Motion agreed to.
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CHAIR
MR. SPEAKER.- Honourable Members, a very warm greetings to you all and I also take this opportunity to welcome our visitors in the gallery. This morning, we have the students and parents of Ratu Nalewavada Public School in the Nausori Highland. On behalf of the House, I warmly welcome you this morning. I know you have travelled long distance to get here. E khawa dokai vakei au mequ kidavaki mutou na qwata nikua. O mutou na vero vuli o mutou na jubujubu qai mutou na qwase ni vuli. E qwa dokai vakei e na lequ tadratadra va Speaker e na ledju yahana va veiyawane mequ kidavaki mutou e na qwata ni kua. Vina valevu na la mai veisiko nuitaki na kalougata na lemuju no na vuli muju na lehu me lemutou na vacegu.
QUESTIONS AND REPLIES
Baulevu Road
(Question No. 63/06)
HON. S.C. MAHARAJ asked the Government, upon notice:
Would the honourable Minister for Public Utilities and Infrastructure inform the House on
the following:-
(a) How often does the Government carry out maintenance work on the Baulevu Road;
(b) Why has not the road been tarsealed; and
(c) When does the Government intend to tarseal the road, which is one of the oldest in the country?
HON. S. TIKOINASAU (Minister of State for Public Utilities Reform).- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise to respond to the question as follows:-
(a) Routine maintenance works on Baulevu Road is programmed within six to eight weeks.
(b) Major drainage and road pavement upgrading works were being undertaken on this road this year. Also included were the tarsealing of the road to Baulevu Indian School and section of the road fronting Kasavu Village.
(c) There are no immediate plans to seal this road. Nevertheless, the phasing of works that are being done will be very beneficial, if sealing is considered at some later stages.
HON. M. RAKURO.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I did ask this question before the road to Baulevu ends at Nakini. Is there any hope of extending that road to villages on the upper hills, Calia and so on?
MR. SPEAKER.- Honourable Member, the subject matter this morning is Baulevu Road.
Financial Assistance - 2003 South Pacific Games
(Question No. 66/06)
HON. M.P. CHAUDHRY asked the Government, upon notice:
Would the honourable Minister for Finance and National Planning inform the House on the
following:-
(a) The total amount of financial assistance given by the Government from the consolidated fund for the hosting of the South Pacific Games (SPG) in Suva in July 2003;
(b) Name the organisations which received the financial assistance and state the amount paid to each of them;
(c) Have the accounts of the SPG been audited and if so, by whom;
(d) Why have the accounts not been tabled in this House some three years after the Games were held, and who is responsible for this inordinate delay; and
(e) Will the Government consider instituting independent investigation into the serious allegations of fraud, corruption and misappropriation in the use of SPG funds made by the former Minister of State for Youth and Sports and widely reported in the news media?
HON. RATU J.Y. KUBUABOLA (Minister for Finance and National Planning).- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise to respond to the question as follows:-
(a) The total amount of financial assistance given by Government from the consolidated fund for hosting of the South Pacific Games in 2003 was $21,186,998. The breakdown is as follows:-
Total infrastructure grant - $17,800,000
SPG Organising Committee - $1,405,000
SPG Security - $475,000
SPG Equipment/Preparation
and participation - $1,130,000
VAT component - $376,333
(b) SPG Organising Committee:
(i) Administration - $745,500
(ii) Additional provision for games
village capacity building USP - $660,000
Sports Council/Fiji Police Force:
(iii) SPG Security - $475,665
FASANOC:
(i) Equipment/Team Fiji Preparation
and Participation - $1,130,000
(c) The Government grants have been audited through the normal audit by the Auditor-General. The SPG Organising Committee's accounts were audited by KPMG in 2006, while FASANOC was completed in 2004.
(d) The accounts have been tabled in this House some three years after the games were held. I wish to mention that the SPG Organising Committee is a limited liability company and there is no requirement for them to table their accounts here, although it was tabled in this House in the last sitting. The reason for the inordinate delay was mainly because this was a total project, starting from December 2001 to August 2005 and the need to ensure that proper acquittals were done by the committee in relation to grants provided by Government. Also, some of the disposal assets were acquired duty free and they did not wish to have the accounts finalised carrying a huge amount of redundant assets, otherwise there would be continuing accounts to be done and provided by the committee, hence the reason for the delay.
(e) No, but if the honourable Members or others in this august House have any information in relation to these allegations, I would strongly urge that this be directed to the relevant agency.
Mr. Speaker, Sir, I take this opportunity to thank all those who were involved in the preparation and organisation of the SPG, who worked tirelessly in ensuring that the games were successful. Some of them are in this august House today. Sir, the securing of the games to be held in Fiji was done in 1997. It was not until 2001 that serious work was carried out to ensure that the 2003 SPG was going to be successful. A lot of work was done behind the scenes, especially in securing sponsorship funds and others. As I said, there are those within this House this morning who did a lot of work and I would like to take this opportunity to thank them for that.
HON. M.P. CHAUDHRY.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, the honourable Minister has not answered part (b) of the question, which is very specific; name the organisations, which received the financial assistance and state the amount paid to each of them. The honourable Minister said that $17.8 million was paid out for infrastructure development. I want to know who did this money go to, $17.8 million is a lot of money and it cannot be passed aside by saying that it was paid for infrastructure development. I believe this money was given to the Fiji Sports Council. The Fiji Sports Council has not submitted its accounts to this House. In fact, it has not submitted its accounts to this House since 1992, despite a specific requirement in the Act, requiring the Minister responsible to table the accounts and the Annual Report of Fiji Sports Council.
HON. I. LEWENIQILA.- You are lying!
HON. M.P. CHAUDHRY.- You are the liar, you were the Minister.
Mr. Speaker, Sir, it is specifically provided for in the Fiji Sports Council Act. The nation knows what has happened.
