The Parliamentarian 2010: Issue Three - Education for all

OF EXC RY

11

19

11

LENCE EL

A CENTU

Cover2:Layout 1 07/10/2010 14:50 Page 1

~ C PA ~ 2

0

TheParliamentarian Journal of the Parliaments of the Commonwealth

2010 | Issue Three XCI | Price £12

EDUCATION FOR ALL Overcoming obstacles to provide free compulsory elementary school education in India PAGE 212

PLUS The Leaders Group on the Lords’ Code of Conduct PAGE 206

Resolving the Water Crisis

Getting Support for the State Budget

PAGES 216

PAGES 224

Consensus Government in the Northwest Territories: A Parliamentary Panacea?

PAGES 234

Inside front cover1:Layout 1 07/10/2010 14:53 Page 37

Calendar of Events 2010

October: 17-23: 8th Canadian Parliamentary Seminar, Ottawa, Canada 25-29 Oct: CPA/WBI Annual Conference, Vienna, Austria

November 8-12: Parliamentary Law and Procedure - A Parliamentary Staff Development Workshop for the Pacific Region, Samoa 29 Nov - 1 Dec: Parliamentary Staff Development Workshop for the Africa Region, Nigeria

December 1 - 10 Dec: United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP16), Mexico 18-19 Dec: CPA/WBI Asia/India/SE Asia Financial Scrutiny Workshop, Bangladesh

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 07/10/2010 14:54 Page 193

In the next issue of the Parliamentarian...

A conference special on the 56 TH COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARY CONFERENCE Nairobi, Kenya 10-19 September 2010 “Parliament and Development in the 21 Century: Thus far and beyond”

st

Contents:Layout 1 08/10/2010 12:51 Page 194

CONTENTS

2010: ISSUE 3

198

Journal of the Parliaments of the Commonwealth Vol. XCI 2010: Issue Three ISSN 0031-2282 Issued by the Secretariat of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, Suite 700, Westminster House, 7 Millbank, London SWIP 3JA, United Kingdom Tel: (+44-20) 7799-1460 Fax: (+44-20) 7222-6073 Email: hq.sec@cpahq.org www.cpahq.org Publisher: Dr William F. Shija Secretary-General Editor: Andrew Imlach Director of Communications and Research

220

COMMENT

MAIN ARTICLES

Inside Issues

The Leader’s Group on the Lords’ Code of Conduct

Issues of Implementation Page 196

View from the Chair Re-energizing Parliaments to create a better world.

Page 198

View from the CWP Women in Leadership – Motivating by example Page 200

View from the Secretary-General

Access to Land: A Right for all to Promote Development and Improve the Environment Page 202

Assistant Editor: Lisa Leaño Front cover School children in Jodhpur, India.

Image: Shutterstock® Printed in England by Warners Midlands, PLC, The Maltings, Manor Lane, Bourne, Lincs PE10 9PH

194 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

Rt Hon. Baroness Hayman.

Page 206

The Dynamic Role of a Modern Parliament in the Management and Oversight of Trade Policy Mr Tsudao Gurirab, MP. Page 210

Giving Children the Right to Education Shri Kapil Sibal, MP. Page 212

Resolving the Water Crisis Mr Humayun Akhtar Khan.

Page 216

The Importance of Oversight: The Public Administration and Appropriations Committee in Jamaica Dr Wykeham McNeill, MP. Page 220

Getting Support for the State Budget Mr Juan Watterson, MKH. Page 224

Positive Results from a “Dry and Repulsive” Task Page 228

Consensus Government in the Northwest Territories: A Parliamentary Panacea?

Mr Tim Mercer.

Page 234

Nauru’s Parliament in Crisis Ms Katy LeRoy. Page 240

CPA Organization: Page 268

Contents:Layout 1 08/10/2010 12:52 Page 195

228

11

NEWS Parliamentary news: United Kingdom, Australia, India, Canada, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Quebec, British Columbia and Northern Ireland.

Page 245

PROFILE: KENYA The Parliament of Kenya: a history of democratic progress Hon. Kenneth Marende, MP Page 2

Kenya’s new constitution: “For the welfare and just government of men” H.E. Hon. Kalonzo Musyoka, MP. Page 6

Challenges of running a coalition government in Kenya Hon. Musaila Mudavadi, MP. Page 10

Climate change agenda in Kenya

Prof. the Hon. Dr Margaret Kamar, MP Page 14

How to increase female representation in Parliament Hon. Amina Abdallah, MP Page 18

The Kenyan MP: Balancing many roles and functions in the

national interest

Annual subscription (four issues) UK: £34 post free.

Worldwide: £36 surface post £42 airmail

Alternative energy development in Kenya

Price per issue UK: £11 Worldwide: £12 surface post £13 airmail

Expanding Parliament’s role in national diplomacy

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.

Hon. David Musila, MP Page 24

Prof. the Hon. Dr Margaret Kamar, MP Page 28

Hon. Gitobu Imanyara, MP Page 32

Making the coalition work in Parliament Mr Patrick G. Gichohi Page 36

Developing Kenya’s economy in the current global financial situation Mr P.C. Owino Omolo Page 40

Kenya’s position on trade and its longterm agricultural policy goals Department of Research, National Assembly of Kenya Page 44

Promoting sustainable forest management

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 195

Inside Issues:Layout 1 11/10/2010 14:08 Page 196

INSIDE ISSUES

ISSUES OF IMPLEMENTATION

The Editor’s note

Kenya has made substantial progress since it was shaken – and the world was shocked – by the violent reaction to its December 2007 election: Parliament has played a leading role in the resumption of peaceful politics, independent commissions to ensure good governance have been established and, most of all, a new constitution has been passed

by Parliament and accepted by the people in a referendum. But now the real work begins.

The “Profile” on Kenya in this issue opens with three leading articles by Kenya’s Speaker, its Vice-President and its Deputy Prime Minister who all agree that the country has made huge progress in bringing about the reforms needed to get past the violence that was so uncharacteristic of Kenya’s 47 years as an independent country.

Now comes the implementation: the success of the reforms, and particularly the new constitution, hinges on the effective implementation and operation of a new American-style presidential and ministerial system, a national Senate, 47 new county governments, the decentralization

of development projects and the entrenchment of the independent institutions of good governance.

The work really has only just begun to prevent a recurrence of the political violence whose suddenness and ferocity surprised everyone.

Our “Profile” on Kenya, published with this issue to mark the hosting by its Parliament of this year’s Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference, could come at one of the most significant points in the country’s history as it appears a few weeks after the August national referendum accepted the new constitution. But it will only be a landmark occasion if the implementation of the constitution and the establishment of the other institutions of good governance are accomplished with the same commitment to the advancement of the nation that marked the rapid recovery from the post-election violence.

The prominent role of Parliament in the development of democratic government in Kenya, including in its current reformist phase, is assessed in the lead “Profile” article by Hon. Kenneth Marende, MP, Speaker of the

196 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

National Assembly. This is followed later by a report from the Clerk of the Assembly, Mr Patrick Gichohi, on the innovative role played by the Speaker and Parliament in getting Kenya through the turbulent political period following the 2007 election.

Constitutional reform was effected this year, five years after a much more extensive drafting process, including holding a special constitutional conference, proposed a constitution which was then rejected by the voters at a referendum. H.E. Hon. Kalonzo Musyoka, MP, a lawyer who is Kenya’s Vice-President as well as its Leader of Government Business and Minister of Home Affairs, writes about the new constitution, which this time was approved in the August referendum, and about the hope for a new future which it presents for all Kenyans.

The constitution is one of the main accomplishments of the coalition government formed to end the post-election violence.

Deputy Prime Minister Hon. Musalia Mudavadi, MP, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Local Government, assesses fully

and frankly how this alliance of the “desperate unwilling” sets it apart from other coalition governments.

He notes it has had its successes; but the inter-party (and even intraparty) tensions have not been totally eradicated so more goodwill and a continued willingness to work together are still essential for a government with two years left in the life of the current Parliament.

Although Kenya has been preoccupied with partisan and constitutional politics, other issues have not been neglected. Prof. the Hon. Dr Margaret Kamar, MP, who was appointed as an Assistant Minister in the Environment and Natural Resources ministry after contributing to the “Profile”, writes about climate change policies and also about the development of alternate energy sources. These are key issues for a country whose economy depends on agricultural production, tourism based on its spectacular natural assets and a plan to expand its industries.

Parliamentarians cannot rest on their constitutional laurels while such grave issues must be tackled, she writes here.

Although the Parliament of

Inside Issues:Layout 1 11/10/2010 14:08 Page 197

INSIDE ISSUES

Kenya has had formidable women as Members, it has not had many of them – 10 per cent of the current Parliament is female. Hon. Amina Abdallah, MP, a women’s rights lawyer and this year’s President of the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians, recounts obstacles to getting more women into her Parliament that will be familiar to women Members in other countries. In Kenya, she says, all women must work together to raise their level of political involvement. Perhaps the new county governments will help women to get the political experience they need to make national politics more genderinclusive.

Hon. David Musila, MP, puts aside his duties as an Assistant Minister of State for Defence to write here about the challenges facing Kenyan MPs in representing their constituents. As with Members in all Parliaments, this means juggling many responsibilities. He reports that even though Kenyan Members are well served by the National Assembly, it is still a 24-hour-a-day job.

On top of the existing workload, some Members are advocating that a new role should be added to the duties of a Parliamentarian – parliamentary diplomacy. Hon. Gitobu Imanyara, MP, writes that this role goes beyond the oversight of the executive’s foreign relations and parliamentary involvement in the approval of treaties and the acceptance of international conventions. Kenyan MPs sit in the Pan African Parliament and the East African Legislative Assembly and deal with intergovernmental agencies and foreign Parliaments.

Parliamentarians, he argues, are already functioning as parliamentary diplomats so this new role should be recognized as such.

The staff of the National Assembly of Kenya has long been

recognized as a highly professional body providing top quality procedural advice and research information. Reference has already been made to Mr Gichohi’s account of the procedural innovations implemented to facilitate the operation of the coalition government; so we conclude the special feature on Kenya with two articles demonstrating the quality of the research available to MPs in Nairobi. Senior Deputy Clerk Mr P.C. Owino Omolo writes first about the state of the country’s economy as it deals with the global financial crisis. The Assembly’s Research Department then contributes a report on the performance of Kenya’s international trade and the related development of its agricultural policy.

Kenya’s National Assembly is not the only Parliament in the forefront of major political issues recently. The House of Lords has been caught up by demands in the United Kingdom for higher standards of probity in public life.

Rt Hon. Baroness Hayman, the Lord Speaker, writes in this issue about how the Lords, in its own distinctive way, responded to the improper conduct of a small number of Peers by strengthening its Code of Conduct in a way which respects both modern standards and its ancient traditions.

Exports are vital to development for countries which do not have a large internal market.

A country’s relations with the World Trade Organization and its rulesbased trading system and with regional and bilateral trading partners are therefore key to all its development policies. Mr Tsudao Gurirab, MP, of Namibia writes here that there should therefore be a greater role for Parliamentarians in setting their nations’ trade policies and more emphasis placed on informing Members about how the international marketplace works. He notes that the Commonwealth Parliamentary

Association and the Commonwealth Secretariat are already working effectively in this area.

The provision of education is also crucial to development, and many Commonwealth countries have long had compulsory free education. The provision of compulsory free education as a right for all in India has been provided in principle since independence.

The practice has, however, been difficult. Shri Kapil Sibal, MP, India’s Minister of Human Resource Development, admits that many difficulties remain; but he writes in this issue that his country is no longer prepared to accept that the problems can defeat the principle. Shri Sibal recounts how India is now working to provide education as a free right to all children.

The disaster inflicted on Pakistan by this year’s catastrophic floods conceals a deeper water problem – Pakistan’s water supply is actually decreasing and the infrastructure built to use its water effectively is deteriorating, writes leading Pakistani politician Mr Humayun Akhtar Khan. In an article written before the flooding, Mr Khan contends that Pakistan is one of the world’s most waterstressed countries, but not for the reason that has brought Pakistan to global prominence in recent months.

In the mid-nineteenth century, Gladstone described the review of public spending as a “dry and repulsive task”. Yet he moved the motion that established the world’s first purely parliamentary committee to review public accounts, a committee that has gone on to become one of the most important in Westminsterstyle Parliaments and one that is today a leading Commonwealth export to the governance of other countries. We feature in this issue three articles that explain why – and how – the review of public spending is evolving today as a

cleansing influence on governance. Dr Wykeham McNeill, MP, describes how the principles of financial scrutiny of past spending are now being applied actively in Jamaica to the review of current spending. Mr Juan Watterson, MHK, a Member of the Isle of Man’s House of Keys who is also a chartered accountant, examines the application of those principles to the consideration of the budget in order to improve scrutiny at the approval stage of spending. Finally, a group of Members and officials at a CPAbacked seminar on Public Accounts Committees at Australia’s La Trobe University plan improvements to strengthen the way they undertake this “dry and repulsive task” after the fact.

Parliamentary reform debates in small communities invariably include arguments over whether party politics is better for their circumstances than consensus government. Canada’s Northwest Territories, which has a long history of politics without parties, is no different as the Clerk of the Territories’ Legislature, Mr Tim Mercer, writes in this issue. Party politics and consensus government both have their advantages and disadvantages, notes Mr Mercer.

The people of Nauru have become very familiar with one disadvantage of a small Parliament regardless of whether it has parties – the inability of an evenly divided House to elect a government or a Speaker. Parliamentary Counsel Ms Katy Le Roy traces the events in the tumultuous political year for the Central Pacific country which, at the time of writing, had gone through two general elections and five Speakers.

Nauru does not have formal political parties but its 18 independents are divided into two opposing groups, demonstrating the difficulties in running a consensus government in a country where there is no consensus.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 197

View from the Chair:Layout 1 07/10/2010 14:57 Page 198

VIEW FROM THE CHAIR

RE-ENERGIZING PARLIAMENTS TO CREATE A BETTER WORLD

and re-energizing our commitment to build a better world. I want to see As I write this “View from the Chair” it is the start of Ramadan and all across CPA not only enhancing the sense of unity but to use that unity and our the Islamic world the coming month will be a time of fasting and prayer. It is collective wisdom and experience in a manner that impacts and resonates a time too when Muslims attend to, with renewed efforts, the teaching of more profoundly with the people we represent. I believe that we have to the Quran and to slow down from worldly affairs and focus on selfadopt a more vigorous and innovative approach to the ways in which we reformation, spiritual cleansing and enlightenment The fast is intended to present our belief in parliamentary democracy and how be an exacting act of deep personal worship in which this form of governance brings positive benefits to every Muslims seek a raised awareness of closeness to man, woman and child. To this end I will urge that we use God. our time together in Kenya not only to deal with our dayThe holiday of Eid ul-Fitr or Hari Raya as it is more to-day business matters, but also to identify and chart commonly known in Malaysia, marks the end of the practical ways in which we can make our work ever more fasting period of Ramadan and the first day of the relevant to the needs and aspirations of people and their following month, after another new moon has been families across the world. sighted. Eid ul-Fitr means the Festival of Breaking the We live in a time of great change. Globalization and Fast, and Muslims everywhere celebrate. Food is economics are dominant features of virtually every donated to the poor; everyone puts on their best, legislative agenda. Add to this the impact of modern usually new, clothes, and communal prayers are held technology and it does not take rocket science to in the early morning, followed by feasting and visiting appreciate that there is a growing gulf between the relatives and friends. It is a time for families and “haves” and the “have nots”. The powerful have become friends and in my country many people irrespective of Hon. Dato’ Seri Mohd. Shafie more powerful and often consist of unelected their ethnicity or creed return to their home villages to Apdal, MP international conglomerates that owe little allegiance to rejoice with each other and renew family ties and Chairperson of the CPA any nation state. The only thing that stands between friendships.

Executive Committee and It is perhaps symbolic that this year our annual Minister of Rural and Regional them and the exploitation of the people is a fully functioning competent Parliament where the voices and conference coincided with the start of the Eid ul-Fitr Development, Malaysia needs of the weak and vulnerable are heard and acted holiday. In fact many delegates including myself will upon. Like any family the CPA must use its power and have travelled to Nairobi on that very day. Although I influence – and be seen to use its power and influence – shall have been sad not to be with my family on this to promote the interests and needs of the weaker and more vulnerable special occasion, it would have been sadness tinged with the happiness member states from, for example, the vicissitudes of economic turbulence that I was going to a reunion of our CPA family. The symbolism doesn’t end and climate change. The parliamentary system of governance must be there for, like any family, we shall be reviewing the past year and planning seen to be able to tackle the global increase in poverty, food security, for the future. Perhaps therefore the time is right when we should remind uncontrolled migration and homelessness. At the same time we must be ourselves of the very special nature and importance of our Association. The able to show that we understand the aspirations of the younger generation Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is the only body in the world for economic security, decent jobs and effective social support systems. I that represents our unique range of democratic Parliaments from the very appreciate that this is a challenge of the first order; but if our second small island states to the larger continental nations. Collectively the CPA is century is to build on the successes of the past 100 years, then it is a representative of virtually every race, creed and colour spanning every challenge that all of us must rise to and meet. continent and ocean. The thing that binds us together is a belief in a One of the ways forward is to make better use of modern system of governance that has stood the test of time. communications technologies. The internet is a powerful tool and has the However, in the same spirit of Eid ul-Fitr, we should be seeking renewal 198 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

View from the Chair:Layout 1 07/10/2010 14:57 Page 199

VIEW FROM THE CHAIR

capability of reaching an ever-wider audience. That is one of the reasons why the Secretary General and I have and will continue to promote the Little Acorns Project. Details of this project can be obtained from the CPA Secretariat. Thanks to the generosity of our sponsors we shall install internet-ready laptops in selected schools in Kenya during our conference.

I hope that CPA Branches will support this work by attracting local sponsors to support and join the development of a worldwide network of schools and colleges. It is worth reminding the corporate sector that this is more than a matter of corporate social responsibility; the stability engendered by parliamentary democracy is a prerequisite for successful business. Furthermore, young people (and some not-so-young) use “blogs” and “twitters” and we should encourage them to use this technological opportunity to advance knowledge and understanding of the role and purpose of the CPA.

The concept of our family supporting each other also has immediate and practical implications. I am sure that all Members will be deeply disturbed by the effects of the flooding in Pakistan. The loss of life and damage to homes and communities is incalculable. I am aware that many member states and others have already been generous in their support for the relief effort; but more needs to be done. The support needs to be sustained over an extended period for the devastation and damage will take years to repair. I ask all Branches to urge their respective governments to continue and sustain the long-term relief efforts.

I understand that this edition of The Parliamentarian will be available after our conference in Nairobi where I will have been able to greet colleagues personally. For those not able to have attended, I send my warm greetings and, although belatedly, I wish you all “Selamat Hari Raya, Eid ulFitr”.

The Muslim holiday of Eid ul-Fitr is more widely known as Hari Raya in Malaysia.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 199

View from the CWP:Layout 1 07/10/2010 14:59 Page 200

VIEW FROM THE CWP

WOMEN IN LEADERSHIP – MOTIVATING BY EXAMPLE

in the preparation of the Domestic Violence Bill. I have also been First, I wish to heartily thank the Speaker of the Gauteng Branch of the instrumental in making progressive amendments to the Maintenance Act Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for nominating me, and the of my country.

Saint Lucia Branch of the Caribbean Region for There are as many issues confronting women of the seconding my nomination, when I stood for election as Commonwealth as there are cultural differences. But as Chairperson of the Commonwealth Women has been said so many times before, it is these cultural Parliamentarians during the Commonwealth differences that make the Commonwealth grouping as Parliamentary Conference in Nairobi, Kenya, in unique as it is strong. However, we need as a group to September. I shall be eternally grateful to the sensitize ourselves not only to the issues facing the Members of these two Branches for considering me women and children of our cultures but of other cultures worthy of this very important position. as well. The saying “who feels it, knows it” therefore has I am a mother of three and grandmother of five (so to become “who knows of it must deal with it”. Issues far). I was born on the tiny Caribbean island of such as HIV and AIDS, poverty and the low wages of Dominica where the current population is about women, genital mutilation, human trafficking, child labour, 71,000 people. I have passed more than 60 summers domestic violence, child abuse and better education for on this Earth. I have not only absorbed and learned children especially girl children are just a few of the from the many, many experiences that have come my Hon. Alix Boyd Knights, MHA issues to be tackled. These and other such issues way, but I have also created quite a few experiences of Chairperson of the affecting mainly women and girls are usually presented my own. I have learned well and I continue to learn as I Commonwealth Women to Parliaments mainly by women! go along.

Parliamentarians, and We all know that the most effective way of ensuring I have sat in Parliament as Speaker of the House Speaker of the House of that these issues come to Parliament at all and receive for the past 10 and a half years. I have had the great Assembly, Dominica the level of attention they deserve is to encourage more fortune to have interacted with many internationally women all over the Commonwealth to become more known women in the forefront of the “women’s involved in the political process in their country. But it is also clear that that movement”, as it used to be known. I have addressed two Interthis is easier said than done.

Parliamentary Union Speakers’ Conferences at the United Nations; and for It may well be then, that the biggest challenge facing Commonwealth two successive years, I have attended the Women Parliamentarians and Women Parliamentarians is to persuade more women of the Women Speakers Conferences at the United Nations. I have been a Commonwealth to stand for elections in spite of the barriers – real and facilitator or attendee at many workshops and seminars locally, regionally imagined – that may stand in their way. We have already overcome these and internationally covering a range of women’s issues, all with the barriers. intention of empowering and uplifting women.

In recognition of this need, the CPA Caribbean, Americas and Atlantic I have spent the greater part of my life as a hands-on advocate of Region is currently preparing a module for “Strategies for Attracting more women’s and children’s rights, working with and defending the rights of Women into Politics” along the following lines: abused women and children. I have come to be known as the “battered women’s lawyer”, a label which, in spite of the pejorative intent, I proudly • Mentoring, wear. I work in the trenches and know at firsthand how domestic violence • Motivating and destroys families. I fully recognize this is a plague from which we must • Mobilizing. deliver families once and for all.

In 1998, while not yet a Parliamentarian, I assisted in the passage of the All women Parliamentarians have probably had a role model, a mentor Sexual Offences Act in my country and, after I was in Parliament, I assisted 200 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

View from the CWP:Layout 1 07/10/2010 14:59 Page 201

VIEW FROM THE CWP

who inspired us to arrive at the point we are at today. I have the honour to claim as my mentor Dame Mary Eugenia Charles, first female Prime Minister of Dominica, the Caribbean and the western hemisphere. She became Prime Minister in 1980 and was Prime Minister for 15 years. Now, just as we were inspired and whether we recognize it or not, the young women – and the older ones too – watch us and take their cue from us.

As women leaders we have a duty to build on that situation and become advocates for these women. That duty consists of speaking to young persons, both boys and girls, not just whenever the opportunity permits, but also creating opportunities to do so. I say girls because we desire to motivate them, and boys because we need to encourage them to rethink the traditional mindset.

Mobilizing involves: persuading political parties to adopt targets for gender representation; getting women’s groups and other nongovernmental organizations to hold leadership workshops with the objective of preparing women to become part of the political process; persuading male parliamentary colleagues to accept more women in Parliament and doing whatever is necessary to accommodate women to get into Parliament; preparing society at large to accept women in politics more readily, and developing the idea that it is the norm.

Like the world-famous American civil rights leader, Dr Martin Luther King, Jr, I have a dream: •

My dream is to see every woman in the Commonwealth and the world being sufficiently empowered to achieve her maximum potential;

• • • • • • •

I have a dream that girls all over the world will have the same educational opportunities as boys; I have a dream that girl babies would have as great a chance of survival as boy babies; I have a dream that no longer will women have to work twice as hard to get half as far; I have a dream that women will earn the same wages as men for doing the same job; I have a dream that every Parliament in the world will be made up of 50 per cent women and 50 per cent men; I have a dream that by the year 2015 women will be truly equal to men in every sense of the word, and I have a dream that the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians will be the chief catalyst for the realization of these dreams.

Our previous Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians Chairpersons have held our hands and brought us thus far with their charismatic leadership and hard work.

I will endeavour to take Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians to the next level and beyond. I pledge to work closely with my sister women Parliamentarians, with the CPA Executive Committee and Regional Executive Committees as well as with all Branches to prepare and execute projects and programmes to accomplish the targets set by the CWP under my leadership, targets well in keeping with the Millennium Development Goals.

Ms Boyd Knights (right) speaking to her predecessor, Ms Kashmala Tariq (left), at the 56th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference in Nairobi, Kenya.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 201

SG View:Layout 1 11/10/2010 10:39 Page 202

VIEW FROM THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

ACCESS TO LAND: A RIGHT FOR ALL TO PROMOTE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVE THE ENVIRONMENT The problem of land scarcity and deprivation is being felt in Africa, Asia, Latin America and other parts of the world. It appears to prevail more in agrarian societies than industrialized ones. Land deprivation is one of the sources of poverty and misery. It is also a yardstick with which we can measure global socio-economic inequity.

Land is, and will, probably be one of the main determining factors in the democratic practice of Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth countries. In developed and developing countries as well as large and small states, the need for sufficient access to land for basic economic and social activities has continued to expand relative to population. Land deprivation has also increased over the years because of uncontrolled urbanization, the establishment of large capital investments, adverse climatic conditions, migration

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

caused by natural disasters and economic pursuits, as well as sheer greed by a few individuals and corporations.

Further, land is one of the key resources in the process of human production, distribution and consumption. It is used to define the geographical space of countries and states. It is used for food production, habitat, mineral production, water containment and usage, and the construction as well as use of human recreational facilities. Land is also used for the burial rites of the deceased, some choosing to keep the records by erecting cemetery sites.

Apart from land, the other resources for economic growth and human development are: labour, finance, and technology. The huge significance of land as a source of basic human survival makes it an important factor in the political process. Political leaders, and democracy itself,

The Secretary-General’s Mr Ken Wollack (left) and the Secretary-General sign a mutual cooperation agreement between the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the National Democratic Institute in Nairobi, Kenya.

Members of the CPA Working Party in Nairobi.

202 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

SG View:Layout 1 11/10/2010 10:39 Page 203

VIEW FROM THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

policies are yet to be defined or improved. Some land policies favour the seek to alleviate poverty and human misery by improving the conditions rich, while others favour men. This situation has led to huge imbalances of and standards of living anywhere in the world. access to land to make poverty a vicious circle.

In almost every society, the political and democratic process revolves It is my view that the right to land around issues that promise to make acquisition or access to it is a basic life better. To improve the lives of right of an individual, male or female, women and children in rural areas of poor or rich. As a serious policy many agrarian societies requires concern, it is also my view that guaranteed access to land usage or Commonwealth Parliamentarians ownership. need to revisit their countries’ land Therefore, the need for land in policies so as to enact laws that give agrarian Commonwealth countries equal rights and access to land for is economically and socially all the citizens, particularly women. imperative. It is also a political factor.

Further, some of the policies for The people need land to carry out foreign direct investment (FDI) have agricultural activities to produce for quite some time deprived poor food and cash crops. Food village landowners of their source of production is basic to poverty livelihood. There is already evidence alleviation and cash crop production of a practice by some governments is key to economic empowerment. that invite large international Food production also requires the corporations to invest in large-scale availability of land for activities of activities that require land use, a livestock farming, poultry and similar process which then removes and industries.

Agricultural production is essential to the development of a destabilizes citizens from their land and Food security is central to viable country’s economy. therefore their economic livelihood. The economic and social engagements, promise often made is that either the while cash crop production supports return of investments or employment would benefit the affected people. the economic growth of families and societies to undertake education, The promises are, however, usually dishonoured. Under the circumstances, health and other socially-binding activities. it goes without saying that the best course of action is for Parliamentarians World Bank figures show that almost two-thirds of the food produced to protect and uphold the rights of the people in the name of democracy, in developing countries is by women. This shows that the importance of human rights and good governance. access to land for women is crucial. In many countries, however, land

Commonwealth gallery

Dr Shija with the Prime Minister of Malta, Dr Lawrence Gonzi (right), during a Branch visit in September.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 203

SG View:Layout 1 11/10/2010 10:40 Page 204

VIEW FROM THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

Economically, there has also been a trend to amass huge tracts of virgin land for large-scale mining, timber production, chemical industries, et cetera. This consumes so much land that the environment is often permanently depleted and future income lost. Apart from losing the land, ordinary people are also deprived of fair returns from the mining concessions and other large investments. Again, my view is that Parliamentarians should vigorously fight to enact laws that not only promote sustainable development but which also protect the environment and the people’s fair economic welfare.

Socially, the rights to land have historically enabled societies to be stable. We know that migration has occurred through force, influence or

free will. However, in societies which have practised democracy and equality, the right to access to land has also led to peaceful coexistence of divergent groups and the protection of minorities.

In Africa, where the demarcation of boundaries was arbitrary – thus separating cultural communities between two or more countries – some of the countries are still painfully evolving democratically. Consequently, the development of land policy and laws is in its infancy and millions of people, particularly minorities, live uncertain lives in the situation.

Again, it is my strong view that Parliamentarians should work now to change the situation.

In fact, the problem that led to the stalemate in Zimbabwe is an example

The Secretary-General’s

Dr Shija (left) with a former Secretary-General of the CPA, Mr Arthur Donohue, QC.

The Secretary-General (left) with the Prime Minister of Cameroon, H.E. Philémon Yang.

204 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

The Secretary-General greeting the Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Norfolk Island, Mr Lisle Snell (right).

SG View:Layout 1 11/10/2010 10:41 Page 205

VIEW FROM THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

of a country which sought to deal with the issue of land ownership as a colonial left-over. Perhaps the method should have been better than what the leadership applied. It appears to me, however, that the Zimbabwe land issue could be replicated in countries such as South Africa, Namibia and Zambia where land distribution appears to be lop-sided in favour of a few

landowners. Other countries in the world face a similar situation of social tension because of land distribution.

These are the areas where democratic practice should intervene to rectify the situation before violence and conflicts emerge. In my view, this is where Parliamentarians should intervene in a timely fashion to ensure that

the rights of citizens are guaranteed.

Finally, it is also my view that careless use of land has led to the current environmental disasters. The climate change debate currently menacing the global community has been brought about by disastrous land use. There have been widespread logging activities to

the extent that the atmosphere can no longer absorb the industrial emissions and chemical disposals. The current global efforts to improve the environment through action to cut down carbon emissions are commendable. I am happy that Parliamentarians in the Commonwealth are part of these efforts.

Commonwealth gallery

The Secretary-General greeting Dr Tetaua Taitai, MP, of Kiribati (left) in Nairobi, Kenya.

Mr Mark Bannerman, MEP, signing the guest book at CPA Headquarters in London.

Dr Shija speaking with the First Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly of Ghana, Hon. Edward Doe (right).

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 205

Hayman:Layout 1 07/10/2010 15:01 Page 206

CODE OF CONDUCT

THE LEADER’S GROUP ON THE LORDS’ CODE OF CONDUCT Responding to a pressing need to ensure that its Members adhered to the highest standards of probity, the House of Lords developed a new Code of Conduct to based on both the national interest and “personal honour”, says the Lord Speaker.

Rt Hon. Baroness Hayman, at Westminster.

Baroness Hayman is the Lord Speaker and has presided over the House of Lords at Westminster since 2006 when she became the first Lord Speaker. A former Member of the House of Commons, she has been a Member of the Lords since 1996.

On 25 January 2009, the Sunday Times newspaper published an article alleging that four Members of the House were “prepared to accept fees of up to £120,000 a year to amend legislation in the House of Lords on behalf of business clients”. The impact of these allegations, amongst the most serious ever levelled against Members of the House of Lords, was enormous. When the House met the next day, the Leader of the House, Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, spoke of the need to address any issues arising out of the allegations “relating to the rules of the House that arise, especially in connection with consultancy arrangements”.

In the event, such consideration was not possible until after the

206 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

Rt Hon. Baroness Hayman

conclusion of the investigation into the four Members, which led ultimately to the suspension of two of them – the first such suspensions for over 350 years.

But in the meantime the difficulties experienced during the

investigation itself underlined the urgent need to review the Code of Conduct, the rules for Members’ conduct which had been agreed by the House in 2001.

The day after the suspensions, on 21 May, the Leader made a further statement in the House announcing that she had “set up a Leader’s Group with the terms of reference as follows: to consider the Code of Conduct and the rules relating to Members’ interests and to make recommendations”.1 A “Leader’s Group” is, as the name implies, a group of Members appointed by the Leader of the House to examine a particular issue or range of issues, reporting back to the Leader. The strength of such groups lies in their informality and freedom from procedural

Hayman:Layout 1 07/10/2010 15:02 Page 207

CODE OF CONDUCT

constraints. They have the opportunity to make innovative, even radical recommendations, in the knowledge that these

recommendations can only be implemented after they are put to and accepted by the House by more formal means. Although officially appointed by the Leader of the House, such groups are only effective where there is broad agreement on terms of reference and membership.

On this occasion the Leader’s Group was six-strong, and chaired by a Crossbench (independent) Member, the former Archbishop of Armagh, Lord Eames. The group also comprised two Members from the then governing Labour Party, two Conservative Members and one Liberal Democrat. The group met first on 9 June, and held 13 meetings in total, including meetings with the Lord Speaker, the Chairman of Committees, the Leaders of the main parties, senior officials, the Chairman of the

House of Commons Standards and Privileges Committee, and with representatives of the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the House of Lords Appointments Commission.

The advantages of the group’s informal status were apparent in the course of these meetings. They were held in private, and, although informal notes were taken for the group’s own use, no transcript was taken and no record published—in effect, the group was able to apply “Chatham House rules”, so encouraging frank and detailed discussion of the difficult issues around Members’ conduct. The group also sent a series of questions to all Members of the House, and 34 written responses were received, again in confidence.

A striking feature of the group’s work was the harmony among its

Opposite page: The Sovereign’s Entrance to the Houses of Parliament; Above: The House of Lords with the Victoria Tower; Left: The iconic Clock Tower at Westminster.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 207

Hayman:Layout 1 07/10/2010 15:03 Page 208

CODE OF CONDUCT

members. Whereas the last group to consider standards of conduct, in 2001, was politically driven2, by 2009 there appeared to be a consensus on all sides of the House on the way forward.

The reasons for this consensus were not hard to find. As well as the case of the four Peers, from May 2009 onwards a series of stories appeared in the media alleging misuse of expenses by Members of both Houses.

Although most of the stories related to MPs, there were also allegations against several Members of the House of Lords.

The pressure on both Houses of Parliament to “clean up their act” was intense. In the Lords, there was a particularly glaring gap in the 2001 Code of Conduct, which focused on registration and declaration of interests, and “paid advocacy”, but made no reference to the use of either Members’ expenses or the facilities of the House. The result was that even the most flagrant misuse of the expenses system could not, apparently, be deemed to be a breach of the Code of Conduct.

The group published their report in late October 2009.3 The key recommendations are lsited below.: Key recommendations 1. Instead of a single Code of Conduct, incorporating rules on the registration of interest, there should be two documents: a highlevel Code of Conduct, agreed by resolution of the House, and setting out general principles and rules of conduct; and an accompanying guide, providing detailed explanation and interpretation of these principles, and focusing in particular on the rules for the registration and declaration of interests. The group provided texts for both the proposed new Code and the guide.

2. The Code and the guide should emphasize, in positive terms, the role of the House and the

contribution that Members of the House were expected to make to its work. In particular, the group noted that Members did not receive a regular salary, and that membership of the House did not constitute full-time employment.

The group’s proposed Code stated in terms that in discharging their parliamentary duties Members were “expected to draw substantially on experience and expertise gained outside Parliament”.

3. Members of the House should sign a formal undertaking, immediately after taking the oath on introduction or at the start of a new Parliament, to abide by the Code of Conduct. Signing the undertaking did not make the Code more binding—as a set of rules agreed by resolution of the House it is binding in any case—but it did underline Members’ personal commitment to upholding the standards embodied in the Code.

4. “Parliamentary consultancies” should be banned. In other words, there would be a ban on Members accepting payment in return for providing either parliamentary services (tabling questions, arranging meetings, lobbying ministers or officials, and so on) or parliamentary advice (that is, advising paying clients on how they can influence the parliamentary process).

5. The categories of registered interest should be simple and clearly defined, with specific thresholds for the registration of financial interests.

6. Members should be required to disclose any relevant registered interests when tabling written notices, including all questions and motions. As a result of this recommendation, specific interests relevant to written notices are now identified in the online House of Lords Business (see www.parliament.uk/business/publi

208 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

cations/businesspapers/lords/lords-business/).

7. The Code should require Members to observe any rules agreed by the House in respect of financial support and expenses, and the use of facilities such as the Refreshment Department. The rules themselves are not included in the Code, but in reports by domestic committees which are put before the House as required.

The Code simply enshrines the general principle that Members must obey these rules.

8. Investigations should be conducted by an independent investigator, the “House of Lords Commissioner for Standards”.

Investigations under the previous Code had been conducted by Members serving on a subcommittee of the Committee for Privileges, the Subcommittee on Lords’ Interests. In the changed climate, this extreme form of self-

regulation was no longer easy to defend. The new Commissioner would be appointed by resolution of the House, and could only be dismissed following a further resolution. He would enjoy full operational independence, and would be tasked with establishing the facts of any complaint and to present his conclusions regarding possible breaches of the Code to the Subcommittee. In the event that he upheld a complaint, the Subcommittee’s job would then be to recommend the appropriate sanction. The Member concerned would have a right of appeal to the Committee for Privileges against both the Commissioner’s findings and the recommended sanction.

The group also addressed some of the general principles that had been brought into question during the investigation into the four Peers.

First, there was a perceived failure in the 2001 Code, in that it failed to emphasize the public interest. The

Hayman:Layout 1 07/10/2010 15:04 Page 209

CODE OF CONDUCT

Decisions of the House Following publication of the group’s report, there was an intensive round of consultation with Members, ahead of a full debate in the House on 30 November 2009, in the course of which the House was invited to agree the new Code. The debate revealed broad, though not unanimous, support for the group’s proposals. Two amendments were tabled to the text of the Code: the first would have removed the requirement that Members sign an undertaking to abide by the Code; the second would have removed any reference to a House of Lords Commissioner for Standards.

In the event, these amendments gained little support in the debate, and were not moved. The Code, and a separate motion remitting the accompanying guide to the Subcommittee on Lords’ Interests for further work, were then agreed without a vote.

Committee for Standards in Public Life, in evidence to the group, argued that the Code should make explicit that Members “should be expected to act not only on their personal honour but also to reflect the wider public good and should follow the spirit as well as the letter of the Code”.

However, the group only partially accepted this argument. It included a stronger reference to the public interest in its proposed Code, requiring that Members “base their actions on consideration of the public interest”.

However the group also took the view that the ancient principle of “personal honour”, which has underpinned conduct in the House of Lords for centuries, required Members “not only to observe the letter of the Code and the accompanying guide, but to act in the spirit of the Code in all their parliamentary activities.”4 “Personal honour” thus survives as

Lord Speaker Baroness Hayman presiding over the House of Lords from the Woolsack. a cornerstone of the House’s updated Code of Conduct.

The group also addressed the issue of procedural fairness. The 2001 Code stated that “in the investigation and adjudication of complaints against them, Members of the House have the right to safeguards as rigorous as those applied in the courts and professional disciplinary bodies”. The group noted that in the case of the four Peers this requirement placed “an almost impossible burden upon the Subcommittee”—amounting, in fact to what the Hansard Society described as a “lawyers’ charter”.

The group therefore proposed a less exacting requirement, enshrined in the new Code, that investigations be conducted “in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fairness”.

