- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Assembly
- 8 March 2001
Fiji Governance
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 7 of 48
| Next Item »
Page: 12461
Mr LYNCH (Liverpool) [12.00 p.m.]: I move:
That this House notes the recent decision of the High Court of Fiji in the case of Chandrika Prasad and reaffirms its support for the restoration of democracy in Fiji.
The court case referred to in the motion is now, I think, fairly well known. Its background is well described in the judgment of Judge Gates, the judge at first instance. His judgment, delivered on 15 November last year, commenced:
This is a case about the status of the Constitution in Fiji today following an armed invasion of Parliament on 19th May 2000, a hostage crisis, a military takeover, and latterly the installation of an interim administration. The applicant, an indigent farmer, claims he has been adversely affected as a result. Presently he is a refugee staying at the Girmit Centre in Lautoka.
The court made a number of orders in November of last year. To paraphrase and summarise the orders, they were as follows. First, the attempted coup on 19 May was unsuccessful. Second, the declaration of the state of emergency was granted validity. Third, the revocation of the 1997 Constitution was not made within the doctrine of necessity and such revocation was unconstitutional and of no effect; the 1997 Constitution is the supreme and extant law of Fiji today. Fourth, the Parliament of Fiji is still in being; its incumbents on and prior to 19 May 2000 still hold office; the status quo is restored; and the Parliament should be summoned by the President at his discretion but as soon as practicable. Fifth, it will remain for the President to appoint as soon as possible as Prime Minister the member of the House of Representatives who in the President's opinion can form a government that has the confidence of the House of Representatives pursuant to sections 47 and 98 of the Constitution, and that that government shall be the Government of Fiji.
The decision was a comprehensive victory not only for Chandrika Prasad but for the democratic forces in Fiji—the democratically elected Parliament and the democratically elected Government of Mahendra Chaudhry. The judgment was subsequently appealed. A number of overseas judges, including Justice Handley from Australia, constituted the appeal court. Judgment in the appeal was handed down last week. The appeal judgment essentially confirmed the lower court decision. The interim government that was installed after the coup was declared illegal; interim Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase thus had his Government declared illegal.
As is now notorious, those court proceedings stemmed from the coup staged by George Speight and his associated group of crooks. On 24 May last year this House debated and adopted a motion relating to that coup. There are a number of reasons that this House devoted time to debate this issue last year and why it has, by majority, elected to discuss it again today. First, and particularly for me, there are many Indo-Fijians now resident in Australia who look to their elected Australian representatives to express their horror and our horror at the coup, delight at the court decision and hope for a return to a democratic path for Fiji.
Many members of the Indo-Fijian community reside in the Liverpool region. Indeed, they regard Liverpool as the centre of the Indo-Fijian community in Australia. I understand that funding for the court case referred to in the motion was to some extent obtained from Liverpool; fundraising was conducted in Liverpool to help fund the case of Chandrika Prasad. I acknowledge a number of people in Liverpool who have discussed with me the issues of Fiji and who have been activists in the Australian context in striving for the restoration of democracy in Fiji. They include Gyan Singh, Govind Sami, who was a Labour Party member of the Fijian Parliament in 1987, Kamal Sharma and Prem Chand.
Subsequent to the previous debate in this House, Liverpool saw a march and rally of more than 2,000 people on 27 May last year. It was the biggest political rally held in Liverpool in living memory. On 13 August last year I had the honour of hosting deposed Prime Minister Chaudhry and Felix Anthony, the leader of the Fijian Trade Union Congress, at a conference of several hundred delegates that was held in Liverpool. Of course, this issue is much broader than simply one of members of Parliament in south-West Sydney representing their constituents. The much broader principle is the retention of a democratically elected political structure. Granted that this place is the first established representative structure in this region, in this part of the world, I would have thought that we have an obligation to express our support for such democratic structures. For members on this side of the House, that principle goes a little further. The coup was not just overthrowing a government; it was the overturning of a Labour government. An article by Darryn Snell and Satendra Prasad entitled "Behind the Fiji Crises", which appeared in Arena Journal (New Series, No. 15, 2000), stated:
It is true that the political crisis in Fiji has ignited racial and provincial tensions. It is also true that Speight's terrorism and the military coup represents the overthrow of a democratically elected government that had strong Indo-Fijian representation. More significantly, however, the political crisis represents an overthrow of a government seen as threatening "business-as-usual" in Fiji. It is no coincidence that the three coups that have plagued Fiji over the past 13 years have been against Labour-led Governments. It is evident from the events that unfolded from the outset of the crisis on 19 May that there was complicity between Fiji's military forces and Speight and his terrorist group in the overthrow of the Chaudhry Government. Fiji's military manifestly lacked the resolve and commitment to uphold the Constitution, defend the elected Government or respond to the crisis as a hostage/terrorist situation. The military's abrogation of the 1997 Constitution and setting up of an interim administration made up of Fiji's power brokers from the Rabuka years effectively restored the Government-business nexus of the Rabuka administration. Once again, Fiji's workers of all "races" and poor and rural indigenous Fijians had fallen victim to a conspiracy by an entrepreneurial and feudal elite to retain its hold on power. Retrospectively, this outcome to a challenge by Labour has become something of a constant in Fiji's turbulent and dramatic history.
