PARLIAMENT OF FIJI

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

THE SENATE

DAILY HANSARD

FRIDAY, 29TH OCTOBER, 2004

            The House resumed at 9.30 a.m. pursuant to adjournment.

            MR. PRESIDENT took the Chair and read the Prayer.

PRESENT

                        All Members were present except the honourable Senator Kenneth Low, the honourable Senator Ratu Josefa Dimuri, the honourable Senator Dr. Atu Emberson-Bain, the honourable Senator James Ah Koy and the honourable Senator Viliame Navoka.

MINUTES

            HON. LEADER OF THE HOUSE.- Mr. President, Sir, I beg to move:

                        That the Minutes of the sitting of the Senate held on Thursday, 28th October, 2004, as previously circulated, be taken as read and be confirmed.

            HON. SENATOR REV. T. KANAILAGI.- Mr. President, Sir, I beg to second the motion.

            Question put.

            Motion agreed to.

COMMUNICATION FROM THE CHAIR

            MR. PRESIDENT.- Honourable Senators, our scripture reading is taken from the book of James 1 : 2 and 4, which says and I quote:

            "Consider it pure joy my brothers whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything."

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

            HON. SENATOR ADI K. NAILATIKAU.- Mr. President, Sir, I had given notice to invoke Standing Order 59. I thank you for giving me the privilege, under Standing Order 59, to respond to the various comments that have been made by Mr. Joji Kotobalavu, the Chief Executive Officer in the Prime Minister's Office. I noted also that his comments were endorsed by Mr. Paula Kunabuli in the Office of the President, the former Prime Minister, Mr. Sitiveni Rabuka and the media release from the Conservative Alliance Matanitu Vanua Party, following my statement to the Senate on the issue of reconciliation last Friday, 22nd October, 2004.

             Firstly, Sir, the comments made by them were interesting. Regrettably, however, their comments were totally misconceived, misconstrued and taken out of context of my speech on reconciliation. I also noted, Sir, that the Prime Minister's comments in the Fiji Times dated, 25th October, 2004 that he was saddened to hear that I had suggested that he benefitted from the May 2000 coup. In this respect, I wish to assure His Excellency the President and the honourable Prime Minister that the suggestions made by Mr. Joji Kotobalavu were not true, never intended and highly mischievious to say the least.

            Mr. President, Sir, my statement was not a personal attack on His Excellency the President or the honourable Prime Minister. The suggestions therefore by Mr. Joji Kotobalavu of the Prime Minister's Office that the Prime Minister had left his $250,000 job to take up the Prime Ministership is totally irrelevant. In fact, my statement had nothing to do with the benefits that the Prime Minister currently enjoys.

            If I might just add, if the Prime Minister gets a lesser salary than that is most unfortunate. Mr. Joji Kotobalavu should know and not quibble about the salary issue, because this is the reality for any Government position, including that of the Prime Minister. In any case, one and in particular, Mr. Joji Kotobalavu should not compare private sector salaries to Government salaries. We all know that this is always an ongoing bone of contention. In this respect and needless to say, Sir, there must always be responsibility and accountability by any Government of the nation's limited national purse.

            Mr. President, Sir, I therefore reiterate that my speech last Friday was purely in the context of the reconciliation of the matanigasau and the reconciliation process.

            Secondly, Mr. President, Sir, I maintain and reiterate my earlier stance, that had it not been for the May 2000 coup, I strongly believe that my beloved parents the Turaga Bale na Tui Nayau and the Marama Bale na Roko Tui Dreketi would still be here today. Having said that, the matanigasau should have been accorded earlier (much earlier) to the Turaga Bale na Tui Nayau and the Marama Bale na Roko Tui Dreketi and all victims of the coup, to show Government's sincerity in its efforts on peace and reconciliation and not as an afterthought four years later.

            Furthermore, Sir, whilst Fiji is recovering from the events of May 2000 and if the process of reconciliation is to have any purpose or meaning, the perpetrators of the coup must be brought to justice without any further delay.

            On this note, I would like to acknowledge and commend Police Commissioner Andrew Hughes and Commodore Frank Bainimarama in their efforts so far for the fine work they have done in restoring law and order. Also, to the Judiciary for maintaining its independence and fearless stand in the dispensation of justice.

            Mr. President, Sir, I also wish to respond and clarify a number of assertions made by the former Prime Minister, Major General Sitiveni Rabuka regarding my statement to the Senate. My statement to the Senate last Friday, Sir, was not designed to tear the nation apart, as has been suggested by Major General Rabuka. In fact, my statement was to contribute to the discussion on peace and reconciliation, as I had earlier mentioned. The questions that I asked needed to be asked, the people that I mentioned needed to be reminded about the importance of all our efforts to reconcile this country. The people of Fiji, Sir, have been asking many questions and what they need and what we all want are answers. As leaders of the country, we need to reassure our people that they have a place and a future in Fiji.

            So the questions, Sir, I raised were most sincere and speak and reflect the sentiments of the silent majority who cannot and will not, for fear of their lives, stand up and speak out.

            As a lawyer, Sir, I endorse the principle of the presumption of innocence as enshrined in our Constitution. Make no mistake, I have not used the privileges of the Senate to make these comments, but I strongly believe that the questions I raised, go to the very heart of reconciliation and therefore must be addressed by the Government.

            On the issue of my legal education in the United Kingdom as raised by Major General Sitiveni Rabuka in the Fiji Times on Monday, 25th October, 2004, I wish to clarify that it was my father, Na Turaga Bale na Tui Nayau and my mother, Na Marama Bale na Roko Tui Dreketi who paid the full tuition fees for me to undertake a Bachelor of Laws Degree and a Post Graduate Diploma in International Law at the London School of Economics. The SVT Government, which he led at that time, only paid for my six months entry to the Bar Course.

            Mr. President, Sir, I believe that I have contributed to the task of nation-building, especially in the area of foreign policy, contrary to what Major General Rabuka suggested. This is because, Sir, when I left Government in March 1999, I had faithfully served as a career officer in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for 22 years. Sir, on 19th May, 1999, I was elected as a Member of Parliament, representing the Lau constituency. I served as a Minister for Tourism and Transport in the Coalition Government until we were unceremoniously removed by the events of May 2000. We know, Sir, that the rest will be written in the history books of Fiji.

            In this respect, Sir, Major General Rabuka forgets that when he executed the 1987 coups, he literally tore the nation of Fiji apart and created the coup culture that we all unfortunately have to live with today. He should therefore, Sir, be the last person to point a finger at anyone for that matter, to have the audacity to suggest that I am trying to tear the nation apart with my comments, which were incidentally on reconciliation. In fact, I am and have always been and will always be for a united Fiji, just like the late Turaga Bale na Tui Nayau (Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara).

            Mr. President, Sir, I have not been deliberately selective as has been suggested by the various commentators. I have only taken the opportunity in this august House, to discuss the issue of reconciliation in the context of our recent political past. Sir, there is no doubt that there has been much pain and suffering as a result of the coups. That is why I said that the matanigasau should have been performed to the victims of the May 2000 coup.

            Mr. President, Sir, to further clarify my point, the matanigasau ceremony is a traditional mechanism for reconciliation. It is a very serious matter and should be undertaken in its rightful traditional context. It is not to be taken lightly, as it is only performed to aggrieved persons. That is why, Sir, I had said earlier on that it was inappropriate to present the matanigasau, with my deepest respect, to His Excellency the President and the honourable Prime Minister, because they were not victims of the May 2000 coup.

            Mr. President, Sir, I believe that Fiji is at the cross roads. We should all be proud of our traditions and our rich multi-cultural heritage.

            Fiji, Sir, must move forward. We must honestly search our hearts and ask ourselves whether what we are doing, is in the best interest of the present and future generations of Fiji.

            I believe that with the grace of God, we can rid ourselves of the vestiges of the coup culture that had been created by the coups of 1987 and the coup and mutiny of 2000 by none other than Major-General Sitiveni Rabuka.

            As leaders of Fiji, Sir, we should emulate our most distinguished leaders of the past, such as the Turaga Bale na Tui Lau, Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna, na Turaga mai Naisogolaca, Ratu Sir Edward Cakobau, na Turaga Bale na Vunivalu, Ratu Sir George Cakobau, na Turaga Bale na Tui Cakau, Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau and recently the Turaga Bale na Tui Nayau, Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara and the Marama Bale na Roko Tui Dreketi, Adi Lady Lalabalavu Tuisawau Mara.

            To conclude, Mr. President, Sir, these past leaders had a vision for Fiji. They built the very fine foundations of Fiji that we all enjoy today. As Fiji's leaders, Sir, we also have the challenging task of sharing in that vision and moving Fiji forward.

            In doing so, Sir, we must reflect and follow through on their greater vision they had for Fiji. We can do this by showing respect for one another in this House, and upholding the rule of law in Fiji.

            All of us therefore, today have a responsibility to work together as part of the process of nation building and creating a peaceful and prosperous Fiji for all.

            Mr. President, Sir, as a woman and a member of the Tokatoka Matailakeba, Mataqali Vuanirewa, Tikina o Lakeba, Yasana o Lau, I thank you, Mr. President and honourable Senators for your patience and time.

            RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON THE MOTION FOR A  

                                          COMMISSION OF

                            INQUIRY INTO THE VALIDITY OF THE

                                       1997 CONSTITUTION

            HON. SENATOR Q.B. BALE.- Mr. President, I rise to contribute to the debate on the motion before the House. In so doing, may I state at the outset, Sir, that my understanding of the wording of the motion is that, it seeks the approval of this august House that the Government should advice His Excellency the President to appoint a Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act to inquire into the validity or otherwise of the 1997 Constitution.

            Mr. President, Sir, the justification for seeking this approval from this august House is that, there is grave and serious concerns and doubts in the minds of many citizens in this country in respect of the process adopted that led to the enactment of this Constitution.

            Mr. President, Sir, the motion states that these concerns have been demonstrated by the various subsequent litigation pertaining to the Constitution itself. This, Mr. President, Sir, is my understanding of the motion before the House and my contribution will be based on this understanding.

            Sir, my interpretation of the intent of this motion, as verified by its mover and other honourable Senators who have contributed to the debate is the complaint against the process adopted which resulted in the enactment of this fundamental legal document rather than a critical analysis of its provisions. Although, Sir, complaints about various provisions of the Constitution are necessarily part of the cause of concerns.

            I intend therefore, Mr. President, Sir, to confine my contribution more to the process adopted by our law makers at the time for the purpose of obtaining the informed consent of the people which should have been vital to the formation and enactment of such a fundamental legal document for this country.

            Our Constitution, Mr. President, Sir, is, as they say, the mother and source of all laws would prevail over any other law made in Fiji that is inconsistent with any of its provisions. It is for this reason that those who support this motion insist that no such fundamental document that impacts so vitally and so significantly on our lives should be enacted unless the widest cross section of our communities as may be practically possible, have given it and its provisions their clear mandate and clear informed consent.

            This, Mr. President, Sir, is an argument I can readily associate with as a matter both of law and logic. The current Constitution came about through two amendments to the 1990 Constitution.

             Firstly, in 1997 by way of Act No. 13 of that year and Act No. 5 of 1998.

            Sir, although these were cited as amendments to the 1990 Constitution, they actually resulted in the repeal and replacement of the 1990 Constitution instead of just amending that Constitution.

            Mr. President, Sir, it is common knowledge that the Fijian community have been agitated over this issue, since the enactment of this Constitution. For the purpose of this motion, the principle ground of complaint by the indigenous community was and has always been that they had not agreed to the Constitution in its entirety; only some parts of it. Some will suggest that the Fijian community had not agreed to the 1997 Constitution as a whole.

            Sir, the basic reasoning, as I understand, used in support of this argument include the following, that the:

1. Recommendations in the Reeves Report of the Constitutional Review Team (Towards a United Future), had been rejected by at least eight of the 14 provincial councils representing the Fijian communities throughout Fiji.