Finalizing the guide to the Code of Conduct The Subcommittee on Lords’ Interests, while following the outline of the guide prepared by the Leader’s Group, engaged in a thorough review of the detail, looking not only at the various categories of interest, but also involving other committees of the House in considering what rules should apply to the use of facilities such as committee rooms, IT equipment and stationery.

The Subcommittee also recommended a change in its own name, with a view to improving transparency, from “Subcommittee on Lords’ Interests” to “Subcommittee on Lords’ Conduct”. This change was agreed and indeed extended by the Committee for Privileges, which recommended a change in its own name, to “Committee for Privileges and Conduct”.

The report of the Committee for Privileges, embodying the subcommittee’s recommendations, and publishing for the first time a

final text of the guide, was agreed on 8 March 2010,5 and debated on 16 March, when it was agreed after a short debate.6 In light of the imminent dissolution of Parliament, the House agreed that the Code and guide should come into force at the start of the new Parliament.7 In the event, the new Parliament began on 18 May, and a new Register of Lords’ Interests, reflecting the revised categories for relevant interests, was published to coincide with the State Opening of Parliament the following week. The appointment of the new Commissioner for Standards, Mr Paul Kernaghan, CBE, QPM (a former Chief Constable of police) was formally approved by the House on 2 June 2010.

It remains to be seen whether the number and complexity of complaints against Members will fall; much will depend on whether the media onslaught against Parliament, which was so intense in 2009, abates in the new Parliament. However I am confident that, with a new and wider Code, more detailed and clearer guidance for Members, and an experienced and independent Commissioner for Standards to conduct investigations, the House is in better shape to regulate the conduct of Members and to defend its own reputation than might have seemed possible just 18 months ago.

Endnotes 1. HL Deb., 21 May 2009, col. 1434.

2. See HL Deb., 2 July 2001, cols. 630-687, when the House agreed the Code of Conduct proposed by this Group. On this occasion an amendment to the Code, proposed by two opposition members of the Leader’s Group, was defeated by just three votes, 152 to 149.

3. Report of the Leader’s Group on the Code of Conduct, HL Paper 171 (www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldlead.htm).

4. Leader’s Group report, page 15.

5. Committee for Privileges, Guide to the Code of Conduct, 2nd Report, 2009-10 (HL Paper 81).

6. HL Deb., 16 March 2010, cols. 567-588.

7. The new Code and Guide can be found online at: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldreg.htm.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 209

Gurirab:Layout 1 07/10/2010 15:05 Page 210

PARLIAMENTS AND WORLD TRADE

THE DYNAMIC ROLE OF A MODERN PARLIAMENT IN THE MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF TRADE POLICY Trade is too important to a country’s development to leave it to governments. There should be a greater role for Parliamentarians in determining trading relationships so all countries, and all citizens in each country, benefit fully, argues a Namibian Parliamentarian.

Mr Tsudao Gurirab in Windhoek.

Mr Gurirab has sat in the Namibian National Assembly for the opposition Congress of Democrats since 1999.

He is also a Member of the Pan-African Parliament and chairs its Committee on Trade, Customs and Integration.

An economist, he is a former Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Trade and Industry. He was a resource person at the CPA-Commonwealth Secretariat Regional Trade Workshop for Parliamentarians held in May in Arusha, Tanzania.

The role of legislators in the management and oversight of international trade deals with whether governments should be involved in the conduct of the cross-border exchange of goods and services and, if so, what should be the extent of that role? Does intervention by government make for fair (or fairer) trade and result in optimum welfare gains for individuals, groups and nations or does the evidence point to the contrary? What can we, as legislators, do about all these to realize in an equitable manner welfare gains for our citizens?

Is it possible to have a win-win situation for all participants in global trade or is “beggar thy neighbour” the only outcome?

How do governments and legislators produce an outcome which brings greater good to the greatest number of participants?

Or to all participants, is this outcome possible?

210 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

Mr Tsudao Gurirab, MP.

Is international trade policy about trade?

Global trade in negotiations and policy is not what it appears to be.

They serve very much the same purpose as the strictures of the Bretton Woods institutions. They seem to harken back to the structural adjustments programmes of the 1970s and the so-called “Washington Consensus” of the 1980s. We say this because

the global negotiations being conducted under the World Trade Organization (WTO) umbrella not only deal with how we should sell our products and services, but also broader economic policy issues: what support if any governments may give local producers; with which parties may nations trade or not trade, and to whom and at what price (tariff), and under what conditions may nations and firms trade.

Trade policy is no longer – probably never was – exclusively about selling and buying.

Therefore, legislators need to be aware about the wider terrain of trade policy and negotiations. How much room for manoeuvre do national Parliaments have? If the broad brush of the international trade policy contours has already been set by the WTO, what are governments and legislators negotiating on? For international trade negotiations can only be

Gurirab:Layout 1 07/10/2010 15:05 Page 211

PARLIAMENTS AND WORLD TRADE

about market access, fair trade and the extent of derogation from the commonly agreed rules.

Global trade negotiations are about removing (reducing) tariffs for goods and services so they move with greater ease across national borders which, it is posited, will result in optimum welfare gains for all, particularly the consumer.

Most favoured nation status (MFN) is at the core of global trade arrangements to ensure all parties are treated equally.

However for all parties to realize these gains must be fair in that all trade-distorting measures are removed. For errant participants there is the risk of punitive measures such as anti-dumping and countervailing instruments.

Derogation operates in the classical fashion of variable geometry which allows laggards to remain part of the show. Countries are allowed for a limited, agreed period to enjoy the full benefits of the agreement without the obligation to reciprocate.

The framework in which international trade policy evolves also suggests that the academic discourse and policy debates on development paths have become heresies. The mantra surely must then be that trade is everything! It is the golden route to Eldorado – until these sure certainties come down like a pack of cards as has recently happened in the financial markets.

It also follows that proponents of autarky and disengagement from the global system have a dwindling, if any, audience as all participants in global trade policy and negotiations now pay allegiance to the global village and concomitantly, globalization. So it is a case of we are in it together - we all sink, float, or survive. Or do we?

To manage or not to manage?

The notion of equality of nations in global trade negotiations is a celebrated farce. For the greatest number of countries, certainly those of East Africa or Africa

generally, the outcome of global trade negotiations is handed down.

So we have no “green room” experience and it is very much a case of take it or jump in Lake Tanganyika for most of us. Clearly, the global negotiators are made up of a dozen countries in the Premier League and BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) tagging along in the First Division. The rest of us are but spectators.

The question is: once deals are closed, how do participants manage the outcome of these negotiations? And what role, if any, do legislators play in all these? Or are we as legislators restricted to our conventional role of appropriating government budgets and playing at holding them to account subsequently?

In most of our jurisdictions’ legislators are locked out of the negotiation process. We are only brought into the picture ex post facto when the ink is already dry on the agreements. We are then reduced to engaging in phony parliamentary debates and hurrying to adopt and/or ratify the decisions. In this regard, we also need to take an honest hard look at the place and relevance of our regional groups (such as the East African Community and its Legislative Assembly) and continental architecture (the African Union and the Pan-African Parliament) in batting for us in international trade negotiations.

We say this because of how we as a continent handled the negotiations in the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) process. We did not take into account how in many instances our commitments under the new EPA configuration impacted on the regional integration process in programmes in Africa. But more significantly, the voices of our regional Parliaments and the AU were deafening in their silence.

When they did speak, they were too little – a case of preoccupying ourselves with the stables whilst the horse has already bolted! The

process was unilaterally designed and foisted upon us by our trading partners with little regard to our interests and is not only exacerbating the regional economic institutional cacophony ante, but it also has the potential to wreck it.

We recognize, however, that recently, especially post-Seattle, Ministers have been inviting MPs to be part of their negotiating teams on international trade. This is good news. As legislators we need to engage government more through parliamentary committees and demand them to account for their decisions. In the meanwhile, the Inter-Parliamentary Union has created a parliamentary dimension on the WTO, the so-called Steering Committee on the WTO which shadows the work of the negotiators, meeting at least once a year to encourage them to conclude the Round. The CPA is a member of this Steering Committee.

In this context we can take a leaf from how others manage trade policy and conduct their negotiations. Despite the recent rise of China’s share in global trade and Japan’s share of the same, I shall briefly consider European Union and United States practices.

In the case of the EU, member countries have a common commercial policy towards external countries and the European Commissioner is the competent authority to negotiate on behalf of the Union. Why shouldn’t we have a similar arrangement for Africa’s regions or better still for Africa?

The EU Commission website states: “Trade policy is one of the principal components of the EU’s external economic relations. It aims to promote the economic and political interests of the EU on multilateral, bilateral and sectoral levels. In pursuit of this goal, the EU follows a policy of trade liberalization, a strategy that rests on the belief that progressive elimination of barriers to trade and investment can, as long as supported by enforceable rules, be in the interest of Europe and of the world.”

So there you have it eloquently spelt out: both the architecture of the modus operandi as well as the belief system of the EU. Where is ours for Africa?

Or witness the U.S., where trade policy is the remit of Congress (the legislators). The U.S. constitution grants Congress authority over trade. So unlike our jurisdictions, it is not the executive but the legislators who call the shots. The U.S. Trade Representative plays the lead role in trade negotiations; but in trade policy management, the buck stops with the Congress.

There is much food for thought which we can take away from these two differing practices to craft one which suits our needs and circumstances.

Building a body of knowledge The fact that major economic powers club together in trade policy management surely must give us cause to reflect on our own African practices.

What dividends have we reaped from our management of trade policy thus far? Our national Parliaments, regional Assemblies and the AU organs need to draw correct lessons from elsewhere.

For now, we as a region and as a continent are living on the global periphery.

In order to manage our trade policy in an optimum manner, we need all the knowledge and information we can harness.

We need to build intellectual capacity and reservoirs. A multiplicity of institutions – UNCTAD/ITC, WTO, EU and others – can strengthen our capacity in this area. Knowledge acquired through them will enable us to profit from the derogations and exceptions granted by the WTO and others. I trust, too, that the excellent manual being developed by the Commonwealth Secretariat with CPA support to strengthen our capacity will greatly add to this body of knowledge and expertise.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 211

Sibal:Layout 1 07/10/2010 15:07 Page 212

UNIVERSAL ELEMENTARY EDUCATION

GIVING CHILDREN THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION

Shri Kapil Sibal, MP, in New Delhi.

Shri Sibal is the India’s Minister for Human Resource Development.

A Member of the Indian National Congress Party, he sat in the Rajya Sabha from 1998 to 2004 before being elected to the Lok Sabha in 2004.

He previously held the portfolio of Science, Technology and Earth Sciences. He practised as a lawyer before entering Parliament.

The “Rights” perspective on education is endorsed by all international commitments, including the Dakar Framework on Education for All and the Millennium Development Goals.

Mahatma Gandhi visualized education in India as a means of awakening the nation’s conscience to injustice, violence and inequality entrenched in the social order. The crucial role of universal elementary education for strengthening the social fabric of democracy through provision of equal opportunities to all has been accepted since inception of our Republic. The original Article 45 in the Directive Principles of State Policy in the constitution mandated the state to provide free and compulsory education to all children up to age 14 in a period of ten years. Over the years there has been significant

212 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

© World Economic Forum

The provision of free compulsory education as a right for children between ages 6 and 14 is a huge undertaking in a country the size of India which divides responsibility for education between the union and state governments. India’s Human Resources Minister describes how these and other problems – including reaching children of poor uneducated parents – are being overcome so India becomes a truly just society for all.

Moreover, the quality of learning achievement is not always entirely satisfactory even in the case of children who complete elementary education.

Shri Kapil Sibal, MP.

spatial and numerical expansion of elementary schools in the country, yet the goal of universal elementary education continues to elude us. The number of children, particularly children from disadvantaged groups and weaker sections, who drop out of school before completing elementary education, remains very large.

Universalizing elementary education The constitution Eighty-sixth Amendment Act, 2002, made education a fundamental right for children in the age group 6-14 years and the consequential legislation, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009, came into force on 1 April 2010. The enforcement and implementation of the RTE Act is a historic milestone in the struggle for providing the right to education to every child and a huge step forward in our struggle for universalizing elementary education.

Sibal:Layout 1 07/10/2010 15:09 Page 213

UNIVERSAL ELEMENTARY EDUCATION

Opposite page: many children will face their first blackboard; Above: An Indian schoolboy doing his lessons.

The enactment and implementation of the RTE Act means that every child has a right to be provided full time elementary education of satisfactory and equitable quality in a formal school which satisfies essential norms and standards. “Compulsory education” casts an obligation on the appropriate government to provide and ensure admission,

attendance and completion of elementary education. “Free education” means that no child, other than a child who has been admitted by his or her parents to a school which is not supported by the appropriate government, shall be liable to pay any kind of fee, charge or expenses which may prevent him or her from pursuing and completing elementary

education. The RTE Act specifies the duties and responsibilities of the appropriate governments, local authorities, parents, schools and teachers in providing free and compulsory education. It also provides for a system for protection of the right of children and a decentralized grievance redressal mechanism.

While enforcing the right to

education, the main challenge is in providing quality education that must have minimum standards, regardless of diversities in location, culture or levels of development etc. The Act goes beyond free and compulsory education to include quality education for all. The Act outlines that the curriculum should provide for learning through activities, exploration and discovery. This changes the perception of children as passive receivers of knowledge. By providing for a continuous and comprehensive evaluation of the child, reflecting all facets and talents of the child and not testing on a few subject areas, we move beyond the convention of using textbooks as the basis of examination.

The RTE Act is anchored in the belief that the values of equality, social justice and democracy and the creation of a just and humane society can be achieved only through provision of inclusive elementary education to all.

Provision of free and compulsory education of satisfactory quality to children from disadvantaged and weaker sections is, therefore, not merely the responsibility of schools run or supported by the appropriate governments, but also of schools which are not dependent on government funds.

The RTE Act provides that the central governments and the state governments shall have concurrent responsibility for providing funds for carrying out the provisions of the Act. The Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) programme will be the main vehicle for implementation of the provisions of the RTE Act. The central government is aware of the need to provide adequate financial resources to the states to facilitate the implementation of the RTE Act in a smooth and effective manner.

In 2010-11, a central budget allocation of Rs15,000 crores was approved. The 13th Finance Commission has awarded Rs24068 crores as grants in aid

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 213

Sibal:Layout 1 07/10/2010 15:10 Page 214

UNIVERSAL ELEMENTARY EDUCATION

specifically for elementary education. Resources available under all centrally sponsored schemes, including Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, mid-day meals, teacher education, the total sanitation campaign and the drinking water mission would be factored in for implementing the provisions of the RTE Act. The RTE Act casts a duty or compulsion on the appropriate government to ensure admission, attendance and completion of elementary education. The RTE Act provides that it shall be the duty of every parent or guardian to admit his child or ward in the neighbourhood school. However, we also recognize that the maximum number of children who do not attend school hail from weaker sections and disadvantaged groups. Penalizing their parents would be tantamount to penalizing poverty and deprivation. Secondly, we have many first generation learners who are deprived of a learning environment at home and drop-out on account of difficulties in coping

with the curriculum. Inflicting penalties on parents because their children have dropped out or have

“The RTE Act is anchored in the belief that...the creation of a just and humane society can be achieved only through provision of inclusive elementary education to all.” been pushed out of the education system would be discriminatory.

Therefore, we have taken a conscious decision to abstain from providing penal provisions from parents and guardians.

Since the universalization of elementary education has become

214 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

a constitutional mandate, the need to push this vision forward to move towards the universalization of secondary education is also being recognized. Several new initiatives have been launched during the 11th Plan and allocation for secondary education in the 11th Plan has been increased to Rs53, 550 crore from Rs4,325 crore in the 10th Plan. In order to enhance access to secondary education and improve its quality, a new centrally sponsored scheme, titled Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan was launched in March 2009. The objective of this was to achieve an enrolment ratio of 75 per cent for classes IX-X within five years by providing a secondary school within a reasonable distance of every habitation, to improve the quality of education imparted at secondary level through making all secondary schools conform to prescribed norms to remove gender, socioeconomic and disability barriers and universal retention by 2020.

The central government will bear 75 per cent of the project

Above: Indian schoolgirls queuing for class.

expenditure during the 11th Plan, with the remaining 25 per cent being borne by state governments.

The sharing pattern will be divided between the two for the 12th Plan.

For both plans, the funding pattern will be 90:10 for north eastern states. Rs20,120 crore has been allocated for this scheme during the 11th Plan.

The enactment and enforcement of the RTE Act is indeed an important achievement in the field of elementary education in the country and I hope that the mobilization of strong commitment on the part of the centre and states, the harnessing of new resources for elementary education and re-inforcement of programme delivery on the ground will go a long way to fulfilling the dream of providing universal elementary education in the country.

NSW ad:3-col feature 07/10/2010 15:12 Page 215

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

Khan:Layout 1 07/10/2010 15:14 Page 216

WATER CRISIS IN PAKISTAN

RESOLVING THE WATER CRISIS This year’s disastrous flooding has inundated 20 per cent of Pakistan, desprived 25 million people of their homes and livelihoods and destroyed much of the country’s infrastructure. Ironically, it has also concealed another problem: Pakistan is actually short of water and effective facilities to manage this valuable resource, writes a senior Pakistani politician.

Mr Humayun Akhtar Khan.

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.

It is not the first time that Pakistan has faced a major water crisis. In the early 1960s, in many areas in Pakistan the water table had reached the level of the land giving rise to water logging and salinity.

The government focused on the issue by increasing the use of ground water through large numbers of tube wells, which resulted in the drawing down of the ground water table and the salinity.

Even before the current flood disaster, Pakistan’s survival was threatened by water. Pakistan is one of the most water stressed countries in the world, a situation which is going to deteriorate into an acute water shortage. Direct rainfall contributes less than 15 per cent of the water supply to the crops. Of the cultivatable areas of almost 77 million acres (MA), only 36MA are canal irrigated. Pakistan has the additional potential of bringing about 22.5MA of virgin land under irrigation.

216 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

Mr Humayun Akhtar Khan.

An annual average of 35.2MAF of water escapes below Kotri, an area in Hyderabad, mostly in the rainy season. Flow patterns of Pakistan’s rivers are variable. They carry high discharges in summer and proportionately low discharges in winter. To save and utilize available water, construction of additional water storage facilities is essential. Pakistan’s dependence on a single river system means that it has fewer choices than country’s

having a multiplicity of rivers and water resources.

Due to excessive sediment inflows in the river water, all three storages in Pakistan, Tarbela, Mangla and Chashma, are rapidly loosing their capacities. By 2013, these storages would lose almost one third of their capacity which virtually means the loss of one mega storage reservoir. Creation of more storages is absolutely necessary for Pakistan, not only for firming-up of water supplies for existing projects but also to meet the additional allocations under the 1991 accord between the provinces. Pakistan lags behind its neighbors in developing almost 50,000MW of its hydro power potential. Ground water, which now accounts for almost half of all our irrigation requirements, is now over-exploited in many areas and its quality is deteriorating. There is an urgent need to develop policies and approaches for bringing water

Khan:Layout 1 07/10/2010 15:15 Page 217

WATER CRISIS IN PAKISTAN

withdrawal into balance with recharge.

Climate change is affecting the western Himalayas more seriously than the other mountain systems of the world. In the next few decades, river flows will increase which, together with more rainfall, is going to exaggerate the flooding and drainage problems, particularly in the Sindh region. After the glaciers have melted, there are likely to be serious decreases in river flows.

Pakistan, although it has invested massively in its water infrastructure, has not invested in its maintenance, as a result of which it is crumbling. Users of canal water in Pakistan pay a very small portion of the real cost. The balance comes from the taxpayer.

Since development money is scarce, the lack of resources results in most water infrastructure to be in a poor state of repair.

The solution to Pakistan’s water problems has two aspects: one, how it can utilize its own potential; and two, how its potential can be

“Pakistan, although it has invested massively in its water infrastructure, has not invested in its maintenance, as a result of which it is crumbling.” affected by India. Amazingly, at the time of partition, the arbitral tribunal to settle water disputes arising out

of partition presumed that water would continue as before partition.

Not surprisingly, when the tribunal seized to exist on 31 March 1948, India stopped its water supplies to Pakistan the day after. After years of negotiations, in 1960, through the auspices of the World Bank, India and Pakistan signed the Indus Water Treaty.

Under this treaty, Pakistan receives unrestricted use of the western rivers, Indus, Jhelum and Chenab. India was allowed exclusive rights to use waters of Ravi, Sutlej and Bias. The replacement works required by Pakistan as a result of this treaty involved two major dams, five barrages and eight link canals.

Although the Indus water treaty allocates the water of the three western rivers to Pakistan, it allows India to tap the considerable hydro power potential of the Chenab and Jhelum rivers, before they enter

An aerial view of flood affected areas in KamberShahdadkot, Pakistan.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 217

Khan:Layout 1 07/10/2010 15:17 Page 218

WATER CRISIS IN PAKISTAN

Pakistan. However while doing so the quantity of water reaching Pakistan and its natural timing must not be affected. Timing of course is an important issue because Pakistan’s agriculture not only depends on the quantity of water but also on its availability during the sowing season.

If the relationship between Pakistan and India had not been strained, the Indus Water Treaty could have worked well. However, this is unfortunately not the case.

One of the restrictions that the Indus Water Treaty imposes on India for its hydro power projects on Chenab and Jhelum is to limit the amount of storage. Storage is what

matters for changing the timing of flows. However this restriction is losing its significance after the Baghliar Dam case. The restriction on storage at the time of signing of the Indus Water Treaty meant that the gates for flushing silt out of the dams could not be built. This resulted that any dam in India on Chanab and Jhelum rivers would rapidly fill with silt, a point that was raised by India in the case of Baghliar before the neutral expert appointed by the World Bank. So while the expert decided three issues in favor of Pakistan, with regard to the forth of building of gates, it ruled in favour of India. The result is that it has now left Pakistan

218 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

without the mechanism for protection against manipulation of flows by India. When India chose to fill Baghliar it did so exactly at the time when it would incur maximum damage on farmers in Pakistan.

The problem is that Baghliar is not the only dam India has built on Chenab and Jhelum. India has commissioned 11 projects on Chenab and is contemplating about 74 projects on Jhelum. In due course India will have the capacity of impacting in a major manner the dimension of flows into Pakistan and will have the ability to damage Pakistan’s resources.

Another crisis which is in the making is the Kishan-Ganga hydro

electric project on Neelum River in India. The Indian plan to divert water from Neelum into Wullar Lake and subsequently to river Jhelum, downstream from Pakistan’s Neelum-Jhelum hydro electric project, would seriously damage this project. The average flow of river Neelum would reduce by 21 per cent which would not only cause energy losses amounting to billions of rupees but also serious environmental damage. Two things should be done immediately. One, the World Bank arbitration process should be activated and two, the pace of work at Neelum-Jhelum should be significantly increased. India is

Khan:Layout 1 07/10/2010 15:17 Page 219

WATER CRISIS IN PAKISTAN

already doing that at their KishanGanga project.

Pakistan’s water issues with India are significant to say the least.

The two in fact are interlinked and therefore the resolution of the water issue should be part and parcel of any future relationship thaw between India and Pakistan.

Pakistan has to invest soon in new larger dams.

The Water and Power Development Authority’s (WAPDA) vision for 2025 should be pursued on a priority basis, under which four storage reservoirs are planned; namely Yugo, Skardu, Bhasha and Kalabagh. There is an urgent need of storage just to replace the

capacity that has been lost due to sedimentation. We should also think beyond 2025 and start focusing now on other storage sites. There are many on Indus, Jhelum and off-channel. There are also hundreds of small and medium storage sites in all the four provinces which must be pursued, not to mention the enormous backlog of maintenance work required to be done on our water infrastructure.

Lack of transparency and trust has made the discussion of large dams a very difficult process in Pakistan. Amazingly, in most countries of the world, lower riparian is the greatest beneficiary

of new storages. Sometimes lower riparian pay for upstream storage.

In order to build confidence once again, there needs to be a totally transparent and verifiable implementation of the 1991 water accord and sufficient water needs to be guaranteed to the delta.

Large investments are also required for the people who do not have water and sanitation services in Pakistan’s cities and villages.

The country also needs to invest in municipal and industrial waste water. Also principles have to be defined to govern how the cost of water infrastructure would be distributed among the tax payer and the user.

Opposite page: Women showing registration cards during distribution of food bags, Hyderabad; Above: People being rescued by the Navy in Karachi.

The problem is that in the last two years the Public Sector Development Programme (PSDP) has been cut by hundreds of billions of rupees.

We don’t cut our huge expenditures and instead cut PSDP to achieve the International Monetary Fund (IMF) dictated fiscal targets. So where the money will come from for all these water projects is a big question mark.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 219

McNeill:Layout 1 07/10/2010 15:20 Page 220

OVERSIGHT OF ADMINISTRATION

THE IMPORTANCE OF OVERSIGHT: THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE IN JAMAICA The principles of financial scrutiny applied by Public Accounts Committees around the Commonwealth are applied in Jamaica to the parliamentary review of government spending as it is happening.

Dr Wykeham McNeill, MP, in Kingston.

Dr McNeill has been a People’s National Party Member of the Jamaican House of Representatives since 1997, having served as a Senator from 1995.

He chairs the House’s Public Administration and Appropriations Committee. He was Minister of State in the Ministry of Tourism and Sport from 2000 to 2007 and is now opposition spokesperson on tourism. Dr McNeill is a doctor who has specialized in sports medicine.

Introduction “Quite as important as legislation is vigilant oversight of administration.

There is some scandal and discomfort, but infinite advantage, in having every affair of administration subjected to the test of constant examination on the part of the Assembly which represents the nation.”

(U.S. President Woodrow Wilson)1 Dr Wykeham McNeill, MP. The extent to which a Parliament provides checks and balances to the executive is a key indicator of the strength of that body; therefore, the oversight function provided by a Parliament is critical to the role of the Legislature. The opposition must play an important part in discharging this responsibility, given its inherent duty to hold the government accountable. Hence, the power of a Parliament is largely dependent upon the effectiveness of the

220 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

opposition in providing oversight within the context of the still unassailable right of the administration to govern the nation.

Complementary to the role of the opposition in fostering effective oversight is the principle of openness and transparency in the operation of the Parliament. Where the proceedings of Parliament are routinely accessible to the public, there is the opportunity for greater

scrutiny, which is in itself a safeguard against inappropriate activity. Consequently, both the opposition and the public can rightly become engaged in the oversight of the government, the former directly and the latter indirectly, with the fruit of this process being executive action that remains true to the intent of the Legislature and the people whom it represents. The Public Administration and Appropriations Committee in Jamaica is one of the oversight committees designed to facilitate this outcome. It is a sessional select committee of the House of Representatives that is charged with monitoring budgetary expenditure of government agencies as it occurs in order to ensure compliance with parliamentary approval. It is required to keep Parliament informed of how the Budget is being implemented and to make recommendations for

McNeill:Layout 1 07/10/2010 15:21 Page 221

OVERSIGHT OF ADMINISTRATION

the improvement of public administration. To this end, the committee meets with public officials during the year to receive updates on their expenditure,

May of that year.2 Even then, it had been the sole oversight committee.

Designed to approximate the Public Accounts Committee of the British Parliament, the local PAC

service delivery systems and activities and reports its findings to Parliament.

benefited from opposition chairmanship from the outset, as this convention had already been established years earlier in the United Kingdom in respect of its counterpart committee. However the committee met in private, in keeping with the original Standing Order No. 77(6), which imposed this requirement.

In 1991 there was a significant change in the operations of the parliamentary committees. An amendment to Standing Order No. 77(6) was made which opened all committees to the public. This measure brought the PAC to greater prominence, as through it, the financial affairs of the government were exposed to the media and to the critical eye of the Jamaican populace. Public accounts had become truly public.

With the implementation of this practice, the two pillars of effective parliamentary oversight as regards public accounts, namely, opposition leadership and public scrutiny, were firmly in place.

An overview of parliamentary oversight in Jamaica Jamaica’s Parliament has enjoyed a long tradition of serving as a counterbalance to the authority of the executive, albeit with varying degrees of effectiveness. This function has been greatly aided by the transition from in-camera to open sittings of parliamentary committees and a gradual increase in the number of oversight committees.

The original Standing Orders of the House of Representatives (1964) made provision for a Public Accounts Committee, one of several, but the only Sessional Select Committee with oversight responsibility named in that document.

The committee had in fact existed since 1945, thanks to a resolution passed by the House in

Soon afterwards, in 1993, three additional select committees with oversight responsibilities were formed, namely:

Above: The Parliament of Jamaicain Kingston.

• •

•

the Economy and Production Committee; the Human Resources and Social Development Committee; and the Infrastructure and Physical Development Committee.

These committees were incorporated into the Standing Orders in 1996, at which time two additional committees, the Internal and External Affairs Committee and the Public Administration and Appropriations Committee, were formed. While all were open to the public, the PAC remained the only one to be chaired by a Member of the opposition.

The transition to opposition leadership By the time of the first meeting of

the Public Administration and Appropriations Committee, which took place on 2 July 1997, openness of its proceedings had already been assured through the earlier amendment to the Standing Orders that required committees to sit in public.

However, the other essential component of effective oversight, opposition leadership, was not in place, a factor which may have contributed to the infrequency of sittings at that stage, given the tendency of governments to be less aggressive in overseeing their own activities. There was only one meeting in the financial year 19971998, five from 1998 to 1999 and none the following year. The committee regained momentum in 2000-2001, holding eight meetings and submitting a report to Parliament that addressed activities in various ministries. This was followed by five years of dormancy, with no sittings being held from 2003 to 2007. This would change in 2007, when a policy decision for opposition chairmanship of all sessional select committees was implemented.

The activity of the committee increased steadily, with eight meetings being held in 2008/2009, and a record 13 meetings in 2009/2010. During this period, several reports on critical issues affecting both the implementation of the Budget and public administration were submitted to Parliament. It is of interest to note that the decision to have this and all other oversight committees chaired by opposition members has been formalised via a recommendation of the Standing Orders Committee, which was approved in March 2010.

Making oversight more effective We have found, however, that there are a number of other issues that must be addressed to make any oversight committee, and especially a PAAC, effective.

Among these are the timeliness of

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 221

McNeill:Layout 1 07/10/2010 15:22 Page 222

OVERSIGHT OF ADMINISTRATION

reporting, the manner of reporting, the composition of the committees and the technical support given to these committees.

Timeliness of reporting Timeliness in reporting is important, especially in the case of the PAAC, the mandate of which is to examine and keep the Parliament abreast of current government spending and administration. When coupled with the openness of the committee’s sittings, this demand for real time reporting can be regarded as a strong incentive for honesty from public officials, who would be aware that irregularities would become public knowledge sooner rather than later. Given the fact that the PAAC’s role is to examine expenditure as it is occurring, it is vitally important that it does so and reports any significant observations to Parliament within the financial year under consideration.

The current committee has sought to operate in keeping with this principle but has found that reports to Parliament have not in the past been dealt with in as timely a fashion as desired.

Discussions have recently been held between both sides in Parliament and an agreement has been reached that going forward in the new financial year, the reports of the committee will be tabled and

debated in Parliament on a quarterly basis.

Recommendations of the committee to be referred to cabinet for action Another problem identified was the action to be taken after the reports are debated in the House, as the purpose of any committee would remain unfulfilled in the absence of a response on the part of the executive to its findings and recommendations. To ensure that there is such a response, it has been further agreed that after adoption of the reports by the House, they will be presented to cabinet within 21 days for consideration and decision.

Composition of the committee Whereas the work of any committee is characterized by objectivity and balanced input from government and opposition Members, the structure of committees favours the government numerically, in keeping with Standing Order 75(1), which stipulates that, so far as is possible, every select committee shall be so constituted as to ensure that the balance of parties in the House is reflected in the committee. This configuration may not be ideal where oversight committees are concerned, for, in theory, where a

222 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

Mr McNeill (seated at the Table) chairing a session of the PAAC in the House of Representatives Chamber.

government is elected by a landslide victory, the views of the opposition would be underrepresented from the Floor, and this would be exacerbated by the otherwise laudable fact that a Member of the opposition sits in the Chair. Given the nature of these committee’s duties and the widely

“...for the most part the committee functions as a unit and this has led to its increased efficiency and effectiveness.” acknowledged role of the opposition in ensuring that they are effectively discharged, consideration should be made in the Standing Orders for some degree of numerical parity on these committees as the preferred arrangement.

The Standing Orders of the

House of Representatives also precludes Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries from being nominated to Sessional Select Committees (Standing Order No. 68). This is the ideal situation and would not allow Members of the executive on the oversight committees, thereby avoiding a conflict of interest.

Unfortunately, given the size of Jamaica’s present Executive, which includes the Prime Minister, 13 Ministers and seven Ministers of State from a total of 32 government Members in the Lower House, and since the Speaker and Deputy Speaker are also excluded, this is not practical. Therefore what now obtains is that provision is made in the motion appointing these committees to allow for the selection of some Ministers of State and Parliamentary Secretaries, notwithstanding the provisions of this rule.

A concession that could and I believe should be made is the appointment of Senators to these oversight committees. It is not compatible with the spirit of the constitution at present, since section 55(4) (a) to (c) does not allow Senators to address “money Bills”.

This stance is in keeping with the principle of “no taxation without representation”. As Senators are appointed and not sent by the people, they are not included in these committees. Nevertheless, a major advantage of altering this position would be the expansion of the pool from which to select the committees and the inclusion of the talents of Members of the upper House.

Technical and administrative support Although the committees have performed creditably in recent years, there are challenges. The first has to do with time management. The effectiveness of committees could be improved through more frequent sittings, but this has been difficult due to a

McNeill:Layout 1 07/10/2010 15:23 Page 223

OVERSIGHT OF ADMINISTRATION

shortage of meeting rooms within the precincts of Parliament, competition with the other committees that have to meet, and the fact that most of the Members sit on multiple committees. Another concern is the level of staff support given. It is proposed for example that the PAAC, which is served by a single clerk, would require enhanced support services in the form of a financial analyst, who could evaluate proposed expenditures and other data and advise the committee accordingly.

This proposal is currently being considered.

Bipartisan nature of the committee’s proceedings While the importance of the opposition to parliamentary oversight is undeniable, it has also been found that a bipartisan approach is another necessary aspect of the process.3 In its deliberations, the PAAC strives to ensure that both government and opposition Members are given every opportunity to ask questions

and to air their views. Moreover, in most instances, as the committee probes the facts that are presented to it by public officials, there is concurrence among Members as regards the need to clarify apparent irregularities and the urgency of averting potential waste and remedying breaches. Over the past few years, we have found that while there have been moments of disagreement, for the most part the committee functions as a unit and this has led to its increased efficiency and effectiveness.

Responsibilities under the Financial Administration and Audit Act One of the conditionalities of the recent IMF agreement is that Jamaica has had to put in place a fiscal responsibility framework and the PAAC has been accorded additional responsibilities arising there from.

The committee will now be required under section 48G of the newly amended Financial Administration and Audit Act to

examine any excess or supplementary estimates and report to the House before a vote is taken on them. In seeking to strengthen fiscal responsibility, scrutiny by the PAAC, it is felt, would provide an additional safeguard to the Standing Finance Committee, which is the body that reviews the national budget before adoption.

Public bodies will also be expected to submit their corporate plans to Parliament at the start of the financial year and it is intended that these, too, will be examined by the PAAC and variations would be assessed against the objectives articulated therein.

Dunn’s River Falls, Jamaica.

oversight of government spending and to address inefficiencies in public administration.

Notwithstanding this, the only constant is change and there is always room for improvement. To this end, the committee will continue to work to meet the demands of the dynamic economic and political climate.

Endnotes 1. Wilson, W (1900), Congressional Government.

Retrieved 19/3/2010 from http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp

Conclusion What we are striving for in the parliamentary and oversight processes is better governance, as well as greater openness and transparency in the handling of the affairs of our nation. The Public Administration and Appropriations Committee has already done much to strengthen parliamentary

?document=798> 2. Jamaica Hansard, Proceedings of the House of Representatives of Jamaica, Session 9 January 1945 – 27 December 1945, pp. 52, 93-5 3. Parliamentary Oversight of Finance and the Budgetary Process: The Report of a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Workshop, Nairobi, Kenya, 10 - 14 December 2001. Retrieved 17/3/2010 from: www.cpaafrica.org/uploadedFiles/Information_Servi ces/Publications/CPA_Electronic_Publications.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 223

Watterson:Layout 1 07/10/2010 15:25 Page 224

BUDGET SCRUTINY

GETTING SUPPORT FOR THE STATE BUDGET What constitutes “good practice” in the passage of the budget is being reviewed everywhere,including the Isle of Man where a Member with an accounting background calls for enhanced parliamentary involvement in the approval of government spending plans.

Mr Juan Watterson, MKH, in Douglas.

Mr Watterson has been a Member of the House of Keys, the Isle of Man’s lower House, since 2006.

A chartered accountant, he has also worked as an audit senior. In writing this article, the author is indebted to Dr Rick Stapenhurst at the World Bank Institute and Mr Andrew Imlach of the CPA, both of whom have been invaluable sources of information, as well as to Mr David Harrison, intern at the Clerk of Tynwald’s Office, for proof reading.

A government or even a country’s economy can make or break a politician. Getting support for the national or state budget is arguably the most important benchmark in confidence for any government – failure can often lead to disaster.

Assumptions made in preparing the budget can sometimes be inherently subjective and political, a fact recognized by the incoming U.K. government in the establishment of their Office for Budget Responsibility. So it is important that budget scrutiny is a cyclical process which has elements before, during and after the passing of the budget.

Yet the balance between a strong executive, able to gain support for its financial programme on the one hand; and Parliament’s ability to scrutinise, debate, amend, and sanction that programme, is one of the most important balancing acts of any

224 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

Mr Juan Watterson, MHK.

parliamentary democracy. If legislators feel they are nothing more than a rubber stamp, they will lose faith in the parliamentary system. This has the potential to breed anarchy and disorder. How a budget is passed and how it is scrutinized are very much interlinked.

International benchmarking There is no right or wrong way to

seek parliamentary support for the government’s financial programme.

However, the CPA, World Bank Institute and OECD have all developed models of best practice.

Calling on these broad sources, a mini benchmarking survey can be drawn up that might look something like the example given in Table 1 (one point for ‘yes’, zero for ‘no’): In reality, few if any Legislatures will get full marks on this survey, as each will have different ways of bargaining with the other parties that suit the style of that country or state. However, the score of each Legislature will give an indication of the relative strength of the executive (low score), or Parliament (high score).

The Manx experience Like every country, the process for achieving this balance has evolved over time and the Isle of Man is no

Watterson:Layout 1 07/10/2010 15:26 Page 225

BUDGET SCRUTINY

different. It has come a long way from the days of the Queen’s representative, (the Lieutenant Governor,) announcing the budget in Tynwald, the Island’s Parliament.

This transitioned through a Finance Board (effectively a

parliamentary committee), to a system of ministerial government that was introduced in the 1980s.

The Treasury Minister is now responsible for delivering his budget, usually on the third Tuesday in February in a manner that would be familiar across the Commonwealth. However, unlike many other countries, there is no Finance Bill to undergo the usual three readings. The budget is determined by a simple resolution, and rarely resisted by more than a handful of Tynwald’s 33 voting Members.

There are two schools of thought as to why this might be the case. The first is that the island has a very high degree of consensus.

Party politics does not play a large part of the political scene and all but two politicians have a form of government role. As such, it can be argued that each politician contributes to the budget process through their departmental work.

There is also then a vested interest as there are such a high proportion of Members who are involved in government departments, this is a marked contrast to the party politics of most other countries.

You might think that the horse trading takes place at all levels, but in fact once the budget submission leaves the department, it is the last Members will see of it before the budget is announced, all the negotiation happens within the Council of Ministers as junior members have no further input or discussion. Their own departmental submission is cloaked in departmental confidentiality.

