Motion agreed to.
CALL FOR DIVISION
HON. SENATOR F. ANTHONY.- Mr. President, Sir, I beg to move:
That the ruling given by the President of the Senate on the call for a Division by me on the 2nd reading of Bills 31 and 32 of 2002 is contrary to provisions 61 and 62 of the Standing Orders of the Senate, adopted by the Senate on the 15th March, 1994 and that the Senate resolves that: Any call by any Senator for a Division be allowed in accordance with Standing Orders 61 and 62.
HON. SENATOR J. KALOU.- Mr. President, Sir, I beg to second the motion.
HON. SENATOR F. ANTHONY.- Mr. President, Sir, I have moved this motion after the events of last Friday, when I did call for a division on both Bills No. 31 and 32 of 2002 that were before the House.
Sir, in the course of the debate, we had expressed serious misgivings about some of the provisions in the Bill, and in particular, the imposition of VAT or the increase in VAT from 10 per cent to 12.5 per cent on all the people of this country, irrespective of their disposition, and also on the issue of the increase in sugar tax, from 3 per cent to 10 per cent export tax.
Sir, some of us felt very strongly about these two particular issues, and moreso because the sugar tax would have affected the wide cross-section of sugar cane farmers in this country, and the VAT would affect all the people of this country. It was my intention when I did call for a division to state in no uncertain terms, Sir, that I disagreed with those provisions. That was my only intent in doing so. There was no other intent or motive, Sir, as you respectfully stated, that I intended to "flush out some people" from one side who had disagreed with us on the Bills. I can assure you that that was not the intent.
Sir, I believe that Standing Orders 61 (3) is very clear and if I may refer to it and I quote:
"The President states whether, in the President's opinion, the "Ayes" or the "Noes" have it."
Sir, the second sentence is the operative one, and I quote:
"Any Senator may then call for a division."
Sir, I believe that the second sentence is very clear. It does not require any other interpretation other than "the Senator may call for a Division". The point that was made was that the word "may" gave the President the prerogative to allow a division or not to, I believe was misplaced.
The word "may" in that Standing Order 61(3) gives any Senator the prerogative to call for a division and not the President and any Senator is free at that point to call for a division. If the Senator does not call for a division at that time, then of course, he is not allowed to call for a division at any other time. The Standing Orders is very specific as to when a Senator can call for a division. It is not as if it is any time. It is after the question is put. Sir, I comply with that provision.
Sir, as I have said, some of us feel very strongly about the issues in question, and if you would recall on the issue of VAT, there has been widespread dissatisfaction with the people and the people out there that we represent. In fact, I, Sir, was one of those who was prepared to even go out on the streets and march in accordance with the rights that the citizenship of this country have under the Constitution. That, of course, was denied and is public knowledge, but I wish to illustrate how strongly we felt about some of these issues. Sir, I believe that any Senator should be given the right to record his dissent on any Bill that is before the House, even if he may be the lone Senator but for the record, I believe that that right should be accorded to any Senator.
Sir, as I stated earlier, also in the course of my other duties is to interact with the people and the workers of this country. I deal with them on a face to face basis almost everyday and I would like to be in a position to look at them in the face and say that I disagreed with the Bill, even if I am the only one, even if I am the only Senator in this House and I would like to be accorded that right.
Sir, there was some reference made to Erskine May in which you based your ruling. Sir, with respect, I would like to state that this provision of Erskine May at page 428 is not relevant. The first point I would like to make is that in the House of Lords, they would have their Standing Orders which would dictate how the Speaker would behave in a given situation. Sir, similarly the House of Representatives have a different set of Standing Orders, which is different from the Standing Orders adopted by the Senate in 1994 where the Speaker would deal with these different issues. Sir, I would like to state that the Standing Orders of this august House does not give the President the leeway, so to speak, to either refuse or deny such a call.
Sir, reference has also been made to Section 2, where the decision of the President on the interpretation of any of the Standing Orders is final. Sir, I respect that the ruling of the President is final, but again I would like to submit to the House that this provision again is not relevant in this instance. There was no need for any interpretation of Standing Order 61(3) and in particular to the phrase that "any Senator may then call for a division." I believe that is fairly simple English and there was no need to interpret that in any other way other than giving the Senator the prerogative to call for a division at that point in time when the question was put.
Sir, the motion before the House is a forward looking motion. It is about the future. I am not wishing to take the House back to last Friday and say "Look, let us fix that up." That is not the intent of the motion. The motion is forward looking. It is henceforth from there. Sir, if there is a call for a division, that that division be called. That is the intention of that motion so that we as Senators know that this indeed is the procedure and this indeed is how we will proceed in any debate on any Bill.
Sir, the motion is basically to clarify where we stand. Sir, it is fine for us to talk about transparency. We have talked about a hell of a lot of transparency in the last couple of days and how other entities must conduct themselves. It is time for us to also practice that in this House. We must have transparency, we must accord the right of any Senator here to dissent to any Bill before the House and that dissent be recorded.
Sir, our concern has been, and I did raise this regarding the Minutes, which is the document that mainly the public would scrutinise. As it is, it basically states that the vote was taken by voice and was passed. That is what the Minutes would say and I agree that not everything can be put in those Minutes, but the "dissension" is important because we are here representing the people and I believe that we owe it to the people. We can answer to them when we leave this House and it is for that reason alone that I believe it is important that the Senators be given the right to call for a division. Sir, having said that, this is a motion that is not, and I hope that the honourable Senators here will not interpret as something that is against someone or against Government or against anyone. No, it is not, Sir, this is a motion simply to ensure that the Standing Orders is respected and followed as it is written and not interpreted.
Sir, the other point that I would like to make is that if we were to interpret the Standing Orders as has been ruled, this would create a very dangerous precedence where any call for a division would be at the discretion of the President. We would not like to set a dangerous precedent like that and in fact, deny any Senator the right to call for a division and his dissent be recorded.
Sir, I urge the honourable Senators to look at this motion dispassionately and support the motion.
HON. SENATOR A.V. TORA.- Mr. President, Sir, this side of the House rejects this motion. I would have thought, Mr. President, that the changes as recorded in yesterday's Minutes in accordance with honourable Senator Anthony's requirements which he himself moved and seconded by another Senator from the Fiji Labour Party, should have been sufficient. It seems to me that as I said the other day, they will never be satisfied with anything. This motion, Mr. President, as was also mentioned in this august House when the call for a division came, is used as a cover up for a witch-hunt the Fiji Labour Party wants to do on some of its errant Members. My suggestion, Mr. President, Sir, is that they should take their quarrel elsewhere and not in this august House. Sir, this motion serves no useful purpose, it is negative in its inception and negative in its consequences.
The first part calls us to criticise an important decision of the President as the elected chairman of the Senate meeting. My view, Mr. President, is that there are no grounds whatsoever for any criticism. Ever since you were elected, Sir, to your esteemed position, you have performed your duties diligently and fairly. It is our belief and opinion that you have always been very tolerant and understanding, not only on this side but particularly on that other side of the House. You have always shown them leniency and your generosity has been equal to all sides. In this case, you have permitted flexibility and you have used your judgement correctly and fairly.
Sir, Section 2 of the Standing Orders which the honourable Senator Felix Anthony alluded to, states clearly that in matters concerning our Standing Orders and their interpretation, you, Sir, as President have the freedom to make interpretations and your decision on them is always final. We, on our side, fully support your decision. We reaffirm our confidence in your continued leadership. You must be allowed the flexibility that is the right of anyone chairing our meeting. We cannot fraught your freedom to act fairly and freely. We cannot support this motion; it is both wrong and unnecessary.
The Standing Orders of this august House and other legal technicalities notwithstanding, I would wish to remind the honourable mover of the motion perhaps `education' would be a much more appropriate term, that the element of our culture in the election of the President of the Senate. This motion is almost tantamount to a motion of no confidence.
HON. SENATOR F. ANTHONY.- No way.
HON. SENATOR A.V. TORA.- This element, Mr. President, is inevitable and inescapable in dealings with anything Fijian in this country. Mr. President, ....
HON. SENATOR F. ANTHONY.- I rise on a point of order, Mr. President. I would like to say that the speaker here is trying to make a racial issue out of this and that is against Standing Orders. I believe that the speaker ought to be stopped arguing that line at all.
HON. SENATOR J. KALOU.- Hear, hear.
HON. SENATOR P. LESAVUA.- Well, he always have a custom on that.
HON. SENATOR A.V. TORA.- You have had your say, let me have mine. You see, Mr. President, Sir, ....
HON. SENATOR F. ANTHONY.- There is nothing racial about that.
HON. SENATOR A.V. TORA.- I did not say anything racial.
You see, Mr. President, when we are young, in any job whether it be a trade unionist or Member of Parliament, we tend to come and beat our chest ...
HON. SENATOR F. ANTHONY.- It is a question of facts.
HON. SENATOR A.V. TORA.- ... and make a grand standing trade union-wise, political-wise and otherwise. Showed off our energy, our form, depending on which side of the faction one is in, whether left, right, centre or whatever, this is why I said the young honourable Senator should be educated on some of the aspects of the motion that is brought before the House.
Mr. President, Sir, if I may remind this august House, you were elected unanimously. I repeat unanimously by the Senate including honourable Senators from the Great Council of Chiefs who nominated honourable Senator Taito Waqavakatoga to be the Senate President. The motion, therefore, Mr. President in the context of what I have just explained is not only disrespectful, discourteous on the Senate President, but on the Great Council of Chiefs as well. The motion, Mr. President, I repeat is rejected by this House.
MR. PRESIDENT.- Honourable Senators, we will take a break now for tea, we shall come back and continue the debate on the motion after tea. We are now adjourned.
The House adjourned at 10.27 a.m.
The House resumed at 11.00 a.m.
HON. SENATOR RATU J.N. DIMURI.- Mr. President, Sir, I would like to make a very brief comment on the motion. The mover of the motion stated that the motion is one for the future and is not going to take us back to what actually happened in this House, particularly with the decision that was taken by you, Sir, on Friday, 13th December, 2002.