Opposition to this coup involves not only adherence to the principle of democratic elections; it also includes support for a progressive, reformist party with a progressive, reformist agenda. The Chaudhry Government was a threat, not on a racial basis, to powerful, rich, entrenched elites—elites who exploited everyone they could, whether indigenous Fijians or Indo-Fijians. One final factor places a particular onus on Australia to express a determined opposition to the coup and demand a restoration of democratic rule—that is, the moral obligation that Australia has towards Fiji.
Indo-Fijians first arrived in Fiji as indentured labourers. They were, to all intents and purposes, slaves. They worked in the sugar industry, which was established shortly after Fiji became a crown colony of Britain in 1874. Conditions in the industry were appalling. Official reports resound with comments such as "the mortality is ghastly". The significance of that in this context is that the company running the industry and benefiting from it was an Australian company—CSR. Ken Buckley and Ted Wheelwright, in No Paradise for Workers, referred to the Pacific operations of CSR when they wrote:
CSR wore the unacceptable face of greed and oppression.
They refer to the Fijian cane farmers referring to CSR as "the octopus". In another book, False Paradise, Buckley and Wheelwright wrote that profit was the supreme consideration in how the company operated. They said:
This was obvious in relation to CSR's Fijian sugar interests, which were based on the exploitation of cheap indentured labour imported from India. The supply of labour was seriously threatened from 1916, when the migration of indentured workers was officially banned by the Indian Government, due mainly to public indignation in India over the treatment of labourers in Fiji. Because labourers in Fiji worked out the terms of their indentures, the effect of the abolition was not fully felt for several years.
Buckley and Wheelwright revealed that the then CSR general manager and chairman, E. W. Knox, exerted every effort to have the ban reversed, that is, he tried to have the system of de facto slavery retained. The authors continue referring to E. W. Knox when they wrote:
He often expressed concern for the well-being of the sugar industry, but this concern did not extend to sugar workers, who were the actual producers. Knox was as contemptuous of sugar workers and farmers in Australia as he was of their counterparts in Fiji. They all sought a better return for their labour than Knox thought they were worth. He was greatly disturbed by extensive strikes in the Fijian sugar industry in 1920-1 and he seriously considered how best to liquidate CSR's position there and withdraw its capital from the colony. Yet even in the troubled period between 1915 and 1923, when CSR made little new investment in Fiji, the average annual return on CSR's investment in Fiji was 14.75%, and probably substantially more. As historian, Michael Moynagh, cautiously concludes, the company had taken out more than it had put into Fiji.
I refer to that because it is not simply some quirky piece of South Pacific history. The immense financial benefits flowing to Australia as a result of indentured Indian labourers being brought to Fiji impose a moral responsibility on Australia to have a firm view about what happens in Fiji, just as we have a moral obligation to express a view about Timor because of the involvement of Australian troops in Timor during the Second World War. Just as we had a moral obligation to express a view about Timor because of the involvement of Australian troops in Timor during the Second World War, because of the history of Australian investment and the consequences of that investment in Fiji, I believe Australians have a clear moral obligation to support the restoration of democracy.