HON. I. LEWENIQILA.- The nation knows about you.
HON. M.P. CHAUDHRY.- Where has the money gone - the $17.8 million? When a Minister who has been dismissed from his Ministerial portfolio, (simply because he wanted to drag the truth of this issue before the public, got wrapped in the knuckle, while the criminals, the people who had abused this money, had corruptly used it and misappropriated it, are now sitting in this House and talking cheeky. Mr. Speaker, Sir, it is time that these people are exposed and brought before justice because it is time this side of the House report the matter to the Police. They are not going to get away with it.
HON. T. YOUNG.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, a point of order.
HON. M.P. CHAUDHRY.- I have said what I wanted to say, they can raise any point of order.
HON. T. YOUNG.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I refer to the question that he is asking. He should be asking a supplementary question and not spilling venom in the morning of your Christmas party. Secondly, imputing improper motive on the former Minister for Youth and Sports. Sir, I think the honourable Member should retract that statement, accusing the honourable Minister of being a liar. The whole of Fiji and the whole world knows who is a liar in this House.
MR. SPEAKER.- I do understand that the honourable Member for Ba Open (M.P. Chaudhry) was asking about the names of the organisations. I do not know whether the honourable Minister for Finance would like to respond to that or not.
HON. RATU J.Y. KUBUABOLA.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I do not have the names of the organisations, but I do have the breakdown of how the $17.8 million was used and I will be glad to provide the honourable Member with that. As I mentioned, if there are allegations of fraud or corruption, please direct them to the relevant agencies.
HON. M.P. CHAUDHRY.- I find this most extraordinary because this House is accountable to the people of this country and for the honourable Minister for Finance to say that he does not have the names of the organisations, when the question was specifically asked, why did he not bring the name of the organisation to this House? What is he trying to hide? Who is he trying to protect? It is no use telling us here that we go to the Police or the agencies, when you are holding all the documents and know what happened to the money. I think it is about time that this matter is honestly dealt with in this House, because a lot of money has gone into the wrong hands and we all know that. Sir, I thank you and since the honourable Minister said that he will provide information on part (b) of the question later on, I would be very happy to receive that from him.
Navutulevu - Queen's Highway
(Question No. 72/06)
HON. V.D. SHARMA asked the Government, upon notice:
Would the Honourable Minister for Public Utilities and Infrastructure Development inform the House, when will the Ministry plan to provide maintenance on the Queens Highway from Navutulevu to Suva, which has several hundred potholes for more than four months now? Sir, this question was filed some time in August and it has finally appeared today.
HON. I. LEWENIQILA.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, point of order. I yesterday raised, Standing Order 116. I think, your caution and advice has fallen on deaf ears and the same honourable Member is standing up again without his coat.
MR. SPEAKER.- Honourable Member, that Standing Order was raised yesterday and you were to take note of that. I am sure you will never forget that in the future, if you can follow that Standing Order, but I will give you the opportunity to ask your question.
HON. S. TIKOINASAU (Minister of State for Public Utilities and Infrastructure Development).- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise to respond to the question on behalf of my line Minister and the Ministry. Works are in progress.
HON. V.D. SHARMA.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, a supplementary question. It was a very simple answer that work is in progress, but would the honourable Minister inform the House as to when this work would be completed and if the honourable Minister could give a time frame because these potholes have been there for the last eight months; on Fiji's major highway - the Queens Highway? Sir, this is a real concern for all motorists, in particular those people whose tyres are blown up and suspension parts are damaged and thousands of dollars go out in foreign exchange to buy spare parts.
HON. S. TIKOINASAU.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, when weather permits.
HON. G. SINGH.- Mr. Speaker, the honourable Minister has replied that work is in progress. Actually, Sir, I am a regular user of this Highway - travelling to and fro four times a week. I just came from Ba yesterday morning and the weather was very nice, and I did not see any single person working on the Highway. Sir, I say this because I also wrecked one of my land cruisers due to the bad road conditions. I therefore request the honourable Minister that if the road cannot be tarsealed, can it be graveled again so that we do not lose our vehicles and waste our money.
MR. SPEAKER.- Honourable Member, I am in the same boat as you. I travel that Highway every week. I have made enquiries with frustrations, and they keep saying that they are doing it in stages, part of remedial and that takes a little while. So, I have been suffering in silence as well.
(Laughter)
HON. A.D. SINGH.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, before I ask the question, I would first like to correct the layout of the questions, where question (d) should be the continuation of question (c), therefore, there will be no question (e).
Ethnic-Based Assistance - Affirmative Action Programme
(Question No. 76/06)
HON. A.D. SINGH asked the Government, upon notice:
Would the honourable Minister for Education, Youth and Sports, please inform the House on the following:
(a) Whether the Ministry of Education has reviewed or is reviewing the present ethnic-based assistance provided under the Affirmative Action Programme which is in breach of the 1997 Constitution according to a report of the Human Rights Commission;
(b) If the answer is in the affirmative, how far has it been implemented;
(c) If the answer is in the negative, what is the reason for ignoring the plight of the equally and more deserving students of other ethnic origins; and
(d) What is the total number of Fijian students attending non-Fijian managed in both primary and secondary schools?
HON. RO T.V. KEPA (Minister for Education, Youth and Sports).- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise to respond to the question raised.
Mr. Speaker, Sir, it is unfortunate that the honourable Member has plagiarised the term "race-based" assistance from the Fiji Human Rights Commission (FHRC) Report of June, 2006. Race-based is an emotive, biased, slanted, prejudiced term, which unfortunately does not correctly portray what this Programme is about. However, interestingly it demonstrates more revealingly where the FHRC was coming from in the compiling of this Report, that it was coming from an emotive, biased and prejudiced position, and it also, Mr. Speaker, Sir, gives the wrong impression and perpetuates the myth that this Programme is ethnic or race-based.