Au saka, noqu raica tiko na mosoni saka oqo, Turaga na Peresitedi, e vaka saka e curuma e dua na manumanu ni veidabibi oya na qari. Esa matana saka tiko ki liu, sa vinaka saka oya, ia, ni da raica ni veiqasiyaki tiko e vakababa saka tiko. Au vakabauta na mosoni oqo, kevaka keitou na vakadonuya nikua, ena kati kemuni saka e dua na batina.
Mr. President, Sir, I believe if this motion, which is well camouflaged is allowed to pass today, it will have very far reaching implications on the proceedings of the House, as it did last Friday. Eda sa kila vakavinaka saka tiko na i vakarau saka da sa raica tiko, eda dua saka na ka lailai, esa kau saka tiko kina mataveilewai. De lakolako ena rawa saka ni va ya; na veika saka tou sa vakadonuya oti, e rawa saka talega ni na basika ena mataveilewai kevaka saka ena vakadonui na mosoni oqo ena Bose ena siga nikua.
With that very brief observation, Mr. President, Sir, I am totally against the passage of this motion.
HON. SENATOR RATU G.K. CAKOBAU.- Mr. President, Sir, everything is in the Standing Orders and once you make a decision, it is final. It will be an insult to the Great Council of Chiefs' members if your decision in this House is opposed; me saqati na nomuni lewa, e ka beci vei keitou. O koya saka oya, au tucake kina me'u vosa kina ni keitou na saqata na lewe ni Bose Levu Vakaturaga na mosoni oqo. Na nomuni vakatulewa ena loma ni Vale oqo e dua, keitou na tokona saka. Vinaka vakalevu.
HON. SENATOR RATU J. RAYAWA.- Turaga saka na i Liuliu ni Bose, au kerea me'u vosa saka vaka Viti. Au vakavinavinaka vakalevu ena vosa e se qai cavuti ga oqo mai vua na gone turaga o Ratu George Cakobau. Au a vinakata saka toka me'u cavuta tale e vica na vosa. Sa vosa ga na gone turaga lailai oqo, o ya sai soqoni taucoko ni veika au vinakata me'u tukuna. Kena i kuri ga vakalekaleka kemuni, na i otioti ni mua ni nona vosa na turaga e vakatura tiko na mosoni oqo e vakaraitaki ratou vinaka sara ga mai. Eratou a via buluta e dua na ka, ratou via corita kina e dua ga vei iratou. Ia, sa rui mamare na qele e bulu kina. Rairai a nukunuku beka, sisi ka laurai. Au saqata kina vakakaukauwa na mosoni oqo.
HON. SENATOR J. KALOU.- Turaga saka na i Liuliu ni Bose, au na vinakata me'u na tekivu talega ena vosa ga vaka-Viti. Vakalailai e muri au na qai lai lako ena vosa vaka-Vavalagi. O keitou kece na tiko ena loma ni Vale oqo (lewe walu oqo), keitou tokona na nomuni veiliutaki, e sega ni dua vei keitou e saqata. Au kerea tiko mo ni rogoca vakavinaka na noqu kerekere. Keitou tokona na nomuni veiliutaki, ke dua na ka keitou saga tiko eke, keitou vinakata ga me macala na dina. Ia, sega ni keitou saga tiko moni mai kau laivi ena nomuni tutu, keitou veitokoni ena veigauna kece ni nomuni veiliutaki. Na kena i karua, e rogo tiko me buluti na qele me baleta e dua na lewe ni neitou party. Ke da raica vakavinaka na noda Standing Orders, na lawa ni Vale ni Bose oqo, o koya e koto vua e tolu na gaunisala me vakaraitaka kina na nona nanuma kevaka esa caka e dua na division. Keda taucoko e koto e tolu na gaunisala eda rawa ni cakava; da rawa ni vakadonuya; da rawa ni saqata; ka da rawa talega ni sega ni vakaitavi ena cakacaka oya, e vakatau sara tikoga vei keda. Ia, o keitou talega e tu na neitou lawa ga vakaisoqosoqo. E sega ni keitou na kauta mai kina loma ni Vale oqo na lawa ni neitou soqosoqo, baleta oqo na Vale ni Bose cecere ka tu na kena lawa. Sa vinaka Turaga na Peresitedi, au na via vakaotia tiko na noqu vosa ena vosa vaka-Vavalagi.
Mr. President, Sir, I rise to support the motion before the House and in doing so, I humbly say that Standing Order 61(3), in my humble submission, does not require any interpretation on your part. This is because the last sentence of Standing Order 61(3) spells out the right of a request for a division. It is also my humble submission, Sir, that the Standing Orders of the Senate of the Republic of Fiji Islands supersedes any other order, be it the Erskine May or any other rule of procedure. We all have a copy of our own Standing Orders, that is why it is the relevant one. You only refer to the Erskine May if the Order is silent on a particular issue because the Erskine May will be talking about the procedures in the House of Lords, not the Senate of Fiji. It is extremely important in this motion to understand that; that is why we do not each have a copy of the Erskine May. There is also nothing, might I add, in the Standing Orders of this august House to actually spell out the use and the procedure to follow in terms of the Erskine May. There is nothing in our Standing Orders to spell out clearly the procedure to be adopted when the Erskine May is used. It is therefore my humble view, Sir, that we only go to the Erskine May if our own Standing Orders is silent. Sir, I think we could have avoided all that happened last Friday and this week.
Mr. President, Sir, every position like yours have got advisers to advise you, and that is where I would like to concentrate on. You, Mr. President, Sir, deserve high professional advice given to you. In this case, I do not think that it has reached that required level. The advice ought to be independent and of top quality. I was somewhat surprised that the Erskine May issue was brought on this case. I am only going back in terms of my history in Parliament, but I could be wrong if that has changed. I, therefore, request the Secretariat and advisers to the President, in future, to give independent and professional advice, so that we avoid these problems.
Mr. President, Sir, I was also surprised at the comments made by my fellow colleague the honourable Senator Tora as Chairman of the Standing Order Committee. I would have thought as Chairman of that very important Committee, that he would have made a point to call his Committee on this issue. They should look at the records as to how this came about and the arguments that were presented by the Standing Orders Committee at that time.
HON. SENATOR A.V. TORA.- Who's the Chairman?
HON. SENATOR J. KALOU.- I am just trying to give you a piece of advice because you are the Chairman.
HON. SENATOR A.V. TORA.- I'm not a Chairman of any Committee.
HON. SENATOR J. KALOU.- I thought you are the Chairman. In that case, I take my word back.
But, Mr. President, I think that is the relevant Committee to look into this. There is a Committee, but I do not know who is the Chairman. By the way the honourable Senator Tora was speaking, I thought he was the Chairman.
HON. SENATOR A.V. TORA.- You get your facts right before you come in to this House.
HON. SENATOR J. KALOU.- Honourable Senator Tora, I am sorry.
Mr. President, we have to be forward looking. I once again assure you that none of us here want to take any legal action. We respect you, Mr. President.
HON. SENATOR M.A. KHAN.- Vinaka!
HON. SENATOR J. KALOU.- We only want the truth. If it is beneficial to this House that the Standing Order Committee meets and make a recommendation on it for you, Sir, then that will be the way forward. That will be Jesus' way and the way to peace and reconciliation.
Mr. President, I support the motion in the way it is put. We should forget the past but we will use this experience for future benefit.
HON. SENATOR M.A. KHAN.- Mr. President, Sir, I rise to make my contribution on the motion before the House.
Mr. President, Sir, in joining the previous speakers, particularly, the honourable Senator Joeli Kalou and the honourable Senator Felix Anthony (mover of the motion), I would reiterate the assurances that the honourable Senators have given you, particularly, you in the Chair.
This is not a motion in any way to bring you or your good office in any disrepute or non-confidence in you, Sir. The issue before the House is an issue that relates to a right of a Senator to be able to state his case and his vote on a particular issue which is deliberated upon in the Senate.
Mr. President, Sir, as part of the adversarial system of democracy that you believe in, it is inevitable that people will take positions on issues. These positions are crucial not only for the Senator himself, but it is crucial for the party that the Senators belong and, of course, it is also crucial for the voters who support the Party whose voice the parties and the Senators take to Parliament.
This process, Mr. President, Sir, requires a position to be taken. The Standing Orders facilitate that process culminating into a set of Standing Orders for the orderly conduct of the business of the House. As you could see, Mr. President, Sir, the call for division cannot be made at any other stage during the process of the deliberation of a Bill, except upon when the question is put on the second reading of a Bill. If you miss that chance, you will miss it forever. I will come to that in a moment, Mr. President, Sir.
The honourable mover of the motion has assured this House and I have every confidence in his honest and bona fide intention and that is to look forward to the future. I like those words because they are very encouraging and it has got a very conciliatory approach towards matters. Of course, a decision has been made, and I think the honourable Senator Joeli Kalou has assured the House that the qualms about this is that it is a separate issue. The issue is how do we conduct ourselves in future on issues of taking a position on an issue.
Mr. President, Sir, there will be occasions in this House when the honourable Senators of the Great Council of Chiefs will be required under the Constitution to take a position. There are certain entrenched legislation in this House, Sir, which will require every Member of the Great Council of Chiefs to state his or her position. There are certain legislation that will require a certain majority of their approval before we can proceed any further in the process of our legislation. Therefore, it is a very important constitutional provision, not only to safeguard a person's position but to facilitate the safeguarding of the position of a community, particularly the indigenous community of our country who are the owners of the vanua in this country.
I hope, Mr. President, that I am trying to make my point as clear as possible. It is not a selling point, so to speak, but it is the position of the law, and a great duty is reposed in your Chair. From that Chair, Mr. President, the voting aspect is controlled so that an orderly conduct of voting is carried out in the House.
