PR wants his way before 2008 or warns repeat of 16/11 [1]
Monday, August 13, 2007 - 16:03. Updated on Tuesday, July 21, 2015 - 12:08.
From the House, an English translation summary from the Tongan vernacular, by Pesi Fonua.
The House plunged into a debate on the issue of the right of the people to present petitions to the House.
A petition received by the House was signed by several hundred people who said they were confused by the reform process and were pleading for more time to understand it. The petition was presented directly to the House, and was not presented through the PRs because the petitioners thought the PRs opposed it.
People's Representative 'Akilisi Pohiva said the petition should be put away in a museum, while other PRs were worried that it would delay the reform model they wanted to put in place before the next election. 'Akilisi warned government of what happened on 16/11 and the possibilities of the same thing happening again.
The contention is that while some members of the Parliamentary Reform Committee (formerly the Tripartite Committee) think that their committee's decision is final and that parliamentary reform should start in 2008, others are saying that the final decision on reform has yet to be made by the House.
Others argued that if the Petition was accepted then it should be followed by action. The other issue that was raised was: which petitions by the people are supported by the People's Representatives and which ones are not?
--
Tonga Legislative Assembly, Minute No. 18, Tuesday 7 August, 2007:
A petition that originated from a women's group and signed by several hundred people was read.The Petition:
"Lord Tu'iha'angana.
Speaker of the Legislative Assembly.
Parliament House, Nuku'alofa, Tonga.
"Your Honour, We the undersigned mothers, fathers and our families acknowledge with humble gratitude:
- That His Late Majesty King Taufa'ahau Tupou IV in 2004 graciously initiated the political reform in Tonga by appointing two Ministers who were elected by the nobles and two who were elected by the people.
- That His Late Majesty King Taufa'ahau Tupou IV made the historical milestone of a sovereign voluntarily sharing his constitutional powers through his appointments to cabinet based on the recommendations of a Prime Minister elected by the people.
- That His Majesty King Siaosi Tupou V (as Prince Regent) publicly endorsed the establishment of the NCPR, which was officially established in December 2005.
"We are empowered by the knowledge:
- That Parliament has established the Parliamentary Tripartite Committee, to deepen the dialogue on the Political Reform.
- That the Tripartite Committee are working in a spirit of cooperation rather than confrontation.
- That Hon Prime Minister and Cabinet are committed to listening and acting on the hopes and aspirations of the people of Tonga in relation to Social, Economic and Political Reforms.
"We acknowledge with honesty and humility:
- That we are ignorant and confused by the various political modalities, which is being dialogued by the Parliamentary Tripartite Committee.
- That we have been apathetic in relation to political issues because for 131 years the Royal House of Moheofo has provided for our families a peaceful and orderly Tonga.
"In view of the above and many, many more, we the undersigned humbly appeal to your honour the Hon. Prime Minister, Ministers of the Crown, the Nobles and our Representatives to Parliament (the People's Representatives) to please:
1. Allow time to comprehensively Educate us and our families on the three modalities under discussion by the Tripartite Committee.
2. Allow time for comprehensive education and awareness-raising on the new system of government approved by Parliament before implementation.
"We reaffirm our total support to His Majesty King Siaosi Tupou V.
"We reaffirm our total support to the Hon. Prime Minister and his Majesties Government.
"We reaffirm our total support to Parliament and your very able Leadership.
"In Conclusion we humbly speak together with His Late Majesty King George Tupou I, "'E 'auha hoku kakai, ko e masiva 'ilo".
"We pray that your honour and the Parliament of Tonga will save us from further destruction.
Saame 121: 1 & 2
Te u tangaki hoku mata
kihe ngaahi mo'unga:
'E ha'u mei fe hoku tokoni?
Ko hoku tokoni 'oku meia Sihova,
'a ia nene ngaohi 'a e langi mo mamani."
Museum
The Petition appeared to have hit some of the PRs in the wrong spot. 'Akilisi Pohiva said that the petition came too late, stating that the ship had already left port and they have already seen land and were readying to disembark. The petition would slow down the work of the Parliamentary Committee for Political Reform. He suggested for the House to accept the petition then put away in the museum.
Other PRs, Sunia Fili, Vili Kaufusi and 'Uliti Uata agreed that if the House agreed to the request of the Petition it would slow down the political reform which they want to take place in the coming 2008 Parliamentary election.