The news from Fiji last night was that the signs for the restoration of democracy are somewhat more optimistic than we might have thought. Given those signs, there is some chance that democracy may be restored. I suspect that if it is not, the situation in Fiji is likely to deteriorate. People tell me that the current economic situation in Fiji is dire. In addition to the human rights violations that are regularly directed against Indo-Fijians, there are immense financial difficulties within Fiji relating to levels of employment and productivity. Those problems will simply get worse if Fiji continues to be regarded as a pariah state, and its failure to adhere to the court decision is likely to do that. This motion give this House an opportunity to state clearly its support for the democratic principle and the retention of democratic structures in Fiji.
Mr O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [12.10 p.m.]: The Liberal Party supports the principle of democratically elected governments; it strongly supports the rule of law. However, it believes that democratic authority is derived from the ballot box and not down the barrel of the gun. We join with the Indo-Fijian community in its support for recent decisions taken about the restoration of democracy in Fiji. We support the Federal Government's efforts to ensure that the democratically elected government is restored in Fiji. But that is not the point. This motion is the responsibility of the Australian Parliament. For those who are in the public gallery, this year is, of course, the Centenary of Federation. From the time Australia federated, relating to foreign affairs went from parliaments like this in the colonies to the Federal Parliament.
Today the honourable member for Liverpool has moved a vote of no confidence in the Labor members of Federal Parliament, who are not pursuing these matters in the appropriate forum, that is, the Federal Parliament. The Liberal Party's concern about the democratic political process relates to this place. It relates to a notice paper that has on it 350 notices of motions relating to important issues affecting the community of New South Wales, issues that relate to the Constitution of New South Wales; they do not relate to the Federal Constitution. The Government will not allow those 350 notices of motions to be debated. It does credit a member of the New South Wales Labor Party no credit—although at least he is a member of the Left, which normally supports democratic principles— to lecture anyone, let alone those outside this State, on the democratic process. Mr Speaker, you know the extent to which the democratic process in this place is abused; it has been abused by members right across the benches opposite. Members of this place are not able to have issues that are of concern to the communities they represent raised in this place. On the notice paper there are bills—
Mr Lynch: Point of order: With the greatest respect to my colleague, it seems that he has strayed well away from the topic of this debate. The issues he now raises were canvassed yesterday when this House decided to give this motion precedence. It is totally inappropriate for him to seek to rerun yesterday's debate. As well as being inappropriate, it is technically outside the leave of the motion before the Chair.
Mr O'FARRELL: To the point of order: This motion, in the words used by the honourable member for Liverpool to support it, relates to the democratic process, the principles of democracy, and the way in which parliaments operate. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot use international principles to defend or to seek to attack what has happened in Fiji and not allow the basic principles— that is, the democratic process and a parliamentary system of government—to also be canvassed here. If he does, he stands to be condemned by his own actions.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The subject matter of the motion gives any member speaking in the debate a great deal of latitude.
Mr O'FARRELL: For the benefit of Mr Speaker, who took the chair after the debate commenced, may I say that we support the joy within the Indo-Fijian community about the recent court decision in relation to Fiji. We support, as the Howard Government supports, the restoration of a democratically elected government in Fiji, but we also fundamentally support the constitutional arrangements that apply in this country. The first and foremost of those is that from 1 January 1901 the Federal Parliament had governance over international matters. The criticism and concern that we express, which does not detract from the cause, is that whilst the honourable member for Liverpool, as a member both individually and collectively of the Australian Labor Party, seeks to lecture members about democratic process, the Government will not allow issues which are a much closer to home to be debated in this House. The notice paper contains about a dozen bills that are of vital importance to the people of this State. It also contains 350 notices of motions. Many of those notices have been given by members of the Labor Party. Those motion are simply not being debated.
Members of this House are not able to debate the desperate trouble in which the New South Wales Ambulance Service finds itself. We are not able to debate or vote upon legislation that will seek to keep Allan Baker in gaol. Every day this House sits it is misused by the Government. Therein lies the rub. When the honourable member for Liverpool next has the opportunity to speak in this debate I want him to advise the House how often the Fijian Parliament meets. I want him to advise the House how often the Chaudhry Government met during its first year in office. I will bet London to a brick that it was more than the 43 days that this House sat last year. Last year this House sat only 43 days out of 365. How many days did the Premier spend overseas? Sixty-three days. That simply confirms that the Premier thinks he is in Federal Parliament, as does the honourable member for Liverpool.