Mr. Speaker, Sir, the Social Justice Act, Act. No. 5 of 2001, is based on Chapter 5 of the 1997 Constitution, which deals with Social Justice and details are that the interpretation of Affirmative Action means State policies that assist groups or categories of persons who are disadvantaged so as to enable them to achieve equality of access with groups or categories who are not disadvantaged, and this, Mr. Speaker, Sir, is a 10-year programme which has been implemented since 2002. Out of the 29 programmes implemented since then, four Programmes are with the Ministry of Education, and they are:
(a) Enhancement of Fijian and Rotuman education;
(b) Programme to improve education in rural areas and disadvantaged schools;
(c) Vocational training, entertainment of employable skills in and out of schools;
(d) Improvement of educational opportunities for students with disabilities.
Out of those four Programmes, Mr. Speaker, Sir, only one is specifically for the enhancement of Fijian and Rotuman education. The other three are for various groups in Fiji that come under those categories.
Cabinet, Mr. Speaker, Sir, agreed at its meeting on Tuesday, 7th November, 2006, that there would be a mid-term review of Government's Affirmative Action Programme. This, Mr. Speaker, Sir, is in line with section 44(7) of the Constitution, which limits the life of the Social Justice Act to 10 years, although it provides for the extension of certain programmes at the end of this period where necessary.
Mr. Speaker, Sir, a mid-term review will also enable Government to examine the Affirmative Action Programmes in relation to their legal and constitutional basis, as well as in the context of Fiji's obligations to international laws and conventions on human rights.
May I just continue to state, Sir, that in the findings of the same Report which the honourable Member is basing his questions on.
Programme 1 - which is the only programme dealing with the enhancement of Fijian and Rotuman education, we need to conduct means testing so that we improve on that targeted area, and this will come out in the review, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, Sir.
Programme 2 - to improve education in rural areas and disadvantaged schools. The findings of the FHRC were that the programmes are not discriminatory.
Programme 3 - on vocational training, entertainment of employable skills in and out of schools, the finding by the FHRC was the same, that the same programmes are not discriminatory.
Programme 4 - the improvement of educational opportunities for students with disabilities or special education, the findings was the same by the FHRC.
HON. A.D. SINGH.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, a supplementary question. First of all, Mr. Speaker, Sir, the honourable Minister has alleged that I have plagiarised the part of the FHRC when I used the word "race". Sir, that Report has been made public. I have quoted from the Report, and of course, the Report is damning. The Report very clearly states that in breach of the 1997 Constitution, and that is exactly what I have asked, and the honourable Minister has very cleverly tried to elude the actual answer to my question.
Sir, may I remind the honourable Minster that question (d) has not been answered.
HON. RO T.V. KEPA.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, in terms of the first part on "race-based", that is only found in the FHRC Report. It is found nowhere else, and the Social Justice Act outlines very clearly what the Programme is about.
In relation to question (d), I will get back to this august House sometimes in the next sitting, so that we have the correct numbers for this year's roll.
HON. M.P. CHAUDHRY.- A supplementary question. If the Affirmative Action Programme is not race based, in some respect, would the honourable Minister then explain to this august House, why indigenous Fijian students attending non-Fijian managed or secondary schools are denied Affirmative Action assistance provided to Fijian indigenous students attending Fijian managed schools? I am talking about Fijian students either in Fijian or Indian managed schools. Why are Fijians students attending non-Fijian managed schools denied this assistance?
HON. RO T.V. KEPA.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, this assistance that comes under the Affirmative Action Programme is provided for Fijian schools at the moment. When the review takes place, it might consider that the assistance needs to go to other schools as well, so we will wait for the outcome of the review.
HON. M.P. CHAUDHRY.- I do not think we should wait for the review. The anomaly is quite obvious. I think it should start from the beginning of next year. Why wait for the review for something that is quite obvious? That is discriminatory.
Duty Rebate on Fuel - Inter-Island Vessels
(Question No. 88/06)
HON. P. MUPNAR.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, before I ask the question, I refer to (d), where it reads "eight (8) months". This question was filed in early September, I hope that the honourable Minister for Finance in his reply would consider the current period as well, until today.
Would the honourable Minister for Finance and National Planning inform the
House on the following:
(a) How much has been paid out to-date to Inter-islands vessels due to granting of 100 per cent duty rebate on fuel as per 2006 Budget provision through section 10 of the Customs Tariff Act;
(b) Which inter-island vessels benefited from 100 per cent duty rebate and by how much in monetary terms for each vessel;
(c) What was the Government's intention for allowing 100 per cent rebate on fuel and whether the achieved target set is being met; and
(d) Whether the nation economically benefited, particularly in terms of export expected increases in the last 11 months and by how much?
HON. RATU J.Y. KUBUABOLA (Minister for Finance and National Planning).- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise to respond to the question asked by the honourable Member for Nadi Rural Communal (P. Mupnar).
(a) Allow me to clarify that the fuel concession allowance for inter-island vessels is not granted as a rebate as in the case for the bus industry. There is no grant of any kind by Government directly to these vessels, as it seems to be indicated in this part of the question.
In the case of inter-island vessels, the fuel is bought at a duty free price upfront from all companies such as Mobil and BP, and the duty free concession is then accounted for in the monthly returns submitted by these companies to FIRCA. Since its introduction this year, the total of the fuel bought at duty free price by inter-island vessels that qualified for this concession was 4,028,278 litres as at the end of October this year, with the current fiscal duty rate of 18 per cents per litre. The revenue foregone is $813,617.
(b) There is a list here and I wonder whether the honourable Member would be agreeable for me just to provide this to him, if not, I will read it out.