In the main, Mr. President, Sir, it is an audio version of eyes and nose, as your ears will hear, which will determine which way you say who is going to have it. But if one was to go back and have a look at Section 61, and for the benefit of the House I will read it out, Sir, with your permission I quote:
"(1) When debate on a motion (including any reply) has concluded, the President puts the question to the Senate.
(2) A question having been put is resolved in the affirmative or negative, by the majority of voices, `Aye' or `No'.
(3) The President states whether in the President's opinion, the `Ayes' or the `Noes' `have it'. Any Senator may then call for a division."
That means the prerogative or the right of a Senator is well preserved under Section 61(3) of our Standing Orders. Mind you, Mr. President, Sir, before I go on any further, the Standing Orders of the Senate are passed. If you look at Standing Orders 1, it says, and I quote:
"These Standing Orders are made by the Senate for the order and conduct of its business and proceedings pursuant to section 74(5) of the Constitution."
So, we are deriving the authority to make these orders from our supreme law.
Mr. President, Sir, then we go to Standing Order 62. It says, and I quote:
"Voting
(1) If the President is satisfied that any Senator is absent from the Senate or committee and may attend to vote in the division if given due warning, ..."
In other words, some Senators might be sitting in a Committee or they may have gone out to stretch their arms or to get a breath of fresh air, then you have the discretion, Mr. President, Sir, to delay the voting process because it says, and I quote:
"...the President may order the Secretary-General to sound a bell for a period of 60 seconds or to give a warning to Senators by any other convenient means."
You could send a person to fetch for a Senator who might be sitting in a Committee within the precincts of Parliament.
"... At the President's discretion, the division may be delayed up to 10 minutes for this purpose..."
But voting must happen, Sir. Discretion is to call the Senator or you could delay it up to 10 minutes.
"(2) A division is conducted by the Secretary-General who asks each Senator separately how the Senator desires to vote. Every Senator, upon being called, gives his or her vote by saying "Aye" or "No" or, if the Senator wishes to abstain from voting, by saying, "I abstain". Having taken the votes and abstentions, if any, the Secretary-General announces the numbers and records in the Minutes the vote or abstention of each Senator.
(3) No Senator is obliged to vote and a non-response from a Senator who is present is construed as an abstention.
(4) If in any division fewer than 12 Senators vote or abstain the division is invalid.
(Note: Under section 69(2) of the Constitution, if there is an equality of votes, the person presiding does not have a casting vote and the question is lost.)"
Mr. President, Sir, this is generally the order in which things happen. The honourable Senator's concern was that Standing Order 61(3) was not interpreted in its intended way, however, your good office has given its own reason saying that you have the finality in so far as rulings go in the Office of the President.
Mr. President, Sir, Standing Order 2 reads (and this is the authority we have been told that you relied upon), and I quote:
"(1) Rulings of the President
The decision of the President on the interpretation of any of these Standing Orders or on a matter of practice, is final. The President may from time to time issue rulings on the interpretation of these Standing Orders and on matters of practice."
In the opening sentences of our honourable Senators, the respect that we owe to you has been given in no uncertain terms and I would like to cherish that. But, Mr. President, Sir, there is a greater issue that we will have to consider and that is the right of a Senator to be able to call for a division. It has great ramifications and importance insofar as the conduct of our business is concerned. There would be legislations where divisions will have to be asked for. The Secretary-General will have to record and they have to go on certificates for the validity before the President looks at it and before he assents. These are the issues that we will, in process of a parliamentary debate, come through. In my life in the Senate for almost 10 years, I have seen that happen. We have discussed these Standing Orders in the process, Sir, and it is my very humble request that if the honourable mover wishes to deal with it in a way that is going to suit us, so that we can have further deliberation on it so that we can come to a decision, I would be happy to go along. But for the time being, Sir, whatever the motion is saying, if seen and interpreted in the intention and the bonafide with which the honourable Senator has brought before the House, I would like to support that, according you the highest respect in this House, we should seriously look at it. I certainly will support this motion because it is a very important matter for a Senator, a person who represents the agenda of a political party, to let his or her position be known.
I therefore urge my honourable Senators that it is not an issue raised, it is a question of how well we can conduct the business of the Senate. If interpreted in any other way, I see difficulties when entrenched legislations are even going to be brought before this House for voting. With those words, I would humbly wish to record my support and I hope that we will see wisdom and goodwill in it. It has been said that we are not here for litigation, we are here to see how we can move forward henceforth.
HON. SENATOR REV. T. KANAILAGI.- Mr. President, Sir, I want to begin by saying that the content of this motion contravenes our Standing Orders. Standing Order 2 gives you the freedom to interpret our Standing Orders and to pass judgement on the practices of the Senate. You have always been fair and have allowed all Senators the fullest freedom in exercising their rights in fulfilling their duties. This motion is unfair and unnecessary. The situation on the 13th of December, during the vote on the Budget, was very clear. You acted correctly.
Mr. President, Sir, it was obvious that all the Government Senators and those in the Great Council of Chiefs, and our colleague from Rotuma, were supporting the Budget. In fact, one of the Labour Party Senators had also indicated his support for the Budget because it was a means of securing stability. Thus, Sir, those opposing the Budget numbered not more than seven. Those supporting were the remaining 25 if everyone was present. By taking the absentees, we had around 22 or 23 Senators present, thus supporters of the Budget were three times as many as those who opposed it. Thus, the volume of the voices of those saying "aye" was clearly greater and louder and it was very obvious that those in favour greatly outnumbered those opposing it. Your conclusion, Sir, from the clear expression of voices was totally correct and where there is no doubt, you have the freedom and indeed the right to decide. We should accept that decision. That correct decision you made is now part of our history. This motion is groundless and must be rejected. I express my fullest confidence in your as our unanimously elected President of the Senate.
In conclusion, Mr. President, Sir, I wish to end with a message for the season. We are only six days away from Christmas. Business communities are already advertising the spirit of Christmas. We are not only commemorating that great event, we are also celebrating it and one of the messages of the business people is that we consider the spirit of Christmas. Reconciliation begins at Christmas when the Divine was incarnated, taking the form of a human nature because he wanted to reconcile the sinful world to himself and reconcile man with his fellow neighbour. It is that high note of the spirit of the season that I would like to emphasise in this House. We are also coming to the end of our sitting and I would like to see that we conclude our meeting harmoniously with the spirit of Christmas. I hope we disperse this afternoon shaking hands and congratulating each other with the message of Christmas.
I conclude by saying to you, Mr. President, Sir, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
HON. SENATOR A.K. SINGH.- Mr. President, Sir, may I start off my contribution by wishing each Member a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year and May God's blessings be with you during this season.
Mr. President, Sir, I make no secret of the fact that your contribution to society, to your previous employment, into this House has been remarkable. You are growing in stature and you are an extremely fair President. I go back to the very day that this issue has arisen and I refer to the speech made by my colleague, the honourable Senator Dr. A. Emberson-Bain, in which you intervened to the objections and you in fact, in all fairness, allowed and permitted her to speak. You overruled the objections that were made against her. Sir, certainly that was fairness, which you have demonstrated to us and we appreciate that. I think all honourable Members of this House appreciate that. It is through that level of fairness that you have now started earning the respect of each Member of this House, irrespective of what you have before and I must congratulate you for that.
Sir, having said that, I wish also to address some of the issues that have been raised, particularly by my colleague, the honourable Senator A.V. Tora. Sir, the issue right now that is before you is not meant to challenge anything or any of the wishes or concerns of the Great Council of Chiefs. We also respect the Great Council of Chiefs, it is an august body which has over the years guided, not only the indigenous Fijian community but all the communities of this country. It is a body which is magnanimous at times. It is charitable, chosen the standing to the various causes that is before it and it always take decisions after debate and taking the view of other communities.
In fact, I must say, Sir, that it is through the wisdom of the Great Council of Chiefs that we, the Indian community have enjoyed the benefits that we have in this country. There is no way that we would like to challenge or in any way, show disrespect to the Great Council of Chiefs. In fact, the opposite is true. We would like to show our respect to the Great Council of Chiefs but, Sir, with that respect, I must say that when there is an issue before this House, it is really not connected with the Great Council of Chiefs, it is not fair on that great body that the allegation be made that we are in some way trying to undermine the Great Council of Chiefs. That is clearly not so, Sir.
Sir, coming to the motion before the House, there are two issues here. One is the question of the passage of the Budget and the second is the right of a Senator to call for a division. Insofar as the first one is concerned, Sir, we do not have any intention of challenging or in any way, trying to derogate the Budget. In fact, Sir, we really do not have. This House itself does not have the power in any way, to stop the passage or stop the Budget from going through as it is well known. All we can do, Sir, is debate it and we either approve it or reject it, but, irrespective of that, the Budget goes through. So from that point of view, it is only an academic question as to what we actually do here in terms of the vote. Therefore, the Budget will go through, irrespective of what the Senate says, and this has been emphasised a number of times and all honourable Members of this House know it.
Sir, if I may turn to the second issue and that is important. The real issue there is when and how can the voting in the House be called for a division. Standing Order 61(3) sets out the provision for calling for a division. I would like to point out, Sir, that the calling of division as provided therein is a right of a Senator.
Sir, Standing Order 61(3) says and I quote:
"After the President states whether, in the President's opinion, the "Ayes" or the "Noes" have it. Any Senator may then call for a division."
Sir, the word "may" relates to the right that may be exercised by a Senator as opposed to the President of this House. It is clear that there may be situations where a Senator is dissatisfied with the manner in which the voting has taken place or he may like to register his own dissent to a particular motion before the House.
This provision gives him the power to call for the division and to record his dissent. Sir, this provision is not there for the members of the Fiji Labour Party or any particular groups in this House. This provision is there for even Members on the other side of the House. There may come a time that there is a bigger legislation before the House which they do not agree with. They may want to show their dissent and have it recorded. Standing Order 61(3) gives them the right to call for a division to have the matter recorded.