An alternative proposition is that Members are not given suitable opportunity to provide effective scrutiny. The budget is delivered to each member six days before the Tynwald sitting at which it is announced. This briefing is in strict confidence, and the details

Opposite page: The Tynwald Chamber; Above and left: The Manx Legislative building in Douglas.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 225

Watterson:Layout 1 07/10/2010 15:27 Page 226

BUDGET SCRUTINY

are not to be shared with anyone other than fellow politicians, although Treasury officers are available to answer questions. As the motion is determined by resolution, the debate commences immediately after the Treasury Minister resumes her seat and a vote is taken at the end of the debate. Amendments to the substance of the budget are not permitted. It is, in essence, an “all or nothing” package.

There is no time for committee discussion or parliamentary hearings, or time to seek the views of constituents or business representatives. My fear is that a public that feels it has no say in how a country is run, or how its money is spent will become disinterested, distrustful, or even resentful of its government.

However, despite the lack of parliamentary controls, the Isle of Man has a remarkably prudential record of fiscal management.

Section 9(c) of the 1985 Treasury Act, states that the budget must provide “an estimated surplus of income over expenditure.”

Looking back to the benchmarking system, the current process fails Manx politicians in four key areas: 1. The only source of information available is from the Executive, i.e. no independent review of Treasury assumptions; 2. It prevents meaningful discussion of alternatives, i.e. no amendments; 3. It precludes public or parliamentary committee involvement in any way due to

226 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

the short timescales; and 4. It gives Hon. Members only six days to analyse its contents.

As can be seen, on the benchmarking survey the island appears to be mid table (6 out of 13), but it must be borne in mind that few Legislatures will be able to tick all of the boxes.

This will be especially challenging for smaller Legislatures where resources are tight and politicians are not always full-time.

Above: Tynwald Day in the Isle of Man.

•

•

• A possible solution At the time of writing, I ampursuing a Private Members’ Bill. The Treasury (Amendment) Bill which is being introduced to the House of Keys this year would have the following effects:

That the Treasury Minister shall deliver a statement on the budget (enshrining existing practise); That the President shall accept questions, but not accept any vote until the following month’s sitting, thereby allowing time for reflection and debate within wider society; Provides for amendments, which shall be costed by Treasury officials, (in the absence of an AuditorGeneral) must be cost neutral (in line with the current law), and signed by at least four Members.

Watterson:Layout 1 07/10/2010 15:27 Page 227

BUDGET SCRUTINY

In small jurisdictions, there may not be the capacity for a large Auditor-General’s office or specialist Budget Committee, which may mean that costing proposals may be picked up by officers within the Finance Ministry, and parliamentary scrutiny is undertaken by an existing body such as the Public Accounts Committee. This may lead to potential conflicts of interest that will need to be managed.

Bringing change to such a system is not easy. It is difficult to convince any executive that more scrutiny is a good thing, as Ministers are invariably unwilling to have themselves and their staff subject to the rigours of committee hearing if they can avoid it.

Indeed, at the request for leave to introduce this Private Members’ Bill, a number of accusations were levelled at the proposals, mainly by Ministers, including: • • •

• •

It would create uncertainty and reduce stability; It would not work in practice; Each member of the Court would produce their own budget; It cannot work where there is no party politics; and The budget is only finalised at the last minute, so scrutiny would be impossible.

The proposals, if approved, would add another few points to the Island’s benchmarking score.

However, it was not known whether the government would support or oppose the Bill.

This Bill represents only small steps towards greater parliamentary scrutiny, would move the Isle of Man closer to the benchmark standards, and is hopefully change that will be acceptable to the island’s Council of Ministers.

Ultimately, if there is broader discussion, broader debate and broader support for the budget, the Bill will have been a success.

Table 1. Mini Benchmarking Survey 1.

Is the budget vote considered a vote of confidence in the executive?

2.

Does the Parliament have a committee to scrutinize the budget?

3.

Are the Finance Minister and officials questioned on the proposals prior to a final debate?

4.

Does the public have the ability to lobby or have an input?

5.

Is the budget debate at least three months prior to the end of the financial year?

6.

Can budget amendments be proposed by individual Members, opposition parties or groups, or parliamentary committees?

7.

Do MPs have access to an independent source of expert information to enable them to better understand the budget proposals?

8.

Do MPs receive any training in understanding the budget documents or government accounts?

9.

Can all MPs take part in the budget debate if they wish?

10.

Are MPs briefed by officials on the content of the budget before its delivery in parliament?

11.

Do MPs have sufficient time to consider the proposals before voting on them?

12.

Do MPs outside the governing party have an input, or are they consulted or sounded out on budget proposals?

13.

Is the budget announced to the public via Parliament?

Summary The tensions between the twin pillars of a strong legislative and a strong executive are well known in Commonwealth countries and it is rare in a stable democracy that there should be revolution in its budgetary process. Even small change can cause unease in the executive, so whether the Isle of Man takes another step in empowering its parliamentarians remains to be seen.

More broadly, the issue is a live one. Times of economic instability present all Parliamentarians with an opportunity to review their budget setting procedures to see if they remain fit for purpose. There is no single right answer or perfect solution; indeed there are likely to be many and wildly differing views on the subject, but the debate is an important one which affects

government, Parliament and ultimately, constituents alike. This is an important debate to have, and an important time to have it.

Financial Scrutiny, HC426, 21st April 2008.; 5. House of Commons Liaison Committee, Financial Scrutiny Parliamentary Control over Government Budgets, HC804, 2009 6. Inter Parliamentary Union, Parliament, The Budget

Bibliography

& Gender; 2004;

1. Commonwealth Parliamentary Association,

www.ipu.org/PDF/publications/budget_en.pdf

Recommended benchmarks for Democratic

7. Kermode, DG, Offshore Island Politics, Liverpool

Legislatures, December 2006,

University Press, 2001, ISBN 085323787-5

www.cpahq.org/cpahq/Mem/Document%20Librar

8. McGee, DG, The Overseers, CPA, 2002, ISBN 0-

y/Benchmarks_for_Democratic_Legislatures/Reco

7453-1986-6

mmended%20Benchmarks%20for%20Democrati

9. Mc Gee, DG, The Budget Process, CPA, 2007,

c%20Legislatures.aspx

ISBN 978-0-7453-2774-7

2. Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, Report

10. Parliamentary Oversight – Committees and

of 54th CPA Conference - Workshop D, Reforming

Relationships, CCAF-FCVI, 2006, ISBN 0-919557-

the budget process: Parliamentary budget offices

72-4

and effective parliamentary oversight, 7th August

11. Scottish Parliament, Report on the Review of the

2008.; The Parliamentarian 2008 issue 3

Budget Process, SP315, 2009

3. Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, Report

12. Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Report

of CPA Workshop, Nairobi, Parliamentary Oversight

of the Review of the Budget Process, 29th June

of Finance and the Budgetary Process, 14th

2009.

December 2001.;

13. Stapenhurst et al (eds), Role of Parliament in

4. House of Commons Liaison Committee,

Curbing Corruption, World Bank Institute / CPA,

Parliament and Government Finance: Recreating

2006, ISBN0-8213-6723-4.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 227

PAC Programme:Layout 1 07/10/2010 15:29 Page 228

PARLIAMENTARY FINANCIAL WATCHDOGS

POSITIVE RESULTS FROM A “DRY AND REPULSIVE” TASK Careful examination of government spending practices after the fact can make current and future spending practices – and therefore programmes and policies – far more effective, agrees a group of parliamentary financial watchdogs.

Parliament’s role as a financial watchdog scrutinizing public spending is usually characterized as a negative process to identify failures. Even though that is the way it started and criticism remains a key element, Parliamentarians serving on the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) are now emphasizing a more constructive approach to encourage improvements in democratic governance.

This positive role was emphasized at a seminar on PACs held in February 2010 in Victoria, Australia, for PAC Members and Clerks and representatives of Auditors General’s offices in nine Pacific, Asian and African Parliaments. The work of the PAC, they said, can be a positive influence not just in putting forward ways to improve civil service administrative practices, but also in improving the image of

MPs and Parliaments through the contributions they can make to the effective governance of their jurisdictions.

The three Es In opening the seminar at the Beechworth campus of La Trobe University, Members and officials were encouraged to examine public spending not just in terms of the PAC’s two historic “Es”, economy and efficiency, but also in the provision of the third “E”: effective government services.

Prof. Peter Loney, who chaired the Victorian Parliament’s Public Accounts and Estimates Committee before leaving Parliament to become Programme Director at La Trobe’s Public Sector Governance and Accountability Research Centre, said PACs work best when Members put aside political differences and their adversarial roles in government

228 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

and opposition to work together in a non-partisan manner to find ways to improve the provision of services to the people.

When Auditor General’s offices and PACs are empowered to conduct their own inquiries independent of the executive government, MPs examine administrative practices as independent representatives of their constituents and the results of these inquiries are debated openly in Parliament, Parliament and its Members are seen as working effectively for their people, he said.

This advice was taken up as delegations from the Commonwealth Parliaments of Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Vanuatu, Limpopo, Pakistan, Samoa, Kiribati, Tonga and the nonCommonwealth Parliament of Thailand all included measure to identify administrative effectiveness and to inform the

public of the work being done in financial scrutiny as key achievements in action plans for the coming year.

Back to its roots Dr William Stent of the La Trobe Research Centre reminded Members that intensive reviews of public spending started as a result of the identification of a failure by government.

He said that in 1852 the British government set aside £80,000 for the state funeral of the Duke of Wellington. Five years later it was discovered that 30 per cent of the money had not been spent and was not needed. The money had been sitting in limbo in the Pay Office when it could have been used productively for new projects.

This led Gladstone, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, to propose the establishment of a Public Accounts Committee at

PAC Programme:Layout 1 07/10/2010 15:29 Page 229

PARLIAMENTARY FINANCIAL WATCHDOGS

Westminster so Members of Parliament could undertake what he described as the “dry and repulsive” task of examining past spending practices.

A later British Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, described this committee as “the scourge of the bureaucracy”. However, Mr Stent noted that Wilson also described it as a “major prestigious parliamentary institution”. Combing through the records of past expenditure may not seem exciting; but it is essential to ensuring good governance through effective administration.

Not just criticism Three of the jurisdictions at the seminar proposed an expansion of the PAC role to emphasize the positive side of scrutiny. Members from Pakistan, from South Africa’s Limpopo provincial Legislature and from the South Pacific nation of

Samoa included praise in their action plans to strengthen the performance of their PACs. Ms Yasmeen Rehman, MNA, of Pakistan said her Parliament’s PAC had focused virtually exclusively on finding financial irregularities. In future, it would seek to move into performance auditing so it could identify ways to improve public service delivery.

Hon. Joyce Maluleke, MPL, of Limpopo said her committee would seek to “praise and raise” departments which had been found to be doing a good job.

Awards for good performance could be given in co-operation with aid donors. This would encourage departments and assure donors that money was being well spent.

Under-expenditure needed to be punished if it was because programmes had not been fully implemented. But it should be rewarded if it occurred because

departments found more effective ways to implement a programme at a lower cost.

Hon. Sepulona Tapaui Moananu, MP, of Samoa agreed that their PAC would aim to “praise and raise” rather than just “naming and blaming” in order to promote good financial management.

The seminar was told that the PAC had played a positive role the month before in recommending that Parliament approve a supplementary budget that had been presented to finance the country’s recovery from a tsunami in late 2009.

Bangladesh action plan The Controller and Auditor General of Bangladesh noted that his country had not yet re-established in PAC after the return to parliamentary government.

However, Mr Ahmed Ataul Hakeem said his office was

Above: The participants at the Fifth Annual Summer Residency for Public Accounts Committee at Beechworth, La Trobe. functioning, although it needed more trained staff, an infusion of modern accounting practices and the expansion of the use of information technology. He presented a set of six actions which he said should be the priority for his country in this area in the coming year.

The action plan started with a new firm foundation for scrutiny, the passage of a new Audit Act and the drafting of new regulations governing oversight and spending.

This should be followed by training for core audit staff and the commencement of three performance audits as pilot projects.

An IT network should be established linking the Auditor

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 229

PAC Programme:Layout 1 07/10/2010 15:30 Page 230

PARLIAMENTARY FINANCIAL WATCHDOGS

General’s office and other interested parties. New audit software is also needed. Open financial management and accounting systems with links to his office should be implemented.

To inform and reassure the public, his office should begin interacting with the media through the creation of a media section in the Auditor General’s office. This could be produced in conjunction with improvements to his office’s website which would include the provision of audit reports online.

Getting started in Vanuatu Hon. Marcellino Pipite, MP, reported that the first step in beginning the work of the PAC in Vanuatu had just been taken the day before when the Leader of the Opposition finally appointed one of his Members to chair the PAC and this had been approved by the Speaker as required in the Standing Orders.

He said the Speaker now had to appoint two more opposition and four government Members to the

committee. The Clerk had to appoint two new secretaries to committees as Parliament currently had only one committee clerk. The positions had already been budgeted for but till now the authority to appoint had not been executed. The PAC will be able to peruse the letters of appointment.

Although a new temporary Auditor General had been appointed, but four qualified audit officers were still required so the Auditor General could finish audit reports.

Mr Pipite said the PAC should begin using the police to arrest wrong-doers as necessary so they could be brought before the PAC to testify.

Once Vanuatu’s PAC had been formally constituted, a work plan had to be drafted and approved and a budget requested so the PAC could begin work.

Improvements in Limpopo While Members from the Limpopo Legislature opposed the common practice in much of the

230 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

Commonwealth of having a nongovernment Member chair the PAC, they agreed that the Auditor General should be appointed by Parliament, not by the President, so the officer could be fully accountable to Parliament.

A system to co-ordinate the follow-up to reports was needed to ensure that recommended improvements were actually being implemented. This required adequate resources for the PAC, including its own budget.

To strengthen the PAC’s scrutiny, a parliamentary budget office should be established so the PAC would have access to experts to help Members analyze reports.

Financial management training should also be provided to committee Members with an intensive course in auditing and accounting.

Ms Maluleke told the seminar her colleagues also had agreed that they should begin performance audits. The Auditor General now only conducted financial audits. Performance

audits would enable Members to reassure the people that they were getting value for money through cost-effective programmes that actually delivered benefits to the community.

Noting the shift to include the

“Members from Pakistan, South Africa’s Limpopo provincial Legislature... and Samoa included praise in their action plans to strengthen the performance of their PACs.” “praise and raise” approach, she said all stakeholders should be aware that the work of the PAC

PAC Programme:Layout 1 07/10/2010 15:30 Page 231

PARLIAMENTARY FINANCIAL WATCHDOGS

went far beyond investigations to root out corruption.

The committee should also begin to operate with consistent work plans so Members knew what was to be done on an annual basis.

Extensive reforms in Pakistan As well as moving into performance auditing, Ms Rehman listed 11 other priority reforms to improve financial scrutiny in Pakistan. They began with performance auditing and the production of a clear mission statement so the PAC would focus on transparency in administration, an end to financial mismanagement and the introduction of financial discipline.

She said the chair of the PAC would continue to be occupied by an opposition Member. Party Leaders Hon. Benazir Bhutto and Hon. Nawaz Shariff had agreed to this principle when Pakistan was returning to fully democratic government. She noted that she

was a government Member but the government never sought to interfere with the PAC even when she was in the chair as Deputy Chairperson.

The PAC would press the government to proceed with the introduction of a new Audit Act in the coming year, as promised to formalize financial scrutiny.

The PAC would begin to act on media reports of mismanagement and would follow up complaints about government administration.

However, it would follow an annual work plan and present regular reports for debate by the National Assembly. The House could therefore evaluate the PAC’s own performance as it worked to clear the backlog of audit reports. This required the formation of five more subcommittees so the backlog could be cleared in 18 months.

The PAC would suggest constitutional amendments so the Auditor General would be appointed by the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader in consultation with the PAC.

PAC hearings should be opened to the media and the public so there could be interaction between them, especially with the media which should assign specific journalists to cover the PAC. The PAC website could also be used to obtain public feedback.

The committee charged with monitoring the implementation of PAC recommendations should continue its work to ensure compliance by the government.

Finally, she said her delegation had agreed that a PAC forum should be set up to enable the National Assembly’s committee to support and share ideas with the PACs in the country’s provincial Assemblies. Consultations could then be extended regionally through an association of PACs to facilitate the sharing of information and practices.

A structured approach in Samoa In listing his delegation’s priorities for the coming year, Mr Tapuai Moananu said his PAC would start

Left to right: Hon. Sepulona Tapaui Moananu, MP, Samoa; Ms Yasmeen Rehman, MNA, Pakistan; Hon. Joyce Maluleke, MPL, Limpopo; and fellow delagates in attendance. by drafting an annual work plan with a sitting schedule so MPs would know in advance when the committee would be meeting and the business to be conducted. This would improve the efficiency of the committee.

It should then begin doing sixmonthly reviews of the financial performance of all ministries, including timely meetings with Ministers. Public hearings should be held before the budget is approved and after annual and supplementary budgets are presented.

He said they would also begin following up their recommendations to make sure the government was implementing their recommendations.

Relations with the Auditor

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 231

PAC Programme:Layout 1 07/10/2010 15:31 Page 232

PARLIAMENTARY FINANCIAL WATCHDOGS

This page: (Top) Dhaka City, Bangladesh; (Bottom) students performing a traditional Samoan dance.

Opposite page: (Top) The Premier of Limpopo, Mr Cassel Mathale (left) walking with its Legislature’s Speaker, Hon. Kgolane Alfred Phala at its opening; (Bottom) Long line of monks in Dambulla, Sri Lanka.

the ministries and in public enterprises and government agencies.

Along with the new constitution providing for elected government, new legislation was needed to govern financial management and auditing, including the provision of the necessary funding for the Auditor General’s office and its independence.

A legislated structure and role also had to be put in place for the PAC to establish its relations with stakeholders, its power to hold hearings and its role in the appointment and removal of the Auditor General.

Discussions should be held to consider giving the new PAC the authority to enforce its recommendations and to stop the

General would be strengthened by having regular consultations with the PAC every three months and bringing in audit officers during all budget deliberations.

The goal of all steps in the action plan would be to praise and raise government performance in order to promote good financial management.

New legislation in Kiribati Hon. Airata Teemeta, MP, indicated a new Audit Act was to be proposed in Kiribati making substantial changes to scrutiny by both the PAC and the Auditor General.

The Auditor General’s office would be completely revamped so it would be able to set its own budget, a fair appointment and dismissal process would be put in place for the Auditor General rather than presidential appointment and it would be able to control its own staff.

The PAC would be involved in consultations with the Attorney General and the parliamentary counsel on drafting the Bill and it would then discuss the matter with other Members and liaise with House and government authorities

to get the Bill into the parliamentary timetable so it could become law in about a year.

Induction programmes were also needed for Members, parliamentary staff and government offices so they respected the roles of the PAC and the Auditor General.

External funding was being sought to facilitate the programmes.

232 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

A wider reform programme in Tonga Looking ahead to the implementation of the new fully democratic constitution in Tonga with the elections in November, Auditor General Mr Pohiva Tutonetoa said one major task will be to convince MPs to establish Tonga’s first PAC. Seminars on the role of the PAC were necessary for MPs and for senior civil servants in

issuing of false financial statements or the obstruction of its inquiries.

The goal, he said, was to initiate all this work between the 10 November election and the start of the next financial year on 1 July 2011, ensuring that all new staff were in place by then.

Sri Lankan concerns Although financial oversight in Sri

PAC Programme:Layout 1 07/10/2010 15:32 Page 233

PARLIAMENTARY FINANCIAL WATCHDOGS Lanka was assigned to the PAC and a Committee on Public Enterprises, neither had any Members at the moment because an election had been called. Mr Lacille de Silva said it was hoped that problems with the previous committees could be resolved when the new ones are appointed.

The PAC was too large, with 33 Members, and both committees had quorum problems as many MPs were pre-occupied with ministerial duties. Both committees would be more effective if some Members had accounting knowledge, they operated in a less highly partisan fashion and Standing Orders were amended to allow the media and the public into PAC hearings.

A six-point programme to improve the effectiveness of the

PAC should be put into place, he said. It would restrict the PAC to 12 Members, provide for a fair-minded Chairperson, allow the PAC to sit when the House was not sitting, strengthen the PAC secretariat, initiate training programmes for Members and staff and amend the Standing Orders to allow the PAC to issue reports and interim reports which could be submitted regularly to Parliament.

Co-ordinated approach in Thailand Although Thailand seemed to have the necessary offices to conduct sound financial scrutiny, Dr Direk Patamasiriwat of Thammasat University indicated this was not the case. The PAC was composed on 15 MPs, it was serviced by nine permanent staff and it could turn to about 20 advisors and experts. The Auditor General’s office was

independent and accountable to Parliament. But there was no other formal link between the two even though the PAC met weekly to oversee spending.

He said a memorandum of understanding between the PAC and the Auditor General should be signed to provide for such things a regular quarterly meeting between them. The PAC should plan its investigations on an annual basis

by selecting which departments would face major scrutiny.

The Auditor General should prepare audit case studies for discussion with the PAC and the office should report quarterly on specific issues, including recommending improvements.

The PAC should be able to hold public hearings and should make its reports public.

A joint financial database should be established and the PAC should have an enhanced place in the review of the budget.

He added that a new executive information management regime should be introduced to facilitate PAC investigations.

Performance auditing should be introduced and follow-ups undertaken to determine if the government was actually using PAC and Auditor General recommendations.

Dr Patamasiriwat also joined other participants in agreeing that co-operation among PACs and Auditors General internationally and regionally, including holding seminars, would be mutually beneficial for all concerned with the important task of financial scrutiny in their various countries.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 233

Mercer:Layout 1 07/10/2010 15:34 Page 234

CONSENSUS GOVERNMENT

CONSENSUS GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES: A PARLIAMENTARY PANACEA? Party politics is sometimes seen in small communities as a parliamentary feature most approriate to large Assemblies serving big populations. The consensus government alternative, as practiced in Canada’s Northwest Territories for decades, offers many advantages to party politics; but, notes the Assembly’s Clerk, this system of representation has its critics as well.

Mr Tim Mercer, in Yellowknife.

Mr Mercer has been the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly of Canada’s Northwest Territories since 2003.

For those who think that a loosening of party discipline is the structural cure for the perceived ills of Westminster-style parliamentary democracy, the Northwest Territories (N.W.T.), Canada, provides a useful case study.

Proponents of the N.W.T.’s socalled “consensus government” argue that the absence of political parties allows for more open and genuine debate on the floor of the Legislative Assembly. The puerile theatrics and acrimony that dominate most partisan Legislatures are largely absent.

Members are free to vote on issues according to their own values or those of their constituents.

Because the cabinet is in a perennial minority, it must be genuinely responsive to the views of other Members and cannot impose its agenda upon the House. Every elected Member, to the extent that he or she chooses to participate, has a meaningful role to play in shaping public policy.

Consensus government, it is argued, reflects the political values of the aboriginal people who

234 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

the salient features of consensus government in the N.W.T. as well as the notable consequences of removing political parties and partisan debate from the parliamentary playing field.

Mr Tim Mercer.

constitute a majority of the Members of the N.W.T. Legislative Assembly and the territory as a whole: a distaste for confrontation; a preference for decentralized power; a belief that the best decisions result from respectful and extensive dialogue; and a lack of enthusiasm for representative as opposed to direct democracy.i Although it is true that the particular brand of parliamentary democracy practiced in the N.W.T. offers some valuable lessons to other Westminster-style parliaments, it is by no means a panacea. This article will explore

In the beginning The Northwest Territories has been home to aboriginal people since long before the arrival of European settlers. Dene, Inuvialuit and Métis people still constitute a majority of the Territories’ population. Its current boundaries are what remain of a vast land originally purchased by the Dominion of Canada from the Hudson’s Bay Company in 1870. The Territories’ original boundaries included most of current day Nunavut and Yukon territories and the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, most of Manitoba, northern Ontario and Quebec. The Territories’ first Premier, Sir Frederick Haultain, actively discouraged the introduction of party politics to the territory’s nascent Legislature during the late 1800s. When the provinces of Saskatchewan and

Mercer:Layout 1 07/10/2010 15:35 Page 235

CONSENSUS GOVERNMENT

Left: The Speaker’s Chair and the Clerks Table in the Chamber; Below: Close-up of the Speaker’s Chair.

Alberta were carved from the Territories’ boundaries in 1905, its responsible and representative Legislature was abolished and replaced by an appointed

Commissioner and Council. For nearly half a century the Commissioner and Council consisted exclusively of federal civil servants residing in Ottawa. As

such, they acted more as an interdepartmental committee of the federal government than a representative legislative body. In the years to follow, representative The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 235

Mercer:Layout 1 07/10/2010 15:35 Page 236

CONSENSUS GOVERNMENT

government returned to the Northwest Territories in slow increments. The size of the Council was gradually enlarged and the appointed members were slowly replaced by elected ones from the North. It was not until 1986 that the chairmanship of the Executive Council, or cabinet, was assumed by an elected Member and the federally appointed Commissioner relinquished all remaining practical authority. It is understandable that party politics did not take hold under such a hybrid of appointed and elected Members. Although candidates representing political parties have been nominated in subsequent territorial elections, all have been rejected at the polls. By and large, residents of the Northwest Territories continue to view political parties as “alien, southern Canadian political institutions which impede political development along distinctively Northern lines.”ii

Operation of the Assembly The structure and operation of the N.W.T. Legislative Assembly has remained fairly constant since the mid-1980s. On a fixed date every four years, a general election is held to return a single Member from each of the Territories’ 19 electoral districts. In the absence of political parties, candidates run as independents. Results are largely decided on the strength of each candidate’s character and individual record. Prior to the selection of a Premier and cabinet, all 19 Members meet in private over the course of several days to develop a broad strategic vision and set of priorities to guide the cabinet in governing the Territories.

Once a Speaker has been elected, the Members proceed to elect a cabinet consisting of a Premier and six Ministers. Although Premiers assign individual portfolios to each Minister, they neither choose who is appointed to cabinet nor have

236 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

the authority to revoke those appointments. The Premier does not have the authority to seek dissolution of the Legislative Assembly and call an election. Only the federal minister responsible for the administration of the Territories may dissolve a Legislative Assembly prior to the conclusion of its fixed term, and then only after having consulted all Members.

Absent the structural power typically afforded first ministers in the Westminster tradition, the Premier of the Northwest Territories is truly a first amongst equals. To lead effectively, he or she must do so through a mix of inspiration, persuasion, hard work and experience.iii The remaining 11 so-called “Regular Members” are appointed to various Standing Committees of the House and, to a limited extent, work together to hold the cabinet to account. They do not, however, present themselves as a

“government in waiting.” Their ultimate goal is not to discredit, embarrass or defeat the government. On the contrary, regular Members, both individually and collectively through standing committees, work closely with the government to develop public policy. Unanimous support for its legislative and budgetary proposals is normally sought by cabinet, and is usually received. The concept of an “official opposition” is nonexistent. This is not to suggest that cabinet is given free rein to govern in the absence of meaningful accountability and oversight. In fact, as regular Members do not oppose the government on principle, their criticisms are viewed as more genuine and meaningful. Ministers are sometimes removed from office and disagreements sometimes boil over into animosity and distrust. This is neither the norm nor the expectation, however.

As Professor Graham White of the

Mercer:Layout 1 07/10/2010 15:36 Page 237

CONSENSUS GOVERNMENT

generous, one hour. Although any Member may move closure of debate, such procedural guillotines are rarely used. The rules of the House place greater emphasis on free and extensive debate than they do on efficiency or time management. In this sense, the N.W.T. Legislative Assembly is truer to the notion of Parliament as a forum for the free and open exchange of ideas.

The Legislature building across Frame Lake In Yellowknife.

University of Toronto has observed, “it is the possibility and the frequency of accommodation, cooperation and compromise that defines consensus government”.

Although the look and feel of the N.W.T. Legislative Assembly is distinctly Westminster, from gowned Clerks to a near wholesale adoption of British rules of procedure, there are notable and important differences. Most obviously, the design and functioning of the legislative Chamber is steeped in aboriginal symbolism. The room is circular, representing the base of a traditional tipi or an igloo. This unique shape was intended to avoid the confrontational appearance of most Parliaments.

Rather than opposing benches distanced two sword lengths apart, MLAs’ desks are arranged in a circle around the Speaker’s Chair, symbolizing a unity of purpose.

MLAs are encouraged to wear

traditional aboriginal attire in the legislative Chamber and, in addition to French and English, nine aboriginal languages have official status. Aboriginal artwork and a polar bear hide rug adorn the centre of the Chamber floor.

For those accustomed to boisterous parliamentary debate, the relative civility of the N.W.T. Legislative Assembly stands out immediately. When a Member is speaking, interruptions, heckling or sidebar conversations are frowned upon. The Speaker is seldom required to intervene to bring order to debate. On those rare occasions when a Member’s conduct is deemed unparliamentary, sincere apologies are usually offered and accepted. For the most part, Oral Question Period is used to get answers from Ministers as opposed to attempting to discredit, embarrass or score political points.

Seldom is there an exchange between a regular Member and a

Minister that is not punctuated with the words “please” and “thank you.”

All Members share a common lounge to the rear of the Chamber where they socialize and dine together during breaks in the sitting day.

Not only is debate civil, it is also relatively thoughtful and genuine.

In the absence of party discipline, Members are able to speak freely on behalf of their constituents or present their individual perspectives on matters under debate. Minds are frequently changed and positions modified to reach solutions that a majority can support. The rules of the House allow for extensive debate of issues. There are few time limits imposed on Members’ speeches and those that do exist are customarily set aside with unanimous consent. In fact, unanimous consent is routinely obtained to extend Oral Question Period beyond its daily, and

Every view taken into account Consensus government provides all elected Members the opportunity to play a direct and meaningful role in shaping public policy. As mentioned earlier, the strategic vision and priorities for the government are established by all Members prior to the election of a cabinet. This helps to ensure that the views of all the Territories’ regions and people are reflected in the government’s mandate. In the absence of political parties, all Members have an equal opportunity to let their names stand for and serve on cabinet.

Because of cabinet’s perennial minority, the input of all Members is sought and often accommodated.

Through Standing Committees, non-cabinet MLAs are provided the rare opportunity to scrutinize and influence budgets, legislation and policy proposals well before they are drafted or formally introduced in the House. By the time that legislation and budgets are introduced in the Legislature, they have typically been the subject of intense review by regular Members and standing committees. The opportunity for every elected Member to play a direct and meaningful role in the crafting of public policy, regardless of ideology or party affiliation, is viewed by many as the very essence of consensus government.

Whereas opposition Members in party-based Parliaments must often wait for a change of government to effect real change,

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 237

Mercer:Layout 1 07/10/2010 15:36 Page 238

CONSENSUS GOVERNMENT

consensus government as practiced in the Northwest Territories allows for more frequent course corrections from outside the ranks of cabinet. Private Members’ Public Bills are given the same priority as governmentsponsored legislation and are an effective way for the House to impose its will on a reluctant cabinet.

The fact that they are rarely used is likely an indication that Members are generally able to meet their legislative objectives by working closely with Ministers and cabinet. Because each Minister is appointed by the House as a whole, their accountability and responsiveness to MLAs is quite strong. As with any minority government, cabinet must have the support of at least a portion of those Members outside its own ranks to govern. It cannot impose its agenda on the Legislative Assembly. Because the Premier does not have the power to dissolve the Legislature, cabinet cannot speak over the heads of regular Members in a direct appeal to the electorate. Both “sides” of the House must work together to govern effectively.

The Members who serve in this uniquely northern adaptation of the Westminster model have expressed a high level of support for maintaining its fundamental features and, more precisely, keeping party politics at bay. In a recent survey of Members of the 16th Legislative Assembly, 100 per cent expressed the view that consensus government would continue to serve the needs of the Northwest Territories in the future.

The introduction of party politics was opposed by 87 per cent.iv The few attempts to elect candidates on a party banner have failed. It is unclear whether these electoral failures were a rejection of the individual candidates, their parties or party politics in general. It would appear that consensus government in the Northwest Territories is an adaptation of the

Westminster system that best reflects the values and traditions of the people of the Northwest Territories. However, as with any political system, its defining features come with certain tradeoffs and have, at times, been overstated.

The trade off The notion of consensus government as a system wherein all Members treat one another with absolute respect and civility is part myth, part reality. Although it is true that debate on the floor of the N.W.T. Legislative Assembly is generally more respectful than in most partisan Legislatures, acrimony and angry exchanges do occur. Because such occurrences are not simply part of the landscape in consensus government, they tend to become personal and often carry over outside the Chamber walls. Insults have been uttered, coffee cups have been thrown, and threatening notes and gestures have been brought to the attention of the Chair. The selection of the Premier and cabinet by all Members in a

238 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

secret ballot has, on occasion, resulted in lasting feelings of betrayal. Several non-confidence motions have been moved against sitting Premiers and numerous Ministers have been removed from office or forced to resign by their colleagues. Although Oral Question Period is a relatively respectful and genuine exchange, Members often use the preambles to their questions to make political statements, continue debate or influence ministers to admit to things on the public record to which they would not otherwise admit. Ministers, in turn, are as skilled as their partisan counterparts at tailoring answers to oral questions to meet their own political ends.

While the accountability relationship between Ministers and regular MLAs, and between MLAs and their constituents, is strong under consensus government, the same cannot necessarily be said of the government’s accountability relationship with the public at large.v In the absence of political parties, the public is not given the opportunity at election time to

Above: The official group photo of Members of the 16th Legislative Assembly.

choose between competing visions of the Territories’ future.

Individual candidates may present a preferred ideology or suite of policy options, but because the strategic vision and priorities for the government are established by all Members after the election, the voter never truly knows what he or she will get if their preferred candidate is elected. In fact, the correlation between how an elector casts his or her vote and who become the Premier and cabinet is very weak as these decisions are made by the Members themselves after the election. The result is usually a cabinet made up of seven individuals with very different backgrounds, priorities and ideological predispositions.

Similarly, the public is not given the opportunity to pass judgement on the performance of the government as a whole at election time. Members tend to base their

Mercer:Layout 1 07/10/2010 15:37 Page 239

CONSENSUS GOVERNMENT

re-election campaigns on constituency issues as opposed to the record of the government as a whole. As one observer noted nearly 25 years ago, the people “have no opportunity to make choices as to how they will be governed. One could be forgiven for thinking that they merely select individuals whom they trust to seek a ‘fair’ share of the money.”vi As the government does not have to collectively defend its record at election time, the focus of cabinet and of individual Ministers tends to be on maintaining the confidence of the Regular MLAs. It has been argued that this preoccupation with keeping at least a portion of regular Members on side requires the cabinet to implement a system of shifting alliances with various regular MLAs. As the policy focus of MLAs is to get a fair share of programming and infrastructure dollars for their respective communities, governance and accountability are preoccupied with the equitable distribution of scarce resources as opposed to the implementation of territorywide policies and programmes. A cynic might argue that consensus government is more about arithmetic – convincing three regular Members to vote with the government on any given issue, at any given time - than true consensus building.

As noted above, the ability of regular MLAs to play a direct and meaningful role in the crafting of legislation, budgets and policies is viewed as one of the defining characteristics of consensus government. It is also a doubleedged sword. Draft legislation, budgets and policies are presented to regular Members in advance of their formal introduction in the House on the condition of strict confidentiality. While this gives non-cabinet Members the unique opportunity to influence the final product, it also furnishes them with information that they must keep to themselves for several months,

even if it will have negative consequences for their constituents. Furthermore, the substantive debate between cabinet and regular Members on matters of public policy tends to take place behind closed doors as opposed to on the floor of the House. By the time legislation, budgets and policies are made public, regular Members are, as a rule, satisfied with the final product or with their ability to effect further change. It has been argued that the subsequent debate on the floor of the House is “the theatrical face of a discussion that has already occurred.”vii On the flip side There is little doubt that consensus government in the N.W.T. concentrates less power in the Premier and cabinet than is the case in other mainstream Parliaments. It has also been argued that this diffusion of power discourages strong and visionary leadership. As the Premier holds relatively little structural power, his or her ability to impose a course of action on cabinet or the House is significantly weakened. This is most pronounced by the inability of the Premier to select and remove Members of cabinet at his or her discretion and dissolve Parliament and trigger an election if he or she is faced with an unworkable Legislature.

Although cabinet is frequently able to encourage the requisite number of regular Members to support it on most issues, the implementation of universally unpopular policies, regardless of their merit, is a constant challenge.

This is most evident when a government is required to implement far-reaching fiscal austerity measures or policy changes that negatively impact powerful interest groups.

It has been suggested that the tendency for N.W.T. Premiers to not seek a second term of office results in a lack of policy continuity from one government to the next.

The opposing view is that the absence of competing political parties results in too much continuity.

There has never been a Premier elected who did not serve on the cabinet of the previous Assembly. Invariably, the cabinet of each successive government includes Members who served in the cabinet of the previous government. As these tend to be the more experienced and influential Members of the Legislative Assembly, their opinions and priorities carry added weight. Because there are no parties to present competing views of the Territories’ future, the wholesale overhaul of public policy that tends to happen when one governing party is replaced with another seldom occurs. Similarly, in the absence of party platforms and ideology, newly elected governments have no common political lens through which to view the suite of policy options available to them. As each cabinet assumes power without a clear and common mandate from the electorate, the public service is left with the task of co-ordinating the priority-setting process with Members following each election. This is a difficult task for a professional public service that prides itself on political neutrality. It is certainly not a recipe for bold and innovative public policy.

pressure on the system as it exists today. In the absence of a full and focused dialogue about how the N.W.T.’s predominant political institution should evolve in the face of these challenges, some view party politics as the cure to its perceived ills and the only viable response to its shortcomings. No laws prevent political parties from finding their way into the Northwest Territories Legislative Assembly. If more than one candidate were ever to be elected to the N.W.T. Legislative Assembly on the same party ticket, the resulting impact on its processes and traditions would be significant and, in all likelihood, irreversible. For this reason, the people of the Northwest Territories must ensure that such monumental change is of their own making and is implemented with a full understanding of what the tradeoffs would be. The same can be said to those who feel that a move towards more consensus-based structures is the answer to the perceived problems that mainstream Parliaments face today.

Endnotes i. White, G. “Westminster in the Arctic: The Adaptation of British Parliamentarism in the Northwest Territories,” Canadian Journal of Political Science, XXIV:3 (Canada: September 1991), 506. ii. Ibid., 503.

Conclusion For many of the reasons noted above, consensus government has been widely criticized by academics, pundits and the public at large. While constitutional development discussions have taken a back seat to other priorities in recent years, it is clear that the Northwest Territories exists in a state of political uncertainty. The implementation of aboriginal selfgovernment agreements, the devolution of more province-like powers from the federal government, and increasing resource wealth will all put

iii. White, G. Cabinets and First Ministers (Vancouver: UBC Press 2005), 60. iv. Dunbar, S. Seeking Unanimous Consent: Consensus Government in the Northwest Territories, Master’s Thesis, Carleton University, Department of Political Science (2008), 82. v. White, G. “Westminster in the Arctic: The Adaptation of British Parliamentarism in the Northwest Territories,” Canadian Journal of Political Science, XXIV:3 (Canada: September 1991), 521. vi. Eglington, G.C “Matters of Confidence in the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories,” Third Report of the Special Committee on Rules, Procedures and Privileges, October 1986. vii. Bell, J. “A Time for Candour: Could the N.W.T.’s noble experiment in consensus be in trouble?” Arctic Passages (September/October 1991), 11.

The Parliamentarian | 2009: Issue Three | 239

Le Roy:Layout 1 07/10/2010 15:38 Page 240

PARLIAMENTARY INSTABILITY

NAURU’S PARLIAMENT IN CRISIS

Ms Katy Le Roy. Ms Le Roy is Nauru’s Parliamentary Counsel, and is also involved in the administration of Parliament.

