who were elected according to a proportional electoral system for this new province. The African National Congress won 48 seats, the National Party, six seats, the Democratic Party and the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania both gaining one seat.

The Legislature commenced duties from nothing. Buildings from the former Ciskei homeland situated in Bhisho were used, and

150 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two

only 12 officials, seconded from the various former administrations, assisted in setting up the Legislature and provided support during the initial period.

Committees were set up and legislation required for the functioning of the province, such as a Provincial Exchequer Act, was passed.

In 1996, the constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act 106 of 1996) was adopted. The provinces continued to exist and the establishment of the Legislature was confirmed in terms of Chapter 6 of the constitution.

Bhisho was hence declared as the capital of the province of the Eastern Cape and is where the Legislature is currently based.

Constitutional dispensation of the Eastern Cape The constitution of South Africa allows a province to adopt and

amend its own constitution, but also provides that a provincial constitution must not be inconsistent with the South African constitution, but may provide for provincial legislative or executive structures and procedures that differ from those provided for in the South African constitution as well as the institution, role, authority and status of a traditional monarch, where applicable.

The Eastern Cape, together with six other provinces of South Africa, did not see the need for its own constitution. South Africa is a unitary state and the Eastern Cape Legislature is able to perform its functions and duties without the need of a provincial constitution.

The constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, allocates various powers and to the Legislature. The most important of those powers include:

Branch Spotlight:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:30 Page 151

BRANCH SPOTLIGHT: EASTERN CAPE

determine and control its internal arrangements, proceedings and procedure and to make rules and orders concerning its business, with due regard to representative and participatory democracy, accountability, transparency and public involvement.

Public participation The constitution provides that the Legislature must facilitate public involvement in the legislative and other processes of the Legislature and its committees

Legislative Authority The legislative authority of the Eastern Cape is vested in the Legislature, but it is restricted to the passing of a constitution for the province and legislation with regard to certain functional areas that directly affect it such as agriculture, health, education, housing, the environment and other s.

Legislative power The Legislature may consider, pass, amend or reject a Bill; and initiate or prepare legislation, except money Bills.

Oversight power The constitution not only gives the power of oversight, but makes oversight compulsory. It also provides that Members of the Executive Council of a province are accountable - collectively and individually - to the Legislature for the exercise of their powers and the performance of their functions.

Power to call for evidence and information The Legislature may summon any person to appear before it to give evidence on oath or affirmation, or to produce documents.

Opposite page: The Hole in the Wall, Eastern Cape; Above: The main entrance to the legislative building.

The Legislature may also require any person or provincial institution to report to it and it may receive petitions, representations or submissions from any interested persons or institutions.

Power to determine and control its internal arrangements, procedures and proceedings The Legislature has the power to

Relationships within the national Parliament The national Parliament consists of two Houses: The National Assembly (NA) and the National Council of Provinces (NCOP).

The Legislature has a close relationship with the NCOP given that the NCOP was established to represent the provinces and to ensure that provincial interests were taken into account in the national sphere of government.

This is achieved mainly by provinces participating in the national legislative process; and the NCOP providing a national forum for public consideration of issues affecting the provinces.

Each province is represented by a delegation of 10 delegates, six permanent and four special delegates. The permanent delegates to the NCOP are appointed by the provincial Legislatures in accordance with nominations of political parties entitled to permanent delegates to the NCOP. The four special delegates of each province are appointed from amongst the Members of the Legislature as and when participation of special delegates is necessary in the NCOP. Each province has one vote on bills affecting provinces, including constitutional amendments, and the votes are based on mandates provided by the provincial Legislatures to their provincial delegations.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two | 151

Branch Spotlight:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:31 Page 152

BRANCH SPOTLIGHT: EASTERN CAPE

Official housing Members of the Legislature are allocated official housing, but rental must be paid to the Department of Public Works.

Relocation costs The Legislature is responsible for paying relocation costs of new Mmembers who are relocating to Bhisho.

Communication facilities Each Member is provided with a mobile phone, but Members’ use is limited according to the position that they hold in the Legislature.

Each Member is also provided with an office telephone (landline), whose usage and limits are regulated by a telephone policy.

Offices Each Member is allocated an office with the necessary office furniture and equipment.

It is therefore clear that the Legislature has constant contact with the NCOP and proper liaison is a prerequisite for fruitful participation. To this end, the Eastern Cape Legislature as well as other provinces established NCOP liaison offices with appropriate staff in Cape Town, the seat of Parliament.

The province’s Permanent Delegates to the NCOP may also attend and speak in the Legislature and its committees, but may not vote.

The Legislature’s size and party composition; The Eastern Cape Legislature consists of 63 members.

From these members the Premier is elected who, in turn, appoints Members of the Executive Council (cabinet) from amongst the members of the Legislature. The Premier and members of the Executive Council remain members of the Legislature.

The Constitution of South Africa also requires that a Speaker

and Deputy Speaker be elected by the Legislature.

The following political parties are represented in the Legislature: African National Congress (ANC) (majority party) 44 seats Congress of the People (COPE) 9 seats Democratic Alliance (DA) 6 seats United Democratic Movement (UDM) 3 seats African Independent Congress (AIC) 1 seat Male = 35 Members Female = 28 Members Electoral system Parliamentary elections are held every five years. Anyone aged 18 and over and who has registered on the Voters’ Roll is entitled to vote. Provincial and national elections are held together and voters vote for the national Parliament and provincial Legislatures on separate ballot papers. South Africa uses a proportional

152 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two

The Chamber of the Legislative Assembly.

representation voting system based on political party lists at the national and provincial levels.

A registered political party receives a share of seats in Parliament and a provincial Legislature in direct proportion to the number of votes cast for it in the election. Voters don’t vote for individuals, but for a political party.

Each political party must submit a list of candidates in order of preference and after the elections, candidates on the lists become members of Parliament or provincial legislatures in proportion to the number of votes that the political party obtained in the election.

Facilities and services for Members Members of the Legislature are offered a range of facilities and services which include the following:

Administrative support Members are assisted by political support staff, paid by the Legislature but appointed and allocated by the Member’s political party. Members are entitled to personalized stationery.

Official travelling If a Member travels on official Legislature business, the Legislature provides an economy class air ticket if within the country, and a business class ticket if abroad.

The Legislature further provides transport to and from the airport, subsistence allowance and hotel accommodation, benchmarked at a 3 star hotel in South Africa.

Unofficial travelling A Member is entitled to 12 domestic return air tickets; seven tickets for political work and five tickets for family responsibilities.

Laptops and portable printers Each Member is allocated a laptop and a portable printer which remain the property of the Legislature.

Branch Spotlight:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:31 Page 153

BRANCH SPOTLIGHT: EASTERN CAPE

Policy priorities The Speaker, in his policy speech for the 2010/2011 financial year, outlined the following policy priorities for the year. These included: Oversight The State President’s call for vigorous oversight is being heeded by the Legislature. The Eastern Cape Legislature will conduct robust oversight over the Executive Council and public entities, with the institution paying particular attention to the service delivery priority areas outlined in the medium-term strategic framework of government and the consideration of responses of the Executive on House resolutions.

Public participation, petitions and education The Legislature will develop awareness campaigns and educational programmes aimed at learners, educators and civil society to broaden general knowledge about the role of the institution.

Time will be set aside for sittings at which responses to petitions will be presented by the relevant departments and discussed in the House.

The Legislature will establish a portfolio committee to deal with matters relating to public participation, including the processing of petitions.

was passed by the Legislature, assented to by the Premier and published.

The Speaker is now defined as an Executing Authority of the Legislature and is responsible for the treasury control and monitoring functions over the Legislature.

Provincial statistics The Eastern Cape has the second largest area in South Africa and consists of 169 580 square kilometers (65,475.2 sq miles). The province has a beautiful and largely unspoilt coastline and is renowned for its game reserves.

The population of the province is the third largest in South Africa where according to the 2007 census, 6,527,747 people were recorded to live in the region.

However, the province is largely rural with only two economic hubs, namely East London and Port Elizabeth.

The economy is largely centred around the motor manufacturing sector with General Motors, Volkswagen and Daimler Chrysler plants. The industrial development zones, Coega and East London IDZ have now been completed.

The Eastern Cape remains one of the poorest provinces in South Africa. This is largely due to the extreme poverty found in the former homelands, where subsistence agriculture predominates.

Law-making The Legislature will set up a Law Review Committee with specific terms of reference to review existing legislation.

This Committee will advise the Executive on areas in the laws that are outdated and undesirable, recommend appropriate action and assist in the law-making process.

Conclusion Mr Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela (Madiba), who was born in the Eastern Cape region, remains a great inspiration for the Eastern Cape Provincial Legislature in striving to live up to the legacy of this great leader of the Eastern Cape, South Africa and the world.

Financial management of the Eastern Cape Provincial Legislature Act (FIMPLA) The Financial Management of the Eastern Cape Provincial Legislature Act (Act 3 of 2009)

If you would like your Branch featured in The Parliamentarian, please email your copy, written in this format, and photographs to the Editor, Andrew Imlach, at andrew@cpahq.org.

FACT FILE: EASTERN CAPE PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURE

ADDRESS: LEGISLATURE OF THE PROVINCE OF THE EASTERN CAPE, PRIVATE BAG X0051, BHISHO, EASTERN CAPE, SOUTH AFRICA, 5605 PHONE: (+27-40) 608-0207 FAX: (+27-40) 639 1481 EMAIL: JDESOUSA@ECLEG.GOV.ZA CPA OFFICERS MS NOXOLO ABRAHAM-NTANTISO, MPL, BRANCH CHAIRMAN MR FIKILE DEVILLIERS XASA, MPL, BRANCH PRESIDENT. PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE: SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATURE MR PUMELELE NDAMASE, BRANCH SECRETARY. PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE: SECRETARY TO THE LEGISLATURE BRANCH PROFILE SEAT OF PARLIAMENT: BHISHO POPULATION: 6.9-MILLION (2007) DATE OF CONSTITUTION: PROVINCE I.T.O. CONSTITUTION OF REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA, 1996 DATE CPA BRANCH FORMED: 1996 NAME OF LOWER/SINGLE HOUSE: PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURE SEATS: 63 WOMEN MPL’S: 28 LAST ELECTION: 22 APRIL 2009 TERM: FIVE YEARS PARTIES: FIVE VOTING AGE: 18 DATE OF FIRST PARLIAMENT: 01/04/1994 PARLIAMENTARIAN PROFILE: THE MAJORITY PARTY IN THE HOUSE IS THE AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS (ANC) AND THE CONGRESS OF THE PEOPLE (COPE) IS THE OFFICIAL OPPOSITION. OTHER PARTIES IN THE HOUSE INCLUDE THE DEMOCRATIC ALLIANCE (DA), UNITED DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENT (UDM) AND THE AFRICAN INDEPENDENT CONGRESS (AIC).

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two | 153

Tasmania:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:34 Page 154

STATE ELECTIONS

TASMANIA’S TIED ELECTION Australian’s island state went to the polls in March in a close general election that was eventually decided on the Floor of the House of Assembly.

The Tasmanian House of Assembly completed its sittings on 19 November 2009. In February 2010, its four-year term concluded, the House was dissolved, the Legislative Council prorogued and a general election was called.

The election was held on Saturday 20 March 2010. In the last Parliament, the governing Australian Labor Party had 14 seats, the opposition Liberal Party seven seats and the Tasmanian Greens four seats. Labor has been in power since 1998.

Three long-serving Members, Hon. Jim Cox, Hon. Sue Napier and Hon. Michael Hodgman, retired at the election.

The election saw 10 Members each returned for the Labor and Liberal Parties and five Members for the Greens. There are 11 new Members out of a total of 25.

Nineteen Members are male and six Members in the new Parliament are female, a net loss of three in the latter category.

The Speaker, Hon Michael Polley, MHA, became the current longest serving Member in any Parliament in Australia, having been a Member since April 1972.

The next longest serving House of Assembly Members are those who were elected in 1996.

Governor turns to constitutional role The Premier, Hon. David Bartlett, MHA, offered his resignation to Governor Hon. Peter Underwood; but, after discussions with both Labor and Liberal Leaders, the Governor did not accept the resignation offer and recommissioned Mr Bartlett as Premier with a view to gauging

154 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two

support for the government on the Floor of the House when Parliament resumed.

Gov. Underwood said he was constitutionally bound to choose the incumbent Labor government when the Liberal Party could not prove that it could form a stable government.

However, Liberal Leader Hon. Will Hodgman argued that his party should have been given the first chance to test its ability to govern on the Floor of the House. The Liberals argued that they received more votes statewide than Labor.

During the campaign Premier Bartlett had reportedly said the party with the most votes should get the first opportunity to govern.

However the Tasmanian Greens Leader, Mr Nick McKim, MHA, indicated the support of his

party for a Labor government. On 13 April the Governor formally recommissioned Premier Bartlett, Attorney-General Hon. Lara Giddings, MHA, and Treasurer Hon. Michael Aird, MLC. Government formed by a partnership Mr McKim was subsequently appointed to the Labor government ministry. Another Greens Member, Ms Cassy O'Connor, MHA, was made Secretary to Cabinet. The Greens agreed to support the government with supply and in matters of confidence (unless gross malfeasance or corruption is demonstrated).

The House sat on Tuesday 4 May, Commissioners opened the Parliament and Members were sworn in.

Tasmania:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:35 Page 155

STATE ELECTIONS

There were two nominations for Speaker. The government nominated Mr Polley and the opposition nominated Mr Rene Hidding. Following a secret ballot, the result was Mr Polley 15 votes, Mr Hidding 10 votes. This reflected Labor and Tasmanian Greens voting together.

Later the government proposed Labor MHA Mr Brenton Best as Chair of Committees (he had held the post since 1998) and the Greens proposed Mr Tim Morris.

After a secret ballot, the result was Mr Morris 15 votes and Mr Best nine votes. Mr Morris thus became the first Green Party

Member to be elected to a Chair position.

Then followed a Want of Confidence motion, moved by the opposition Liberals, in the Labor government. The motion was lost eventually by 14 votes to 10. Now that it had been established that the government enjoyed the confidence of the House, the House was adjourned until 8 June when Gov. Underwood came to Parliament to open it formally.

After the Address-in-Reply was dealt with, the 2010 budget was delivered in the House of Assembly on 17 June by Mr Aird, who was invited into the lower House from the Legislative Council to deliver the address. Other Members of the Legislative Council who wanted to hear the budget speech were also invited into the Chamber.

Opposite page: Part of the harbour in the capital, Hobart; Above: The House of Assembly before the election; Left: Speaker Hon. Michael Polley, MHA.

Parliamentary reform All three parties have now agreed that the House of Assembly should be returned from 25 to 35 Members (the situation prior to 1998). The method of achieving the objective has not been determined as yet.

A proposal being considered before the election to introduce fixed-term elections in the state was not proceeded with in the previous Parliament. There was as yet no indication whether it would be re-introduced in the new Parliament.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two | 155

Darkwa:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:36 Page 156

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CLERK

THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CLERK OF PARLIAMENT Filling the position of Clerk or Secretary to a Parliament is not just another staff appointment. A Parliament must look for a truly remarkable person of unassailable character, says a veteran of African parliamentary democracy.

Mr S.N. Darkwa, in Accra.

Mr Darkwa is a retired Clerk of the Parliament of Ghana. He was the Clerk of the Constituent Assembly which drafted the 1992 constitution and then became Clerk of Parliament when democratic government was restored at the end of 1992.

Parliament is a unique institution. It is the only institution that has been vested with the power to make laws, raise taxation and take major public policy decisions that affect every citizen.

Parliament does not function like other bureaucratic services. The parliamentary ethos and culture are unique. An effective and efficient parliamentary service demands, among other things, prompt attention to duty, accurate and speedy delivery of proceedings of Parliament – official reports and official records on a daily basis, timely and unambiguous advice to the Speaker and Members, commitment and loyalty to the institution.

In the preface to the 1997 Guidelines for Training Parliamentary Staff, the then Secretary-General of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association has correctly stated that “an effective parliamentary service must be apolitical and impartial, its integrity, in all circumstances, unassailable”.

Like other institutions, however,

156 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two

The front entrance into the Parliament of Ghana.

Parliament has its own holders of public office who exercise authority and speak on its behalf.

Among such high profile officers are the Speaker and the Clerk of Parliament whose offices are prescribed by the Constitution.