Inter-island Vessels | Amount ($) |
Suilven Shipping Limited | 338,500.00 |
Kadavu Shipping | 23,696.52 |
Salia Basaga Shipping Limited | 21,220.00 |
Patterson Brothers Shipping Company | 118,467.60 |
Khan Shipping | 1,190.00 |
Allied Shipping Company | 5,130.00 |
Consort Shipping Line Limited | 285,112.00 |
Kabara Development Corporation Limited | 885.08 |
Seaview Shipping Services | 19,415.18 |
(c) The overall intention of this concession was to provide some form of assistance to the transportation industry, particularly those that are mostly used by the public at large. The irregularity in the shipping services in the Maritime provinces is common knowledge. It can become very uneconomical for companies to provide transportation services to these provinces. As in the bus industry, where 20 cent per litre is given as grant from Government, free fiscal duty is granted to inter-island vessels to assist the vessel owners in mitigating the high fuel prices, and impacting positively on first charge to our people in the Maritime Provinces.
(d) At this point, we have not been able to quantify the exact benefits, however, we believe that the concession has provided some assistance to producers in the Maritime provinces assisting them in the marketing of their produce both locally and abroad. It is anticipated that in helping the vessels, the vessel owners through this concession, overall transportation costs to Maritime producers will be minimised and regular trips will be a norm, and this should favourably impact on our exports.
HON. P. MUPNAR.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I thank the honourable Minister for the detailed statistical figures that he has given in his reply to (b). I would like to ask the honourable Minister that by providing this concession, whether all the islands were serviced as initially intended under the 2006 Budget, or some of the islands were missed out as they did not meet the purpose or intention that was set out in the 2006 Budget?
MR. SPEAKER.- Honourable Member, that is not really part of the original question. I think the honourable Minister may probably have to look into that, because I am sure he has not prepared the names of the islands.
HON. RATU J.Y. KUBUABOLA.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, this assistance is to all vessels. However, another assistance that is provided is the shipping franchise scheme, to assist those vessels that service the uneconomical routes, which will then be able to service all the other islands not normally serviced by the normal shipping routes. So, those two assistance will enable all islands to be serviced.
RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON THE
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BILL, 2006
HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, in the absence of the substantive Minister for Labour and Industrial Relations, who is away overseas on official duties, I rise as Acting Minister for Labour and Industrial Relations to reply to the debate on the Employment Relations Bill, 2006 (Bill No. 8 of 2006). In doing so, Sir, I would first like to make some preliminary remarks.
Mr. Speaker, Sir, the Bill in its current form, was introduced in this august House by the honourable Minister for Labour on 22nd June this year. It was then referred (as we all know) to the relevant Sector Committee - the Sector Standing Committee on Social Services for further scrutiny and consultations. The Report of the Sector Committee was tabled before this House and the debate on the Bill resumed.
Mr. Speaker, Sir, I am obliged to thank all honourable Members, who contributed to the debate on this Bill. I feel certain that they were in turn, greatly assisted by the findings contained in the Sector Committee's Report (Parliamentary Paper No. 49 of 2006).
Mr. Speaker, Sir, I must now especially thank and congratulate the Chairperson of the Sector Committee and Member for Kadavu Provincial Communal (K.T. Yabaki), and Members of the current Sector Standing Committee on Social Services, who have continued the good work started by the previous Sector Standing Committee on Economic Services before tabling their comprehensive report to this august House, together with their valuable recommendations. Sir, their critical evaluation of Government policies reflected in the Bill, has helped us further improve on the quality of the Bill. Sir, I shall not traverse in detail the comments made by the honourable Members who contributed to the debate on this Bill, but I wish to thank all of them for their general support for the Bill, and to assure them that all the issues they raised and the comments they made will be taken into account, particularly in the implementation of the Bill.
Mr. Speaker, Sir, we all acknowledge that this is a very important Bill, comprising a total of some 265 clauses and eight schedules. After consultations with the top officials of the Ministry of Labour and Industrial Relations, we have decided that the best treatment we can give the Bill by way of our reply to the debate on it, is to go through the recommendations of the Sector Standing Committee on Social Services, as contained in its Report and to indicate Government's reaction to each of those recommendations. I will then also address and explain the reasoning behind the amendments to the Bill, as proposed in the Notice of Amendments already circulated to honourable Members.
Sir, the Sector Committee's substantive recommendations are outlined on pages 320 to 325 of the Report itself. Out of a total of 265 clauses and eight schedules of the Bill, the Committee recommended amendments to 30 clauses and one schedule. Sir, I need to assure this august House that the Sector Committee's recommendations have been very carefully studied by Government, in order to take into account the intent of the many written, as well as oral submissions received by the Sector Committee, and the Sector Committee's own reasoning behind its recommendations after its clause by clause analysis and deliberations. In this assessment, Sir, we have also taken into account the contributions made by honourable Members during the debate on this Bill.
Mr. Speaker, Sir, of the 30 clauses and one schedule proposed by the Sector Committee for amendments, Government has agreed to amend a total of 27 clauses and three schedules, which means we went ahead and made amendments to two other schedules, although they did not arise out of the recommendations of the Sector Committee Report. Sir, as has been our practice, all minor editorial amendments will be left to the Secretary-General to make, pursuant to powers vested in her under Standing Order 67(4). If I miss out any necessary editorial amendments, I have no doubt that the Secretary-General will pick those up.
Sir, the more significant amendments as proposed by the Sector Committee basically fall within these 14 areas of the Bill, and they are:
(a) the definition of redundancy;
(b) no wages on detention or imprisonment;
(c) medical examination in contract of service;
(d) flexibility to sell annual leave;
(e) shift worker entitled to paid public holidays;
(f) redundancy pay;
(g) officers of trade unions assisting other unions;
(h) timeline for CEO positions of the Ministry;
(i) secret ballot for a strike;
(j) amendment of Schedules 1 to 8;
(k) appointment of chairpersons to the Wages Councils (Schedule 3);
(l) reduction in list of essential services (Schedule 7);
(m) removal of trade union recognition; and
(n) maternity leave.
