Using its majority in the National Assembly, the People’s Progressive Party-led government yesterday voted down a motion aimed at garnering faster responses to questions and motions.
The motion tabled by Opposition Member of Parliament Ganesh Mahipaul sought to establish a timeline for a response from the Clerk of the National Assembly and the Speaker.
Mahipaul in his motion, which was argued at length, sought to have Standing Order No. 27(2) amended to read: “If the Speaker is of the opinion that any notice of motion which has been received by the Clerk of the National Assembly infringes on the provisions of any Standing Order or is in any other way out of order, he or she may, within four days, direct that the Member concerned be informed that the notice of motion is out of order; or that the notice of motion be entered in the Order Book with such alterations as he or she may direct.”
Mahipaul’s motion also sought to amend Standing Order 20(3) to state: “If the Speaker is of the opinion that any question of which a member has given notice to the Clerk or which a member has sought permission to ask without notice, is an abuse of the right of questioning or infringes any of the provisions of this or any other Standing Order, he or she may within four days direct: (a) that it be printed or asked with such alternations as he or she may direct or (b) that the Member concerned be informed that the question is inadmissible.”
The motion, he told the House, was crafted to eliminate the length of time the “Guyanese people” must wait before receiving a response to questions asked and notice on motions. This is an issue he and other opposition members said they face in getting responses from the government side of the House. He pointed out that the opposition has faced discrimination with regard to motions and questions, they table.
He alluded to the motion regarding natural gas flaring by Esso Exploration and Production Guyana by David Patterson and the call for the condemnation of the brutal killings of Joel Henry, Isiaah Henry and Haresh Singh by Geeta Chandan-Edmond, among others awaiting to be debated.
In contrast, he said, the government’s motion to remove Patterson as chairman of the Public Accounts Committee was swift and made its way to the Order Paper within six days of notice.
Mahipaul pointed out the importance of receiving timely answers and responses for motions to keep constituents up to date. He argued further that his motion was not in any way sinister but to simply set timelines in place to receive responses.
“It is a simple motion brought before this House… There is no ulterior motive and it simply seeks to provide the people of Guyana timely answers to their questions and to their request to their motions,” he said.
Mahipaul’s motion also enjoyed the support of Opposition Members Patterson, Tabitha Sarabo-Halley, Catherine Hughes, Annette Fergunson and Khemraj Ramjattan.
Ramjattan noted that timelines were important to have opposition motions and questions be heard expeditiously or inform members whether it would be disqualified. He stated that the timeline they were aiming to put in place was not to have questions answered but rather responded to by the Speaker or the Clerk of the National Assembly.
“In this case where we are asking that it be done in a four-day period after you would have gotten it, is fundamental because there can’t be any delays or uncertainties because in four days you would make a ruling, if indeed it is disqualified, then it is disqualified,” he argued.
Ferguson said the motion would allow for better transparency and eliminate the challenges of non-responses or updates after the initial acknowledgement of receipt.
She went to pains to explain the challenges she faces in getting questions on the Order Paper. With timelines, she argued, they would be better informed and updated on the status of their requests.
She argued too that while the government heavily criticised the amendment they failed to offer an alternative that would result in a compromise.
“Today, we … have demonstrated that we are constructive, and have explicitly provided solutions and recommendations on the proposed amendments to Standing Orders [and how we] can assist in strengthening parliamentary democracy which will aid us as representatives of constituents and constituencies in providing adequate and timely feedback to the people of Guyana,” she said.
However, Government’s Chief Whip Gail Teixeira explicitly stated: “This motion does not warrant the support of this side of the House because to limit any Speaker or Clerk to four days, I think, is wrong. It goes against the principles and parliamentary procedures that we allow ourselves, as in all cases, to be subjected to higher authorities to examine what we do…”
“That’s not how the Standing Orders work… You can’t say four days for the Clerk and the Speaker to respond and then say ‘Well if they can’t make it, that’s okay they can take more time…’ You’re bringing in amendments to restrict the Clerk and the Speaker to four-day limits on examining the questions… and you’re treating the two highest positions in this House as post boxes – we mail it in and they’re forced now to deliver it; that’s not how it works,” Teixeira argued further.
She said that the opposition’s notion to respect democracy was a farce. Teixeira, who functions as Minister of Governance and Parliamentary Affairs, reminded the House of the 19 months abuse of the Constitution during the APNU+AFC tenure in government. She stated that this call to respect democracy cannot wipe away the stains incurred during that period, when the coalition failed to call elections as stipulated by the Constitution.
Government MP Sanjeev Datadin who also argued against the motion stated that the imposition of four days was really and truly an attempt at corruption masquerading as transparency. He contended that the implementation of an aggressive timeline like four days was intended to put pressure on the decision-maker and to influence and intimidate the decision-maker. He said such an act should never be countenanced in the National Assembly.
At the end of the heated debates, the government voted down the proposal with support from MP Asha Kissoon of the TNM, the joinder list representative. It was her first time voting since taking up the post.
The motion was defeated 34 – 31.