Sir, if you were not or if this House was not to permit a Senator from calling a division, then might I ask what are the circumstances in which a division may be called at all? The effect of that is then, Sir, that no Senator in future would be able to get up and ask for a division. This is why it has now become a matter of principle. The question is, do we preserve that right to an ordinary Senator or do we take that right away.
Sir, as I said before, whether the Budget went to division or not, is really inconsequential in terms of the effect that it may have on the fate of the Budget but by that particular ruling, it impinges on the right of a Senator to call for a division and that is what I wish to emphasise to this House.
Sir, if we are to ignore the provisions of Standing Order 61(3), if the effect of that is going to be that no Senator would be able to call for a division at all. That right is the Senators and not of the Chair of the President. There may be a situation, Sir, where there are certain entrenched provisions of the Constitution which are before the House and which are being put to the House and they go on voices.
Sir, now there is a specific provision as to how the votes have to be recorded. But in the event it is overlooked or a Senator wants to call for a division to ascertain that the votes have actually been properly exercised, and the number of votes (in some cases the mandatory numbers are required from the nominees of the Great Council of Chiefs), if that right is taken away from an ordinary Senator, then that right I am speaking of, for a Senator to call for a division, would be taken away. What would happen in that situation?
Sir, it is very important to see or have an overview of the provisions in the Standing Orders and if we are to turn a blind eye to that particular provision, it is going to have disastrous consequences for the Members of this House. Mr. President, Sir, there appear to be some misunderstanding that when the voices are taken and if the number of voices on one side happens to be louder and the other side does not have as loud the voice, then it is not necessary to call for a division.
Sir, Standing Order 61(3) clearly gives the right to a Senator to call for a division even in that case. There may be a circumstance, where for instance if there was a Bill before the House which was more controversial and where there were some disagreements between the various groupings within this House. If Standing Order 61(3) is not followed today, Sir, then there may arise a situation where in those circumstances if the Senators want to get together to call for a division to essentially ascertain that the numbers are there one way or the other; that right would be taken away.
Mr. President, Sir, it is in the interest of each Member of this House to preserve that right and the right for a division. Sir, I know that it is looked at in this case, the case in point, that there may have been some ulterior motives or there was an improper purpose for which the division was called for. Now whichever particular stand is accepted by anyone, whether it was innocent or whether there were some ulterior or malicious motives, the fact is, it is a right of a Senator to call for a division. If we take it away simply because we want to examine what particular purpose he was doing it or why he called for a division, whilst we are examining the particular purpose, then we will get ourselves into a lot of difficulties in the future. That difficulty would have taken away the right to call for a division. At the end of the day, we are the ones who are going to suffer.
Mr. President, Sir, I have tried to explain, as I understand it, the issue here. The issue here really is whether a Senator in terms of Standing Order 61(3) can call for a division. There are broader issues at stake here and I call on each Member of this House to deliberate and think about it and the consequences in the event this right is not accorded to a Senator.
HON. SENATOR K. LOW.- Mr. President, Sir, I am not as eloquent a speaker as my legal eagles on the other side but my intention is to give my humble opinion. First of all, we should not make this into a racial or a political situation. I take the mover of the motion's explanation for the purpose for which this motion was moved. There has been a lot of talk; all the way from England, down to the GCC divisions and all sorts of other things which I do not think is quite relevant at this stage.
First of all, we should go back to the original intent of the Standing Orders. The Standing Orders, I was told just now from the honourable and learned Senator Khan is for the conduct of business of this House. The original intent of Standing Order 61 is obviously for a motion to be cast and the pros and against taken in the verbal sense "aye" or "naye".
I have been in other meetings and I am sure my honourable fellow colleagues here have either chaired or attended other meetings where similar casting of votes is managed. It is by a majority of "aye" or "naye". Only if there is a very close portion of the votes, then a division may be called. It says "Any Senator may call", which is quite correct because it does not say it has to a Government Senator or Leader of the House but it says that any Senator may then call for a division.
Standing Order 62, in this case, does not even come to the picture because in this particular motion, it was quite obvious that the majority "ayes" outweighed the "nayes". If we were to apply this to every motion before the House, there would be a lot of time wasted. I can exercise my right too and stand up each time and call for a division on every motion that is put before the House. This I am sure is not the intent of these Standing Orders 61 and 62. Sir, your interpretation or your final decision on this particular motion was well respected. I join my other fellow colleagues who have already praised you of your fairness in handling matters in this House, and that we should not read everything into a political, racial or witch hunt situation.
I would like my honourable colleagues to consider that we are the Upper House are supposed to be "Lords", that is to follow the English system. The intent of this motion as explained by honourable Senator the mover of this motion was very clear.
In my humble opinion, I do not agree with the honourable Senator Anthony that he should use this House, the Standing Orders, this division, as a tool or as a badge to his constituents, the poor or the cane farmers every time he goes there and say; "See, I voted against it". I think we should consider this as a whole House and as honourable people, we should not look at ourselves first. I too would like to go out there, in front of the camera and start broadcasting what I could do and what I would like to do for the people. I guess we will all have our chance to do that but we should not make use of this particular by-law or clause in the Standing Orders for that particular purpose. I think the original intention is not for that purpose. By denying that particular call for a division last Friday, I do not see how honourable Senator Anand Singh can say that we are actually removing the right of any Senator to call for a division. We still have that right. All of us have that right under the Constitution and under the Standing Orders. But under different circumstances, I am sure, Mr. President, Sir, you would grant the call for a division which we have had in the past too, I must add. To say further on this particular issue, Sir, I believe, with my limited humble experience, there are certain motions that require a division, the noting of each and everyone's decision on a particular motion. In this particular case, Sir, all this does not concern this particular motion. This particular motion by honourable Senator Felix Anthony was for his particular purpose and for his particular constituency.
With those words, Sir, I do not support the motion before the House.
HON. SENATOR RATU I. TAKIVEIKATA.- Sir, I rise to oppose the motion and I fully support your honourable judgement. Sir, may I be allowed to speak in Fijian.
Turaga na Peresitedi, esa oti saka e yabaki dua na noqu mai lewena tiko na Vale ni Bose cecere oqo, au sega saka ni dau vosa vakalevu, au dau vinakata vakalevu meu vakarorogo baleta ni duidui na i vakarau au mai raica ena Vale ni Bose oqo kei na i vakarau ni bula vakaturaga, vakaitaukei au susugi cake mai kina. E dua na i vosavosa e dau tukuna tiko e dua na noqu gone lailai e se qai sucu, esa kila vosa mai, e rua ga na nona i vosavosa e dau tukuna, e dua saka na "vakilakila" kei na "sagai koya".
Au vakavinavinaka vakalevu vei iratou na i to ni Veisaqa, au sa dau tukuna oti talega ena Vale ni Bose oqo, eratou sa vakayacora saka tikoga na nodratou i tavi, meratou na saqata tiko kina na veiyavu vinaka e dau kauta cake mai na Matanitu me baleta na veiqaravi ni bula raraba ni noda vanua o Viti. Na kena vakadewataki saka talega ena Standing Orders, na noqu rai e rawa ni duidui na noda i vakavakadewa. Oqo saka e dua na leqa levu au raica ni tiko. Na kena vakadewataki na Constitution kei na so na veilawa lalai e dau duidui kina na i vakavakadewa. O au na noqu vakadewa ena noqu raica na Standing Orders, esa donu vinaka na nomuni vakatulewa. O kemuni o ni kila, o ni raica na laveliga ka rogoca na ka e tukuni ena yasa ni Vale ruarua, esa donu kina na nomuni vakatulewa ka vakaoti gauna, dou vosoti au na i to ni Veisaqa, e saka vei au na veika eratou dau vakatukuna kei na nodratou saqata na mosoni.
Na Vale ni Bose saka qo na Vale ni Bose cecere, e dodonu me kunei ike na yalomatua, na veivosa vakaturaga mera vulica kina na lewe ni vanua ka ra doka na Vale ni Bose qo. Na Vale ni Bose qo au raica tiko esa tautauvata tiko kei na Vale ni Bose ira, qo saka e sega ni Vale ni Bose ni veicoqa, e Vale ni Bose meda mai duavata kina meda raica na uto ni veivakasama vinaka me vagolei kina na vanua qo o Viti meda kunea saka kina na bula sautu kei na nodra vakatorocaketaki na lewe ni vanua.
Au rarawa saka vakalevu e vaka e beci kina na nomuni tutu vaka Peresitedi me vaka era sa tukuna oti na Turaga Vunivalu era sa vosa oti, na nomuni vakatulewa ena Vale ni Bose qo e ka cecere duadua. Au raica ni o ni sa vakatulewa e se saqati saka tikoga na nomuni vakatulewa, au sa kerekere kina vei iratou na i to ni Veisaqa se na Labour, "Dou yalovinaka ke dou rawa ni raica vakayalomatua na kena dau caka na veivosaki ena loma ni Vale ni Bose cecere qo me rawa ni dokai ka na tau e dua na lewa era sa na vakadinadinataka na lewe ni vanua ni sa lewa ni Mata Bose kece". E dina ni mai duidui na nodatou i dabedabe; au a rogoca saka tiko e dua na vakatutu ena macawa sa oti, e tukuni me tou dabe veicurumaki. E rawa vakacava na dabe veicurumaki kevaka e tiko na duidui? Au sa kerei kemudou kina vakaturaga dou yalovinaka; "Dou raica vakayalomatua na veivosaki, me caka na veivosaki me dokai kina na i tutu cecere ni Vale ni Bose qo, vakabibi na nodra i tutu na Turaga na Peresitedi".
Ena vosa lekaleka saka ya, au saqata saka tiko kina na mosoni.
HON. SENATOR DR. A. ALI.- Mr. President, Sir, I regard this as an important motion and I do not in any way attempt to take away the right to dissent. In fact, I have always very strongly said that a democracy dissent is as important as agreement, both are necessary. For that matter, I have looked at this motion as the honourable mover said "dispassionately" but that is not for me to judge, that is for others to determine.
