MPs acting on impulse, not judgment
Nationalist
ONE minister fell victim this week, not to the will and power of the people, but to his own ill-timed public utterances on matters of government policy.
Attorney-General and Justice Minister Dr Allan Marat has paid the ultimate price so, the less said on his case, the better. One issue relating to Marat’s sacking and, indeed, the whole furor over the so-called proposed Maladina bill did warrant amplification, if not for anything then to point out to our leaders that they were performing like so many rats to the piper’s tune and blindly heading towards goodness knows where.
In the case of Marat as principal legal adviser to government, he alone, of all ministers, had the opportunity and the band of legal advisers at his beck to call on and take a closer look at every contract entered into by the state with any company.
That would include the LNG project, the Ramu nickel-cobalt mine and the deep sea mining proposal by Nautilus. He would have been the first one to advise government whether or not to take carriage of Esa’ala MP Moses Maladina’s private member’s initiative. His public utterances in opposition to all these projects and the proposed law have landed him in hot water.
Members of Parliament in the current House, as well as those before it, are guilty of similar oversights and simply allowing themselves to be led without taking the initiative to have a closer look at all they are about to pass into law. In 1995, parliament passed the Organic Law on provincial and local level governments and repealed the old organic law on provincial governments in its entirety. There was much rejoicing at the fact of the change but nobody stopped to look at the new law, especially at the provisions it was passing.
There were no less the 59 discrepancies and anomalies in the law, but everybody was past caring. They wanted the new law and, when a journalist popped the question as to the anomalies, it was explained that the changes would be made in due course and, would the journalist, please, look at the positive aspect of the entire deal, which was the ushering in of a new law? None of the anomalies have been looked at and, today, there is no small amount of problems relating to this law.
One example is the fact that a calculation per head of population has been entered into the law so that it is incumbent upon all governments to pay K12 per head to every LLG. This had never been paid since 1995 and the national government would be indebted for decades if an LLG chose to challenge the government on lawful dues owing to it. The same could be said about the organic law on the integrity of political parties and candidates.
There was so much emotion and back-patting in 2000 and 2001 when the law as debated and passed by Parliament by an absolute majority. Not one MP raised a voice in protest. By the end of 2002 and a change of government later, the very same MPs who had blindly voted the integrity bill into law were opposing it and pushing for its repeal. Now, there is a Supreme Court reference testing the constitutionality of the law.
The very question was posed by The National during debate leading up to the passage of the law, but we were told not to be “negative” again. Our opinion from that time holds that the law would never stand the test of the Constitution in that it takes away the freedom of individual MPs from voting on conscience on important issues, such as voting for the prime minister or the budget and constitutional laws.
Now, we come to the Maladina bill. Everyone, including the opposition leader and his members, rushed as one to pass the law when it was first explained to them. Not one MP chose to take the law aside and seek some legal opinion of his or her own. All they heard in caucus was that the law would stop the Ombudsman Commission from stopping their district services improvement programme cheques. They just were not listening or were actually listening selectively.
They heard what they wanted to hear and rushed off to pass the law.
They must stop acting like a herd on the prairie and stampede through laws without pause for independent thought and action.
ONE minister fell victim this week, not to the will and power of the people, but to his own ill-timed public utterances on matters of government policy.
Attorney-General and Justice Minister Dr Allan Marat has paid the ultimate price so, the less said on his case, the better. One issue relating to Marat’s sacking and, indeed, the whole furor over the so-called proposed Maladina bill did warrant amplification, if not for anything then to point out to our leaders that they were performing like so many rats to the piper’s tune and blindly heading towards goodness knows where.
In the case of Marat as principal legal adviser to government, he alone, of all ministers, had the opportunity and the band of legal advisers at his beck to call on and take a closer look at every contract entered into by the state with any company.
That would include the LNG project, the Ramu nickel-cobalt mine and the deep sea mining proposal by Nautilus. He would have been the first one to advise government whether or not to take carriage of Esa’ala MP Moses Maladina’s private member’s initiative. His public utterances in opposition to all these projects and the proposed law have landed him in hot water.
Members of Parliament in the current House, as well as those before it, are guilty of similar oversights and simply allowing themselves to be led without taking the initiative to have a closer look at all they are about to pass into law. In 1995, parliament passed the Organic Law on provincial and local level governments and repealed the old organic law on provincial governments in its entirety. There was much rejoicing at the fact of the change but nobody stopped to look at the new law, especially at the provisions it was passing.
There were no less the 59 discrepancies and anomalies in the law, but everybody was past caring. They wanted the new law and, when a journalist popped the question as to the anomalies, it was explained that the changes would be made in due course and, would the journalist, please, look at the positive aspect of the entire deal, which was the ushering in of a new law? None of the anomalies have been looked at and, today, there is no small amount of problems relating to this law.
One example is the fact that a calculation per head of population has been entered into the law so that it is incumbent upon all governments to pay K12 per head to every LLG. This had never been paid since 1995 and the national government would be indebted for decades if an LLG chose to challenge the government on lawful dues owing to it. The same could be said about the organic law on the integrity of political parties and candidates.
There was so much emotion and back-patting in 2000 and 2001 when the law as debated and passed by Parliament by an absolute majority. Not one MP raised a voice in protest. By the end of 2002 and a change of government later, the very same MPs who had blindly voted the integrity bill into law were opposing it and pushing for its repeal. Now, there is a Supreme Court reference testing the constitutionality of the law.
The very question was posed by The National during debate leading up to the passage of the law, but we were told not to be “negative” again. Our opinion from that time holds that the law would never stand the test of the Constitution in that it takes away the freedom of individual MPs from voting on conscience on important issues, such as voting for the prime minister or the budget and constitutional laws.
Now, we come to the Maladina bill. Everyone, including the opposition leader and his members, rushed as one to pass the law when it was first explained to them. Not one MP chose to take the law aside and seek some legal opinion of his or her own. All they heard in caucus was that the law would stop the Ombudsman Commission from stopping their district services improvement programme cheques. They just were not listening or were actually listening selectively.
They heard what they wanted to hear and rushed off to pass the law.
They must stop acting like a herd on the prairie and stampede through laws without pause for independent thought and action.
Comments
Post a Comment
Please free to leave comments.