Mr. Speaker, Sir, there will be a couple of amendments which Government has proposed in addition to the ones recommended by the Sector Standing Committee. Before I begin to go through the various recommendations of the Sector Committee, I would like to explain two particular issues, which have given rise to closer scrutiny by Government after the tabling of the Sector Committee's Report. They concern maternity leave and trade union recognition.
Mr. Speaker, Sir, Government agreed on maternity leave with the current policy under the Bill, for employers to pay maternity leave for all births, as reflected under Part 11. After considering the diverse views expressed by shareholders, however, Government has considered it prudent that any amendment at this stage should have maternity leave payment for all births, but with a graduated scale.
In this regard, Sir, it is agreed that the maternity leave provision be amended, to ensue that only the first three births be fully paid and thereafter, half payment for all other births. Sir, I believe, this is consistent with both the SDL and FLP Manifestos. The current provision is consistent with the non-discrimination provision against women in employment under the Constitution and the Fiji Human Rights law. Moreover, Sir, it promotes the fulfilment of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) for mothers and their children in reducing poverty within families.
It must be noted, Mr. Speaker, Sir, that the Committee expressed some concern but made no definite recommendation to amend the Maternity Leave provision, and is of the view that, like other new provisions, it can be implemented and then consideration for review made some years later. The Government thanks the Sector Committee for its views. However, it has considered it prudent to amend the provision now in the context of cost implications to employers.
Sir, for those employers who may face difficulties, they can continue dialogue with the Government for proposals to be accorded, perhaps tax concession for paying maternity leave from the fourth birth onwards in order to cushion the financial impact of this provision. Sir, this is of course an area which ought to be left with the honourable Minister for Finance and National Planning to consider in due course.
Sir, I will speak briefly on the issue of removal of trade union recognition. Mr. Speaker, Government's position on this issue, as also endorsed by the Sector Committee, is based on the progressive principles of good faith. The removal of trade recognition under the Bill is maintained, since it is consistent with good faith principles that permeate throughout the whole Bill, and the requirements of the ILO Conventions 87 and 98, including the Constitution itself.
Sir, acceptance of recognition will tantamount to ignoring a core theme and objective of the whole Bill, and reverting to the current outdated labour laws that promote bargaining under duress; that give rise to strikes and lockouts; and compelling employers to force recognition of unions. Mr. Speaker, Sir, this adversarial approach to conflict resolution escalates bad faith, increase in strikes, promotes monopoly of unions, and industrial instability in the country that is conducive to investment growth. Mr. Speaker, Sir, it might be noted that the Committee agreed with Government's policy on the Bill on this issue and make no recommendations to reintroduce the recognition provision, as presently contained in the Trade Unions Recognition Act. Sir, I was going to describe in some detail a demonstration, an illustration of the difficulties that we had encountered in the application of the principle of the Trade Union Compulsory Recognition. I will quote only one, and that is the Vatukoula strike by the Mine Workers Union, some 16 years ago.
The Mine Workers Union was awarded compulsory recognition status by the Ministry of Labour then, but the company sought and won through a Judicial Review, the proposition and its contention that the union has just less than 50 per cent membership. Under the then and current recognition law, the union is not recognised legally to have any bargaining rights with the employer, hence the stalemate and escalation of bad faith, resulting in the death of a worker, and violence and open conflicts started in Vatukoula. Sir, it has been 16 years down the track and successive governments have not been able to bring finality to the plight of these workers at Vatukoula. Mr. Speaker, I will now touch upon these issues again later.
Sir, let me now go on to the recommendations of the Sector Committee.
In relation to clause 3(2), what I propose to do is to give as comprehensive an explanation of the various amendments that Government has agreed to, which have been circulated in the Notice of Amendment, in the hope that it will shorten, or might even eliminate further debate during Committee stage.
Also, in relation to clause 3(2), the recommendation by the Sector Committee that consideration should be given to the need to regularise the general principles and minimum standards proposed in the Bill, to also cover the disciplined forces, with the exception perhaps, of the right to strike is noted by Government, and this will be discussed with the Ministry of Home Affairs in due course.
In relation to clause 4(1) on the interpretation of specific terms, Government's response to the Sector Committee's recommendations are as follows:
(a) The proposal to amend the definition of "Contract of Service" is not acceptable to Government because it will distort the meaning of "task" or "peace work".
(b) The proposal to amend the definition of the word "day" for clarity is accepted, in order to also include "workers employed on shift basis, especially those working on what is generally known as `graveyard' shifts after midnight".
(c) The proposal to amend the definition of "Employment Contract", to specifically include both oral and written contracts is accepted for clarity. This will be consistent with clause 23 of the Bill.
(d) The proposal to amend the definition of the term "Medical Officer" is accepted, to reflect the current Government policy and practice.
(e) The proposal to amend the definition of redundancy", because it is considered too wide for the intent of redundancy under the Bill, and it can also include termination, other than those for economic, technical or structural reasons is partially accepted by adding the words "pursuant to the reasons and processes set out in Part 12 of the Bill", at the end of the definition. It must be noted that the inclusion of this term is specific only for its intended purpose under the Bill, recognising the realities of the changes evolving in our workplaces.
(f) The proposal to amend the definition of "Registered Medical Practitioner" by deleting subclause (b) is accepted, to reflect the current Government policy and practice that all doctors, whether in private or Government service are registered under the Medical and Dental Practitioners Act.
(g) The proposal to amend the definition of "Remuneration" is not accepted in order to offer a worker freedom of choice, depending on the circumstances, whether in the formal or informal sector.
(h) The proposal to amend the definition of "ship" is accepted, because it is consistent with the definition of "ship" under the Health and Safety at Work Act. It must be noted that commercial workers can also be working on a naval ship under repair on a slipway, and they should also be covered under the proposed Bill and the OHS legislation, even though they are not naval workers who are at present exempted from labour law coverage.
