NGO calls for reversal of changes to Fiji standing orders

Transcript

The Fiji Coalition on Human Rights is calling on parliamentarians to reverse two of the changes made to parliamentary standing orders last week which it says may stifle democratic engagement and debate.

The first change to standing order 37 introduces a condition requiring that public petitions secure a 40 percent vote of support in parliament before going before any parliamentary standing committee.

While the other change to standing order 117 removes a clause stipulating that the chair of the public accounts committee be a member of the parliamentary opposition group.

The chairperson of the Coalition on Human Rights, Tara Chetty, told Koroi Hawkins the changes could damage people's perception of Fiji's parliament.

Tara Chetty says her organisation will be following up with individual parliamentarians on the issue.

Tara Chetty: The amendments were just passed last week, I believe it was Thursday the 11th of February.  The amendments that we're particularly concerned about are on order 37 and order 11.  So a bit part of the endure? coalition's work is really engaging with duty of errors, in relation to human rights. That means engaging with our elected leaders in Parliament.  So we're very interested in the pathways that people have to raise their concerns with Parliament.  Under order 37 previously a person could raise a petition, people could raise a petition through a Member of Parliament.  And once tabled in Parliament it would be automatically be referred to the relevant standing committee.  Which meant it could get thoroughly discussed and examined before a finding was made.  However under the changes, that will no longer happen automatically.  So any petition that's raised in Parliament will need the support of 20 members of Parliament, before it can get referred to a sub-committee.  And of course we know from experience with Parliamentary lobbing that can be quite difficult so we feel that, that is in effect restricting the possibilities for people to engage with the Parliament and raise their concerns to the Parliament.  

Koroi Hawkins: And 20 MPs as your saying here is about 40 percent of Parliament, how many MPs are there in the opposition?

TC: Yes exactly this is the point that has been raised elsewhere, the opposition is only 18 MPs.  So in effect you would need more than just opposition support, if you were bringing a point of view that was contrary to the government's point of view for example.  Basically you'll need at least some in government to support the petition for it to go forward.  And often petitions are related to current practises by various arms of government or particular programmes or particular intiatives that have been started, like for example the re-zoning of a public park in Lautoka City.  Those kinds of things may not necessarily get the same reception by a full cadre of 20 MPs in Parliament as you might get with one MP to raise your issues.  So it is worth nothing that the opposition has 18 MPs and the requirement here is 20.

Koroi Hawkins: And the other standing order of concern, you said is 117 which relates to the Chairperson or the appointment of a Chairperson to the public accounts committee.  

TC: Section 117 is generally about how chairs and deputy chairs are appointed to the standing committee.  Previously it used to have a particular stipulation that the public accounts committee would always be chaired by a member of the opposition.  However that has now been removed and it is of some concern to us because that public accounts committee is a very important check and balance, in terms of the national financial governance.  They have, they look into the audited generals reports and look deeply into any issues of concern and they provide a very public, open, transparent form of feedback around those financial government issues.  So I guess the question why that had to be changed its not fully clear to us what was the rationale there.  We do understand that places for example, like Australia don't necessarily have the opposition heading the public accounts committee.  However we do know that two thirds of all Commonwealth countries do, that it's considered a good practice to have an opposition member chairing that committee, to help promote transparency as well as assure the public that the perception of accountability is there.

KH: And you appealing to Parliamentarians to rethink some of the amendments and changes and do you, are you getting any sense of what the reception to what those calls are?

TC:  Not yet, we've just issued the statement and we will be following up more in person on some of these issues or directly on some of these issues.  But we also, while we would like them to rethink and re-look at these changes, they would change so rapidly that it would also be possible we believe, to change them back quite rapidly.  Or perhaps come up with an alternative quite rapidly.  But apart from that we do know that there are other avenues for the public to have input into parliamentary policy making processes so we also call on the MPs to look at strengthening that.  

KH: Have you had any success in the past with appeals to the Parliament to change amendments or new reforms that have been changed back?

TC: No I think in the past we've requested things like repeal of fee? decrease, a real problematic decrease that hampers civil society activities and hindrance to the full realisation of human rights.  But no that has not happened as yet.