'Uliti was suspicious that government would use the petition to slow down the reform that they would like to take place. He said that there could be another petition calling for the reform to take place before 2008, and he warned that that could lead to another confrontation.
Clive Edwards said that the petition should be withheld because the committee had not concluded its deliberation. He said that if they accept the petition it was like putting the cart before the horse. He said that the committee had not released any decision to the public because their recommendations have to be presented to the House before they are released to the public.
Both Nobles Tu'ipelehake and Tu'ilakepa said that the reason for the petition was because it had already been published in local papers that the committee had approved the implementation of a certain Model of government.
Clive queried what was wrong with stating such thing in the paper?
Noble Tu'ilakepa shot back, and asked what was wrong with writing a petition to the House?
'Akilisi said that what the committee was recommending was the desire of the people, they had met the people, and 98% voted for what had been recommended by the committee. When 'Akilisi was queried by the Speaker if it was 98% of the population of Tonga, he said that it was only [98%] of a meeting they had the other day, but he warned government of what happened on 16/11 when there were confrontational parties, and the possibilities of the same thing happening again.
Noble Luani, the chairman of the Parliamentary Committee for Political Reform reminded the House that their responsibility is to serve the interests of the people
Noble Tu'ilakepa told the House that the people who brought the petition said that the PRs would oppose their petition and that was why they did not give it to them to table it into the House. The noble said that when 'Akilisi said for the petition to be sent to the museum, he felt that the PRs were only supporting some people but not all the people.
He also reminded the House what happened last, 16/11 when he was the Chairman of the Whole House Committee. He said there were a number of urgent Bills to deal with, such as the Electricity Bill that they had just passed, but it was postponed because some PRs were pushing for the House to debate on the NCPR report. Then instead of debating on the report a petition on a completely different issue was presented. He said he would never forget what happened after that.
'Akilisi, going back to what happened last year said that the reason for the petition of 16/11 was because government had presented a model of government.
Noble Tu'ilakepa who was the Chairman of the Whole House Committee in 16/11 reminded the member that government never presented a model for political reform to the House. He pleaded with the member not to send the petition to the museum but to put it through to the Whole House Committee to be debated.
Why opposition to petition?
The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Defence wondered why there appeared to be an opposition to the petition, because whatever the committee would decide on will then have to come to the House and the people will have to be informed and familiarized with any reform that will take place, and that was basically what the petition was about to inform them of any proposed reform that will take place.
The Speaker proposed for the House to accept the petition, but they would not action it until the House passed any conclusions made by the Committee.
The House was clearly divided over the petition, whether to recognize it then send it to the museum, as proposed by 'Akilisi; or for the House to accept it and then action it when the Committee for Political Reform completed their deliberation and the House approved the reform that will take place.
The Speaker appealed to members of the Committee for Political Reform not to release out to the public their deliberations, because their recommendation has to be passed by the House before they go public with any reform program. He called for votes for the House to accept the petition, and hold it to be deliberated on later together with the program for political reform. It was carried 18-0.
Interpretation Act
The Legislature dissolved into the Whole House Committee and the debate proceeded with a Bill to amend the Interpretation Act.
The Minister of Justice said that there were two amendments, the first one was to ascertain the Minister of Finance is the same person that is referred to in other legislation and the constitution as the Treasurer, and the chief commissioner of Revenue. The second amendment was to authorise a judge of the Supreme Court who has completed his working contract to be able to finalise a court decision outside of his contracted term.
The amendments to the Interpretation Act were carried 18-0.
Auditor General
The next amendment was to transfer the Auditor General from the Prime Minister and the executive to be under the Speaker and the Parliament.
Clive Edward supported the move but raised the point that the Auditor General is appointed by the Prime Minister, the power to dismiss the Auditor General rests with the House. He argued that the power to appoint and to dismiss should rest with the Speaker and parliament.
The Minister of Justice pointed out that eventually that is what will happen but for the meantime while new entities are yet to be established, the appointment should remain with the PM. The Speaker and the House have the power for dismissal.
Clive moved that the House may dismiss the Auditor General not by a two third majority vote but by just a majority vote.
The Chairman called for votes. It was rejected 13-9. For it were all the PRs.
Both amendments were carried in their third readings in the Legislature.