She provides independent legal advice to all members in addition to her principal legislative drafting job.

Ms Le Roy is a former UNDP consultant who worked as an adviser to the Standing Committee on Constitutional Review.

The unicameral, 18-Member Parliament of Nauru has been stuck in a stalemate since the beginning of 2010, with nine Members on the government side and nine Members in opposition.

Two general elections have been held this year in an attempt to end the stalemate, but the elections have not altered the numbers.

In the general election held on 24 April 2010, two years into Parliament’s maximum three-year term, the same 18 Members of Parliament were returned. Less than two months later another general election was held, and again the newly elected Parliament remains evenly divided and therefore unable to progress to the formation of a new government and the consideration of parliamentary business.

The numbers Nauru does not have political parties, so all Members are, technically, independents; however Members form groups and alliances of varying solidity and longevity. On the government side, most Members are part of a group called “Naoero Amo” (Nauru First), which was formed in 2003. The Members on the opposition side have a much shorter history as a

240 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

©Rod Henshaw

In a House with only 18 Members, the likelihood of a general election resulting in a tie is much higher than in a large House. Nauru this year has had two elections which have resulted not just in two ties, but in two identical ties. And the stalemate continues.

united group, and while the opposition Members remain united in their opposition to the Stephen government, the most recent negotiations between government and opposition Members have demonstrated that the nine opposition Members are in fact splintered into a group of six and three, each with its own presidential hopeful.

The present stalemate began when, in February and March 2010, three Members of the Stephen government crossed the floor, leaving the government with only eight Members on the floor and boosting the opposition numbers to nine. On 17 February, the first sitting for 2010, the opposition attempted to move a motion of no

Current President of Nauru: Hon. Marcus Stephen.

confidence in the President and Ministers, but failed because their newest recruit voted with the government.

At the next sitting, on 13 March 2010, it appeared that the opposition had properly secured the nine Members it needed to successfully pass a motion of no confidence in the government, but they did not get the opportunity to move the motion. At that sitting the Speaker, Hon. Riddell Akua, informed the House of the President’s advice to dissolve Parliament for general elections, and then resigned from the chair to join the government ranks. Since that time, the numbers on the floor have been evenly divided, except for brief periods where a Member

Le Roy:Layout 1 07/10/2010 15:38 Page 241

PARLIAMENTARY INSTABILITY

2010 Timeline 17 February

First sitting of 2010: Failed attempt to pass motion of no confidence in the government

13 March

Proposed motion of no confidence avoided by advice to dissolve Parliament and resignation of Speaker

20 March

18th Parliament dissolved (pursuant to Article 41, 7 days after advice to dissolve referred to Parliament)

24 April

General Election for members of the 19th Parliament – same 18 members returned

24 April – 11 June

19th Parliament sits 14 times and is unable to progress to the election of a President; During its 48-day term, the 19th Parliament has a Speaker for a total of 9 days

11 June

President declares a state of emergency and dissolves the 19th Parliament

19 June

General Election for members of the 20th Parliament – one opposition member

30 June

Hon. Aloysisus Amwano elected Speaker; President issues Presidential Order for supply

8 July

Speaker removed by Presidential Order

9 July

Presidential Order declares that Parliament will not sit until directed by the President

Office of Speaker Up to 13 March 13 – 18 March 18 March – 27 April 27 April – 13 May 13 – 18 May 18 May – 1 June 1 – 4 June 4 – 30 June 30 June – 8 July Since 8 July

Hon. Riddel Akua (G) Vacant Hon. Shadlog Bernicke (O) Vacant Hon. Godfrey Thoma (O) Vacant Hon Dominic Tabuna (G) Vacant Hon Aloysius Amwano (O) Vacant

Government and Opposition Goverment Hon. Marcus Stephen President Hon. Dr Kieren Keke Minister for Finance and Foreign Affairs Hon. Freddie Pitcher Minister for Commerce, Industry and Environment Hon. Roland Kun Minister for Fisheries and Education Hon. Mathew Batsiua Minister for Health, Justice and Sport Hon. Sprent Dabwido Minister for Transport and ICT

Opposition Hon. Baron Waqa Hon. Ludwig Scotty Hon. David Adeang Hon. Valdon Dowiyogo Hon. Shadlog Bernicke Hon. Aloysius Amwano (former government backbencher)

Hon. Riddel Akua

Hon. Godfrey Thoma (former government backbencher)

Hon. Landon Deireragea Deputy Speaker

Hon. Rykers Solomon (former government backbencher)

Hon. Dominic Tabuna (first elected to 20th Parliament)

Hon. Milton Dube

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 241

Le Roy:Layout 1 07/10/2010 15:39 Page 242

has assumed the position of Speaker.

The Speakership has often caused difficulties in Nauru, because when the numbers in Parliament are evenly divided, neither side is prepared to put one of its Members in the Speaker’s Chair and thereby give the other side a majority. The constitution of Nauru provides that whenever the office of Speaker is vacant, Parliament cannot transact any business other than the election of a Speaker. When there is a prolonged standoff over the election of a Speaker, Parliament is paralyzed. The constitution makes no provision for a timeframe within which a Speaker must be elected.

Parliament has on two occasions gone almost two months without a Speaker.1 Competition for the top job Throughout the present stalemate, negotiations between government and opposition Members have proved fruitless. One of the reasons for this is that all three groups: the Stephen government (nine Members), the opposition group led by Hon. Baron Waqa (six Members), and the opposition group led by Hon. Godfrey Thoma (three Members) insist on a Member of their group holding the presidency and refuse to negotiate on any other terms. The President of Nauru is both head of state and head of government, and is elected

by Parliament from among its Members.

What lies behind the stalemate?

It appears likely that the issue that really caused the stalemate is the involvement of a foreign corporation which buys phosphate from Nauru. In 2009 this foreign corporation put to the Stephen government a loan proposal, whereby the corporation would lend money to the Republic of Nauru at very high interest rates, and in the event of a default in repayments the corporation would

©Rod Henshaw

PARLIAMENTARY INSTABILITY

take control of Nauru’s phosphate industry. The Stephen government rejected the proposal. In January 2010, 11 Members of Parliament (the six Members of the opposition, three government Backbenchers, the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker) accepted an invitation to travel to Singapore to meet with directors of the corporation. Shortly after the trip, the three government Backbenchers crossed the Floor.

History of constitutional crises Nauru is no stranger to constitutional crises and parliamentary deadlocks. Indeed, since independence in 1968, the Parliament of Nauru has on more than 15 occasions been without a Speaker for a period, usually due to evenly divided numbers on the floor of the House. And on three occasions, emergency powers have been invoked in an effort to resolve parliamentary stalemates (because of the absence of alternative constitutional mechanisms for resolving deadlocks). The third of these occasions was in June this year, when the President desired to call another general election to resolve the deadlock, but was unable to advise that Parliament be dissolved in the normal fashion because of the vacancy in the office of Speaker. During a state of

242 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

Nauru’s Parliament building.

emergency, the President has broad power to issue emergency orders.

State of emergency The President can declare a state of emergency if he is satisfied that a grave emergency exists whereby the security or economy of Nauru is threatened. Parliament’s inability to consider a supplementary appropriation Bill was considered by the President a threat to the economy of Nauru, and a state of emergency was declared on 11 June 2010. On the same day, the President issued a presidential order dissolving Parliament and fixing 19 June as the date for the next general election, and a presidential order providing for a supplementary appropriation.

Because the 19 June election failed to resolve the stalemate, Parliament was unable to consider a supply Bill before the end of the financial year, and the President was compelled to obtain supply via presidential order in exercise of his emergency powers. Presidential Order 9 issued on 30 June 2010 provides for supply to 30 September 2010, and in order for it to remain in force the state of emergency must also remain in force. Emergency orders lapse when a state of emergency lapses.

The 20th Parliament held its first sitting on 22 June, three days

after the general election. Two nominations for Speaker were made, but both were declined. At the resumption of the first sitting a week later, there were no nominations for Speaker. The sitting resumed again on 30 June, and Hon. Aloysius Amwano, one of the former government Members who had earlier in the year crossed the Floor to join the opposition, was elected Speaker unopposed. The House then proceeded to the election of a Deputy Speaker and two Chairs of Committees, and adjourned until 2 July.

On 2 July the Speaker read a statement from the Chair and then suspended the sitting, without seeking consent from the floor.

When the sitting resumed on 6 July, it appeared that there had been a breakthrough in negotiations and that one Member of the opposition (Hon. Rykers Solomon, one of those who had crossed the floor at the start of the year) was prepared to join with the government in order for a majority to be secured. However the Speaker refused to allow Parliament to progress to the next item of business, the election of a President. The Speaker also refused to entertain a motion of dissent in his ruling, notwithstanding that a majority of Members rose in their places to

Le Roy:Layout 1 07/10/2010 15:39 Page 243

PARLIAMENTARY INSTABILITY

indicate dissent. Again he suspended the sitting without the consent of the House.

On 8 July the Speaker read a statement from the Chair in which he demanded apologies from two government Members whom he claimed had insulted him in the media, and then suspended the sitting to allow time for the Members to submit their apologies.

During the break, as a result of the Speaker’s actions on 2, 6 and 8 July, the President issued Presidential order 13 in which he declared the office of Speaker vacant, and declared that the President would determine when the sitting would resume. A short time later, the sitting resumed, but the opposition Members did not attend. The Deputy Speaker assumed the chair and read out the content of Presidential Order 13, as well as a statement from the Chair. Due to the lack of a quorum the House was adjourned.

In Presidential Order 14 issued on 9 July, the President ordered that Parliament remained adjourned and would not sit until directed by the President, and that the President, through the Clerk, would notify Members of the time and date of the next sitting.

Parliament has not held a sitting since that time, but it was expected that the President would call a sitting some time in September.

Constitutional review The instability caused by frequent changes of government and difficulties in electing a Speaker was one of the main factors that precipitated the constitutional review in Nauru. Since early 2006, the standing committee on constitutional review had been engaged in a six-step process of reviewing Nauru’s constitution in an effort to remedy the perceived flaws, and to modernize and improve the constitution.

The first four steps in the process comprised public awareness, extensive public consultation, a report and

recommendations by an independent Constitutional Review Commission, and deliberation on the recommendations by a Constitutional Convention. Steps five and six were those actually prescribed by the constitution: passage of amendment Bills by Parliament, and the conduct of a referendum. Bills to amend the constitution must sit in Parliament for at least 90 days between introduction and passage, and must be approved by at least two thirds of the total number of Members. Not all proposed amendments require approval by referendum, but only amendments to the provisions specified in the Fifth Schedule to the constitution.

By the end of 2009 the future was looking much brighter, as Parliament had unanimously approved two Bills to amend the constitution, and among the large number of amendments were two in particular that were designed to avoid parliamentary stalemates and numbers games: an increase in the number of seats from 18 to 19, and making the Speaker a non-Member.

Some of the proposed constitutional changes required approval by referendum, and the referendum was scheduled for 27 February 2010. Approval was always expected to be difficult to achieve, because the requirement for a successful referendum is approval of two thirds of the votes cast, but the unanimous passage of the proposed amendments in Parliament appeared to increase the likelihood of success.

However, by the time the referendum came around, the shift in numbers on the floor of Parliament had resulted in the politicization of the proposed amendments. In the lead up to the referendum, some Members campaigned against the proposed amendments that they had voted for a few months earlier.

The referendum failed, with 67 per cent voting “no” and 33 per cent voting “yes”. The main

proposals that were put to referendum were changing the method of electing the President to direct popular election, and inserting new social and economic rights in the constitution.

The proposed changes to the office of Speaker and the increase in the number of Members are among the many amendments that do not require approval by referendum. However, because the two constitutional amendment Bills were passed as an interlinked package, the amendments contained in the Constitution of Nauru (Parliamentary Amendments) Act 2009 cannot commence until some consequential amendments are made to that Act to reflect the failure of the referendum. These consequential amendments consist mostly of removing crossreferences to provisions that would have been in the constitution had the referendum succeeded. In order to make these minor changes, it is necessary to comply with the procedure prescribed in Article 84 of the constitution for constitutional amendment Bills: the Bill must sit in Parliament for at least 90 days, and must be approved by two-thirds of the total number of Members. Both of these procedural requirements are impossible to fulfill in the present circumstances.

What next?

The current political crisis shows no signs of being resolved in the immediate future. The Stephen government has been in caretaker mode since the 18th Parliament was dissolved on 20 March 2010.2 The state of emergency that was declared on 11 June 2010 will continue to be extended until Parliament is able to elect a new President. Parliament has sat on 23 occasions in 2010 but, since the second of these sittings, has transacted no business other than dealing with the election of a Speaker, Deputy Speaker and Chairs of committees. No

legislation has been introduced or passed.

How can the stalemate be resolved? The most obvious solution – compromise – appears to be the most difficult, as the two sides appear to have irresolvable differences. The President has put a proposal to the opposition that they agree to an interim compromise, whereby a coalition government is formed that includes Members from the opposition group, and this group governs long enough for the consequential amendments to the constitutional amendments to be passed (three months).

However, the opposition has so far rejected this proposal. It is therefore likely that another election will be held some time in the coming months. If the stalemate continues beyond 30 September, the President will need to decide whether to continue to obtain supply through the exercise of emergency powers, or whether to go back to the polls and hope for a clear outcome. Ideally, the increase in the number of Members from 18 to 19, and the constitutional amendment to make the Speaker a non-Member, would come into effect in the next Parliament, so that situations like the present impasse can be avoided in future. But unless the present 20th Parliament is able to elect a Speaker, elect a President, allow a constitutional amendment Bill to sit in the House for 90 days and then secure the support of at least 12 Members for the passage of the Bill, this will not happen.

Endnotes 1. From 30 March 2001 to 25 May 2001, and from 20 January 2003 to 12 March 2003.

2. Under clause (4) of Article 16 of the constitution, the President holds office until the election of another person as President. A Minister ceases to hold office upon resigning, upon being removed from office by the President, or upon the election of a President (Article 20). This means that President Marcus Stephen and his Cabinet remain in government until Parliament elects a new President.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 243

The Overseers:Different Ads.qxd 07/10/2010 15:40 Page 244

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 08/10/2010 13:35 Page 245

Parliamentary Report NEWS AND LEGISLATION FROM COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTS AUSTRALIA: Paid Parental Leave Act 2010

Page 249

QUÉBEC: The Sustainable Forest Development Act Page 254

BRITISH COLUMBIA: Consumption Tax Rebate and Transition Act Page 256

NEW ZEALAND: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill Page 259

INDIA: The Tamil Nadu Legislative Council Bill, 2010 Page 263

NORTHERN IRELAND: Department of Justice Bill Page 266

SRI LANKA: Widows’ and Orphans’ Pension Fund (Amendment) Bill and Widowers and Orphans’ Pension (Amendment) Bill Page 267

FIRST FEMALE PRIME MINISTER FOR AUSTRALIA Page 248

NEW GOVERNMENT TO REDUCE U.K. DEFICIT Page 246

URGENCY TO PASS NEW “RADICAL” TAXATION BILL Page 258

RAJYA SABHA APPROVES THE WOMEN RESERVATION BILL Page 261

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 245

Parliamentary news:Layout 1 08/10/2010 15:42 Page 246

PARLIAMENTARY REPORT

UNITED KINGDOM

NEW GOVERNMENT TO REDUCE U.K. DEFICIT

Queen’s speech The new session of Parliament was opened on 25 May with the traditional speech by Her Majesty the Queen, delivered to both Houses of Parliament from the throne in the House of 246 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

Lords. The Queen’s speech is drawn up by the Cabinet and contains the government’s legislative programme for the parliamentary year ahead.

The Queen told Parliament that the government’s “first priority is to reduce the deficit and restore economic growth.

Action will be taken to accelerate the reduction of the ©M. Holland

The 2010 General Election was held on 5 May and profoundly changed the House of Commons. The Conservative Party became the largest single Party for the first time since 1997, with 305 MPs compared to the incumbent Labour Party’s 258. However, no single party had enough seats to win an overall majority—the first “hung Parliament” since 1979.

Following the election, the Conservatives formed a coalition government with the third largest party, the Liberal Democrats (who had won 56 seats). Coalitions are not unknown in the United Kingdom, but you have to go back to the Second World War for the last UK-wide government to be a formal coalition.

The election changed the House in a number of other ways. A total of 232 new Members were elected, with a higher proportion of female and ethnic minority MPs than ever before. Two parties won their first ever seats in a Westminster General Election, with the election of Ms Caroline Lucas (Green Party), MP for Brighton Pavilion, and Ms Naomi Long (Alliance Party), MP for Belfast East.

Rt Hon. George Osborne, MP

structural budget deficit. A new Office for Budget Responsibility will provide confidence in the management of the public finances”.

The Queen also announced a number of other measures.

These included the Academies Bill, which would enable more schools in England to leave local authority control. The Bill started in the House of Lords with its Second Reading on 19 July and received Royal Assent on 27 July. Other measures that were introduced before the summer recess included a Bill to abolish the previous government’s national identity

cards scheme, a Bill to reduce redundancy payments to civil servants and a Bill to reduce the number of Members of Parliament, redraw constituency boundaries and hold a referendum on introducing the “Alternative Vote” system for parliamentary elections.

June Budget The first Budget statement of the new government was presented to the House of Commons by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rt Hon. George Osborne, (Conservative) on 22 June. In it, the Chancellor set out a “fiscal mandate” to balance the structural deficit by 2015-16. To achieve this the Budget set out reductions to public spending and taxation changes, including increases in personal tax allowances, a reduction in Corporation Tax, and increases in VAT and Capital Gains Tax. The Budget was debated for five days in the House of Commons. The Finance Bill, which gives legislative effect to many of the Budget’s proposals, was debated for a further six days. The Budget was also subject to hearings by the newly elected Treasury Select Committee. The House of Lords has a very limited role in matters dealing with taxation and spending; it can debate such measures, but it cannot amend or oppose them.

Opening the debate in the

Parliamentary news:Layout 1 08/10/2010 13:36 Page 247

UNITED KINGDOM

Commons, the Chancellor argued that it was necessary to reduce the deficit quickly. He said: “this emergency Budget deals decisively with our country’s debt problems. It pays for the past, and it plans for the future. It supports a strong, enterprise-led recovery, it rewards work and it protects the most vulnerable in our society. Yes it is tough, but it is also fair.”

Speaking for the Official Opposition, Mr Liam Byrne (Labour) defended the previous government’s economic record and argued against the government’s plans: “It is true to say that no government would have had an easy time in this Parliament, but the difficulty of the task demands that we do not take gratuitous bets with the nation's hardfought recovery and that we pay down the debt in a way that is fair. The Budget fails both those tests, and we will campaign for a plan that is better in this House and beyond.”

Mr Nigel Dodds (DUP) had a mixed view of the Budget: “The Budget delivers some things for us. I am not being critical of all of it, but I am critical of some measures.” Mr Stewart Hosie (SNP) argued that “we needed a credible deficit consolidation plan rather than a high-risk assault on public sector spending”. Mr Jonathan Evans (PC) was also critical: “Clearly, the national debt and deficit must be tackled, but there is a question of timing, and I cannot believe that increasing the cuts in this way and at this time is in any way beneficial to the people of Wales.”

Concluding the debate, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Mr Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat), said: “This Budget stands for three things: responsibility-taking action to eliminate our structural deficit;

freedom-helping the businesses that we rely on to rebuild our broken economy; and fairness-protecting the most vulnerable while ensuring the contribution of all. Failure to deal with the deficit is the greatest threat to growth.”

House of Commons Reform The new Parliament implemented many of the reforms set out in the Wright report on Reforming the House of Commons. Towards the end of the last Parliament the House of Commons voted to accept many of these reforms in principle, and on 4 March it voted to implement a first batch of reforms such as the election of Select Committee chairs. On 15 June the new House of Commons voted to implement further reforms.

The first elections for the Chairs of Select Committees were held on 9 June. The elections covered all departmental select committees and some crosscutting committees. The House agreed a motion specifying which Chairs should be held by which party, and candidates were elected by the whole House in a secret ballot.

Winners included Ms Margaret Hodge (Labour), who became Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, Mr Andrew Tyrie (Conservative), who now chairs the Treasury Committee, and Sir Alan Beith (Liberal Democrat), who retained his position as Chair of the Justice Committee. Committee Members were elected through internal party mechanisms and then appointed by the House on a motion from the Committee of Selection.

Many of the new Committees held their first meetings before the summer recess, with the Treasury Committee being particularly active with hearings on the

Budget and the creation of the Office for Budgetary Responsibility.

Another recommendation to be implemented in the new Parliament was the creation of a Backbench Business Committee. The Committee allocates time for debates in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall on nongovernment business. It is given a total of 35 days to allocate over a Session, including time that would previously have been allocated by the government. On 22 June Ms Natasha Engel (Labour), previously a Member of the Wright Committee, won the election to Chair the new Committee.

The first debate initiated by the Backbench Business Committee was held on 20 July on a motion asking the Procedure Committee to examine how the rules of the House could be used to ensure important announcements of government policy “should be made in the first instance to Parliament”.

Opening the debate, Mr Phillip Hollobone (Conservative), a Member of the Committee, told the House: “The Chamber of the House of Commons should be the centre of political public life in our country. It should not be an inconvenience for Ministers to come here and tell the country about important policy: it should be an honour and privilege to keep the information to themselves until they have told Members of this House.”

The motion was passed unopposed, however it was criticised by Mr John Mann (Labour), who asked: “This is the first opportunity for the Backbench Business Committee to try to have some influence, yet the issue is being referred to another Committee of the House. We have seen

this kind of thing before. If the Procedure Committee fails to come back with something sufficiently substantive, how will the Backbench Business Committee take the issue forward?”

However, Mr John Hemming (Liberal Democrat) stressed the significance of the change: “What is interesting about the current situation is that if the Procedure Committee comes up with proposals for change, it will not have to beg the government for time to have them debated but can simply pass them to the Backbench Business Committee so that it can table a substantive resolution to change the rules of Parliament. That system, which most representative bodies have, is a key change.”

Mr Mark Durkan (SDLP) observed that minority parties had not been given a place on the Backbench Business Committee. Nonetheless, he supported the motion and called for a code of accountability, to “get past the circular argument that takes place whenever hon. Members make a point of order about the lack of a statement—or the alleged inaccuracy of a statement—and then you say that it is not a matter for you, Mr Speaker”.

Closing the debate, the Chair of the Committee, Ms Engel said: “This debate is important because it goes to the heart of what we are trying to do on the Backbench Business Committee—that is, address some of the frustrations and anger that Back Benchers have felt for years and years. We want, as Back Benchers, to do our job better, and the job that we want to do is hold the Executive to account. That is important because if we do our job better, the Executive do their job better.”

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 247

Parliamentary news:Layout 1 08/10/2010 13:36 Page 248

PARLIAMENTARY REPORT

AUSTRALIA

FIRST FEMALE PRIME MINISTER FOR AUSTRALIA On 24 June 2010 the Labor caucus, in a surprise move, replaced the sitting Prime Minister Hon. Kevin Rudd, with his Deputy, Hon. Julia Gillard.

The government was under pressure for delaying action on climate change and proposing the Resource Super Profits Tax. While there were concerns within the government about its chances at the next election no signs of an impending leadership challenge were apparent. On the morning of 24 June the Labor Caucus convened and Prime Minister Rudd chose to stand down

Hon. Kevin Rudd, MP

without a vote being taken. Ms Gillard was elected Labor leader and later in the day was sworn in as the 27th and first female Prime Minister of Australia. The Treasurer, Hon. Wayne Swann, was sworn in as the Deputy Prime Minister.

Ms Gillard was born in Barry, Wales in 1961, the daughter of a nurse and aged care worker.

248 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

Hon. Julia Gillard, MP

She and her family migrated to Australia in 1966 and she grew up in Adelaide. Ms Gillard started her arts and law degree at the University of Adelaide. In 1983 she was elected National Education Vice-President of the Australian Union of Students (AUS) and moved to Melbourne to complete her degree at Melbourne University. Later that year, she was elected President of the AUS. After graduating Ms Gillard began work as a solicitor in Melbourne with the law firm Slater and Gordon. She became a Partner at the firm in 1990. Ms Gillard's work at the firm focused on employment law. She represented employees who had battled unfair dismissals and workplace disputes. She first contested the Federal seat of Lalor for the Australian Labor Party in 1998 and was elected that year. Following the Australian Labor Party's victory at the 2007 Federal Election, Ms Gillard was sworn in as Deputy

Prime Minister and Minister for Education, Employment and Workplace Relations and Social Inclusion.

Ms Gillard explained that she challenged Mr Rudd “because I believed that a good government was losing its way”. She commented that “the basic education and health services that Australians rely on and their decent treatment at work is at risk at the next election”.

Ms Gillard stated that “I love this country and I was not going to sit idly by and watch an incoming opposition cut education, cut health and smash rights at work”. She acknowledged that the Rudd Government did not do all it said it would do and “that at times, it went off track”. Ms

Hon. Wayne Swann, MP

Gillard advised that in the coming months “I will ask the Governor-General to call for a general election so that the Australian people can exercise

Parliamentary news:Layout 1 08/10/2010 13:40 Page 249

AUSTRALIA

THIRD READING: AUSTRALIA Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 The Paid Parental Leave Act establishes a national paid parental leave scheme to enable eligible primary carers to receive 18 weeks paid parental leave at the national minimum wage from 1 January 2011. The scheme is fully costed and funded by the government.

The Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Hon. Jenny Macklin, MP, stated that “this historic reform is a major win for working families who have been waiting decades for a national paid parental leave scheme”. Ms Macklin noted that Australia is currently one of only two OECD countries without a national paid parental leave scheme.

Under the scheme, women in seasonal, casual and contract work and the self-employed will have access to paid parental leave most of them for the first time. Ms Macklin explained that families not eligible for paid parental leave, or who choose not to participate in the scheme, will be able to continue to access the baby bonus and family tax benefit if they are eligible.

The government estimates that, each year, around 148,000 people will be eligible for paid parental leave. In addition to full-time workers, women working part time, and in seasonal, casual or contract work, and the self-employed, may be able to access paid parental leave—many for the first time. A mother may be eligible if she has worked continuously for at least 10 of the 13 months before the birth or adoption of her child, and has worked for at least 330 hours in that 10-month period (around one day a week). Paid parental leave must be taken in one continuous 18-week block within 12 months of the child’s birth or adoption, including in cases where the payment is transferred to the other parent or carer.

Paid parental leave can be taken before, after, or at the same time as other leave entitlements such as annual leave or employer funded maternity leave to best suit a family’s circumstances. A person will be eligible if they have individual income of $150,000 or less in the financial year before the claim or birth of the baby, whichever is the earlier. This is a generous income test, but consistent with the principle of targeting government support to those most in need.

A person must also be living in Australia and generally be an Australian citizen or permanent resident to be eligible. Some nonresidents are able to receive the payment, as is the case with family assistance.

The Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education and Childcare, Hon. Dr Sharman Stone, MP, commented that “given that it has taken Australia so long and there are decades of other developed nations’ policies and practices for us to learn from, it is astonishing that the Rudd Labor government are asking the working families of Australia to accept such a shambolic and limited paid parental scheme”. She further stated that “Labor’s policy is so poor that even their own National Foundation for Australian Women, in their submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into these bills, stressed that

Labor’s Paid Parental Leave scheme must only be seen as a first step and must be enhanced over time”.

Ms Stone noted that the Minister expects parents would top up the government payment with the privately negotiated paid parental leave schemes that are already in existence across Australia. Ms Stone stated that “the poor women of Australia, the lower paid, the part-time workers and the self-employed do not typically have those alternative private sector or public sector schemes to top them up and give them a decent period of leave from their workplace”.

In contrast to the government’s scheme, Ms Stone advised that “the coalition’s scheme is world’s best practice. It offers six months of leave at the mother’s salary up to $150,000 or the minimum wage, whichever is greatest, and superannuation is paid—currently this is at nine per cent.

The scheme allows two out of 26 weeks to be dedicated paternity leave to be used simultaneously or separately to the mother’s leave paid at the father’s replacement wage up to $150,000 or the minimum wage, whichever is greatest, plus superannuation.

The coalition policy uses the same eligibility criteria for access to paid parental leave as has been identified by Labor. We also make sure that women who are self-employed, who are in partnerships or who are contractors are able to participate in this scheme”. The coalition’s policy is to be funded by a 1.5 percent levy on company taxable incomes in excess of $5 million and be paid and administered by the Family Assistance Office and will not impose an unnecessary administrative burden on employers. The Coalition indicated that if it was elected its scheme will commence, subject to the passage of legislation, on 1 July 2012. Labor’s scheme which commences on 1 January 2011 will be maintained.

The Senate requested 23 amendments to the legislation of which the House of Representatives accepted three and disagreed to the remainder. The Senate did not insist on its amendments. The substantive amendments moved in the Senate by the Coalition were designed to extend the six month period which the Government is intending to give to the Family Assistance Office to administer the paid parental leave scheme. Senator Mitch Fifield, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate stated that the “the coalition thinks that the Family Assistance Office should be the prime mechanism for the delivery of the paid parental leave scheme indefinitely. We do not want to add additional regulatory burden to small business and our amendments sought to give effect to that view”.

In rejecting this amendment Ms Macklin stated that “these amendments would remove from the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 the provisions relating to payment of parental leave pay to a person by the person’s employer. Employer involvement is a central element of the Paid Parental Leave scheme. The bill’s intention is that women maintain their attachment to the workforce while they are having their family.

Women will maintain that strong connection by receiving their government-funded parental leave pay through their employer, as they would receive any other work entitlement”.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 249

Parliamentary news:Layout 1 08/10/2010 13:41 Page 250

PARLIAMENTARY REPORT

their birthright to choose their Prime Minister”.

The Leader of the Opposition, Hon. Tony Abbott, commented that the removal of Mr Rudd was a “ruthless

Hon. Tony Abbott, MP

political execution of a Prime Minister elected by the people by the faceless factional and union warlords”. In contrast, Mr Abbott defended the removal of the previous Leader of the Opposition, Hon. Malcolm Turnbull, as this was a dispute over policy. Mr Abbott commented that “I think people will think this is terrible because the kind of ugly brutality which has marred State governments and which has caused State governments to be all about spin rather than substance and the spoils of office has come to Canberra”.

The Leader of the Australian Greens, Senator Bob Brown, in commenting on the polls, said “that the Gillard Prime Ministry will shed progressive voters as the natural mood of celebration passes and the reality of Labor's right-wing ascendency manifests itself” in items which include: •

•

A back down to the mining billionaires over the $12 billion allocated from the mining boom tax in the budget forward estimates; and A continued harsh line on

AUSTRALIA

asylum seekers, as flagged in Ms Gillard's first speech as Prime Minister.

Senator Brown concluded that “I do look forward to talking to Prime Minister Gillard about a carbon price and real action to tackle climate change but I doubt that she will shake off the powerful coal mining lobby to achieve that goal.”’

Australian Federal Election 2010 – first Hung Parliament since 1940 On 17 July Ms Gillard, after advising the Governor-General, announced that the Parliament would be prorogued and the House of Representatives dissolved on 19 July for a House of Representatives and half Senate election on 21 August 2010.

In announcing the election, she indicated that Labor would bring the Budget into surplus by 2013, three years ahead of schedule. Ms Gillard commented that “she will protect the surplus in this election campaign by not going on an election spend-a-thon, but by making sure that any promise we make to spend money is offset by a promise to save money”.

The three critical policy areas that the Prime Minister identified as requiring leadership and certainty included the mining tax, climate policy and the issue of unauthorised boat arrivals. The Resource Super Profit Tax initially proposed that resource profits that exceed the government bond rate of about 6 per cent be subject to a rate of 40 per cent tax. This proposal was heavily resisted by the mining industry and there was growing concern in the community about the future profitability of the sector. In view of these concerns the government negotiated with

250 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

the mining sector to amend the original proposal and create a new tax called the Mineral Resource Rent Tax. The government accepted a reduced level of tax revenue which means certain proposed reforms linked to the tax also needed to be adjusted. For example, the company tax rate will continue to be cut to 29 per cent from 2013-14 but will not be further reduced under current fiscal conditions.

The Leader of the Nationals, Hon. Warren Truss, stated that “a name change and some tinkering on the Rudd-Gillard Government’s mining tax does not hide the fact that more than $10 billion will be ripped out of regional Australia over its first two years”. Mr Truss indicated that the Coalition would oppose the new mining tax and

Hon. Warren Truss, MP

if elected would rescind it. At the same time, the Coalition has committed to reducing company tax from 30 per cent to 28.5 per cent from 1 July 2013. The measure will cost $2.55 billion over the forward estimates and the funding will be provided from the nearly $24 billion in recurrent savings that have been identified by the Coalition over the forward estimates.

Senator Brown was critical of the government’s back down on the mining tax. He stated that “the loss to the public

purse of $7.5 billion from the budget as a result of Prime Minister Gillard's mining industry back down is a disgrace which will only get worse in the years after 2013”.

In relation to the Coalition’s proposal to scrap the mining tax completely, Senator Brown stated that “the Abbott Opposition can hardly crow - it wants all the minerals resources tax returned to the miners’ which would impact on the public purse even more”.

He concluded that “whatever deal is done between the Prime Minister and the mining barons, the Australian Parliament will have the final say on the new mining tax”.

In relation to climate change, the government previously announced that it would shelve its commitment to introducing an emissions trading scheme by 2011. This was after the Senate rejected the Government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme on three occasions. On 23 July Prime Minister Gillard announced that if re-elected she would convene a 150 person “citizens assembly to examine over 12 months the evidence on climate change, the case for action and the possible consequences of introducing a market-based approach to limiting and reducing carbon emissions”. Ms Gillard stated that “the role of this Citizens’ Assembly will not be to become the final arbiter or judge of consensus, but to provide an indicator to the nation of the progress of community consensus and the issues that will need to be addressed in making the transition I have described today to a successful, lower pollution economy”.

The Coalition rejected the government’s plan for a citizens assembly arguing that a citizens assembly already

Parliamentary news:Layout 1 08/10/2010 13:41 Page 251

AUSTRALIA

©Scott Morrison

exists the Australian Parliament. The Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage, Hon. Greg Hunt, stated that “in light of the public’s view, the view of experts and the clear and better model being proposed by the Coalition, Julia Gillard must drop Labor’s farce of a citizens assembly which is neither elected, nor seemingly, has any power”. Mr Hunt questioned how the 150 people would be selected and what would constitute a consensus decision. The Coalition announced that it would implement a climate change strategy based on direct action to reduce emissions and improve the environment. The Coalition if elected would establish an Emissions

Mr Scott Morrison, MP

Reduction Fund to support CO2 emissions reduction activity by business and industry. The fund will support 140 million tonnes of abatement per annum by 2020 to meet a 5 per cent target.

Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens Senator Christine Milne was also critical of the government’s climate change policy noting that it was an excuse for more delay. Senator Milne commented that “the Greens stand ready to work with a reelected Gillard government to deliver a carbon price fast, and

the community is clamouring for action, but the Prime Minister is making excuses for more delays instead of embracing the opportunity”.

Senator Milne pointed out that the government’s policy “does nothing to give certainty to business”. She noted that “China is moving fast towards a carbon price and India already has a tax on coal, leaving Australia far behind”.

Border protection has become a key policy debate in the lead up to and during the election. On 6 July, Ms Gillard announced that she had commenced talks with President Jose Ramos Horta of East Timor about establishing a regional processing centre in East Timor. Ms Gillard stated that “the plan aims to wreck the people smuggling trade by removing the incentive for boats to leave their port of origin in the first place”. The Coalition ridiculed the government’s plan to establish a regional processing centre in East Timor and questioned why the Howard Government’s processing centre on Nauru should not be reopened.

The Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Mr Scott Morrison, stated that “Julia Gillard’s off shore processing announcement survived barely six hours, before being undermined by a senior member of the Government in East Timor, and the New Zealand Prime Minister who had clearly been verballed by a desperate PM, looking for cover”. Mr Morrison further commented that “Julia Gillard’s claim that she would establish off shore processing in East Timor is as hollow as the claim made by Kevin Rudd when he said he would turn the boats back, the day before the last election”. The Coalition has indicated that if elected it will hold talks with the Government

of Nauru about reopening the Australian offshore processing centre on Nauru. The Coalition’s policy also includes turning back the boats “where circumstances permit”.

Senator Brown warned against demonising asylum

seekers commenting that “a humane approach to asylum seekers is crucial to any sustainable population policy”.

He stated that “asylum seekers make up a tiny fraction of overall immigration levels, and it is the other 90 per cent plus

THIRD READING: AUSTRALIA Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Pre-poll Voting and Other Measures) Act 2010 The Act amends the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 to, among other things: •

•

Modernise enrolment processes to enable electors to update their enrolment details electronically; and Allow the Australian Electoral Commission (the AEC) to manage its workload more efficiently by enabling enrolment transactions to be processed outside the division for which the person is enrolling.

The parliamentary Secretary for Western and Northern Australia, Hon. Gary Gray, MP, noted that three of the four schedules implement the government response to recommendations made by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters following their inquiry into the conduct of the 2007 federal election (the JSCEM report).

Mr Gray commented that “the overriding aim of the amendments in the bill is to enhance the ability of otherwise eligible Australians to participate in the electoral process by

removing obstacles to their enrolment”.

The legislation also restricts the number of candidates that can be endorsed by a political party in each division. Mr Gray noted that this issue “deals with an issue that emerged at the 2009 Bradfield by-election and relates to multiple candidates being endorsed for a single division by the registered officer of a political party”.

The Shadow Minister for Finance and Debt Reduction, Hon. Andrew Robb, MP, noted that the opposition would support the legislation. In Mr Robb’s own seat, the combined pre-poll and postal votes went from around 14 per cent in 2004 to 20 per cent in 2007. Mr Robb noted that “if these votes are treated as ordinary votes—and they can be; there is no threat to the integrity of the system—we will get a far clearer idea in many seats on election night because they can be counted on election night”.

Mr Robb indicated that the coalition supported the change to electronic updating of voter records. The legislation does not provide for new enrolments to be lodged electronically. The coalition supported the position that first time enrolments should continue to be done through hard copy.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 251

Parliamentary news:Layout 1 08/10/2010 13:42 Page 252

PARLIAMENTARY REPORT

of immigration that debate should focus on”.

In the lead up to the election, the polls and commentators suggested that this could be one of the closest results in recent times. To govern in its own right a party must be able to secure a minimum of 76 seats out of the 150 seats in the House of Representatives. On election night it became clear that no party could acquire the 76 seats necessary to govern in its own right. This is the first hung parliament since the federal election of 1940.

In the previous parliament the Labor Party held 83 of the 150 seats of the House of Representatives against Liberal/National Coalition with 63 seats and four seats held by independent members. While counting was not complete at the time of reporting, it was predicted that Labor would hold 72 seats, the Coalition 73, 1 Australian Green and 4 Independents.

The three incumbent independent members comprised Mr Rob Oakeshott, Member for Lyne in New South Wales, Mr Bob Katter, Member for Kennedy in far north Queensland and Mr Tony Windsor, Member for New England in New South Wales. In addition Mr Adam Bandt, Australian Greens won the seat of Melbourne previously held by the Finance Minister Mr Lindsay Tanner who retired at this election. Mr Bandt indicated that he was likely to support Labor. West Australian National Mr Tony Crook won the seat of O’Connor in Western Australia and indicated that he would sit on the cross benches.

One of his key demands was the scraping of the mining tax which Prime Minister Gillard quickly rejected. In addition, Mr Andrew Wilkie, an independent, could win the seat of Dennison in Tasmania

AUSTRALIA

although official results were still not available at the time of reporting.