In relation to clause 6(2) on the principles of fundamental rights, the proposal by the Committee to include the word "age", as one of the listed groups against which discrimination is prohibited under subclause (2) is accepted, since it is an omission due to a typographical error. This will make it consistent with the parallel provisions, prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of age under section 38 of our Constitution.
In relation to clause 12(1) - meetings of the Board, the proposal by the Committee that the clause be amended, to state that the Board will have a minimum of two Board meetings in a year is accepted with some modification to evenly cover the whole year with at least a Board meeting every six meetings, in order to set a minimum performance standard for the Board.
In relation to clause 14, on the objects of this part of the Bill, the Committee's comments about the need for institutions created in the Bill to be properly and adequately staffed with skilled and trained personnel are noted. In fact, Government has committed $1 million in the 2007 Budget for this purpose. This will be for the establishment and operation of new institutions, the Mediation Service, Employment Relations Tribunal and the Employment Relations Court. The Ministry is hopeful that it will be possible to bring this Act into force from 1st July, next year.
In relation to clause 17, the proposal by the Committee that the clause be amended by deleting the words "other related matters" in the third line, and substituting with the words "prescribed matters", is accepted to improve clarity and also to ensure effective enforcement of this provision.
In relation to clause 19, the proposal by the Committee that sub-clause (3) be amended by inserting the following words at the beginning of the sub-clause:
"In the exercise of powers and functions under this Act for the purpose of ensuring compliance with a provision of this Act..."
is accepted to better define the context and application of the powers of the Chief Executive Officer and his or her officers in the exercise of their duties.
In relation to clause 25, the Committee's recommendation that sub-clause (1) be amended to read:
"(1) Where a worker dies during a contract of service, the employer must as soon as practicable, and in any event, not more than 14 days after being notified of the death of the worker pay or deliver."
And those were the words that were recommended to be inserted. That recommendation is accepted with a minor qualification to ensure that social protection afforded in terms of immediate financial relief is provided to the spouse and dependants 14 days after formal notification of the death of the worker. A qualification of 14 days after the notification of death of the worker by medical certificate or statutory declaration, pay or deliver, instead of just the notification of death, has been agreed to, to avoid exposing the system to abuse.
In relation to clause 26, the Committee recommends that the clause be amended as follows. Clause 26 states and I quote:
"(26) An employer is not obliged to pay remuneration to a worker in respect of a period of lawful detention or imprisonment of the worker under any written law except where:
(a) the worker has not exhausted the appeal process; and or
(b) the worker is using the appeal process but he or she has been in detention
for 90 consecutive days."
The Government is unable to accept that proposed amendment, Sir, but has recognised the need for improving the clause by deleting the word "entitled" and substituting it with the word "required", to ensure Government's policy of no work, no pay, while also leaving the discretion to the employer to provide any payment to the worker under detention or imprisonment. Mr. Speaker, Sir, the remedies under the Bill, if the worker wins his or her case are sufficient, in our view, to address all possible outcomes in terms of unfair dismissal, discrimination, sexual harassment or being disadvantaged in employment. However, Sir, this clause is not intended to cover allowances earned by prisoners through various trades and skills as part of the rehabilitation process they go through while in prison.
Clause 37, Sir, the Committee's recommendation that sub-clause (1) be amended by deleting the word "attested" at the end of the sub-clause and substituting that with the words "a written contract" is accepted to also include a collective agreement as a written contract, consistent with the context of this clause.
Clause 38, the Committee's recommendation that sub-clause (2) be amended by deleting the words "a worker must undergo a medical examination or that" in the second line is accepted to Government but improved upon slightly by totally deleting the whole sub-clause (2) to prevent confusion on the intent on this clause in its current form. Any amendments, Sir, will create confusion or discriminate against other medical conditions in the application of this clause because of the introduction of a statutory offence in its prohibition. This, Mr. Speaker, Sir, is on the clear understanding that no compulsory medical examination or screening can be included in a worker's contract of service under the Constitution and human rights law, including those related to HIV, sexual transmitted diseases and pregnancy without the consent of the worker. Therefore, Sir, it is considered that the best option is to delete this sub-clause totally, since discrimination against all status, including HIV, pregnancy, et cetera, are adequately covered under the general discrimination provisions under clause 6 for which remedies are accorded under the Bill through the Mediation Service, Employment Relations Tribunal and Employment Relations Court or with the option to take up grievances to the Fiji Human Rights Commission.
In relation to clause 41, the proposal by the Committee that the clause be amended by inserting the words "by agreement or on application to the tribunal or court as the case may be determined in line one after sub-clause (b) is not acceptable to Government in order to account for the nature of circumstances addressed in this clause. In any event, Sir, the worker or employer has robust addressed mechanisms in the various processes that are available under the legislation to address any grievances arising out of termination circumstances addressed in this clause. Therefore we do not need to mention this mechanism in the clause, to give flexibility of choice to the parties on how they wish to settle their grievances.
In relation to clause 43, Sir, the proposal by the Committee that sub-clause (a) be amended by inserting the words "a negotiable" before the word "cherub" is not accepted to allow parties the choice and flexibility on how their payment in cheque is determined.
In relation to clause 64, the proposal by the Committee that the clause be deleted is accepted in order to allow flexibility of choice. The workers who want to sell their annual leave to suit personal needs as agreeable to the employer, this clause limits the choice between the parties to decide what is best for them. However, Sir, it is also expected that they will carefully weigh their choices in the context of OHS requirements, specific to their work situations.
Clause 67, Sir, the proposal by the Committee that sub-clause (2) be amended by deleting the words "other than a shift worker" in line one is acceptable to Government to ensure that all shift workers also enjoy the privilege of paid public holidays which applies to all workers. This will also remove any undue discrimination against shift workers from employers. This is also consistent, Sir, with the current practice where some employers are currently including shift workers in the paid public holiday regime, just like other workers.
