Ruling on Point of Order by the Hon. Jone Usamate

Honourable Members, I will now deliver my ruling on the point of order by Hon. Jone Usamate on Friday, 7th March. Following the adoption of the Minutes of the sitting of Parliament of Thursday, 6th March, Hon. Jone Usamate rose to raise a point of order under Standing Order 74(1)(a) and the Honourable Member also cited Standing Order 80 as the specific provision which has been allegedly breached.

As I have already clarified in an earlier occasion, SO 74(1)(a) is only an enabling provision, allowing a Member to rise and for the Chair to recognise the Member. The Member is then required to specify under SO 74(1)(b) the relevant Standing Order which he/she alleges to have been breached. The Chair assumed that Hon. Usamate by referring to Standing Order 80, was complying with SO 74(1)(b), that is, the specific nature of the breach. SO 80 is headed “personal explanation” and reads “A member may explain matters of personal nature with the permission of the Speaker. A personal explanation is not debatable.”

On the plain reading of SO 80, the Order specifically refers and apply to “matters of personal nature” to the Member raising the objection, and the alleged breach must refer directly to such matters. The Chair understands this to mean in the ordinary sense as referring to the personal conduct of the Honourable Member much as, one’s feelings, relationships and health, one’s financial, legal status, etc.

In the setting of a public forum such as the Parliament, a Member rises and speaks not on his own behalf but on behalf of his/her constituents, and words spoken and actions taken by the Member is generally on the constituents behalf, unless, the issues involve personal conducts of the Member.

In the circumstances, the point of order raised by Hon. Usamate, it appears that the substance of the Honourable Member’s do not fall into the category of a personal explanation pertaining to his “personal conduct” since he was speaking not on his own behalf but for his constituents. I am fortified in this interpretation by the proviso to SO 80 that states: “A personal explanation is not debatable” i.e upon being raised by the Honourable Member, the matter ends there. I am minded to dismiss Hon. Usamate’s point of order on this issue that SO 80 is not relevant.

However, given that Hon. Usamate had proceeded to elaborate on the matters raised in his point of order, I am obliged to scrutinise and rule on it. I now have had the opportunity to go over very carefully, Hon. Usamate’s details of objection and in the main, the four (4) matters that were raised –

1. The DPM and Minister for Finance, Hon. Usamate claimed, had stated that the previous Government had not in the last 16 years of its rule, built any additional classrooms in the Central Division.

2. That the Hon. Prime Minister had conceded that Fiji was in the midst of a financial crisis, whereas the DPM and Minister for Finance said the contrary i.e. there was no financial crisis.

3. That the DPM and Minister for Finance was reported in the media as saying that Local Government elections will take place in September or October this year, contrary, Hon. Usamate said, to what the Minister responsible for Local Government had stated.

4. Finally, Hon. Usamate asserted that the DPM and Minister for Finance had voted against the FDB Guarantee in 2022.

As to the first ground of Hon. Usamate’s claim that the Hon. Prof. Biman Prasad had stated that the previous Government had not in their last 16 years built any additional classrooms in the Central Division.

I have re-read the Hansard and the intervention by Hon. Prof. Biman Prasad, and I am satisfied that, as clarified by Hon. Prasad, what he said was “in the last 16 years not a single additional classroom in the schools have been audited,” according to the present Government’s report prepared by the Australian Government. Quite clearly, the auditing of classrooms, is quite a separate matter to “building additional classrooms,” as claimed by Hon. Usamate to have been said by the Hon. Prof. Biman Prasad. This alleged breach cannot be sustained and is dismissed.

2. The second claim of breach was allegedly the denial by the Hon. Prof. Biman Prasad of the statement reported to have been made by the Hon. PM that Fiji was in the midst of a financial crisis. After Hon. Prof. Biman Prasad had pointed out that he had checked the Hansard and there was no reference that the Hon. PM had said such statement, Hon. Usamate after this clarification, agreed that it is possible that the report might not be correct, and he has apologised for it.

3. The third matter raised by Hon. Usamate relates to the media report, which the Honourable Member alluded to, alleging that the DPM and Minister for Finance had stated that the Local Government elections will take place in September or October of this year, contrary, Hon. Usamate added to the views of the Minister responsible for Local Government. The Hon. DPM on his counter – point of order confirmed that he had said something to that effect that “the election is likely to be around September and October” and which he claims to be a fair comment. The Chair agreed that it was only a view not an assertion of fact and falls under “fair comment” non-actionable category of views. I accepted the Hon. DPM’s explanation and accordingly rule the alleged breach cannot be sustained and is dismissed.

4. Finally, the last allegation made by Hon. Usamate, is that, contrary to the DPM Hon. Prof. Prasad’s claim that he had supported the FDB Guarantee in 2022, when it came before Parliament, when in fact he had voted against it. In his response, Hon. Prof. Biman Prasad clarified that the Hansard of 9 February 2022 reported that there was no vote as the Guarantee was unanimously agreed to. On the Chair’s direction that if the clarification by Hon. DPM is correct, the Hon. Usamate would withdraw the allegation, he undertook to check the Hansard and will withdraw the allegation if the Hon. DPM’s clarification is correct.

The Hon. Usamate returned to say that he has checked the relevant Hansard of 9 February 2022 and all it said was that the Guarantee “was agreed to” and that he argued, is neither here, nor there, that is, it does not say whether the DPM had voted “aye” or “nay”.

With respect to Hon. Usamate’s argument of “aye” or “nay” is in my view sematics. The fact that the 2022 FDB Guarantee was passed and merely recorded as “agreed to” and does not record and identify who voted for the motion and who did not, does not lend any support whatsoever to any claim that the DPM and Minister for Finance, or any Honourable Member of Parliament for that matter, had voted one way or the other on the motion.

In any event, surely if a Bill or Motion “was agreed to” also can mean that it was unanimously passed, or passed by acclamation.

In the circumstances, the claim by Hon. Usamate that the DPM and Minister for Finance had voted no on the 2022 FDB Guarantee motion is not correct and I direct that the Hon. Usamate formally withdraw the allegation on the floor of the House.

There remains an important matter which Hon. Usamate had raised and related to the language used in this Chambers by the Honourable Members. There is a general requirement for moderation in parliamentary language. It is important when Members are speaking or interjecting to observe certain standard of language and words used. It is not so much as to protect other Members but more so to preserve the character of parliamentary debate and the decorum of this Chambers.

I ask Honourable Members to observe the Chair’s direction in this important matter, and I will have no hesitation in requiring any language or words, when it considers unparliamentary, especially when used in connection with other Members.