Mr Oakeshott, Mr Windsor and Mr Katter were independent members in the previous Parliament, where Mr Oakeshott and Mr Windsor held seats normally held by the Nationals. Mr Katter explained that his seat was normally Labor except for when it had been held by his Father and himself. Mr Windsor supported Labor’s national broadband scheme, and rated health and water policy as key issues. Mr Windsor had previous experience as an Independent member in the New South Wales State minority government that formed in 1991. Mr Katter supports a publicly funded broadband scheme and is a vocal advocate for the needs of regional and rural communities.

Mr Oakeshott also supports a national broadband scheme and previously backed an

Mr Rob Oakeshott, MP

emissions trading scheme. Mr Bandt has indicated that he had a preference for working with Labor and would work to ensure stable and effective government. A key policy position of the Greens was placing a price on carbon and reducing carbon emissions.

While Labor and the Coalition were locked in a debate about which party has

252 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

the most legitimacy, the Independent members saw the election result as a highly positive outcome for Australian parliamentary democracy. In particular, the Independents raised the prospect of introducing parliamentary reforms to strengthen the scrutiny of executive government. Some of the measures being raised included reforms to question time, more time for debating private members bills, more funding for the parliamentary library, the creation of a parliamentary budget office and measures to strengthen the House of Representatives committee system.

In addition, the budgetary independence of the Department of the House of Representatives could be the subject of examination. The Senate has a Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing which provides a check and balance on the adequacy of funding provided

by Executive Government to the Department of the Senate.

The Senate Procedural Information Bulletin commented that “in the past, the committee has supported the President of the Senate in negotiating on the Senate’s behalf with the Finance Minister”. However, there is no such committee in the House of Representatives. In June 2010 the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure recommended that the House of Representatives establish a Committee on Appropriations and Staffing. The Procedure Committee noted that “most overseas Parliaments with a similar tradition to Australia’s have more direct input in determining their funding levels and priorities”.

The next edition of The Parliamentarian will examine

the final decision made by the independents and the nature of minority government that arises.

While there was no clear winner in the House of Representatives, the Australian Greens triumphed in the Senate and will control the balance of power when the new Senate forms in July 2011.

Senator Milne commented that “in the biggest vote for a third party since the Second World War, the Greens will return to federal Parliament with eight and possibly nine senators and the House of Representatives seat of Melbourne”. In relation to the Greens balance of power in the Senate she said that we “will use that power responsibly for good and progressive outcomes for the people of Australia”. In addition, she also said that the Greens “will also work with the Independents in the House of Representatives to progress important initiatives for Australia including a national gross feed in tariff and stronger biosecurity and quarantine regimes”.

Senate Budget estimates Senate Budget estimates were conducted between 24 May and 3 June. Senators regard estimates as one of the most effective means by which the Parliament holds executive government to account. The relevant Senate estimates committees conduct hearings in public and have the power to send for persons and documents. The Budget estimates provide an opportunity for Senators to scrutinise the detail of programs and policies announced in the Government’s Budget which formed part of the Appropriation Bills tabled on 11 May in the House of Representatives. On the same day, the Budget speech and

Parliamentary news:Layout 1 08/10/2010 13:42 Page 253

AUSTRALIA

related documents were tabled in the Senate and the relevant areas of expenditure are referred to the legislation committees for budget estimates hearings. Additional estimates and supplementary budget estimates are usually conducted in February and October respectively.

The estimates hearings attract wide public and media interest because of the diversity and significance of information that is revealed about government administration. The Senate

Sen. the Hon. Eric Abetz

Procedural Information Bulletin notes that “it has been suggested that the potential public focus on this information as a barometer of government performance contributed to the abandonment of the former practice of ‘estimates-only’ weeks”. In recent times, the House of Representatives sits in the same weeks as Budget estimates.

Some of the key issues scrutinised at the estimates hearings include the administration of the government stimulus package including the home insulation program, the resource super profits tax, and the National Broadband Network.

The size of the government stimulus package and the quality of administration of certain programmes has been

heavily criticised by the opposition. The home insulation programme was a particular example where cost blowouts, poor administration and program delivery were identified. The Deputy Chair of the Senate Environment, Communications And The Arts Legislation Committee, Senator Mary Jo Fisher, Liberal Senator for South Australia, scrutinised representatives of the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency over fraud claims and potential double dipping by installation installers. Senator Fisher indicated that as of February, there were 961 cases of potential fraud referred to the department for investigation.

Senator Fisher stated that “these were cases where an installer was seeking payment for a job but was told they could not be paid because someone had been there first, that is, someone else had allegedly insulated the ceiling”.

The Senate Economics Legislation Committee scrutinised Treasury over the details of the resource super profits tax. Sen. the Hon. Eric Abetz, Liberal Senator for Tasmania, probed the Treasury Secretary Mr Ken Henry over the revenue projections and key assumptions underpinning the proposed tax. In particular, Senator Abetz asked whether there was “sufficient accuracy in the design and structure of the modelling to accurately assess the impact on resource extraction and mining investment at different RSPT rates of, let’s say, 30, 40 or 50 per cent?” Mr Henry responded that the “RSPT at the rate of 50 per cent would have no different economic impact from an RSPT at the rate of 40 per cent”. In particular, Mr Henry stated that “it should not have an impact on the level of mining

sector investment”. Senator Barnaby Joyce, National Senator for New South Wales, questioned how the new mining tax could be ‘neutral’ in its effect. Senator Joyce commented that “it seems to be a paradox that we reduce the company tax rate to increase competition but we put up the mining tax rate and competition stays the same”.

While Mr Henry provided a technical response to this question there were still concerns about the ‘neutrality’ of the mining tax.

Senator Brown asked whether “there had been

modelling of the impact of the proposed resources rent tax on the flow of profits overseas?”

While Mr Henry did not have a precise figure he did agree that it could be more than $9 billion per annum.

The Senate Environment, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee examined among other issues the government’s proposed $43 billion National Broadband Network. The Coalition is committed to cancelling the project and therefore sought advice on how much the government had already spent on the project. Under

THIRD READING: AUSTRALIA Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Pre-poll Voting and Other Measures) Act 2010 This Act provides for specific authorisation requirements for how-to-vote cards, and also introduces amendments relating to misleading or deceptive electronic advertising publications.

Mr Gray commented that the legislation regulated the authorisation of how-to-vote cards to make it clear who would benefit from the preference flow suggested on the how-to-vote cards. Second, the legislation “prohibits a person from causing to be printed, published or distributed including by ‘radio, television, internet or telephone’ anything that may mislead or deceive an elector in relation to how to cast a vote”.

How-to-vote cards will be required to include at the top of each printed face the name and address of the person who authorised the how-to-vote card.

Mr Robb indicated that the coalition supported the legislation but the “response does not match the crime”.

Mr Robb commented that this bill arose because of a deliberate scam by the ALP in the 2010 South Australian state election.

The South Australian ALP handed out how-to-vote cards that appeared to be official Family First how-to-vote cards, but the preferencing order favoured the ALP candidates.

Labor operatives were brought in, some even from interstate, to wear T-shirts that appeared to indicate that they were Family First booth workers and to hand out the bogus how-to-vote cards.

Sen. the Hon. Michael Ronaldson on behalf of the coalition moved amendments that increased penalties for breach of the provisions from 10 penalty units to 50. One penalty unit is currently $110. The government supported this proposal.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 253

Parliamentary news:Layout 1 08/10/2010 13:43 Page 254

PARLIAMENTARY REPORT

questioning by Senator Fisher, the Chief Executive Officer of the NBN, Mr Mike Quigley advised that equity injections would soon reach $312 million.

In addition, Coalition Senators sought information on whether key contracts contained exit clauses and whether there would be costs involved in cancelling the project. Mr Quigley advised that in almost every contract there will be exit clauses. The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Sen. the Hon. Stephen Conroy advised that costs involved in winding up the NBN had not been considered.

Report from the Senate Committee of Privileges On 4 June the Senate Committee of Privileges

AUSTRALIA

released its 144th Report entitled Statutory secrecy provisions and parliamentary privilege – an examination of certain provisions of the Tax Laws Amendment (Confidentiality of Taxpayer Information) Bill 2009. The Tax Laws Amendment (Confidentiality of Taxpayer Information) Bill 2009 was referred to the committee with particular reference to the provisions in the bill relating to the disclosure of taxpayer information to parliamentary committees and the conflict which these provisions may have with the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987. The report stated that “the bill seeks to place conditions on the access by parliamentary committees to certain information, and in so doing, fundamentally

undermines both the powers and immunities of parliamentary committees and the rights of unfettered access by witnesses to parliamentary committees”.

The committee reaffirmed the supremacy of parliamentary privilege which has its origins in article 9 of the Bill or Rights,1689. The committee stated that “it would only be in the rarest and most extraordinary of cases that the Parliament would decide to set some limit on its own operations, and legislate so as to limit itself in some way”. The committee noted that there were only a small number of provisions in Commonwealth law which expressly limit the powers, privileges and immunities of the Parliament in certain circumstances. One

example was subsection 37(3) of the Auditor-General Act 1997.

The Auditor-General is not required nor is permitted to disclose certain information to a House of Parliament, a member of a House of the Parliament or a parliamentary committee.

In relation to the Tax Laws Amendment (Confidentiality of Taxpayer Information) Bill 2009 the committee concluded that “having examined the provisions closely and taken evidence from expert witnesses, the committee is not satisfied that the need for the provisions has been demonstrated”. The committee, therefore, recommended that the offending provisions be removed and suggested possible options to achieve the desired objectives.

THIRD READING: QUÉBEC Forest development The Sustainable Forest Development Act (Bill 57) was passed on 18 March 2010. Its purpose was to establish a forest regime designed, above all, to implement sustainable forest development, in particular through ecosystem-based development aimed at ensuring the sustainability of the forest patrimony. To that end, the Act fosters integrated and regionalized management of forest resources and forest land, and includes provisions specific to native communities.

Municipal contracts The Act to amend various legislative provisions principally with regard to the awarding process for contracts made by municipal bodies (Bill 76) was passed on 18 February 2010. Its goal is to reinforce the powers of verification of the Ministère des Affaires municipales, des Régions et de l’Occupation du territoire, to tighten the rules governing the awarding of municipal contracts and to improve transparency with respect to information concerning the awarding of these contracts.

Public finance The Act to implement certain provisions of the Budget Speech of 30 March 2010, reduce the debt and return to a balanced budget in 20132014 (Bill 100) was passed on 11 June 2010, with a view to curbing government spending. The Act also includes provisions relating to debt reduction and the funding of public services.

254 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

Health and Social Services The Act respecting the Institut national d’excellence en santé et en services sociaux (Bill 67) was passed on 10 June 2010. The purpose of the Act is to create the Institut national d’excellence en santé et en services sociaux, a legal person and mandatary of the State whose mission is to promote clinical excellence and the efficient use of resources in the health and social services sector.

The Act determines, among other things, the functions and governance framework of the institute, which is to succeed the Conseil du médicament and the Agence d’évaluation des technologies et des modes d’intervention en santé.

Legal services The Act to provide a framework for mandatory state financing of certain legal services (Bill 83) was passed on 2 June 2010.

Its purpose is to create a framework for the legal services provided accused persons involved in certain long and complex trials and those provided when certain court orders concerning the designation of counsel are made under the Criminal Code.

Labour The Act to proclaim Memorial Day for Persons Killed or Injured on the Job (Bill 97) was passed on 9 June 2010.

Parliamentary news:Layout 1 08/10/2010 13:44 Page 255

CANADA

RT HON. MICHAËLLE JEAN ENDS HER TERM AS GOVERNOR GENERAL OF CANADA

Rt Hon. Stephen Harper

before the Senate and the House of Commons.

However, while late this spring the government did propose several new initiatives, Canadian politics has been mostly focused on events taking place outside the chambers of Parliament, including the G-8 and G-20 summits, the visit of Queen Elizabeth the Second, and the appointment of a new Governor General.

Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, was introduced in the House of Commons on 2 June 2010. The Bill was designed to adapt the Canadian copyright regime to the 21st century digital world while implementing Canada’s

obligations with respect to copyright under international treaties. Industry Minister Hon. Tony Clement, the sponsor of the Bill, stated, on the day of its introduction: “Our government promised to introduce legislation that will modernize Canadian copyright law for the digital age while protecting and creating jobs, promoting innovation and attracting new investment to Canada. This legislation will ensure that Canada’s copyright laws are forward-looking and responsive in a fast-paced digital world.”

Another new legislative initiative introduced before the Canadian Parliament was Bill C-35, Cracking Down on Crooked Consultants Act, which was aimed at strengthening the rules governing consultants who charged a fee for immigration advice, closing immigration system loopholes currently exploited by consultants thought to be unethical or even dishonest, and improving the way in which immigration consultants were regulated.

Bill C-35 would, among other things, make it a crime for unauthorized individuals to provide immigration advice for a fee. The Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, Hon. Jason Kenney, said in the House of Commons on the day of the introduction of Bill C-35: “[E]very year, thousands of would-be immigrants and visitors to Canada are exploited

by unethical, crooked immigration consultants who sometimes take thousands of dollars from people, exploiting their dream of coming to

Hon. Jason Kenney, MP

Canada, and return no services or, even worse, counsel people to commit fraud that hurts their chances of coming to Canada.

This government is taking action. We have introduced today Bill C-35, an act to crack down on crooked consultants and make it a crime, punishable with up to two years in prison, for people to act as consultants if they are not properly registered. We are also taking other measures to ensure a proper accounting of these [people]”.

As the House of Commons adjourned for the summer, Prime Minister Harper headed to Muskoka for the G-8, which was held on 25 and 26 June 2010. As the G-8 summit ended, its participants headed to Toronto to participate in the G-20 summit hosted again by

Canada on 26 and 27 June 2010. The resulting Summit Declaration on next steps and commitments to ensure a full return to growth in a still fragile world economy was overshadowed, at least domestically, by the number of protesters arrested during the summit, and media reports about costly and excessive security measures.

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II was in Canada from 28 June to 6 July 2010 on a royal tour that took her to three different provinces, and gave her the opportunity to celebrate and commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Canadian

©Roosewelt Pinheiro/ABr

Early in the new session that began on 3 March, the Government of Rt Hon. Stephen Harper reintroduced many legislative proposals that had died on the Order Paper with the December 2009 prorogation. Besides these, there were very few new bills

Rt Hon. Michaëlle Jean

Navy and Canada Day in Ottawa on 1 July. As the Queen was visiting Canada, she was able to indicate her approval of Prime Minister Harper’s recommendation as to the next Governor General.

The mandate of the current Governor General, Rt Hon. Michaëlle Jean, ended in

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 255

Parliamentary news:Layout 1 08/10/2010 13:44 Page 256

PARLIAMENTARY REPORT

CANADA

September, despite some calls urging an extension of her tenure. The Governor General designate, Mr David Johnston, is a well known academic and legal expert. Prior to his appointment, he was serving as president and vice-chancellor of the University of Waterloo.

He has also been principal and vice-chancellor of McGill University, and held teaching positions in many prominent

Canadian universities. Prime Minister Harper said on the occasion: “Mr Johnston has a strong record of public service, a broad base of support and an impressive list of achievements. He has extensive legal expertise, a comprehensive understanding of government and a deep appreciation of the duties and tasks now before him. David Johnston represents the best of

Canada. He represents hard work, dedication, public service and humility. I am confident he will continue to embody these traits in his new role as the Crown’s representative in Canada.” The Harvard and Cambridge graduate’s expertise in legal matters would certainly serve him well, as Canadian federal politics is entering its sixth year of minority governments: a period

where the government could potentially be defeated any time, and the Governor General may be called upon to make decisions with irrevocable consequences.

Mr Johnston was to formally assume his new office on 1 October 2010, during a ceremony in the Senate Chamber. Ms Jean has

THIRD READING: BRITISH COLUMBIA 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. Bill 9 provides for the replacement of the seven per cent provincial sales tax and facilitates the introduction of a single, valueadded 12 per cent Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) that incorporates the five percent 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 value-added 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

256 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

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 5 pm 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 1 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.

Mr David Johnston

announced that she would take on the new role of United Nations’ special envoy to her original homeland, Haiti, at the end of her term.

In 2007, Mr Johnston was called upon by the Harper Government to act as an Independent Advisor to look into the allegations concerning former Prime Minister, Rt Hon. Brian Mulroney, and a German businessman Mr Karlheinz Schreiber, who claimed to have given Mr Mulroney a sum of about $300,000 in cash to lobby Canadian officials on his behalf. Mr Mulroney, who did not deny receiving cash payments from Mr Schreiber but disputed their quantum, claimed that his services were retained to lobby foreign governments after his term of office expired.

Based on Mr Johnston’s recommendations, the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Allegations Respecting Business and Financial Dealings between Mr Schreiber

Parliamentary news:Layout 1 08/10/2010 13:44 Page 257

CANADA

and Mr Mulroney began. On 31 May, the Oliphant Commission released its report, to which Justice Oliphant concluded, among other things, that former Prime Minister Mulroney did not live up to the standards of the Conflict of Interest and PostEmployment Code for Public Office Holders that he himself had imposed upon himself and other public office holders

Hon. Vic Toews, MP

when he assumed the office of Prime Minister, and that his dealings with Mr Schreiber were “inappropriate”.

After the House of Commons had adjourned for the summer, and while Canada was hosting both the international summits and the Queen, the Senate was dealing with two legislative proposals that had been passed late in the Session by the Lower Chamber.

On 11 May 2010, Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act, had been introduced in the House of Commons. This Bill was aimed at reforming the Canadian pardons system by replacing “pardons” with “criminal record suspensions,” and eliminating pardons (or record suspensions) for serious crimes. Almost automatic pardons, which had become the practice in Canada, had attracted media attention in recent years in Canada. The pardon of Graham James, the

former minor hockey coach who had been convicted of abuse of former National Hockey League player Sheldon Kennedy, had prompted an outcry in 2007.

Before the House of Commons, Members agreed to divide the Bill into two parts. Bill C-23A removed pardons for personal injury offences (including manslaughter). Bill C-23B contained the remaining aspects of the reform that Bill C-23 proposed.

While Minister of Public Safety, Hon. Vic Toews, refused to say that Bill C-23A was targeted at a particular person, it appeared to many that quick passage of Bill C23A by the House of Commons and final adoption by the Senate in late June was triggered when it became common knowledge that Karla Homolka could apply for a pardon in early July 2010.

Homolka’s former husband, Paul Bernardo, was convicted for the murder and sexual assaults of two teenaged girls in southern Ontario during the 1990s. Homolka had made a plea bargain with the authorities and pleaded guilty to manslaughter charges, in exchange for her testimony and information during Bernado’s trial. Videotapes later showed that her involvement in the sexual offences that culminated in the murders of the teenagers had been more than passive, and generated a public outcry.

Another Bill dealt with late in the Session by the Senate was Bill C-9, Jobs and Economic Growth Act. This bill was to implement the budget that had been presented before the House of Commons on 4 March 2010. Bill C-9, a budget implementation Bill, was the object of many criticisms because of its unprecedented length of more

than 900 pages, and its inclusion of amendments not announced in the Budget. The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance had recommended the removal from Bill C-9 of these latter aspects, and attempts were

made in the Senate Chamber to split the omnibus Bill into different parts. In the end, the Senate, where the governing Conservative Party now has a plurality of seats, adopted the Bill unamended on 12 July 2010.

THIRD READING: NEW ZEALAND Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill Introducing the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill, the Minister of Corrections, Hon. Judith Collins, said: “The Bill creates a three-stage regime that will imprison the worst repeat violent and sexual offenders and the worst murderers for longer periods, with increasing sentences and reduced access to parole if they continue to commit serious violent offences.”

The “three strikes” legislation was introduced as part of the confidence and supply agreement between National and ACT, it being key ACT policy.

Despite much opposition, the Bill passed its third reading on 25 May with 63 votes in favour and 58 votes against.

Labour, the Green Party, the Māori Party and United Future all opposed the Bill for reasons of principle and process.

Labour Members expressed concern that the Ministry of Justice was prevented by National committee members from advising the Law and Order Committee on the Bill. Mr Grant Robertson (Labour) argued: “This government has chosen to ignore that advice, and—what is more—chosen to prevent a parliamentary select committee

from having those people as their advisors on this issue.” There was further criticism of the short time period for public submissions to be made after the Bill had been substantially amended, and that responsibility for the Bill had been transferred from the Minister of Justice to the Minister for Corrections.

The Bill was opposed in principle because of doubts whether mandatory sentences were an effective deterrent, and allegations of lack of incentives for prisoners to reform, disproportionate and unjust sentencing, removal of judicial discretion, and failure to deal with the causes of crimes. Hon. Ruth Dyson (Labour) declared herself ashamed that “Parliament [was] using its time to progress legislation that will not achieve one single point of [its described] aim”, and Ms Hone Harawira (Māori Party) was concerned about the affect the legislation would have on Māori.

However according to Mr David Garrett (ACT): “We have sent a message that repeat violent offenders have a choice: they can change their ways of behaviour or they can condemn themselves by their own choices to spending most of their lives in jail.”

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 257

Parliamentary news:Layout 1 08/10/2010 13:45 Page 258

PARLIAMENTARY REPORT

NEW ZEALAND

URGENCY TO PASS NEW “RADICAL” TAXATION BILL

Hon. Bill English, MP

On 20 May the Minister of Finance, Hon. Bill English, presented the government’s Budget for 2010. Leading off the Budget debate, Hon. Phil Goff, Leader of the Opposition, moved a motion of no confidence in the government, and said that in the Budget “there were no new ideas to create jobs…instead, the government has pushed up the price of just about every good or service that New Zealanders buy. It has borrowed extra to give a windfall to the most wealthy people in this country. It has broken its promises to senior citizens. It has created the highest level of inflation in decades—nearly a six per cent rate of inflation. National has done what it never told New Zealanders it would do.

It promised income tax cuts, but it never told New Zealanders that they would be paying for those cuts themselves through the 258 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

increase in GST [Goods and Services Tax]. The big cuts in income tax go to the wealthy; the big increases in income being spent on consumption taxes land on the lower and middle income earners. This country now has one of the highest rates of consumption tax in the world, because there are no exemptions to GST”.

According to the Prime Minister, Hon. John Key, “Other than Labour wanting us to borrow, we did not hear one suggestion, one policy, or one good idea from Labour, because Phil Goff does not know what his policies are. In 1989…Phil Goff was in Cabinet. Guess what Labour did? It raised GST by 2.5 per cent. Guess what? It was with no compensation—nothing for those on benefits, nothing for those on pensions,

Hon. John Key, MP

nothing for anyone. Did Phil Goff resign? No, he did not.

This is a great Budget. It will

get our economy going. This Budget will create 170,000 jobs. Under the previous Labour government someone earning $39,000 a year paid tax at the rate of 33 cents in the dollar. The National

Dr Russel Norman, MP

government…has effectively halved that rate to 17.5 percent”.

However, for Dr Russel Norman (Co-Leader—Green) “this Budget is a triple-deficit Budget. It runs a fiscal deficit, it runs an environmental deficit, and it runs a social deficit.

Perhaps most sadly, it portrays a deficit of vision for New Zealand. We live in a society whose central rationale is maximum economic growth at any cost, yet we know that this growth threatens our wellbeing and even our long-term survival. This Budget does nothing to address New Zealand’s environmental deficit.

There is no capital gains tax, there is no charge for using the

Parliamentary news:Layout 1 08/10/2010 13:45 Page 259

NEW ZEALAND

Hon. Peter Dunne, MP

public’s water for private profit, and there is no charge for pollution”.

Urgency was taken on 20 May to pass the Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill through all its stages, and on 21 May it was divided into several Bills for third reading. Hon. Peter Dunne, the Minister of Revenue, described the legislation as “the most radical restructuring of taxation in New Zealand probably since the 1980s.” However, Hon. David Cunliffe (Labour) said that “in relation to this tax legislation we have seen the government bring down a Budget of broken promises”.

The legislation passed on 21 May, by 67 votes to 51. The Budget debate ended on 15 June, and the motion of no confidence was defeated by 69 votes to 53.

Auckland super-city legislation On 3 June Hon. Rodney Hide, Minister of Local Government, moved the third readings of three Bills divided from the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill: “Their purpose is to complete the legislative framework that will deliver one council, one mayor, and one vision for Auckland by 1 November 2010. The Auckland region’s governance arrangements have been a cause for concern for the best part of a century. The Royal

Commission on Auckland Governance…found that Auckland’s eight councils lacked the collective sense of purpose, constitutional ability, and momentum to address issues effectively for the overall good of Auckland. The new Auckland Council will be more effective, more accountable, and will provide world-class service to its residents. [It] will have a single vision under a single leader, who will make decisions regionally, plan strategically, and act decisively in Auckland’s interests.

Working with the Auckland Council’s mayor will be 20 councillors elected across Auckland’s 13 new wards, which will guarantee a spread of councillors from across the region.

There will also be 21 local boards making decisions on local issues, activities and facilities, and working as part of a structure that will be unique in New Zealand to ensure that community interests are properly represented.”

Mr Phil Twyford (Labour)

Hon. Rodney Hide, MP

acknowledged “the 10,000 people who took part and voted in the people’s referendum, which was put on by the “Our Auckland” campaign group, 97 per cent of whom said they rejected the government’s super-city model. I acknowledge the

8,000 Aucklanders who marched down Queen Street…demanding a democratic Auckland and guaranteed representation for Maori on the new council.

All of these people…asked for a democratic super-city to be set up that would look after their communities and give them a voice in the future of the city. They were

THIRD READING: NEW ZEALAND Animal Welfare Amendment Bill The Animal Welfare Amendment Bill, which all parties strongly supported in its third reading on 1 July, “seeks to raise the penalties for animal cruelty offences and to redefine the way offences are described. It sends a very clear message that serious offending against animals is unacceptable in our society”, stressed the Minister of Agriculture Hon. David Carter.

The Bill was originally advanced as a Member’s Bill by National MP Simon Bridges, but was subsequently adopted as a government Bill, with expanded provisions. Mr Carter explained “the maximum term of imprisonment for wilful illtreatment of an animal will increase from three years to five years”, and “the Bill also expands the threshold for wilful illtreatment…to include serious injury to, or impairment of, an animal. Additionally, it introduces a new offence of reckless illtreatment…[to] capture those offenders who might otherwise not have reached the threshold for the offence of wilful illtreatment to apply. The Bill allows the court to impose a minimum disqualification period from animal ownership…where serious or repeat offending has occurred. Finally, the Bill allows for the forfeiture of… animals

owned by the offender where the court believes that this is required for an animal’s protection”.

Hon. Damien O’Connor (Labour) welcomed the increased penalties, but considered “it is absolute hypocrisy to cheer the passage of animal welfare legislation… at the same time as we are heading backwards in the care and protection of… children, of people receiving accident compensation, and of the elderly”. However, Mr Bridges responded that “99.9 per cent of the Bills that come to this House are all about…people”, and “arguably, this one… is as well in some ways”. Mr Shane Ardern (National) expanded on that point, saying “this Bill…will go a long way to prevent some of the negative, heinous behaviour that we often see from people who start off by being cruel to animals and progress to being violent towards their partners, their families, their children”.

Ms Sue Kedgley (Green) was concerned about a double standard: “We have one standard for individual animals, particularly for companion animals, and a completely different standard for farm animals,” because “any farming business that has a code of animal welfare in place is exempted from this legislation”.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 259

Parliamentary news:Layout 1 08/10/2010 13:46 Page 260

PARLIAMENTARY REPORT

Hon. Simon Power, MP

told by this government that they were scaremongering.

They were told repeatedly that the government was listening to them and that it

NEW ZEALAND

would put the “local” back into local government. Well, what do you know; the final outcome is every bit as bad as people feared and suspected a year ago. The government has not heard. It has insisted on going ahead with its corporatisation agenda, which will consign three-quarters of the city’s assets and operations to the control of hand-picked appointees. It is fundamentally shifting accountability and control of civic life in Auckland out of the public domain and into the boardroom”.

The Bills passed by 63 votes to 56.

Ministerial statement—United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples On 20 April the Minister of Justice, Hon. Simon Power, made a ministerial statement to inform the House that the Minister of Māori Affairs, Hon. Pita Sharples, had appeared before the United Nations Permanent Forum on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to express New Zealand’s support for the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and read to the House

THIRD READING: NEW ZEALAND Courts (Remote Participation) Bill On 1 July Hon. Simon Power moved the third reading of the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill, which, as he explained, “enables the wider use of audiovisual links in New Zealand courts. The Bill sets out criteria that must be applied to any decision to use video links. These criteria are specifically designed to protect the fair trial rights of defendants and other participants in the court process. The court must examine the nature of the proceeding— for example, whether it is procedural in nature or a substantive matter. The court must also look at the technology available and how the use of that technology will affect all participants in the case. In the more specific case of a criminal proceeding…additional criteria…must be considered, which go to the defendant’s right to a fair trial and the defendant’s ability to comprehend the proceedings, participate in the defence, consult and instruct counsel privately, access relevant evidence, and examine witnesses for the prosecution”.

During debate on previous stages of the Bill, much concern had been expressed by nongovernment Members at a provision that would have made it possible to compel a defendant to appear by video at his or her own trial. Mr Power, having previously defended this provision, now

260 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

declared himself “persuaded by the arguments put forward by a number of Members that more explicit protection is needed for the appearance of a defendant at his or her actual trial. Last night I tabled an amendment…which states that audiovisual links cannot be used for the appearance of a defendant in a trial that determines his or her guilt or innocence without the defendant’s consent”.

Hon. David Parker (Labour) congratulated the Minister on his decision to change the Bill: “There has never been disagreement that we ought to take advantage of this technology for things that do not adversely affect the interests of parties to litigation.

The area the opposition was very concerned about was in respect of the ability of a judge to have discretion to conduct a trial without the accused having the right to be present. It is pretty obvious that this change was a substantial abrogation of the current civil liberty we all have to personally attend a trial where we are accused. There was not much justification based on overseas jurisdictions. So we were going out on our own, in my opinion…I thank the Minister for doing that. It is pretty hard to change track when one has departmental advice that one is right, one has been to Cabinet, and Cabinet has been convinced that one is right.”

The Bill passed unanimously.

Dr Sharples’ speech to the United Nations forum. This action reversed New Zealand’s 2007 decision, when New Zealand had been one of just four countries not to sign the declaration. Dr Sharples declared at the UN that New Zealand’s newfound support, as well as being in keeping with the country’s “strong commitment to human rights, and indigenous rights in particular,” represented “an opportunity to acknowledge and restate the special cultural and historical position of Māori as the original inhabitants…of New Zealand”.

Hon. Nanaia Mahuta, on behalf of the Labour opposition, castigated the National Government for not being upfront and transparent about its determination to endorse the declaration, and for not encouraging wider debate on the issue. She was quick to defend the previous Labour government’s decision not to sign the declaration, explaining that there were inconsistencies between its text and New Zealand’s constitutional and legal framework, but she reiterated that Labour would “continue to advocate in a real and meaningful way for the rights and interests” of the Māori people.

Strong opposition to the declaration came from Mr Hide, who asserted that in giving Māori rights and privileges not enjoyed by other New Zealanders, the declaration was “the antithesis of ACT’s policy of one law for all New Zealanders”. But the Prime Minister, when addressing the issue subsequently during question time in the House, maintained that the declaration was a “non-binding, aspirational goal” that did not “supersede New Zealand’s law or…constitutional arrangements”.

Parliamentary news:Layout 1 08/10/2010 13:46 Page 261

INDIA

RAJYA SABHA APPROVES THE WOMEN RESERVATION BILL During the Budget Session of Parliament, the Constitution (One Hundred and Eighth Amendment) Bill, 2008 was listed in the Rajya Sabha Order Paper dated 8 March 2010. The Bill which had been introduced in the Rajya Sabha on 6 May 2008 during the tenure of the previous Lok Sabha provides for not less than one third reservation of seats for women in the Lok Sabha and the State Legislative Assemblies. The reservation will be for 15 years and one-third of the seats will be rotated every five years.

When the Rajya Sabha met in the morning of 8 March, its Chairman, Shri Mohammad Hamid Ansari, made a

Shri Mohammad Hamid Ansari reference to the International Women’s Day. The Chairman observed “the significance of the International Women's Day lies in our re-affirmation and commitment to improve the condition of women, particularly those at the margins of our

society, and empower them to take their rightful place in the society”. He added “it is our duty today to focus on issues of domestic violence, societal evils relating to women, illiteracy, gender discrimination, health and malnutrition and lack of political and economic opportunities concerning women, especially those from the rural background. Our endeavour should be to secure gender equality and development”. He further added “women have to be included in the decisionmaking process of our country and rights of women need to be respected and protected at all costs to ensure continuous progress and bright future of our country”.

Initiating the discussion on the Bill, the Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, Shri Arun Jaitley (BJP) said even 63 years after Independence, women, who constitute about 50 per cent of society, have at best 10 per cent representation in the Lok Sabha despite the constitution providing for equality.

The reservation of seats for women in the Lok Sabha and also the State Assemblies will become an essential instrument in giving a jump start to the object of equality which the country has always envisaged. The reservation of one third of seats for women in the local self-government bodies has helped women to

even go beyond percentage of seats reserved for them. By the end of the 15 years period, each constituency would have been

represented by a woman representative at one point of time or another. There will be a horizontal spread of women

THIRD READING: INDIA The Plantations Labour (Amendment) Bill, 2010 The Plantations Labour Act, 1951 in India provides for the welfare of labour and regulates the conditions of work in plantations. At present, the Act has no provision for safety measures and precautions to be taken for the storage, utilization and handling of such agrochemicals.

It was, therefore, considered necessary to amend the Act to provide for safeguards to be adopted in the use and handling of such substances. It was also felt necessary to amend the Act to enable the Central Government to prohibit, restrict or regulate the employment of women and adolescents for handling hazardous chemicals in plantations.

The government accordingly brought forward the Plantations Labour (Amendment) Bill, 2010 to achieve the said objects. A new Chapter IV (A) was inserted containing provisions as to safety in the Principal Act. This included a new section which prohibits employment of children in any plantation.

During the discussion of the Bill in both Houses of Parliament, members welcomed the bill as a much needed initiative for ameliorating the lot of plantation workers. Some Members expressed concern over the plight of tea plantation workers, while others also felt the need for constituting the National Wage Board to determine the wages of workers.

The Minister-in-Charge of the Bill informed the members that a social security scheme was being developed for welfare of plantation workers and the government would make all efforts to implement the scheme.

The Minister assured that efforts would also be made to ensure that the social security scheme would reach tea plantation workers. He finally informed that efforts are on to provide statutory status to the National Floor Level Minimum Wage.

The Bill was passed by Rajya Sabha on 30 April 2010 and by Lok Sabha on 6 May 2010. The Bill as passed by both Houses of Parliament was assented to by the President of India on 18 May 2010.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 261

Parliamentary news:Layout 1 08/10/2010 13:46 Page 262

PARLIAMENTARY REPORT

activism and women candidates across various constituencies, which, coupled with reservation in the State Legislative Assemblies and the local-self government bodies will increase the millions of women activists who will be available to political parties for selection as candidates to contest elections.

Smt. Jayanti Natarajan (INC) said the Congress party was totally committed to gender parity and the Bill was the manifestation of the commitment of the UPA government to give justice to women as well as give them a share in development and the decision-making process. Once the Bill is enacted, Indian women would get more space in the decision-making process and their concerns would be adequately represented in Parliament.

Smt. Brinda Karat (CPI-M) said the legislation would transform the slogan of inclusion from rhetoric to legislative and constitutional guarantees. For over 13 years women had been fighting for such legislation. She thanked all the male members inside and outside the House for supporting the Bill given the amount of opposition whenever path-breaking measures of social reform were taken.

Shri Tariq Anwar (NCP) observed that due to reservation of seats, women had already proved their capability to provide leadership at the local self-government level and the Bill would give them the opportunity at the national and state levels.

Smt. Maya Singh (BJP) said the Bill would be a milestone in the efforts made inside and outside Parliament for the protection of interest and rights of women. She asked for passing the Bill in its present

INDIA

form with amendments made in future if necessary.

Shri Manohar Joshi (SS), contended that instead of reserving constituencies it would have been better if political parties were made to give one third of party tickets to women candidates. Smt. Kanimozhi (DMK) said this was an opportunity to make right the historical mistakes committed against women.

Referring to the demand for having a sub-quota for women belonging to the backward communities and the minorities within the quota, she said necessary amendments could be brought at a later stage.

Intervening in the debate, the Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh expressed deep sorrow over the fracas concerning several members that took place in the House over the last two days. Dr Singh said the functioning of

Dr Manmohan Singh, MP

Parliament needed to be streamlined to avoid such occurrences in the future. He was, however, happy to see Indian democracy in good health as shown by the near unanimity over the Bill which was a historic step in strengthening the process of emancipation of India's womanhood. Referring to the reservation expressed by some parties on the Bill, the Prime Minister was confident that the

262 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

minority and backward classes would get adequate representation once the Bill was passed.

The Minister of Law and Justice, Shri M. Veerappa Moily, responded to the debate by first congratulating members for their support.

Referring to some misgivings expressed both inside and outside the House, Shri Moily said after passing of the constitutional amendment Bill, a law would be passed by Parliament, which would look into the determination of seats and also decision on quotas, so that some of the concerns could be addressed.

Soon after, the motion for consideration of the Constitution (One Hundred and Eighth (Amendment) Bill, 2008 was adopted by the required majority and the Bill was passed.

The issue also affected the functioning of the Lok Sabha, and the House witnessed disturbances and interruptions at the beginning of March as members belonging to SP, BSP and RJD disrupted proceedings in demanding a sub-quota for women belonging to the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, other backward classes and minorities.

Responding to the issue raised by the members, the Leader of Lok Sabha and Minister of Finance, Shri Pranab Mukherjee, submitted that all the issues which the members had raised in the House could be discussed at the time of debate on the Bill.

The various attempts made in the past to arrive at a consensus did not result in convergence as certain political parties took a particular view.

Shri Mukherjee said that he also held a meeting with the Leaders and representatives of all political parties represented in the Rajya Sabha along with

the Leader of the Opposition.

The Prime Minister was of the view that consultation could be held with all concerned, and various ideas and possibilities explored so as to narrow down the divergences and bring convergence before the Bill was discussed in the Lok Sabha. In a statement made in the afternoon, Shri Mukherjee said the government would complete the process of consultation with all concerned before bringing the Bill to the Lok Sabha.

All-India Speakers’ Conference The 75th Conference of the Presiding Officers of Legislative Bodies in India was inaugurated by the Speaker, Lok Sabha and Chairperson of the Conference, Smt. Meira Kumar, in the Chamber of the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly at Srinagar on 20 June 2010. The Speaker of the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly, Shri Mohammad Akbar Lone, delivered the welcome address at the inaugural function. The Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, Shri K. Rahman Khan, the Deputy Speaker of Lok Sabha, Shri Kariya Munda and Presiding Officers of all Legislative Bodies in India attended the two-day conference.

In her inaugural address, Smt. Kumar said that considerable flexibility had always been shown regarding procedural issues in the Lok Sabha while conducting the business of the House. In this context, she referred to a pathbreaking development that took place during this year’s recently concluded Budget session of the House relating to the cut motion.