2. BLV had not itself scrutinised the Reeves Report, because it had left this task to provincial councils.

3. BLV had only given a conditional approval to the Constitutional Amendment Bill (13/97) and the conditions had not been satisfied. So, it is not correct, Mr. President, Sir, to say that the BLV supported, let alone unanimously, the 1997 Constitution (Amendment) Bill.

4. BLV had been given misleading assurances by the law-makers at the time regarding the process, which led to the enactment of the 1997 Constitution.

            Mr. President, Sir, in my contribution, I would like to share with honourable Senators some facts, which I am personally aware of regarding these reasoning or grounds.

            As envisaged in the motion, the involvement of the Bose Levu Vakaturaga (BLV) (as the pinnacle of Fijian leadership), in the 2000 political crisis in Fiji, can perhaps be used as reliable measures of the role played by the Fijian community as a whole, in the formation and acceptance of the 1997 Constitution.

             Sir, following the decision of the then Rabuka Government, to appoint a Constitution Review Commission, to carry out a review of the 1990 Constitution, pursuant to sections 77 and 161 of the 1990 Constitution, the BLV decided, at its meeting on 27th and 28th January, 1997, that it would not itself give any oral or written submissions of its own to that Commission, both during the inquiry conducted by the Reeves Commission, as well as in respect of its Report, which became known as the Reeves Report. Instead, Mr. President, Sir, the BLV decided to leave it to individual provinces and the people of Rotuma to make their own submissions as they saw fit, before their respective comments on the Reeves Report were brought up to the BLV for its consideration.

             Sir, according to the Reeves Report, out of a total of 852 submissions received by the Constitution Review Commission throughout Fiji, 350 were oral and 502 written submissions, including those who were responding to requests from the Constitution Review Commission itself for written views. Of the 350 oral submissions, 240 were from Fijian individuals and groups and 110 were from non-Fijian individuals and groups.

            Sir, a summary of the views of each of the 14 provinces and Rotuma on these various recommendations of the Reeves Report showed that the majority rejected most of the Reeves Report. They are as follows:

(a) Seven rejected chapter 15 - Ethical and Accountable Government, eight rejected Chapter 2 - Strengthening Constitutional Foundations, Chapter 3 - Constitution, its Purpose and Underlying Values, Chapter 5 - National Identity and Shared Goals, Chapter 7 - Bill of Rights, Chapter 13 - Administration of Justice, Chapter 16 - Public Revenue and Expenditure, Chapter 17 - Protected Rights of Communities and Groups and Chapter 18 - Local Governance;

(b) Nine provincial councils rejected Chapter 6 - Right to be or Become a Fiji Citizen, Chapter 11 - Functioning of Parliament, Chapter 12 - Executive Government, Chapter 14 - Efficient and Politically Neutral State Services and Chapter 19 - Emergency Powers;

(c) 10 provincial councils rejected Chapter 10 - Electing Members of Parliament and Chapter 20 - Constitution as the Supreme Law and Relating to its Review or Alteration, including Entrenched Legislation;

(d) 11 provincial councils rejected Chapter 8 - Ethnic and Social Justice;

(e) the Province of Nadroga, supported the whole Report, subject to the views of the Joint Parliamentary Select Committee (JPSC) on the Constitution;

(f) the Province of Lau supported Chapters 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 20. They partly supported Chapter 9 and did not express any views on other chapters, like 7, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19;

(g) Lomaiviti, Mr. President, Sir, supported Chapters 2, 6, 7, 15, 18, 19, and 20. They partly supported Chapters 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16 and 17 and did not express any views on Chapter 14;

(h) the Province of Ba, Sir, supported Chapters 6, 15 and 16 and partly supported Chapters 7, 9, 11, 13 and 17. They expressed no views on Chapters 2 and 3;

(i) Bua supported Chapter 15, partly supported Chapters 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20; and

(j) Rotuma rejected some and accepted other provisions of the Reeves Report.

            I have taken pains, Sir, to explain all this, because it is indicative of the contrary of what has been claimed by many that the Constitution was generally and unanimously supported and approved by the BLV.

            Now, Sir, in explaining their views for rejecting these recommendations in the Reeves Report, the provincial councils throughout Fiji, which were involved stated clearly that they felt strongly that the corresponding provisions in the 1990 Constitution were better for Fijians, as well as being adequate for Fiji.

            The views of the 14 provinces I have described, Sir, were considered by the BLV at its meeting on 10th and 11th April, 1997. The BLV appointed a committee comprising one representative from each province, to do a number of things and that is to:

1. Study and assess the views received from each of the provinces on the various chapters of the Reeves Report.

2. Compare these views with the recommendations of the JPSC on the Constitution, that is on each of these Chapters.

3. Consider the explanations of the Fijian members in the JPSC on the chapters where the views of the JPSC are different from those of the provinces.

The BLV Committee held three meetings with the Fijian Members of the Joint Parliamentary Select Committee (JPSC) who were informed about the opposition or reservations of the provinces to various chapters of the Reeves Report, as I have described. A joint report of the BLV Committee and the Fijian Members of the JPSC was the prepared and submitted to the BLV at its meeting on 2nd May, 1997. There were 24 recommendations and explanations in that Joint Report. The BLV accepted the recommendations in this Joint Report, on the understanding that the Fijian Members in the JPSC would ensure that these recommendations would be given favourable consideration by the JPSC and also during the Committee Stage and the Third Reading of the Constitutional Amendment Bill. Sir, of the 24 recommendations from the Joint Report of the BLV Committee and the Fijian Members of the JPSC, only 12 were rejected by the JPSC.

            Mr. President, Sir, at the BLV meeting on 6th June, 1997, the Fijian Members in the JPSC presented a paper to the BLV, informing it that the JPSC had completed its task and there was a need for an immediate endorsement of the JPSC Report, in order to allow a draft Bill of the Constitution to be completed in time for the First Reading in the House of Representatives three days later. The BLV was informed that any further amendments could be introduced during the Committee Stage of that Bill. The BLV, for that reason, endorsed the final JPSC Report, but it was endorsed on the clear understanding that the Fijian Members in Parliament would work out a political solution for further amendments to accommodate what the provinces were concerned about.

            Sir, at its meeting on 18th July, 1997, the BLV was informed through an information paper, that both Houses of Parliament had already passed a new Constitution, which would become law upon assent by the President. The Constitution, having already been passed by both Houses, the BLV had no choice but to bless it.

            Mr. President, Sir, the facts I have recountered are taken from the relevant documents and Minutes of the BLV. They show the role, which the BLV played in the formation of the 1997 Constitution and the reasons some claim and many can understand why the indigenous Fijians in the provinces have been and continue to be unhappy with the 1997 Constitution.

            In summary, Mr. President, Sir, I would restate what I understand to be the underlying causes, which prompted this motion and they are as follows:

(a) that the majority of indigenous Fijians did not accept most of the changes to the 1990 Constitution introduced under the 1997 Constitution; and

(b) that the BLV did not give the unequivocal approval to the adoption of the 1997 Constitution as so frequently claimed by some, even the courts.

These, Mr. President, Sir, are some facts, which I believe would justify this august House to support the request made in the motion before this House. These are areas, which continue to concern indigenous Fijians and it seems would continue to do so until either an inquiry the types sort in this motion or a fresh constitutional review is undertaken to put these issues to rest. To this day, Sir, the process leading up to the formation of the 1997 Constitution was not fairly or completely finalised, to the satisfaction of the majority of the Fijians in the 14 provinces throughout Fiji.

            At the first BLV meeting held on 4th June, 1999 (after the General Elections in 1999), Mr. Chaudhry, as Prime Minister attended as an ex officio member. He also brought all the Members of his Cabinet to introduce to the BLV, on the invitation of the then Minister for Fijian Affairs (Adi Kuini Speed). Sir, it seems that the concerns of the indigenous Fijians against the 1997 Constitution, which came into force on 25th July, 1998 (that is the second amendment), did not clearly emerge until after the 1999 General Elections held under the new Constitution because of many reasons. May I tabulate some of them, Sir, according to my understanding.

1. The indigenous Fijians became more fragmented, going into the 1999 General Elections, than they were in any previous general elections.

2. The BLV-sponsored SVT Party, which many Fijians believed was responsible for the enactment of the 1997 Constitution lost the General Elections, largely it seems, as a result of losing the confidence of the indigenous Fijians.

3. The loss of political control in Fiji to an Indian dominated political party, (and I say this, Sir, as a fact rather than as a comment), and first non-Fijian Prime Minister in the history of Fiji as a result of the 1999 General Elections, has been regarded and treated by indigenous Fijians as a principal justification of their objection to the Reeves Report and the 1997 Constitution that it produced.

            Mr. President, Sir, this is a time when we talk, as had been put ably by the honourable Senator Dr. Ratu Nailatikau; "It is time to talk facts to talk about the truth". The proof of the pudding, they often say is in the eating. In the first year of Government rule by the Chaudhry Government, from May 1999 to May 2000, the following actions by the Chaudhry Government attracted a great deal of concern and criticisms in the context and the eyes of the indigenous Fijians, an unwanted Constitution from among them:

(a) The insistence by the Chaudhry Government to retain the ALTA, despite the decision by the BLV at its meeting on 11th February to 13th February, 1998 that upon the expiry of leases granted under ALTA, native land should be excluded and removed entirely from ALTA and control over native land should remain in the Native Land Trust Act. This, of course, was a common cause of concern that were expressed in the Opposition to the Reeves Report from various provinces throughout the country;

(b) The insistence by the Chaudhry Government to introduce its concept of a Landuse Commission, despite what was perceived as a overwhelming opposition from native land owners.

            Thirdly, the Chaudhry Government's removal of the annual grant of $1.5 million by Government to the Fijian Affairs Board (FAB).

            Fourthly, the Chaudhry Government's decision to compensate cane farmers, most of whom are Indians (this is a fact, not racial), with a cash grant of $28,000 each to help these farmers whose leases had expired and were not being renewed.

            Fifthly, the difficulty came when the Chaudhry Government was seen as having failed to make a corresponding financial assistance, by way of grant, to help Fijian landowners who wished to replace outgoing Indian cane farmers on their own land.

            Seventhly, it was perceived Indianisation of the top civil service positions by the Chaudhry Government; and

            Eighthly, the insistence by the Chaudhry Government to control the harvesting of mahogany plantations on native land leased to Government, despite strong opposition from native owners and the NLTB.

            I am citing those, Sir, as the issues were commonly discussed in the open at that time and were indicative of what we are talking about in this motion. It is about the concerns of the indigenous Fijians, and what this Constitution brought that has marginalised some of their interests.

            Sir, these concerns were included in the list of grievances by indigenous Fijians and their petition was handed to the Commissioner Western at the end of their protest march in Lautoka on 20th April, 2000 and in Suva on 28th April and 19th May, 2000 respectively.

            The petition was presented to the Chairman of the BLV at the end of the protest march on 28th April, 2000 and was signed by 13,006 Fijians from the provinces of Ba, Bua, Cakaudrove, Lomaiviti, Naitasiri, Namosi, Ra, Rewa, Serua, Tailevu and in various urban centres around Suva and other centres.

            Mr. President, Sir, at its meeting held between 26th April, 2000 and 28th April, 2000, the BLV noted the incidence of events showing growing discontent among indigenous Fijians throughout Fiji, arising out of the discontent or their unhappiness with the 1997 Constitution and the manner in which the Chaudhry Government was running the nation. Sir, what happened after that is now part of the history of this nation that many of us would like to forget and we pray that it will never happen again.

            I am among those who believe that unless and until the grievances and discontent of the Fijian community are properly and fully addressed, lasting peace and stability will continue to avoid our nation and our people. The solution, in my humble view, Sir, is not to keep arguing amongst ourselves about the pros and cons of the 1997 Constitution, since it is now clear that we cannot reach an agreement on it. The motion before the House offers a way forward to enable us to settle our differences amicably, lawfully and with dignity. We cannot continue to sweep this problem and the discontent it brings to many under the carpet. No matter what amount of fancy reasoning we use, how much philosophy we adopt, it will not solve the problems envisaged in this motion. This, Sir, is why my vote will go towards supporting this motion. It is probably not the only solution, I admit, but it can be a positive way forward.

