Speech by Atu Bain in response to HE President's Address

Senate Debate on His Excellency's Address by Dr. 'Atu Emberson Bain on Monday, 8th September 2003

(posted 9 September 2003, 1300)

I rise to thank his Excellency for his gracious address, and to support the motion before the House.

Sir, before I begin, may I too extend my congratulations to Hon. Senator Adi Litia Cakobau on her appointment. She boosts the ranks of a marginalized community in the Senate, bringing the full complement of women up to four. However, we still have a long way to go before we achieve fairer representation, let alone gender equality. In the meantime, we will have to do our best to make up in input what we lack in numbers.

Justice, Law, Security and Order

Sir, I believe we have had a very fruitful debate on His Excellency's address. Let me begin my contribution by welcoming the government's declared commitment "to ensuring the preservation of peace and order". His Excellency noted the continuing responsibility of the Fiji Military Forces for ensuring national security, and the institutional strengthening and crime prevention programmes that will continue for the police.

Sir, the appointment of the new Police Commissioner has been a source of great relief to many. So has the Commander's commitment to re-establishing full professionalism within the military forces. Both arms of our security forces have fallen short of political neutrality in the recent past. For a number of critical weeks and months in 2000, neither institution upheld law and order, but were instrumental in promoting its breakdown.

I mention this not to stir up ill feeling but because it provides an important reminder of the need to ensure that such drastic lapses in professional conduct do not happen again within our security forces. In this regard, the proposed national defence review by an Australian led team sounds very promising.

Sir, I believe that the preservation of peace and order, and the security of our people, requires more than building the capacity of our security forces. As I have said on a previous occasion, it is imperative that we build a culture of peace everywhere, in our schools, in our families, our workplaces, and communities, through our school curricula, the way we raise our children, what is said at the pulpit, and how we treat each other on a day to day basis.

But the community cannot be expected to carry the full responsibility for rebuilding the trust and mutual care and concern that have been so fractured in recent years. The principle onus for this lies elsewhere, with those in positions of leadership. From listening to earlier contributions, it is apparent that there is, to use the Hon. Prime Minister's term, some like-mindedness amongst us here, which is most encouraging.

Sir, our standards of leadership must be impeccable, particularly within government and the Parliament. No matter how able and professional our security forces become, they will not be able to maintain national stability if those in positions of leadership work against this: arousing fear, suspicion and distrust by what they say and what they do. We will not solve our law and order problems, if those in positions of influence encourage hatred, bigotry, racism, or religious intolerance.

Sir, the repeated acts of sacrilege and desecration of Hindu temples are a shocking testimony to how low we have sunk and how much remains to be done. They remind us, not of our humanity, but our inhumanity. These incidents do not happen in isolation from what is taking place in the political arena. They are more like a mirror of what is being said and done there. The same goes for the cases of horrific violence perpetrated against our senior citizens, and the nature and rising frequency of sexual offences.

Sir, the shocking homicide of an innocent elderly man taking a walk in Colo i Suva recently captures the full horror of what is taking root in our community. It encapsulates the heavy price we are still paying for what took place in 2000, and our failure as community, church and political leaders to respond appropriately or adequately since then.

The incident evokes memories of the day after I arrived in Kingston, Jamaica over 10 years ago. An old woman, a grandmother, was tied up, gagged and subsequently murdered by two young men who broke into her flat in search of money and other valuables. This kind of violent crime was to be repeated on numerous occasions during the few months I spent in Kingston. Locals I spoke to from within the university where I was based expressed horror and despair. But there was also a cynical acknowledgement that acts of cruelty and brutality, even towards the elderly, was now to be expected in a community of youth that had become so alienated from its own humanity that it no longer held any respect for the sanctity of human life.

Sir, I fear for our youth, and the path that many of them are now taking. They form a truly marginalized group in our community. We can see the hardening faces of many of our young men in town. We see young women toughened by a risky life on the streets where they take part in the fast expanding sex trade. We see young boys hustling for their survival, boldly harassing passersby for money.

It is true that poverty has put many of these young people on the streets, or drawn them out of their villages and into the towns. So have their experience of violence, sexual abuse and neglect in the home. But these are not the only causes of youth crime, violence and associated problems.