The practice followed so far in the House was that the cut motions in respect of the

Parliamentary news:Layout 1 08/10/2010 13:47 Page 263

INDIA

Demands for Grants which were to be guillotined had not been circulated and thus were not allowed to be moved notwithstanding the fact that the right of a member to move a cut motion flows from the power vested in the Lok Sabha under Article 113 of the Constitution “to assent, or refuse to assent, to any demand, or to assent to any demand subject to a reduction of the amount specified in that demand”. The Speaker said that this Article of the constitution or any of the Rules of procedure and Conduct of Business in the Lok Sabha did not make any distinction between the demands which were discussed in the House and those which were guillotined. Therefore, the Speaker said that she was of the opinion that the right to move cut motions was certainly a crucial right of the members of the Lok Sabha which could not be denied. The Speaker, therefore, for the first time in the Lok Sabha, allowed the cut motions to be moved on the Demands for Grants which were to be guillotined.

Highlighting the importance of Question Hour, Smt. Kumar informed the delegates about the steps taken in the Lok Sabha to increase its efficacy.

She said that the minimum and maximum period of 10 and 21 days, for giving notices by the members for questions had been scrapped and a uniform period of 15 days had been prescribed for giving such notices. The number of notices of questions which a member was entitled to give, both for oral and written answers in a day, had also been limited to ten, she said. She hoped that these procedural changes would effectively regulate Question Hour in the Lok Sabha.

Touching upon one of the

subjects of the conference, ‘Growing tendency to disrupt the Question Hour and the need to check it’, she was of the view that Question Hour sets the mood of the House for the day and its disruption adversely affects the proceedings of the entire day. In addition, whenever Question Hour was disrupted, people were deprived of a great deal of information on various aspects of the functioning of the government. The Speaker strongly felt that Question Hour had the sanctity of its own as the primary device available to

members to ask the government to explain its acts of omission and commission and also its stand on a variety of subjects of public importance. It was therefore the duty of every Presiding Officer to maintain the inviolability of Question Hour.

The Presiding Officers felt that there was a need to find ways and means to cope with the situation. Disruption of Question Hour by a member/s mounted to causing impediments in the performance of parliamentary duties of other members who

were deprived of the opportunity to ask questions due to such disruption. The act of disruption of Question Hour, some delegates believed, could be interpreted to involve breach of privilege. Some suggestions such as commencing the House with Zero Hour either by having the sittings of the House a bit earlier or starting Question Hour a bit later, etc. were put forth.

Referring to the other subject of, ‘Significance of the committee system in Parliament and the need to strengthen it’, Smt. Kumar said

THIRD READING: INDIA The Tamil Nadu Legislative Council Bill, 2010 At the commencement of article 168 of the constitution of India, a Legislative Council for the State of Madras was envisaged. The State was renamed as the State of Tamil Nadu Legislative Council (Abolition) Act, 1986.

Clause (1) of article 169 of the constitution provides that Parliament may, by law, provide for the abolition of the Legislative Council of a State having such a Council or for the creation of such a Council in a state having no such Council if the Legislative Assembly of the State passes a resolution to that effect by a majority of the total membership of the Assembly and by a majority of not less than twothirds of the members of the Assembly present and voting.

On 26 July 1996, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly passed a resolution for creation of a Legislative Council in the State. A Bill, namely, the Legislative Council Bill, 1997 which provided for creation of a Legislative Council in the States of Punjab and Tamil Nadu was introduced in Lok Sabha one 14 August 1997 but the Bill lapsed on the dissolution of the eleventh Lok Sabha.

On 12 April 2010, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly passed a resolution in terms of clause (1) of article 169 of the Constitution for the creation of Legislative Council in that State. It was, accordingly, proposed to enact a law providing for the creation of a Legislative Council for the State of Tamil Nadu with 78 members paving way for giving better opportunity to people’s participation in governance

and decision making. The expenditure in respect of the Legislative Council would be borne by the government of Tamil Nadu.

The Tamil Nadu Legislative Council Bill, 2010 was accordingly enacted to provide for the creation of Legislative Council for the State of Tamil Nadu and for matters incidental and consequential thereto.

During the discussion on the Bill in both Houses of Parliament, there was some divergence opinion among members. The predominant view was, however, in support of the Bill. Members who favoured the Bill commended the very concept of a Second Chamber in the State Legislatures on the ground that it gave excellent opportunity to many illustrious and eminent people to be part of Legislature who could not for various reasons contest elections and become members of Legislative Assemblies.

The Minister-in-Charge of the Bill replying to the debate observed that the present day democratic polity in India was a rainbow democracy, which comprised three tier governments viz Centre, State and District level administration. With regard to opposition in some quarters for second chambers, the Minister responded by stating that one had to respect the present institutional arrangement which was endorsed by the framers of the constitution.

The Bill was passed by Rajya Sabha on 5 May 2010 and by Lok Sabha on 6 May 2010. The Bill as passed by both Houses of Parliament was assented to by the President of India on 18 May 2010.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 263

Parliamentary news:Layout 1 08/10/2010 14:07 Page 264

PARLIAMENTARY REPORT

INDIA

the committee system had been widely acclaimed as the best suited device for detailed scrutiny of the administrative actions for enforcing executive accountability to the Legislature and, through it, to the people at large. These committees remained instrumental in inspiring respect for parliamentary control among all sections of the administration to ensure that misuse of public money and administrative

powers were prevented. They operated as sentinels of accountability and helped promote good governance and transparency. The effectiveness of the committee system, however, depended on a variety of factors such as the composition and the organization of the committees, the individual attributes and expertise of their members, research support provided to the committees in their

examination of the subjects and the seriousness on the part of the Ministries and Departments concerned in implementing the recommendations of the Committees.

Almost all the Presiding Officers emphasized the need to strengthen the committee system by making it mandatory for the government to furnish action taken report on the reports of the committees. A

view was also expressed that all the Legislatures in the country should implement the committee system.

In his welcome address, Shri Lone hoped that the Presiding Officers Conference would help arrive at a consensus to uphold the tenets of democracy by evolving new parliamentary definitions based upon the exchange of views, ideas and experiences, which could prove beneficial for the

THIRD READING: INDIA The National Green Tribunal Bill, 2010 The rapid expansion in industrial infrastructure and transportation sectors and increasing urbanization in recent years have given rise to new pressures on the country’s natural resources and environment.

There is a commensurate increase in environmental related litigation, involving multidisciplinary issues, pending in various courts and other authorities.

The National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995 was enacted to provide for strict liability for damages arising out of any accident occurring while handling any hazardous substance and for the establishment of a National Environment Tribunal for effective and expeditious disposal of cases arising from such accidents, with a view to giving relief and compensation for damages to persons, property and the environment. However, the Act, which had a very limited mandate, was not established.

In view of this, it was deemed necessary to establish a specialized tribunal to handle the multidisciplinary issues involved in environment cases. Accordingly, it had been decided to enact a law to provide for the establishment of the National Green Tribunal for effective and expeditious disposal of civil cases relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment.

Thus, the government brought forward the National Green Tribunal Bill, 2010 to provide for the establishment of a National Green Tribunal for the effective and expeditious disposal of cases. Some of the key expressions defined in the Bill include: •

•

“Handling” in relation to any hazardous substance, means the manufacture, processing, treatment, package, storage, transportation, use, collection, destruction, conversion, offering for sale, transfer or the like of such hazardous substance; and “Injury” includes permanent partial or total disablement or sickness resulting out of an accident.

264 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

The Central Government has been empowered to establish a National Green Tribunal, which comprises a full-time Chairperson, judicial members and expert members. The chairperson of the Tribunal has the power to invite any one or more person having specialized knowledge and experience in a particular case before the Tribunal to assist the Tribunal in that case.

The National Green Tribunal has been given jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment – including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment – is involved and such question arises out of the implementation of enactment as have been specified in Schedule I of the Act. Provisions have also been made with regard to appellate jurisdiction of the Tribunal; liability to pay relief or compensation in certain cases. The Tribunal has been vested with powers that include: • • •

Summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; Requiring the discovery and production of documents; and Receiving evidence on affidavits.

Responding to members’ concern regarding composition of the Tribunal, the Minister in charge of the Bill assured that people with backgrounds in environment would be made members of the Tribunal.

The Minister summed up by stating that it was his endeavour to provide an opportunity for people, who felt aggrieved by the nonimplementation of the laws, to seek civil damages and go to the National Green Tribunal.

The Bill was passed by Lok Sabha on 10 April, 2010 and by Rajya Sabha on 5 May, 2010.

The Bill as passed by both Houses of Parliament was assented to by the President on 2 June 2010.

Parliamentary news:Layout 1 08/10/2010 13:47 Page 265

INDIA

Speaker Kumar delivering the Inaugural Address at the All-India Speakers Conference. effective conduct of legislative process in its best form.

The conference passed a resolution unanimously reemphasizing the need and significance of the committee system for securing accountability of the Executive to the Legislature through indepth scrutiny of the budget, monitoring and review of performance of the Ministries and Departments of government; making government’s spending and working more transparent; detailed scrutiny of legislative proposals and examination of policy initiative of the government. The conference also desired that the committee system, in particular the standing committees, be implemented in all State Legislatures expeditiously and all Legislatures adopt a uniform committee system.

On 19 June, the conference of Secretaries of Legislative Bodies in India was held in the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly Building.

Following the Presiding

Officers Conference, a Symposium on ‘Performance of the Legislators in the House – Ensuring accountability to the people’ was held on 22 June.

The Symposium was inaugurated by the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, Shri Omar Abdullah and was attended by the Presiding Officers of Legislatures, ministers, members of Parliament from Jammu and Kashmir, and members of Jammu and Kashmir Legislature and Secretaries of Legislative Bodies.

Shri Abdullah was of the view that accountability was the acknowledgement and assumption of responsibility for policies, decisions and actions taken for running the administration and implementation of programmes with an obligation to report, explain and be accountable to resultant consequences. In case of the legislators, accountability would not only mean accountability to the people

who elect them, but would also mean duty of the legislators to obey the rules and regulations of the legislative body of which they are members, adhere to its code of conduct, its norms of discipline and decorum, its standards of ethical behaviour and its established best practices. He emphasized that those who were associated with the functioning of these institutions should devise ways and means to assess and monitor their performance. In this context, he suggested for an in-house mechanism for monitoring the performance of

the Legislature, quantitatively and qualitatively. He was of the view that it was of utmost importance for the survival of democracy that the legislative bodies continued to occupy an esteemed position in the hearts and minds of the people.

In her address, Speaker Kumar said that when a member of Parliament or a member of the State Legislature took an oath as a member of the House, the oath required him to faithfully discharge the duty and the Legislature functions essentially for the purpose of redeeming this pledge. When a legislator was elected, the people were assured through the oath which the representative took that he or she would faithfully discharge their duties. The accountability of the members is a continuous process and remains in operation during their entire tenure which is implemented through various parliamentary committees. The Speaker emphasized the need to devise more innovative methods which would open up a dialogue between the elected and the electors and provide the electorate with an opportunity to have a greater say in the functioning of their elected representatives thereby enhancing their accountability to those who sent them to the Legislature.

Our Mistake

Dr Murli Manohar Joshi

Dr Manohar Joshi

In the last issue of The Parliamentarian, the photo of Dr Manohar Joshi, former Speaker of the Lok Sabha, was inadvertedly printed in place of the photograph of Dr Murli Manohar Joshi, a sitting Member of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.

We apologize for this error.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 265

Parliamentary news:Layout 1 08/10/2010 13:48 Page 266

PARLIAMENTARY REPORT

NORTHERN IRELAND

THIRD READING: NORTHERN IRELAND Department of Justice Bill This Bill passed Final Stage on 1 December 2009. This new legislation created a Department of Justice, and made arrangements to enable the appointment of a Minister of Justice. This Bill was described as “an essential element in the devolution process”.

Earlier on 22 September 2009, during the Second Stage debate on the Bill, the First Minister, Mr Peter Robinson (Democratic Union Party) set out the effect of the new legislation. He explained that the Bill itself did not seek to give effect to devolution. That would happen only when the Assembly passed a specific resolution requesting that the Secretary of State transfer the relevant responsibilities and when the necessary legislation had been passed at Westminster. However, the Bill made “preparations in advance of those final stages so that the process at that time is as straightforward as possible”. It was, therefore, “enabling legislation”. Its purpose was to facilitate the creation of a future Department of Justice, which would assume most of the responsibilities that were planned to transfer from Westminster. The Bill would also establish a legislative basis through which the Assembly could appoint a Minister of Justice. The Bill reflected the arrangements that were proposed by the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, endorsed by the Assembly and legislated for at Westminster by the Northern Ireland Act 2009.

The First Minister also highlighted the process for the appointment of a Minister of Justice, by a vote of the Assembly, as this process would require “that not only a majority of Members vote on the resolution, but that a majority of designated nationalists and designated unionists vote”, thus ensuring “cross-community support for the new Minister”. The First Minster concluded the end of the Second Stage debate stating: “the devolution of policing and justice will bring significant additional responsibilities but, more importantly, it will carry enormous potential for all of us here and for all our people. It will bring real local accountability and real local leadership and provide genuine synergies between policing and justice policies and the wider social and economic initiatives of the Executive and the Assembly.”

Debate during consideration stage and further consideration stage dealt with amendments tabled to the Bill. Mr Alex Attwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party) spoke to his party’s amendments at consideration stage explaining that the SDLP’s amendments were an invitation to the Assembly to “consider the true consequences and risks in 2012 of following the route proposed by the First Minister, the deputy First Minister, the DUP and Sinn Féin. We suggest that the Assembly considers those difficult matters afresh and looks on our amendments as a way to navigate through them.” The amendments were negatived.

Mr Martin McGuiness, deputy First Minister (Sinn Fein) began the final stage debate by remarking that the Bill was “possibly one of the shortest Bills” to be brought before the Assembly, and yet it has generated considerable scrutiny in the Chamber - over 20 hours of debate. He said that there was a “good reason for the Assembly’s entirely appropriate interest in the Bill”. It was “an essential part of a process that has great relevance to us all”.

266 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

He said that despite its brevity, the Bill had “deep roots”. The Good Friday Agreement had “recognized the imperative of having a criminal justice system that delivers a fair and impartial system of justice to the community, that is responsive to the community’s concerns, that encourages community involvement, where appropriate, that has the confidence of all parts of the community and that delivers justice efficiently and effectively”.

However under Northern Ireland Act 1998 responsibility for policing and justice was reserved from the Assembly that established the arrangements for the devolved Administration. The matter had been revisited in subsequent discussions, but it was not until the St Andrews Agreement in 2006 that the way forward became clear. The deputy First Minister noted that “with the establishment of this Assembly in 2007, the Assembly and Executive Review Committee commenced its valuable work on the legal and practical implications of the devolution of policing and justice powers”.

Mr Jimmy Spratt (Democratic Unionist Party) spoke to declare support from his “side of the House”, for the Bill in its passage through Final Stage. He said that the Bill was very short but “necessary to set up and pave the way for the Department of Justice”. He commented that in the long debates on the Bill “many amendments that came before the House”. Those amendments “were duly debated, given due care by the House and dealt with”. His party supported the Bill in its Final Stage.

Ms Martina Anderson (Sinn Fein) suggested that the Bill presented the Assembly with the opportunity to take on a new responsibility in the Executive and in the Chamber. “We must all embrace the opportunity and provide the kind of leadership that the vast majority of our constituents want and need, regardless of their political affiliation.

Although there are issues, many of which were discussed in the Chamber, we must use the time ahead to secure a consensus built on equality and mutual respect”. She called on members of the Assembly to “ensure that we give the Bill the appropriate support, that we move forward together and that the Bill is supported in a way that allows us to demonstrate unity to the many people who are sick, sore and tired of the debate on policing and justice”.

Mr Basil McCrea (Ulster Unionist Party) said he hoped that “every party in the House wants progress to be made in Northern Ireland”.

The Ulster Unionist Party had “always stated that it is, in principle, in favour of the devolution of policing and justice”, believing that “it would be of great benefit to the entire community in Northern Ireland if justice were to be administered from this place”.

Mr Martin McGuiness, deputy First Minister (Sinn Fein) thanked the Members who contributed to the Final Stage of the Department of Justice Bill for raising the issues that they did. In concluding the debate, the deputy First Minister said that the devolution of policing and justice functions would have significant implications for the Assembly and beyond. The Bill outlined “the groundwork for the establishment of a Department of Justice and will facilitate a swift response once the Assembly has agreed that policing and justice functions should be transferred.”

Parliamentary news:Layout 1 08/10/2010 13:48 Page 267

SRI LANKA

THIRD READING: SRI LANKA The Widows’ and Orphans’ Pension Fund (Amendment) Bill and the Widowers and Orphans’ Pension (Amendment) Bill The Widows’ and Orphans’ Pension Fund (Amendment) Bill and the Widowers and Orphans’ Pension (Amendment) Bills were presented to Parliament by Hon. W.D.J. Senaviratne (Minister of Public Administration and Home Affairs) on 7 July 2010. The second reading of the bills were debated and passed with amendments on 20 July and were certified by the Speaker in August.

Commencing the Second reading debate Mr Senaviratne stated that the pension was given to all government servants; i.e. members of the police, additional secretaries, private secretaries of Parliamentarians etc.

This benefit would be granted to widows and their children.

Until 1983 this benefit was only granted to male public servants, but after it was also granted to females after 1983, an increasing number of females joined the public sector.

In addition, the Widows’ and Orphans’ Pension is granted with arrears of the spouses whose husbands and wives had been in the volunteer forces since 1981. Earlier, the law was that although the wife had the right to the full pension if she remarried she would be deprived of the pension.

This move was taken based on the young wives of Three Forces and Police personnel who sacrificed their lives for the country in the fight against terrorism. Although those wives were young they were unable to remarry as they would not be entitled to a pension. Hon. Karu Jayasuriya MP (UNP) said that “this move is a long awaited one. It is very important that these two amendment Bills were brought today.

These amendments will solve problems of most of the widows, widowers and orphans who had the right to the pension of their spouses and parents”. Hon. Lalith Dissanayake MP (UPFA) argued “these Amendment Bills are another positive move made by this government to grant relief to public servants. Through these amendments, not only the widows, widowers and orphans of the permanent cadre but also those of on contract basis will be granted a pension. Another very important decision in that the suggestion to grant a pension to those widows, widowers and orphans of the public servants who have completed five years before they died”.

Hon. Felix Perera Minister of Social Services thanked the government for “making arrangements to pay half a pension for the wives of the government servants after they remarry. This will make way for the young widowers of the Security Forces to remarry if they wish. I think that the suggestion to pay the pension to widows, widowers and orphans with the relevant increments even after a public servants’ death until they reach 55 years of age.

But earlier the pension was calculated based on the salary when

the public servant died. About 600 Policemen were killed at once, leaving 600 widows. So it was the condition of the country at that time. The President was able to end this war. Labourers who contribute to the development of the country must be encouraged to invest. They can be given hand to obtain a land. The Presidential Secretariat Fund should be able to bear the responsibility for a heart surgery than giving only a proportion of that amount”.

Hon. Sriyani Wijewickrama MP (UPFA) said that “as a woman I see that mostly these two amendments provide security to the women. According to the statistics there are 549,594 widows and widowers out of them 471,429 are women. The pathetic situation is that 40,000 young women were rendered widow due to the 30 years terrorist war. Those wives of the deceased personnel of the security forces and police could not remarry although some wished to do so as the passion of her husband would stop”.

Hon R Yogarajah MP (UNP) was “very happy that these amendments were introduced. They were brought to eradicate certain shortages of the pension laws that existed and affected the wives or the spouses of the deceased public servants. That is appreciable. But I would like to draw your attention to a suggestion; and this would be that if the other half of the salary is given to the children of the first marriage, this would increase family harmony”.

Hon Sudarshini Fernandopulle (UPFA) argued that “a lot of women like me became widows due to the war. This act strengthens the widows who are facing miserable conditions. This Bill also strengthens the State sector. The numbers of widows are higher than that of widowers. They need a helping hand to face their challenges. Even the numbers of orphans have increased.

Even the plantation sector has a large number of widows. A programme to look after them should be introduced. The same is with the women who go abroad seeking employment and women who are engaged in the apparel industry. Some students abandon school education early, since they are unable to carry on it. These students must be given necessary facilities”.

The Deputy Minister of Public Administration and Home Affairs, Hon. Dilan Perera, MP, said “we could observe a harmonious view regarding this amendment on both sides. The government intervened to give security and care for those who really need it. As a policy, the government takes the responsibility of the people who should be taken care of. The widows and orphans are a special segment in the country.

Mr Seneviratne at the conclusion of the debate stated that “I appreciate views presented by the government and opposition sides. We must get together and take comprehensive decisions for the well-being and welfare of the people. The government has taken a number of actions for the benefit of pensioners”.

The Bill was passed with amendments made.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 267

CPA Organization:Layout 1 11/10/2010 14:04 Page 268

THE CPA ORGANIZATION

CPA ORGANIZATION Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Executive Committee and Secretariat, Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians Steering Committee and Branches of Association CPA Executive Committee PATRON: H.M. Queen Elizabeth II (Head of the Commonwealth) VICE-PATRON: Rt Hon. David Cameron, MP (Prime Minister, United Kingdom)

Officers President: Rt Hon. John Bercow, MP (Speaker of the House of Commons, United Kingdom) Vice-President: Hon. Chamal Rajapakse, MP (Speaker of Parliament, Sri Lanka) Chairperson of the Executive Committee: Hon. Mohd Shafie Apdal, MP (Minister of Rural and Regional Development, Malaysia) Vice-Chairperson of the Executive Committee: Hon. Marwick Khumalo, MP (Swaziland) Treasurer: Hon. Hashim Abdul Halim, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, West Begal Chairperson of the CWP: Hon. Alix Boyd Knights, MHA (See Caribbean, Americas and Atlantic Region)

Hon. Asser Kuveri Kapere, MP (Chairperson of the National Council, Namibia Branch) Rt Hon. Henry Chimunthu Banda, MP (Malawi) Hon. Muyali Boya Mary epse Meboka, MP (Cameroon) Hon. Sada Soli Jibia, MP (Nigeria)

AFRICA Hon. Marwick Khumalo, MP (Swaziland) Hon. Job Yustino Ndugai, MP (Tanzania) 268 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

Hon. Ernest M. Britto, MP (Minister for the Environment and Tourism, Gibraltar) Mr Hugh Bayley, MP (United Kingdom) Dr Aristos Aristotelous, MP (Cyprus) CANADA

ASIA

Hon. George Hickes, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Manitoba)

Hon. Kiramatullah Khan, MP (Speaker of the Provincial Assembly, Northwest Frontier Province)

Mr Joe Preston, MP (Canada)

Hon. Abdul Hamid, MP (Speaker of Parliament, Bangladesh) Ms Nafisa Shah, MP (Pakistan) AUSTRALIA

Regional Representatives

BRITISH ISLANDS AND MEDITERRANEAN

Hon. Michael Polley, MP (Speaker of the House of Assembly, Tasmania) Sen. the Hon. John Hogg (President of the Senate, Australia) Hon. John Mickel, MP (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Queensland

Hon. Roy Bordeau, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, New Brunswick ) CARIBBEAN, AMERICAS AND ATLANTIC Hon. Hari. N. Ramkarran, SCC, MP (Speaker of the National Assembly, Guyana) Hon. Alix Boyd Knights, MHA (Speaker of the House of Assembly, Dominica) Hon. Julianna O’ConnorConnolly, JP, MLA (Deputy Premier, Cayman Islands)

CPA Organization:Layout 1 12/10/2010 09:25 Page 269

THE CPA ORGANIZATION

INDIA

SOUTH-EAST ASIA

Hon. Tanka Bahadur Rai, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Assam)

Dr Mohamad Maliki Osman, MP (Singapore)

Smt. Meira Kumar (Speaker of the Lok Sabha, India) Shri Sardar Harmohinder Singh Chatha (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Haryana)

PACIFIC Hon. Dr Tetaua Taitai, MP Kiribati Hon. Bill Vakaafi Motufoou, MP (Niue)

Hon. Datuk Ronald Kiandee, MP (Malaysia) Hon. Dato’ Seri DiRaja Syed Razlan Syed Putra, MLA (Perlis, Malaysia)

CPA Regional Secretaries AFRICA Dr Thomas Kashililah (Parliament of Tanzania) ASIA

Ms Moana Mackey, MP (New Zealand )

Mr Dhammika Dasanayake (Parliament of Sri Lanka) AUSTRALIA

BRITISH ISLES & MEDITERRANEAN

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Secretariat

Mr Andrew Tuggey (Parliament of the United Kingdom)

Suite 700, Westminster House, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA, United Kingdom Tel: (+44-20) 7799-1460 Fax: (+44-20) 7222-6073 Email: hq.sec@cpahq.org

CANADA Mr Blair Armitage (Parliament of Canada) CARIBBEAN, AMERICAS & ATLANTIC Ms Jacqui Sampson (Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago)

Secretary-General: Dr William F. Shija Director of Communications and Research: Mr Andrew Imlach Director of Administration and Finance: Mr David Broom

INDIA TBA PACIFIC Mr Rafael Gonzalez-Montero (Parliament of New Zealand) SOUTH-EAST ASIA Mrs Roosme Hamzah (Parliament of Malaysia)

Mr Andres Lomp (Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia)

Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians: Steering Committee

PRESIDENT

ASIA

CANADA

INDIA

TBA (United Kingdom)

Dr the Hon. Sudharshanee Fernandopulle, MP (Sri Lanka)

Hon. Maria Minna, PC, MP (Canada)

Hon. Km. Selja, MP (Minister of State in the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, India)

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

CARIBBEAN, AMERICAS AND ATLANTIC

PACIFIC TBA BRITISH ISLANDS AND MEDITERRANEAN

Hon. Dancia Penn, OBE, QC, MHA (Deputy Premier of the British Virgin Islands )

Hon. Va’aiga Tukuitoga, MP (Niue) SOUTH-EAST ASIA

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

Hon. Justyne Caruana, MP (Malta)

TBA

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 269

CPA Organization:Layout 1 08/10/2010 15:14 Page 270

THE CPA ORGANIZATION

Directory of Parliaments and Legislatures ALDERNEY (www.alderney.gov.gg) President: Sir Norman Browse (President of the States) Secretary and Offices: Mrs Sarah Kelly (Clerk of the States) The Court of Alderney, Queen Elizabeth II Street, Alderney GY9 3TB Tel: (+44) 1481-822-817 Fax: (+44) 1481-823-709 Email: alderneycourt@cwgsy.net

ANGUILLA (www.anguilla.gov.ai) President: Hon. Barbara Webster-Bourne, MLA (Speaker of the House of Assembly) Vice-President: Ms Keesha C. Webster, MLA (Deputy Speaker of the House of Assembly) Secretary and Offices: Mrs Adella Richardson (Clerk to the House of Assembly) The Valley, Anguilla Tel: (+1-264) 497-5081; 497-3748 Fax: (+1-264) 498-2210 Email: carmen.richardson@gov.ai

ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA (www.ab.gov.ag) (President) Sen. the Hon. Hazelyn MasonFrancis, MBE (President of the Senate) Secretary and Offices: Miss Thelma Thomas (Clerk to Parliament) Antigua and Barbuda Department of Legislature, Queen Elizabeth Highway, St Johns, Antigua and Barbuda Tel: (+1-268) 462-4822 Fax: (+1-268) 462-6724 Email: parliament@antigua.gov.ag; thelma.thomas@antigua.gov.ag.

AUSTRALIA (www.aph.gov.au) Joint Presidents: Sen. the Hon. John Hogg (President of the Senate) Hon. Harry Jenkins, MP (Speaker of the House of Representatives) Vice-Presidents: Hon. Julia Gillard, MP (Prime Minister) Hon. Tony Abbott, MP (Leader of the Opposition) Secretary and Offices: Mr Bernard Wright (Clerk of the House) c/o Parliamentary Relations Office Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Tel: (+61-2) 6277 4340 Fax: (+61-2) 6277 2000 Email: PRO@aph.gov.au STATE AND TERRITORIAL PARLIAMENTS OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY (www.parliament.act.gov.au) President: Mr Shane Rattenbury, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-Presidents: Mr Jon Stanhope, MLA (Chief Minister) Mr Mr Zed Seselja MLA (Leader of the Opposition) Secretary and Offices: Mr Max Kiermaier (Acting Clerk of the Legislative Assembly) A.C.T. Legislative Assembly, Civic Square, London Circuit, Canberra A.C.T. 2600, Australia.

Tel: (+612) 6205-0191 Fax: (+612) 6205-3109 Email:tom.duncan@parliament.act.gov.au

NEW SOUTH WALES (Australia) (www.parliament.nsw.gov.au) Joint Presidents: Hon. Amanda Fazio, MLC

270 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

(President of the Legislative Council) Hon. Richard Torbay, MP (President of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-Presidents: Hon. Kristina Keneally, MP (Premier) Mr Barry O’Farrell, MP (Leader of the Opposition) Secretary and Offices: Mr Russell D. Grove, PSM (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly) Parliament House, Sydney, 2000, New South Wales, Australia Tel: (61-2) 9230 2222 Fax: (61-2) 9230 2333 Email: russell.grove@parliament.nsw.gov.au

NORFOLK ISLAND (Australia) (www.norfolk.gov.nf) President: Hon. Lisle Denis Snell, MLA (Speaker) Vice-President: Mr Timothy John Sheridan, MLA (Deputy Speaker) Secretary and Offices: Ms Robin Eleanor Adams, JP (Clerk to the Legislative Assembly) Old Military Barracks, Kingston, Norfolk Island 2899, via Australia, South Pacific Tel: (+672-3) 22003 Fax: (+672-3) 22624 Email: clerk@assembly.gov.nf

NORTHERN TERRITORY (Australia) (www.nt.gov.au/lant) President: Hon. Jane Aagaard, MLA (Speaker of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly) Vice-Presidents: Hon. Paul Henderson, MLA (Chief Minister) Hon. Terry Mills, MLA (Leader of the Opposition) Secretary and Offices: Mr Ian McNeill (Clerk of the Legislative

Assembly) G.P.O. Box 3721, Darwin NT 0801, Australia Tel: (+61-8) 8946-1450 Fax: (+61-8) 8941-2567 Email: ian.mcneill@nt.gov.au

QUEENSLAND (Australia) (www.parliament.qld.gov.au) President: Hon. John Mickel, MP (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-Presidents: Hon. Anna Bligh, MP (Premier) Mr Jean-Paul Langbroek, MP (Leader of the Opposition) Secretary and Offices: Mr Neil Laurie (Clerk of the Parliament) Ms Leanne Clare (Assistant Honorary Secretary) Parliament House, Brisbane, Queensland, 4000 Australia Tel: (+61-7) 340 67185 Fax: (+61-7) 322 17475 Email: neil.laurie@parliament.qld.gov.au

SOUTH AUSTRALIA (Australia) (www.parliament.sa.gov.au) Joint Presidents: Hon. Jack Snelling, MP (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Hon. Bob Sneath, MLC (President of the Legislative Council) Vice-Presidents: Hon. Mike Rann, MP (Premier) Hon. Martin Hamilton-Smith, MP (Leader of the Opposition) Secretary and Offices: Mrs Jan Davis, AM (Clerk of the Legislative Council) Parliament House, Adelaide 5000, Australia.

Tel.: (+61-8) 8237-9301 Fax: (+61-8) 8211 7658 Email: jan.davis@parliament.sa.gov.au

CPA Organization:Layout 1 08/10/2010 15:14 Page 271

THE CPA ORGANIZATION

Directory of Parliaments and Legislatures TASMANIA (Australia) (www.parliament.tas.gov.au) President: Hon. Lin Thorp MLC Senior Vice-President: Hon. Sue Napier, MHA (Minister for Infrastructure) Junior Vice-President: Hon. Greg Hall, MLC Secretary and Offices: Mr Peter Bennison (Deputy Clerk of the House of Assembly) Parliament House, Hobart, Tasmania 7000, Australia.

Tel: (+61-3) 6233 2211 Fax: (+61-3) 6233 6266 Email: peter.bennison@parliament.tas.gov.au

VICTORIA (Australia) (www.parliament.vic.gov.au) Joint Presidents: Hon. Robert Smith, MLC (President of the Legislative Council) Hon. Jenny M. Lindell, MP (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-Presidents: Hon. John Brumby, MP (Premier) Mr Ted Baillieu, MP (Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly) Mr John Lenders, MLC (Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council) Secretary and Offices: Mr Ray W. Purdey (Clerk of the Parliaments and Clerk of the Legislative Assembly) Parliament House, Melbourne,Victoria 3002, Australia.

Tel: (+61-3) 9651 8911, 9651 8550 Fax: (+61-3) 9650 4279 Email: cpabranch@parliament.vic.gov.au

WESTERN AUSTRALIA (www.parliament.wa.gov.au) Joint Presidents:

Hon. Barry House, MLC (President of the Legislative Council) Hon. Grant Woodhams, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-Presidents: Hon. Colin Barnett, MLA (Premier) Hon. Eric Ripper, MLA (Leader of the Opposition) Hon. Sue Ellery, MLC (Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council) Secretary and Offices: Mr Peter McHugh (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly) Parliament House, Harvest Terrace, Perth 6000, Western Australia, Australia Tel.: (+61-8) 9222-7215 Fax: (+61-8) 9222-7818 Email: cpawa@parliament.wa.gov.au

THE BAHAMAS (www.bahamas.gov.bs) Joint Presidents: Sen. the Hon. Lynn Holowesko (President of the Senate) Hon. Alvin Smith, MP (Speaker of the House of Assembly) Vice-Presidents: Rt Hon. Hubert Alexander Ingraham, MP (Prime Minister) Hon. Perry G Christie, MP (Leader of the Opposition) Secretary and Offices: Mr MauriceTynes (Clerk to the Legislature) House of Assembly, P.O. Box N3003, Nassau, The Bahamas.

Tel: (+1-242-32) 22041 Fax: (+1-242-32) 21118 Email: hoa@bahamas.gov.bs

BANGLADESH (www.parliamentofbangladesh.org) President: Hon. Abdul Hamid (Speaker of Parliament) Vice-President:

Hon. Shawkat Ali, MP (Deputy Speaker of Parliament) Secretary and Offices: Mr Ashfaq Hamid (Branch Secretary) Bangladesh Parliament, Parliament House, Sher-e-Bangla, Nagar, Dhaka 1207, Bangladesh.

Tel: (+880-2) 811-1600, 811-14 Fax: (+880-2) 811-2267, 912-22 Email: sangshod@citechco.net

BARBADOS (www.barbadosparliament.com) Joint Presidents: Sen. the Hon. Branford Taitt (President of the Senate) Hon. Michael Carrington, MP (Speaker of the House of Assembly) Vice-Presidents: Hon. David J.H. Thompson, MP (Prime Minister) Hon. Mia Mottley, MP (Leader of the Opposition) Joint Secretaries and Offices: Mr Pedro E. Eastmond (Acting Clerk of Parliament) Mr Nigel R. Jones (Deputy Clerk of Parliament) Parliament Buildings, Bridgetown, Barbados.

Tel: (+1-246) 4263717, 4263712 Fax: (+1-246) 4364143 Email: parliamentbarbados@caribsurf. com

BELIZE (www.governmentofbelize.gov.bz) Joint Presidents: Hon. Andrea Gill (President of the Senate) Hon. Emil Arguelles, MHR (Speaker of the House of Representatives) Vice-President: Hon. John Briceño (Leader of the Opposition) Secretary and Offices: Mr Herbert C. Panton (Clerk of the National Assembly)

PO Box 139, Belmopan, Cayo District, Belize, Central America.

Tel.: (+501-8) 222141, 222142, 222144 Fax: (+501-8) 223889 Email: clerkna@bna.gov.bz

BERMUDA (www.gov.bm) Joint Presidents: Sen. Mrs Carol A.M. Bassett, JP (President of the Senate) Hon. Stanley Lowe, OBE, JP, MP (Speaker of the House of Assembly) Vice-Presidents: Hon. Ewart Brown, JP, MP (Premier) Mr H. Kim E. Swan, JP, MP (Leader of the Opposition) Secretary and Offices: Ms Shernette Wolffe (Clerk to the House of Assembly) Sessions House, 21 Parliament Street, Hamilton HM12, Bermuda.

Tel.: (+1-441-2) 927408 Fax: (+1-441-2) 922006 Email: smwolffe@gov.bm

BOTSWANA (www.gov.bw) President: Hon. Dr Margaret Nasha, MP (Speaker of the National Assembly) Vice-Presidents: H.E. Dr Festus G. Mogae, MP (President of the Republic) Hon. Otsweletse Moupo, MP (Leader of the Opposition) Secretary and Offices: Ms Barbara N. Dithapo (Clerk of the National Assembly) P.O. Box 240,Gaborone, Botswana Tel.: (+267) 361-6800 Fax: (+267) 391-3103, 3914376 Email: parliament@gov.bw

BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS (www.dpu.gov.vg) President:

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 271

CPA Organization:Layout 1 08/10/2010 15:15 Page 272

THE CPA ORGANIZATION

Directory of Parliaments and Legislatures Hon. Roy Harrigan, MHA (Speaker of the House of Assembly) Vice-Presidents: Hon. Ralph T. O'Neal, OBE, MHA (Branch Vice-President) Dr the Hon. D. Orlando Smith OBE, MHA (Leader of the Opposition) Secretary and Offices: Ms Phyllis Evans (Clerk of the House of Assembly) Office of the Clerk, Richard G. Stoutt Building, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands Tel.: (+1-284) 494-4757/8 Fax: (+1-284) 494-4544 E-mail: pevans@gov.vg

CAMEROON (www.assemblee-nationale.cm) President: Hon. Djibril Cavaye Yeguie, MP (Speaker of the National Assembly) Vice-president: Hon. Joseph Mbah-Ndam, MP (Leader of the Opposition) Secretary and Offices: Mr John Teboh Ndum (Branch Secretary) National Assembly, Yaounde, Cameroon.

Tel: (+237) 7788 09 67/9729 91 10 Fax: (+237) 2222-3869, 22220979 Email: ndumjt@yahoo.com

PARLIAMENT OF CANADA (www.parl.gc.ca) Joint Presidents: Sen. the Hon. Noel Kinsella (Speaker of the Senate) Hon. Peter Milliken, MP (Speaker of the House of Commons) Vice-Presidents: Rt Hon. Stephen Harper, PC, MP (Prime Minister) Mr Michael Ignatieff, MP (Leader of the Official Opposition) Chair:

Mr Russ Hiebert, MP Executive Secretary and Offices: Ms Stephanie Bond 5th Floor, 131 Queen Street, Houses of Parliament, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0A6 Tel.: (+1-613) 993-0330 Fax: (+1-613) 995-0212 Email: cpa@parl.gc.ca

PROVINCIAL AND TERRITORIAL PARLIAMENTS OF CANADA

ALBERTA (Canada) (www.assembly.ab.ca) President: Hon. Ken Kowalski, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-Presidents: Hon. Ed Stelmach, MLA (Premier) Dr David Swann, MLA (Leader of the Official Opposition) Secretary and Offices: Dr W.J. David McNeil (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly) 801 Legislature Annex, 9718-107 Street, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5K 1E4.

Tel: (+1-780) 427-2478 Fax: (+1-780) 427-5688 (Clerk’s Office) or (+1-780) 422-9553 (Speaker’s Office) Email: david.mcneil@assembly.ab.ca

BRITISH COLUMBIA (Canada) (www.leg.bc.ca) President: Hon. Bill Barisoff, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-Presidents: Hon. Gordon Campbell, MLA (Premier) Ms Carole James, MLA (Leader of the Opposition) Honorary Secretary and Offices: Mr E. George MacMinn, QC (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly) Room 221, Parliament

272 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

Buildings,Victoria, British Columbia, Canada V8V lX4.

Tel: (+ 1-250) 387 3785 Fax: (+1-250) 387 0942 Email: clerkhouse@leg.bc.ca

MANITOBA (Canada) (www.gov.mb.ca/legislature) President: Hon. George Hickes, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-Presidents: Hon. Greg Selinger, MLA (Premier) Mr Hugh McFadyen, MLA (Leader of the Opposition) Secretary and Offices: Ms Patricia Chaychuk (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly) 237 Legislative Building, 450 Broadway, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3C 0V8.

