"We are the High Chiefs of these islands. We are the leaders of the people. On us is the duty of pointing out to them the right course. Bear this in mind. We have to lead on two points- hold back those who advocate radical changes (for which we are not sufficiently educated) and enliven the laggards before their ignorance destroys us". http://www.fijileaks.com/home/the-great-council-of-chiefs
0 Comments
Fijileaks: |
“In order for a charge [against FBC] of inciting communal antagonism to succeed, the broadcast must have been of such a nature and sufficiently egregious to justify the sanction of the criminal law. In other words, the broadcast must do more than simply insult or cause offence to people." |
Fijileaks: Now, it is free for all to insult INDIGENOUS FIJIANS - and other RACES - (provided it's not
'egregious' - outstandingly bad or shocking).
Frankly speaking, it was none other than Frank Bainimarama who started it all when he told Fijian chiefs to go and drink home brew under the mango tree. And what did he do? He began illegally collecting $280,00 in salary, followed by his puppeteer master Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum ($185,000 and Dr Neil Sharma, $150,000) and his indigenous Cabinet Ministers were paid $135,000 each. Ironically, SODELPA cannot take advantage of the "insults" heaped on native Fijians, for the party is led by Sitiveni Rabuka, who had described Hindus and Muslims as "pagans who should be converted to Christianity" or better still, their lives should be made so difficult in Fiji - STRANGERS IN PARADISE - that they would leave the country of their birth
* Indigenous Fijians are inferior because they fail in universities and they spend more time participating in sports
* Indigenous Fijians are academically poor because they do not know how to read in English
Like the Fiji Times trio, FBC can be accused of making antagonistic comments against the native Fijians, comments which non-native Fijian school children could employ to look down on native Fijian students as academically DUMB.
Below are two DDP statements (published in the Fiji Sun) and the criteria that was employed when deciding what constitutes "inciting communal antagonism" in Fiji
http://www.fijileaks.com/home/fijileaks-to-fiji-broadcasting-commission-ceo-riyaz-sayed-khaiyum-when-is-incitement-not-an-incitement-when-it-is-your-fbc-antagonizing-hatred-against-indigenous-fijiansno-one-is-above-law
It is alleged that Arya whilst being employed in the public service as the Registrar at the University of Fiji, and whilst acting as the School Manager for Bhawani Dayal Memorial Primary School, did arbitrary acts for gain in abuse of the authority of his office, namely authorized loans amounting to $116,500 from the Free Education Grant provided by the Ministry of Education to Bhawani Dayal Memorial Primary School
Fijileaks: In 2012 Arya became Registrar of the University of Fiji after he had stacked the UoF Council meeting with supporters in contravention of Standing Orders; Arya and FFP Education Minister Mahendra Reddy were also a subject of lengthy Fijileaks investigation but we were hacked before we could publish our findings
http://www.fijileaks.com/home/university-of-fiji-not-far-behind-fiji-national-university-whistleblowers-claim-mbbs-students-were-allowed-to-graduate-without-meeting-criteria
Kamlesh Arya charged by FICAC with abuse of office
Former politician and Registrar of the University of Fiji Kamlesh Arya has been charged with one count of abuse of office and one count of general dishonesty causing a loss.
FICAC charged Arya earlier today and he was produced in the Suva Magistrates Court this afternoon.
It is alleged that Arya whilst being employed in the public service as the Registrar at the University of Fiji, and whilst acting as the School Manager for Bhawani Dayal Memorial Primary School, did arbitrary acts for gain in abuse of the authority of his office, namely authorized loans amounting to $116,500 from the Free Education Grant provided by the Ministry of Education to Bhawani Dayal Memorial Primary School.
It is also alleged that Arya dishonestly caused a risk of loss to Bhawani Dayal Memorial School by authorising the Free Education Grants as loans amounting to $116,500, and knowing that the loss will occur or substantial risk of the loss will occur to Bhawani Dayal Memorial School.
The alleged incident occurred in 2014.
He has been granted bail by Magistrate Shageeth Somaratne on $5,000 personal bail, 2 sureties with $5,000 each, he has to report to the Lautoka FICAC office every Monday between 8am to 6pm, surrender all travel documents, not to interfere with any witnesses and not to reoffend.