            Sir, having indicated my support for this motion, it is only fair that as Attorney-General, to point out a couple of difficulties which I envisage will arise out of this motion as a matter of law.

            Firstly, I doubt, Sir, that it can be shown that the actual process followed in Parliament, as opposed to the consultation process that preceded before the Bill came to the House, was unlawful. From all Hansard records that I have seen and perused, I believe that the 1997 Constitution was legally and validly processed in Parliament for the purpose of passing it into law. Now, Sir, that is to be distinguished from the process of consultation that preceded the process in Parliament with which the honourable mover is talking about.

            Secondly, Sir, I have some difficulty in agreeing that legally, there is a way that any decision or recommendation of a commission of inquiry of the type envisaged in the motion, can result in any change to the Constitution, unless the requirements for such alteration as set out in Chapter 15 (Sections 190 and 191) of the Constitution are followed or complied with. Afterall, decisions and recommendations of commissions of inquiries appointed under the Commissions of Inquiry Act do not have any teeth, so to speak. They do not and cannot carry any authority to compel the doing of something, such as the type of decisions made by courts.

            Now, Sir, these are the legal reservations I have about the motion in terms of what will happen at the end, if this motion is passed and a commission of inquiry is appointed. I believe, Sir, that those are the difficulties that we face but I have already stated and I repeat that I support the motion because it is indicative of a positive way forward and maybe from there, the commission of inquiry can suggest and recommend to Government that there be a constitutional review to put to rest differences which carry racial connotations quite unnecessarily.

            Mr. President, Sir, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak.

            MR. PRESIDENT.- Honourable Senators, I intend to call for a tea break now. We now adjourn for tea.

            The House adjourned at 11.05 a.m.

             The House resumed at 11.40 a.m.

            HON. SENATOR RATU K.M. TAUKEINIKORO.- Mr. President, Sir, I rise to support the motion before the House. The main reason I support the commission of inquiry because we want to find out the truth in the inclusion of some of the sections. The Fijians find that unacceptable and also some important issues were not included. I must admit, Sir, that I was a member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee that prepared the 1997 Constitution.

            Mr. President, Sir, we have to be honest amongst ourselves, the 1997 Constitution is the highest document on the land and is legally binding. No argument on earth can change it or disqualify it unless if it is done legally in this august House. That is a fact and we have to accept it. It is true that nine provincial councils, as aspired by the honourable and learned Attorney-General, rejected this Constitution but where were and what did the nine Senators, who represented the nine provinces when the vote was taken in this august House and then it was approved? That is the question that I would like to ask this august House.

            Mr. President, Sir, let us not point fingers indiscriminately. Blunder was committed by the executives of the Bose Levu Vakaturaga who failed to notify the 14 nominees of this august House and advise them on what course to take. There was a communication breakdown, that was the biggest blunder.

            Mr. President, Sir, this Constitution is fair but not good. It is not good enough because some sections do not satisfy the Fijians and if they are not happy, there is bound to be trouble. That fact has to be accepted by those who are opposing this motion. We want to live in a society that is prosperous, peaceful, full of love and accommodating. The Fijians are well known for their accommodating attitude.

            HON. SENATOR M.A. KHAN.- And generosity.

            HON. SENATOR RATU K.M. TAUKEINIKORO.- And of course, their generosity, thank you very much honourable Senator.

            Mr. President, Sir, please allow me to speak in the vernacular.

            Kemuni saka na Turaga na i Liuliu ni Bose, au saka edua na lewe ni komiti vata kei na gone marama bale ka dabe saka tiko oqo, ko honourable Senator Adi Litia Cakobau. Ena gauna ni veivosaki mai ra, keirau a vakatalai vakarua e tuba. Ni levu na ka keirau a kauta cake tiko ka keirau a nanuma me vakacurumi ena Yavu ni Vakavulewa ka sega ni vakayacori saka.

            Na compact ka ratou vosa saka tiko kina na wekadatou oqo, e dua na tiki ni legislation vei au e sega ni dua na kena i balebale because it was not legislated. Oqo na vanua ka keirau a raica saka tiko me biu vakalawa na compact. The honourable Senator Dr. Ali espoused to that the other day.

            Edua saka talega na ka e dodonu me vakadodonutaki ena Vale cecere oqo, mera kila saka na noda era vakarorogo tiko ni duidui na coup ni 1987 kei na coup ena 2000, ena vuqa sara na ka. Ena 1987 a sega ni dua na dra e dave kina, ena 2000 e levu na dra a dave saka kina.

            Na kena i karua e dodonu me kilai saka kina ni oti na coup ena 1987, a tekiduru o Sitiveni Rabuka na Prime Minister ena gauna oya, ena rara ni Queen Elizabeth Barracks ka vakasuka na lewa i veiliutaki kina Bose Levu Vakaturaga. E tubera e lima se ono na kamunaga ka vakasuka na lewa ni veiliutaki ni Matanitu oqo ki na Bose Levu Vakaturaga. Sa qai cakacaka mai kea na Bose Levu Vakaturaga.

            Na coup ni 2000 e kena veibasai saka. E tekiduru na Bose Levu Vakaturaga ena vale era a tiko kina na gone turaga saka na Qaranivalu, na gone marama bale ko Adi Litia kei na gone turaga o Ratu George Cakobau, ka keitou lewe vica saka na digitaki mai na Bose Levu Vakaturaga me keitou saga mera sereki na lewe ni Fiji Labour Party ka ra suka na noda ki na nodra veikoro. E a beci na lewa ni Bose Levu Vakaturaga. E levu vei keitou a tokona toka vakalailai na coup nei George Speight, na yasana ko Namosi, Serua kei Nadroga a vakasuka ena siga oya.

            E dua na duidui e tiko ena rua na coup ka a vakayacori. Na komiti ni Bose Levu Vakaturaga ea saga meratou sereki na lewe ni Fiji Labour Party, me rawa ni toso na veivosaki ka vakayacori na veika e gadrevi tiko ena gauna koya; me boko na Yavu ni Vakavulewa, to abrogate the Constitution. E ka ni rarawa ni a sega saka ni yaco na nanuma matau, lewa vuku kei na rai yawa ni Bose Levu Vakaturaga.

            Au gadreva me kila o Viti ni voleka saka talega ni keitou vesu. A kacivaki mai ka tukuni vaka oqo; "dou vesuki iratou oqori, dou biuti iratou vata kei Chaudhry." E vei saka na veivakaturagataki? Oya saka e dua na duidui levu ka yavalata tiko na kawa i Taukei ena gauna ni kua. Ena 1987, au a dabe saka tiko ena vale ni Bose Levu Vakaturaga, a kau mai kina e dua na mosoni, au nanuma saka tiko mera kila na noda, na Idia vata kei ira na dui kaikai. Au sega ni kila eso na Turaga Bale era a tiko ena gauna oya, ena vula o Julai 1987. Sa vakaturi saka mai ena dua na yasana, ka'u na sega ni via vakatukuna na yasana era vakatura, mera vakau laivi na Idia e Viti, just repatriate them, the whole lot. Na kena i tukutukuni saka ena siga oya me kerei na Matanitu o Igiladi, Ositerelia me kau mai e 20 se 100 na meli sitima mera mai vodo kina. Oqo na vakasama ka ra kau mai. E ciwa na Yasana e saqata na lewa oqo, de dua o iratou saka ga na ciwa na Yasana oqo eratou nanuma me kakua ni veisau na Yavu ni Vakavulewa.

            Au gadreva me'u tukuna saka eke ni gone turaga na Tui Namosi e a vosa ena siga koya. Oqo na ka era a kaya saka; "E rawa ni dou kauti kora na koi Idia taucoko e Viti, na noqu koi Idia era tiko mai Navua, tabu ni dua e tara e dua, tabu ni dua e tara na koi Idia tiko mai Navua". Forgive me, honourable Senators on the other side of the House. A mai veisautaka saka na veivosaki ena siga oya. Na ka ga e gadreva saka na i Taukei ena gauna oqo na veiliutaki.

            We want to rule our own country, there is no harm and there is nothing bad about that. I can assure honourable Senators if that is done, Fiji is going to be a very peaceful and prosperous nation.

            HON. SENATOR M.A. KHAN.- Mr. President, Sir, I rise to contribute on the motion before the House, which is urging this House to agree that the Government advises His Excellency the President to commission an inquiry into the validity or otherwise of the 1997 Constitution.

            Mr. President, Sir, if I were to take a legalistic approach to this motion then I would be inclined to go along with the observations made by the honourable and learned Attorney-General and Minister for Justice that the Constitution Amendment Act, 1997 is legally valid and will stand in full force and effect as the supreme law of Fiji.

            Mr. President, Sir, I believe that the mover of the motion is making reference to the Constitution as a piece of document which is commonly referred to by the honourable Members of the Taukei community as a document which has inherent shortfalls or shortcomings. This perception is a matter of view and opinion and each one of us, with the greatest of respect, is entitled to his or her own view.

            The coming into effect of the 1997 Constitution, as we commonly understand, Sir, has a very long history and a process which involved a lengthy discussion both amongst the people of Fiji as well as the various other jurisdiction of sovereign countries which have differences amongst their population. They try to address these concerns by amending their Constitution, so that they could live happily and in prosperity.

            The Reeves Commission is the forerunner to the passing of the 1997 Constitution. The main driver of this Constitution at that stage was the 1990 Constitution. It was mandatory for the 1997 Constitution to be reviewed within seven years of its passing. As a result, the then Soqosoqo ni Vakavulewa ni Taukei (SVT) Government together with its sweetheart partner, the National Federation Party (NFP), tried to engineer the process to change the Constitution.

            Mr. President, Sir, when discussions were taking place, the Reeves Commission took a very comprehensive approach towards what would be the way forward for Fiji. As a result, a voluminous book was prepared and distributed for consumption by the people of Fiji. Of course, that was the beginning of the process and the people who were going to be relevant to any changes or review were the Members of the Lower House and the Upper House and of course, His Excellency the President, all of which constituted the Parliament of Fiji.

            Mr. President, Sir, if I may briefly stop and take our memories back. Prior to the 1990 Constitution, the actual rim of power was always vested with the Taukei community. In fact, the British had a go with us in trying to remodel and reshape our lives in this country. Of course, they initiated it but generally speaking, the Taukei community had the opportunity to be at the forefront of the administration of this- country.

            We have had capable leaders, who always take into consideration the various rights and interest of various communities to try and strike a good balance of governing the country. I mean the Government that was headed by the late Turaga Tui Nayau, the honourable Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara. Under his leadership, this country progressed in every aspect of development that one could possibly envisaged or think of. His contribution by forming the Alliance Party with the platform of equal standing with the Taukei community, the Indian community and the General Electors. It laid the foundation of progress, not only of the generation then but for future generation as well.

          Education, infrastructure development, enhancement of major industries including mahogany, foreign relations, various protocols and trade agreements, bilateral and multi lateral aid which all happened during his time.

            Mr. President, Sir, so much so that Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara coined and successfully gained Pacific recognition of what we now understand, the Pacific way of living and dealing with things. I salute the late Turaga na Tui Nayau for the dedication, hardwork and for all that he has given to Fiji at present and the future. I was a communal candidate in the 1987 General Elections for the Alliance Party. Since then, everyday of my life has been linked with the politics of this country. I feel it is my duty to contribute in big or small as it may be, for the progress of the country. I was born in this place, it is my motherland and the Lord has provided me with sustenance, which I am thankful to. I have always said the taukei community deserve our appreciation, praise, love and also our attention.

            HON. SENATOR ADI L. CAKOBAU.- And respect!