The Premier, like the honourable member for Liverpool, is far too preoccupied with international affairs instead of being concerned about matters here in New South Wales. The honourable member for Liverpool knows that only too well, because the rail, hospital, education and police services in his electorate are just as poor as they are across the rest of the country. We cannot believe that the honourable member for Liverpool would seek to lecture members of this House about democratic principles. Presumably his own practices in south-western Sydney are the only thing that stopped head office acting against his Federal members, who presumably are not acting on this matter. Clearly, that is a vote of no confidence in his Federal members.
The New South Wales Parliament is Australia's first parliament, and we should express support for democratic principles. Those democratic principles ought to be put into practice here when the House sits. If democratic principles and parliamentary democracy mean anything, they mean that this place meets to allow issues that are relevant to the communities we represent to be discussed. Mr Speaker, as you know, since at least 1999—but I believe since 1995— that has not been the case in this House. Significant issues in local and statewide communities have not been aired. I repeat: it does not simply affect policing in Cabramatta, or Wagga Wagga or Liverpool, it affects policing across the State. It does not simply affect rail services in Liverpool, Ku-ring-gai or the North Coast; it affects rail services across the State. It does not simply affect the exodus of students from public schools in East Hills, Davidson or Albury; it affects students across the State. Yet, the honourable member for Liverpool wastes the time of this House on an issue that is more properly raised in Federal Parliament.
Mr Lynch: This is a sheer waste of time.
Mr O'FARRELL: Let us consider that. This is the first private members' day in this House for at least six months. There are 350 notices of motions on the notice paper. Notice of the first motion was given on 16 September 1999. Members of this House are not allowed to raise matters relating to the New South Wales community, but we must devote time to an issue for which this Parliament has no responsibility and for which it has not had responsibility for 100 years. What dunces! Mr Speaker, this year you have spoken to students in the House about the Centenary of Federation. It is about time you explained to Government members at the next caucus meeting that as from 1 January 1901 responsibility for this issue, and any other international issue, rests with the Australian Parliament.
Members of the Australian Labor Party should get it together. I give the honourable member for Liverpool some credit, and I will support him at his next preselection, because from time to time he raises issues related to human rights. Indeed, the honourable member is described on the Coalition side as a shining light when it comes to issues of human rights in this Parliament. Members of the Coalition implore the honourable member for Liverpool not to misuse the time of this Parliament in this way and we implore the honourable member for Liverpool to begin lecturing his own Caucus about the parliamentary and democratic principles involved in the Fiji dispute. We implore the honourable member for Liverpool to support the Coalition when we try to raise important community issues in this House.
Mr ORKOPOULOS (Swansea) [12.20 p.m.]: I support the sentiments expressed by the honourable member for Liverpool in support of his motion. In response to our colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who bemoans the fact that this Parliament has not met as often as he would like, I point out that last year this House met on 56 days, which is more sitting days than was the case during the last two years of the Greiner-Fahey Government. I cannot understand where the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is coming from. It is important for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and for other members opposite to consider the ramifications for the communities of Fiji of the subversion of the democratic processes through the barrel of a gun. Indeed, it is necessary for all deliberative bodies such as this House to do so. What is at stake concerns not only the people of Fiji but also all of the democratic institutions that honourable members profess to uphold. If we ignore our responsibility to defend democracy from its usurpers and if we ignore the people of Fiji by our silence, I believe we lose the right to speak out about injustice anywhere.
The decision of the Fiji Court of Appeal which was brought down on 1 March ruled that the 1997 Constitution remains the supreme law and that the interim Qarase Government ruled without the authority of the people of Fiji. The court then set a deadline of 15 March for the restoration of constitutional authority. I am pleased that the head of the Fiji military forces, Commodore Frank Bainimarama, has indicated that the military will abide by the court's decision, and that the interim Prime Minister, Mr Laisenia Qarase, has also indicated acceptance, albeit with some qualification relating to ability to meet the court's timetable for the full restoration of democracy. The Fijian President, Ratu Josefa Iloilo, stated that the people should "proceed quietly and calmly with the implementation of the Court's decision". I notice that it was reported in today's Sydney Morning Herald that the interim Prime Minister has met with Ratu Iloilo to discuss the Government's resignation ahead of a planned meeting with the Great Council of Chiefs.