Tel: (+1 204) 945 3636 Fax: (+1 204) 948 2507 Email: patricia.chaychuk@leg.gov.mb.ca

NEW BRUNSWICK (Canada) (www.gov.nb.ca/legis/) President: Hon. Roy Boudreau, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-President: Hon. Shawn Graham, MLA (Premier) Secretary and Offices: Mrs Loredana Catalli Sonier (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly) Parliament Buildings, P.O. Box 6000, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada E3B 5H1.

Tel: (+1-506) 453 2506 Fax: (+1-506) 453 7154 Email: l.catalli.sonier@gnb.ca

NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR (Canada) (www.gov.nl.ca) President: Hon. Roger Fitzgerald, MHA

(Speaker of the House of Assembly) Vice-Presidents: Hon. Danny Willams, QC, MHA (Premier) Ms Yvonne Jones, MHA (Leader of the Opposition) Secretary and Offices: Mr William MacKenzie (Clerk of the House of Assembly) House of Assembly, Confederation Building, P.O. Box 8700, St John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada A1B 4J6.

Tel.: (+1-709) 729-3405 / 7292579 Fax: (+1-709) 729-4820 Email: williammackenzie@gov.nl.ca

NORTHWEST TERRITORIES (Canada) (www.assembly.gov.nt.ca) President: Hon. Paul Delorey, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Secretary and Offices: Mr Tim Mercer (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly) Legislative Assembly of the NWT, P.O. Box 1320,Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, Canada X1A 2L9.

Tel: (+1-867) 669 2299 Fax: (+1-867) 873 0432 Email: tim_mercer@gov.nt.ca

NOVA SCOTIA (Canada) (www.gov.ns.ca) President: Hon. Charlie Parker, MLA (Speaker of the House of Assembly) Vice-President: Hon. Darrell Dexter, MLA (Premier) Secretary and Offices: Mr Roderick K. MacArthur (Clerk of the House of Assembly) P.O. Box 1617, Province House, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3J 2Y3.

Tel: (+1-902) 424 5978 Fax: (+1-902) 424 0632

CPA Organization:Layout 1 08/10/2010 15:15 Page 273

THE CPA ORGANIZATION

Directory of Parliaments and Legislatures Email: macartrk@gov.ns.ca

NUNAVUT (Canada) (www.assembly.nu.ca) President: Hon. James Arreak, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Secretary and Offices: Mr John Quirke (Clerk of the Assembly) PO Box 1200, Iqaluit, Nunavut, X0A 0H0, Canada.

Tel.: (+1-867) 975-5100 Fax: (+1-867) 975-5191 Email: jquirke@assembly.nu.ca

ONTARIO (Canada) (www.ontla.on.ca) President: Hon. Steve Peters, MPP (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-President: Hon. Dalton McGuinty, MPP (Premier) Secretary and Offices: Mrs Deborah Deller (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly) Room 104, Main Legislative Building, Queen’s Park, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M7A 1A2.

Tel.: (+1-416) 325-7341 Fax: (+1-416) 325-7344 Email: clerks_office@ontla.ola.org

PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND (Canada) (www.assembly.pe.ca) President: Hon. Kathleen Casey, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-Presidents: Hon. Robert Ghiz, MLA (Premier) Hon. Olive Crane, MLA (Leader of the Opposition) Secretary and Offices: Mr Charles H. MacKay (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly) P.O. Box 2000, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada C1A 7N8.

Tel: (+1-902) 368 5970 Fax: (+1-902) 368 5175 Email: chmackay@gov.pe.ca

QUEBEC (Canada) (www.assnat.qc.ca) Joint Presidents: Hon. Yvon Vallières, MNA (President of the National Assembly) Ms Fatima Houda-Pepin, MNA (Vice-President of the National Assembly) Secretary and Offices: Mr Richard Daignault Assemblée nationale du Québec, Direction des relations interparlementaires et internationales, Edifice JeanAntoine-Panet, 1020 rue des Parlementaires, 6e étage, Bureau 6.65, Québec G1A 1A3, Canada Tel: (+1-418) 643 7391 Fax: (+1-418) 643 1865 Email: rdaignault@assnat.qc.ca

SASKATCHEWAN (Canada) (www.legassembly.sk.ca) President: Hon. Don Toth, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-President: Mr Greg Brkich, MLA (Deputy Speaker) Secretary and Offices: Mr Gregory Putz (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly) 239 Legislative Building, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada S4S OB3.

Tel: (+1-306) 787-2335 Fax: (+1-306) 787 0408 Email: cpa@legassembly.sk.ca

YUKON (Canada) (www.legassembly.gov.yk.ca) Joint Presidents: Hon. Ted Staffen, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-Presidents: Hon. Dennis Fentie, MLA (Premier) Vice-President:

Mr Arthur Mitchell, MLA (Leader of the Official Opposition) Secretary and Offices: Dr Floyd McCormick (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly) Yukon Legislative Assembly, Box 2703, Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada Y1A 2C6.

Tel: (+1-867) 667 5498 Fax: (+1-867) 393 6280 Email: clerk@gov.yk.ca

CAYMAN ISLANDS (www.gov.ky) Joint Presidents: Hon. Mary Lawrence, JP (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Hon. W. McKeeva Bush, OBE, JP, MLA (Premier) Vice-President: Hon. D. Kurt Tibbetts, JP (Leader of the Opposition) Secretary and Offices: Ms Zena Merren-Chin (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly) P.O. Box 890 GT, Grand Cayman, KY1-1103, Cayman Islands.

Tel: (+1-345) 949-4236/8 Fax: (+1-345) 949-9514 Email: zena.merren-chin@gov.ky

COOK ISLANDS (www.cook-islands.gov.ck) President: Hon. Mapu Taia, OBE (Speaker of Parliament) Vice-President: Hon. Jim Marurai, MP (Prime Minister) Secretary and Offices: Mr Nga Valoa (Clerk of Parliament) Office of the Legislative Service, Parliament of the Cook Islands, P.O. Box 13, Rarotonga, Cook Islands.

Tel: (+682) 26500, 26507 Fax: (+682) 21260 Email: nvaloa@oyster.net.ck nvaloa@parliament.gov.ck

CYPRUS (www.parliament.cy) President: H.E. Mr Marios Garoyian, MP (President of the House of Representatives) Vice-Presidents: Mr Aristophanis Georgiou, MP Mr Christos Pourgourides, MP Mr Sofocles Fittis, MP Dr Eleni Theocharous, MP Secretary and Offices: Mr Socrates Socratous (Secretary-General of the House of Representatives) House of Representatives, Homer Ave., 1402 Nicosia, Cyprus.

Tel.: (+357-22) 407-304, 407310 Fax: (+357-22) 668-611 Email: international-relations@ parliament.cy/s.g@parliament.cy

DOMINICA (www.dominica.gov.dm) President: Hon. Alix Boyd Knights, MHA (Speaker of the House of Assembly) Vice-President: Hon. Roosevelt Skerrit, MHA (Prime Minister) Hon. Hector John (Leader of the Opposition) Secretary and Offices: Ms Vernanda Raymond (Acting Clerk of the House of Assembly) House of Assembly, Victoria Street, Roseau, Dominica, West Indies.

Tel: (+1-767-44) 82401 Ext. 3562, 3291 Fax: (+1-767-44) 98353 Email: houseofassembly@cwdom.dm

FALKLAND ISLANDS (www.falklands.gov.fk/legco) President: Hon. Keith Biles JP (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Secretary and Offices:

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 273

CPA Organization:Layout 1 08/10/2010 15:16 Page 274

THE CPA ORGANIZATION

Directory of Parliaments and Legislatures Ms Claudette Anderson-Prior, MBE (Clerk of Councils) Gilbert House, Stanley, Falkland Islands.

Tel: (+500) 27451 Fax: (+500) 27456 Email: cprior@sec.gov.fk

FIJI ISLANDS Branch in abeyance

GAMBIA (www.gambia.gm) President: Hon. Elizabeth Yamie Frances Renner (Speaker of the House of Representatives) Secretary and Offices: Mr Momodou Sise (Acting Clerk of the House of Representatives) Legislative Department, Parliament Buildings, Independence Drive, Banjul, The Gambia.

Tel.: (+220) 422-7241, 422-6643, 422-2352 Fax: (+220) 422-5123 Email: assembly.clerk@yahoo.co.uk

GHANA (www.parliament.gh) President: Hon. Justice Joyce BamfordAddo, MP (Speaker of Parliament) Secretary and Offices: Mr Emmanuel Anyimadu (Branch Secretary) Parliament House, Victoriaborg, Accra, Ghana.

Tel.: (+233) 0302-664-042, 0302-665-957 Fax: (+233) 21-662-084 Email: clerk@parliament.gh cephas115@hotmail.com

GIBRALTAR (www.gibraltar.gov.gi) President: Hon. Haresh K. Budhrani, QC,

MP (Speaker of Parliament) Vice-Presidents: Hon. Peter Caruana, QC, MP (Chief Minister) Hon. Joseph Bossano, MP (Leader of the Opposition) Secretary and Offices: Mr Melvyn L. Farrell, RD (Clerk to Parliament) Parliament, 156 Main St, Gibraltar.

Tel.: (+350) 200-78420, 20074186 Fax: (+350) 200-42849 Email: parliament@gibtelecom.net

GRENADA (www.gov.gd) Joint Presidents: Sen. the Hon. Joan Purcell (President of the Senate) Hon. George McGuire, MP (Speaker of the House of Representatives) Vice-Presidents: Dr the Hon. Keith Mitchell, MP (Leader of the Opposition) Hon. Tillman Thomas, MP (Prime Minister) Secretary and Offices: Mr Adrian C. A. Hayes (Clerk of Parliament) Houses of Parliament, P.O. Box 315, Church Street, St George's, Grenada, West Indies.

Tel.: (+1-473) 440-2090, 4403456 Fax: (+l-473) 440-4138 Email: adrian.hayes@gov.gd

GUERNSEY (www.gov.gg) President: Sir Geoffrey R. Rowland (Bailiff of Guernsey and President of the States) Vice-Presidents: Mr Richard J. Collas (Deputy Bailiff of Guernsey and Deputy President of the States) Dep. Bernard Flouquet (Deputy Chief Minister) Secretary and Offices:

274 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

Mr Kenneth H. Tough (H.M. Greffier) Greffe, Royal Court House, Guernsey, Channel Islands, GYI 2PB. Tel: (+44-1481) 725277 Fax: (+44-1481) 715097 Email: simon.ross@gov.gg

GUYANA (www.parliament.gov.gy) President: Hon. Hari N. Ramkarran, MP (Speaker of the National Assembly) Vice-Presidents: Hon. Samuel A. A. Hinds, MP (Prime Minister) Hon. Robert Corbin, MP (Acting Leader of the Opposition) Secretary and Offices: Mr Sherlock Isaacs (Clerk of the National Assembly) Parliament of Guyana, Parliament Office, Public Buildings, Brickdam, Georgetown, Guyana.

Tel: (+592) 226-1465, 226-8456 Fax: (+592) 225 1357 (Parliament Office) Email: sherlockisaacs@yahoo.com

INDIA (www.parliamentofindia.nic.in) President: Smt. Meira Kumar, MP (Speaker of the Lok Sabha) Vice-Presidents: Hon. K. Rahman Khan, MP (Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha) Shri Kariya Munda, MP (Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha) Secretary and Offices: Shri T K Viswanathan (Secretary-General of the Lok Sabha) Room 18, Parliament House, New Delhi 110 001, India.

Tel.: (+91-11) 2301-7465, 23034255, 2303-4567 Room 103, Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi 110 001, India.

Tel.: (+91-11) 2301-6987, 23034141 Fax: (+91-11) 2301-7465, 23015518 Email: cpaindia@sansad.nic.in

STATE LEGISLATURES OF INDIA

ANDHRA PRADESH (India) (www.nic.in/aplegis) Joint Presidents: Hon. N.K. Kiran Kumar Reddy, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Hon. Dr A Chakrapani, MLC (Chairman of the Legislative Council) Vice-President: Hon. Rajasekhara Reddy, MLA (Chief Minister) Secretary and Offices: Dr S. Raja Sadaram (Secretary to the Legislature) Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly, Public Gardens, Hyderabad 500 004, Andhra Pradesh, India.

Tel: (+91-40) 2323-2072 Fax: (+91-40) 2321-0408 Email: seclegis@ap.nic.in

ARUNACHAL PRADESH (India) (www.arunachalpradesh.nic.in) President: Shri Wanglin Lowang Dong (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-President: Shri Tapang Taloh (Deputy Speaker) Secretary and Offices: Shri M Lasa (Secretary of the Legislative Assembly) Naharlagun-791110, Arunachal Pradesh, India.

Tel: (+91-360) 244-346 Fax: (+91-360) 244-305

CPA Organization:Layout 1 08/10/2010 15:17 Page 275

THE CPA ORGANIZATION

Directory of Parliaments and Legislatures ASSAM (India) (www.assamassembly.nic.in) President: Hon. Tanka Bahadur Rai, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-President: Hon. Tarun Gogoi, MLA (Chief Minister and Leader of the House) Secretary and Offices: Shri Gauranga Prasad Das (Secretary of the Legislative Assembly) Dispur, Guwahati, 781006, Assam, India.

Tel.: (+91-361) 261-1113, 2261766 Fax: (+91-361) 226-2225 Email: assamlegislative@sify.com

BIHAR (India) (www.bihar.nic.in) President: Hon. Uday Narain Choudhary, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-Presidents: Prof. Tarakant, MLC (Chairman of the Legislative Council) Hon. Nitish Kumar, MLC (Chief Minister) Secretary and Offices: Shri Surendra Prasad Sharma (Secretary of the Legislative Assembly) Bihar Legislative Assembly Secretariat, Patna 800015, Bihar, India.

Tel.: (+91-612) 222-3840 Fax: (+91-612) 223-2212

CHHATTISGARH (India) (www.cgvidhansabha.gov.in) President: Hon. Shri Dharam Lal Kaushik (Speaker) Secretary and Offices: Shri Devendra Verma (Clerk to Parliament) Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly, Baloda Bazar Road, Raipur 492

005, India Tel.: (+91-771) 228-3615, 2283616 Fax: (+91-771) 228-3615, 2283788 Email: secycgvs@rediffmail.com

DELHI (India) (www.delhigovt.nic.in) President: Hon. Dr Yoganand Shastri, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-President: Smt. Kiran Choudhary (Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Secretary and Offices: Shri Siddarath Rao (Secretary of the Legislative Assembly) Delhi Legislative Assembly, Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054, India.

Tel.: (+91-11) 2389-0007, 23890109 Fax: (+91-11) 2389-0128 Email: delhi.vidhansabha@yahoo.co.in

GOA (India) (www.goagovt.nic.in) President: Hon. Pratapsingh Rane, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-President: Shri Mauvin Godinho, MLA (Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Secretary and Offices: Shri J.N. Braganza (Secretary of the Legislative Assembly) Goa Legislative Assembly Secretariat, Porvorim, Goa 403521, India.

Tel.: (+91-832) 241-0915, 2410917 Fax: (+91-832) 241-1054, 2411024, 241-1066 Email: goaassembly@dataone.in

GUJARAT (India) (www.gujaratindia.com) President: Hon. Ashok Bhatt, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-President: Hon. Narendra D. Modi, MLA (Chief Minister) Hon. Shaktisinhji H. Gohil, MLA (Leader of the Opposition) Secretary and Offices: Shri D.M. Patel (Secretary of the Legislature Secretariat) Legislature Secretariat, Vitthalbhai Patel Bhavan, Gandhinagar 382 010, Gujarat, India.

Tel.: (+91-79) 2322-0998; 23253076 Fax: (+91-79) 2322-0902 Email: assembly@gujarat.gov.in

HARYANA (India) (http://haryana.gov.in) President: Shri Sardar Harmohinder Singh Chatha (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Secretary and Offices: Shri Sumit Kumar (Secretary of the Legislative Assembly) Haryana Legislative Assembly Secretariat, Sector 1, Haryana 16 0001, Chandigarh, India.

Tel.: (+91-172) 2740-785, 2740030 Fax: (+91-172) 2740-430, 2747075

HIMACHAL PRADESH (India) (www.hpvidhansabha.nic.in) President: Hon. Tulsi Ram (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-Presidents: Hon. Virbhadra Singh, MLA (Chief Minister) Hon. Prem Kumar Dhumal, MLA (Leader of the Opposition)

Secretary and Offices: Shri Govardhan Singh (Secretary of the Legislature) Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha Secretariat, Council Chamber, Shimla 171004, Himachal Pradesh, India.

Tel.: (+91-177) 280-3086, 2658164, 265-6424 Fax: (+91-177) 281-1151, 2652949 Email: visabha@hp.nic.in

JAMMU AND KASHMIR (India) (www.jammuandkashmirstate legislature.org) President: Hon. Mohammad Akbar Lone (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-President: Hon. Abdul Rashid Dar, MLC (Chairman of the Legislative Council) Secretary and Offices: Shri Mohd. Ramzan (Secretary of the Legislative Assembly) Legislative Assembly Secretariat, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir State, India.

Tel.: (+91-194) 247-9969 (Srinagar); (+91-191) 254-2031 (Jammu) Fax: (+91-194) 247-7738 / 2479666 (Srinagar); (+91-191) 2570344 (Jammu) Email: a.r.salmani@rediffmail.com/ ardar@rediffmail.com

JHARKHAND (India) President: Hon. Chandreshwar Prasad Singh (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-Presidents: Hon. Arjun Munda, MLA (Chief Minister) Hon. Rajendra Singh, MLA (Leader of the Opposition) Secretary and Offices: Shri Kaushal Kishore Prasad

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 275

CPA Organization:Layout 1 08/10/2010 15:17 Page 276

THE CPA ORGANIZATION

Directory of Parliaments and Legislatures (Secretary-in-charge, Legislative Assembly) Jharkhand Legislative Assembly, Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India.

Tel.: (+91-651) 244-0200 Fax: (+91-651) 244-0025

KARNATAKA (India) (www.kar.nic.in/kla) Joint Presidents: Hon. K.G. Bopaiah (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Shri D.H. Shankaramurthy (Chairman of the Legislative Council) Vice-Presidents: Hon. B.S Yediyurappa, MLA (Leader of the House, Legislative Assembly) Hon. Dr V.S Acharya, MLC (Leader of the House, Legislative Council Hon. Mallikarjun M. Kharge, MLA (Leader of the Opposition, Legislative Assembly) Hon. V.S Ugrappa, MLC (Leader of the Opposition, Legislative Council Secretary and Offices: Shri S.B Patil (Principal Secretary of the Legislative Assembly) Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat, PB No 5074, Room 228, 2nd Floor,Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 560 332, Karnataka, India.

Tel.: (+91-80) 2225-0702, 22033471 Fax: (+91-80) 2225-8301, 22258171 Email: speaker-kla-kar@nic.in

KERALA (India) (www.niyamasabha.org) President: Hon. K. Radhakrishnan, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-Presidents: Hon. V.S. Achuthanandan, MLA

(Chief Minister) Hon. Oommen Chandy, MLA (Leader of the Opposition) Secretary and Offices: Shri P.D. Rajan (Secretary of the Legislative Assembly) Kerala Legislative Assembly, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala 695 033, India.

Tel.: (+91-471) 2512-002, 2513006, 2305-834; Speaker 2513007, 2308-890, 2305-830 Fax: (+91-471) 2305-891; Speaker 2512-131 Email: secretary@niyamasabha.org

MADHYA PRADESH (India) (www.mp.nic.in) President: Hon. Ishwaras Rohani, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-President: Hon. Shivraj Singh Chouhan, MLA (Chief Minister) Secretary and offices: Dr A.K. Payasi (Principal Secretary of the Legislative Assembly) Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly, Bhopal 462 004, Madhya Pradesh, India.

Tel.: (+91-755) 244-0206 Fax: (+91-755) 244-0238 Email: vidhansabha@mp.nic.in

MAHARASHTRA (India) (www.maharashtra.gov.in) Joint Presidents: Hon. Shivajirao Deshmukh, MLC (Chairman of the Legislative Council) Hon. Dilip Walse-Patil, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-Presidents: Hon. Ashokrao Chavan, MLA (Chief Minister) Hon. Eknathrao Khadse, MLA (Leader of the Opposition,

276 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

Legislative Assembly) Hon. Pandurang Fundkar, MLC (Leader of the Opposition, Legislative Council) Hon. Harshawardhan Patil, MLA (Minister of Parliamentary Affairs) Secretary and Offices: Shri A.N. Kalse (Principal Secretary of the Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council) Room 802, 8th Floor, Maharashtra Legislature Secretariat, Vidhan Bhavan, Mumbai 400 032, Maharashtra, India.

Tel.: (+91-22) 2282-0820, 22027399 Fax: (+91-22) 2202-4524, 22820820 Email: mls_mumbai@rediffmail.com

MANIPUR (India) (www.manipurassembly.gov.in) President: Hon. Dr Sapam Budhichandra Singh, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-Presidents: Hon. Okram Ibobi Singh, MLA (Chief Minister and Leader of the House) Treasurer: Secretary and Offices: Smt. Y. Indira Devi Manipur Branch Secretariat, Imphal 79500I, Manipur, India.

Tel.: (+91-385) 245-0239 Fax: (+91-385) 245-1193, 2450253 Email: man-assembly@man.nic.in

MEGHALAYA (India) (www.meghalaya.nic.in) President: Mr Charles Pyngrope, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-President: Shri Sanbor Shullai (Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Secretary and Offices:

Smt. W.M. Rymbai (Secretary of the Legislative Assembly) Meghalaya Legislative Assembly, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Shillong 793001, Meghalaya, India.

Tel.: (+91-364) 222-3878, 2224267 Fax: (+91-364) 221-0157

MIZORAM (India) (www.mizoram.nic.in) President: Hon. R Romawia, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-Presidents: Hon. Lal Thanhawla, MLA (Leader of the House) Secretary and Offices: Mr Ngurthanzuala (Secretary) Mizoram Legislative Assembly Secretariat, P.O. Aizawl, Mizoram, India.

Tel.: (+91-389) 232-2250, 2325733, 232-3608 Fax: (+91-389) 232-3207 Email: secymzmla@alpha.nic.in

NAGALAND (India) (www.nagaland.nic.in) President: Hon. Keyanilie Peseyie, MLA (Speaker of the House of Representatives) Vice-Presidents: Hon. Neiphiu Rio, MLA (Chief Minister) Hon. Tokheho Yepthomi, MLA (Leader of the Opposition) Secretary and Offices: Shri A. E. Lotha (Secretary of the Legislative Assembly) Nagaland Legislative Assembly Secretariat, Kohima 799001, Nagaland, India.

Tel.: (+91-370) 227 507, 2291029 Fax: (+91-370) 227 1509 Email: assembly@yahoo.com

CPA Organization:Layout 1 08/10/2010 15:18 Page 277

THE CPA ORGANIZATION

Directory of Parliaments and Legislatures ORISSA (India) President: Hon. Pradip Kumar Amat, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-President: Hon. Lal Bihari Himirika, MLA (Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Secretary and Offices: Shri Kishore Chandra Barik (Secretary of the Legislative Assembly) Legislative Assembly, Bhubaneswar, 751001 Orissa, India.

Tel.: (+91-674) 253-6852, 2530303 Fax: (+91-674) 239-6144 Email: ola@ori.nic.in

PUDUCHERRY (PONDICHERRY) (India) (www.pon.nic.in) President: Hon. R. Radhakrishnan, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-President: Shri V. Vaithilingam (Chief Minister) Secretary and Offices: Shri M. Sivaprakasam (Secretary to the Legislative Assembly) Legislative Assembly Secretariat, Puducherry – 605 001, India.

Tel: (+91-413) 334-462, 335525 Fax: (+91-413) 335-525, 332397 Email: secretary@satyam.net.in

PUNJAB (India) (www.punjabgovt.nic.in/governme nt/govt741.htm) President: Hon. Sardar Nirmal Singh Kahlon, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-Presidents: Hon. Rajinder Kaur Bhattal, MLA

Hon. Sardar Parkash Singh Badal, MLA Secretary and Offices: Shri Ved Parkash (Secretary to the Legislature) Punjab Vidhan Sabha Secretariat, Vidhan Bhawan, Chandigarh, India.

Tel.: (+91-172) 274-0786 Fax: (+91-172) 274-0472

RAJASTHAN (India) (www.rajassembly.nic.in) President: Mr Deependra Singh Shekhawat (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-President: Hon. Mr. Ashok Gehlot, MLA (Chief Minister) Secretary and Offices: Shri H.R Kuri (Secretary of the Legislative Assembly) Vidhan Sabha Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur 302 005, Rajasthan, India.

Tel.: (+91-141) 274-4326; Speaker's Office 274-4321 Fax: (+91-141) 274-4333/4 Email: rajassembly@nic.in

SIKKIM (India) (www.sikkim.gov.in) President: Hon. Karma Tempo Namgyal Gyaltsen (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-Presidents: Hon. Mingma Tshering Sherpa, MLA (Deputy Speaker) Hon. Pawan Kumar Chamling, MLA (Chief Minister) Secretary and Offices: Shri Dorjee Rinchen (Secretary of the Legislative Assembly) Sikkim Legislative Assembly Secretariat, Nam Nang, Gangtok 737101, Sikkim, India.

Tel.: (+91-3592) 203-654 Fax: (+91-3592) 202-181 Email: secretaryslas@gmail.com

TAMIL NADU (India) (www.tn.gov.in) President: Hon. R. Avudaiappan, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-Presidents: Hon. M. Karunanidhi, MLA (Chief Minister) Hon. Prof. K. Anbazhagan, MLA (Leader of the House) Hon. Selvi J. Jayalalithaa, MLA (Leader of the Opposition) Secretary and Offices: Thiru M. Selvaraj (Secretary of the Legislative Assembly) Legislative Assembly Secretariat, Chennai 600 009, Tamil Nadu, India.

Tel.: (+91-44) 2567-2611, 25670271 (x105) Fax: (+91-44) 2567-8956 Email: tnasmbly@tn.nic.in

Chandra Khanduri, MLA (Leader of the House) Hon. Dr Harak Singh Rawat, MLA (Leader of the Opposition) Secretary and Offices: Shri Mahesh Chanddra (Secretary to the Legislative Assembly) Vidhan Sabha Bhawan, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India.

Tel.: (+91-135) 266-6444 Fax: (+91-135) 266-6788, 2666680

TRIPURA (India) (http://tripura.nic.in) President: Hon. Ramendra Chandra Debnath, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-President: Shri Subal Rudra, MLA (Deputy Speaker) Secretary and Offices: Shri Subhas Bhattacharjee (Secretary to the Legislative Assembly) Tripura Legislative Assembly, Agartala, Tripura, 799 001 India.

Tel.: (+91-381) 222-4067, 2224968 Fax: (+91-381) 222-4095

UTTAR PRADESH (India) (www.uplegassembly.nic.in) Joint Presidents: Hon. Sukhadeo Rajbhar, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Hon. Ganesh Shanker Pandey Yadav, MLC (Chairman of the Legislative Council) Joint Vice Presidents: Hon. Shri Shivpal Singh Yadav, MLA (Leader of the Opposition, Legislative Assembly) Hon. Shri Ahmad Hasan, MLC (Leader of the Opposition, Legislative Council) Secretaries and Offices: Shri Pradeep Kumar Dubey (Special Secretary) Legislative Assembly, Uttar Pradesh, Vidhan Bhawan, Lucknow 226 001, India.

Tel.: (+91-522) 223-8098, 2238168 Fax: (+91-522) 223-8208, 2238174 Email: upvs@up.nic.in

UTTARAKHAND (formerly UTTARANCHAL) (India) (www.uttaranchal.assembly.org) President: Hon. Harbans Kapoor, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-Presidents: Hon. Maj-Gen (Rtd) Bhuvan

WEST BENGAL (India) (www.wbgov.com) President: Hon. Hashim Abdul Halim, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-President: Shri Bhakti Pada Ghosh, MLA (Deputy Speaker of the Legislative

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 277

CPA Organization:Layout 1 08/10/2010 15:20 Page 278

THE CPA ORGANIZATION

Directory of Parliaments and Legislatures Assembly) Secretary and Offices: Shri Jadablal Chakraborty (Principal Secretary of the Legislative Assembly) Assembly House, Kolkata-700 001, West Bengal, India.

Tel: (+91-33) 2248-6221, 22480896/6098 Fax: (+91-33) 2248-4248, 22130402 Email: root@bidhan.wn.nic.in

ISLE OF MAN (www.tynwald.org.im) Joint Presidents: Hon. Noel Quayle Cringle, OBE, MLC (President of Tynwald and President of the Legislative Council) Hon. Stephen Rodan, MHK (Speaker of the House of Keys) Vice-President: Hon. Tony Brown, MHK (Chief Minister) Chairman of the Executive Committee: Mrs Clare Christian, MLC Secretary and Offices: Mr Roger Philips (Clerk of Tynwald) Legislative Buildings, Douglas, IM1 3PW, Isle of Man. Tel: (+44-1624) 685500 Fax: (+44-1624) 685504 Email: enquiries@tynwald.org.im

JAMAICA (www.jis.gov.jm) Joint Presidents: Dr the Hon. Sen. Oswald Harding, OJ, CD, QC (President of the Senate) Hon. Delroy Chuck, MP (Speaker of the House of Representatives) Vice-President: Hon. Bruce Golding (Prime Minister) Secretary and Offices: Ms Heather Cooke (Clerk to the Houses of Parliament)

Houses of Parliament, Gordon House, 81 Duke Street, P.O. Box 636, Kingston, Jamaica.

Tel: (+1-876) 922-0200/7 Fax: (+1-876) 967-1708, 967-0064 Email: heather.cooke@japarliament.gov.j m/clerk@japarliament.gov.jm

JERSEY (www.statesassembly.gov.je) President: Mr Michael C. St. J. Birt (Bailiff of Jersey and President of the States) Chairman of Executive Committee Connétable Len Norman Secretary and Offices: Mr Michael N. de la Haye (Greffier of the States) States Greffe, Morier House, Halkett Place, St Helier, Jersey, Channel Islands, JE1 1DD. Tel: (+44-1534) 441013 Fax: (+44-1534) 441098 Email: m.delahaye@gov.je

KENYA (www.parliament.go.ke) President: Hon. Kenneth Marende, MP (Speaker of the National Assembly) Hon. Farah Maalim, MP (Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly) Secretary and Offices: Mr Patrick G Gichohi (Clerk of the National Assembly) P.O. Box 41842-00100, Nairobi, Kenya.

Tel.: (+254-20) 2284-8000/2221291 Fax: (+254-20) 243-694/315-950 Email: cna@parliament.co.ke

KIRIBATI (www.parliament.gov.ki/) President: Hon. Taomati Iuta, MP (Speaker of Parliament) Vice-President:

278 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

H.E. Hon. Anote Tong, MP (President of the Republic) Secretary and Offices: Eni Tekanene (Acting Clerk of Parliament) House of Assembly, P.O. Box 52, Bairiki, Tarawa, Kiribati.

Tel: (+686) 21880 / 22080 Fax: (+686) 21278 Email: eni@parliament.gov.ki

LESOTHO (www.lesotho.gov.ls) Joint Presidents: Hon. Chief Letapata Makhaola (President of the Senate) Hon. Ntlhoi A. Motsamai, MP (Speaker of the National Assembly) Vice-President: Rt Hon. Pakalitha Mosisili, MP (Prime Minister) Secretary and Offices: Miss Lebohang Ramohlanka (Clerk to the National Assembly) Linare Road, Parliament Buildings, P.O. Box 190, Maseru100, Lesotho.

Tel.: (+266) 22-323-035, 22-317056 Fax: (+266) 2231-7056 Email: ledithm@yahoo.co.uk

Hon. Tan Sri Dato' Abdul Hamid Pawanteh (President of the Senate) Hon. Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Haji Mulia (Speaker of the House of Representatives) Vice-President: Rt Hon. Najib Tun Abdul Razak, MP (Prime Minister) Secretary and Offices: Datuk Roosme Hamzah (Clerk of the House of Representatives) Parliament House, 50680 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: (+603) 2072-1955, 20797391, 2079-3161 Fax: (+603) 2070-0986, 20317361 Email: cpamalay@parlimen.gov.my

STATE PARLIAMENTS OF MALAYSIA

MALAWI (www.malawi.gov.mw) Chairman: Hon. Louis Joseph Chimango, MP (Speaker of the National Assembly) Secretary and Offices: Mrs Matilda Marcia Katopola (Clerk of the Parliament) National Assembly, Parliament Offices, Chief M'Mbelwa House, Private Bag B362, Capital City, Lilongwe 3, Malawi.

Tel.: (+265-1) 773-008, 773-090, 773-882 Fax: (+265-1) 774-196, 771-340 Email: parliament@malawi.net/

JOHORE (Malaysia) (www.johoredt.gov.my) President: Hon. Dato’ Haji Zainal Abidin bin Mohamed Zin, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-President: Hon. Dato’ Haji Abdul Ghani bin Othman, MLA (Chief Minister) Secretary and Offices: Tuan Haji Mohamad bin Haji Karim (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly) State Secretariat, Dewan Undangan Negeri Johore Bangunan Johore, Bukit Timbalan, Johore Bahru, Malaysia.

Tel: (+60-7) 223-9780 Fax: (+60-7) 224-6359

MALAYSIA (www.parlimen.gov.my/ www.cpamalaysia.org) Joint Presidents:

KEDAH DARULAMAN (Malaysia) (www.kedah.gov.my) President:

CPA Organization:Layout 1 08/10/2010 15:21 Page 279

THE CPA ORGANIZATION

Directory of Parliaments and Legislatures Hon. Dato' Haji Badruddin bin Amiruddin, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-President: Rt Hon. Dato' Seri Haji Syed Razak bin Haji Syed Zain Barakbah, MLA (Chief Minister) Secretary and Offices: Encik Kharudin bin Zain (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly) Aras 1 Blok A, Wisma Darul Aman, Jalan Tunku Bendahara, 05503 Alor Setar, Kedah, Malaysia.

Tel: (+60-4) 730-1957 Fax: (+60-4) 733-3494 Email: kharuddin@mmk.kedah.gov.my

KELANTAN (Malaysia) (www.kelantan.gov.my) President: Hon. Hj Mohd Nassuruddin B Hj Daud (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-President: Rt Hon. Dato’ Hj Nik Abdul Aziz B Nik Mat (Chief Minister) Secretary and Offices: Mr Muhammed Imran B. Mansoor (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly) Pejabat Setiausaha Kerajaan Kelantan, Blok 1, Kota Darulnaim, 15503 Kota Bharu, Kelantan, Malaysia.

Tel: (+60-9) 748-4123 Fax: (+60-9) 743-6649 Email: sudn@kelantan.gov.my

MELAKA (MALACCA) (Malaysia) (www.melaka.gov.my) President: Hon. Datuk Othman Bin Muhamad, MLA (Speaker of the State Assembly) Vice-President: Rt Hon. Datuk Haji Mohd. Ali bin Mohd. Rustam, MLA (Chief Minister)

Secretary and Offices: Mrs Mariam Binti Ilias (Clerk of the State Assembly) Jabatan Ketua Menteri Melaka, Blok Laksamana, Aras 2, Seri Negeri, 75450 Ayer Keroh, Melaka Tel: (+60-6) 230-7452 Fax: (+60-6) 231-1304 Email: mohdzin@melaka.gov.my

NEGERI SEMBILAN (Malaysia) (www.nsic.gov.my) President: Hon. Dato' Haji Lilah bin Haji Yassin, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-President: Rt Hon. Dato' Haji Mohamad bin Hj. Hassan MLA (Chief Minister) Secretary and Offices: Mr Yaakop bin Rantau Unit Dewan & Protokol, Tingkat 5, Blok B, Wisma Negeri, Jalan Dato' Abdul Malek, 70503 Seremban, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia.

Tel: (+60-6) 765-9924, 7623721 Fax: (+60-6) 764-7473 Email: kpsupro@sukns.gov.my

PAHANG (Malaysia) (www.pahang.gov.my) President: Hon. Dato’ Haji Wan Mohd.

Razali bin Wan Mahussin, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-President: Rt Hon. Dato’ Sri Haji Adnan bin Haji Yaakob, MLA (Chief Minister) Secretary and Offices: Mr Azmil Abu Bakar (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly) Pejabat Setiausaha Kerajaan Pahang, Wisma Sri Pahang, 25503 Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia.

Tel: (+60-9) 512-6626 Fax: (+60-9) 515-1443

PENANG (Malaysia) (www.penang.gov.my) President: Hon Dato’ Haji Abdul Halim bin Hussain, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-President: Hon. Mr Lim Guan Eng, MLA (Chief Minister) Secretary and Offices: Mr Baharuddin bin Ahmad Suri (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly) Pejabat Setiausaha Kerajaan, Tingkat 25, Menara Komtar, 10503 Pulau Pinang, Malaysia.

Tel.: (+60-4) 650-5155/2611836 Fax: (+60-4) 263-3642 Email: baharuddin@penang.gov.my

PERAK (Malaysia) (www.perak.gov.my) President: Dato' Seri Dr. Zambry bin Abd. Kadir, MLA (Chief Minister) Vice-President: Hon. Dato' Haji Mat Isa bin Ismail, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Secretary and Offices: Mr Hasim bin Hasan (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly) 2nd Floor, Pejabat Setiausaha Kerajaan, Peti Surat 1004, Jalan Panglima Bukit Gantang Wahab, 03000 Ipoh, Perak, Malaysia.

Tel.: (+60-5) 522-5212/4 Fax: (+60-5) 241-0451 Email: hasim@perak.gov.my

PERLIS (Malaysia) (www.perlis.gov.my) President: Hon. Abdul Azib bin Haji Saad, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-President: Rt Hon. Dato’ Seri Shahidan bin Kassim, MLA (Chief Minister)

Secretary and Offices: Mr Ahmad bin Zakaria (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly) Pejabat Setiausaha Kerajaan, Ibu Pejabat Kerajaan Negeri, 01990 Kangar, Perlis, Malaysia Tel: (+60-4) 976-5481 Fax: (+60-4) 976- 3555

SABAH (Malaysia) (www.sabah.gov.my) President: Hon. Datuk Hj. Juhar Hj. Mahiruddin, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-President: Rt Hon. Datuk Hj. Musa Hj. Aman, MLA (Chief Minister) Secretary and Offices: Mr Bernard J. Dalinting (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly) P.O. Box 11247, 88813 Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia.

Tel: (+60-88) 427-533 Fax: (+60-88) 427-333 Email: bernard.dalinting@sabah.gov.my

SARAWAK (Malaysia) (www.sarawak.gov.my) President: Hon. Dato Sri Mohd Asfia Awang Nassar, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice President: Rt Hon. Datuk Patinggi Tan Sri Dr Haji Abdul Taib Mahmud, MLA (Chief Minister) Secretary and Offices: Mr Abang Othman Abang Fata (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly) Dewan Undangan Negeri, Sarawak, Petra Jaya, 93502 Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia.

Tel: (+60-82) 440-796, 440-628, 441-955 Fax: (+60-82) 440-790, 440-628 Email: abangof@sarawaknet.gov.my

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 279

CPA Organization:Layout 1 08/10/2010 15:22 Page 280

THE CPA ORGANIZATION

Directory of Parliaments and Legislatures SELANGOR (Malaysia) (www.selangor.gov.my) President: Hon. Tan Sri Dato’ Seri Haji Onn bin Haji Ismail, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-President: Rt Hon. Dato’ Seri Dr Mohamad Khir bin Toyo, MLA (Chief Minister) Secretary and Offices: Mr Mohd Yasid bin Bidin (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly/ Protocol) State Legislative Assembly of Selangor, Tingkat 1, Bangunan Annex Dewan Undangan Negeri Selangor, 40680 Shah Alam, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia.

