Fiji opposition ponders next steps after MP's suspension

Transcript

A spokesperson for Fiji's opposition says the two year suspension handed down to one of its MPs last week is a joke, and court action is possible.

The Sodelpa MP, Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu, was last week suspended from parliament for two years over a slur he made about the speaker during a party meeting outside parliament.

An opposition spokesperson, Mick Beddoes, says Ratu Naiqama's comments were taken out of context and a two year suspension is completely unjustified.

He told Jamie Tahana that the opposition boycotted parliament on Friday, and is now working out its next steps.

MICK BEDDOES: We think it's an abuse of the process. The main piece of evidence relied upon by the Priviliges Committee, which was an audio recording, was not played in the house. So essentially, you had a debate take place and a sentence dished out to a member without the actual crucial piece of evidence being played to the members before the debate commenced. And basically the speaker under the standing orders is supposed to rule on what is to be given in terms of a punishment if Ratu Naiqama in the ensuing debate was found to be guilty of that offence, but all that was overruled and they proceeded to take it to a vote, so obviously with the numbers we were quite well aware that the vote would be lost.

JAMIE TAHANA: Did it happen though? Did this slur take place?

MB: Ah again, the entire tape recording is in the vernacular, it's in the Fijian language and the reason we wanted the tape played is only when you listen to the full context in which he uttered some remarks, remarks by the way which he has never denied, and I happened to be in the meeting so I know the context in which they were uttered and there was certainly no mention of the speaker. When he uttered them he did not refer to the speaker when he did it, he was in a setting whereby a bit of tooing and froing. In a Yaqona setting, whether it's in a meeting or whatever, there are these exchanges, especially between a chief and the people that are there, and it's in that context. So that's the point that we are making.

JT: So if it wasn't in the context of a slur to the speaker, how could it be interpreted as such?

MB: Because the question asked was about the conduct of the speaker and we've just concluded 12 constituency meetings in and around the area, and a continuing question coming up is in fact the impartiality of the speaker by the people and so he was answering that question and that's why that particular topic came up. So until you actually hear it in the full context of when it was said and how it was said, and you know, you then need to interpret it correctly because it's all totally in the vernacular.

JT: Nevertheless though, he's been suspended from Parliament for two years. You consider this extremely heavy-handed?

MB: Well if you consider that this was a passing remark which we maintain was in jest, when you consider it was held outside the precincts of parliament, and when you consider punishments for breaches of privilege in other parliaments including Australia and New Zealand and other commonwealth countries, the first offence is a three day suspension and it goes to a maximum of 28 days, so for a first offence without the evidence being played prior to the debate and that entire debate being conducted based on the fact that the majority of the members participating the debate hadn't heard the evidence, and then to give a two year suspension on that which means effective from [Friday] although he's only suspended, his salary and all his entitlements have stopped with it.

JT: Over these two years he is still a member of parliament isn't he?

MB: Well yeah because it's only a suspension but it's a suspension for two years so therefore we're sitting in that house with a vacant seat for two years.

JT: With that vacant seat, what does this mean for, say, his vote and stuff? Is this one less vote for the opposition?

MB: Yeah, of course, he's not there to pass that vote. That's the irony of it. He's not there for two years, we have one less member for two years which again is pretty excessive.

JT: The opposition boycotted parliament on Friday. What next steps have been decided? Is there an avenue for appeal? What else can you do?

MB: Yeah at this stage I am not at liberty to elaborate but certainly discussions have taken place on the day that the members decided to stay out, the caucus decided -- and this was a joint caucus by Sodelpa and the NFP -- and since then there have been discussions going on about the next course of action. But certainly we're not just going to accept what's going on because we can't, it's a bit of a joke of our parliament if this is the way it's going to be conducted. So the members have been discussing this matter and they will continue to do so and in the coming days and weeks, no doubt, we'll be able to elaborate a little further on what's been decided in terms of the appropriate course of action that we will take.

JT: I get discussion are underway and a decision hasn't been made yet, but are you able to say what options are available? Is there, say, an avenue through the courts or a committee or something?

MB: Well there's most definitely an avenue through the courts, that's one of the first options being considered as well as others, so that's what we're looking at right now.