            HON. SENATOR M.A. KHAN.- Indeed, in heaps and bounds, Sir.

            Mr. President, Sir, after 1987, a very high Chief was removed through a political process vis-a-vis from power and of course, the events of 1987 happened where a duly elected Government was over thrown by the then Major-General Sitiveni Rabuka. The action taken was totally unacceptable, absolutely illegal to say the least. After a period of reconciliation, talking, giving and thanking, this country through the wisdom and guidance of the Great Council of Chiefs was brought onto to rail to progress further. The Great Council of Chiefs played that pivotal role in ensuring that the confidence of all the people in this country were at its disposal and they stood for Fiji as a united nation for everyone.

            With that goodwill, we proceeded, Mr. President, Sir, again under the prime ministership of the then Interim Prime Minister, the Turaga na Tui Nayau. The illegal activities were to be forgotten, forgiveness were to be given, but indeed, it was expected that lessons would be learnt that no one was above the law.

            Sir, in 1990 to 1997 a period of almost seven years inclusive of the rule of the Prime Minister who had the total backing, (I would presume, Mr. President, Sir, at least in theory) of the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC) because he represented the Soqosoqo Vakavulewa ni Taukei (SVT) which was a chief sponsored party to rule Fiji as the legitimate Government. What happened in those seven years is a matter that has to be revisited in order to find the concerns that the honourable mover of the motion is wishing to raise.

            When it came to the constitutional review process, consultations did take place, but as I had said, the drivers of the constitutional process was the then Prime Minister and the National Federation Party (NFP). I do not have to speak on the role of the Fiji Labour Party (FLP) because it was a Party that stood for justice for everyone and a just constitution for everyone at the Joint Parliamentary Committee level. There were efforts made for exclusion of the views of the FLP, but after a lot of persistence, bargaining, et cetera, the FLP made a very gallant contribution towards the document that we have today. But, whilst the 1997 Constitution was being reviewed, various minority communities including the Fiji Muslim League had made submissions to the Reeve Commission and also to the then Prime Minister, Sir. What came of it, is a mystery to me.

            HON. SENATOR DR. A. ALI.- Ignored!

            HON. SENATOR M.A. KHAN.- Yes, blatantly ignored. Since 1926, this minority community wanted to have a say in the process, but we were ignored. If we were not ignored totally, at least the GCC was ignored. Sir, you can see the level of (if I may with greatest of respect), arrogance (is not too harsh a word to be used) that was crippling in the process.

            There are two Senators in this august House who are brothers and sisters. The brother is standing here speaking to the House and the sister is sitting there keenly listening to her brother. I am referring to honourable Senator Adi Litia Cakobau.

            She was one of the Senators who was nominated by the Senate to be on the Committee for Review. She was entrusted to ensure that Fijian interests are sufficiently protected and the concerns of the Fijian people, the Taukei community are fully addressed in the process of constitutional review. She did her best to convince the then drivers of the Constitutional Review process to bring on board the wishes and aspirations of the Taukei community and I had been in constant liaison with her during those days to ensure that we do not falter because we do not have a second chance, I am sure the honourable Senator can recollect all this.

            She did her best. She spoke and she even, in the light sense of the word, fought with them, but she was not to be listened of. In fact, I would not be surprised if I were to raise that she was about to be given marching orders if she was not going to be with them, then she can find her way out, which was exit.

            HON. SENATOR ADI L CAKOBAU.- I was ousted.

            HON. SENATOR M.A. KHAN.- So, it is confirmed?

            HON. SENATOR ADI. L. CAKOBAU.- Yes, I was told to leave.

            HON. SENATOR M.A. KHAN.- She was told to get out of it.

            This is history, Mr. President, Sir, that the House have to know, and as I said, I keenly follow the politics of our beautiful country and I have knowledge of what I am trying to say because I had been reliably informed that was what happened, Madam Senator.

            Sir, when she came back to report to us, the way that JPSC was functioning, I just could not believe, that a Taukei sponsored political party in power would go ahead and give treatment to people the way they did. Now, we are being told that certain provinces that had certain points of view were not listened to when this process was undertaken. Well, if indeed that was so, then it is a matter for the GCC to investigate and come to its conclusion and it is the prerogative of the GCC. I am no one to suggest anything other than, except to humbly, with greatest of respect, to all our turaga's who represent the GCC, vis-a-vis through the various 14 provinces and the GCC perhaps would like to have a look at what the concerns were, because so far we do not know, for what reasons or what were the particulars of those reasons on which these dissatisfactions were raised. It has never come to light, except a general sweeping statement that nine out of 14 provinces did not go along with whatever was submitted to the GCC.

            The amazing thing was, Mr. President, Sir, if that was so, then we have an opportunity, both in the Lower House as well as in the Upper House, to hear of the views if they were any different from what was presented in terms of the Constitution Amendment Bill that was before the House.

            When it came to discussions and deliberations, the Senate was unanimous in approving it, so I took it, that it had the requisite, approval of the GCC through their nominees in the Senate, because the GCC's views in the House comes through the representatives of the GCC in this particular House. They are the voice of the GCC, if you may like, Sir. I did not even have, Mr. President, Sir, an inkling as to any disagreement of a level that could be classified as matters of grave and serious concern of the taukei communities.

            I am now placed in a difficult p

osition, because the motion is before the House, Mr. President, Sir, to express my views as to how I look at it. I do not know whether this motion has been discussed with the Members of the GCC, who, as the GCC body proper, has had a look at what is being sought after, in terms of agreement by this House. In the absence of that, I take it that a motion by a Senator from the Government side, requesting this House to agree that the Government advises His Excellency, the President to commission an inquiry into the validity of the Constitution.

            Well, the position, insofar as the wording of the motion is concerned, the Government does not need the approval of this House, in order for any inquiry to be requested for. The Government, I believe, can carry on and do whatever it thinks is appropriate, given the circumstances.

            Insofar as the validity aspect of the Constitution is concerned, Mr. President, Sir, the Constitution stands in full force and effect. The honourable and learned Attorney-General has confirmed that he has gone through the procedures that had been adopted and followed in this House and it is within the rules of both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, the Constitution's validity, insofar as the procedures are concerned are in order.

            HON. SENATOR DR. A. ALI.- Then vote for the motion. What's wrong with you?

            HON. SENATOR M.A. KHAN.- If one touches the chord of my relationship with the taukeis of this land, if I cannot vote for them, my heart is always with them, Sir.

            HON. SENATOR ADI L. CAKOBAU.- That's not the same thing.

            HON. SENATOR M.A. KHAN.- That is the way it is.

            HON. SENATOR ADI L. CAKOBAU.- Thank you.

            HON. SENATOR M.A. KHAN.- There is a lot of confusion in the minds of young taukeis, Mr. President, Sir, as to which way mass politics is leading this country. It arises out of the aspirations of a handful of mateni politicians who do not know much about the taukei culture, tradition and protocol. They want to hold a briefcase in their hands, with some newspaper in it, go and register a political party and say they are fighting the general elections. You are not fighting the general elections, you are generally fighting your own people.

            HON. SENATOR RATU J. RAYAWA.- That's their right.

            HON. SENATOR M.A. KHAN.- Mr. President, Sir, the Turaga Tui Noco, the honourable Senator Rayawa, I wish to thank him - at a crucial time, when I needed support, I got it from him. I have always cherished the relationship I have with him and I always will.

             The little parties that would like to come into the mainstream for their own political and economic gain is what concerns me, because they are the ones who form great divisions. Perhaps, for the sake of unity, we should talk to them. I think a good talanoa with them will be a reasonably good way forward, Mr. President, Sir, for the sake of unity. This is my humble request, with the greatest of respect.

            Disrespect shown to the traditional leaders of the community, namely the high chiefs of the land, is now eroding, Mr. President, Sir. It is a serious concern for us all, to see that proper and due respect is not given to the chiefs of our country. In fact, mischievous people make mischief and include our chiefs in it. This is yet another cause for concern, which I feel is important for us to take note of.

            As I said, Sir, I am not here to tell or dictate how our taukei community is to organise itself politically. I am here to share and suggest, Mr. President, Sir, with the greatest of respect, that elements of unity are needed, for the general goodwill and prosperity of our indigenous community.

            Mr. President, Sir, I would like to conclude my speech by saying that the proper forum for this would be for the GCC to consider and deliberate. Then we could have a look at the outcomes of those deliberations, before we start addressing the issues that have been raised as matters of concern.

            Before I resume my seat, I would also like to refer to a point that the honourable mover of the motion mentioned. When the sovereignty of Fiji was given to Britain, legally, it should have been given to those who handed over part of the sovereignty to them. I think it is an issue that should be addressed to the British High Commission in Fiji. That is the proper avenue to pursue; ask the Brits to answer to that - did they hand the instruments back to the right or wrong people? It if it is to the wrong people, then claims for damages should be sought. That is your legal right. I would then like to see which members of the United Nations will support you, honourable Senator Tora. You might have a case there.

            I am not saying whether honourable Senator Tora is right or wrong, but he has put the premise on the floor of this House, saying that it was a wrong delivery of sovereignty delivered into the wrong hands. The British should answer to that today. Ring Tony Blair and he will probably refer you to the right channels. He is very much into telephone calls nowadays.

            Mr. President, Sir, if it is so, then I think there is cause for grave concern. If that is what you are saying, honourable Senator Tora, then I am with you. Take them to task if they have made a wrong delivery of sovereignty.

            Mr. President, Sir, I am not lost for words. I am lost as to how our taukei community has gotten lost in the process, because of politicians who want to shortchange them. They should not shortchange us, Sir. The politicians should respect the overall interests of our indigenous people, Sir.

            HON. SENATOR ADI L. CAKOBAU.- Yes, yes, we do.

            HON. SENATOR M.A. KHAN.- Yes indeed, you do. You demonstrated that to me when you were in the JPSC Committee on the Constitution, you fought for that. I give you full credit for it, honourable Senator. It did not turn out the way we thought it would. This is where the short changing took place.

            Mr. President, Sir, I would like to say that my sympathy is with those who have concerns. The proper authority is the GCC. The Government, on its own steam, can take the matter forward.

            As to the validity or otherwise of the Constitution, it is a legally binding and effective document that stands in full force.

            HON. SENATOR J. KOROI.- Mr. President, Sir, I was not going to participate but I decided again to say a few words.

            Sir, the philosophy underlying the Fiji Constitution of 1990 was that previous arrangements were inadequate to give protection to the interest of indigenous Fijians and that such protection could be afforded only if the indigenous Fijian leaders were guaranteed political ascendancy.

            While the pre-1987 balance allowed for a degree of accommodation with Indo-Fijian interest, even if only at an elite level, the 1990 Constitution was motivated with the desire to exclude permanently any possibility of Indo-Fijian parties forming a Government. Political developments in the introduction of the 1990 Constitution could be seen as a consequence of the problems inherent in this formula which have suggested that Fijian ascendancy is both politically and economically unsustainable.

            The first problem was that the heavy electoral waiting given to indigenous Fijian voters still did not make the formation of stable Fijian Government an easy task. The removal of the perceived common threat of Indo-Fijian dominance had the effect of exacerbating divisions within the indigenous Fijian community. A tendency worsened by the communal electoral system which set Fijians in political competition with each other.

            In the 1992 and 1994 Elections, the successor to the Alliance Party, the Soqosoqo Vakavulewa ni Taukei, which roughly translates to Fijian political party was unable to form a government in its own right. In 1992, the Fijian vote was split between independence and two Fijian nationalist splinter parties. The SVT with 36 in the 70 seat Parliament was short of a majority. This set up a struggle for the prime ministership between Major-General Rabuka and the late Josevata Kamikamica, who was supported by the late Turaga na Tui Nayau, Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara. Major-General Rabuka was only able to become Prime Minister with the help of the Fiji Labour Party which agreed to support Rabuka immediately if there was a review of the 1990 Constitution and the reform of tax, land and labour laws. The alliance between Rabuka and the Fiji Labour Party only lasted until June of 1993 when the Party withdrew its support and began an indefinite boycott of Parliament, following Rabuka's failure to fulfill the terms of the agreement.