Our youth are also besieged by confusing and destructive messages. They are sent to church, where they are taught the fine values of compassion, love, tolerance, and truth, but what they see and hear during the rest of the week is another story. They hear of wanton corruption, financial scams, and the squandering of public funds at the highest levels of government. They see the law being broken with impunity. They are told that policies based on racial discrimination are really affirmative action; and that a Christian State is essential, even though we live in a multi-faith community and Jesus converted by example.

Sir, our youth hear that in order to achieve national reconciliation, we should all forget the wrongs of May 2000. They are told that those who call for justice are vengeful, obsessed with litigation, and trouble making. Then, when Hindu temples are desecrated, they wait to hear what their leaders have to say, but there is a deafening silence.

Why are we surprised then to see such a sharp decline in moral values, a rise in sexual abuse and violence against women, and an escalation in armed robberies? Is it any wonder that many of our young people have lost their way, when the standards of accountability, integrity, and fairness have been all but abandoned by many of our leaders?

Sir, our gaols are full of young men, not because they are born bad. A major cause is that many are surrounded by bad role models. I therefore humbly ask this of those who continue to mislead, and to willfully sow the seeds of division and hatred. Are they prepared for the total disintegration of our society? Are they prepared for more armed robberies, more young men wasting their lives in gaol, more cases of drug abuse and mental health disorders, more school drop outs, and more sexual assault of innocent children by their own fathers and grandfathers?

I urge each and every one of us to support the full restoration of law and order, including the prosecution of those responsible for the 2000 coup. The road to peace must be set on firm foundations. To do anything less will surely rebound on us in the kinds of ways I have just outlined.

Youth development and the South Pacific Games

Sir, I ask government to give serious consideration to expanding its efforts in the area of youth development. The South Pacific Games was a fine example of what is possible amongst our youth, not only in respect of competitive sport but the spirit of generosity, and inter-ethnic peace and goodwill, that we saw permeate our country during those weeks. The organizers are to be congratulated, as are each and every young man and woman who participated in the games, and performed to their very best for our country. They did us proud.

Sir, the 'adoption of a country' by a number of Suva schools was an inspired initiative, a great expression of Pacific-style generosity and hospitality. It has lingered on in my mind, long after the games concluded.

The concept should not die with the games but should live on. It could be easily adapted to create a mutually beneficial arrangement between exchanging groups with the potential to extend into a national network with many positive benefits.

Let me explain what underlies this suggestion. Years ago I came across a fascinating initiative that had been introduced in China, I believe, whereby senior school students were dispatched during their holidays to the countryside every year where they were required to teach the older village folk how to read and write. From what I recall, the adult literacy rate improved significantly over time, and the youth were reconnected with their traditional heritage and rural lifestyles through interaction with the older generation. The programme was a success.

Here in Fiji, we could build on the SPG adoption principle to pursue something similar. An urban school could adopt a rural school, or a village, with reciprocal learning and exchange of skills. A youth group could adopt a group of senior citizens; and a Fijian school could adopt an Indo-Fijian school, and vice versa. In this way, the concept would be pursued as an instrument of youth development and national reconciliation; as a way of reclaiming respect for the role and contribution of the elderly; as a vehicle for promoting adult literacy; and as a means for preserving and transmitting traditional knowledge to a generation of urban youth that is becoming gradually estranged from its cultural roots as the influences of globalization, many of which are negative, take hold.

There are many more possibilities, and as I listened to Senator Adi Koila Nailatikau on Friday, I thought that there is also the potential to integrate this adoption concept into a more fully-fledged national youth service of the kind she suggested.

Similarly, I would like to support the comments and call made by Senator Dr. Ahmed Ali for support for the National Archives. It is indeed a treasure chest of history that should be preserved, expanded and fully funded for the benefit of future generations, as well as the young students and others of the current generation who are increasingly taking full advantage of its facilities.

Corruption

Sir, His Excellency indicated that the government is actively co-operating with Forum partners in regional action to combat various illegal international activities like drug trafficking and money laundering that undermine regional stability and security. He announced that government will be introducing legislation including an Illicit Drugs and Anti-Terrorism Bills.