In relation to clause 71, the proposal by the Committee that the clause be amended by deleting the word "specify" and substitute with "regulate" is accepted, although purely editorial, as the "Object" does not form part of the substance of the Bill.
In relation to clause 97, the proposal by the Committee recommends that the clause be amended by inserting a new sub-clause (4) to read: "An employer that contravenes subsections (1) and (2) commits an offence" is accepted to ensure the effective enforcement of this clause for compliance purposes. This is our commitment to our children.
In relation to clause 108, Government is unable to accept the proposal by the Committee that sub-clause (1) be deleted and substituted with the one that was suggested by the Committee, that is, "if an employer terminates a worker's employment for reasons of an economic, technological, structural or similar nature, the employer must pay to the worker not less than one month's pay plus ....
HON. COL. RATU S.U. DRAUNIDALO.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, from where I am sitting, I can see there are still heaps of pages to be presented by the honourable and learned Attorney-General and Acting Minister for Labour. I request that you bridle him now so that we can retire for morning tea and then return.
MR. SPEAKER.- It really is the honourable Acting Minister's call.
HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.- Sir, that was not a point of order, that was a request for morning tea. I happen to agree with him, Sir. I have only a 100 pages to go.
(Laughter)
MR. SPEAKER.- I will now adjourn the House for morning tea.
The House adjourned at 11.05 a.m.
The House resumed at 11.45 a.m.
HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, during tea break, I was subjected to a great deal of pressure, immense pressure to cut my reply short and I normally do not succumb to pressure like that but given the fact that they are elected Members of this august House and I am not I will succumb this time around.
What I propose to do, Mr. Speaker, Sir, is to remind all honourable Members that this debate has been generally supported by all honourable Members. There is a comprehensive Sector Committee Report which should help explain some of the issue I will be referring to and the notice of amendments that have been already agreed to has been circulated. Therefore, what I propose to do Sir, is allow the honourable Members to try and consider why we are making those amendments in the context of the documents I will refer to, and only on the understanding that there will be very little or no debate during the Committee stage, or when I move the amendment, that was one of the main reasons why I tried to go through these amendments as proposed. I am making these explanations, Sir, lest the officials from the Ministry who are seated up there will think that I have reneged on my agreement to deliver the paper they prepared for me. In those circumstances, Sir, given the explanations I have given in relation to some of the clauses and they are in my view Sir, truly indicative of the trend that we are going to take in all the amendments in all the provisions we have agreed to amend. I now commend the Bill to the House.
MR. SPEAKER.- I thank the Acting honourable Minister for Labour and Industrial Relations. Honourable Members, before I proceed further, let me again on your behalf acknowledge the presence of our visitors in the gallery. Please forgive me for not addressing you by your group and where you come from but on behalf of the House, we are delighted to see you here this morning. Children, students, parents and friends, we warmly welcome you and we trust that your visit this morning is a pleasant one and also a memorable one, particularly to be witnessing how we conduct business in this House and yes, sitting in front of you are the honourable Members you have elected into this House so again I warmly welcome you this morning.
Question put.
Motion agreed.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee:
Clauses 1,2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.- Mr. Chairman, I beg to move that clause 4(1) be amended as follows:
(a) by replacing the definition of "day" with the following definition:
(i) a continuous period of 24 hours beginning and ending at midnight; and
(ii) in the case of a shift worker, a continuous period of 24 hours beginning at a
time when a worker commences work.
(b) by deleting the words "any other contract of service between a worker and an employer" in the definition of employment contract and substituting them with the words "an oral or written contract of service between a worker and an employer".
(c) by deleting the definition of "medical officer"
(d) by adding the words "pursuant" to the reasons and processes set out in part 12 at the end of the definition of the term "redundancy".
(e) by deleting subclause (b) in the definition of "registered medical practitioner"; and
(f) by deleting the words "but does not include a naval ship" in the definition of the word "ship".
Question on amendment put.
Clause 4 as amended agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.- Mr. Chairman, Sir, I beg to move that clause 6(2) be amended by inserting the word "age" after the Government Whips word "sexual orientation".
Question on amendment put.
Clause 6 as amended agreed to.
Clauses 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.- Mr. Chairman, Sir, I beg to move that clause 12(1) be amended by deleting the words "such meetings of the Board as are necessary" and substituting them with the words "at least one meeting of the Board every six months".
Question on amendment put.
Clause 12 as amended agreed to.
Clauses 13, 14, 15 and 16 agreed to.
Clause 17:
HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.- Mr. Chairman, Sir, I beg to move that clause 17 be amended as follows:
(a) by renumbering the two provisions as subclauses (1) and (2) respectively;
b) by deleting the words "written information" and substituting "prescribed information"; and
(c) by deleting the ", including returns and statistics on employment and other related matters, whether periodically or otherwise".
Question on amendment put.
Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.
Clause 19:
HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.- Mr. Chairman, Sir, I beg to move that clause 19(3) be amended by inserting the words; "in the exercise of powers and functions under this Act for the purpose of ensuring compliance with a provision of this Act", at the beginning of that subclause.
Question on amendment put.
Clause 19 as amended agreed to.
Clauses 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 agreed to.
Clause 25:
HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.- Mr. Chairman, Sir, I beg to move that clause 25(1) be amended as follows:
(a) by deleting the words "death of the worker" and substituting them with the words "notification of death of the worker by medical certificate or statutory declaration".
(b) by deleting the words "property belonging to" and substituting them with the words "personal belonging of".
Question on amendment put.
Clause 25 as amended agreed to.
Clause 26:
HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.- Mr. Chairman, Sir, I beg to move that clause 26 be amended by deleting the word "entitled" and substituting it with the word "required".
Question on amendment put.
Clause 26 as amended agreed to.