Tel: (+60-3) 5544-7613 Fax: (+60-3) 5510-4055 Email: faizah@selangor.gov.my

TERENGGANU (Malaysia) (www.terengganu.gov.my) President: Hon. Dato’ Haji Tengku Putera Bin Tengku Awang, MLA (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-President: Hon. Dato' Idris bin Jusoh, MLA (Chief Minister) Secretary and Offices: Mr A Rahim Bin Jusoh (Branch Secretary) Cawangan Negeri, Terengganu Darul Iman, Tingkat U2, Blok Podium, Wisma Darul Iman, 20503 Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia.

Tel.: (+60-9) 623-1957 Fax: (+60-9) 623-6957 Email: sudewan@terengganu.gov.my

MALDIVES (www.majlis.gov.mv/pm/english) President: Hon. Abdulla Shahid, MP (Speaker of the People's Majlis) Vice-President:

Hon. Ahmed Nazim, MP (Deputy Speaker of the People's Majlis) Secretary and Offices: Mr Ahmed Mohamed (Secretary-General) People's Majlis Secretariat, Medhuziyaaraiy Magu, Male, 20080, Republic of Maldives Phone: (+960) 331-3214, 3313216 Fax: (+960) 334-1856, 3324104 Email: cpa@majlis.gov.mv

MALTA (www.parliament.gov.mt) President: Hon. Dr Michael Frendo, MP (Speaker of the House) Vice-President: Hon. Carmelo Abela, MP (Deputy Speaker of the House) Secretary and Offices: Ms Pauline Abela (Clerk of the House) House of Representatives, The Palace, Valletta CMR 02, Malta.

Tel.: (+356) 2559-6300 Fax: (+356) 2559-6400 Email: pauline.abela@gov.mt

MAURITIUS (www.gov.mu) President: Hon. Rajkeswar Purryag, MP (Speaker of the National Assembly) Secretary and Offices: Mr Ram Ranjit Dowlutta (Clerk of the National Assembly) National Assembly, Port Louis, Mauritius.

Tel: (+230) 208-0691, 201-1414 Fax: (+230) 212-8364 Email: themace@intnet.mu

MONTSERRAT (www.gov.ms) President: Hon. Joseph H. Meade, MLC (Speaker of the Legislative Council)

280 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

Vice-President: Hon. Reuben Meade, MLC (Chief Minister) Secretary and Offices: Miss Judith Jeffers (Acting Clerk of Councils) Government Headquarters, Brades, Montserrat.

Tel: (+1-664) 491-2195 Fax: (+1-664) 491-6885 Email: legis@gov.ms/ jeffersj@gov.ms

MOZAMBIQUE (www.govnet.gov.mz) President: Hon. Veronica Nathaniel Macamo Dhlovo, MP (Speaker of the House) Secretary and Offices: Dr Baptista Ismael Machaieie (Branch Secretary) Assembleia da Republica, 24 de Julho Avenue. nr. 3773, Caixa Postal 1515, Maputo, Mozambique Tel: (+ 258) 21-40-08-26/29; 21-22-51-00 Fax: (+ 258) 21-40-07-11/2122-51-79 E-Mail: chinhabotao@gmail.com

NAMIBIA (www.parliament.gov.na) Joint Presidents: Hon. Dr Theo-Ben Gurirab (Speaker of the National Assembly) Hon. Asser Kapere (Speaker of the National Council) Joint Vice-Presidents: Hon. Doreen Sioka, MP (Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly) Hon. Margaret MensahWilliams (Deputy Chairperson of the National Council) Secretary and Offices: Mr Jakes Jacobs (Secretary of the National Assembly) National Assembly, Private Bag 13323, Windhoek, Namibia.

Tel: (+264-61) 288-9111 Fax: (+264-61) 247-772 Mrs Panduleni Shimutwikeni (Secretary to the National Council) National Council, Private Bag 13371, Windhoek, Namibia Tel.: (+264-61) 237-561, 2028000 Fax: (+264-61) 226-121 Email: parliament@parliament.gov.na

NAURU (www.naurugov.nr) President: VACANT Secretary and Offices: Mr Frederick Cain (Clerk of Parliament) Parliament House, Nauru Island, Central Pacific.

Tel.: (+674) 444-3145 Fax: (+674) 444-3187 Email: frederick.cain@naurugov.nr

NEW ZEALAND (www.parliament.govt.nz) President: Dr The Rt Hon. Lockwood Smith, MP (Speaker of the House of Representatives) Vice-Presidents: Rt Hon. John Key, MP (Prime Minister) Hon. Phil Goff, MP (Leader of the Opposition) Secretary, Treasurer and Offices: Ms Mary Harris (Clerk of the House of Representatives) Parliament Buildings, Private Bag 18041, Wellington 6160, New Zealand Tel: (+64-4) 817-9999 Fax: (+64-4) 471-2551 Email: cpa@parliament.govt.nz

NIGERIA (www.nassnig.org/ www.nigeria.gov.ng) President: Hon. Oladimeji Bankole, MHR

CPA Organization:Layout 1 08/10/2010 15:22 Page 281

THE CPA ORGANIZATION

Directory of Parliaments and Legislatures (Speaker of the House of Representatives) Vice-President: Hon. Bayero Nafada, MHR (Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives) Secretary and Offices: Mr Oluyemi Ogunyomi (Clerk to the National Assembly) National Assembly, Three Arms Zone, PMB 141, Central Area, Abuja, Nigeria Tel: (+234) 9-234-2269; 9-2340630 Fax: (+234) 9-234-2157; 9-2342159 Email: rabi1982003@yahoo.com

STATE LEGISLATURES OF NIGERIA

ABIA (Nigeria) (www.abiastate-ng.com) President: Rt Hon. Agwu U. Agwu (Speaker of the State House of Assembly) Secretary and Offices: Elder Mazi Orie Oji (Clerk of the House) Abia State House of Assembly, P.M.B. 7242, Umuahia, Abia, Nigeria Tel.: (+234-80) 357 48776/231 49393 Email: nagwu@yahoo.com

ADAMAWA (Nigeria) President: Hon. Abubakar Abdullahi, MLA (Speaker of the House of Assembly) Offices: Adamawa State House of Assembly, Army Barracks Road, Yola, Adamawa Nigeria

AKWA-IBOM (Nigeria) (www.akwaibomstategov.com) President: Hon. Bassey Essien, MLA (Speaker of the House)

Vice-President: Hon. Aniefiok Thomson, MLA (Deputy Speaker of the House) Secretary and Offices: Mr Eddie O. Eyibo (Office of the Clerk of the House) P.O. Box No. 1502, Uyo, Udoma Avenue, Akwa-Ibom State, Nigeria Tel.: (+234) 8032092191 Email: eddieclerk@yahoo.com

ANAMBRA (Nigeria) Branch suspended

BAUCHI (Nigeria) President: Tanko Ibrahim Jalam (Speaker of the House) Bauchi State House of Assembly P.M.B. 0262, Bauchi Nigeria Tel: (+234) 77-543-218/542-8 Fax: (+234) 77-543-218

BAYELSA (Nigeria) (www.bayelsa.gov.ng) President: Hon. Boyehayefa Debekeme, MLA (Speaker of the House) Vice-President: Secretary and Offices: Mr P.K. George, Esq. (Clerk of the House) Bayelsa State House of Assembly, Amarata, Yenagoa, PMB 37, Bayelsa State, Nigeria Tel.: (+234-84) 490-374/490375/490-382 /490-230 Email: byha_yen@yahoo.com

BENUE (Nigeria) (www.benuestate.gov.ng) President: Hon. Tseer Tsumba William Edo, MLA Secretary and Offices: Mr Emmanuel Ukaba (Clerk of the House) Benue State House of Assembly, Legislative Buildings, PMB

102356, Makurdi, Benue State, Nigeria Tel.: (+234-44) 531-610

BORNO (Nigeria) (www.bornonigeria.com) President: Hon. Goni Ali Modu, MLA (Speaker of the House) Vice-President: Hon. Bello Ayuba, MLA (Deputy Speaker of the House) Secretary and Offices: Alh. Musa A. Gwoma (Clerk of the House) Aji Yusuf Ngamdu (Deputy Clerk of the House) Borno State House of Assembly, P.M.B. 1180, Maiduguri, Borno State, Nigeria.

Tel.: (+234) 802-8411328 Fax: (+234) 805-7243812 Email: mgwoma@yahoo.com/ bornoparliament@yahoo.com

CROSS RIVER (Nigeria) (www.crossriverstate.gov.ng) President: Rt Hon. Francis Busam Adah, MLA (Speaker of the House) Rt Hon. (Chief) Dominic Aqua Edem, MLA (Branch Vice President) Secretary and Offices: Ntufam (Elder) John A. Okon (Clerk of the House) Cross River House of Assembly, House of Assembly Buildings, P.M.B. 1372, Calabar, Cross River, Nigeria Tel.: (+234) 87-220-010/87-233706 Fax: (+234) 87-233-706

DELTA (Nigeria) (www.deltastate.gov.ng) President: Hon. Y. D. Igbrude (Speaker) Secretary and Offices: Mr O. J. Iyamu

(Branch Secretary) Delta State House of Assembly, P.M.B. 5028 Asaba, Delta State, Nigeria Fax: (+234) 56-280-661

EBONYI (Nigeria) President: Rt Hon. Omo Christopher Isu, MLA (Speaker) Secretary and Offices: Hon. Chief G.O. Ogbaga (Clerk of the House) Ebonyi State House of Assembly, Nkaliki Road, Abakaliki, Ebonyi State, Nigeria

EDO (Nigeria) (www.edostate.gov.ng) President: Rt Hon. Zakawanu Garuba, MLA (Speaker of the House of Assembly) Vice-President: Hon. Levis Osaretin Aigbogun, (Majority Leader) Secretary and Offices: Mr Egbe Evbuomwan (Clerk of the House) Edo State House of Assembly, P.M.B. 1726, King's Square, Benin City, Edo State, Nigeria Tel.: (+234) 803 4045 926/805 3144 623 Email: edocpasec@yahoo.com

EKITI (Nigeria) President: Hon. Tunji Odeyemi Secretary and Offices: Barr. Fasiku Ademiloye Ojo (Clerk) Email: ekitihouseofassembly@yahoo.uk

ENUGU (Nigeria) Branch suspended

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 281

CPA Organization:Layout 1 08/10/2010 15:23 Page 282

THE CPA ORGANIZATION

Directory of Parliaments and Legislatures GOMBE (Nigeria) Branch suspended

IMO (Nigeria) (www.imostate.gov.ng) Secretary and Offices: Dr Emmanuel Ngozi Ibekwe, MLA (Clerk of the House) Imo House of Assembly, Private Mail Bag 1559, Imo State, Nigeria

JIGAWA (Nigeria) President: Hon. Mujitafa M. Malam (Speaker of the House) Vice-President: Hon. Ibrahim Yusha'u Kanya (Deputy Speaker of the House) Secretary and Offices: Sabo Wada Ringim (Branch Secretary) Jigawa State House of Assembly P.M.B. 7007 Dutse, Jigawa State, Nigeria.

Tel.: (+234-64) 721-362/00 Fax: (+234-64) 721-362.

KADUNA (Nigeria) (www.kadunastate.gov.ng) President: Hon. Abbas S. Pada, MLA (Speaker of the House) Vice-President: Hon. Emmanuel Audu Maisango, MLA (Deputy Speaker of the House) Secretary and Offices: Barr Umma Aliyu Hikima (Clerk to the Legislature) Offices of the Legislative Complex, Kaduna State House of Assembly, Lugard Hall, P.M.B. 2125, Kaduna State, Nigeria.

Tel.: (+234-62) 247-580 Fax: (+234-62) 243-580

KANO (Nigeria) (www.kanostate.net) President: Rt Hon. Abdul Azeez Garba

Gafasa, MLA (Speaker of the House) Secretary and Offices: Mr Mahmoud S. Bello (Clerk of the House) State House of Assembly, PMB 3104, Kano, Kano State, Nigeria Tel.: (+234-64)665-894

KATSINA (Nigeria) (www.katsinastate-lgac.com) President: Rt Hon. Yau Umar Gojo-Gojo, MLA (Speaker of the House) Vice-President: Hon. Bilyanu Moh. Rimi, MLA (Deputy Speaker of the House) Secretary and Offices: Mr Ahmed Moh. Katsina (Clerk of the House) Katsina State House of Assembly, P.M.B 2148, Katsina, Katsina State, Nigeria Tel.: (+234) 65-432-989 (President) /65-432-997 (Secretary) /65-432-992 / 65432-998 Fax: (+234) 65-432-992

KEBBI (Nigeria) President: Hon. Mohammadu D. Dantani (Speaker of the House) Secretary and Offices: Abubakar Dan Malam (Clerk of the House) Kebbi State House of Assembly Birnin Kebbi Kebbi State Nigeria Tel: (+234-68) 332059

KOGI (Nigeria) Branch suspended

KWARA (Nigeria) (www.kwarastate.gov.ng) President: Hon. Babatunde Mohammed, MLA

282 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

(Speaker of the House) Vice-President: Hon. Abubakar M. Sukababa , MLA (Deputy-Speaker of the House) Secretary and Offices: Mr Mahie Abdulkadir (Clerk of the House) Kwara State House of Assembly, Legislative Buildings, Ilorin, Kwara State, Nigeria Tel.: (+234-31) 220-001/220-994

LAGOS (Nigeria) (www.lagosstate.gov.ng) President: Hon. Jokotola Pelumi, MLA (Speaker of the House) Secretary and Offices: Mr R.O Jaiyesimi (Clerk of the House) Lagos State House of Assembly, Assembly Complex, Alausa Ikeja, Lagos, Nigeria Tel.: (+234-1) 496-1686/4978937/493-4753/775-4143 Fax: (234+1) 496-1686

NASARAWA (Nigeria) (www.nasarawastate.org) Secretary and Offices: Mr Moses Ondaki (Clerk of the House) Shendam Road, Lafia, Nasarawa State, Nigeria Tel.: (+234-47) 221-435 Fax: (234-47) 221-563 Email: onawom@yahoo.com

NIGER (Nigeria) Branch suspended

OGUN (Nigeria) (www.ogunstate.gov.ng) President: Rt Hon. Titi Oseni, MLA (Speaker of the House) Vice-President: Hon. Olu, MLA (Deputy Speaker of the House) Secretary and Offices: Alhaji K.A. Lawal

(Clerk of the House) Ogun House of Assembly, P.M.B 2054, Abeokuta, Ogun State, Nigeria.

Tel.: (+234-39) 241-774/243-989

ONDO (Nigeria) (www.ondostate.gov.ng) President: Rt. Hon. Abdusalam Taofiq Olawale (Speaker) Vice-President: Rt. Hon. Akinfolarin Mayowa Email: ondoassembly@yahoo.com

OSUN (Nigeria) (www.osunstate.gov.ng) President: Rt Hon. Raifu Adejare Bello, MLA (Speaker of the House of Assembly) Vice-President Hon. Yekeen Taiwo Sunmonu, MLA (Deputy Speaker) Secretary and Offices: Mr Segun Akinwusi (Clerk of the House) Mr Tunde Kolawole (Secretary) Osun State House of Assembly, Gbongan Road, Abere, P.M.B. 4432, Osogbo, Osun State, Nigeria Tel.: (+234-35) 243-033/360608/08037-186-539

OYO (Nigeria) (www.oyostate.gov.ng) President: Hon. Moroof Olawale Atilola, MLA (Speaker of the House) Secretary and Offices: Mr Okesipe Okesola (Clerk of the House) Parliament Buildings, P.M.B. 5018, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria Tel.: (+234-02) 810-5676/810-4941

CPA Organization:Layout 1 08/10/2010 15:24 Page 283

THE CPA ORGANIZATION

Directory of Parliaments and Legislatures PLATEAU (Nigeria) (www.plateaustategov.org) President: Rt Hon. Simon B. Lalong, MLA (Speaker of the House) Vice-President: Hon. Usman Zumunta Musa, MLA (Deputy Speaker of the House) Secretary and Offices: Mr Cornelius D. Shiolbial (Clerk of the House) Plateau State House of Assembly complex, 21 Old Bukuru Rd, PMB 2142, Jos, Plateau State, Nigeria.

Tel.: (+234-73) 460-153/464080/463-246/465-888 Fax: (+234-73) 460-153, 464081 Email: plateauhouseofassembly@yahoo.com

RIVERS STATE (Nigeria) (www.riversstatenigeria.net) President: Rt Hon. Tonye Willie Harry, MLA (Speaker of the House of Assembly) Secretary and Offices: Sir E.A. Ogele (Clerk of the House) Rivers State House of Assembly, Assembly Complex, P.M.B. 6166, Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria Tel: (+234) 84 234-632 (Speaker)/84-330-338 Fax: (+234) 84 234-630 Email: rvhacpa@yahoo.com

SOKOTO (Nigeria) (www.sokotostate.gov.ng) Joint Presidents: Hon. Abdullahi Balarabe Salame, MLA (Speaker of the House of Assembly) Hon. Bello Muhammad Dange, MLA (Deputy Speaker of the House of Assembly) Secretary and Offices: Hon. Mohammad Mainasara Ahmad (Clerk to the House)

Sokoto State House of Assembly, Kaduna Rd, PMB 02202, Sokoto, Nigeria Tel.: (+234) 60-230-156, 236192 E-mail: harandemahe@yahoo.com

TARABA (Nigeria) Secretary and Offices: Mr Ismailu T. Ukwen Taraba State House of Assembly, Legislative Buildings, P.M.B 1069, Jalingo, Taraba State, Nigeria Tel.: (+234) 35-243-033/35240-657/79-22571/79-23302

YOBE (Nigeria) Secretary and Offices: Mr Alh Mohammed Nur Alkali (Clerk of the House) Yobe State House of Assembly, Maiduguri Road, Damaturu, Yobe State, Nigeria Tel.: (+234-76) 522-995/522-862

ZAMFARA (Nigeria) Branch suspended

NlUE (www.gov.nu) President: Hon. Atapana Siakimotu, MP (President of the Legislative Assembly) Vice-President: Hon. Krypton Okesene, MP Secretary and Offices: Mrs Moka Tano-Puleosi (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly) Ms Tina Tavita (Assistant Clerk of the Legislative Assembly) Assembly Chambers, Fale Fono, P.O. Box 40, Alofi, Niue, South Pacific.

Tel.: (+683) 4200 Ext 87 Fax: (+683) 4344 Email: legislative@mail3.niue.nu

PAKISTAN (www.na.gov.pk/www.senate.gov.pk)

Joint Presidents: Hon. Fahmida Mirza, MNA (Speaker of the National Assembly) Hon. Farooq Hamid Naek (Chairman of the Senate) Secretary: Mr Karamat Hussain Niazi (Secretary of the National Assembly) Mr Raja Muhammad Amin (Secretary of the Senate) Parliament House, Constitution Avenue, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan Tel.: (+92-51) 920-3734/9221082 Fax: (+92-51) 920-5205/9203359 Email: iprsenate@yahoo.com

PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES OF PAKISTAN

BALOCHISTAN (Pakistan) (www.pabalochistan.gov.pk) President: Hon. Muhammad Aslam Bhootani (President of the Legislative Assembly) Secretary and Offices: Mr Muhammad Khan Mengal (Secretary of the Provincial Assembly) Balochistan Provincial Assembly Assembly Secretariat Zarghoon Road, Quetta Pakistan Tel.: (+92-81) 920-1950 Fax: (+92-81) 920 2575/3057

KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA (Pakistan) (http://nwfp.gov.pk) President: Hon. Kiramatullah Khan, MLA (Speaker) Secretary and Offices: Mr Amanullah (Branch Secretary) Northwest Frontier Provincial Assembly, Peshawar, Pakistan

Tel.: (+92-91) 921-0161 Fax: (+92-91) 921-0241 Email: aman_assembly@yahoo.com

PUNJAB (Pakistan) (www.pap.gov.pk) President: Hon. Rana Muhammad Iqbal Khan, MPA (Speaker) Secretary and Offices: Mr Maqsood Ahmad Malik (Secretary) Provincial Assembly of Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan Tel.: (+92-42) 920-0317/8 Fax: (+92-42) 920-0330 Email: info@pap.gov.pk

SINDH (Pakistan) (www.sindh.gov.pk) President: Hon. Nisar Ahmed Khuro (Speaker of the Provincial Assembly) Secretary and Offices: Mr Hadi Bux Buriro (Secretary of the Provincial Assembly) Provincial Assembly of Sindh, Karachi 74400, Pakistan Tel.: (+92-21) 921-2021/9212024 Fax: (+92-21) 921-2033 Email: info@pas.gov.pk

PAPUA NEW GUINEA (www.parliament.gov.pg) President: Hon. Jeffrey Nape, MP (Speaker of the National Parliament) Deputy President: Rt Hon. Sir Thomas Koraea, MP (Deputy Speaker of the National Parliament) Secretary and Offices: Mr Don Pandan (Clerk of the National Parliament) Parliament House, Waigani, National Capital District, Papua New Guinea.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 283

CPA Organization:Layout 1 08/10/2010 15:25 Page 284

THE CPA ORGANIZATION

Directory of Parliaments and Legislatures Tel.: (+675) 327-7400 Fax: (+675) 327-7481 Email: info@parliament.gov.pg

BOUGAINVILLE (Papua New Guinea) Branch suspended

ST CHRISTOPHER & NEVIS (www.gov.kn) President: Hon. Marcella Liburd, MP (Speaker of the National Assembly) Secretary and Offices: Mr José Lloyd (Clerk of the National Assembly) Government Headquarters, P.O. Box 164, Basseterre, St Kitts.

Tel.: (+1-869) 465-2521, 4671335 Fax: (+1-869) 469-5629

NEVIS President: Hon. Marjorie Morton (President of the Assembly) Vice-Presidents: Hon. Joseph W. Parry (Premier) Hon. Vance Amory (Leader of the Opposition) Secretary and Offices: Mr Dwight Morton (Clerk of the Nevis Island Assembly) Administration Building, Charlestown, Nevis Island, West Indies.

Tel.: (+1869) 469-5521 Fax: (+1869) 469-1806 Email: dwimo@hotmail.com

ST HELENA (www.sainthelena.gov.sh) President: Mrs M A Cathy Hopkins, MBE (Speaker of the Legislative Council) Secretary and Offices: Ms Gillian Francis (Clerk of the Councils/Secretary)

The Castle, Jamestown, STH 1ZZ, St Helena.

Tel.: (+290) 2470 Fax: (+290) 2598 Email: gillianf@sainthelena.gov.sh

SAINT LUCIA (www.stlucia.gov.lc/agencies/ legislature) President: Sen. Dr the Hon. Rosemary Husband-Mathurin (Speaker of the House of Assembly) Vice-Presidents: Hon. Stephenson King, MP (Prime Minister) Dr Kenny Davis Anthony, MP (Leader of the Opposition) Secretary and Offices: Mr Kurt Thomas (Clerk of Parliament) Old Government Buildings, Laborie Street, Castries, Saint Lucia WI. Tel: (+1-758) 453-6650/4683919/452-3856 Fax: (+1-758) 452-5451 Email: parliamentslu@yahoo.co.uk

ST VINCENT & THE GRENADINES (www.gov.vc) President: Hon. Hendrick Alexander, MP (Speaker of the House of Assembly) Vice-Presidents: Dr the Hon. Ralph Gonsalves, MP (Prime Minister) Hon. Arnhim Eustace, MP (Leader of the Opposition) Secretary and Offices: Ms Nicole Herbert (Clerk of the House of Assembly) House of Assembly, Court House, Kingstown, St Vincent.

Tel.: (+1-784) 457-1872 Fax: (+1-784) 457-1825 Email: svgparliament@vincysurf.com

SAMOA (www.parliament.gov.ws/general.cfm) President:

284 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

Hon. Tolofuaivalelei Falemoe Leiataua, MP (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Mr Fepuleai A Ropati (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly) P.O. Box 1866, Apia, Samoa.

Tel: (+685) 21 816 Fax: (+685) 21 817 Email: fono@samoa.ws

THE SEYCHELLES (www.egov.sc) Joint Presidents: Dr Patrick Herminie, MP (Speaker of the National Assembly) Vice-President: Hon. Rev. Wavel Ramkalawan, MP (Leader of the Opposition) Hon. Marie-Louise Potter, MP (Leader of Government Business) Secretary and Offices: Ms Veronique Bresson (Branch Secretary/Clerk to the National Assembly) National Assembly of Seychelles, P.O Box 734, Victoria, Mahé Tel: (+248) 285-600 Fax: (+248) 321-1401 Email: lgb5@seychelles.net

SIERRA LEONE Branch suspended

SINGAPORE (www.parliament.gov.sg) President: Hon. Abdullah Tarmugi, MP (Speaker of Parliament) Vice-President: Hon. Lee Hsien Loong, MP (Prime Minister) Secretary and Offices: Mr Siow Peng Han (Principal Assistant Clerk) Parliament House, 1 Parliament Place, Singapore 178880 Tel.: (+65-6) 332-6668 Fax: (+65-6) 332-5526 Email: parl@parl.gov.sg

SOLOMON ISLANDS (www.parliament.gov.sb) President: Rt Hon. Danny Philip, MP (Prime Minister) Vice-President: Mr Manasseh Sogavare (Leader of the Opposition) Secretary and Offices: Mrs Taeasi Sanga (Clerk to the National Parliament) Office of the National Parliament, P.O. Box G19, Honiara, Guadalcanal, Solomon Islands.

Tel.: (+677) 22732 Fax: (+677) 24272

SOUTH AFRICA (www.parliament.gov.za/) Joint Presidents: Hon. Max Vuyisile Sisulu, MP (Speaker of the National Assembly) Hon. Mninwa Johannes Mahlangu, MP (Chairperson, National Council of Provinces) Secretary and Offices: Mr Zingile Dingani (Branch Secretary) Parliament, P.O. Box 15, Cape Town 8000, South Africa.

Tel:(+27-21) 403 2911 Fax: (+27-21) 403 2604 Email: zdingani@parliament.gov.za

PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES OF SOUTH AFRICA

EASTERN CAPE (South Africa) (www.ecprov.gov.za) President: Mr Fikile Devilliers Xasa (Speaker of the Legislature) Vice-President: Ms Noxolo Abraham-Ntantiso, (Branch Chairperson) Secretary and Offices: Mr P. Ndamese (Secretary to the Legislature) Legislature of the Province of Eastern Cape, Private Bag X005I,

CPA Organization:Layout 1 08/10/2010 15:26 Page 285

THE CPA ORGANIZATION

Bisho 5605, South Africa.

Tel.: (+27-40) 608-0207 Fax: (+27-40) 639-1481 Email: jdesousa@ecleg.gov.za

FREE STATE (South Africa) (www.fs.gov.za) President: Hon. M.A. Dukwana, MPL (Speaker of the Legislature) Chairperson: Hon. S. T. Malebo, MEC, MPL (Minister of Public Works) Branch Representative: Hon. Mike Alolo, MPL (Deputy Speaker) Secretary and Offices: Mr B. Phitsane (Acting Secretary to the Legislature) Free State ProvincialLegislature, Private Bag X20561, Bloemfontein 9300, South Africa.

Tel.: (+27 51) 407-1239/4071111 Fax: (+27 51) 407-1137

GAUTENG (South Africa) (www.gautengleg.gov.za) President: Hon. Lindiwe Michelle Maseko, MPL (Speaker) Secretary and Offices: Mr Peter Skosana (Secretary of the Legislature) Gauteng Provincial Legislature, Private Bag X52, Johannesburg 2000, South Africa.

Tel.: (+27-11) 498-5968/9 Fax: (+27-11) 498-5720

KWAZULU-NATAL (South Africa) (www.kznparliament.za) President: Hon. Willies Mchunu, MPL (Speaker of the House) Vice-President: Hon. Sbu Ndebele, MPL (Premier) Secretary and Offices: Ms Nerusha Naidoo (Secretary of the House) KwaZulu-NataI Provincial

Legislature, Private Bag x9112, Pietermaritzburg 3200, South Africa.

Tel.: (+27 33) 355-7600/3557509/8 Fax: (+27 33) 355-7699/3557544 Email: naidoon@kznlegislature.gov.za

LIMPOPO (South Africa) (www.limpopo.gov.za) President: Hon. K.A. Phala, MPL (Speaker of the Provincial Legislature) Vice-President: Hon. Matodzi Mirriam Ramadwa, MPL (Deputy Speaker of the Provincial Legislature) Secretary and Offices: Adv. Mr E.N. Lambani (SecretarytotheProvincialLegislature) Provincial Legislature of Limpopo, Lebowakgomo Government Complex, Private Bag X9309, Polokwane 0700, South Africa.

Tel: (+27-15) 633-5071/6338008 Fax: (+27-15) 633-8185 Email: npglegs@mweb.co.za

MPUMALANGA (South Africa) (www.mpuleg.gov.za) President: Hon. Yvonne N. Phosa, MPL (Speaker) Vice-President: Hon. B.J. Nobunga, MPL (Deputy Speaker) Secretary and Offices: Mr Rolson Mathabathe Moropa (Secretary to the Legislature) Mpumalanga Legislature, Private Bag XII289, Nelspruit 1200, South Africa.

Tel.: (+27-13) 766-1166/8/9 Fax: (+27-13) 766-1459

NORTH-WEST (South Africa) (www.nwpl.gov.za) Chairman: Hon. Raymond Motsepe President: Hon. D. P. Maloyi

(Speaker of the House) Vice-President: Hon. Maureen Modiselle (Premier) Secretary and Offices: Mrs Gaoretelelwe (Secretary for the North-West Legislature) 2nd Floor, Legislature Building, Private Bag X2018, Mmabatho 2735, South Africa Tel: (+27-183) 927-010 Fax: (+27-183) 873-908 Email: tshedimosetso@nwpl.org.za

NORTHERN CAPE (South Africa) (www.northern-cape.gov.za) President: Hon. Calvin A.T. Smith, MPL (Speaker) 1st Vice-President: Hon. E.M. Dipico, MPL (Premier) Secretary and Offices: Mr M.Z. Mawasha (Acting Secretary to the Provincial Legislature) Northern Cape Provincial Legislature, Private Bag X5066, Nobengula Extension, Kimberley 8301, South Africa.

Tel.: (+27-53) 830-9007/8, 8398069 Fax: (+27-53) 839-8094 Email: mmashope@leg.ncape.gov.za

WESTERN CAPE (South Africa) (www.wcpp.gov.za) President: Hon. S. Esau, MPP (Speaker of the Legislature) Vice-President: Hon. T.R. Majola, MPP (Deputy Speaker of Legislature) Secretary and Offices: Mr Peter Williams (Secretary to the Provincial Parliament) Legislature Building, P.O. Box 648, Cape Town 8000, South Africa.

Tel: (+27-21) 487-1621 (President: 487-1602; VicePresident: 487-1611) Fax: (+27-21) 487-1618

(President: 487-1604; VicePresident: 487-1613) Email: peter.williams@wcpp.gov.za

SRI LANKA (www.parliament.lk) President: Hon. Chamal Jayantha Rajapaksa, MP (Speaker of the Parliament) Vice-Presidents: Hon. Ratnasiri Wickramanayaka, MP (Prime Minister) Hon. Ranil Wickremasinghe, MP (Leader of the Opposition) Secretary and Offices: Mr Dhammika Kitulgoda (Acting Secretary-General of Parliament) CPA Office, 4th Floor, Parliament of Sri Lanka, Sri Jayewardenepura Kotte, Sri Lanka.

Tel.: (+94-11) 277-7223 (Speaker), (+94-11) 277-7288 (Secretary-General of Parliament), (+94-11) 277-7277/8 (Office) Fax: (+94-11) 277-7275/7227 Email: cpa@parliament.lk

SWAZILAND Joints Presidents: Sen. Gelane Zwane (President of the Senate) Prince Guduza Dlamini, MP (Presiding Officer) Vice-Presidents: Sen. Chief Gelane Zwane (Deputy President of the Senate) Hon. Trusty Gina, MP (Deputy Speaker of the House of Assembly) Secretary and Offices: Ms Sanele M. Nxumalo (Clerk to Parliament) Houses of Parliament, P.O. Box 37, Lobamba #107, Swaziland.

Tel.: (+268) 416-2407/11, 4163440 Fax: (+268) 416-1603 Email: adminparl@swazi.net

TANZANIA (www.parliament.go.tz) President:

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 285

CPA Organization:Layout 1 08/10/2010 15:27 Page 286

THE CPA ORGANIZATION

Hon. Samuel John Sitta, MP (Speaker of the National Assembly) Vice-President: Hon. Mizengo Kayanza Peter Pinda, MP (Prime Minister) Mr Hamad Rashid Mohammed, MP (Leader of the opposition) Secretary and Offices: Dr Thomas Kashililah (Clerk) The National Assembly, Box 9133, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Tel.: (Dar es Salaam): (+255-22) 211-8591/2 Fax: (Dar es Salaam): (+255-22) 211-2538 The National Assembly, P.O. Box 941, Dodoma, Tanzania.

Tel.: (Dodoma): (+255-26) 2322696/232-4604 Fax: (Dodoma): (+255-26) 2324218 Email: dmgalami@parliament.go.tz

ZANZIBAR (Tanzania) President: Hon. Pandu Ameir Kificho, MHR (Speaker of the House of Representatives) Vice-President: Hon. Shamsi Vuai Nahodha, MHR (Chief Minister) Secretary and Offices: Mr Ibrahim Mzee Ibrahim (Clerk of the House of Representatives) House of Representatives, P.O. Box 902, Zanzibar, Tanzania.

Tel: (+255-24) 223 0234/5 Fax: (+255-24) 223 0215 Email: zahore@zanlink.com

TONGA (www.parliament.gov.to) President: Hon. Tu’ilakepa, MP (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) Secretary and Offices: Dr Viliami Uasike Latu (Clerk of the House) Tonga Legislative Assembly, P.O. Box 901, Nuku’alofa, Tonga.

Tel: (+676) 23565/24455 Fax: (+676) 24626 Email: sione_tekiteki@parliament.gov.to

TRINIDAD & TOBAGO (www.ttparliament.org) Joint Presidents: Sen. the Hon. Timothy HamelSmith (President of the Senate) Hon. Wade Mark, MP (Speaker of the House of Representatives) Vice-Presidents: Hon. Kamla Persad-Bissessar, MP (Prime Minister) Dr Keith Rowley, MP (Leader of the Opposition) Secretary and Offices: Ms Jacqui Sampson (Clerk of the House of Representatives, Honorary CPA Branch Secretary) Assistant Branch Secretary: Mr Neil Jaggassar (Clerk of the Senate) Parliament, Red House, P.O. Box 878, Port-of-Spain, Trinidad and Tobago.

Tel: (+1 868) 6232565, 6238366 Fax: (+1 868) 6254672 Email: jsampson@ttparliament.org

TURKS & CAICOS ISLANDS Branch in abeyance

TUVALU President: Sir Kamuta Latasi (Speaker of the Parliament) Vice-President: Rt Hon. Apisai Ielemia, MP (Prime Minister) Secretary and Offices: Ms Lily Faavae (Acting Clerk of the Parliament) Office of the Speaker, Private Mail Bag, Funafuti, Tuvalu.

Tel.: (+688) 20250 Fax: (+688) 20253, 20843 Email: parliament@tuvalu.tv

286 | The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three

UGANDA (www.parliament.go.ug) President: Hon. Edward Ssekandi, MP (Speaker of Parliament) Treasurer: Hon. Rosemary Nansubuga Seninde, MP Secretary and Offices: Mr A.M.Tandekwire (Clerk to Parliament) Parliament House, P.O. Box 7178, Kampala, Uganda.

Tel: (+256-414) 256-190/234340/6/235-023/347-438/40 Fax: (+256-414) 231-296/346826/250-459 Email: clerk@parliament.go.ug

UNITED KINGDOM (www.parliament.uk) Joint Presidents: Rt Hon. Baroness Hayman (Lord Speaker) Rt Hon. John Bercow, MP (Speaker of the House of Commons) Chairman: Rt Hon. David Cameron, MP (Prime Minister) Vice-President: Rt Hon. Ed Miliband, MP (Leader of the Opposition) Joint Honorary Treasurer: Sir Nicholas Winterton, MP Secretary and Offices: Mr Andrew Tuggey Westminster Hall, Houses of Parliament, London SW1A 0AA, United Kingdom.

Tel: (+44-20) 7219 5373 Fax: (+44-20) 7233 1202 Email: cpa@parliament.uk

NORTHERN IRELAND (United Kingdom) (www.niassembly.gov.uk) President: Hon. William Hay, MLA (Speaker of the Assembly) Vice-Presidents: Rt Hon. Peter Robinson, MP, MLA (First Minister) Secretary and Offices:

MrTrevor Reaney (Branch Secretary) Room 23, Parliament Buildings, Belfast BT4 3XX Tel.: (+44-28) 9052-1130 Fax: (+44-28) 9052-1959 Email: Peter.Gregg@niassembly.gov.uk/ speaker@niassembly.gov.uk

SCOTLAND (United Kingdom) (www.scottish.parliament.uk) President: Mr Alex Ferguson, MSP (Presiding Officer) Vice-Presidents: Rt Hon. Alex Salmond, MP, MSP (First Minister) Mr Ian Gray, MSP (Leader of the party not represented in the Scottish Executive with the greatest number of Members in the Parliament) Secretary and Offices: Mrs Margaret Neal The Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh EH99 1SP, United Kingdom Tel: (+44 131) 348 5318 Fax: (+44 131) 348 6925 Email: margaret.neal@scottish. parliament.uk

WALES (United Kingdom) (www.assemblywales.org) President: Rt Hon. Lord Dafydd ElisThomas, PC, AM (Presiding Officer) Vice-President: Hon. Rosemary Butler, AM (Deputy Presiding Officer) Secretary and Offices: Ms Natalie Drury-Styles (Branch Secretary) National Assembly for Wales, Cardiff Bay, Cardiff CF99 1NA, United Kingdom.

Tel.: (+44-29) 2089 8705 Fax: (+44-29) 2089-8686 Email: natalie.drurystyles@wales.gsi.gov.uk

CPA Organization:Layout 1 08/10/2010 15:27 Page 287

THE CPA ORGANIZATION

VANUATU Branch suspended ZAMBIA (www.parliament.gov.zm)

President: Hon. Amusaa K. Mwanamwambwa, MP (Speaker of the National Assembly) VicePresidents:

Hon. Michael Mabenga, MP Hon. Request Muntanga, MP Secretary and Offices: Mrs Doris Katai Mwinga (Clerk of the National Assembly)

Parliament Buildings, P.O. Box 31299, Lusaka 10101, Zambia.

Tel.: (+260-1) 292-425/36 Fax: (+260-1) 292-252 Email: clerk@parliament.gov.zm

Are these Branch listings correct?

Details of CPA Branches contained in these pages are correct as of going to press.

If Branch details are incorrect, please notify: pirc@cpahq.org For current details, please consult our website at www.cpahq.org

The CPA Centennial 2011...

The CPA is planning a publication to commemorate the CPA Centennial in 2011. To ensure that we have the most up-to-date parliamentary information, we would ask for all Branch secretaries to check the details of the Branch in the directory as well as on the website.

The Parliamentarian | 2010: Issue Three | 287

The Budget Process:Different Ads.qxd 07/10/2010 15:43 Page 288

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 07/10/2010 15:41 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 07/10/2010 15:42 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.