Sir, these are positive responses to a major global problem. However, we also need to recognize the part we play in foreign-driven rackets, and take responsibility for this. We have corrupt individuals and public office holders who turn a blind eye to unlawful practices, or who actively engage in them, because they personally benefit from the wad of dollars that passes under the table. Our customs, immigration, fisheries and public works departments are amongst those areas in the civil service that have been associated with corruption for some time. My colleague Hon. Senator Tulsi Khelawan gave us a graphic account of what is currently happening in the Land Transport Authority.

The SDL government evidently recognizes the need to plug up some of the holes in our domestic laws to combat the problem of international crime. But until we tackle our own home-grown corruption, we will continue to be vulnerable to the influx of criminal elements, mafia, and others linked to organized crime and drug syndicates. A more stringent legal framework will not by itself protect us from these pernicious forces in the global community.

Above all, we need an entrenched culture of honesty and integrity. We must root out corruption in the civil service, screen incoming investors and enforce stringent codes of conduct both in the private and public sectors. As a first port of call, Government would assist us all by releasing the long overdue Corruption Commission Report. Perhaps the Attorney General would be good enough to confirm when this will be made available to the public.

Code of Conduct

A year ago, His Excellency's speech outlined government's plans to table some important legislation. Amongst these was a Code of Conduct Bill. This year, this bill is conspicuous by its absence from the forecasted legislation.

This is a cause for concern, Sir, more especially because of recent comments by the Attorney General in the House of Representatives, in which he implied that the government is in no hurry to bring this in.

I refer the House to the uncorrected Hansard of 7th August 2003 in which he states the following with reference to the Fiji Law Reform Commission's recent review of our some of our laws: "The report on the laws on bribery and corruption, Sir, is a little difficult and is much more complex and will require more time. I do not expect any legislation emanating from it to come to Parliament until some time next year. Exactly when next year, will depend on a number of various issues."

Sir, the SDL government has repeatedly expressed support for the principles of good governance, and the Prime Minister has just returned from the Pacific Islands Forum where regional leaders reaffirmed their commitment to the Bikenawa Declaration. Closer to home, our own Constitution devotes a separate chapter to Accountability, Part One of which lays down guidelines for a code of conduct on the part of senior public office holders including Ministers, Members of Parliament and senior civil servants.

Amongst other things, they are forbidden from using their offices for private gain; to allow their integrity to be called into question; or to cause respect for or confidence in the integrity of the government to be diminished.

Most importantly, section 156 (3) of the Constitution instructs that the Parliament must, as soon as practicable after the commencement of this Constitution, make a law to implement the conduct rules, to provide monitoring mechanisms, and to deal with enforcement and investigation of alleged breaches.

In view of this, Sir, I am at a loss to understand why the Attorney General should be taking such a casual attitude to this important matter. However complex the issues, he should not be ambling along or procrastinating over a constitutional obligation. A draft Code of Conduct Bill was completed by the People's Coalition Government in May 2000, but was not enacted due to the coup. So the SDL Government had a ready-made draft and did not have to start from scratch. Even if it wanted to make some changes to the Bill, it has had more than three years to do so.

Sir, in this context, it is worth remembering the hurricane speed at which the Penal Code was amended in order to save the life of George Speight. The issue of capital punishment was hardly a simple, or less complex matter than the code of conduct. Perhaps the motivation to move things along was stronger for the Attorney General?

Sir, if ever there was a time for this consequential legislation, it is now. We do not want any more scams or abuse of public funds which justifiably alarm and outrage the public, tarnish our reputation with the donor community, and jeopardize the much needed sources of assistance and investment into Fiji.

Duavata Initiative Ltd

Sir, legislating some standards of accountability and conduct will not only assist us in the fight against corruption. It will also put a stop to dubious endeavours like the Duavata Initiative Ltd, a private company whose directors are no less than the Prime Minister and four of his senior Ministers.