Clauses 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 agreed to.
Clause 37:
HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.- Mr. Chairman, Sir, I beg to move that clause 37(1) be amended by deleting the word "attested" in paragraph (c) and substituting it with the words "a written contract" at the end of that subclause.
Question on amendment put.
Clause 37 as amended agreed to.
Clauses 38:
HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.- Mr. Chairman, Sir, I beg to move that clause 38 be amended by negativing subclause (2).
Question on amendment put.
Clause 38 as amended agreed to.
Clauses 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62 and 63 agreed to.
Clause 64:
HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.- Mr. Chairman, Sir, I beg to move that the whole of clause 64 be negatived.
Question on amendment put.
Clause 64 as amended agreed to.
Clauses 65 and 66 agreed to.
Clause 67:
HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.- Mr. Chairman, Sir, I beg to move that clause 67(2) be amended by deleting the words "other than a shift worker".
Question on amendment put.
Clause 67 as amended agreed to.
Clauses 68, 69 and 70 agreed to.
Clause 71:
HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.- Mr. Chairman, Sir, I beg to move that clause 71 be amended by deleting the word "specify" and substituting it with the word "regulate".
Question on amendment put.
Clause 71 as amended agreed to.
Clauses 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95 and 96 agreed to.
Clause 97:
HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.- Mr. Chairman, Sir, I beg to move that clause 97 be amended by adding a new subclause (4) which reads:
"An employer that contravenes subsections (1) and (2), commits and offence."
Question on amendment put.
Clause 97 as amended agreed to.
Clauses 98, 99 and 100 agreed to.
Clause 101:
HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.- Mr. Chairman, Sir, I beg to move that clause 101 be amended as follows:
(a) by deleting subsection (2) and substituting it with the following subsections:
(2) A woman is entitled to paid maternity leave as follows:
(a) for the first three births, to normal remuneration she would have
received as if she had been at work;
(b) for the fourth and subsequent births, to half the normal remuneration
she would have received as if she had been at work"; and
(b) in subsection (4), by deleting the words "for all births" at the end of that subsection and substituting them with the words "as set out in subsection (2)".
Question on amendment put.
Clause 101 as amended agreed to.
Clauses 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125 and 126 agreed to.
Clause 127:
HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.- Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that clause 127(1) be amended by deleting the words "or engaged in any other capacity whatsoever with any other trade union" at the end of paragraph (b).
Question on amendment put.
Clause 127 as amended agreed to.
Clauses 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157 and 158 agreed to.
Clause 159:
HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.- Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that clause 159(4) be amended by deleting the words "section 154" and substituting it with the words "section 157".
Question on amendment put.
Clause 159 as amended agreed to.
Clauses 160, 161 and 162 agreed to.
Clause 163:
HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that clause 163(2) be amended by deleting the words "exclude or" before the word "vary".
Question on amendment put.
Clause 163 as amended agreed to.
Clause 164:
HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that clause 164(1) be amended in paragraph (b) by deleting the word "and" at the end of subparagraph (ii), and inserting the word "and" at the end of subparagraph (i).
Question on amendment put.
Clause 164 as amended agreed to.
Clauses 165, 166, 167, 168 and 169 agreed to.
Clause 170:
HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that clause 170(1) be amended by adding the words "within 30 days from the date of receiving the report of dispute" at the end of that paragraph.
Question on amendment put.
Clause 170 as amended agreed to.
Clauses 171, 172, 173, 174 and 175 agreed to.
Clause 175:
HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.- Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that clause 175(3) be amended by deleting the words "provided that such members are directly affected by the issue" after the word "vote" at the end of that paragraph.
Question on amendment put.
Clause 175 as amended agreed to.
Clauses 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182 and 183 agreed to.
Clause 184:
HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.- Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that clause 184(1) be amended by deleting the word "unlawful" in line one.
Question on amendment put.
Clause 184 as amended agreed to.
Clauses 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217 and 218 agreed to.
Clause 219:
HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.- Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that clause 219 be amended by deleting the words "section 131" and substituting it with the words "section 132(2)".
Question on amendment put.
Clause 219 as amended agreed to.
Clauses 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228 and 229 agreed to.
Clause 230:
HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.- Mr. Chairman, Sir, I beg to move:
That clause 230(2) be amended by adding the words "or unfairly" after the word, "unjustifiably" in the second line.
Question on amendment put.
Clause 230 as amended agreed to.
Clauses 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261 and 262 agreed to.
Clause 263:
HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.- Mr. Chairman, Sir, I beg to move that clause 263 be amended by negativing "sub-clause 5.
Question on amendment put.
Clause 263 as amended agreed to.
Clause 264:
HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.- Mr. Chairman, Sir, I beg to move that clause 264 be amended by adding the following new sub-clauses:
"(5) The Minister may by regulations amend the Schedules subject to sub-section (6).
(6) If the Minister is satisfied that it is in the interest of national security, public safety, public order or protecting the national economy, that a service be added to Schedule 7, the Minister may, subject to resolution of the House of Representatives add a service to Schedule 7 for a specific period.
(7) For the purposes of sub-section (6), if it is impracticable to obtain the resolution of the House of Representatives, the Minister may, with the approval of Cabinet, add a service to Schedule 7, but such regulations shall be laid before the House of Representatives for a resolution as soon as practicable."
Question on amendment put.
Clause 264 as amended agreed to.
HON. F. ANTHONY.- Mr. Chairman, Sir, if I may make a point on that amendment. I note that you did not call for debate on this. Sir, I just wish to say that this amendment to clause 264 does set a dangerous precedent where the honourable Minister is being empowered to change an Act of Parliament by merely going to Cabinet. We clearly see that the intent here is that, it should not and never be that the Minister will willy-nilly exercise that power to deny workers their legitimate and fundamental right to go on strike. I would like to make that point for the record.
Clause 265:
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3: