‘Decision to set new precedent’

Listen to this article:

Mary Chapman show her views at Nausori. Picture: JONA KONATACI/FILE

THE September 6 decision by Parliament on matters of privilege against Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama and suspended Opposition MP Pio Tikoduadua will set a new precedent for aspiring politicians, says former secretary-general to Parliament Mary Chapman.

Mr Bainimarama allegedly manhandled Mr Tikoduadua outside Parliament on August 9.

Before that, Mr Bainimarama claimed he was personally attacked by Mr Tikoduadua inside Parliament.

Both matters were referred to the Parliamentary Privileges Committee which returned with a recommendation that the two MPs apologise to Parliament or face a six-month suspension.

Mr Tikoduadua opted not to apologise and was suspended immediately, while the PM apologised and continued as a parliamentarian.

Mrs Chapman said the committee should look at the decisions made against the three Opposition MPs who were suspended for two years as relevant precedents.

Between 2015 and 2016, Opposition MPs Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu, Ratu Isoa Tikoca and Tupou Draunidalo respectively faced two-year suspensions for breaching parliamentary privilege as recommended by the committee.

In 2015, Ratu Naiqama uttered a slur against the late Speaker of Parliament Dr Jiko Luveni, during a political rally in Makoi, while a year later in June, Ms Draunidalo labelled the then Minister for Education Dr Mahendra Reddy a “fool”.

In the same year Ratu Isoa made racist remarks towards Muslims.

“Our future young people, they will go through Parliament Hansard, our journals, if there is one, and these young people might be forgiven for thinking that the ability to abuse and outrage is imperative to embark on a political career, that it is OK.

“This is how things are going to go because of the records of our Parliament,” Mrs Chapman said.

In the Westminster system, she said, Parliament practice was usually set by the precedents which worked along with the Parliament Standing Orders. “The Standing Orders are just to facilitate the work of Parliament, when they are stuck at some stage, they will have to go back to the Parliament precedents.

“The House has already made their decision on Mr Bainimarama and Mr Tikoduadua so we can’t do much now. But the question is whether the privileges committee had a look at the precedents.”

She said the three cases involving the three Opposition MPs had set parliamentary precedents but that she considered the decision of September 6 regarding Mr Bainimarama and Mr Tikoduadua very different to those precedents.

“This ruling becomes a new precedent and I feel sorry for researchers and young people who want to become MPs.

“They will have to look at this precedent. The privileges committee should have explained why it was totally different from the other cases so people may understand.

“Young researchers who are going to look at our history books and Hansard, they will be taking this as a precedent. I mean this has never happened during my time.”

She added that Parliament was similar to a court where people would look back at previous cases as precedents.

Array
(
    [post_type] => post
    [post_status] => publish
    [orderby] => date
    [order] => DESC
    [update_post_term_cache] => 
    [update_post_meta_cache] => 
    [cache_results] => 
    [category__in] => 1
    [posts_per_page] => 4
    [offset] => 0
    [no_found_rows] => 1
    [date_query] => Array
        (
            [0] => Array
                (
                    [after] => Array
                        (
                            [year] => 2023
                            [month] => 12
                            [day] => 29
                        )

                    [inclusive] => 1
                )

        )

)

No Posts found for specific category