Sir, the Prime Minister explained to the House of Representatives on 8th May 2003 that the DIL is a trustee company setting the framework for a trust fund that will facilitate fundraising for the SDL and "engage supporters of free enterprise". He insisted that this is a transparent and perfectly legitimate approach to fundraising by the SDL party; that the company will not operate any business and that it is a non-profit making body.

He also said he did not foresee any circumstances where there could be a conflict of interest between their duties and responsibilities as trustees of the DIL and their duties as Ministers.

In addition, the Prime Minister said the following: "I want to state categorically that none of us, the subscribers to the Memorandum and Articles of Association, will benefit financially from the company either as subscribers or as employers….As I have said, the company will merely provide the legal framework for the Duavata Initiative Trust Fund."

Sir, quite frankly, I am unconvinced by any of these arguments, and they sit most uncomfortably alongside the government's professed commitments to good governance. The Prime Minister might not be able to see or foresee a conflict of interest, but it nevertheless exists.

Allow me to illustrate this by reference to the Articles and Memorandum of Association of the DIL that I took the liberty of looking at, and which make for interesting reading. Contrary to what the Prime Minister has suggested, the company is allowed to engage in commercial activities; to negotiate rights, concessions and privileges with government and municipal authorities; and even to open up offices overseas. So too, the Prime Minister and his four ministerial co-directors are in fact allowed to gain privately from DIL trading activities. In fact, specific provision is made for just this.

Article 31 allows the directors to be paid a fee out of the funds of the company, at a level they themselves determine, and additional fees for extra services or any special professional skills they might bring to the company.

Turning to Article 33, we find that a director of the DIL may hold, and I quote, "any other office or place of profit under the company (other than the office of the auditor) in conjunction with his office of director for such period and on such terms (as to remuneration and otherwise) as the directors may determine." Article 56 permits the Minister of Finance, in his capacity as secretary of the company, to receive a remuneration determined by the directors?

Other payments to the directors are authorised as well. Of particular note is that a director can earn interest on any money loaned to the company; as well as a commercial rental income from premises he (or she) may let to the company.

Sir, if DIL is merely intended to be a vehicle for the establishment of a Trust Fund, then why is it registered under the Companies Act as a private company limited by guarantee, and allowed to trade commercially? Who will be the beneficiaries? If it is meant to be a trust fund, then why not register it under the Charitable Trust Act. If it isn't eligible for this legislation, then it begs the question: why talk about a trust company or trust fund at all?

Sir, a cloud of suspicion continues to hang over this business venture of the Prime Minister and senior members of his Cabinet. In the public interest, we need some real accountability, transparency and honesty from them, not just defensive rhetoric. At the end of the day, holding directorships in a private trading company is simply not an acceptable or ethical extra curricular activity for members of the SDL Cabinet, including the Prime Minister. Its unconstitutionality is blatantly obvious. It contravenes section 156 of the Constitution. Furthermore, it flies in the face of both the code of ministerial conduct (laid down on pages 6-8 of the Government of Fiji's Manual of Ministerial Practice and Procedure), and the Independent Parliamentary Emoluments and Benefits Committee Report of 1996, Parliamentary Paper No 33 of 1996. (see in particular para. 4.29).

Finally Sir, if I may return to the related issue of code of conduct legislation, I have one more observation to make. The DIL requires its directors to declare their interest in any existing or proposed contracts, or any office or property to be sold. It is evident, therefore, that the Prime Minister and his colleagues know what a conflict of interest is. They have taken steps to protect the DIL's interests, even to the extent of introducing a code of conduct to ensure accountability to the company.

Why is it then so difficult for any of them to see or foresee any conflict of interest with regard to their Ministerial positions. And why is the Attorney General, whose signature appears on the DIL documents as a witness, so slow to bring in a code of conduct for the public office holders of this country? Is it because certain people stand to gain from leaving things the way they are?

Contradictions in government's development approach

Sir, I believe that in our aims and aspirations for the development of Fiji, we often have more in common than we realize. Certainly, listening to the speeches of many fellow Senators, I felt very hopeful that a shared vision for our country is beginning to emerge. The fine comments from Hon. Senator Dr. Ahmed Ali on Friday was a case in point. He called on the corporate sector to pay a just and fair living wage; ensure a fair share of profits; and assist in creating greater social justice. Sir, I know that Hon. Dr. Ahmed Ali is a prolific reader. However, I didn't realize that he had read the manifesto of the Fiji Labour Party - at least so closely!

