Don’t They Get It? Opposition Fails Petition 101
On Tuesday, Speaker Ratu Epeli Nailatikau ruled against three more petitions that Opposition parliamentarians wanted to forward to respective standing committees. Anyone following our Parliament sessions would notice that almost every petition that the Opposition Members of Parliament table gets thrown right back by Ratu Epeli. Why? Well, every petition rejected by the Speaker has an explanation. In fact, the Speaker has often pointed out to the Opposition how the petitions need to be submitted, what the Parliament can and cannot do. In all, the Speaker has done a good job giving the Opposition MPs a thorough class, Petition 101, on what to do.
Yet, almost 99 per cent of the petitions have been returned to sender. Why? Because while the Speaker has been giving helpful hints to the Opposition, in fact, more than hints, he has done everything except write the petitions for them, but all that seems to have fallen in deaf ears. Opposition petitions continued to be submitted with the same errors.
The three recent petitions:
Petition 1: Petition for an Inquiry into Voter Card Renewal Requirements and the Use of Married Names. This was submitted by Sitiveni Rabuka, our in suspension mediator and in suspension Leader of Opposition.
The Petition requested the following: “To refer to the Standing Committee on Justice, Law and Human Rights to conduct a holistic inquiry into the new requirement for birth certificates to renew voter ID card, and ban on married women using their husband’s name unless they change it by deed poll with the view to protect the interest and the right to vote of all citizens, poor or rich, men and women.”
Now this is not the first time Opposition had wanted Parliament to act on a matter over which Parliament has no jurisdiction. On this ground, about a dozen petitions had been thrown out.
The most classic was the number of times Opposition MPs had wanted Parliament to overrule the judiciary.
Pursuant to Standing Order 37(2) (b), the Speaker must scrutinise the petition to “ensure that the petition … is seeking action which lies within the powers of Parliament to take.”
Using this as a guideline, the Speaker scrutinised the Petition to ensure that: it requests for a clear action for Parliament to take; and secondly, such action lies within the powers of Parliament to take.
“Honourable Members will note that these requirements are elaborated in the second and fourth standards listed in the Petition Standards of my Ruling on 18th February, 2020. I strongly recommend that Members consider these standards while drafting their petitions.
“Firstly, I note that the Petition does not request for a clear action for Parliament to take. Honourable Members, under Standing Order 37(5), the process for the presentation of a petition to Parliament requires a motion to refer the petition to a Standing Committee for an inquiry. As such, an inquiry by a Standing Committee is an ingrained part of the petition’s process and is not the action that must be scrutinised by the Speaker under Standing Order 37(2)(b).
“The petition must request the specific action, such as a recommendation for a change of process in a particular matter or for a resolution or declaration of Parliament. If that action is clearly listed in the petition, the Speaker may then scrutinise it to ensure that it is an action which is within the powers of Parliament to take.
“This petition does not request for a clear action and thus fails in this regard. Furthermore, section 6(1) of the Electoral Act 2014 provides for the Supervisor of Election’s power to administer voter registration and section 3 of the Act specifically provides for the responsibility and authority of the Electoral Commission over such registration and over any electoral disputes that may arise.
“Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Section 75(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Fiji also firmly entrenches these matters as the responsibility of the Electoral Commission.
“I have made rulings specifically advising the Members of Parliament to ensure that your petitions do not seek to subvert the responsibility of the Executive and any authority as delegated clearly under written law. I do not wish to repeat myself at every sitting. “Honourable Members, I rule that this petition cannot be tabled in Parliament as: (1) It does not request for a clear action as required for under Standing Orders 37(2)(b); and (2) It does not refer to matters which are the responsibility of Parliament.”
Lessons:
As seen from above, even the Speaker is getting annoyed that the Opposition MPs continue to disregarding his previous rulings and make the same mistakes every single time.
Petition Petition for Parliament to Inquire into Domestic Violence in Fiji, which, was brought by lawyer and MP in suspension, Lynda Tabuya.
The Speaker was in no mood of reading out the same provisions for the second time on the same day. He said: “I will not repeat the provisions of the Standing Order referred to in the Ruling I have just delivered, but in the same vein, I note that this Petition does not request a clear action to be taken by Parliament.
“The Petition seeks an inquiry under what appears to be the presumption that Parliament itself will recommend the actions to be taken to address domestic violence in Fiji. Honourable Members, the legislature, through the Domestic Violence Act 2009 has set out a legal framework for addressing domestic violence in Fiji. “Furthermore, the Government has also sought to address this issue through the Ministry of Women, Children and Poverty Alleviation and the Women’s Plan of Action, Domestic Violence Helpline, No Drop Policy and other policy initiatives which have been discussed in Parliament through Ministerial Statements, motions, questions and reports.”
Petition 3: Parliament to Investigate Grace Road Church. The third Petition was submitted by the Honourable Lynda Tabuya and requested for a parliamentary inquiry into the presence, activity and business practices of the religious organisation, Grace Road Church, and that of its 400 plus members in Fiji.
The petition reads: “In the instance where our claims are validated, we demand that Grace Road Church and Korean employees of the Grace Road Group be repatriated to Korea.”
The Speaker (once again!) ruled that this Petition “clearly requests for an action, which is not within the powers of Parliament to take as it demands that, upon the validation of the implied claims of assault and racism, members of the named religious organisation be repatriated to Korea.”
“Honourable Members, Section 21(5) of the Constitution states, and I quote: “Every person who is not a citizen but is lawfully in Fiji has the right not to be expelled from Fiji except pursuant to an order of a court or a decision of the Minister responsible for immigration on a ground prescribed by law.
“This is a constitutionally guaranteed right which may only be limited by express provisions prescribed by law. Parliament has not been given the mandate to limit this right, particularly in such a direct and targeted way, through the petitions process.
“Furthermore, in relation to the claims of assault and racism, I note that assault is already prohibited by section 274 of the Crimes Act 2009 and inciting racial antagonism is already prohibited by section 17 of the Public Order Act 1969. As such, it is the responsibility of the Fiji Police Force, working with interested and/or aggrieved parties to investigate and lay charges where relevant.
“These are the mechanisms that the legislature has already set out to address these issues where they arise. It is not an action which Parliament itself may then take. I, therefore, rule that this Petition cannot be tabled in Parliament as it is seeking action, which is not within the powers of Parliament to take.”
Will we see better petitions in the future?
Almost the same MPs have been sitting on the Opposition bench for almost six years. Some are lawyers too. It is frustrating that they fail to bring better petitions to Parliament. It is more frustrating that they continue to make the same mistakes.