I looked at this motion carefully because it does deal with order in the House. It does deal with rights of every Senator, not just ours sitting on this side but yours as well as the President and that too is a very important right.
Mr. President, Sir, any Senator retains the right to call for a division, that is not being challenged. We are not challenging that right and no one is denying that. What is at issue is your discretion. The Standing Order, in our view, gives you that discretion and it does so deliberately. We are not taking a blind approach to it all, we are not in any way diminishing anyone's freedom. I think we are all very sensitive of our rights, each one of us. But we know that all rights are constrained by obligations and with the need to take into consideration the rights of others.
In bringing this motion, the honourable Senator worded it in a particular way and he should be prepared to allow us to interpret it according to the way it is presented to us. The issue really is about interpretation and as I read his motion, there were two parts to it. One, where he says that "your action was contrary to the provisions" that constitutes questioning your decision. You cannot escape that to say it was contrary to it, it was opposite to it, it is to say it is an error.
The second part asks us that we say to you in future irrespective of the circumstances, you must allow a division irrespective of who calls it. That is what it is saying and that is how I looked at it. This is why I disagree with this motion and I totally reject this motion because for me, it serves no useful purpose whatsoever. As it is presented, it is misconceived, unnecessary and in my view, contrary to the Standing Orders which govern the meetings of the Senate. I completely reject the claim in the motion and it is in the motion that your action contravened Standing Orders 61 and 62. Your action in fact has no bearing on Standing Order 62 because we took no vote and therefore, Standing Order 62 did not come into play. The reference to it is frivolous and misleading, that may not have been the intention of the mover but that is what it does appear and that construction can be made. That alone constitutes ground for rejecting a motion that wittingly or unwittingly, attempts to mislead this House cannot be countenance.
Mr. President, Sir, as for Section 61, the relevant section of this motion is subsection (3) and the critical word, in my view, is "may". So I began by going to the dictionary as English is as much a foreign language to me as it is to many others here. The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 8th Edition (1990), in the first column on page 734, says, and I quote: "may - expressing possibility".
But one reference was not enough so I went to the Cambridge International Dictionary of English. Its first edition came out in 1995 and I used the paperback edition, second column on page 876, which says that the word is used to "express possibility".
Thus, Mr. President, Sir, both these authorities advise that the word does not coerce definitive action. It allows, instead, discretion. That discretion, Sir, resides with you as the presiding officer over our meetings. You have the freedom, flexibility and the right of choice. In electing you as our President, we unanimously gave you that discretion. The Standing Orders allow you the discretion and this House cannot deprive you of that discretion through a motion of dissent. This is why I disagree with the second part of it, that you cannot deprive the President of that right through this motion.
The word "may", both the authorities I have cited admit, is used for seeking permission. Sir, in my humble view, when one seeks permission, there too discretion resides with a person who is given the right to decide whether or not to give permission. Again, the discretion is yours and you used that discretion that day. We cannot retrospectively challenge what we so freely, readily and so willingly gave to you to adjudicate in our meetings which you preside over because we freely elected you to do so. We cannot hamstring you in this matter. The Standing Orders do not allow us to do so. If it were the intention of the Standing Orders to deny you discretion or to deprive you of the flexibility, then the word "must" or "shall" would have been used instead of "may" as is evident. For instance, Standing Order 60(2) says where "must" is used to forbid introduction of new matter when you are raising some issues. I will come to another one anyway and show you that point.
Similarly, Mr. President, Sir, a precise direction is given in Standing Order 87(1) which says; "Every select committee must keep its own minutes, ....". It does not say "may". It says very clearly "must" so what I am saying is that the Standing Orders do differentiate between "may" and "must".
Mr. President, Sir, I refer you to Standing Order 96 which deals with the conduct of Senators where distinction is again made between "may" and "must". It is very clear in the passage. Standing Order 96, subsections (1), (2), (3) and (9) use "must" which gives no choice, but subsection (4) to (8) use "may", illustrating clearly the thrust of the two words. Let me take you to Standing Order 58 which is titled "Powers of the Chair to enforce order". I think that is important. That section is pertinent as the action prescribed there is analogous to what is the cause of this particular motion. Subsection (1) begins, and I quote:
"58(1) The President is responsible for the observance of the rules of order in the Senate and in committees of the whole House."
Here the Standing Orders, without ambiguity, give the President total discretion in determining rules of order. Standing Order 61, in my view, falls into that category. The President, in my view, could adequately use this to justify his action, and you acted appropriately in my view in this case.
Let us go to subsection (2), and I think it is very appropriate to read this. We all need to take note of this. It says, and I quote:
"(2) Whenever the President intervenes during a debate, any Senator then speaking, or offering to speak, must sit down and the Senate or committee of the whole House must be silent, so that the President may be heard without interruption."
It is very clear in its use of the word "must" and the distinction between "may" and "must". And I think that is one that we need to take note of, particularly if it is fundamental to the issue of respect in the House. This was my contention the other day.
Let me take you to subsection (11) of Standing Order 58 which says, and I quote:
"(11) In the case of grave disorder the President may suspend the sitting, or adjourn the Senate, to a time named by the President."
Again, "may" gives you the freedom whether you want to suspend the sitting or adjourn it, or you bring order and continue with it. There is that flexibility again.
So, Sir, those who compile these Standing Orders were well-versed in language and they made use of that language. Notice here the word "may" and in a situation of grave disorder, the Standing Orders give you, the President, or whoever sits in the Chair, discretion. He makes the choice whether the sitting is suspended or adjourned. He alone has that power to determine the direction. He alone has the right of discretion on what can be described as a contingency or an emergency. He is allowed that discretion and it resides in it. That particular Standing Order places the faith and trust of the House in the President. The Standing Orders do not attempt to bind him in this difficulty position. The Standing Order there relies on his judgement because it knows that who we will choose amongst us is one worthy of that position of trust. I am not saying that the honourable Senator is deliberately undermining your trust, but I am saying that the thrust of that motion can be so interpreted and to agree to it, will give the impression of a lack of trust. And I think that when you use words, you do have to exercise care.
We chose you, Mr. President, Sir, freely and unanimously and we on this side fully reaffirm that faith. With that trust in you, we thus support your action on Friday, 13 December. Since this trust and discretion lie with the Senate, the Senate's President in the most serious of matters, surely that is the aim of the Standing Orders in using "may" to grant discretion in the less important situation of a division. I am saying "less important", I am not saying "unimportant". We all should be aware of that.
Let us turn to Standing Order 2 which comes immediately after Standing Order 1, and it relates to the ruling of the President. It ends that Standing Order 2 is definitive. The decision of the President on the interpretation on any of the Standing Orders or on a matter of practice is final. I have noticed that it says, "of any of these Standing Orders" and that applies to all Standing Orders. Not just a Standing Order on a matter of practice, and the word chosen is "final".
It goes on to say, "The President may from time to time issue rulings ....". In other words, any particular ruling is not sychronised, he has the discretion to make changes, even of allowing a division now and denying it later. That is given to him.
It is a matter of interpretation and I am giving you my interpretation, and similarly the President has the right of interpretation and that right is final. Standing Orders 2 says, and I quote:
"The President may from time to time issue rulings on the interpretation of these Standing Orders and on matter of practice."
That is what the President do then.
Sir, this gives him finality, and in my view, you can express dissent, but you cannot question it in the sense of saying it is contrary or something that we want to overturn. As I have said, the finality of that decision is not confined to the Standing Orders but also to practice.
Furthermore, Sir, he has permitted rulings from time to time. Therefore, there is no constraint placed upon him. We cannot, therefore, direct the President how to act if he chooses to interpret sections of Standing Orders on some practice of the House. In this situation, where I cannot accept, I would ask the House to reject the second part of the motion because if you accept that, you are tying the President's hands and you cannot do that. You have to give him that freedom because the Standing Order gives him that freedom.
Thus, in my view, the second part of the motion is definitely out of order because it contravenes the rules governing good order in our deliberations. The Senate, Sir, is a legislative body. It is an integral part of our bicameral system. Its constitutional role is defined as essential in the passage of legislation, and its rules have to be followed. Its Presidents and powers must be respected. We should not follow the path of suicide that this ill thought motion prescribes, whether it is deliberate on witting, I will leave that to the mover of the motion. But if we follow the path of that motion, that is what we will be doing; hamstringing the President.
When the President feels he needs to go beyond the Standing Orders to seek clarity and ensure fairness, he is permitted to do so. There are conventions he can follow and there are precedence he can draw upon. He is not confined purely to this. He has to take guidance, and he is guided by this. In the same way, we are guided by our national laws, but we do not confine ourselves purely to national laws if we need clarifications and improvement.
Let me also say that the conventions and the precedence upon which he draws, in their initial stage there are also new rulings that are being made by Presidents, Speakers or presiding officers of other Houses of Parliaments elsewhere, excising their wisdom, judgement and discretion. I am saying that we should not withdraw that wisdom that comes with experience on our President, and we should not withdraw his discretion because that is what this motion attempts to do.
No President or Speaker is a slave to the past, and is entirely behold to what transpired previously or elsewhere, and you are not either, Sir. So, you have to have that freedom to decide. When we elected you, we take it for granted that you will respect our rights and we are aware of them. We in turn, will give you an undertaking to recognise and respect your rights and obligations.
Sir, the presiding officer has the power and indeed an obligation to assess the circumstances and the spirit of his own House and then rule accordingly bearing in mind the set of circumstances. My view was exactly what you did on Friday, 13th December. Friday 13th, I am told is not always a good day, but you acted correctly.
I think our President given his experience, knowledge and sense of fairness to all of us (and I am pleased the other side acknowledged that), must be permitted the same respect, dignity and recognition given to presiding officers in other Houses. He decided upon the evidence before him and in accordance with what was permitted in the Standing Orders. He made a decision, and therefore, I think it is foolish on our part to pass a judgement on his advisers. He has the right to ask for advice, and the advice is given. That is their role, and those that are involved in Parliament will be aware of that.
I think on that day, Sir, the President acted reasonably, judiciously and most importantly, he acted correctly. Correctness and fairness are born by evidence and accepted practice. We can supplement this by turning to Erskine May, and that is its purpose. You can use to supplement it and use it as precedent.
In many ways it has been a refuge of presiding officers of Parliamentary Chambers in the Commonwealth. That wisdom of Erskine May cannot be dismissed lightly. Its correctness and fairness are born out by evidence and accepted practices.
Here is what Erskine May says on page 428. Sir, may I with your permission read this paragraph and because it is rather long, perhaps I would not read all of it. It says, and I quote:
"When the Speaker of the Lords in this case puts the question, some Members either disagree or agree."
Then it goes on to say something to this effect. If there is a response from both sides, he judges which is the more numerous. I think the content which is the "ayes" or not content "noes" "have it". If this expression of opinion is not challenged, he says, the contents or no-contents have it and the question is decided accordingly. If it is challenged, he may repeat his expression of opinion which is exactly what you did; you asked twice.
When, however, it is apparent that a disdivision must be called, he says, "clear the bar", when it is apparent to him, because he is presiding not to me, to himself or to anybody else, because we have our own perceptions. In electing him President, we gave him that right to decide for us, and we must accept that, and it is for him to decide whether that point in time, he wants that. I feel that right should continue to reside in here. It was apparent in the House on Friday that the "ayes" clearly and distinctly had the majority on their side. The Senate Members on 13th December, 2002 as Item 2 of the Minutes states that all Senators were present except for honourable Senator Ratu S. Makutu. A perusal of the debate of the Budget gives evidence as follows: All the Prime Minister's nominees fully supported it. All the nominees of the Great Council of Chiefs supported the Budget even though some raised specific issues. The member for the Council of Rotuma was explicit in supporting the Budget. That suggests that the eight nominees of the honourable Prime Minister, as one has been absent for sometime plus 14 of the Great Council of Chiefs nominees, as well as the sole member of the Council of Rotuma all supported the Budget, giving us a total of 23 Members of the House. That leaves 8 Senators of the FLP leader. Of these, one in fact stated that the Budget should be permitted passage in the interest of stability and security. The conclusion that is reasonable is that the supporters of the Budget were three times as many as those inclined to oppose it.
Having presided over the debate, the President was aware of the flow of arguments for and against and in a position to determine which way the majority was moving. It was clear that the Budget had the support of a distinct and significant majority of the Senators. This was evident in the voices for it. The President had the advantage of calling for voices twice, and on both occasions, the volume was obviously greater on the side of "ayes". He then decided accordingly. He had precedent on his side, he had initiative also as his right and Standing Order 2 generally in their tone and tenure throughout allow, he uses his discretion which was permitted and he used it correctly, therefore you cannot say yet contrary to Sections 61 and 62.
This motion then, Sir, is not founded upon fact and it is not for me to speculate its purpose. I do not think that that is relevant. What is relevant is that it contravenes the Standing Orders and therefore this motion cannot be allowed. We have been told that the division was necessary to indicate a Party's position. I think that is outside the realm of the President's decision. His decisions should be non-political and you have been non-political. I think you have been very fair to all sides. Political interests cannot intrude in your decisions. As was pointed out, your political stand is always available in your speech and during campaigning you can take that and show it at the hustings to the people you want to vote for you. The division is not intended to show a Senator's political preference or position and I do not think that that should happen. The issue is also not about the future. The issue is about orderly conduct of matters in this House and therefore the President should have discretion in the time honoured way. This motion intends, if it is allowed to tie the hands of the President in the future and we cannot allow this. I thought honourable Senator Khan was arguing in favour of discretion and if we take his arguments to the logical conclusion then this motion is superfluous because the discretion this motion seeks to remove, that discretion should in fact be retained, hence the motion should be rejected. Also, I do not think that this motion in any way affects entrenched legislation because when you come to entrenched legislation, you have a pre-determined position. You know before hand that a division has to occur. That is not so in other matters.
Sir, I oppose this motion and I advise the House to reject it in its entirety because it contravenes the Standing Orders and it deprives you of your right as presiding officer. I can understand what the honourable mover of the motion is suggesting, but I would say to him that what he seeks will be available through your discretion as you have hitherto been very fair and judicious. I would also say to the honourable mover since he is well meaning that very often in these matters, a discussion with the presiding officer bears more fruit than a motion that we have to discuss publicly and take positions on.
I oppose this motion.
HON. SENATOR Q.B. BALE.- Mr. President, Sir, I will be very brief in my contribution because I believe, on the face of this motion it appears to be a simple motion. It has generated a great deal of discussion on the basic principles that lie behind the formation of the various provisions of our Standing Orders as well as these particular provisions. I believe that this House, as a whole, should reject the motion. It is unable to support the motion for the simple reason that the Constitution gives us (Standing Orders Committee) the right to formulate Standing Orders for the conduct of proceedings in this House. They had made the Standing Orders and the first point to remember is the often cited Standing Order (2), which gives in my view as an undisputed requirement that the ruling of the President is final. I doubt that from the contributions that we have had on this motion today, any honourable Senator has disputed that.
A lot has been said, Sir, during this debate from both sides of the House about the issue of confidence that we all pledge we have in the President. For my part, Sir, despite all these comments, I am prepared maybe in the spirit of the festive season coming to accept the assurances given by the honourable mover of the House and his colleagues that they have the fullest confidence in the President. I think that augurs well for the future of this House and our proceedings. I had said earlier on, Sir, that as a whole this House is not in a position to support this motion because of the way it is worded and because of the finality provisions of Standing Order (2). A careful analysis or examination of the motion shows what the honourable Senator Dr. Ali has already referred to. It really contains two principle components. One, it says that essentially the ruling of honourable President on the call for division that was made on Friday, 13th December, 2002 is contrary to the provisions of 61 and 62. On that issue alone, the President had ruled and that ruling is final, then assuming that that is only a preamble to the gist of the motion, comes later where it says: "The Senate resolves that...", assuming that that is the real burden of the motion, then that part that the House is requested to adopt or to agree to, is any call by any Senator for a division be allowed. Maybe, if it ended there, we could accept the assurances given by the honourable mover that this is for the future. It is for the future, so that whenever there is a call for division, it shall be allowed. I will come back to that but, the problem I see is that, the operative part of the motion does not end there. It is not only looking at the future, it in fact, says as well in accordance with Standing Orders 61 and 62.
Sir, I believe this motion (that part at least), is very either cleverly or cunningly couched because that in fact, is saying we should always allow that in accordance with Standing Orders 61 and 62 and the President has already ruled that it is not. Sir, to say therefore, that we allow that in the future because it is in accordance with Standing Orders 61 and 62, is to say that the honourable President's ruling was wrong. Now, that is a direct challenge of the ruling made by the President, which our own Standing Orders 2 says that we cannot do. We cannot do that so both principals or components of the motion are actually targeted at challenging the ruling of the honourable President. That in my view, is the reason why as a House, we cannot support this because to do so, would be going against our own Standing Orders.
Sir, I say this because there are other ways of moving this motion. If for instance, we were to rely on the honourable mover's assurance that he is really looking to the future then do not mention anything about the allegation or the claim that the ruling of the honourable President was contrary to Standing Orders 61 and 62 or whatever will happen in the future, (if it is to be allowed all the time) will be in accordance with Sections 61 and 62 but that is exactly what has been the subject of the ruling. Sir, for those reasons the principal components of the motion collectively represent a direct challenge of the ruling made by the honourable President. To that extent, we are also to approve it, we will be challenging our own Standing Orders too. That to me, Sir, is not right. In fact, we could have applied to strike of this motion on that ground alone, it is illegal, it is unlawful under our own Standing Orders.
Sir, personally, I thought there is no harm in letting the motion go through and be debated in the way it has been debated because a lot of good points have arisen from the debate. I mentioned, Sir, that maybe, the proper way it should have been done is, if we are really looking into the future) for the motion to say for clarity in the future, whenever a call for a division is made, the voting shall be complied with because it is only then that you go on to Standing Order 62.
Sir, if it was couched in, those words maybe, there is justification for supporting it but, on the ground that it then be referred to the appropriate Standing Committee of this august House, which is the Standing Committee on the Standing Orders. They can look at that, analyse it in the context of our proceedings and bring their report back to the House for consideration and adoption or endorsement, if honourable Members agree with it. But in the way it is couched, the motion is really just a challenge of the honourable President's ruling and that is not allowed under the Standing Order 2. That is why I say, Sir, with due respect, even the other side of the House should follow the Standing Orders and to that extent, we are unable to support this motion. If it was done the other way, maybe, we could have supported that, Sir.
Sir, the provisions under which the motion could easily have been brought justifiably may be, in their view, would have been Standing Order 82(1)(c) where the functions of the Standing Order on the Standing Select Committee on Standing Orders, their functions could be invoked to try and correct this for the future. But this motion is not talking about the future, it is talking about the ruling just made and we cannot look back on that, Sir, otherwise, we are offending our own Standing Orders.
Sir, I wish to also refer as a matter of principle on the references that have been made to the power of the President to interpret. Honourable Members, will see as Standing Order 2 says the decision of the President on two issues, the interpretation of any provision of the Standing Orders and secondly, the matter of practice and that is why so much discretion, Sir, is vested in the honourable President to ensure that the proceedings of this august House run smoothly.
Mr. President, Sir, the motion itself suggests an agreement, in my respectful view from the mover of the motion that there was ambiguity in the wording of Standing Orders 61 because it suggests that we agree that any call by any Senator for a division be allowed. I believe he meant there "shall be allowed". If it does say that, then that is a different wording from what Standing Order 61(3) says. No where in that Standing Order does it say that it shall be done. The right which the honourable mover was talking about, he felt he was deprived of that right, I would beg to differ with respect, Sir, Standing Order 61(3)3 says and I quote:
"...Any Senator may then call for a division."
The honourable President had not deprived any Member from the other side of the House of that right. That is the right to call for a division. The second stage of that right is whether that right is allowed or not. That was what the honourable President exercised his discretion on because it is only after he makes a ruling on that that you go on to Standing Order 62.
Sir, if that is not ambiguity, which requires interpretation then I do not know what it is. It is in that context, that the honourable President, in my respectful view, was quite right and within his right as President of this august House, to consider the proper interpretation because it is in the Standing Order.
I think the honourable mover and his colleagues are confusing those two rights, the right to call for a division, which they have never been deprived of, in fact it was done twice and the right to be given what they called for. Now, that was subject of the ruling by the honourable President which was in fact, subject to a lot of circumstances. For that, he points quite correctly, in my respectful view, to the events of the day. Sir, you were sitting here presiding over the debate and almost everyone contributed to that debate. He had a full picture of the trend of the debate and I think, if it is seen from Hansard, it will be seen that it was those who were expressively supporting the Bill far outweigh those who were not. This is a clear indication that the President has to take into account in making his rule on whether the call for a division should be allowed. Sir, in addition to that, there was the call on the voices and those of us who I believe had good ears on that day, had no doubt in our minds that the ayes had that motion carried.
The third issue is on numbers alone. That is when you add the numbers, the trend of the debate and the voices on that day. Although there are eight nominees of the Fiji Labour Party on the other side of the House, there were five of them present on that day and not eight. Against that, we had on this side, those who clearly supported the Bill, 20 Senators who were present.
I think it would have been remiss of the honourable President to ignore those facts leading up to this call. That is why I believe that the President was fully entitled to take these circumstances in making his ruling. In fact, I believe for that reason too that he was entitled to express some reservations on the motives behind the call for a division. If it was as clear as that on the trend of debate, on the voices and on the numbers present and still there was a call for a division, well, there must be something else that caused this call for a division.
For that reason, it would have been irrational for any President presiding over us in this august House to say; "Nevertheless, please go for a vote". That is why most of us were conscious of what the other side of the House were trying to do.
Sir, we are not blind. We know what was happening and I believe that Standing Order 61(3) is meant for the purpose of determining quantum and not quality of votes. I think what the honourable Senators from the other side of the House were doing that day was trying to determine the quality of their votes. That is not the purpose of the Standing Orders. I hope the honourable mover of the motion would bear in mind, through the Chair, the various circumstances I have pointed to and that it would have been absolutely crazy (if I may use that word) for anyone to reach a conclusion other than the conclusions reached by the honourable President.
Sir, I therefore believe that with all the comments I have made, it is very unwise, improper, against our Standing Orders, and unlawful for this august House as a whole to support this motion. If they had worded it in some other way that would truly reflect what they probably had in mind, maybe, but that is not the motion before this august House.
For those reasons, I too will not be able to support this motion before the House. Since this is likely to be the last day of our meeting, and being the last meeting for this year, I too join honourable Senators who have expressed season's greetings to the President, your family, the Secretary-General and the hard working staff, our best wishes for a Merry Christmas and a Prosperous New Year.
HON. SENATOR DR. A. EMBERSON-BAIN.- Sir, I would like to support this motion and to give my interpretation of Standing Order 61. I am rather disheartened to hear the lengths to which Members of this august House have gone to remove an important right which I believe to be in the Standing Orders and to curb a pivotal freedom by raising a lot of issues that obfuscate the real matter before us.
Mr. President, Sir, listening to the honourable and learned Attorney-General who had just spoken so eloquently just now, I do think that he got carried away when he was suggesting that the motion was illegal. I do not believe that he really meant that, perhaps he can give us some evidence of that. I do not believe that we are breaking the law and that is what "illegal" means.
Sir, I think we need to focus on the fundamental issue before us, and as the mover of the motion has himself said to consider it dispassionately, I would entreat honourable Members not to be blinded by party or sectional interests. Our duties as Members of this House go well beyond that. I would also ask Members not to be influenced by purported arguments about the reasons for this motion. In fact, with the greatest respect to you, Sir, I find it most disappointing that you should have been manipulated into making statements that I believe are unbecoming of the Office of the President, to attribute sinister motives to the call by the honourable Senator Anthony for a division on the Budget or to begin to conjecture ...
HON. SENATOR Q.B. BALE.- Mr. President, Sir, I rise on a point of order. The honourable Member I believe is very good at using words but she also knows that some words are not allowed in the rules of debate in this House, for instance the one she has just used, insinuating that the honourable President was manipulated. That connotes a lot of things. One, that someone else manipulated him; and two, he allowed himself to be manipulated. This is a word which carries a lot of meaning and I believe to the extent that it imputes an improper motive on the honourable President or anyone else who might have advised him, and I can assure this House, in that regard that no one from this side of the House was involved in any advice of any kind on that ruling. For that reason, I ask that she either rephrases what she said or she refrains from this kind of wild comments.
MR. PRESIDENT.- Honourable Senator Atu Bain, I was going to raise the same issue; the use of that word. As President, I am disappointed and I would ask that you either refrain from using such words "that the President is manipulated in any way at all", or withdraw them.
HON. SENATOR DR. A. EMBERSON-BAIN.- Perhaps, if I could rephrase it; I am sorry if you feel that it is a passing comment on the integrity of yourself and I did not intend that. It was really at the beginning of my sentence but the honourable and learned Attorney-General jumped up and did not hear me out so if I could just continue, I would be explaining where I am getting into in this.
My main concern is the fact of attributing sinister motives to the mover or the call by the honourable Senator Anthony for a division in the first place. There should have been an attempt to "conjecture" and I had used that word after thinking about it seriously; to conjecture upon his reasons, I believe, is not appropriate and it reduces the dignity of the Office of the President to allow drafting to take place which suggests casting aspersions on the integrity of an individual Member of this House. It also suggests that there have been some improper sinister motives in calling for a division in the first place and then moving a motion, that was what I was getting to, Sir. I think it does raise important questions for me about the quality and the independence of the advice that is being given to the President's Office and I say this with total respect to yourself. What one sees here is something that raises some serious concerns about what is going on behind the scenes. I feel that if there had been any concern over the motives behind honourable Senator Anthony's call for a division that he might have been asked to explain what those are but instead we had a statement that used some very damaging words. If there is anything really sinister going on here, it is actually the language that is being used by the person who drafted that statement. I was shocked to hear that the honourable Senator Felix Anthony was accused of flushing out dissidents and engaging in a witch-hunt. The accusation is being directed at him, not at you, Sir. These words subsequently appeared in the press and now we have it repeated in this House by honourable Senator Tora and even honourable Senator Low referred to the word "witch-hunt". Again, I do not believe that that is appropriate for words like that to be used in any statement in relation to this. I feel sorry that you are being used in this way. That is where I am coming from, Sir.
There are strong accusations to make. They cast aspersions on the integrity of my fellow colleague and the FLP Senators who have supported him in this but more sinisterly, Sir, words like "witch-hunt" and "flushing out dissidents" is the language of extremists. Now, I do not make any bones about it. It is the language of extremists designed to create division and disharmony in this House and that is the last thing that we want. I do not believe that they are based on facts as I said, they are based on conjecture and ultimately, the tone and the use of those words are intended to divide us and to create mistrust. I believe that they have been compounded since then in the debate that has taken place by those who are trying to imply that we are being disrespectful to yourself, Sir, and also to the Great Council of Chiefs. This could not be further from the truth. I think there will be reassurances done that we have no intention of showing you any disrespect, Sir, showing your Office any disrespect or showing any disrespect to the Great Council of Chiefs.
Sir, at the end of the day, the reasons and motives for the call for a division are not in my view relevant here. It is an issue of principle and of defending one of the most important features of parliamentary procedure and in particular, the sacrosanct right of Members of this House to record their votes on a motion before the House because in principle, the mechanism of a division, Sir, as I understand it, gives the opportunity to each and every Senator to place on the record of Hansard how he or she voted on a particular matter. It is there for all to see and it is there for posterity, Sir. It also clarifies the numbers irrespective of the balance or imbalance, it clarifies the numbers who voted for and against. In fact, it is the only way, Sir, of knowing for sure how many voted one way or the other. The division is also the only way of safeguarding against human error on the part of the President, who has to make an instantaneous judgement based purely on what his ears tell him. Now, I am not suggesting that you have a problem, Sir, what I am saying is that that is why that mechanism is there for all of us. We sit at different parts of this House and we will hear differently depending on acoustics and that mechanism is there for ....
HON. SENATOR RATU G.K. CAKOBAU.- Mr. President, Sir, on a point of order. She is insulting you, Sir, and I cannot take that. We put you there, Sir, as the President and your decision is final; that is all I have to say.
MR. PRESIDENT.- Honourable Senator, you deliver your speech in such a way that it cannot be generally accepted in the House. You are starting to create something that is going to end up somewhere unexpected. I would ask you honourable Senator to refrain your statement.
HON. SENATOR DR. A. EMBERSON-BAIN.- I am sorry, Sir, if you feel that way. The division, as I see it, ....
HON. SENATOR DR. A. ALI.- Mr. President, Sir, on a point of order. I have listened to the honourable Senator and I appreciate what she has said. I see no reason for her adding after her statement, "that you feel that way". It is not a question of "your feeling that way"; this question is, you have made a statement. There is a clear indication as to how we should respond to the President. I think he has asked you to present your case, and we are not denying you that, in a way that is acceptable to the House. To say, "you feel that way" is an insinuation and the point that has to be borne in mind, the President sitting there, sits in a time honoured way as do Presiding Officers in all Houses and whose Standing Orders everywhere give him that right of listening and determining.
HON. SENATOR F. ANTHONY.- Mr. President, Sir, on a point of order. We would appreciate if honourable Senators do raise the point of order, that they cite the Standing Orders (which Standing Order they are raising) because we tend to get fancy speeches while points of orders are raised. That, we believe is not improper.
MR. PRESIDENT.- I agree, honourable Senator, I take your point.
HON. SENATOR DR. A. ALI.- Sir, I raised Standing Order 51(1).