Political analysts, both here and in Fiji, have proposed a number of reasons for the three coups d'état in the past 13 years, all of which were against democratically elected Labour Governments. Surprise! Surprise! There have been underlying tensions and inevitable conflicts between the traditional chief system of authority and the transition to a more pluralistic, non-racially based form of government in Fiji. There have also been tensions between powerful interests in the present interim Government that have been pushing privatisation of government services, the forestry industry and the airport. The former Chaudhry Government sought to resolve land tenure issues and oppose privatisation of public assets, but openly encouraged foreign private sector investment which threatens those indigenous vested interests.
The critical issue is that the Fijian people cannot afford to have the crooks and spivs routinely using military and paramilitary forces to oust democratically elected Fijian Labour Governments each time their sectional interests are threatened. It is because of that principle that I support the motion and express my hope that the people of Fiji will be allowed to determine the pace and shape of their affairs within the framework of the Constitution of the Republic of Fiji. In conclusion, I condemn the Opposition, which in one sentence expressed support for the motion but in the next sentence launched a tirade of abuse against my colleague the honourable member for Liverpool, his motives, and his expression of interest in the people of Fiji.
Mr ASHTON (East Hills) [12.24 p.m.]: It is entirely appropriate that this House debate the motion moved by the honourable member for Liverpool as a matter of priority. The restoration of true democracy in Fiji should be a matter of concern to all parliamentarians in this House. In May 2000 this House placed on record its opposition to the coup led by George Speight in Fiji when he took the elected Labour Government of Fiji and Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry hostage in an attempt to take over the Government of Fiji. George Speight may have been removed eventually—and, might I say, not without quite a deal of bloodshed over many months—but the problem is that innocent Fijians died. Once again, the delicate state of society and the economy of Fiji were in absolute ruin, and they still are.
Since 1987 there have been three armed coups in Fiji and all of those were against Labour Party Governments. We should restate, in this the original Parliament in Australia, that we expect a proper return to full democracy in Fiji as well as an end to the interim Government which was installed in Fiji after the removal of the Speight gangsters. Today in Fiji emergency powers and laws still operate and are used by the police to ban political meetings and rallies. Police can, and do, detain political activists. Most recently the police detained for nearly two hours Dr Tupeni Baba, who was the co-deputy Prime Minister at the time of the coup and who may well be the Prime Minister if full democracy is returned to Fiji. This incident occurred while he was in attendance at a People's Coalition rally.
Mr Humpherson: Point of order: It has been a tradition of this House—indeed, it has been a principle of democracy—that when honourable members speak they present their own opinions to the House and do not rely on speeches written by others. I seek, through you, Mr Speaker, to get confirmation from the honourable member speaking that they are his words that he is speaking, not someone else's.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.
Mr ASHTON: As a matter of interest, although I do not normally respond to points of order of that nature, what does the honourable member for Davidson think these handwritten notes are?
Mr Humpherson: Point of order.
Mr ASHTON: What does he think these five pages are? Who wrote them? I have some typed for the lady over there who likes a nice typed piece of literature to take up to Hansard. The honourable member for Davidson should sit down and stop wasting everyone's time.
Mr Humpherson: Mr Speaker, it is disorderly for honourable members to respond to a point of order after you have given a ruling.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Davidson will resume his seat.
Mr Humpherson: I ask you to uphold the point of order.
Mr ASHTON: Sit down, you ponce! Have a look at these notes!
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for East Hills will address his remarks through the Chair.
Mr ASHTON: I will. He is a bigger ponce than that Pyne from South Australia.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for East Hills will address his remarks through the Chair.
Mr ASHTON: The military has stated again that the military will choose the person it likes as leader. I will read my original notes and that may take a little longer.
Mr Lynch: Then he will find out that you wrote them.
Mr ASHTON: Yes. The interim Government in Fiji obviously must soon come to an end. With gangsters such as Speight and the honourable member whose electorate I have forgotten—
Mr Lynch: Davidson.
Mr ASHTON: What is his name?
Mr Lynch: Humpherson.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for East Hills will refer to the honourable member by the name of his electorate.