            Rabuka's Government collapsed at the end of the year, when SVT Members voted against the Budget. In the subsequent Elections of February 1994, the indigenous Fijian vote was again split between the SVT led by Rabuka and a break away Fijian Association Party (FAP) led by the late Kamikamica. The SVT survived Kamikamica's challenge and increased its representation to 31. The FAP secured five seats but could only form a Government by entering into a Coalition with the General Voters Party which held four seats.

            The split in the Fijian vote as evidenced in the General Elections of 1992 and 1994 reflected the strength in indigenous Fijian society brought by rapid social and economic change and the growth of new political configurations. The 1987 coup was in part an attempt to restore the power and the authority of the old chiefly dominated Fijian order but the trigger of the coup, the Taukei movement represented a new kind of urban mass-based politics of non-chiefly Fijians which also represented a challenge to the primacy of the chiefs, even though its self-declared aims were to defend traditional structures.

            The coup was led not by a chief but a commoner who has had an uneasy relationship with the traditional power, brokers of Fijian politics. Rabuka second coup of 1987 was after all, a strike against a compromise formulated by the traditional Fijian leadership. The tension continued with the contest of the Prime Ministership between the late Kamikamica and Rabuka, with the late Kamikamica supported by the late Turaga Na Tui Nayau, Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, representing a current of thinking which wanted to preserve as much as possible of traditional Fijian political ways. Rabuka's candidacy, on the other hand depended for its success on seeking support outside established circles of power.

            The profound sense of uneasiness felt by many ethnic Fijians about the future of their own particular social and political arrangements as well as the future of Fiji as a modern state were exacerbated by international pressures and economic difficulties experienced after 1987, when the political exclusion of the Indo-Fijian community was institutionalised in the 1990 Constitution. The coups were very economically damaging to Fiji with a massive slump in the tourism industry, a flight of educated Indian labour and investment and a fall in foreign investment and economic and other aid from Western countries.

            Apart from support from some other Melanesian countries such as Papua New Guinea, the Government was diplomatically isolated. In October 1987, Fiji was effectively expelled from the Commonwealth with its membership being deemed to have ended following Rabuka's revocation of the 1970 Constitution and deposition of the Queen as Head of State.

            The economic effects of the coups lessened in the next few years, with tourist arrivals recovering, aid flows gradually and a serious of economic policy reforms allowing the growth of new industries such as garment manufacturing.

            Nevertheless, the country's discriminatory constitutional arrangements were regarded with opprobrium in much of the international community and tended to limit the extent of financial and technical assistance from international donors and to defer investors who feared racially-based instability. Business investment, government administration and the provision of professional services also continued to suffer from the ongoing exodus of Indo-Fijians and people of other races. Symbolic of Fiji's international isolation was its exclusion from the Commonwealth a situation which was particularly distressing to members of the chiefly elite, who placed high value on links with the British crown. Although Fiji had declared itself a republic, its flag retained the Union Jack and Queen Elizabeth's image continued to appear on the country's coin.

            The 1997 Constitution brought immediate political benefits to the Fiji Government in the international arena. The move away from a racially constituted parliament despite its limited scope was widely welcomed by powers such as Australia, New Zealand, Britain and the United States of America.

            Fiji's re-admission to the Commonwealth at the CHOGM of September 1997 in Edinburgh was also a major dividend brought by the change. Although, in Australia the Commonwealth membership was held in high esteem by many indigenous Fijian leaders and re-admission would assist in Rabuka's efforts to rebuild his relationship with the Chiefly elite. The development was also significant because it was achieved with the support of India which had previously opposed any suggestion of Fiji's re-entry into the Commonwealth if a discriminatory Constitution was in effect.

            The Constitution Amendment Act, 1997, came into operation on 27th July, 1998. This Constitution gives genuine regard in recognising, respecting and upholding the rights and interests of all ethnic groups in the Fiji Islands.

            Special provision is made for the protection of indigenous interests such as native lands, and for indigenous peoples self governance through their customary laws practices and processes. However, the 1997 Constitution does not undermine or erode the rights of other ethnic groups.

            The 1997 Constitution takes us into a new order of power sharing, consensus, decision-making and accountability. The various new features promised to achieve these such as the provision for a Multi-Party Cabinet, establishment of Sector Standing Committees and a Code of Conduct.

            The 1997 Constitution aims to achieve a balance between all ethnic groups in all spheres of life, social, political and economical. In pursuit of this aim, the Constitution affirms that the conduct of Government must be based on a set of principles which reflect the mood envisaged in the new order.

            Let us look at the important features of the 1997 Constitution which aims to achieve a balance between the interests of different ethnic groups.

            Sir, Chapter 2 of the 1997 Constitution sets out certain principles on which the conduct of the Government is based. This is known as the "Compact" or agreement between the governors and the governed. The first principle is that all persons, communities and groups have rights which are fully respected. These include the right to:

(a) practice their religion freely; and

                        (b) retain their language, culture and traditions.

            As citizens, members of all communities enjoy equal rights which include the right to:

(a) settle in the Fiji Islands;

(b) form and join political bodies;

(c) take part in political campaigns; and

(d) stand for election to the House of Representatives.

            The Government must also note the rights of indigenous Fijians and Rotumans to allow their governance through their separate administrative systems.

            As an aspect of indigenous rights, the ownership of Fijian lands according to Fijian custom is to be preserved. Where negotiations takes place between parties, Fijian interests are to be given utmost regard to ensure that their interests are not subject to the interests of other communities.

            Dialogue and peaceful resolution are encouraged among the different ethnic groups. It is envisaged that where the interests of different communities are seen to conflict, all interested parties will negotiate in good faith to reach agreement.

            Affirmative Action and Social Justice Programmes (which previously, were accorded to indigenous people only) apply to all disadvantaged citizens. Such programmes are designed to secure effective equality of access to opportunities, amenities and services.

            Finally, the Compact requires that the equitable sharing of political power amongst all communities in the Fiji Islands must be matched by an equitable sharing of economic and commercial power to ensure that all communities fully benefit from the nation's economic progress.

            Sir, before I resume my seat, may I be permitted to explain issues regarding the Land Use Commission and the marketing of mahogany forest referred to by some of the honourable Senators who have already spoken. This I will do by way of reading communications from the late Turaga na Tui Nayau in replying to none other but the mover of the motion written on 26th April, 2000. It says and I quote:

 "Mr. Apisai Tora

            Interim President

            P O Box 505

            LAUTOKA

            Dear Sir

            His Excellency the President, the Rt. Hon. Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara has requested that I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 20.4.2000 in regards to the performance of the Peoples' Coalition Government.

            The Prime Minister, the Hon. Mahendra Chaudhry is at the helm of Government and is assisted by members of his Cabinet who have been assigned responsibility over clearly defined portfolios.

            Decisions therefore, taken by the Prime Minister, who is the chairman of Cabinet, is in fact, the collective decision of Cabinet.

            On the issues raised in respect of Fijian interests, I submit hereunder for your information the following:

(i) I believe that whilst the Great Council of Chiefs expressed sentiments over the plight of the landowners, regarding lease arrangements, the decision of the Great Council of Chiefs was for NLTB to continue dialogue with Government.

(ii) The Land Use Commission is an issue being discussed between Government and the NLTB, the outcome of which would, in due course, be presented to the Great Council of Chiefs.

(iii) I believe, the procedure followed in identifying the CDC to harvest, process and market the mahogany forest is similar to that used for the harvesting and marketing of pine.

(iv) Fijian chiefs who were members of the delegation to China, USA and Malaysia were selected on merit, that is, they are landowners in their own right. The exposure to `land use' practices in neighbouring countries with similar climatic and cultural background as ours could be of direct benefit to them. They may be able to glean from their experience what could be adapted to enhance the returns from land resources available to them as chiefs.

(v) The rehabilitation programme was a policy mooted by Government from the very beginning and was championed by the former Government. The Coalition Government is carrying on with the programme and implementing some of the decisions taken then.

            I believe that there is also provision for assistance to landowners wishing to venture into the cane farming business for the first time.

            On the question of the removal of Government, I wish to advise as follows:

(a) His Excellency does not have the power to dismiss a democratically elected Government

(b) With a properly elected Government in place, His Excellency does not have the legal power to again appoint an Interim Government;

(c) Any amendment to the Fiji Constitution can only be done in accordance with Chapter 15 Section 190-192 of the Constitution.

(d) New election is held after five years as provided for in the Constitution".

            Sir, with this note, I am afraid, I cannot go along with the motion because there are ways of following with this and the amendments, I feel that was said by someone yesterday would be the best as far as I could see. In amending whatever, we are not happy about it.

            HON. SENATOR M. BULANAUCA.- Mr. President, Sir, I rise in support of the motion before the House.

            I fully support that motion, because I feel that the indigenous Fijians and most of the people in Fiji have been defrauded and dealt with most unfairly. That is why I support the motion. There is a need to enquire into how the 1997 Constitution was legalised in the process that took to formalise it.

            The first point I wish to make is that, the Fijian people were the first to inhabit and lay claim of ownership to Viti now called "Fiji Islands". Based on that alone, Fijians must and should have the first right of refusal on anything to do with the sovereignty that is the Constitution and Laws of Fiji always. That must be first and foremost.

            Then the traders begin to come to take back wealth to Britain under the Buccaneer System. However, they often meet up with oppositions from the Fijians with battles and skirmishes, which were the order of the day in those dark ages. Clubs, spears and cannibalism were normal and part of life then. These however, were laid down in the coming of Christianity in 1835 which led to the Deed of Cession in 1874. (I do emphasise here, the importance of Christianity).

            Christianity was responsible for peace and was also very influential in the ceding of Fiji to Great Britain to uphold and maintain peace in this country. Christianity or Christ is synonymous with peace here in Fiji and also in the world. In other words, the leadership, advice and direction taken by Christian leaders were very important for the Governor to act on, thus peace was maintained until 1970, 1987 and 2000. It is always important, therefore, to listen to and act on advice by Christians with due respect to other faith as well.

            Sir, peace was maintained by the Word of God through education and civilisation then developments ensued and was enhanced by the colonial masters until to-date. In other words, development can only excel in peace and the Word of God, the light, through education, will bring about peace. If people want peace then they should listen to Christian leaders' and Christian principles.

            The SVT Government did not listen to Christian Leaders before enacting the 1997 Constitution, thus uncertainty erupted in 2000, I can only hope that it will not erupt again. I am confident that His Excellency the President and the honourable Prime Minister will listen to Christian Leaders as they are doing now, to ensure peace, progress and prosperity. That is their submission towards forming a Commission of Inquiry.

            The Chiefs of Fiji ceded Fiji to Great Britain because Her Majesty the Queen was and still have faith on the Lord Jesus Christ. The Chiefs wanted to associate themselves with Christ (Christianity). They felt that only a Queen with a heart of Christ would ensure peace, education, civilisation and prosperity in this country. They felt that a Clergy, or a Talatala should bless the Legislative Council before they meet. That maintained peace and prosperity for 135 years, which is a good record. However, it ended in 1970 when Fiji had its first Constitution. The point is, with Christ, we will be in peace, progress and prosper. This was not so in the 1970, 1990 and the 1997 Constitutions, which I will explain later.

            The Instrument of Independence did not ensure that the sovereignty and the paramountcy of the Fijian people and its Christian faith were intact. Instead, it gave the sovereignty to all the people of Fiji and that is to Parliament rather than to the Fijian people or to the Great Council of Chiefs. I do not know why, it is anyone's guess.

            Our leaders that went to the constitutional Conference did not ensure the paramountcy of Fijian interests and their faith. They sold the Fijians out and did not press hard enough, they gave up easily.