We have to build on these emerging commonalities in the interests of the common good. But, to be frank, government's approach to poverty alleviation and affirmative action continues to baffle me. Why? Because it is full of contradictions.

Poverty

On the one hand, Government says it cares about the poor, yet it promotes low-wage policies for big business and opposes the trade union movement.
It anguishes over the rising crime rate, yet it condones poverty wages that drive many to steal.
Now we hear the Prime Minister say he is not in favour of a minimum wage - the most basic wage protection of all for the poorest worker.
Government says it is committed to poverty alleviation, yet it defends a VAT increase that obliges the poor to pay more for their food, water, housing and other basic needs.
It protects the monopoly rights of Telecom and opposes a more competitive tele-communications market that would reduce telephone costs and make telephone services more accessible to the poor.
And we hear of plans to privatize water and promote a user pays principle for health care and education which will inflict more, not less, hardship on the poor.

Sir, if the government is really interested in reducing poverty, it should focus less on protecting the interests of the business sector, and more on protecting the livelihoods of the poor. In the urban areas, these livelihoods depend largely on the wages they earn, the taxes they pay (both indirect and direct), and the cost of basic services. In the rural areas, livelihoods derive principally from land and sea-based resources. Protecting this heritage could and should be a central poverty reduction strategy.

In this regard, let me say that I fully support the comments made by Senator Adi Koila Nailatikau regarding the traditional qoliqoli. The rights to own, control and benefit from this resource must reside firmly with the indigenous owners, and such rights should be properly protected by legislation.

Blueprint and affirmative action

Sir, moving on to the issue of affirmative action and the blueprint, we see a similar pattern of contradictions.

The blueprint has been presented to us as affirmative action. But as we all know, it has been heavily criticized for its ethnic exclusivity and bias, and its failure to tackle the problems of poverty, economic hardship, and social disadvantage in all communities.

Sir, there are undoubtedly areas of special concern for indigenous Fijians. These include the poor returns to resource owners from mineral, forestry and fisheries exploitation. However, poverty cuts across all communities, and the notion of a wide gulf between rich Indians and poor Fijians, promoted so vigorously by Senator Bulanauca, is both simplistic and false.

Sir, the blueprint wrongly assumes that Fijians as a homogenous group are disadvantaged. As we all know, there is a sizeable Fijian elite whose economic status and life opportunities are very different from poor villagers and urban workers. In fact, there is poverty for some, and wealth for others; disadvantage for some, and privilege for others; access to power for some, and political marginalization for others.

A major contradiction of the blueprint is that fewer of the benefits seem to be reaching the supposed target groups - the indigenous poor, disadvantaged, and marginalized. Fijian Holdings recently announced a pre-tax profit of 12.4 million dollars. The company is issuing dividends of 10 cents per share for it's A-class shares and 5 cents per share for its B-class shares, totaling some 2 million dollars. I wonder how much of these redistributed profits will find their way into the pockets of ordinary villagers, farmers and workers. The company's performance is impressive. But how much of a difference will this make to the livelihoods of the indigenous working class?

Sir, another, perhaps more obvious, contradiction of the blueprint approach can be found at Vatukoula where there has been a consistent failure to give Fijian mineworkers and resource owners a just and fair return for their labour and mineral wealth.

PAFCO

Yet another example can be found in the government-owned tuna cannery at Levuka, where between 800 and 1000 indigenous people, mostly women, work. A sizeable proportion have worked at PAFCO for between 20-30 years, and it is these same women who are now entering the sixth week of an industrial strike against the company. They are mostly mothers, from villages all around Ovalau extending as far as Lovoni in the interior, and along the coast from Bureta all the way down through the Qalivakabau network of villages, then across to the other side of Levuka as far as Rukuruku.