Mr ASHTON: Mr Speaker, I know that, but I do want to know his name. I think that is reasonable. For the information of the honourable member for Davidson, I make the point that emergency powers and laws currently operate in Fiji and are used by police to ban political rallies. The honourable member for Davidson may not care about that: He may think that because he can interrupt my speech in this Chamber, that means we are not worried about Fijian democracy. The point is that members of the Labor Party do care. Let us think of the recent American presidential election and the expectation of the American President George W. Bush that Australia will monitor what goes on in Indonesia and in the Pacific region. If we cannot get something right about what happens in Fiji, how in hell is any Labor Government—or any Liberal Government, for that matter, albeit that it will only remain in office for a matter of months—going to keep an eye on Indonesia?
After last week's Court of Appeal decision, former President Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara is still legally Fiji's President and the Chaudhry Government is still the legal Government of Fiji. I know that Coalition members will rip up any court decision they do not like and will use any powers they have against any Labor Government, just as they did in 1975. The earlier interruption was from the honourable member for Davidson—who tried to question the notes that I have in my hand, which were handwritten by me—just to waste my time. He will wear that as a crown of thorns for the remainder of his time in this Parliament.
Mr LYNCH (Liverpool) [12.29 p.m.], in reply: I had hoped to deal with substantive issues about Fiji and principles of democracy. Regrettably I have to deal with something else, namely, the matters raised in the extraordinary performance by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. First I comment on the primary argument he put forward, which is either an example of gross hypocrisy or an unrestrained attack upon the Leader of the Opposition. I do not know whether the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is being hypocritical or whether he is attacking the Leader of the Opposition. Labor members in the Chamber will recall that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that none of us understands the constitutional position of Australia and that this House should not contemplate or discuss motions relating to matters outside Australia, matters that might be termed foreign affairs.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition also said that there is a series of notices of motions on the business paper that members opposite have been trying to have debated for a long time and that some of them date from 1999. He is right about that. Let me make the point that the first notice of motion on the business paper, notice of which was given on 16 September 1999, was given by none other than the Leader of the Opposition. That motion stated:
That this House:
(1) Sends its support to the members of the Australian Defence Forces preparing to participate in the UN Peacekeeping Force in East Timor.
(2) Commends the Prime Minister, the Hon John Howard MP, for his determined and decisive leadership in this difficult period.
(3) Re-affirms its solidarity with the people of East Timor in their march to independence.
It might be the first time in living memory that I have agreed with the Leader of the Opposition but I must say that, in the light of the comments made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I assume that his attack upon Labor members was equally directed at the Leader of the Opposition. Everything that he has accused Labor members of doing incorrectly is precisely what has been done by the Leader of the Opposition. If we do not understand politics or political structures, then quite clearly the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is saying precisely that about the Leader of the Opposition. I find it extraordinary that he would make those comments in the way that he did.
The other extraordinary exercise in which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition engaged was a comparison between what has happened in Fiji and what happens in this Parliament. He would have us believe that the antics of George Speight and other shonks and military thugs in some way compares with what goes on in this place. That, on any view of it, is trivialising the debate. It is a classic example of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition using great hyperbole and frankly letting his mouth run away with him, which regretfully is typical of his tactics and stunts. It is meant as a substitute for policy and as a cover up of his complete lack of substantive views that he ought to have but he usually does not.
That is revealed precisely in this debate. On the one hand he has gone on with his extraordinary hyperbole about what goes on in an Australian Parliament and compared it with what happens in Fiji. On the other hand, in his 10-minute contribution, he spent, on my count, about 70 seconds in dealing with the substantive motion before the House. The rest of it was simply policy-free, thought-free ranting and raving. Regrettably that is all too characteristic of the stunts and tricks tried by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Having dealt with his hypocritical and, in relation to the Leader of the Opposition, disloyal contribution today, I simply once again direct the attention of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to the substantive points I made in support of the motion.
There were a number of clear reasons why this Parliament has an obligation to make its views clear on these topics. There is a moral obligation, as I said, as there are general principles involved. It is quite clear that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition came into this House with a prepared speech and did not listen to any of my arguments. He did not understand any of my specific reasons why it is a totally appropriate debate to have in this place. Certainly support for the declaration of restoration of democracy is significant for Fiji. It is significant also not just for the people that I represent in my electorate—many of whom still have relatives there, and frankly, whose life and limb depend on whether democracy is restored in Fiji—but it is also an important matter of principle that should concern us all.
Motion agreed to.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:38:17 : Update this page