            Sir, Christianity was thrown out of the 1970 Constitution and was something of the past. While that is partly true, history is in fact, the story of Jesus. Jesus is not only about history but is also of now. In other words, it is the story of Jesus now and the future. Remember, the wages of sin is death if we do not repent.

            Secondly, we have also relegated Christ the Lord Jehovah, who is the Lord of lords along with that of other faiths. This is idolatry, is against God and therefore, sinful. We had a Chief Minister from 1967 to 1970 and a Prime Minister from 1970 to 1972, which was held by the late Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara. The first General Elections was held in 1972 and won by the Alliance Party.

            HON. SENATOR M. BULANAUCA.- Only in the second General Election in 1977, the Alliance Party lost to the National Federation Party (NFP). I take that as a result of God's curse, Sir and it was so soon for such a thing to happen. Unfortunately, the NFP could not form a Government because of internal arguments amongst themselves and fortunately for the Alliance Party, due to delayed technicality, the Governor-General at the time, Ratu Sir George Cakobau gave the Government back to the late Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, of the Alliance Party to lead the country once again.

            Mr. President, Sir, only 10 years later, the Alliance was beaten by the Labour Coalition with the Flower faction of the NFP and the Government was governed by an Indian dominated and driven party.

            Mr. President, Sir, I would like to say that the Indians rejected the late Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara's principles of multi-racialism and care for all. That is a testimony in itself. The Fijians in particular, the chiefs did not accept an Indian or foreigner to become a Prime Minster on this land called Fiji, thus the coups were executed by the Fiji Military Forces led by Major-General Rabuka at the time. Who authorised the coup? Many lurked behind the shadows, it is anyone's guess, yours is as good as mine, I suppose.

            Sir, our own Fijian leaders at the time planted the seed of the coup culture for our children to imitate it in 2000. Our chiefs supported the 1987 coup and we immunised all those who were involved, including those who lurked under the shadows of silence or vakagaluya. As a political solution, we used our sovereignty rights and forgave all of them. I like that, that is good. We gave them all new life to continue with, to which we uphold to date.

             Mr. President, Sir, my point is that, when we relegate the Lord Jesus Christ with our gods is idolatry. At the same time, we disregard Jesus and therefore, tantamount to rejecting him as our Lord. When we relegate and reject Jesus as our Lord, it tantamounts to sin and the wages of sin is death. As we sin, we will surely be cursed and because of our rejection of Jesus Christ, under the 1970 Constitution, we have been cursed ever since. Thus the 1970 Constitution was thrown out by the military coup of 1987, and we have had many problems since then, Sir.

            Similarly the 1990 Constitution, Jesus Christ was relegated and the Holy God tasked us with the same fate of being thrown out by the 1997 Constitution. Although we Fijians favoured this Constitution, the Lord did not like it as it suffered the same fate of the 1970 Constitution. The point, Sir, is that, we Christians and the Lord Jesus Christ rejected the idea of christianity and Christ being relegated to any worldly god.

            Mr. President, Sir, on the 1997 Constitution again along the same line, Sir, the Lord Jesus Christ was relegated to the Preamble of the Constitution, same as that of any other worldly god and that He is history only. This was again done by the Reeves Commission (two of whom were christians) and none other than our Fijian leaders who were all and still are christian leaders.

            Again, Mr. President, Sir, it suffered the same fate of the 1970 Constitution. The 2000 coup and the Constitution was abrogated by the Commander of the Fiji Military Forces also supported by the Great Council of Chiefs. I like that, Mr. President, Sir. Only that our leaders and the GCC changed their minds after the Chandrika Prasad case. There is a lot of lies in the Chandrika Prasad evidences and that we Fijian people did not properly present our case legally, contrary to what we have been led to believe by our own legal Fijian lawyers. We need to appeal against the Chandrika Prasad case, what are our Fijian lawyers doing? We need to wake up and fight to protect Fijian indigenous interests. Again, we have been let down by our own Fijian people and lawyers.

            Sir, we now see the consequences, the out of tune, costly and devastating litigations against those who were involved in the 2000 coup (Fijian people), and now culminating to our chiefs and Fijian people been thrown into prison. Instead of us throwing the 1997 Constitution away because we did not accept it, we now throw our very own chiefs and people to prison, which is sad to note, Sir.

            To me, Mr. President, Sir, I continue to see it as a curse from the Lord because we are relegating Him, Jehovah Jiare, to mere preamble, likened or equaled to any other worldly god, and that He is history. We will continuously suffer the same fate as we continue to do so.

            My point, Mr. President, Sir, is that in no way christians in Fiji accepted the 1997 Constitution with Jehovah been relegated, rejected and likened to any worldly man-made idol.

            Mr. President, Sir, the christian population in Fiji is about 400,000 Fijians, 20,000 Indians, who opposed the 1997 Constitution and also the Fiji Labour Party also rejected the 1997 Constitution, so there is a clear majority of the population who opposed the 1997 Constitution. The population of Fiji had been defrauded by our leaders, those whose motive was to force the 1997 Constitution down our throat. What we need is for every individual in Fiji, through a referendum or whatever to say, "I make this Constitution my Constitution." That is what we need, for each individual to say that, not declared or forced down our throats by others. A majority to be counted and adopted, that is real democracy, the yardstick we live rather than forcing rights and constitution down everyone's throat, that is blatant, too much pride dictatorial and arrogance.

            Mr. President, Sir, I seek your indulgence to speak in the vernacular.

            Au via vakadeitaka tikoga ni na levu ni turaga kei na marama e Viti, ra sega ni taleitaka na Yavu ni Vakavulewa ni 1997 vata kei na kena tuvani kei na kena caka mai e sega ni muri vakavinaka me tarai ira vakavinaka sara na noda. E vuqa vei ira e sega sara tuga ni matata vei ira na cava na Yavu ni Vakavulewa `oqo; na cava na kena yaga, na cava na kena kaukauwa ni sa na tarai ira ena veivanua era dui dabe tiko mai kina kei na vei delaniyavu ena dui tu mai kina. E vaka e dua na ka e vakusakusataki ga mai, kau ga mai vavalagi, mai vakusakusataki, toloraki vakaveitalia vei keda e Viti. Au vakaraitaka tiko kina ni kena vakatotolotaki se na vuni cava e vakatotolotaki kina ni dua na ka bibi saka `oqo, na Yavu ni Vakavulewa ni dua na vanua. E yaga me tauri vakamalua, vakamacalataki vakavinaka ki na veiyasana, veitikina, veikoro, veiyavusa kei na veimataqali, ke mani taura sara e vitu na yabaki se 10 na yabaki, io me vakamacalataki ga vakavinaka. Me siro vakavinaka na veika e baleta na Yavu ni Vakavulewa ni vanua oqo vei ira na lewenivanua o Viti. Me kakua ga ni vakatotolotaki tu, vakusakusataki tu e dua na ka me qai toloraki yani ena loma ni dua na tamata.

            E ka bibi cake kina Turaga nai Liuliu ni Bose, na veika bibi vaka `oqo ni dau yaco mai esa yaga me dau tauri vakamalua. Na cava e rua ga kina na yabaki? Na cava e vakatotolotaki kina? Na cava meda vakusakusataka? Na gauna se siga se balavu tu. E dodonu meda dau taura vakamalua na ka, vakabibi na veika bibi vakaoqo ni tara saraga na noda bula, nodai tovo, tara na noda kawa kei na veimatavuvale nikua, ni mataka ka vakabibi vei ira na sebera ni sucu mai. Na veika vakaoya e dodonu meda dau qarauna ka maroroya. Me kakua ni da vaqitora, se vakawaletaka, me vaka ni sa vosa oti kina na turaga mai Namosi, honourable Senator Ratu Taukeinikoro, e vuqa na ka e tiko ena Yavu ni Vakavulewa oya a sega ni taleitaka, vakavuna na nona curu ki tuba. Eka yaga meda raica tiko na tikina `oya nida vakaraitaka tiko ni vuqa saka na turaga i Taukei era sega ni taleitaka na Yavu ni Vakavulewa ni 1997. Sa via kena i rairai ni da sa mai lawakitaki, vaka eda mai defrauded, deceived - we feel that way.

            Sa ka bibi kina, Turaga na i Liuliu ni Bose, na veika saka vaka oqo me dau curu vakavinaka sara, me matata vakavinaka ka da qai toso. Meda vakakusakusa, vakatotolo, ia, vakamalua, kua ni vakusakusa, vakatotolo vakaveitalia baleta oya na tini ga ena sese. Sa yaga meda vakusakusa ia me vakamalua. Meda raica vakavinaka na vanua eda lako tiko kina eda qai lako, kua nida kalawa tu vakaveitalia, sa da qai mai leqa tu.

            Ena Yavu ni Vakavulewa ni 1997, na lotu Wesele e Viti kei Rotuma e saqata sara ga vakakaukauwa, rairai sa vosa oti kina na turaga qase levu vakacegu, e vica vata na i vola a vakauta, a lako ena submission kina vakavosa ka vaka i vola ka sega ga ni rogoci. Ia, e dua ni wiliwili oqo e tiko ena lotu Wesele e Viti kei Rotuma, eratou ni ra lewe 250,000 kina 300,000.

            Turaga nai Liuliu ni Bose, na kena i karua, na lotu Wesele e Viti kei Rotuma, e sega ni lako walega ena gaunisala vakamatanitu me lako ena oral se written submission, e lako saka talega vakavanua, kau saka na kena tabua ena veiliutaki ena gauna oya ni yalo vinaka sara me kakua ni vakadonui na Yavu ni Vakavulewa ni 1997, vua na i liuliu ni Matanitu ena gauna saka oya. A sega ni rogoci. Sa ka bibi Turaga na i Liuliu ni Bose, nida veiliutaki e yaga meda vakarorogo tiko meda raica tale toka ga na cava na loma ni tamata, na cava na loma ni wekada, kei na veika taucoko vaka koya. E yaga meda nanuma tiko ena veigauna taucoko sara.

            Turaga na i Liuliu ni Bose, na Reeves Commission sa cakava na nona i tavi ia e levu sara na ka e sega ni taura vakavinaka na veika ra biuta mai na matalotu e Viti, na veika era biuta mai na veiyasana e Viti, na veika era biuta mai na lewe ni vanua e Viti, e sega ni taura vakavinaka na Reeves Commission, e sega ni ciqoma. E levu ga na ka e kauta ga mai o koya, qai oti na Parliamentary Select Committee e sega ni la'ki dikeva vakavinaka. Ka vaka ni a sa vakaraitaka na honourable Senator mai Namosi na veika dredre e sotava tiko ka sa yaga meda dau tudei ka da vakadei tiko ena veika baleti keda meda bureitaka tu, da kua ni vakasabusabutaka na veika e dodonu ga me noda, kakua ni solia vakaveitalia na veika e dodonu meda maroroya ka vakamareqeta ka kua nida vakasabusabutaka vakabibi na noda Matanitu. Ena gauna ya na Matanitu ni SVT, e vuqa sara vei ira na lewe ni SVT era vosa saqata, ia ni gauna ni lave liga, era lave liga - I am lost. E dodonu ni dua na ka bibi vakaoqo meda tudei saraga kina, kua ni toso, ena veika e bibi ka baleti keda. Na ka eda tukuna meda tu kina ka kua tale nida qai toso. Sa oti saka oya, au nanuma ni yaga me dei tiko vei keda nikua ka lako yani ni mataka sa ka bibi kina, au via vakaraitaka tiko ga na kena sega ni taleitaka na i taukei kei dua na i wiliwili levu ni vanua oqo ko Viti na Yavu ni Vakavulewa 1997.

            E dua saka talega na soqosoqo a tauyavu mai ena 1994, ena nodrau duidui beka o Sitiveni Rabuka kei Josevata Kamikamica. Ia, e dua na i soqosoqo a qai lako laivi mai na SVT ena 1999, na Veitokoni Lewenivanua Vakarisito (VLV) se Christian Democratic Association (CDA) baleta sara ga `oya na kena saqati tiko na Yavu ni Vakavulewa ni 1997. Ni raica ni leqa levu e tiko kina baleti keda na i Taukei, vata kei na kena vakabauta vakalotu vakarisito, `oya sara ga na vuna. Au dua bau tiko kina kau vunautaka vakaukauwa me yacova saka `oqo na leqa ni Yavu ni Vakavulewa `oqo ni 1997. Ni sa sega ni rogoci na veigaunisala vakamatanitu ka lako yani, na gaunisala vakavanua ka lako yani ka sa lako sara kina na i soqosoqo `oya me laki saqata na veika eso e sega ni rogoci saka tiko.

            Ia, `oya e via vakaraitaka tiko ga, Turaga na i Liuliu ni Bose na kena saqati vakaukauwa na Yavu ni Vakavulewa 1997, o koya e kauta tiko mai veikeda na leqa, e yacova sara tiko mai `oqo. Eda sa qai raica tiko ga oqo na vuana, veilewai, vale-ni-veivesu ka so era sa mate. Keitou a saqata vakalevu na VLV ena gauna `oya na Constitution ena vica na tiki ni yavu ni vakavulewa levu era tiko oqo, kau sa na digitaka ga e vica.

            E dua ena Tabana e 38(2), Sexual orientation, we deplore any move to establish a so called gay-society or any effort to legalise marriage of the same sex. Ena gauna oqo, Turaga na i Liuliu ni Bose, au rogoca sa vakarau ni dua na Gay Festival mai Nadi. E vakarerevaki `oqo na ka sara ga keitou saqata tiko.

            We also oppose prostitution of any kind, including promiscure sex, fornication, adultery and such like. Our opposition is based on principles of the christian Bible; Genesis chapters 6, verses 1 to 8, chapters 19, verses 1 to 5 and also Romans chapters 1 verses 1 to 32. There are other spiritual references that speaks on that in opposition of such spiritual practises. We believe furthermore, that righteousness exalth a nation but sin is a reproach to anyone.

            Na homosexual e valavala ca, ia e vakatara tiko na Yavu ni Vakavulewa ni 1997, ka da saqata vakalevu. Nida sa na tekivu ciqoma na Yavu ni Vakavulewa oqo sa kena i balebale nida sa tekivu ciqoma talega me vakatarai na homosexuality i Viti. Ia, ya saraga ka a rusa kina ko Sotoma kei Komora, nida sa tekivu ciqoma oqo, sa tekivu sara mai Nadi edua na Gay Festival.

            HON. SENATOR A.V. TORA.- Sega ni mai Nadi.

            HON. SENATOR M. BULANAUCA.- Ni vosota, au a wilika tiko ena pepa kau kila ni dua na festival mai Nadi e sa vakarau lako mai kina. E dau tu ga mai Sydney ia sa lako mai `oqo. O Sotoma kei Komora sa voleka sara tikoga `oqo. Koya na bibi ni veika e dodonu meda mareqeta, ka vakaraitaki ena gauna `oya me saqati kina na Yavu ni Vakavulewa a sega ni rogoci. Sa yaga meda dau vakarorogo. E bibi me dikevi lesu tale na tikina `oqo, me biu laivi na veitikina vakakoya. Ena kauta mai na leqa ena vanua `oqo ko Viti. Eda via tara tiko na vanua `oqo ko Viti me vanua vinaka. Meda tiko marau kina na i Taukei, Idia, Jaina kei na veimata tamata tale. Ia, meda kua ni vakatara na veika vakaoqo me mai vakarusai keda tale ena dela sara ga ni noda yavu kei na vanua.

            E dua tale na tikina, Turaga na i Liuliu ni Bose, ena wasewase 16 (a)(b); the rights to enter and reside in the Fiji Islands. Keitou vakaraica na soqosoqo ni VLV ena gauna ya ka keitou saqata vakalevu na Yavu ni Vakavulewa ni 1997 baleta e vitu na gaunisala e rawa ni vakalevutaki kina na turaga mai veivanua tani mera lako mai ki Viti. E vitu vakadua na gaunisala e rawa ni vakalevutaki kina na lewe ni vanua oqo ko Viti mera lako mai vavalagi ena adoption, investments, et cetera. Ia, o keda na i taukei e dua tiko ga by birth. Ni da rai yani vakayawa wale tikoga `oqo eda na lailai era sa na levu tale, ena dela tiko ga ni noda vanua. Ni dua na ka eda vakadonuya e dodonu meda raica vakavinaka meda yadrava tiko na veika oqo.

            Ena wasewase 51(1)(a); na i dabedabe e vakadeitaki ena Yavu ni Vakavulewa ni 1997 edua na ka keitou saqata ni a lutu mai. Na cava a lutu mai kina ena 28 kina 22? Me a dei tu ga `ya kei na kena vakabauta. Koya na ka keitou saqata kina vakaukauwa. Na cava a lutu mai kina? Me dei tiko ga ya se toso cake tale se me 70 na pasede na Mata mai na Taukei baleta na lialia ni tabana saka `oya e vaka tiko qo; da taura mada na Idia (with due respect), sa lutu sobu na kedra i wiliwili eso era sa lako ena nodra vakatulewa ga vakataki ira ka da rokova, ia, na i wiliwili e koya toka ga e sega ni lutu sobu. E sega ni veisautaki rawa tiko na Yavu ni Vakavulewa kau kauta tiko ga mai na saqati ni vakavulewa `oqo ena gauna se bera ni vakadeitaki kina ki na gauna e sa vakadonui kina. Ena kena saqati tiko kina na Yavu ni Vakavulewa ni sega ni vinaka, matai, ki na kawa i Taukei ka sega ni vinaka vei ira na Idia, Jaina kei na veimata tamata era lewe lailai.

            Eda vosa tiko ena Compact, Section 7(1)(2). Eda na laki cakava vakacava e dua na ka na i taukei. E dua na ka e veisaqasaqa kei na Yavu ni Vakavulewa, ena sega ga ni wili ka sega ni vakabau. Ena kau tale kina vale ni Veilewai, ka cancel tale. E sega ni vinakati. O koya sara ga na Yavu ni Vakavulewa o'ya, e dodonu me dikevi vakavinaka. O koya saka ga o'ya keitou saqata tiko ka se saqati saka tiko ga oqo. Keitou sega ni taleitaka na Yavu ni Vakavulewa ni 1997. Ko ya e vica ga na sabolo au via vakaraitaka saka ena siga levu e daidai. E levu saka tale tiko. Na Soqosoqo ni Duavata ni Lewenivanua, sa da raica tiko na manifesto, na value e sa tiko kina, ideals and principles of Christian faith me vakadeitaki. E sa vinaka saka o'ya, sa donu ia me kakua ni tikoga e kea, me curu sara kina Yavu ni Vakavulewa kei Viti. Au sa nuitaka ni na sasagataki sara na tikina ko ya.

            Na symbol se na i vakaraitaki ni Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua, e dua na Ruve se Dove. E vakaraitaki tiko ni symbol ni hope and inspiration, vakavuvuli vakarisito, peace se na sautu, na conciliation, rebirth, national renewal kei na veika vaka o'ya. E sa yaga meda vakavoui keda tiko ena veigauna kece sara. E kena vakaraitaki saka tiko na Ruve.

            It is also a sign of prosperity and abundance in achievement. It will be good for our children's, welfare and will also protect our future generation. The Dove or Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit upholds law and order and practices honesty and integrity. As it flies, it brings about good message or good news to everyone.

            Sa vukataka saka tiko o'ya na Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua nikua, me lako yani ni mataka ka vakauta mai na i tukutuku vinaka vei keda kece. Me veisautaki yani na Yavu ni Vakavulewa oqo me vinaka kece vei keda na tiko. Na i tukutuku vinaka ga e tiko mai kea vua na Ruve vula, na Holy Spirit kei na nona Yalo Tabu na Kalou me tiko vata kei keda ena veigauna taucoko sara. E ka bibi saka o'ya, me da kakua ni guilecava saka tiko.

            Turaga na i Liuliu ni Bose, e dua saka na kerekere, kevaka sa vakadonui saka eke na mosoni oqo, me digitaki sara vakavinaka na lewe ni Commission of Inquiry. Me kakua ni kau tale mai eso na tamata era sega ni kila na i tovo vaka i taukei, me vaka a caka ena Reeves Commission. Me tauri ka tomiki ko ira na kila na yavu vaka i taukei e Viti. O'ya saka eda rokova tiko kina na digidigi nei koya na Turaga na Peresitedi se Prime Minister. Au sa vakaraitaka saka tiko o'ya na noda gagadre se neimami gagadre e yaga me digitaki ki kea ko ira na kila ka kauwaitaka na veika vaka i taukei, na kena i tovo kei na kena i valavala kei na vakabauta ena veigauna taucoko sara. E sa tu kina na vakanuinui vinaka ena Commission of Inquiry ni na vakayacori vakavinaka mai vei ira na lewena ka la'ki vakayacori yani vakavinaka na kena i tavi.

            Au rai saka talega ena veika e dusia mai na turaga na Attorney-General, na Vunilawa ena vuku ni veika vakalawa ia e yaga saka mera raica vakavinaka na noda lawyer na kawa i taukei na veitikina saka o'ya. Mera kakua ni wele saka tiko. E dodonu mera tucake mai, era dikeva vakavinaka na veika vakalawa o'ya me laurai kina ni veika kece e cake oqo e a vakaukauwataki, force down our throat. O koya o'ya me prove taki se me vakadinadinataki ni sega ni caka ena own free will. E dodonu mera tu mai na noda lawyer ka ra kila na veika vakaoqo mera vakayagataki.

            Turaga na i Liuliu ni Bose, e sa yaga talega o keda na i taukei meda yadrava tiko na noda vanua, na kena i tovo, na vakatulewa me caka saka tiko kei na kena cakacaka. E dua saka na kena i cakacaka au vakaraitaka tiko, o keda na turaga ena veiyasana kei na veivanua, au kerea saka tiko meda cakacaka tiko. Meda kua ni moce tiko, meda yadra tiko. Meda kumuni lavo ka valataki keda ena vale ni Veilewai. Na i tosotoso e sa lako tiko oqo, e sa lako tiko i vale ni Veilewai. O keda meda yavala tiko, meda kumuni i lavo, meda saumi lawyer me valataka na veika e baleti keda e vale ni Veilewai. Au sa kerekere meda kakua ni moce tiko. Meda yadrava tiko na veika e baleti keda. E sa ka bibi meda tutaki keda ka vakadeitaki keda ena noda vanua saka oqo, kevaka e sega, o cei tale me na mai tutaki keda, e sega, meda vakararavi ga vua na Kalou ka cakacaka vakaukauwa. E dua na cakacaka o'ya sa i koya na kumuni i lavo, meda nanumi ira kina ko ira na sa vesu tu oqo se ko ira na qai vesu mai muri, se so era na veilewai mai muri, meda sauma na lawyer me rawa ni valataki keda. Meda kakua ni maduataka saka tiko na veika meda tukuna se veika e cakacakataki se valataki me baleti keda. Meda kua saka ni maduataka, meda tucake ka tukuna vakadodonu ka vakasavasava o'ya e vinaka, e vinaka e lomada, yaloda ka vinaka vei ira kece eda tiko vata.

            Au tucake saka tiko kina ka vakabibitaka tiko kina na kena saqati vakaukauwa tiko na Yavu ni Vakavulewa ni 1997 ena siga levu saka e daidai. O au saraga e dua ka'u sega ni taleitaka tiko. Au tucake saka tiko ka vakaraitaka saka tiko na lomaqu kei na noqu tokona saka tiko na vakatutu se Mosoni saka oqo, e sa vaka saka o'ya na kena levu.

            HON. SENATOR. A.K. SINGH.- Mr. President, Sir, I was going to make a lengthy speech in defense of not supporting the motion, but now I am looking at the time and it being a Friday, I want to cut it very short. I will try to be very brief and talk strictly onto the point.

            Sir, the motion asks for, a review of the process that was adopted, which led to the promulgation of the 1997 Fiji Constitution and the subsequent litigation pertaining to it. It also asks the Government to ask His Excellency the President to commission an inquiry into the validity (or otherwise), of the Constitution.

            It is one situation where we know the answer, even before we go through with the proposed Commission of Inquiry. We know the answer to this, that the Constitution is a valid one. It is, therefore, to go through this motion and vote for it and go ahead with this Commission of Inquiry is a waste of time and money. It is an exercise in futility.

            Sir, the reason why I say these things is that, there are two aspects in passing the Constitution as the honourable and learned Attorney-General had summed up: (a) the consultation amongst the people and their views on the subject, whether they like it or not; and (b) the passage of the law in this august House and that becoming the law of the land.

            Whilst the honourable and learned Attorney-General had spoken on the process side, may I speak on the latter half and that is the Constitution, as was passed.

            The Constitution went through a proper process - the House of Representatives, the Upper House and was assented to by His Excellency the President. Insofar, as the law is concerned and following the due process of the law, the Constitution was passed according to the letter of the 1994 Constitution. Therefore, Sir, there cannot be any question that the law or the 1997 Constitution is not a valid one - it is. Therefore, to hold a Commission of Inquiry to find the validity of the Constitution, is again, I reiterate illegal, not possible:

      (a)      Sir, the Commission of Inquiry is not the right forum to decide on issues such as what has been proposed;

      (b)      all know that the Constitution is the valid one and the Commission of Inquiry is not competent to the same otherwise; and

      (c)      we have the prouncement of the highest court on the land and that is the Supreme Court, which has upheld the Chandrika Prasad's case and has upheld that the Constitution is the valid one and is binding on each one of us.

            Therefore, I wish to reiterate, that there is not much use in us in endorsing the motion, as has been presented, because besides everything else, when the motion is passed by this august House and goes out to who ever it is directed to, the other party must be in a position to respect it, be bound by it and honour the terms of that particular motion. This motion, Sir, is doomed to fail and therefore, it is not proper that this House passes the motion and sends it out to the honourable Prime Minister when he knows that at the end of the day, this is really a useless exercise.

            I am also somewhat concerned by the fact, Sir, whilst I have said that all the due process of the law was followed, the request is directed to His Excellency the President. That is most unfair because His Excellency was a member of the Joint Parliamentary Select Committee on the Constitution. He is, Sir, with respect, bound by the Constitution. He had endorsed the Constitution with several other honourable Members of this House and they are the last ones to be complaining about the validity of the Constitution. There has been no dissent whatsoever in the Report of the JPSC. I have a copy here with me and I invite honourable Senator to have a look at it. Sir, it would be most unfair to direct this motion to His Excellency to look into the validity of the Constitution, when he had actually voted for the Constitution.

            Sir, the rule may be different, but the individual is the same. The fact remains as he as a person, was a Senator and he had endorsed the Constitution that we are now asking him to review. In other words, we are challenging and basically saying to him by implication that he was not a party to that process.

            The other issue, Sir, is that His Excellency was a member of the JPSC and was involved in the passage of the Bill in this august House. Therefore, indirectly, we would be questioning him and saying to him that he did not exercise his power correctly, he did not have the mandate of the people and that he has failed to consult with the people. I am basically saying that if we are to take this motion, it is doomed to fail. Sir, why do we have to put other people into difficult positions? This is tantamount to putting His Excellency in a very difficult position too.

            Sir, if I may refer to the events preceding the passage of the Constitution. Sir, the party which was in power at the time was a party that was sponsored by the Bose Levu Vakaturaga (BLV). It was a party that was sponsored by the chiefs. Impliedly, Sir, that particular party had the authority of the chiefs to run the country and this was a politicisation by the GCC of the Government. Therefore, whatever this party was doing, they are deemed to have had the consent and the authority of the GCC. This was the first time, I believe, in the history of this country, that a party was actually sponsored by the GCC. Sir, we had a political party for which their responsibility lies with the GCC and if this party did something which the GCC feels it ought not to have done, then the GCC should take the responsibility and acted at the time.

            HON. SENATOR DR. A. ALI.- They did!

            HON. SENATOR A.K. SINGH.- They did not! They could have instructed all the 14 provinces and the GCC nominees in the Senate not to vote for the change or the amendment to the Constitution and that would have never seen the light of day if they had abstained or did not vote. But they partook in the process. They were party to the passage of that amendment. Now, it is very late in the day for them to go now and say that it was not their act. It was their act and they cannot undo it, at least on the grounds that is currently being advanced.

            Sir, it is worthy of note that when I look at the JPSC Report, there is not even one person who has dissented and it was a unanimous vote of this House and in the Lower House, and it is very rarely (s Mr. President would know)that a piece of legislation gets the kind of endorsement that it did. Certainly, Sir, I accept the fact that there are some grievances regarding the amendment, but I believe that has come about not because there is something wrong with the Constitution, but perhaps because the most favoured party of some protagonist of this particular motion are no longer enjoying the kind of power that they did before.

            HON. SENATOR ADI L. CAKOBAU.- That's hogwash!

            HON. SENATOR A.K. SINGH.- Honourable Senator, this is not hogwash because there was no complaint before that. The complaint only came up in 1999. When one counts the number of votes that were cast against the existing party and the party that was sponsored by the GCC, it would show the mood of the country at the time and I believe, it may be so the next time around.

            Mr. President, if the GCC had failed to consult and confer with the provinces and/or the ordinary Fijians, that is a failing on the part of the GCC and therefore, it is most unfair, at this stage to be casting aspersions on the Constitution as a document that has been passed. As I had pointed, if it did work, it did work. Whilst, we were in power in 1999, it worked very well.

            I am sorry, Sir, proper advise was given and thorough recommendations were made. Certainly, if those recommendations are there, there simply cannot be any question of any degree of confusion.

            HON. SENATOR ADI L. CAKOBAU.- That has gone down the line.

            HON. SENATOR A.K. SINGH.- Therefore, Sir, what was suggested has been incorporated. There were several chances being given, one was in the JPSC Report itself where the recommendations were made. There was, of course, the other opportunity when the Bill was presented to both the two Houses. Therefore, that was the time when this could be looked at.

            HON. SENATOR ADI L. CAKOBAU.- Nothing new.

            HON. SENATOR A.K. SINGH.- Sir, taking all these factors into consideration and basically reiterating what I had said before, this is really an exercise infutility. I believe that in the order of the day if this motion was in fact withdrawn.

            HON. SENATOR ADI L. CAKOBAU.- No way! No way! That is your opinion.

            HON. SENATOR A.K. SINGH.- I am sorry but it will probably meet the kind of fate that I have predicted and that would really be sad. Turning on to a positive note, I regret that this motion is looking backwards ...

            HON. SENATOR ADI L. CAKOBAU.- Look ahead!

            HON. SENATOR A.K. SINGH.- ... and we seem to be looking backwards all the time.

            HON. SENATOR ADI L. CAKOBAU.- We were not.

            HON. SENATOR A.K. SINGH.- We should be looking forward. The question at this stage, if there are problems between us, should there not be some dialogue between the people? I am thinking in terms of the country, we should really be looking forward rather than looking back and trying to knock each other down.

            As a nation and as responsible Senators, should we not be joining hands and discussing these things at every level? We should have more talanoa session to discuss these, so that we can understand some of our problems and concerns.

            That is the way to go and certainly not by going through the past and to portion the mistakes on individuals.

            I invite honourable Senators on the other side of the House, especially the GCC nominees to indulge in some discussion and consultation. Should we not talk about our problem? Should we not share them with each other? Should we not join hands to build a better Fiji?

            HON. SENATOR DR. A. ALI.- Yes and we have just gone through reconciliation.

            HON. SENATOR A.K. SINGH.- The reconciliation is another matter and I do not want to go into it because as far as reconciliation is concerned, none of the parties who actually offended against me even bothered to come and invite me, so that I could go and accept their apology. It was not (and I am on record) and I invite you honourable Senators to check it out. That is why I am beginning to feel that it was nothing but a farce to show the people of this country that there was a genuine reconciliation.

            HON. SENATOR A.V. TORA.- You want discussion, it will be held on your own terms.

            HON. SENATOR A.K. SINGH.- I have not dictated any terms. I am talking about responding to the call of reconciliation and I am saying if there has to be reconciliation, all parties have to get together. Besides that, if you want to have reconciliation, there have to be meetings preceding the actual event. We need to discuss and know exactly what we are going to apologise about and whether it is going to be accepted. This is the way it is done the world over and not by some radio or TV announcement saying that it is national reconciliation week and that we are invited to be there. Who was invited to be there? I was certainly not invited. I would like the honourable Senator Tora and the nation to tell me the reason I was not invited.

            HON. SENATOR ADI L. CAKOBAU.- What happened to the invitation?

            HON. SENATOR A.K. SINGH.- I am sorry I have to receive an invitation first before I can refuse it. This is a very simple matter honourable Senator and I cannot see why you fail to understand it. Basically, I have already said that because the motion, as worded, is doomed to fail. I do not think that we will be progressing if we take it to that level.

            HON. SENATOR ADI L. CAKOBAU.- It looks as if you have closed your mind.

            HON. SENATOR A.K. SINGH.- I have not closed my mind at all. I am open for dialogue which is quite different from closing my mind.

            HON. SENATOR ADI L. CAKOBAU.- Do not because we can have dialogue.

            HON. SENATOR A.K. SINGH.- The sooner we start the better it is and I think that is the way to go.

            HON. SENATOR ADI L. CAKOBAU.- Support the motion.

            HON. SENATOR A.K. SINGH.- We do not need to have an agenda. We can just sit down and discuss our concerns. We need to talk to each other and acquaint each other that we have a problem that we would like to discuss and resolve.

            HON. SENATOR A.V. TORA.- Tell the President.

            HON. SENATOR A.K. SINGH.- Yes.

            Sir, I believe that when I heard the honourable Senators speak about the Constitution, surely, there is a problem that needs to be served. There is unhappiness and concerns, why the Constitution ought to be reviewed or declared invalid.

            Sir, most of the Senators if not all, who have supported this particular motion have spoken about some dissatisfaction on the Constitution. Mr. President, Sir, none of them have shown cause or has pointed a finger to any part of the Constitution that is causing the problems.

            HON. SENATOR ADI L. CAKOBAU.- We do not have to, it is there.

            HON. SENATOR A.K. SINGH.- Certainly, Sir, by now, we need to be enlightened as to what the problem is. Even if we were not to succeed with the motion, which I do not think we will, but there seems to be a fear on the other side of the House. The fear is now a part of the political propaganda that there is something intrinsically wrong with the Constitution, not because each one of the Senators has failed to point out what is wrong with it.

            HON. SENATOR M. BULANAUCA.- You were not listening, you must be deaf.

            HON. SENATOR A.K. SINGH.- I have been listening.

            With that, Mr. President, I urge the House not to support this motion because it will be a sheer waste of time.

            HON. SENATOR DR. A. ALI.- Sir, I was going to speak on this motion but I would be long and I see that the honourable Senator Anthony wants to speak as well.

            MR. PRESIDENT.- Honourable Senators, the debate on this motion will roll over to the next sitting of the House.

            Honourable Senators, a medical team is now at the Bure and you are encouraged to take advantage of it. Please also collect your filariasis tablets.

                                                   Adjournment

            HON. LEADER OF THE HOUSE.- Mr. President, Sir, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn sine die.

            HON. SENATOR M. BULANAUCA.- Mr. President, Sir, I beg to second the motion.

            MR. PRESIDENT.- Honourable Senators, before I put the question, may I wish you a safe journey home. May the grace, love and peace of God, the Holy Spirit his son Jesus Christ abide us all now and forever.

            Question put.

            Motion agreed to.

            The House will now adjourn sine die.

            The House adjourned sine die at 12.55 p.m.