With wages well below the poverty line, PAFCO's women carry the heavy burden of feeding their families, sending their children to school, and meeting all their church and traditional obligations. Many have dependent husbands. They struggle under the weight of large debts to the bank. These have resulted from a highly questionable system of unsecured loans arranged by PAFCO with Westpac many years ago to supplement (or should I say subsidise) its low wages. The bank loans have condemned many women to a vicious cycle of indebtedness, particularly during the years when interest was set at a crippling 16 per cent.

The working environment also falls short in many respects. I have walked through the production process, both before and after the recent renovations, and seen the lines of women standing on the production line throughout the shift, their hands working furiously to skin and clean the tuna, or to label and package. There are no allowances made for pregnant women. They also have to stand for hours on end. The heavy blanket of heat, the deafening noise of machinery, and the stench of fish meal, are part of the daily work routine. So is the pressure to work at a frenzied pace for fear of losing their jobs.

The renovations of a few years ago have brought some improvement, but the problems of heat and continuous standing remain. There is now a child-care facility funded by UNIFEM and run by PAFCO, but it levies a weekly charge of $7.50 or $30 a month per child, which is automatically deducted from pay-packets. When a child is sick and stays at home, or during paid or public holidays, I am told that the deductions remain the same. The mothers still have to pay $7.50 per child.

Sir, the role of these village women in the development of Ovalau has long been recognised by chiefs of the island. For some, including the chiefs of Lovoni, Bureta, Tukou, Draiba, and Toki, there is a deep sense of sadness, shame and indignation about the way their women have been treated by the company. I know this because I have recorded their views. Active support from a number of chiefs for the current strike testifies to just how strongly they feel. And it is not the first time they have done this.

Sir, the treatment meted out to PAFCO's women is a shameful indictment of our so-called development process, and the wage policies of successive governments. These are Fijian women who are the backbone of growth in our industrial fisheries sector, and who are employed in a 'government' owned tuna cannery, yet they are consigned to poverty wages of less than $80 gross a week in 2003.

The fish they process is marketed in places like the United Kingdom and Canada, under well known labels like Sainsbury and John West, so there is no question of it being a low grade product. It is at the top of the international market. Yet our women are paid a pittance.

Sir, the women of PAFCO and their union have been forced to engage the industrial relations machinery against PAFCO, and to resort to much more costly legal proceedings in the High Court in order to seek remedy for unfair dismissals and exploitative wages. They have had a number of important judgements delivered in their favour, notably arbitration rulings in 1996 by eminent former Permanent Arbitrator and Judge of the High Court, high chief Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi, and in April this year, by Arbitrator G.P. Lala. There has also been an important High Court judgement in January 2002.

The G.P. Lala arbitration tribunal awarded a substantial wage increase, an increase in allowances, and equal wages for both men and women employees.

But instead of implementing these rulings, which would have brought long overdue justice to this group of workers, PAFCO's response has been to oppose them, and to drag the matters back to court.

In fact, none of the awards in favour of Fijian workers at PAFCO have seen the full light of day, because each one of them has been challenged by this government company. It is now over one and a half years since the High Court judgement of Justice Byrne, and six years since the Arbitration award was granted by Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi. The GP Lala award has met a similar fate.

Sir, PAFCO is a government company accountable to the public. It should not be allowed to play games, use delaying tactics, or circumvent court judgements it doesn't like. This is tantamount to abusing the legal process. Where is the justice when a state company goes to such lengths, and at considerable cost to taxpayers, to deny workers a decent living wage and dignified conditions of employment? What kind of affirmative action or blueprint is this when the government would rather go back to court to defeat a wage increase for Fijian workers living below the poverty line?

Sir, much more can be said about the disgraceful situation at PAFCO, but I will save this for later in the week, when we debate a motion that I have filed on PAFCO, along with Senator Felix Anthony who spoke at some length on the current strike. I am convinced that the Senate can play a constructive role here.

Multi-party Cabinet

Sir, it is most pleasing to hear the sentiments expressed by His Excellency in response to the Supreme Court ruling. In particular, he welcomed the strengthening of the foundations of parliamentary democracy and national stability that should follow from it.

I will not go into details of the judgement as these are now well known. However, I would like to make use of my remaining time to make a few comments on the misrepresentation of the Labour Party's position.

The Labour Party is fully committed to the Constitution. We are also acutely aware that the international donor community, potential investors, and our own private sector have been anxiously awaiting the return to constitutional government. Full resumption of development assistance and investment flows, as well as a complete economic recovery, depends on the satisfactory implementation of the Supreme Court ruling.

It is precisely for these reasons that we have taken so seriously the discussions between the Party leader and the Prime Minister. Our primary concern has been to ensure that the judgement is fully upheld, and that neither the spirit nor the intent of the power sharing provisions of the Constitution are compromised in any way.

Accordingly, the issues of representation, the number and nature of portfolios, and the size of the Cabinet have all come under scrutiny and criticism. Such an exercise is not about being fussy or difficult, but about doing what we believe is morally and legally right.

Asking for 17 ministries in a Cabinet of 36 is not an idle request for more numbers, or about the FLP being greedy or grasping, as mischievously suggested by some. It is simply about correctly applying the principles of proportionality laid down in the Constitution.
Insisting that the FLP is the only party 'entitled' to be in Cabinet is not about interfering with the Prime Minister's constitutional right to invite members of any other non-qualifying party. It is about ensuring that he does so in accordance with section 99 (6) that requires him to accommodate them through his own quota in Cabinet.
Objecting to the marginal 'portfolios' that have been offered to the Party is not about being ungracious or questioning the right of the Prime Minister to allocate portfolios. It is about urging him to comply with the principles of power sharing and asking him to respect the well-established conventions on what constitutes a Cabinet ministry.
Sir, criticizing the inflated size of Cabinet is not a red herring. It is about reminding the Prime Minister that the formation of a multi party Cabinet should be consistent with the broader principles of good governance, and this means considering the adverse implications for the economy and taxpayers of an inflated or bloated Cabinet.

It was for this reason that the Labour Party, when it was in government, actually reduced the size of Cabinet from 22 to just 18. Moreover, this Cabinet included representatives from three other parties, all predominantly ethnic Fijian, who were given substantive and senior Ministries like Deputy Prime Minister, Fijian Affairs, Home Affairs, Tourism and Civil Aviation, and Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.

Ironically, a number of fellow Senators, including the Hon. Leader of the House, and Senator Rev. Kanailagi have implied that the Labour Party is responsible for the three million dollars it will cost for the party to be included in a multi-party Cabinet.

Let us be clear about this. The Fiji Labour Party is not responsible for these high costs. Nor is the Court or the Constitution. It is the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister alone, who is inflicting such a swollen and costly Cabinet on the country and its taxpayers, as well as the cost of challenging the original Court decision. He alone is creating a Cabinet that is out of all proportion to the size of the House of Representatives, that defies convention, and that will create such a financial burden for a country of our size and resources.

Of course, it is his constitutional right to do so. But is it good judgement? Is this good governance? As my colleague Senator Felix Anthony quite correctly pointed out, the money could be very well spent, and is badly needed, in other areas like our health services.

And lastly, Sir, there has also been criticism that the Party has held up the formation of a multi party Cabinet; that it is dragging its feet, or taking the country on a merry-go-round, to use Senator Ratu Dimuri's words. This perception reflects a poor grasp of the issues at stake. The multi party Cabinet must be established on proper and lasting foundations. We must set a good, not a bad, precedent. None of this can be achieved by cutting corners, producing a quick fix, or being over hasty to get to the finishing line. What is the point in soliciting direction from the court, if we then fail to implement its decision correctly?

Sir, we are blessed with having a richly diverse society, and we can overcome any obstacles if we have the will to do so. The multi-party Cabinet is about power sharing between different political parties that have been given a mandate to govern by the people. It is not a privilege that brings qualifying parties in to the Cabinet, but an entitlement. So it is to be expected that there will be differences since such a power sharing arrangement is not premised on a shared vision or like-mindedness. But differences are also quite normal, and healthy, in a vibrant democracy.

Ultimately the concept has evolved in the spirit of nation building and inter-ethnic cooperation, and this is surely where its greatest strength lies. Do we not all have a duty to honour this noble motive, and to do our best to make it work?

Sir, I am very pleased to support the motion before the House.

ENDS