MR. PRESIDENT.- "References to others", thank you honourable Senator.
HON. SENATOR DR. A. EMBERSON-BAIN.- Sir, you asked me to refrain and you expressed concern over how I was expressing myself and I said, "I am sorry you feel that way". That is my apology to you if I had unintentionally made you feel that way. For honourable Senator Dr. Ahmed Ali to jump up and start to go on interpreting what I am saying and to suggest that there are some other ulterior motive there is nonsense. He is saying that under Standing Order 51(1), I am imputing improper motives to another Senator. If I say, "I am sorry you feel that way", I do not know how that can be interpreted as imputing improper motives to the Chair. I really think you are taking this too far. I apologise if the way I phrase things, Sir, has offended you and I am trying to say that I did not mean to offend you. But then I am pulled up again, it feels like I am just being gagged every time I open my mouth.
MR. PRESIDENT.- Can I give you five minutes, honourable Senator to finish your contribution?
HON. SENATOR DR. A. EMBERSON-BAIN.- Thank you, Sir.
In my view, Sir, the division is very clear, there is a right of the individual Members and Standing Order 61(3) is very clear. I do not believe that there is anything ambiguous about it. I do not believe it is inconclusive or ambivalent in any way. It simply states that after the "ayes" and the "noes" have been given, any Senator may then call for a division. I do not believe my interpretation of that, Sir, is that those two statements are not related to each other in any other way than that one follows the other. The right to call for a division is clearly not contingent upon any outcome of voting by voices. It does not require the sound of the "ayes" and the "noes" to be similar in order for a call for a division to be justified. There is nothing in my respectful view, Sir, to qualify the right given to each and every Senator to call for a division. There are no conditions, it is the simple, lean and unequivocal statement that says:
"After voting has taken place by one method, it can then take place by another. Collective voting by voices can be followed by individual voting by written record."
To me, Sir, it is a clear procedure and it is enshrined in our Standing Order 61(2).
In fact, if I may say this, Sir, it is so clear that the madam Secretary-General did not dispute the call for a division when the honourable Senator Felix Anthony requested one. He advised her in writing that he wished to have a division and her reply in writing was to the effect that while nothing in Standing Orders prevented it, she advised him to wait until the VAT Bill and then raise a division then. She was not disputing that right too. She was suggesting that he relocate his call for a division to another occasion but as we know, Sir, that was also ruled out. That disturbs me, Sir, that there seems to be some inconsistency here. Sir, I agree with you entirely on the point made in your statement earlier in the week that there are limitations on our powers in the Senate. I accept that completely. However, those limitations to my reading relate to our ability to amend or to pass such Bills and they also relate to the timing that we are allowed. They do not restrict us with respect to stating our opposition to an Appropriation Bill or to calling for a division at voting time. If it has never been done in the history of the Senate before then all I can say to that, Sir, is we are making history and as long as it is good history, I do not see anything wrong with that.
Sir, just by way of winding up, I do believe that we are creating a dangerous precedent for the future if we allow this matter to rest here and to surrender, what I believe, to be an important right to call for a division. With respect, Sir, I do not believe that there is the prerogative there or the discretionary right. I believe it is an unqualified right that resides with each and every individual member of the Senate. Having said this, I would just like to reiterate, Sir, that it is very misleading of the honourable Senator Apisai Tora to suggest that we are expressing a lack of confidence in you, Sir, or showing you or the GCC any disrespect. This, as I said before, could not be further from the truth and I honestly believe that the honourable Senator Apisai Tora really does know that.
I believe we are at crossroads in our history of the Senate here because if we vote against this motion, I believe we are failing in our duty to defend an important right that is there for each and every Member of the Senate and that will be there for the future. I believe that we will be failing to uphold the principles of accountability, transparency and integrity of the Senate. We are the guardians of the integrity of this House and its procedures and any decision that we make today will reflect on the whole House and on its future proceedings. If we vote against this motion, I believe, Sir, we are not only closing the door on accurate recording of voting but also on a cherished and fundamental right of Senators. We are closing the door on the accountability of both the Office of the President and the Senate as a whole. With respect, Sir, I do believe that the decision to disallow the call for a division was in breach of those Standing Orders. I totally respect your right and I am not questioning your right under Standing Order 2, that your decision is final. I am not questioning that.
HON. SENATOR DR. A. ALI.- You are.
HON. SENATOR DR. A. EMBERSON-BAIN.- No, I am not. If you will let me finish, I am clarifying what I mean.
What I am concerned about is that I do not believe that conjecture about motives and Standing Order 2 is sufficient basis to justify a decision to disallow a call for division. That is my position, Sir. So, I would entreat the honourable Senators to vote according to their conscience on this and that we resolve this matter amicably. I am sorry that we have ended up going down the wrong road here because that certainly was not my intention.
Sir, just to be responsive to the call of honourable Senator Reverend Kanailagi, I would like to end this debate on an amicable note, but I do also hope that we do the right thing. I would like to say, Sir, too in the spirit of Christmas coming up that I wish everyone Christmas greetings, goodwill and peace for the coming New Year and to say that I did respect and was very gratified by your indulgence during the Budget debate when I was being shouted down. It was very difficult to continue and I am especially grateful and was very touched by the generosity of offers to give up their time from a number of the GCC Members. That was truly a wonderful Christmas present for me.
MR. PRESIDENT.- Honourable Senators, we will take a five minutes break.
The House adjourned at 1.07 p.m.
The House resumed at 1.20 p.m.
HON. SENATOR F. ANTHONY.- I thank you, Sir, for the opportunity to respond. I will be very brief. I know everyone is getting hungry now and looking forward to your luncheon.
Sir, first of all, let me thank all the honourable Senators who have contributed to the debate on this motion. I sincerely thank them for their contribution. Unfortunately, Sir, the debate on this motion has rather taken an unfortunate turn which I had not anticipated nor did I ever in my wildest imagination think that race would become an issue, the Great Council of Chiefs would be dragged into it or your standing as President and the confidence that the House has placed in you would come into question at all. I had not, at any stage, envisaged that to be part of the debate, unfortunately that happened and I must say that it is most unfortunate.
Sir, before the debate had started this morning, the honourable and learned Attorney-General walked over to me and asked me a question as to whether I had any objections to your good self presiding over this motion and my immediate response to him was that that was not an issue with us. We have absolute confidence in you. I did state that to the honourable and learned Attorney-General immediately. I think that itself demonstrated the confidence that we place in you in this House. Having said that, Sir, I will just try to be brief. I believe my colleagues have covered most of the issues that I did intend to raise and I have no intention in repeating them, only to respond to a few comments that have been made.
Firstly, the comment made by the honourable Senator Apisai Tora that the amendments to the Minutes were done and, therefore, this motion was unnecessary. The amendments to the Minutes is quite a different matter to how this House conducts itself in regards to calling for a division and I just want to say that there are two separate matters. In putting this motion forward, we had no other motives, or nothing was camouflaged as far I am concerned. Sir, I was sincere about how we should have the right and every Senator, not only myself but every Senator (Government nominees, Great Council of Chiefs' nominees or the Fiji Labour Party nominees) have the right to call for a division and how that process must be conducted. That was the only issue that was in question, nothing else. There was no motive and let me assure honourable Senator Ratu Jo Dimuri that it was not our intention to go to Court on this issue and it still is not. So I would like to put that matter to rest. So there is no motive other than to what I intended to do. I believe that if we cannot trust one another on simple issues like this, then we have a problem in this House and if we have a problem in this House, then this country has a problem.
Mr. President, Sir, I would like to also reassure the honourable Senator Ratu George Cakobau that we, in this motion, did not seek to insult anyone and I do not believe we have done so. The issue in question is Standing Order 61 of the Standing Orders. That is the issue and motion before the House. How does Section 61(3) operate? We have an interpretation that we have given to that - we believe that that is the way it ought to go, they are differing views, that is fine. But let me say that that is the issue before the House. Having said that, Standing Order 61(3) talks about any Senator may call for a division, then Standing Order 62 follows on how that division is conducted. Standing Order 62(1) and Standing Order 62(2) talks about how that division is conducted. There is nothing else in the Standing Orders that actually talks about how a division is conducted other than those two clauses of the Standing Orders 61 and 62.
Mr. President, Sir, on the honourable Senator Kenneth Low's contribution, I would just like to say that he talked about this House not being used for individual Senators to try and take a position and then go to the people and talk about that position. Sir, I sincerely believe in accountability. I believe we are all accountable at the end of the day to the people of this country and one of the ways I believe that can assist me to be accountable to the people is if I took a firm position on certain matters that are very dear and close to my heart and hearts of many other people out there. I know we all have different ways of doing things, but I believe that the Standing Orders provide the Senators that opportunity and I chose to use that part of the Standing Orders.
Mr. President, Sir, I thank the honourable Senator Dr. Ali for his contribution, but with respect, I must disagree with the twisted meaning he gave to the word "may", though he sought the help of two dictionaries. I thank him for the research he put into that, but the word "may", as we see it, is discretion given and Standing Order 61(3) gives that discretion to any Senator. Standing Order 61 does not give discretion, with due respect, to the President and that is what we were talking about. The honourable Senator Dr. Ali misconstrued that to say that that "may" meant the President having that discretion. Nevertheless, I think the wordings are fairly clear.
However, Sir, he went on to talk about "may" meaning "seeking permission". If we were to accept that interpretation of "may", then the very Standing Order that he alluded to in his argument in Standing Order 58(2), and I quote:
"Whenever the President intervenes during a debate, any Senator then speaking, or offering to speak, must sit down and the Senate or committee of the whole House must be silent, so that the President may be heard without interruption."
Sir, if we were to seek permission, then is it also true that the President must seek permission, by that word "may"? I do not believe that the interpretation given to "may" was correct, but I clearly recognise the strategy that is used and we quite often use that elsewhere where if you cannot convince them, you confuse them. So I believe that is what Senator Dr. Ali did.