Question of courtesy

THE TRADITIONS and conventions of parliamentary practice include certain basic courtesies which, in our view, are as important as the rules themselves. The national forum, whether House or Senate, debates and transacts the people's business and that should be the central focus with each member having adequate time not only to speak but also to prepare himself or herself to make the most informed and incisive contribution to motions on the Order Paper. In light of this, we believe it is important for the Government to ensure that other members of parliament, whether opposition members or independent senators, are notified in time of matters to be debated and also of changes being made either in the order of bills or in the regular procedure of debates. With particular respect to the Senate, however, it seems to us that the Government does not fully appreciate the importance of this courtesy and that Mr Wade Mark, Opposition Leader in the Upper House, is justified in his repeated protests that changes are made without the Opposition being informed in time to undertake adequate preparation. Last Tuesday, the discourtesy meted out to the Opposition provoked another protest from Senator Mark who objected strenuously to the Government using Private Members Day — the fourth Tuesday in the month — to debate the Immigration (Caribbean Community Skilled Nationals) Amendment Bill without informing the other side of the change until the last minute. Acting Senate Leader Joan Yuille-Williams later apologised to the Opposition, but the lapse was so obvious that it seemed to stem from an attitude of taking the Opposition for granted which, of course, does not make for the best possible relations in the more dignified Upper House and, in fact, could be deemed as provocative.

It appears that when Independent Senator Ramesh Deosaran asked for a postponement of his motion calling for television and radio coverage of parliamentary debates, Senator Yuille-Williams replaced it with the Government Bill and informed the Opposition about it on Wednesday afternoon. In his protest, Senator Mark insisted on having Private Members Day and pointed to the number of Opposition motions on the Order Paper. More significantly, he explained he had only received notice of the change at 5.30 pm on Wednesday which was followed by two public holidays and a weekend thus giving the Opposition no time whatever to prepare for a debate on the Immigration Amendment Bill. A few weeks ago, Senator Mark had reason to protest another last minute change by the Government in bills to be debated. The Opposition had come prepared to deal with the Kidnapping Bill as indicated on the Order Paper but, instead, the Civil Aviation Bill was announced by the President. An angry Senator Mark declared: "I was only told about this Bill by the Acting Leader of Government Business at 1.20 pm today. I came here prepared to deal with the Kidnapping Bill. You can't trust this Government. You come here with disrespect, utter contempt. We cannot proceed this way." In making these changes, the Government may have the letter of the Standing Orders on their side, but they are certainly not acting in the spirit of established parliamentary practice which requires that they treat the Opposition with a certain degree of courtesy. In any case, bills and motions aimed at advancing the people's interest demand the best input from all members who must be given the time to prepare for them. Denying parliamentarians this time may even be seen as a derogation of democracy and a discourtesy to the people themselves.