Established parliamentary rules cannot be wished away - Teixeira
- opposition motions put off due to lack of required documents
Georgetown, GINA, March 21, 2012
The three Motions put forward by the Opposition to be tabled in the National Assembly were today deferred to March 30 after members on the Government presented convincing arguments; citing the absence of the necessary documents accompanying the Motions.
Prime Minister Samuel Hinds and Leader of the House explained that all three Motions seek to amend various sections of the Standing Orders and as such, unless the Speaker of the House directs otherwise, notice accompanied by the draft of the proposed amendments had to be submitted to the Parliament Office, which are subsequently circulated to parliamentarians.
However, there were no proposed amendments accompanying the Motions that were slated to be tabled.
He further explained that the requirement of Standing Order 111 (1), which deals with the amendments of Standing Orders, had not been met and as such the Motions were not properly before the House.
A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) member, Basil William, who is the mover of one of the three Motions, said that the rules were not made to hinder the internal business of the House and submitted that the Speaker is empowered to use his discretion to allow for the tabling of the Motion notwithstanding the unmet requirements.
Alliance for Change (AFC) member, Khemraj Ramjattan stated that the established Standing Orders should not be seen as mandatory.
Meanwhile, Government’s Chief Whip, Gail Teixeira urged the House not to fall prey to capriciousness as the rules have been developed overtime. In July last year, the same rules were again revised at a parliamentary select committee comprised of members from all the Parties.
“Whether it is an oversight or not, the reason why the draft amendment is included in Standing Order 111 (1), is to allow the House to know the exact wording of the amendment that is being brought to the Standing Orders. It is an important inclusion…there are reasons why Parliaments work with certain rules and discipline,” Teixeira said.
She also reminded that the Standing Orders Committee report of 2007 dealt with two amendments that were brought to the National Assembly, both of which were accompanied by draft amendments and went directly to the Standing Orders Committee.
She said that since then, nothing has changed in terms of compliance and respect to what the House stands for and added that, “if a member wants to move a suspension of the Standing Orders, he/she has a right to do so, but it must be done after written notice is given within the required time frame.”
The Chief Whip also warned that this level of capriciousness displayed by the Opposition puts the Parliament on a dangerous pathway.
“All of us in this House, cannot at every sitting, be wishing away bits of the Standing Orders as it suits us and when it suits us,” Teixeira said.
The Prime Minister in his concluding remarks on the matter said that changing the makeup of the committees, does harm to certain provisions in the Constitution and even existing Standing Orders and for this same reason, Government has had to move to the court. He maintained that in light of this, consideration of Motions such as these, should await the ruling of the court.
After a brief 10-minute suspension, the Speaker in his ruling said that there must be a copy of the proposed amendments accompanying the Motion; noting that the Clerk admitted that he has erred by allowing for the Motions to be printed on the Order Paper without the requisite amendments being attached.
Using his discretion, he agreed to abridge the timeframe for which notice of the Motion should be given from 12 days to 48 hours.
The matter will be dealt with at the next sitting of the House on March 30, at which date Minister of Finance, Dr. Ashni Singh, will present the 2012 National Budget.