Parliament cannot function without the Speaker or the Clerk.

The Speaker is highly visible at the centre of power in Parliament.

As the representative and mouthpiece of Parliament, the Speaker is its embodiment of power, honour and dignity. He or she is held in such high esteem that casual criticism is not allowed.

Although Speakers are the masters of the House, they are at the same time its servant. This is because their powers are derived from the House itself,. The Office of the Speaker is elective and must be protected and respected.

Where the procedure at Westminster is a model, the Speaker is a political eunuch who does not take part in debate in the Chamber and does not engage in political controversy.

Duty of the Clerk The Clerk will seek to be less visible, stay out of the spotlight working behind the scenes and in anonymity. The duties of the Clerk reflect their responsibilities and how they discharge these may reveal their character. In brief, the Clerk is the head of the parliamentary service and its accounting officer.

They are the principal procedural advisor to the Speaker.

Members of Parliament also consult the Clerk on procedure, practices and the rules of the House. They are the person who

Darkwa:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:37 Page 157

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CLERK

authenticates Bills passed by Parliament for Presidential Assent.

They also perform a rare and an unenviable duty of presiding over the election of a new Speaker. In other Parliaments this duty is performed by the most senior Member of the House.

As the principal advisor to the Speaker and Members, the Clerk

Above: The Parliament building in Accra, Ghana.

must be thoroughly grounded in the procedural knowledge acquired systematically over the years.

Experience on the job is a necessary requirement for appointment of the Clerk. The Chair must never be paralysed by indecision for lack of procedural knowledge, and the decision or ruling of the Chair must be timely and correct. A bad ruling is likely to be honoured more in the breach than in its observance. A Speaker once gave an interesting ruling: he ruled that the word “shame” was unparliamentary because that word is not uttered in correct Ghanaian society. This ruling was breached as often as one side of the House shouted “hear, hear” the other side responded with “shame, shame”.

The debate in the Constituent Assembly in 1968 nearly descended into chaos when the Speaker was hesitant or reluctant to confirm the decision on a controversial clause at the previous

sitting. That clause formed part of Article 71 of the 1968 constitution disqualifying persons about whom Commission’s of Inquiry had made adverse findings from being a Member of Parliament. The Clerk quickly produced an accurate record of decisions at previous sittings to save the situation.

Objective advice The Clerk is expected to provide timely and strictly objective information. Clerks trained in the best tradition of Parliament are noted for their scrupulous regard for the truth, and such is their reputation for probity that what they say is usually accepted without the support of an oath.

Because the Clerk is telling the truth they must be fearless in the advice given even if it is not welcomed by Ministers or leaders on both sides of the House. As a Clerk is trusted, visiting parliamentary delegation usually seek the truth or fact from the Clerk as a last resort.

The Clerk and staff must remain absolutely neutral in politics even though they live in the thick of politics; their overriding interest is loyalty to the institution; its integrity must remain unassailable at all times. The appointment of the Clerk in consultation with the Public Services Commission underlines the political neutrality of that office.

The Clerk and staff should not join any political party.

The day President Rawlings, in his usual directness, told a visiting United Kingdom parliamentary delegation that he did not know where the Clerk’s political sympathy lay, the Clerk felt fulfilled that he had satisfied an indispensable requirement of his office: neutrality.

The leader of the delegation, Sir Peter Emery, told the President that the Clerk was independent. The President was satisfied.

The Clerk’s qualities must reflect some of the Speaker’s. The Speaker is unusually patient to listen to all views from both sides of the House. Some MPs may hold the House spellbound by their sheer oratory while others are hesitant in their speech and boring.

In both instances the Speaker must listen to all viewpoints. The Clerk must also listen patiently, think clearly and quickly and speak forthrightly but tactfully. They must speak the truth but how it is spoken is important. They can lose the audience or enjoy their confidence by the tone of his or her voice.

A disciplined approach The Speaker and his Clerk must act in all circumstances with firmness and fairness, because it is said that firmness without fairness is the character of a dictator and fairness without firmness is a mark of weakness. Above everything else, the integrity of the Clerk is an indispensable quality required of the Clerk of Parliament. Indeed, integrity is a prerequisite.

Integrity – being what you claim you are – trustworthy, neutral, impartial, firm and fair and not giving in to pressure; nor remaining silent when you ought to speak out the truth without fear or favour.

Trust in the Speaker and the Clerk is the key to ensuring orderly proceedings in the House.

In appointing a Clerk, an indispensable characteristic to look for is integrity. An aspiring Clerk who is an accounting officer who cannot exercise financial discipline, who will shade or alter figures and who is vulnerable to pressure or

temptation, no matter how intelligent, is not a suitable candidate.

The Clerk of integrity should never yield to threats of dismissal from politicians; nor pander to their wishes. When the Clerk is consistently firm, fair and trustworthy, his integrity is his protection or security. Many politicians would like to share their closest confidences and deepest thoughts with such a Clerk. The Bible says: “The man of integrity walks securely.” (Proverbs 10: 9).

Fortunately, the distinguished first Speaker of Ghana’s Parliament, Sir Emmanuel Charles Quist, and his able Clerk, Mr K.B. Ayensu, laid a solid foundation for multiparty parliamentary democracy.

Together both officers gave Ghana an enduring legacy – an apolitical, impartial vibrant parliamentary setting which has survived the test of time. Sir Emmanuel assumed the Chair with a great deal of experience and wisdom, having served in the Legislature for many years.

The relationship between the Speaker and the Clerk should not always be stiff and formal. They should demonstrate candour with each other. The Clerk should be as open as possible about advice and decision given after frank and open discussion. Sharing polite and wholesome humour may well be refreshing tonic to reduce tension to stimulate free and honest rational discussion.

The Clerk must demonstrate, by example, leadership qualities or characteristics of a typical Clerk, motivating, promoting and supporting staff.

The attitudinal approach of the Clerk and staff to their work as one family is vitally important.

When they cultivate an attitude of “we wait to serve rather than we have to serve”, they will not only have fulfilled their role but also have given posterity an effective and efficient parliamentary service.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two | 157

Grice:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:38 Page 158

CHANGING THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT

REORGANIZING THE CLERK’S DEPARTMENT A Parliament already known for its new approaches to procedural and administrative practices continues its innovative tradition by implementing significant changes in the way it is run, writes the Clerk/Chief Executive of the Scottish Parliament.

Mr Paul Grice, in Edinburgh.

Mr Grice has been the Clerk and Chief Executive of the Scottish Parliament since 1999.

Prior to joining the Parliament, he was a United Kingdom civil servant in the Constitution Group working on Scottish devolution, including responsibility for setting up the Scottish Parliament’s organization and infrastructure.

Introduction One of the most challenging but exciting elements of being involved at the inception of a new Legislature is having the freedom – within certain parameters – to define the structures, procedures and culture under which it operates. It provides an opportunity to learn from the successes and the challenges of other Legislatures, without the inherent difficulty of changing the deeprooted cultures and behaviours of an established Legislature.

This was my privilege in 1998, when I was charged with the responsibility of leading the team which put in place the parliamentary service to support Scotland’s first Parliament since 1707 and becoming its first Clerk/Chief Executive. Even the choice of job title reflected a departure from traditional parliamentary structures, reflecting the post’s corporate as well as procedural responsibilities.

As my colleagues and I set about the task of translating the democratic will of Scotland’s

158 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two

century, and the social and political conventions associated with that.

Mr Paul Grice

people into a working Parliament, we drew on our own experience from other Legislatures, particularly the United Kingdom Parliament.

But we knew that we were not looking to create our Parliament in Westminster’s image, or anybody else’s – a view confirmed by the conclusions of the cross-party Consultative Steering Group set up in November 1997 to create a blueprint for the Scottish Parliament’s procedures, working methods and inaugural Standing Orders. As a result, our parliamentary procedures reflect a Legislature born in the late 20th

Chamber proceedings Useful examples of how we set our own direction, and how we departed from the U.K. model, can be seen in the running of our Chamber business. Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) refer to one another by name (as opposed to “the honourable Member for...”). Parliament sits at family-friendly sitting dates/times, with formal business normally finishing by 6 p.m. and recess dates designed to coincide with school holidays. Chamber business opens each week with “Time for Reflection”, with a broad variety of faith and non-faith groups given the opportunity to address Parliament. And the programme of business itself is agreed – using weighted voted if needed – by our Parliamentary Bureau, on which all parties with five or more MSPs are represented by their nominated Business Managers. We have no direct equivalent to the Leader of the House role at Westminster

Grice:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:39 Page 159

CHANGING THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT

Left: The Scottish Parliament; Below: The Scott Monument in Edinburgh.

which arguably helps underline the distinction between Parliament and government.

Even the respective Chamber

designs reflect the different operating methods of the Scottish and U.K. Parliaments, with the semi-circular design of the

Chamber at Holyrood contrasting with the opposing benches of the House of Commons Chamber.

Part of the rationale behind this The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two | 159

Grice:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:40 Page 160

CHANGING THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT design arises from the fact that Scotland’s electoral system (a variation on the additional Member system) makes majority government unlikely, with governments relying instead on formal coalitions or, as a minority, on cross-party support on an issue-by issue basis. The Chamber was therefore designed to promote a more collegiate approach – I will leave others to judge the extent to which this has happened in practice.

Another highly visible difference relates to the Presiding Officer’s podium, with our principal clerk and minute clerk sitting alongside, rather than in front of, the Presiding Officer. This arrangement has been a feature of the Parliament since its inception in 1999. I realize that this is a departure from the traditional Commonwealth arrangements and it comes with its own advantages and disadvantages. I am pleased to say that I have a mostly positive view. I think it is safe to claim that over our three parliamentary sessions to date, all three Presiding Officers and their Deputies have found it helpful to have their clerks immediately to hand to provide advice as required. It is also arguable that Chamber clerks are able to pass on their advice in a more effective manner without the barrier of separate desks. I do recognize that this may be more of an advantage in a young and developing Parliament.

The only disadvantage of the podium arrangement that comes to mind is that it could appear that the Presiding Officer is less approachable during proceedings.

However, the clerks do serve a useful purpose in receiving and passing on messages from Members which allows the Presiding Officer to concentrate on the business being taken.

From a personal point of view, I have had the immense privilege to witness every major parliamentary event from this perspective, sitting alongside the Presiding Officer.

This has not only placed me near to the centre of recent Scottish political history but has involved me in providing precedent setting advice as the parliament has evolved. One incident that stands out concluded with the Presiding Officer determining that a Minister, where a scheduled statement to Parliament had been widely trailed in the media, should not be allowed to make that statement but should instead go straight to questions. It was a key decision in helping reinforce the expectation that scheduled Parliamentary statements should indeed be made to Parliament in the first instance.

Wider role of a parliamentary service As colleagues will be well aware, however, supporting the business of a Parliament is not just about procedural advice to the Presiding Officers. Nor is it limited to supporting the legislative and scrutiny functions of Parliament through its Chamber and Committee business.

It is about every aspect of supporting Parliament and its Members: supporting the management board (the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body); promoting public engagement and participation through finding new and innovative ways to increase the reach of the Parliament; making the best use of available resources, and ensuring the sound and forward-thinking governance of the parliamentary service so that it is flexible and agile enough to meet future challenges.

It is this final point that has occupied much of my attention over the past couple of years.

Corporate Change Programme In 2008, with our tenth anniversary approaching, I felt it was time to take stock on how we were performing as a parliamentary service. It was clear to me that we were broadly succeeding in our

160 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two

TheScottish Parliament is an innovatively designed working environment.

core function of supporting parliamentary business. But as I have mentioned, while this may be our primary role, it is by no means our only one. So I wanted to take a look at the full picture and consider whether we were doing all the right things, and doing them in the right way.

If changes were required, I felt that this was the time to make them for two key reasons. First, as I stated at the outset, it is easier to change the direction of a new and developing organization than one where conventions and behaviours have become entrenched.

Secondly, we had experienced significant year on year increases in our budget throughout our first decade, allowing us gradually to build and enhance our services.

However, it was clear that this growth could not last forever, and that we needed to be prepared for when economic circumstances changed – although like many, I didn’t realize they would change quite so soon, and so dramatically.

For these reasons, I commissioned an external review of our high-level structures and working practices. It concluded that there was much to be commended about our ways of working.

There was also scope to streamline working practices, reduce duplication and increase organizational agility – and in turn, improve services to Members and the public.

I used the review report as the starting point for an organization-

Grice:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:40 Page 161

CHANGING THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT we provide high-level support for parliamentary business.

In the past, we had two procedural clerks with responsibility for Chamber and Committee business respectively.

These clerks reported to a Director, who in turn reported to me. Since the change programme, the procedural clerks report directly to me on parliamentary business.

This has helped streamline the process for delivering procedural advice to the Presiding Officer, committee conveners and so on, improving both the speed and clarity of the advice given. It has reduced the risk of conflicting advice being given as a result of overlapping roles and responsibilities.

And it has freed up the former Director post to focus on broader corporate issues around strategic planning, organizational development and the enhancement of Member services.

wide programme of change. I assigned one of my Directors to work full-time on the programme, agree specific recommendations with me and see these through to implementation.

Main changes The agreed changes covered a broad spectrum, including: •

•

Rationalization of my top management team from five directors to three strategically focussed Assistant Clerk/Chief Executives, sitting alongside our senior lawyer.

Division of strategic and operational responsibility, with a streamlined second tier of management being responsible for operational

•

•

•

activity under direct delegation from me.

Improved strategic focus through the development of a four year strategic plan, aligned with the Scottish parliamentary cycle.

Enhanced project and programme governance arrangements, again with a clear strategic/operational demarcation; and Refinements to systems and processes to reduce duplication, increase flexibility and enhance services to Members.

So, what did these changes mean in practice? It is perhaps easiest to illustrate this through a real life example: specifically, how

Impact of changes This last point, I feel, is particularly important. Any hierarchical organization runs the risk of developing a “silo mentality”, with managers representing narrow interests when they should be taking a corporate view. While I don’t believe this has been an overwhelming problem for us, neither can I claim that we are immune to it. Removing functional responsibility from my most senior managers has helped encourage genuine corporate working at that level.

At present, my Assistant Clerk/Chief Executives are coordinating a number of key strategic programmes to enhance our responsiveness to Members’ parliamentary needs; overseeing the development of an ambitious, long term carbon management plan; and leading a major financial and resource planning initiative.

These are fundamental issues that affect the whole Parliament and demand a broad and entirely objective view. In their new roles,

senior managers are encouraged – indeed expected – to take such a view. This is one major benefit of the change programme; but I have observed a number of other significant and positive changes.

The increased empowerment of operational heads has encouraged them to take greater responsibility, increased their motivation and facilitated more effective information sharing across functional areas.

Our internal decision making processes have been accelerated through the streamlining of the management hierarchy, but crucially without diminishing (and often actually improving) the quality of decisions reached and the level of service provided.

And we are demonstrating increased organizational agility and adaptability – something that is of particular importance in the context of the Scottish and global economic situation. I believe periodic major corporate initiatives such as this can also help to reenergize the whole organization in its continuous aim of improving services.

Ready to face the future There are, of course, many different ways in which a Legislature can be structured and supported. I am certainly not saying that ours is the definitive approach, nor indeed that it would be suitable for other Commonwealth Legislatures. The support structures we set up at the outset were right for our Parliament’s needs.

What we have achieved through our recent programme of change is to develop and enhance these structures, enabling our parliamentary service to deliver its key functions – supporting business, supporting Members and promoting engagement – in an effective, efficient and flexible way.

That leaves us in a strong and healthy position for meeting our future challenges – whatever these may be.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two | 161

Kumar:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:42 Page 162

PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES

DEBATING PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES IN INDIA A concerted effort must be made to promote Bermuda as a top tourist destination and to preserve and enhance the agriculture industry, argues the Leader of the Opposition party.

Shri Satish Kumar, in Chandigarh.

Shri Kumar has been a Personal Assistant in the Haryana Legislative Assembly since 1999, mostly in the service of the Speaker. He is also a Research Scholar at Punjab University in Chandigarh.

Parliamentary privileges are an integral part of parliamentary democracy as it exists in the United Kingdom and as it has been adopted by many democratic countries around the world.

Parliamentary privilege was born in England as a part of the general law of Parliament.

In a democratic Parliament, every citizen has a right to vote without discrimination of class, colour or creed. The elected representatives of the people are bound to raise the voices of the common man on the Foor of the House. People have great expectations from their elected representatives, not only to voice their concerns in Parliament, but also to strive for their causes in various fora. In view of the multifaceted obligations thrust upon Members, they have to interact with various officials and

162 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two

authorities of the executive and other bodies. Indifference and discourteous behaviour on the part of officials towards Members can be reflected in a disregard of Members’ proposals, not replying to their communications et cetera.

This tends to frustrate Members’ endeavours in the service of their constituents. There have been several complaints from Members of late in this respect and a need has been felt for adequate empowerment of Members.

Privilege normally is an exception to the ordinary rights of citizens. It evolved in England to protect Members against any attacks on them made with a view to coerce them or to prevent them from discharging their duties as Members or to reduce their status and position in the eyes of public.

Parliament is the supreme authority in the U.K. and in India the

central Parliament and the state Legislatures constitute among themselves a sovereign body in their respective fields.

The executives are subordinate to them and they pass the laws which are to be interpreted by the courts. Therefore, all Members of Parliament need to discharge their duties without fear or favour and with protection for what is spoken in Parliament. That is why freedom of speech is the first privilege that is conferred upon Members of Parliament both in England and in India’s constitution.

Privilege is not a positive right, but the breach of privilege is actionable before the Legislature. Privileges in parliamentary instructions are enjoined not only to keep up the solemnity and dignity of those national institutions of democracy, but clearly with a

Kumar:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:44 Page 163

PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES

view to help them effectively in the discharge of their duties.

Origin and development in India The privilege attached to

Parliament is of ancient and historical origin. In England it was originally part of the King’s peace and was enjoyed by all the King’s subjects, more particularly his servants. The King claimed all the privileges, but in time the people slowly wrenched them from Royalty by claiming them for the House of Commons. The Commons that was once a weak body, gradually strove to put up a fierce and prolonged struggle against the Crown, the Courts and even the House of Lords. The privileges which originated in the special protection to the King were later claimed by the commons as customary rights. Repeated assertions of these rights ripened them to legally recognized “privileges”. By the 15th and 16th centuries the Commons established their claim to the privileges. As Holdsworth put it, the Commons used the privileges

against the King in the 17th century, and in the next century exercised them against the people themselves somewhat arbitrarily.

The tussle between the Commons, the King, and the Courts continued and only in the nineteenth century was an equilibrium reached amid rival claims in the field of privileges.

As far back as 1675, the reasons for the existence of privileges were given by the House of Commons itself as that the Members of the House of Commons could freely attend the public affairs in the House without disturbance or interruption.

The state of things when the Constitution of India came into force, and whatever might have been the privileges before, the Legislatures now enjoy all the powers, privileges and immunities of the British House of Commons as they existed at the commencement of the constitution.

Opposite page: The interior courtyard of the Parliament of India’s library; Above: The Indian Parliament building in New Delhi; Left: The Speaker’s Chair in the Lok Sabha.

Articles 105/194 of the constitution deal with the powers, privileges and immunities of Members of Parliament/State Legislatures and their House and Committees. Each House also claims the right to punish actions which, while not breach any specific privilege, are offences against its authority or dignity, such as disobedience to its legitimate commands or libels upo itself, its officers or its Members. Such actions, though called “breaches of privilege” are more properly distinguished as “contempts”.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two | 163

Kumar:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:46 Page 164

PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES

Definition According to British procedural theorist, Sir Thomas Erskine May, parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge

their functions, and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals. Thus privilege, though part of the law of the land, is to a certain extent an exemption from the ordinary law.

Josef Redlich defined the privileges of the House of Commons as the sum of the fundamental rights of the

164 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two

representatives of the Crown, the authority of the ordinary courts of law and the special rights of the House of Lords. While this is not the exact definition it explains broadly the nature of the privileges keeping in view the historical origin.

After consideration of the origin and nature of privileges we can say that these rights are absolutely

necessary for the proper and effective discharge of the functions of the legislative body.

Therefore certain special rights are enjoyed by the House of Commons and its Members, which are not enjoyed by other individuals or bodies, and these rights are in derogation of the ordinary law of the land. These special rights are

Kumar:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:47 Page 165

PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES

of the functions entrusted to Parliament by the Constitution.

They are enjoyed by individual Members because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its Members; and by each House collectively for the protection of its Members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity. The main privileges of Parliament and of its Members and committees are:

called as privileges of the Parliamentarians.

In parliamentary language the term privilege applies to certain rights and immunities enjoyed by each House of Parliament and committees of each House collectively and by Members of each House individually.

The object of parliamentary

People meditating at the Golden Temple in Amritsar, India.

privileges is to safeguard the freedom, authority and the dignity of Parliament. Privileges are necessary for the proper exercise

(i) Freedom of speech in Parliament [Article 105(1) of the constitution of India]; (ii) Immunity to a Member from any proceedings in any court in respect of any thing said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof [Article 105(2) of the constitution of India]; (iii) Immunity to a person from proceedings in any court in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes or proceedings [Article 105(2) of the constitution of India]; (iv) Prohibition on the courts to enquire into proceedings of Parliament [Article 122 of the constitution of India]; (v) Freedom from arrest of Members in civil cases during the continuance of the session of the House and 40 days before its commencement and 40 days after its conclusion [section 135 of Code of Civil Procedure of India]; (vi) Right of the House to receive immediate information of the arrest, detention, conviction, imprisonment and release of Member (Rules 222A and 222B of the Rules of Procedure and conduct of business in Rajya Sabha); (vii) Prohibition of arrest and service of legal process within the precincts of the House without obtaining the permission of the Chairman/Speaker;

(viii)Prohibition of disclosure of the proceeding or decision’s of a secret sitting of the House; (ix) Members or Officers of the House cannot give evidence or produce documents in courts of law, relating to the proceedings of the House without the permission of the House (First Report of Committee of Privileges of Rajya Sabha presented to the House on the 1 May, 1958); (x) Members or Officers of the House cannot attend as a witness before the other House or a committee thereof or before a House of State Legislature or a committee thereof without the permission of the House and they cannot be compelled to do so without their consent (Sixth Report of Committee of Privileges of Second Lok Sabha, adopted

by Lok Sabha on the 17 December, 1958 and Thirtythird Report of the Committee of Privileges of Rajya Sabha, adopted by the House on 30th March, 1993); (xi) All parliamentary committees are empowered to send for persons, papers and records relevant for the purposes of the inquiry by a Committee. A witness may be summoned by a parliamentary committee who may be required to produce such documents as are required for the use of a committee; and (xii)The evidence tendered before a parliamentary committee and its report and proceedings cannot be disclosed or published by anyone until these have been laid on the Table of the House.

In addition to the abovementioned privileges and immunities, each House also enjoys certain consequential powers necessary for the protection of its privileges and immunities. They are:

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two | 165

Kumar:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:48 Page 166

PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES

(i) To commit persons, whether they are Member or not, for breach of privilege or contempt of the House; (ii) To compel the attendance of witnesses and to send for papers and records; (iii) To regulate its own procedure and the conduct of its business; (Article 118 of the constitution of India) (iv) To prohibit the publication of its debates and proceedings; and (v) To exclude strangers from the House.

Breach of Privilege /contempt of the House There is no statutory definition of “contempt” of Parliament. General principles governing the concept of contempt may, however, be gathered from journals and precedents. They will serve as declarations of the law of Parliament. May, basing his view on the report of the Select Committee on the Official Secrets Act, gives a broad definition of contempt of House of Parliament as: “Any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency directly or indirectly to produce such results even though there is no precedents of the offence.”

By long usage, offences in the nature of contempt have been styled as “breaches of privilege”.

The expression strictly should cover violation of or assault on parliamentary privileges. Indeed a number of contempt cases arise out of disregard of the privileges of Members or of Parliament collectively. Mere infringements on the rights of Parliament by obstruction and interference give rise to contempts which are not breaches of privilege. So we may state that breach of privilege is an important aspect of the generic

term “contempt of Parliament”.

The jurisdiction of Parliament is penal and extends to Members, strangers, the press, witnesses and anyone for contempt committed either within the House or outside it. Any conduct which is disorderly or disrespectful to the House, in the presence of either House or its committees, whether indulged in

by Members, party witnesses or strangers will be contempt of Parliament. What is contempt is decided by the House itself. It can deem any act, language, slander or libel to constitute contempt and its judgment is final. The underlying principle appears to be the same as in the case of contempt of courts of justice. The contempt may lie in any act or omission or any speech or publication impeding or obstructing Parliament or its Members in the performance of their functions. Actual obstruction is not necessary. A tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such a result is enough.

The House is the sole judge to determine what a contumacious act is.

Case studies The study of following landmark cases will make the position clear with regard to the controversy between Legislature and judiciary: The first case after India gained independence was the “Searchlight Case”. The petitioner in that case was an editor of English daily newspaper “Searchlight” of Patna. He invited the wrath of the Bihar Legislative Assembly by publishing an extract of proceedings including a part which was expunged by the Speaker. The matter was referred to the Privilege Committee who issued a show cause notice to Pandit Sharma. He brought writ petition under Article 32 of the constitution of India alleging that the proceedings initiated against him had violated his fundamental right of speech and expression and right of protection of his personal liberty. However, the petition was

166 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two

dismissed by a majority view of constitution bench (five judges) on the basis that the Legislatures in India were vested with the power or privilege of prohibiting the publication of debates or proceedings that took place in the House, of even a true and faithful report, as indeed of an inaccurate or garbled version thereof. It was further held that the powers, privileges and immunities available in terms of Articles 105(3) and 194(3) stood in the same supreme position as the provisions of Part III of the constitution of India and could not be affected by Article 13 and therefore, the principle of harmonious construction required to be adopted. The case did not end there. Subsequently, the assembly came to be prorogued several times and the Committee of Privileges was also reconstituted. This led a fresh notice in the wake of which Pandit Sharma brought another writ petition under Article 32 of the constitution of India. This writ petition was dismissed by the constitution bench (eight judges).

In para 10 of the judgment it was held that “No court can go into those questions which are within the special jurisdiction of the Legislature itself, which has the power to conduct its own business”. Mere non-compliance with the rules of procedure cannot be a ground for issuing a writ under Article 32 of the constitution (Jananrdan Reddy vs. State of Hydrabad, 1951 SCR 344).

In the second case the UP Legislative Assembly had committed Shri Keshav Singh, who was not one of its Members, to prison for contempt. The warrant of committal did not contain the facts constituting the alleged contempt.

Shri Singh moved a petition, inter alia, under Article 226 of the constitution of India through his advocate challenging his committal as being in breach of his fundamental rights.

The division bench of Lucknow High Court ordered the release of

Shri Singh in interim bail. The legislative Assembly found that Shri Singh and his advocate in moving the High Court and two Judges of the High Court in entertaining the petition and granting bail had committed contempt of the legislative assembly. The assembly passed a resolution that all of them, including the two High Court Judges, be put in custody. The High Court judges and the advocate in question thereupon filed writ petitions before the High Court at Allahabad. A full bench of the High Court admitted the writ petitions and ordered the stay of execution of the assembly’s resolution against them. Subsequently, the legislative assembly passed a clarificatory resolution modifying its earlier stand and asking the judges and the advocate to appear before the House and offer their explanation. It was against this backdrop that the President made a reference under Article 143(1) of the constitution seeking opinion mainly at the constitutional relationship between High Court and the state Legislature in matters of powers and privilege of the latter.

The Supreme Court of India came to the conclusion that (I) the Legislature has the power to committee a person who has been found guilty of contempt of the House; (II) the court was equally competent to enquire whether a person has been validly committed to prison and for that purpose to issue notice on the custodian of the prison to make a return; (III) if there is a valid return showing that the person has been committed by a warrant duly signed by the Speaker and the warrant is not a speaking warrant, the court will not further enquire into the matter; and (IV) if there is speaking warrant, the court will be entitled to examine the reasons stated and to judge whether the reasons are sufficient for committal or not.

The opinion of the Supreme Court was discussed by the

Kumar:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:49 Page 167

PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES

Queuing to vote in a state Legislature election in Haryana. Men and women queue separately.

Conference of Presiding Officers of Legislative Bodies in India in Bombay in 1965. After the conference, the Allahabad High Court delivered its judgement on the writ petition of Shri Singh which had been pending since 19 March, 1964. The High Court dismissed the writ petition and ordered him to surrender to his bail and serve out the remaining portion of the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him by the Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh.

In the case of Tej Kiran Jain vs.

N Sanjiva Reddy, the apex court had upheld the constitutional guarantee with regard to immunity of parliamentary proceedings in respect of anything said in the House or any committee thereof. It

had clarified that “anything” was equivalent to “everything.” It is further reinforced in the impeachment proceedings of Justice V.Ramaswami, a Supreme Court Judge, when the apex court held that Parliament was sovereign with respect to the conduct of its own business and the courts could not have any say it that.

In the case of Raj Narain vs.

Atmaram Govind Kher, the Allahabad High Court, in 1954 held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to issue a writ, direction or order relating to a matter, which affected the internal affairs of the House.

In the case of PV Narsimha Rao vs. State (1998) the Supreme Court took the position as per Article 105(2); “The bribe take MPs who have voted in Parliament against the no-confidence motion are entitled to protection of Article 105(2) and are not answerable in a Court of Law for alleged

conspiracy and agreement.”

However, “The bribe-takers could be proceeded against by Parliament itself”. This judgement clearly established that Parliament is the sole arbitrator of its business and proceedings and the judiciary cannot come in this matter.

It can be concluded with the help of above cases that courts always recognized Parliament’s supremacy. In the case of Janardan Redy vs. State of Hyderabad the Supreme Court held that “once it has been held that the Legislature has the jurisdiction to control the publication of its proceedings and to go into the question whether there has been a breach of its privilege the Legislature invested is with complete jurisdiction to carry on its proceedings in accordance with its rules of business”.

In the latest case of “cash for query”, court has again recognized the parliamentary supremacy. In

this case the expulsion of 11 MPs by the Speaker, Lok Sabha has been endorsed by the Supreme Court of India. C.K. Thakker J. observed that the Indian constitution is clear that the proceedings in Parliament are not subject to judicial scrutiny. It clearly lays down immunities, powers and privileges of Members of Legislature. The Supreme Court had endorsed the constitutional position.

Parliamentary precedents on the issue of expulsion are established. Indian Parliament had already expelled a Member in 1951 through special committee (Mudgal’s case).

The House of Commons had set the precedent of expulsion through special committee. Since privileges of the Indian Parliament and its Members are still those of the House of Commons, it is very much inherent in the Parliament to expel its Member.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two | 167

O'Brien:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:50 Page 168

BOOK REVIEW

HOUSE OF COMMONS PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE SECOND EDITION Ms Audrey O’Brien, in Ottawa.

Ms O’Brien has been Clerk of the Canadian House of Commons since 2005. She is the House’s first female Clerk.

include references and precedents simultaneously in English and House of Commons Procedure covering all major developments French. While an electronic version and Practice, first published in until the conclusion of the First of the first edition was eventually 2000 in both English and French, Session of the Fortieth Parliament made available on the internet, the proved to be the most (December comprehensive 2008). What of a series of follows is an reference works overview of the on this subject procedural published since changes the founding of reflected in the the Canadian second edition confederation in of the book.

1867. Its Not long thorough after the research and publication of careful the first edition, interpretations a significant quickly gained it change recognition as occurred in the primary and Canadian most authoritative The front cover book jackets in both English and French. parliamentary reference on practice with respect to the second edition was launched Canadian parliamentary procedure, Standing Orders governing the simultaneously in printed and and it became a key reference tool report stage of bills. The change electronic formats. for Parliamentarians and others was prompted by the repeated The second edition of House of who shared an interest in the flooding of the Notice Paper with Commons Procedure and Practice functioning of the House of report stage motions intended to is the result of more than three Commons. delay the passage of controversial years of painstaking effort on the Parliamentary practice in items of legislation. In 2001, the part of a team of more than 150 Canada as elsewhere is in a state House appended a note to the individuals, including drafters, of constant evolution. The House appropriate Standing Orders researchers, reviewers, editors, and of Commons has amended and instructing the Speaker not to publishers. It represents far more added to its rules and has select for debate report stage than a mere updating of the established new practices and motions that were repetitive, original; a number of significantly precedents in many areas since vexatious, or frivolous, or that revised and reorganized chapters, 2000. The need for an updated served to prolong proceedings revised and reorganized and substantial revision of the unnecessarily. In the years that appendices, a more complete book was met by the tabling in the followed, Mr Speaker Peter bibliography listing reference House on 18 November 2009, of a Milliken delivered a series of works by chapter, an improved second edition of House of important rulings interpreting the index and new graphics are among Commons Procedure and Practice. new rule and clarifying report stage its features. The more than 1,500 Like the original, the second procedure. In March 2001, for pages of text and 6,952 footnotes edition was published

168 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two

O'Brien:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:50 Page 169

BOOK REVIEW

example, Speaker Milliken informed the House that he would thenceforth not be selecting motions that could have been presented in committee and that motions previously defeated in committee could be selected for debate if the Speaker judged them to be of such significance to Members as to warrant further consideration at report stage.

Major amendments to the Standing Orders governing Private Members’ Business were adopted in 2003, largely in consequence of the work of a Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons. The amendments were intended to ensure that each eligible Member of Parliament should have the opportunity to have a bill or motion considered by the House during the life of a Parliament and that these items, when brought before the House, should be voted on.

Provision was made for the establishment of a list of all eligible Members by way of a draw at the beginning of each Parliament.

From this list an Order of Precedence of 30 items of Private Members’ Business would be created and periodically replenished. Items of Private Members’ Business were to be votable unless deemed nonvotable by a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. In the latter event, the Member affected would enjoy a right of appeal to the House. Items in the Order of Precedence were to be debated for a maximum of two hours after which they would come to a vote.

This had the effect of allocating two hours for the second reading stage and a further two hours for the report and third reading stages of each private Member’s bill.

The guidelines for petitions were modified in 2003 to simplify the requirements for the prayer for relief and the personal information of signatories, and to permit petitions to call for the expenditure

of public funds. Further changes in 2004 provided that when a government response to any petition was not tabled in the House within 45 days, the matter of the failure of the department concerned to respond would be referred to the appropriate standing committee.

Since 2000, the House has adopted new rules relating to the appointment of the Deputy Speaker and other Chair occupants, and to the appointment of various Officers of Parliament.

Changes to the Standing Orders adopted in 2004 conferred upon the Speaker the responsibility of selecting, after consultations with the leaders of all recognized parties, the other three presiding officers. Corresponding motions for appointment were no longer subject to debate or amendment.

The recommendations of the above-mentioned Special Committee also led to changes in the rules governing the length of speeches and the addition of provisions for the consideration of the main estimates of two government departments in Committee of the Whole. Under the new rules, the leader of the opposition, in consultation with the leaders of the other parties in opposition, was to select, no later than 1 May of each year, the two departments whose main estimates would be considered in Committee of the Whole.

In February 2005, amendments to the Standing Orders increased the number of allotted days in the supply period ending 23 June. The notice period for opposition motions was increased from one to 48 hours and all opposition motions were made votable unless designated non-votable by their sponsors.

Procedure relating to committees of the House has also evolved significantly over the last decade. Two new standing committees―the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates and the

Standing Committee on Official Languages―have been created.

Provision has been made for the election of Chairs and Vice-Chairs of standing and special committees by secret ballot, and the convention that the Chairs of standing committees (with five exceptions) are to be drawn from the governing party was formalized.

In 2005, debate on motions for concurrence in committee reports was limited to three hours and was to conclude with a vote rather than being subsumed under Government Orders. Further changes made to the Standing Orders in 2007 obliged committees to suspend their proceedings when Members were summoned to the Chamber for recorded divisions, unless there was unanimous consent of committee members to continue to sit.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice touches on constitutional, political and historical matters, the new edition has also incorporated recent statutory changes. In 2000, for example, the Canada Elections Act was repealed and replaced with a new Act, which modernized the organization and terminology of electoral legislation. In 2007, the Act was further amended to provide for fixed general elections every four years. New legislation has also led to the codification of the manner in which the House deals with delegated legislation.

Of equal note has been the appending to the Standing Orders in 2004 of a Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons. Also in 2004, amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act incorporated the Code into the Act and created an Ethics Commissioner to administer it for the House of Commons. In 2006, with the adoption of the Federal Accountability Act, the Ethics Commissioner became the “Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner”.

Since 2000, the fundamental

privileges of the House and its Members have been the object of a number of important court decisions, especially on the part of the Supreme Court of Canada, which has elaborated the legal and constitutional framework for considering matters of privilege.

The court has effectively limited its role in relation to privilege to determining its existence and scope. Matters falling clearly under the umbrella of parliamentary privilege are for the House alone to decide. Important court decisions have dealt with challenges to the House’s control of its precinct, the right of Members to refuse attendance in court, and the scope of privilege where the latter affects the legal rights of non-Members.

In keeping with the strategic goal of developing best practices and introducing technology to manage information in a consistent, user-friendly manner, we envision the eventual transformation of House of Commons Procedure and Practice into a living document – one that is in a state of continual revision.

Among the possible means of accomplishing this would be to apply new updating protocols to the online version so that important procedural changes are reflected in the text as and when they occur.

It is our belief that House of Commons Procedure and Practice will continue to be the key reference work on Canadian parliamentary procedure not only for Parliamentarians, but for all others in Canada and around the world who share an interest in parliamentary procedure, and more particularly, in the work of the House of Commons.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice Edited by Audrey O’Brien and Marc Bosc © House of Commons, 2009 Issued also in French under the title: La procédure et les usages de la Chambre des communes ISBN 978-2-89635-321-7

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two | 169

The Overseers:Different Ads.qxd 09/07/2010 10:52 Page 170

A CPA publication

Available to Members and Officials of the CPA for purchase from the CPA•Secretariat, Suite 700, Westminster House, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA, U.K. Tel.: (+44-20) 7799-1460 Fax: (+44-20) 7222-6073 E-mail: hq.sec@cpahq.org Also available to members of the public from booksellers.

Parliamentary news:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:55 Page 171

Parliamentary Report NEWS AND LEGISLATION FROM COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTS INDIA: The Salaries and Allowances of Ministers (Amendment) Bill, 2009 Page 173

NEW ZEALAND: Children (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill Page 180

BRITISH COLUMBIA: Consumption Tax Rebate and Transition Act Page 183

AUSTRALIA: Australian Centre for Renewable Energy Act 2010 Page 184

HUNG PARLIAMENT LEADS TO U.K. COALITION GOVERNMENT Page 188

NEWLY ELECTED SPEAKER AND MEMBERS AT THE SEVENTH SESSION OF SRI LANKA’S PARLIAMENT

NEW REFORMS PLAN TO CHANGE ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE IN New Zealand Page 178

FEDERAL BUDGET FOCUSES ON REDUCING DEBT AND STATE ELECTIONS TAKE PLACE IN AUSTRALIA Page 185

Page 177 The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two | 171

Parliamentary news:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:55 Page 172

PARLIAMENTARY REPORT

INDIA

PRESIDENT PRAISES GOVERNMENT’S EFFORTS TO IMPROVING ECONOMY The Budget Session of Parliament commenced on 22 February 2010 with the presidential address to the Members of both Houses of Parliament. The President of India, Smt. Pratibha Devisingh Patil, said the government had worked to build on the achievements of its earlier term to deliver the promise of faster and more inclusive growth, whereby the government had combined a caring and sensitive approach in dealing with the immediate economic and social problems. It had taken measures to strengthen the national security and proceeded with a desire to accommodate the disparate political and regional voices and has sincerely worked towards deepening the federal polity. She said the government had vigorously pursued the country’s enlightened national interests in pro-actively engaging with the global community, and introduced sensitivity in the partnership between the institutions of governance and civil society.

The President felt that the unexpected and severe drought in 2009 posed special challenges in managing the economy. The global economic slowdown was met by strong policies of administering a domestic stimulus to the economy which yielded handsome results. The government joined hands with the states to help the farmers in 172 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two

Above: The President of India, Smt. Pratibha Devisingh Patil (centre, back row) at the presidential procession in February 2010. minimizing the impact of this massive adversity. While the threat to food security was averted, there was an unwelcome pressure on the price of grains and food products. She said higher prices were inevitable given the shortfall in domestic production and prevailing high prices of rice, cereals and edible oils globally. The President expressed the government’s resolve to concentrate on the development of infrastructure, agriculture, rural development, education, and health and ensuring that the growth process was adequately sensitive to the concerns and well being of the weaker

sections of society.

The government adopted several new measures to strengthen the security apparatus of the country so they met the grave challenge posed by terrorism. The President said that the security situation had significantly improved in Jammu and Kashmir as well as in the north east, even though left wing extremism continued to be a cause of concern. Emphasizing the imperative of including the disadvantaged sections of society in the Indian success story, she was happy that the government had developed a comprehensive roadmap for the development of minority

Parliamentary news:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:56 Page 173

INDIA

communities. She reiterated the government’s commitment to ensuring early passage of the Women's Reservation Bill which was introduced in the Rajya Sabha in May 2008. She mentioned the two bills that had already been introduced in the Parliament providing for 50 per cent reservation for women in rural and urban local bodies.

The President said the government would continue its active engagement with the world based upon the principles laid down by the founding fathers, and with the objective of furthering the goals of rapid and inclusive economic development and poverty alleviation in an increasingly interdependent world.

Shri Rao Inderjit Singh (INC) said the Indian economy had successfully weathered the impact of the global economic meltdown and underlined the need for ensuring food security and making administration more accountable and transparent. He was concerned that while India’s economic stability had grown, the physical attributes of its people had declined. He was hopeful that the government would consider the issue of the state funding of elections. Seconding the motion, Smt. Kumari Meenakshi Natrajan (INC) said the central government was committed to turn the dreams of the common man into realities. She emphasized the need to bridge the gap between the haves and havenots.

The former leader of the opposition Shri L.K. Advani (BJP) called for concrete steps for the indigenization of India’s weapon systems and involving the private sector in the defense preparedness. He suggested holding elections to the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies simultaneously every five years

THIRD READING: INDIA The Salaries and Allowances of Ministers (Amendment) Bill, 2009 In terms of provisions sub-section (IA) of section 6 of the Salaries and Allowances of Ministers Act, 1952, a Minister is entitled (subject to certain provisions of the said Act) travelling allowance in respect of not more than twelve return journeys performed, during each year, within India, for himself and his family, whether travelling together or separately, subject to the overall entitlement of 48 single journeys in each year. Under sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Salary, Allowances and Pension of Members of Parliament Act, 1954, a Member of Parliament is entitled (subject to certain provisions of the said Act) to an amount equal to the fare by air for each single journey performed by him either alone or along with spouse or any number of companions or relatives from any place in India to any other place in India during his term of office as such Member, subject to a maximum of 34 such journeys per year.

In order to remove this discrepancy in the entitlement of Ministers to travel facilities, the Government proposed to amend sub-section (IA) of section 6 of the Salaries and Allowances of Ministers Act, 1952 to allow the spouse or legitimate or stepchildren residing with or wholly dependent on the Minister travel only with the Minister, subject to a maximum of 48 fares only.

The Amending Law inserted new sub-section (IA) in Section 6 of the Parent Act to the effect that a Minister shall be entitled to an amount equal to the fare for a single journey performed by him, during each year, within India, either alone or along with spouse or legitimate or step children, residing with and wholly dependent on him, or any number of companions or relatives, at the same rates at which travelling allowance is payable to such Minister in respect of the tours subject to a maximum of 48 fares per year.

A proviso was also been inserted to the effect that the spouse or step children residing with and wholly dependent on the Minister may undertake such journeys alone. Members were unanimous is approving the measure. The Amending Bill was passed by Lok Sabha on 18 December 2009 and by Rajya Sabha on 22 December 2009. It was assented by the President on 21 January, 2010.

The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment and Validation) Bill, 2010 The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958(the Act) was enacted, inter alia, for preservation of ancient and historical monuments and archaeological sites and remains of national importance. A consequence of increased pressure of habitation, especially in urban areas, protected areas and protected sites detract from the aesthetics of the monuments and sites.

The Government brought forward the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment and Validation) Bill, 2010 to further amend the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 and to make provisions for validation of certain actions taken by the central government under the said Act. The Amending Act brought about substantial changes by incorporating detailed provisions with regard to “Prohibited and Regulated Areas”; norms governing grant of permission by competent authority within regulated areas; constitution and functioning of the National Monuments Authority and other ancillary provisions. The significant amendments made by the Amending Law included: (a) A minimum area of 100metres in all directions of protected monuments and sites shall be “prohibited area” for purposes of construction and no public or private project will be permissible in the prohibited areas except undertaken by an archaeological officer in the interest of upkeep, maintenance and management of the protected monument and site and such prohibited area may be increased beyond 100metres by central government; and (b) A National Monuments Authority be constituted to, inter alia, grade and classify monuments; oversee the working of competent authority; suggest measures for implementation of the provisions of the Act; consider the impact of large scale developmental projects which may be proposed in the regulated areas and make recommendations to the competent authority for grant of permission.

The amending bill had the approval of all sections of both the Houses of Parliament. The Bill was passed by Lok Sabha on 15 March, 2010 and by Rajya Sabha on 16 March, 2010. It was assented by the President on 29 March 2010.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two | 173

Parliamentary news:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:56 Page 174

PARLIAMENTARY REPORT

INDIA

which would save money and benefit the governance as well as the polity. Referring to India’s relations with Pakistan, Shri Advani emphasized that terror and talks did not go on hand-inhand and no good would come out of it if Pakistan continued to support terrorism against India.

Blaming the government for the failure in food management, Shri Nama Nageswara Rao (TDP) asked for expanding irrigation facilities and taking forward the river-linking project.

Shri Prabodh Panda (CPI) said the food crisis was the result of the failure in universalizing the public distribution system (PDS). Shri Raghuvansh Prasad Singh (RJD) said though the President’s address mentioned that controlling the food prices would be top priority, the government only set up a committee to examine the situation. He alleged that the traders were being allowed to determine the market prices while the government said it was purely a demand and supply phenomenon.

Dr Tarun Mandal (Independent) said globalization, liberalization and privatization, and wrong polices pursued by the government have increased the gap between the rich and the poor and the plan to invite foreign institutes and universities to India will adversely affect the education system. Dr Thokchom Meinya (INC) wanted judicious and holistic implementation of all the UPA flagship programmes and welfare schemes to ensure that these schemes reach the intended people. He also wanted an early passage of the Women’s Reservation Bill.

Shri Naveen Jindal (INC) asked that special attention be given to the education and empowerment of women. He highlighted the need to build a consensus to fight the menace

of extremism and requested the government to make a provision for enabling the country’s migratory population to vote.

Shri Kaushalendra Kumar (JD-U) requested the government to initiate talks with left wing extremists to solve the problem while Shri Joseph Toppo (AGP) said the government had not given due emphasis on resolving the problem of extremism in the north eastern states. Dr Arvind Kumar Sharma (INC) praised the government for its commitment to creating a foolproof security system and the modernization of the security forces for combating terrorism.

Shri Tufani Saroj (SP) said the government’s claim of taking measures for increasing agricultural productivity had no basis as reflected in the hike in the prices of fertilizers and diesel. Shri Rakesh Sachan (SP) demanded for undertaking a new survey to identify and verify the people living below the poverty line, while Dr Murli Manohar Joshi (BJP) asked the government to prepare a road map for reducing the number of hungry people to half by 2015. While Shri Harish Choudhary (INC) congratulated the government for its pro-poor policies, Shri J.M. Aaron Rashid (INC) thanked the government for taking appropriate measures to strengthen the security apparatus of the country to meet the challenge posed by terrorism. Shri Sameer Bhujbal (NCP) found the President’s address reassuring in respect of several key areas, notably schemes for the development of rural areas in terms of housing, road connectivity, communication network, as well as setting up of schools and colleges in the backward areas. He was happy at the steps taken for better

174 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two

organizing the internal security apparatus.

Replying to the debate, the Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh joined the members of the Lok Sabha in conveying his government’s sincere thanks to the President of India for her enlightening address. He said that the performance of the economy had to be judged against the twin impacts of the international financial crisis which suddenly erupted in September 2008 and the subsequent failure of the south west monsoon in 2009. He added that the way the government had dealt with the impacts of these two adverse circumstances was praiseworthy and said that if the economy was managed well and the processes of governance improved to reduce the scope for corruption, India could easily have double digit growth on a long-term basis.

Dr Murli Manohar Joshi

Since the country was dependent on imports of substantial quantities of vegetable oils, sugar and pulses, whenever international prices of these commodities arose, there was inevitably an impact in our country. At a time when the world was faced with global economic crisis, the government was able to introduce a large number of stimulus packages with a view

to protecting the interests of the weaker sections of the society. He informed the House that the government had taken all possible measures to address the issue of price rises and assured Members that there was a comfortable level of food stocks. As regards to the security situation, the Prime Minister said that a number of concrete steps had been taken to strengthen and reorient the security architecture in order to meet the growing threat of terrorism, insurgency and communalism. The government was ready to talk to any group that condoned unconditional violence and agreed to abide by the due constitutional process.

Dr Singh said his government recognized the imperative of food security and self-sufficiency in basic food grains. The decision to pay remunerative prices by way of minimum support prices to the farmers was a part of the effort to incentivize the growth of agricultural production and produce. The government had placed high priority to the welfare of minorities and at least 15 per cent of benefits in certain schemes flow to them.

Several initiatives have been taken to bring in greater transparency and accountability to improve the impact of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme.

The Prime Minister emphasized that a broad based political consensus was required for electoral reforms, and that supporting the Women’s Reservation Bill would be the strongest affirmation of Members’ commitment to the empowerment of women. As regards to relations with Pakistan, he asserted that dialogue was the only way forward for civilized countries to resolve their problems.

Parliamentary news:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:56 Page 175

INDIA

However, it was equally true that for any meaningful dialogue to proceed, terrorism had to be controlled by Pakistan even if non-state actors were at work. Dr Singh categorically stated that not once had the President of America sought to pressurize India into taking one position or the other. He told the Lok Sabha that both India and China were committed at the highest level to maintain peace and tranquility on the borders pending the resolution of the border question.

He ended by stating that India had and would continue to contribute to the humanitarian and rehabilitation efforts of the Sri Lankan government.

Opposition stand against price rises The Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Smt. Sushma Swaraj, and the leader of the Samajwadi Party, Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav raised the issue of price rises in the country, where both leaders wanted the issue to be discussed under an adjournment motion notices of which had already been given.

The Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Minister of Water Resources, Shri Pawan Kumar Bansal said the government was prepared and would welcome a structured and detailed discussion on the subject. He submitted that rules as such did not, in this particular case, permit an adjournment motion route for discussion on the price rise.

The question hour was once again disrupted the next day as opposition members made submissions requesting the Speaker to admit their notices for adjournment motion on the price rise issue. The Speaker of Lok Sabha, Smt. Meira Kumar, after carefully examining the

THIRD READING: INDIA The Legal Metrology Bill, 2009 In India uniform standards of weights and measures based on the metric system were established in 1956 then revised in 1976 to give effect to the international system of units. The Standards of Weights and Measures Act 1976 provided for establishing Standards of Weights and Measures and other goods which are sold by weight, measure or number. In 1985, the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act 1985 was enacted for enforcement of standards of weights and measures established by or under the 1976 Act. The advancement of technology necessitated the review of the mentioned enactment to make them simple, eliminate obsolete regulations, ensure accountability and bring transparency.

It therefore became imperative to combine the provisions of the existing two Acts to get rid of anomalies and make the provisions simple, but it also became necessary to recognize certain “government approved test centres” which would be empowered to verify prescribed weight or measure. Accordingly, the government brought forward a measure to provide for: (a) Regulation of weight or measure used in transaction or for protection; (b) Approval of model of weight or measure; (c) Verification of prescribed weight or measure by government approved test centre; (d) Prescribing qualification of legal metrology officers appointed by the central government or state government; (e) Exempting regulation of weight or measure or other goods meant for export; and (f) Nomination of a Director by a company who will be responsible for complying with the provisions of the enactment, to list a few.

resulting in death or disablement. The Act applied to certain railway servants and persons employed in hazardous employments such as factories, mines, plantations etc. , specified in Schedule II of the Act, but was not applicable to the employees covered under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948.

The Second National Commission on Labour which was set up in 2002 made certain recommendations relating to the amendment of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.

Based on its recommendations, the Workmen’s Compensation (Amendment) Bill, 2008 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 20 October 2008 and then referred to the department related parliamentary standing committee on Labour.

However, the Workmen’s Compensation (Amendment) Bill, 2008 lapsed due to the dissolution of the 14th Lok Sabha.

The central government decided to introduce the Workmen’s Compensation (Amendment) Bill, 2009, on the lines of the 2008 amendment Bill incorporating certain recommendations of the standing committee proposing to amend the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.

Salient provisions of the amending Bill include: •

•

•

• The Bill was passed by Rajya Sabha on 1 December 2009 and by Lok Sabha on 18 December 2009. It was assented by the President on 13 January 2010.

The Workmen’s Compensation (Amendment) Bill, 2009 The Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 provided for payment of compensation to workmen and their dependents in the case of injury by industrial accidents including certain occupational diseases arising out of and in the course of employment

In preamble and throughout the principal Act, the words “workman” and “workmen” have been substituted by the words “employee” or “employees”; Amendments have also been made facilitating re-imbursement of actual medical expenditure incurred for treatment of injuries caused during the course of employment; Central government has been vested with the power to specify the monthly wages in relation to an employee for the purposes of the aforesaid compensation; and In the principal Act a new section viz. 25A has been inserted providing that the commissioner shall dispose of the matter relating to compensation under the Act within a period of three months from the date of reference and intimate the decision in respect thereof within the said period to the employee.

The Bill was passed by Lok Sabha on 25 November 2009 and by Rajya Sabha on 1 December 2009 and assented by the President on 22 December 2009.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two | 175

Parliamentary news:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:57 Page 176

PARLIAMENTARY REPORT

notices in terms of the Rules of the House as well as the precedents, disallowed them on 24 February 2010. She observed that the matter of price rise had not arisen suddenly in the manner of an emergency. The issue had been discussed in the House in the last session but was not one of recent occurrences or urgent in the sense in which it was used in the rule.

Smt. Swaraj highlighted that it had only been the ninth occasion in the past five years that the Lok Sabha had discussed the issue of price rises under Rule 193. Basic food items like flour, rice, pulses, mustard oil, tea, sugar, salt, spices and vegetables were getting beyond their reach. The four reasons attributed to the price rise: shortfall in domestic production; enhanced prices of rice; pulses and edible oil in the international market; and payment of increased procurement prices to the farmers and increase in the income in the rural areas were unfounded and not true. There was also a shortfall of food grains during the tenure of the BJP-led NDA government, but this government did not allow the prices to rise in the market.

The government not only allowed the prices to rise but also cut down the food grain quota. The main four reasons responsible behind the price rise were the wheat scam, the rice scam, the pulse scam and the sugar scam. Accurate figures about poverty, increase in production, sufficient storage capacity and an effective distribution system were the four pillars for ensuring food security, which the government had undermined. The GDP did not give a true picture of society as the ill-effects of price rises had taken its toll on a large section of the society while the

INDIA

fruits of growth were relished by a selected few. She therefore suggested thinking in terms of gross national happiness and not in terms of GDP. The day the government started empathizing with the plight of poor, the policies of the government would be corrected and the scams would cease to take place.

Smt. Sushma Swaraj

Shri Sanjay Nirupam (INC) blamed the policies of the earlier NDA government for the price rise and stated that if the minimum support prices of wheat and paddy were high so too would the market price. The state governments should play a proactive role and take action against hoarding as it was one of the main reasons for the price rise. He rejected the opposition’s claim that production declined during the UPA government’s rule. Instead productivity had increased despite severe drought and floods in certain parts of the country. Shri Nirupam said forward trading of the food grains started by the NDA regime was one of the major reasons for steep price rise.

Shri Yadav (SP) said prices were rising despite the announcements made by the government to contain them.

He alleged that the central government was in collusion with the industrialists and capitalists and suggested

176 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two

amending the definition of the below poverty line (BPL) as more than 80 per cent of people were affected by the price rise. Stating that nothing had been done to strengthen the public distribution system, he wanted the government to fix the prices of various items and clearly announce when and to what extent the prices would be brought under control.

Shri Sharad Yadav (JD-U) said problems such as price rises and unemployment could be tackled through a sound agricultural policy. As the central government was responsible for determining the prices of wheat, rice, pulses, sugarcane, etc. he asked the government to outline a plan to contain inflation. Shri Basudeb Acharia (CPI-M) suggested providing subsidized food grains, edible oil and other items to poor people in order to mitigate their sufferings. The government should strengthen and universalize the PDS and release cereal stocks through PDS by increasing the quota of rice and wheat to the states. He asked the government to disallow future trading and, in coordination with the state governments, launch a countrywide crackdown against hoarding and black marketing.

The Minister of Agriculture and Minister of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Shri Sharad Pawar, replied that the government had taken initiatives from time to time to control the rise in prices of essential commodities. The government even encouraged import while discouraging export for improving availability and gave considerable support to the PDS to ensure that the vulnerable sections of the country were protected. The government had increased the minimum support prices of wheat, paddy pulses, oilseeds,

etc. to boost production. The Minister said that buffer stock of only wheat and rice was maintained and it was not feasible to maintain buffer stock of sugar. The Minister hoped that the farmers would make all efforts to increase production once they received the remunerative price for their produce. He also promised to make all efforts to bridge the gap between demand and supply.

Speaker upholds Members’ right to move cut motion Smt. Kumar set a precedent on 27 April 2010 by permitting cut motions on demands for grants that were to be guillotined. The CPI member, Shri Gurudas Dasgupta, quoting Article 113 of the constitution had stated that since the constitution vested in the House of the People the power to assent or refuse to assent to any demand subject to reduction of the amount specified in that demand, the members had the right to move cut motions on any demand submitted to the House for its approval. This point was also raised by Smt. Swaraj and other members in the Business Advisory Committee Meeting held on 15 April 2010. The Speaker had promised to examine this issue in terms of the constitutional provisions and the rules and practices followed in the House.

Many of the cut motions pertained to the demands of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, and the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers and members sought to express their dissent over the hikes proposed in the prices of fuels and fertilizers. The first cut motion in respect of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas was moved by Smt. Swaraj, who lost – on a division – when put to vote of the House.

Parliamentary news:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:57 Page 177

SRI LANKA

NEWLY ELECTED SPEAKER AND MEMBERS AT THE SEVENTH SESSION OF PARLIAMENT

New Speaker, Hon. Chamal Rajapaksa The inaugural session of the 7th Parliament took place on 22 April 2010, following the General Election held on 8 April 2010.

The seventh Parliament consists of 144 seats for the ruling party, the United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA) (4,846,388 votes - 60.33 per cent) the main opposition party, the United National Party (UNP) (2,357,057 votes - 29.34 per cent) holds 60 seats and Illangai Tamil Arasi Kachchi (Tamil Alliance ITAK) (233,190 votes - 2.90 per cent) and the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) (4, 41251 votes - 5.49 per cent) hold 14 and 7 seats respectively.

The ruling UPFA government is only six seats short of a two-thirds majority in Parliament. Women representation of the seventh Parliament was poor with only 13 female members out of 225.

Hon. Chamal Rajapaksa was unanimously elected to the

office of the Speaker of Parliament after his name was proposed by newly appointed Prime Minister D.M. Jayaratne and seconded by UNP Deputy Leader Karu Jayasuriya. The new Speaker was then escorted to the Speaker’s Chair by both his proposers, after which he immediately undertook the official oath taking before the Acting Secretary General of Parliament.

Later, 225 newly elected Members of Parliament were collectively sworn in with the Speaker presiding. The Deputy Speaker of the previous Parliament, UPFA Puttalam District Hon. Priyankara Jayaratne, MP, was again unanimously appointed for the same post. His name was proposed by former Prime Minister Hon. Ratnasiri Wickramanayaka and seconded by Hon. John Amaratunga on behalf of the Opposition.

In accordance with the Standing Orders of Parliament, Hon. Nimal Siripala de Silva proposed Jaffna Parliamentarian Mr Chandrakumar Murugesu for the office of Deputy Chairman of Committees and he was also unanimously elected after the proposal was seconded by Mr Douglas Devananda.

Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa informed the House that UNP Leader Hon. Ranil Wickremesinghe was accepted as Leader of Opposition in the House.

Among the new faces, veteran film actress, Mrs Malani Fonseka was seen being enthusiastically welcomed by ruling party colleagues. Other new entrants included artists Mr Ranjan Ramanayake, Ms Upeksha Swarnamali and cricketer Mr Sanath Jayasooriya.

Meanwhile detained former army commander and DNA Colombo District MP, General Sarath Fonseka also attended the Parliament and took his oath as a Member of Parliament.

Prime Minister Jayaratne said the people had given their mandate to the government to create an environment in which they could live peacefully and in harmony irrespective of various differences. He wished that the opposition would support the government to fulfill the same wish of the people of this country.

All party leaders including

Mr Wickramasinghe, Mr Sampanthan and General Sarath Fonseka addressed the House and welcomed the new Speaker.

Finally, Mr Rajapaksa pledged to perform his duties in an independent manner, safeguarding the dignity and decorum of Parliament upholding its traditions and said he was pleased to be elected to the office of the Speaker in the first Parliament in the aftermath of the elimination of LTTE terrorism.

Calling on all Members of Parliament to extend their support to safeguard democracy and the parliamentary traditions, the Speaker stated that the Parliament was the best stage to give a voice to the public.

He added that any Member in the assembly could voice the need of the public but democratically and in line with the provisions of the standing orders of Parliament safeguarding its decorum.

The inaugural session was officiated by Mr Dhammika Kitulgoda, Acting Secretary General, Mr Dhammika Dasanayake, Deputy Secretary General and Mr Neil Iddawala, Assistant Secretary General of Parliament.

The inaugural session was limited only to elect the new Speaker, Deputy Speaker, Deputy Chairman of the select Committees and the swearing in of the new MPs. Parliament was adjourned till 4 May 2010.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two | 177

Parliamentary news:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:57 Page 178

PARLIAMENTARY REPORT

NEW ZEALAND

NEW REFORMS PLAN TO CHANGE ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE IN N.Z. On 9 February, Hon. John Key presented to the House his Prime Minister’s Statement for 2010, and moved a motion of confidence in the government, saying that the government’s “driving goal is to lead a step change in New Zealand’s economic performance, so that we can deliver to New Zealanders the jobs, increased incomes, and better living standards that they deserve. In recent times New Zealand’s incomes have fallen further and further behind those of the countries we like to compare ourselves with, including Australia. This year the government will make a large number of economic reforms to turn this round. This will include

Hon. Phil Goff

changes to the tax system, reforms in the public sector, changes to our science and innovation systems, unlocking access to our abundant natural resources, and measures to improve firms’ access to capital. The government 178 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two

is…carefully considering a modest increase in GST [goods and services tax] to no more

Dr Russel Norman

than 15 percent. The government…wants to unleash the untapped economic potential of New Zealand’s incredible natural resources.

We will…take steps to maximize the economic potential of the minerals that are currently locked up in government-owned land. I can assure New Zealanders that any new mines will have to meet strict environmental tests”.

According to the leader of the opposition, Hon. Phil Goff, “there is talk of a step change but there is no plan at all that any government member could look at and say will close the gap with Australia. [The Prime Minister’s] speech was not a step change, it was a step back.

There was no bold plan—no plan at all. I oppose the increase in GST, because there

is no way that this government will ensure that the tax changes that it is bringing in will be fair to all New Zealanders. We know why GST is regressive. It is because the people who earn the lowest amount...have to spend all of their income, and disproportionately end up paying more tax”.

Dr Russel Norman (CoLeader—Green) regretted that “today John Key has confirmed the worst fears of thousands of New Zealanders—that his government is gearing up to dig up our national parks. His speech was about trying to increase GDP growth, not prosperity. The only way he can pay for it is by digging up our conservation estate. He is going to dig New Zealand into a hole that we cannot get out of— a hole of inequality and environmental destruction, from which there will be no escape”.

However Hon. Rodney Hide (Leader—ACT) was optimistic that “New Zealand is now enjoying stable, centre-right government, which is something we have not had since the start of MMP [mixedmember proportional voting system]. No doubt the highlight of the past year was the ‘three strikes’ policy. ACT campaigned hard at the last election for tougher sentencing with…a policy that is now to be passed into law. The [legislation] sends the loud and clear message that New Zealanders will no

Parliamentary news:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:57 Page 179

NEW ZEALAND

longer tolerate repeat violent offending”.

For Ms Tariana Turia (CoLeader—Maori Party) a major

explained that the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel (Deputy Commissioner and Disposal of Complaints) Amendment Bill “amends the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004. The Office of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner provides a public and transparent judicial complaints process while upholding the principle of judicial independence. The Bill makes three changes.

Firstly, it creates the position of Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner, who...will be able to conduct a preliminary examination of a complaint when the commissioner has a conflict of interest regarding the complaint or is otherwise unavailable.

Secondly, the Bill allows the commissioner to dispose of a complaint if in all the circumstances further consideration of the complaint is not justified.

The District Courts

Mr Charles Chauvel

(District Court Judges) Amendment Bill amends the

Ms Tariana Turia

cause for optimism was the support by the Prime Minister for a programme called “Whanau Ora”, signalling “a new approach to the way that the government works with many communities and, in particular, with Maori families.

Whanau Ora is an opportunity to move forward, and to restore whanau [families] their capacity to be self-determining”.

The confidence motion was passed on 17 February, by 69 votes to 53.

Hon. Chris Finlayson

Justice Legislation On 18 March the AttorneyGeneral, Hon. Chris Finlayson, moved the third readings of Bills divided from the Judicial Matters Bill. He

THIRD READING: NEW ZEALAND Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill Under the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004, Maori were promised, by 2014, as a full and final settlement of Maori commercial aquaculture interests from 21 September 1992, 20 per cent of all new aquaculture space made generally available from 1 January 2005, and the equivalent of 20 per cent of “precommencement space” —that is, aquaculture space approved between 1992 and 2005. Subsequently a review found that it would be virtually impossible to meet the agreed “pre-commencement” space obligations.

On 24 March 2010 Hon. Dr Nick Smith (Minister for the Environment) moved on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries the third reading of the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill, and explained that “this Bill gives effect to a deed of settlement signed on 6 May last year [2009] between the Crown and Te Tau Ihu iwi [tribe] and Ngai Tahu of the South Island and the Hauraki tribes of the Coromandel for an early settlement of the Crown’s pre-commencement space obligations in those regions.

The settlement is for $97 million and will meet the vast majority of the Crown’s pre-commencement space obligations. It takes account of the most productive waters for aquaculture in the country…these waters have been a food basket for tangata whenua [the indigenous people of the land]

for about a thousand years and are now a food basket for not just our country but the world. It is a disappointment that the combination of [a] moratorium and…subsequent aquaculture legislation made it too difficult to provide the new space that was promised to Maori, and the difficulties that there were in trying to buy existing marine farm space proved that to be an ineffective way of providing iwi with space. The Bill also paves the way for the remaining iwi outside the South Island and the Coromandel region to enter into agreements with the Crown for an early settlement within their rohe [area]”.

For Hon. Shane Jones (Labour), the Bill was sensible, because “it prevents ongoing wrangling amongst our people. We have been blighted in the seafood environment by far too much Maori strife”.

But in this case “people have been forced to acknowledge, whether they came willingly or as a consequence of exhaustion, that the only way that they would develop wealth in this industry was to park personality, ancestral, historical, and geographical disputes and to commit to an industry”.

Rahui Katene (Maori Party) welcomed “the intention from the Crown to make up for lost time and previous efforts. This Bill is an excellent example of cooperation and collaboration between iwi, and between the Crown and iwi”.

The Bill passed unopposed. in white text here in white text here in white text here in white text here in white text here in white text here in white

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two | 179

Parliamentary news:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:58 Page 180

PARLIAMENTARY REPORT

NEW ZEALAND

District Courts Act 1947 to increase the statutory limit on

the number of judges who may be appointed from 140

to 156; and the Judicature (Judicial Matters)

Amendment Bill makes amendments to the

THIRD READING: NEW ZEALAND Accident Compensation Amendment Bill On 23 February Hon. Dr Nick Smith, Minister for ACC, moved the third reading of the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill, which had as its main aim the amending of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001, in order to make changes to the funding of New Zealand’s accident compensation scheme, the relationship between government agencies and the Accident Compensation Corporation, and financial reporting and accountability. Dr Smith noted that it “comes down to something very simple: what scale of increases in levies can New Zealanders afford? Members opposite are in a state of denial. Ms Maryan Street, the previous Minister for ACC, signed off on a $2.4 billion loss in the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) in June 2008. But it is worse than that. Members opposite then extended the accident compensation scheme in an additional dozen areas without providing any funding. The cynical part of the opposition Members is that they get on the steps of Parliament and they protest against increases in accident compensation levies. They also participate in protests against reductions in entitlement.

Well, the twain do not meet. Those Members cannot have it both ways, unless they are financially illiterate”.

Hon. David Parker (Labour) called the parts of the scheme being cut by the government “real cuts. They will hurt people…who have had accidents at work, especially. At present…[a] person’s earningsrelated compensation comes to an end…after he or she is deemed ready to return to the workforce. Currently people can be deemed to be ready to come back to the workforce only if they are well enough to work for 35 hours a week. This Bill changes that. It says that people can be pushed off accident compensation when they are capable of working for 30 hours per week. That works in concert with another change to the rules,

180 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two

which says the Accident Compensation Corporation will no longer have to have regard to pre-accident earnings. We are told that this legislation is necessary in the name of the affordability of the scheme. That is nonsense; that is wrong. Levies for employers in Australia for employee risks are significantly higher than in New Zealand, sometimes twice as high. This legislation decreases the compensation and rehabilitation services that are needed by New Zealanders when they are injured. They gave up their right to sue in exchange for receiving those services, and they are substantially losing them through this legislation”.

Ms Ruth Dyson (Labour) said “we have a Bill that means people will now be paying more in their levies—employers and individuals—and they will get less, because this Bill is about cuts”.

However Mr John Boscawen (ACT) said “it must be patently obvious to anyone who has listened with an unbiased view to this debate that we need this legislation because the scheme has grown to such an extent that the country can no longer afford it. We cannot continue to live in a fool’s paradise where costs increase year after year by five times the rate of inflation”.

The Bill passed by 64 votes to 58.

Children (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill After a year of consideration by the Social Services Committee, the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill was returned to the House and passed under urgency on 23 February 2010. All parties agreed that the legislation, which extended the jurisdiction of the Youth Court to include 12 and 13-year-olds, was, as Ms Lianne Dalziel (Labour) said “a fundamental change in a law that was world-leading…in 1989”.

However, whereas National and ACT members defended the measure as targeting

what Minister of Social Development and Employment, Hon. Paula Bennett, described at the bill’s introduction as “the small group of recidivist 12 and 13-year-olds…accused of committing serious crime”, opposition parties were united in claiming that all 12 and 13year-olds were “children”, whose care and protection interests were best served by the Family Court.

Labour and Green members, during a long and passionately argued debate, claimed that the Bill’s measures were punitive, not evidence-based, and a populist result of the government’s pre-election promise to get tough on crime. A major opposition concern was that the legislation was inconsistent with other legislation, and that New Zealand was “in breach of [its] obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child”, as claimed by Ms Jacinda Ardern (Labour) in the Committee stage.

The opposition was particularly incensed by the provision of boot camps for young offenders—Parliament was “wasting precious time on the demonstrably failed boot camps ideology”, argued Ms Metiria Turei (Coleader—Greens) in her third reading speech— but government members were equally determined to defend military-style activity camps as just one of a range of measures to help young offenders turn their lives round.

National members insisted that drug and alcohol counselling, parenting courses, and longer-term mentoring and monitoring—to be collectively known as Fresh Start and to be funded by the government to the tune of $84 million over three years — would be, as described originally by select committee chairperson Ms Katrina Shanks (National) “a useful tool kit” for the Youth Court to “add value” in effecting young offenders’ rehabilitation. Her colleague Tim Macindoe (National) concluded the debate by declaring that young offenders were “not innocent” and needed the government’s “determined intervention”.

Parliamentary news:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:58 Page 181

NEW ZEALAND

Judicature Amendment Act 1908 in regard to remuneration of judges”.

Mr Charles Chauvel (Labour) pointed out that “the parts of this legislation that

Hon. Murray McCully

reform the judicial complaints procedure and allow for an increase in the number of Associate Judges of the High Court were introduced originally by the previous Labour government in 2008”.

He also referred to the fact that Mr Finlayson had conceded that when in opposition he and his colleagues had opposed the legislation, but had changed position. “In fact, many members on this side of the House actually have sympathy with the original sentiments that he expressed. There are real issues with regard to the administration of our justice

Hon. Heather Roy

system, and ordinary New Zealanders have real problems in accessing justice meaningfully in our country. It should not simply be a matter of always increasing the maximum number of judges that can sit in a particular court. The excellent report of the Law Commission on the structure of the courts, which sadly has sat on the shelves since it was published…recommends thorough reform of the system, the creation of a community court at the first level, the rationalisation of the High Court and the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court sitting at the apex of the system. That sort of reform is needed in the system at the moment, not simply the continued addition of more and more judicial officers to the creaky system that currently exists.”

The Bills were passed unopposed.

Ministerial statements on Fiji On 23 February 2010, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Hon. Murray McCully, in a ministerial statement on the relationship between Fiji and New Zealand, informed the House that he had met with both his Fijian and Australian counterparts, Ratu Inoke Kubuabola and Hon. Stephen Smith, with the dual objectives of restoring “the diplomatic capacity in our Suva mission that has been depleted by progressive disputes with Fiji’s administration”, and attempting “to resolve some of the significant and strongly held differences that are held between us”. Mr McCully confirmed the appointment of first secretaries in the respective missions, and the positioning of a trade commissioner in Suva, which, he had been assured, “will

receive favourable consideration”. Mr McCully also hinted at a possible upcoming informal meeting with interim Prime Minister Bainimarama—although that meeting did not eventuate. He reiterated that “our engagement with the Fijian administration does not signal a change in policy, nor a Hon. Peter Dunne

Hon. Chris Carter

change to the sanctions regime. Our commitment to democracy, the rule of law, and human rights is undiminished”.

Labour’s foreign affairs spokesperson, Hon. Chris Carter, emphasized the need to “restore the right of Fiji’s people to elect their own

Hon. Dr Pita Sharples

government in place of the current military regime”.

Mr Keith Locke (Green) had reservations that the dialogue between New Zealand and Fiji would exclude representatives

of the community and be conducted only with the military regime. “The longer the military regime stays in power, the more it gets used to being in charge, to throwing its weight around, and to abusing the rights of its citizens.” Sedition laws in Fiji were of particular concern to Mr Locke: changes to sedition laws had enabled “people to be prosecuted and imprisoned for what they write, even on blog sites on the Internet”.

Hon. Peter Dunne (Leader—United Future) agreed with the Minister of Foreign Affairs’ “rather cautious” approach to diplomacy, while Hon. Heather Roy said that the ACT Party supported the reestablishing of talks with Fiji, and reminded the House of the history of the relationship of New Zealand with Fiji: “we have long served in UN missions with the Fijians, and, of course, we have a long history also of fighting side by side with Fijian troops, particularly in world wars.”

Hon. Dr Pita Sharples (CoLeader—Maori Party) expressed the position of Maoridom towards Fiji: “We support the move to set up a process again that will enable us to dialogue with those of Fiji, to talk the talk, to live as one, and to seek a way that will see the people at large of Fiji living harmoniously and well with each other.”

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two | 181

Parliamentary news:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:59 Page 182

PARLIAMENTARY REPORT

CANADA

AVOIDING AN EARLY GENERAL ELECTION In keeping with contemporary Canadian practices on prorogation, Parliament is not usually prorogued on an annual basis, as is done in other jurisdictions. Rather, Parliament is prorogued at the government’s initiative, in circumstances such as when the government’s legislative initiatives on the Order Paper are exhausted or it wants to give itself a fresh start with new proposals. The prorogation on 30 December 2009, which occurred less than a year after the beginning of the 2nd Session of the 40th Parliament, was at odds with these established practices and was widely criticized for these and other reasons. The decision to prorogue was denounced by opposition parties because it had been arrived at, it was claimed, for mere partisan purposes.

Prorogation has the effect of terminating all parliamentary business including Bills and committee work. In this instance, it ended the proceedings of the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan, among other things. This special committee, inquiring into allegations of abuse of Afghan prisoners, had unsuccessfully sought the release of uncensored documents from the government. Another criticism was that the government of Rt Hon. Stephen Harper sought to 182 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two

benefit from an increase in popularity following the 2010 Olympic Winter Games in Vancouver (although the anticipated surge in popularity had not materialized) and being defeated in the House of Commons in order to go to the polls, and, it was hoped, have finally obtained a majority.

Shortly after the beginning of the new session, the opposition parties, which together hold the majority of the seats of the House of Commons, took retaliatory measures against the government for the 30 December prorogation. First, the Commons adopted a motion sponsored by the New

Rt Hon. Stephen Harper

Democratic Party aimed at imposing restrictions on the Prime Ministerial prerogative to recommend the prorogation of Parliament. This motion represents, however, a mere expression of will on behalf of the House of Commons and does not change the rules

dealing with prorogation.

Pursuant to the Canadian constitution, the Governor General, on the advice of the Prime Minister, is empowered to prorogue Parliament.

Second, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs undertook a study on prorogation, which could lead to recommendations proposing changes to the rules that govern prorogation. The Committee has, however, yet to report. Third, questions of privilege were raised with regard to the documents the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan had demanded of the government, but which were either not provided, or were released with most of their content redacted or struck out. Finally, while there were some negotiations between the government and the opposition to “fast track” Bills that had already been studied and nearly adopted by either one or both Chambers when prorogation occurred, no measures were agreed on, as is usually the case in the beginning of a new session, to permit the speedy adoption of such legislative proposals.

Most of the Bills that had been introduced before Parliament since the beginning of the 2nd Session on 3 March 2010 had died on the Order Paper with prorogation. Some

Parliamentary news:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:59 Page 183

CANADA

of these have been on the Harper government’s agenda since the Conservative Party of Canada gained power in 2006.

This is the case, for instance, for Bill C-15, the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, and for measures included in

Selection Act, would authorize the provinces and territories, following a popular consultation, to provide a list of nominees for appointment to the Senate for their respective jurisdiction.

Bill S-8 is based on the principles of the Alberta Senatorial Selection Act. Sen. Bert Brown, whom had previously been “chosen”

pursuant to that Act by the voters of Alberta, was notably the first appointment of Prime Minister Harper to the Senate.

On second reading debate in the Senate, Senator Brown stated: “Bill S-8 is an Act respecting the selection of Senators. It is an offer to the provinces to draft their own legislation, hold elections in their provinces and to fill future

vacancies in this Chamber with elected Senators. When the Bill comes into effect, it will not be a legal directive to the provinces.

Bill S-8 will give the voters of each province an opportunity to democratically choose future Senators or leave the decision to the office of the current Prime Minister and future Prime Ministers.”

Pursuing its commitment to

THIRD READING: BRITISH COLUMBIA Sen. Bert Brown

the Conservative government’s democratic reform proposals, including: • Bill C-10, the Constitution Act, 2010 (Senate term limits), that aims at limiting senatorial mandates to eight years (Senators are currently appointed until they reach 75 years of age, regardless of their date and age of appointment), and • Bill C-12, the Democratic Representation Act, which purports to adjust the number of seats for each of the Canadian provinces in the House of Commons.

Since 2006, the Harper government has presented several initiatives to modify the appointment process of Senators, who are currently appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister by the Governor General. Previous proposals included one to require a public consultation process that would have taken place at the same time as a general election. These were, however, never adopted. The newly proposed Bill S-8, Senatorial

Consumption Tax Rebate and Transition Act On 30 March 2010, the Minister of Finance, Hon. Colin Hansen, introduced Bill 9, the Consumption Tax Rebate and Transition Act. The Bill provides for the replacement of the seven per cent provincial sales tax and facilitates the introduction of a single, value-added 12 per cent Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) that incorporates the five per cent Canadian goods and services tax. When the HST is fully implemented on 1 July 2010, British Columbia will join several other provinces within Canada and many countries around the world that have similar valueadded taxes.

The primary purpose of the Act is to rescind the provincial sales tax, as well as the provincial hotel room tax, and set out regulations assisting in the transition to the HST, which takes effect pursuant to the federal legislation passed last December.

Essentially, the BC Act establishes an administrative scheme for the imposition and collection of the HST. It also provides an HST tax credit for British Columbians living on low or modest incomes; a provincial credit towards the cost of residential energy; and point-of-sale rebates on items such as books, children’s-sized clothing and footwear, and motor fuels.

During all stages of its passage, Bill 9 was a controversial piece of legislation. The opposition argued that the decision to implement the HST represented the reversal of an election promise, and would unfairly shift the tax burden from corporations to consumers and hurt BC families already struggling in an economic recession. On the other side of the House, government Members

highlighted the greater efficiency of a value-added tax and the HST’s potential to enhance the competitiveness of the provincial tax system and reduce administration costs. They described the HST as the single most important policy change that can be implemented to stimulate the economy.

In an unusual move, a division was called at the First Reading stage. The lengthy Second Reading debate that followed during the month of April included an unsuccessful opposition amendment to refer the subject matter of Bill 9 to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

Since the legislation had to be enacted by 1 May in order for some of the transitional provisions to take effect, the Government House Leader announced on 26 April that Standing Order 81.1 (Time Allocation) would be utilized to expedite passage of Bill 9. Under the motion, which passed on division, all remaining stages of Bill 9 were required to be completed and disposed of by 5pm on 29 April.

The Second Reading was completed, on division, on 27 April. Committee stage debate began on 28 April and spanned two sitting days. By agreement, standing divisions were permitted on specific sections of Bill 9, and 13 recorded votes were requested during debate on sections one through 55. At 5pm on 29 April, all remaining sections, 56 through 213, were put to the Committee of the Whole in one block vote, which itself was subject to one standing division. Bill 9 passed Third Reading and received royal assent just prior to the daily adjournment on 29 April.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two | 183

Parliamentary news:Layout 1 09/07/2010 10:59 Page 184

PARLIAMENTARY REPORT

tackle crime, the government has reintroduced in the 3rd Session numerous Bills on law and order that had died on the Order Paper with prorogation in the 2nd Session. Legislative proposals reintroduced in the House of Commons include: • Bill C-5, the Keeping Canadians Safe (International Transfer of Offenders) Act, • Bill C-16, the Ending House

CANADA

•

Arrest for Property and Other Serious Crimes by Serious and Violent Offenders Act and Bill C-17, the Combating Terrorism Act.

Also, on 11 May 2010, Hon. Vic Toews, Minister of Public Safety, introduced Bill C-23, the Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act, in the House of Commons. Mr Toews stated on

that day that: “The current system of pardons implies that what the person did is somehow okay, or is forgiven, or that the harm done has somehow disappeared. Our government disagrees, and is on the side of victims. That is why we are taking action to replace the current system and eliminate pardons for serious crimes.”

While the government has

THIRD READING: AUSTRALIA Australian Centre for Renewable Energy Act 2010 The legislation establishes the Australian Centre for Renewable Energy (ACRE) to advise on the development of funding and promotion strategies for renewable energy development, commercialization and use.

The Minister for Resources and Energy, Hon. Martin Ferguson, MP, commented that the “government is committed to implementing a comprehensive response to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions, with technology playing a vital role”. Mr Ferguson stated that the “development of affordable and efficient lowemission and renewable energy technologies is crucial to addressing this challenge”. The government’s efforts to develop these new lowemissions energy technologies are directed towards a few broad areas: energy efficiency, low-emissions coal and renewable energy sources.

Mr Ferguson noted that more needed to be done in a coordinated focus on renewable energy technology support which is why the government was establishing ACRE. ACRE’s objectives would be to promote the development, commercialization and deployment of renewable energy and enabling technologies and to improve their competitiveness.

The legislation also established the ACRE board which would draw on expertise in the Australian industry and research community. The ACRE board would help to achieve ACRE’s objectives by advising the government on: •

Strategies to fund and promote renewable energy technologies;

184 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two

• • • •

Funding of promising projects and measures; Management of programs and the improvement of existing program delivery; Provision of venture capital funding; and, Priority areas for government support.

The Minister concluded that “the establishment of ACRE is a significant step forward in the development of affordable and efficient renewable energy and enabling technologies”.

The then Shadow Minister for Resources and Energy, Sen. the Hon. Nick Minchin advised that the legislation was broadly supported by the coalition.

Senator Minchin noted that ACRE would consolidate a number of renewable energy programs including the Renewable Energy Demonstration Program and the Geothermal Drilling Program. He cautioned that the coalition did not support the tying of this legislation in any way to Labor’s now twice failed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation.

Senator Minchin noted that an issue of concern for the coalition was the comparatively low level of government support for geothermal energy. He stated that “while the government likes to talk up the great potential of this emerging energy source there is little evidence that it is prepared to provide the type of support the geothermal sector needs to realise that potential”. Senator Minchin further commented that “the need for this government to direct more support towards geothermal is especially acute given Labor’s complete and utter refusal to countenance even a debate about nuclear power in Australia”.

Hon. Peter Milliken

quickly filled the Order Paper with legislative proposals early on in the new session, it is the struggle between the government and Parliament with regard to the access to documents relating to the transfer of Afghan prisoners that has dominated the session so far. On 27 April 2010, Speaker of the House of Commons, Hon. Peter Milliken ruled as to the right of Parliament and its committees, as part of parliamentary privilege, to obtain uncensored documents from the government. While acknowledging national security concerns expressed by the government, Speaker Milliken gave the government and opposition parties two weeks to agree on the terms whereby Members of the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission to Afghanistan could have access to the documents. Failing such an agreement, a motion finding the government in contempt of Parliament could have been presented to the House. Such a motion could likely have triggered a general election, as its adoption would have expressed the loss of confidence of the House in the government. Finally, two hours before the deadline, the government and opposition parties reached an agreement, thereby postponing another general election.

Parliamentary news:Layout 1 09/07/2010 11:00 Page 185

AUSTRALIA

FEDERAL BUDGET FOCUSES ON REDUCING DEBT AND STATE ELECTIONS TAKE PLACE

Hon. Wayne Swan

On 11 May 2010 the Treasurer, Hon. Wayne Swan, delivered the third Budget of the Rudd Labor Government. The Budget was framed against positive growth projections and rising government revenue. Mr Swan noted that Australia had recorded 18 years of continuous expansion but the most recent year was the most significant “because together we avoided recession when almost all other advanced economies did not”.

The economic forecasts have significantly improved compared to those of the previous Budget. The Budget is now forecast to return to surplus in 2012-2013 three years ahead of schedule. Unemployment which was forecast to reach 8.5 per cent in the previous Budget is now forecast to fall from 5.3 per cent currently to 4.75 per cent by mid 2011-12. Real GDP is forecast to reach 3.25 per cent in 2010-11 and 4 per cent in 2011-12. Consumer price index (CPI) is expected to reach 3.25

per cent in 2009-10 and then fall to 2.5 in both 2010-11 and 201112. The Treasury’s CPI forecasts are more optimistic than the forecasts produced by the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA). The RBA has forecast CPI to fall to 2.75 per cent over the year to the December quarter 2011 but then to rise to 3 per cent over the year to the June 2012 and December 2012 quarters.

The Budget is modest in its spending proposals and is focused on reducing debt. A key objective of the government is to grow sustainability and increase productivity with low inflation into the future. In 2007 increasing capacity constraints resulted in increased demand and price pressures which led to a series of rate hikes by the RBA. This contributed to significant pressure on homeowners who were faced with rising mortgage repayments. The RBA is currently increasing rates to “neutral’ levels. There is growing concern from market economists and the broader community that capacity constraints could increase as Australia enters another growth phase led by the mining sector.

This is a significant challenge for the government as capacity constraints and demand pressures could result in significant pain for homeowners if interest rates need to be increased to

THIRD READING: AUSTRALIA Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Amendment Act 2010 The legislation makes amendments to the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980 which gives effect to Australia’s obligations under the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (the Madrid Protocol). Australia was one of the 12 original signatories to the Antarctic Treaty (1961) which is the cornerstone of the broader Antarctic treaty system. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Hon. Peter Garrett, MP, commented that “as the international governance arrangements for the Antarctic have developed, Australia has played a pivotal role in ensuring Antarctica’s environmental values are protected”.

The amending legislation aligns the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act with Australia’s newly revised obligations under Annex II to the Madrid Protocol. The legislation will establish more stringent arrangements to protect Antarctic fauna and flora. The key amendments include:

•

Providing the ability for the minister to declare invertebrates as specially protected species, and specifying restrictions regarding the taking of native invertebrates; • Enhancing the protections afforded to protect specially protected species; • Strengthening the permitting system to more tightly control the authorised introduction of organisms into the Antarctic; and • Updating the offences to require persons travelling to the Antarctic to take greater precaution against the accidental introduction of non-native organisms into the Antarctic.

The Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage, Hon. Greg Hunt, MP, noted that the coalition supported the legislation. Mr Hunt stated that the legislation “builds on measures that we put in place in government to ensure that Australian Antarctic Territory is protected, that it is guaranteed not just for the present generations but for generations many decades and centuries down the track”.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two | 185

Parliamentary news:Layout 1 09/07/2010 11:00 Page 186

PARLIAMENTARY REPORT

AUSTRALIA

“contractionary” levels.

The government has sought to address labour capacity constraints by a new skills programme costing $661 million to deliver up to 70 000 new training places over the next four years and support 22,500 young apprentices. Mr Swan commented that “this includes critical investments in emerging skills hot spots, like infrastructure projects, the resources sector, and renewable energy”. In addition, a new infrastructure fund will be created.

The mining sector has in recent years contributed significant returns through taxes to the economy. A key plank outlined in the budget is to ensure that the proceeds of the mining boom are shared more widely amongst the Australian community.

Therefore, the government announced that it will introduce the Resource Super Profits Tax (RSPT) from 1 July 2012. Mr Swan stated that “we need to manage our resource wealth sustainably – capturing a fairer share for all Australians and turning it into other forms of wealth that last”. The new tax “is designed to tax resource projects on the basis of profits rather than production, but also to ensure that Australians get a fair return from our natural resource wealth”.

The government advised that “the effective resource charge (charges as a percentage of super profits earned) has almost halved from an average of around 34 per cent over the first half of this decade to less than 14 per cent in 2008-09”.

Resource profits were over $80 billion higher in 2008-09 than in 1999-00 but governments only collected an additional $9 billion through resource charges. The RSPT will apply a 40 per cent tax to profits from resource projects after allowing for extraction

costs and recouping capital investment. Companies will not pay RSPT until after they provide shareholders with a normal return on capital investments.

The RSPT is expected to raise $3 billion in 2012-13 and $9 billion in 2013-14.

A key feature of the RSPT is its linkage to the delivery of other tax cuts and improvements in superannuation. Mr Swan stated that “taxing mining super profits fairly means we can afford to cut the company tax rate to 29 per cent in 201314 and 28 per cent in 2014-15”.

From 2013 small business will receive an instant write-off for assets costing less than $5000, and a simple but generous depreciation pool for other assets.

In relation to superannuation, the government is proposing raising the superannuation guarantee levy from the current 9 per cent to 12 percent. The 3 per cent increase will be achieved in incremental steps reaching 12 per cent in 2019-20.

The Government indicated that the superannuation changes will increase Australia’s pool of superannuation savings by $85 billion over 10 years.

On 13 May the Leader of the Opposition, Hon. Tony Abbot, delivered his Budget reply speech. Mr Abbott commented that “of the three budgets delivered by the Rudd government, this is the most political, the least believable and the most damaging to Australia’s long-term future”. Mr Abbot brought attention to the size of the budget this year which is $57 billion – “the biggest ever”. Mr Abbot commented that “the surplus that it says will happen in three years time is based on increased taxes and on the growth that those increased taxes will almost certainly

186 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two

strangle”. In relation to the $1 billion surplus projected for 2012-13, Mr Abbot commented that this “surplus is roughly the amount required to fix the pink batts programme that has been linked to four deaths; the amount required to pay for the extra detention measures needed because the government has lost control of our borders or the blow-out in the computers in schools programme”.

In relation to the RSPT, Mr Abbott commented that “despite its name, this is not a normal tax on superprofits; it is a supertax on normal profits.

Every company extracting nonrenewable resources will have to pay an additional 40 per cent tax, as well as normal tax, once its rate of return on capital exceeds the long-term bond rate or about six per cent”.

Mr Abbot stated that it was his goal “to return the budget to surplus at least as quickly as the government proposes, but not in the lazy way through a great big new tax that threatens miners’ jobs, retirees’ incomes and everybody’s standard of living”.

Programme under scrutiny One of the programmes introduced by the government was the Energy Efficient Homes Package which was announced on 3 February 2009 as part of the $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan. The $4.0 billion Energy Efficient Homes Package comprised of three programmes including: •

•

Homeowner insulation program – installing insulation, capped at $1600, to eligible home owneroccupiers with very little or now existing ceiling insulation; and Low emission assistance plan for renters – providing assistance to landlords and tenants, with up to $1000 to

install insulation in private rental properties.

The then Minister responsible for the programme, Hon. Peter Garrett, stated that “the package will support thousands of jobs for tradespeople and workers employed in manufacturing, distribution and installation during the global financial crisis”. Mr Garrett commented that “I encourage the millions of eligible Australians to take advantage of the package as we roll it out across the nation’s suburbs over the next few years. This investment is a critical measure in our journey to a more energy efficient, sustainable Australia”.

The programme, however, came under severe pressure as there was an influx of new insulation providers often lacking sufficient skills and training. This led, in some cases, to faulty installation resulting in house fires, and the death of some installers. In addition, there were reports that the scheme had also resulted in an increase in the price of installation.

As reports of problems with the programme increased, so did the level and intensity of parliamentary scrutiny. The Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage, Hon. Greg Hunt, waged an intense campaign drawing attention to problems with the programme. On 26 August 2009, Mr Hunt highlighted cases of batts being placed dangerously over down lights and called for a full review by the Auditor-General.

Mr Hunt stated that “scammers and fly-by-night operators are preying on vulnerable home-owners and leaving behind a trail of dodgy work and shonky financial practices”. Mr Hunt commented that “every day we are seeing

Parliamentary news:Layout 1 09/07/2010 11:01 Page 187

AUSTRALIA

new reports of fraudulent and misleading quotations, such as quotes for all different roof sizes magically coming in just under the $1600 rebate”.

On 25 October 2009 Mr Hunt noted reports of the first death of an installer and at least six electrocutions. Mr Hunt reported advice from the Master Electricians Australia in writing to the Minister that it was “concerned that these installers do not have the necessary training with regard to electrical safety, and may be putting themselves and others at risk”.

The issue of electrocution relates to the installation of foil insulation under the programme. This type of insulation is used more commonly in warmer climates such as Queensland.

On 9 February 2010 Mr Garrett suspended the installation of foil insulation under the programme. Mr Garrett stated that “unfortunately, despite strong measures taken to date including banning the use of metal fasteners for foil insulation in November last year, we are still seeing evidence of foil installations which do not meet clear program requirements”.

Mr Hunt and other members of the opposition used question time to focus attention on the competency of the Minister and, in particular, his receipt of safety warnings about the programme.

On 19 February 2010 the government’s home insulation programme was terminated as a result of safety and compliance concerns. From 1 July 2009 until the programme closed, around 1.1 million Australian homes had been insulated at a cost of approximately $1.5 billion.

On 26 February 2010 the Prime Minister, Hon. Kevin

Rudd, announced ministerial changes which relieved Mr Garret of his responsibility for the home insulation programme. Hon. Greg Combet, as the Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, was given direct responsibility for the oversight and implementation of the windup of the Household Insulation Program and of the roll-out of the new household Renewable Energy Bonus Scheme.

As part of the wind-up programme, the government put in place a household inspection programme to identify and address the extent of safety and fire hazard concerns. The government also committed to remove foil insulation or alternatively install

safety switches in over 50 000 homes.

South Australian Election The South Australian State election was held on 20 March 2010. The Rann Labor Government was re-elected with a reduced majority. Of the 47 seats in the lower house, Labor won 26, Liberals 18, and independents, three. The Labor party going into the election was under pressure from a new Liberal leader, Ms Isobel Redmond, who was able to gain some traction at the election.

Tasmanian Election The Tasmanian State election was also held on 20 March 2010. The Labor Government led by Premier David Bartlett

suffered a swing against it of 12 per cent but was returned as a minority government.

Of the 25 seats in the House of Assembly, Labor and Liberal both won 10 each and the Greens won the remaining five.

Initially, neither Labor nor the Liberal party would negotiate a deal with the Greens. This led to a deadlock with no clear winner until 8 April when the Greens declared that they would support Labor in preference to the Liberals.

On 8 April Mr Bartlett and later Liberal Leader Mr Will Hodgman met with Hon Peter Underwood, Governor of Tasmania. A vice-regal statement confirmed that Mr Bartlett was told that he had an obligation to form government.

THIRD READING: AUSTRALIA National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment Act 2010 The National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment Act amends the Commonwealth’s consumer credit legislation to ensure an effective referral of power from the states to the Commonwealth in relation to consumer credit.

The Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law, Hon. Chris Bowen, MP, stated that “this credit reform package will, for the first time in Australia, provide a single, standard, national regime for the regulation of consumer credit replacing the state based regime, which operates inconsistently across the eight jurisdictions”.

Mr Bowen commented that “as the Commonwealth’s legislative powers are not sufficient to enact a nationally comprehensive regulatory framework for consumer credit, it is therefore necessary for the states to refer their powers to the Commonwealth under section 51 of the constitution by passing the relevant referral legislation in their respective Parliaments”.

The Shadow Minister for Consumer Affairs, Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law, Mr Luke Hartsuyker, MP, noted that “the credit

act implemented a number of reforms, including a national licensing regime for all providers of consumer credit and services across Australia, including responsible lending conduct requirements for licensees”. Mr Hartsuyker commented that “consumers need the confidence of a national system to borrow and purchase under the backdrop of a stable regulatory environment”. Mr Hartsuyker stated that the coalition supports the national credit regime and therefore supports this legislation.

The move to a national consumer credit code follows on from work completed by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration. In 2007 this committee conducted an inquiry into home loan lending practices and the processes used to deal with people in financial difficulty. The committee as part of its inquiry examined the rise of predatory lending practices by mortgage providers.

The committee was of the view that the best way to reform the lending code would be to harmonise regulation within the financial sector by shifting responsibility for credit regulation to the Commonwealth government. In particular, this approach would include the regulation of mortgage brokers and non-bank lenders.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two | 187

Parliamentary news:Layout 1 09/07/2010 11:01 Page 188

PARLIAMENTARY REPORT

UNITED KINGDOM

By law, a general election must be held in the U.K. – and a new Parliament elected – at least every five years. On 6 April 2010 after visiting Buckingham Palace, Prime Minister, Rt Hon. Gordon Brown announced that the Queen had “kindly agreed to the dissolution of Parliament” and that a General Election would take place on 6 May. It was reported that the Prime Minister had earlier held a Cabinet meeting at No. 10 Downing Street, during which ministers signed off on Labour’s election manifesto. He was then driven to Buckingham Palace, where the Queen arrived by helicopter, having travelled from Windsor Castle.

After their private meeting, Mr Brown returned to Downing Street to publicly announce that the general election campaign was underway. In a break with tradition, Mr Brown spoke from the steps of No 10. with his Cabinet lined up behind him.

The 7 and 8 April saw Parliament enter a period known as the "wash-up", which traditionally falls between the announcement of the election and dissolution of Parliament.

During a wash-up period Bills progress swiftly through both Houses, with the government relying on co-operation from the opposition. During wash-up in April 2010, Parliament considered 18 Bills, all of which passed into law.

Later on 8 April, both Houses of Parliament were 188 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two

©World Economic Forum/Remy Steinegger

FINAL BILLS PASSED INTO LAW AND A NEW GOVERNMENT ENTERS

Rt Hon. Gordon Brown

prorogued bringing the parliamentary year to an end.

The prorogation announcement, on behalf of the Queen, was read in the chamber of the House of Lords in front of Members of both Houses by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Baroness Royall of Blaisdon). She addressed both the House of Lords and the House of Commons assembled at the bar of the House: “My Lords and Members of the House of Commons, Her Majesty, not thinking fit personally to be present there at this time, has been pleased to cause a Commission to be issued under the Great Seal, and thereby given Her Royal Assent to divers Acts, the Titles whereof are particularly mentioned, and by the said Commission has commanded us to declare and notify Her Royal Assent to the said several Acts, in the presence of you the Lords and Commons

assembled for that purpose; and has also assigned to us and other Lords directed full power and authority in Her Majesty’s name to prorogue this present Parliament.”

The announcement also highlighted major legislation and other measures taken by the government during the past session. The Parliament was then formally dissolved on Monday 12 April ending the 2005-2010 Parliament. At the dissolution of Parliament every seat in the House of Commons became vacant. MPs immediately reverted to being members of the general public and lost all the privileges associated with being a Member of Parliament. The new parliament and a new session began after the general election with the State Opening of Parliament on Tuesday 25 May. The 2010 general election: a Hung Parliament The United Kingdom’s general election of 2010 was held on 6 May, to elect members to the House of Commons. The general election took place in 649 constituencies across the United Kingdom, under the first-past-the-post system, for seats in the House of Commons. One of the closest general election campaigns in a generation saw the numbers of voters rise by over 2 million people on 2005 to 29.6 million.

The last election saw a 61.0 per cent turnout compared with

Parliamentary news:Layout 1 09/07/2010 11:01 Page 189

UNITED KINGDOM

65.1 per cent this time. The rise in turnout was reflected right across the U.K. with the largest proportion of voters turning out in the South West and South East of England, 69.1 per cent and 68.0 per cent turnout respectively. The only area where turnout actually declined was in Northern Ireland.

Numbers dropped by 7.8 per cent to 57.6 per cent. London and the North West of England saw the biggest increases in turnout. The capital saw a rise of 7.2 per cent, with the tight battle in Richmond Park resulting in one of the highest turnouts of any seat at 76.9 per cent. Turnout in the North West's also increased by 5.5 per cent to 62.6 per cent.

The election was unique in many ways. The Green Party won its first seat in the Commons, and the Alliance Party won its first seat at the ballot box. Thirty five per cent of voters supported a party other than Labour or the Conservatives—the highest such figure since the 1918 general election. For the first time in a British election, the three main party leaders engaged in three televised debates. The debates saw the Prime Minster, Conservative Leader Rt Hon. David Cameron, and Leader of the Liberal Democrats, Rt Hon. Nick Clegg, go head-to-head to debate domestic affairs, foreign affairs and the economy. Each debate used the same format, set out in detailed agreement.

In the general election on 6 May, the Conservative Party under Mr Cameron won the largest number of votes and seats. However the Conservative Party fell short of the 326 seats needed to have an overall majority. A crucial aspect of the British system of government is that the government of the day must

enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons. On a number of occasions over the last century, a general election has produced a result in which no party has a majority of Members: a situation of no overall control. This is known as a “Hung Parliament”. To have a majority a political party has to have more than half of the 650 seats in the House of Commons, and therefore more seats than the combined opposition parties. The Conservative achieved the highest number of votes in the general election but did not win enough seats to command a majority in the House. The general election of 2010 returned Britain's first hung Parliament since 1974.

The third largest party, the Liberal Democrats, suffered a net loss of five seats despite an apparent breakthrough in opinion polls, which started after the first televised debate, when many thought leader Mr Clegg performed well.

Rt Hon. David Cameron

However, the Liberal Democrats still achieved their largest popular vote since their creation in 1988, and therefore found themselves in a pivotal role in the formation of the new government.

New U.K. Prime Minister On 11 May, Mr Brown officially tendered his resignation to the

Queen at Buckingham Palace, as it became clear that Mr Cameron would succeed in forming a coalition government.

Speaking alongside his wife Sarah outside No 10 Downing Street, he said the job had been "a privilege". Mr Brown said he had taken the decision to resign after concluding he would not be able to form a government after days of talks between the parties.

He also stepped down as leader of the Labour party, but announced he would remain as a backbench MP in Parliament.

In an emotional farewell speech outside No 10, Mr Brown said "only those who have held the office of prime minister can understand the full weight of its responsibilities and its great capacity for good".

He told the country that “in the face of many...challenges up to and including the global financial meltdown, I have always tried to serve, to do my best in the interests of Britain, its values and its people”.

Anticipating Mr Cameron's appointment, Mr Brown said: “I wish the next prime minister well as he makes the important choices for the future.” His two young sons joined him and wife Sarah for his brief statement which ended with the words: “Thank you and goodbye.”

Within an hour, Mr Cameron took up that role. On the steps of Downing Street he announced that “Her Majesty the Queen has asked me to form a new government and I have accepted”. The new prime minister paid tribute to his predecessor commenting that the country had become “more open at home and more compassionate abroad” over the last ten years and that on behalf of the whole country he wished to “pay tribute to the outgoing prime minister for his long record of dedicated public service”.

The Prime Minster went on to say that “our country has a hung parliament where no party has an overall majority and we have some deep and pressing problems – a huge deficit, deep social problems, a political system in need of reform. For those reasons I aim to form a proper and full coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. I believe that is the right way to provide this country with the strong, the stable, the good and decent government that I think we need so badly”.

He said that one of his tasks would be “to rebuild trust” in the political system. “Real change is not what government can do on its own – real change is when everyone pulls together, comes together, works together, where we all exercise our responsibilities to ourselves, to our families, to our communities and to others”.

He went on, in words that echoed the Inaugural Address of American President, John F. Kennedy, calling the country to work together: “I want to help try and build a more responsible society here in Britain. One where we don’t just ask what are my entitlements, but what are my responsibilities. One where we don’t ask what am I just owed, but more what can I give”.

Election of the Speaker and swearing-in of Members The first task of the newly elected House of Commons was to elect the Speaker on 18 May. Rt Hon. John Bercow, Member of Parliament for Buckingham, had been the Speaker in the previous Parliament, told the House that he was willing to be re-elected as Speaker.

Mr Bercow told the House that it had been a “privilege to serve as Speaker for the past

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two | 189

Parliamentary news:Layout 1 09/07/2010 11:02 Page 190

ten months and it would be an honour to serve again in this Parliament”.

He stressed that he would discharge his duties impartially, “not just between parties, but between individual Members”.

Above all he pledged to “defend the rights of Back Benchers to hold the government to account and to champion the causes dear to their hearts”.

Sir Malcolm Rifkind MP (Conservative) was then called to move a motion that Mr Bercow take the chair as Speaker-elect. He argued that Mr Bercow had the three essential qualities of a good Speaker, namely “that the Speaker must be absolutely fair between individual Members”, secondly, that while a Speaker has great power and great authority, he must use his power “not only with flexibility but, on occasion, with humour as well”, in order to reduce the temperature that might otherwise arise, and lastly that that the Speaker was the champion of the Back Benchers against “not just those on the Government Front Bench but those on the Opposition Front Bench, too”.

During the last eleven months the Commons had benefited from “a modern Speaker for a modern age”. Sir Malcolm concluded by commenting that: “The comment was made some months ago that perhaps he was too young to be on the Speaker’s Chair. I do not think that that argument can be used very easily now. He is, I understand, 47, which makes him four years older than both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister and eight years older than the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The House can be reassured that if it chooses him today, we will have some experience and

UNITED KINGDOM

gravitas in the Speaker’s Chair. I commend him to the House.”

The Father of the House, Sir Peter Tapsell, the backbench MP with the longest continuous Commons service, presided over the election. Several MPs took the rare step of shouting out a challenge to the reelection of the Speaker when the question was put to the House. A few shouts of “nay” were heard however they were drowned out by a mighty roar in favour of Mr Bercow’s reelection and Sir Peter concluded that the “ayes have it” and it was agreed.

State Opening The serious business of the Parliament got under way on 25 May, with the State Opening of Parliament by Her Majesty The Queen. The primary purpose of this colourful state occasion was to set out the government’s legislative agenda in the Queen’s Speech.

The Queen outlined the government’s priorities for the coming parliamentary year. The Queen said that the government’s first priority would be “to reduce the deficit and restore economic growth”.

Action would be taken to accelerate the reduction of the structural budget deficit.

Following the State Opening, a motion to send a 'Humble Address' to the Queen thanking her for the Speech was introduced in both the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The government's programme, as presented in the Queen's Speech, was then debated by both Houses for six days. The first day of the Debate on the Address, as it is known, is more general in tone. On the following days both Houses held debates covering different subjects.

In the House of Lords Earl

190 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Two

Ferrers moved the Motion for a Humble Address to be made in response to the Queen’s speech. He said that: “We have witnessed today what must be the greatest constitutional spectacle in the world. Its majestic procession says a hundred and one things to all of us....

Today, as we saw Her Majesty once again open her Parliament, there have been few people who did not admire the grace, dignity and

©Keith Edkins

PARLIAMENTARY REPORT

Baroness Falkner of Margravin elegance with which she carried out her tasks”.

Earl Ferrers went on to congratulate the Liberal Democrats on holding office for the first time in 65 years. “That is quite an achievement whichever way you look at it.

They have been at the forefront of all political jokes, especially from my party, most of which we thought were wholly justified. But not no more! We are chained together like suffragettes”.

He pointed out that the Conservatives had “thought that they were going to win” and were therefore forced to “eat humble pie”, which, as Churchill once said, “is not an unwholesome diet”. He spoke in favour of the coalition pointing out that in coalition “no one gets their way, which is not necessarily a bad idea. Parties which said that they were going

to do one thing find that they cannot-at least, not without a good bit of shake and shove. It will be a case of co-operation, which is no bad thing. However, there is a gritty determination by the two young leaders to make it work”.

He concluded that if the parties of the coalition would work together to “get the country straight” then it would be “a huge statement of statesmanship and a great reflection on the corporate wisdom of Parliament. It will, I hope, emphasise how much we all have in common with each other, rather than highlight the things that keep us separate”.

Baroness Falkner of Margravin seconded the motion. She began by noting the “rare distinction” to second the humble Address in the knowledge that she was “the first Liberal in 96 years to do so, following Lord Methuen in 1914”. There was much unfinished business. She remarked that “even the noble Lord, Lord Steel, has had his patience tested in our fulfilling his instructions to prepare for government. I suspect that he did not intend us to take quite this long. But here we are, and perhaps it is the beginning of a trend”.

She concluded that there were “not many among our ranks on these government benches and, I dare say, the opposition who, when looking at where the voters told us to go on 6 May, could have envisaged this day. The spirit with which our two parties have come together for this programme of government is remarkable. It takes good judgment to see clearly what is legitimate, but it takes courage to walk in a direction you have not been before, and the leaders of both parties have displayed bagfuls of that”.

NSW ad:3-col feature 09/07/2010 11:03 Page 191

NEW SOUTH WALES PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY RESEARCH SERVICE

The NSW Parliamentary Library is pleased to announce the publication of an important work of historical record – New South Wales Legislative Council 1824-1856, The Select Committees, Part II 1844-1848 - compiled

by RF Doust. The work contains not only a comprehensive record of all the select committees in that period, listing committee members and witnesses examined, it also sets out the background and context for each inquiry and presents a commentary on the outcome in each case.

This is the third such publication the library has sponsored, all compiled by RF Doust. In 2004 the library published New South Wales Legislative Council 1824-1856, Abstracts of Votes and Proceedings, Part 1 1824-1843. In 2005 it published New South Wales Legislative Council 1824-1856, The Select Committees, Part I 1824-1843.

The full texts of all three publications are now available on the Archives Collection of the NSW Parliament’s website at: www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/web/common.nsf/key/Archives_FirstCouncilPage

The Budget Process:Different Ads.qxd 09/07/2010 11:04 Page 192

A CPA publication

Available to Members and Officials of the CPA for purchase from the CPA•Secretariat, Suite 700, Westminster House, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA, U.K. Tel.: (+44-20) 7799-1460 Fax: (+44-20) 7222-6073 E-mail: hq.sec@cpahq.org Also available to members of the public from booksellers.

Inside back cover:Layout 1 09/07/2010 11:08 Page 37

CPA SHOP CPA pens

CPA silver-plated cardholders

Silver-plated photoframe, clock and pen in holder

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

Outside back cover:3-col feature 09/07/2010 11:07 Page 168

GOT YOUR COPY?...

THE PARLIAMENTARIAN

To subscribe for a copy of The Parliamentarian, please email pirc@cpahq.org. Members of Parliament should contact their Branch Secretary.