A stop departure order has also been issued.
Arya will reappear in court on the 13th of December.
Former politician and Registrar of the University of Fiji Kamlesh Arya has been charged with one count of abuse of office and one count of general dishonesty causing a loss.
FICAC charged Arya earlier today and he was produced in the Suva Magistrates Court this afternoon.
It is alleged that Arya whilst being employed in the public service as the Registrar at the University of Fiji, and whilst acting as the School Manager for Bhawani Dayal Memorial Primary School, did arbitrary acts for gain in abuse of the authority of his office, namely authorized loans amounting to $116,500 from the Free Education Grant provided by the Ministry of Education to Bhawani Dayal Memorial Primary School.
It is also alleged that Arya dishonestly caused a risk of loss to Bhawani Dayal Memorial School by authorising the Free Education Grants as loans amounting to $116,500, and knowing that the loss will occur or substantial risk of the loss will occur to Bhawani Dayal Memorial School.
The alleged incident occurred in 2014.
He has been granted bail by Magistrate Shageeth Somaratne on $5,000 personal bail, 2 sureties with $5,000 each, he has to report to the Lautoka FICAC office every Monday between 8am to 6pm, surrender all travel documents, not to interfere with any witnesses and not to reoffend.
A stop departure order has also been issued.
Arya will reappear in court on the 13th of December.
Recipient of the Officer of the Order of Fiji on Friday 16th October, 2015 – Awarded for distinguished service of a high degree to Fiji:
Ambassador, High Commissioner or Mr Plain Kamlesh Arya?
"Under the declaration by Banimarama government around 2010 All former Fiji Ambassadors were declared Ambassadors of Fiji. Ever since, at every formal public gatherings where I am present I am acknowledged as Ambassador Kamlesh Arya, including by the President of Fiji, H.E. Ratu Epeli Nailatikau. Hence from 2012 I began carrying that on my business card and official correspondences" - Arya to Fijileaks, 2015
"In Mr Kamlesh Arya's case (note he was born Kamlesh Sharma), he was sent by Fiji as an Acting High Commissioner to Australia during a period early in the first Bainimarama regime when Bainimarama was not accepted by the majority as Head of Government. Arya was chosen because many others were not prepared to take on the position. It is true that Arya was nominated later by the Bainimarama regime when he was still an Acting High Commissioner, for the consideration by the Australian Government to be the next Fijian High Commissioner but before Arya could present his credentials, he was expelled by the Australian Government and declared persona non grata and deported within days of being declared persona non grata. Thus, he was not able to present his credentials. Consequently, he was never legally a High Commissioner. He returned home with the title of Acting High Commissioner or at best, High Commissioner Designate. On his return home, his contract was rescinded by the Bainimarama Government and not offered any other ambassadorial appointment. As a result, he was no longer even a High Commissioner Designate but unemployed. Therefore, it is wrong in strict protocol terms for him to call himself an Ambassador or ask others to address him as Ambassador."
Bainimarama's former bodyguard Pita Matairavula jailed for 9 years with a non‑parole period of 6 years. We are grateful to the Sri Lankan judge who refused to cow to Police Commissioner Sitiveni Qiliho who was shielding Matairavula and other killer Police Officers, and during the trial barged into the courtroom, presumably to intimidate the presiding judge
Judge Aruna Aluthge: "NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW"
Eight suspended police officers and a soldier have been given jail sentences in the Vilikesa Soko and Senijeli Boila case by the Lautoka High Court this afternoon.
Manasa Talala and Seruvi Caqusau have been sentenced to 8 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years, Kelevi Sewatu, Penaia Drauna and Senitiki Natakasavu were sentenced to 7 years imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 4 years while Filise Vere, Viliame Vereivalu, Jona Davonu and Pita Matairavula have been sentenced to 9 years imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 6 years.
Manasa Talala, Seruvi Caqusau, Kelevi Sewatu, Penaia Drauna, Filise Vere, Viliame Vereivalu, Jona Davonu, Pita Matairavula and Senitiki Natakasavu were each charged with the rape and sexual assault of Vilikesa Soko and Senijeli Boila.
Soko succumbed to his injuries and later died in custody.
The incidents happened in August 2014 in Malevu, in the Western Division.
Manasa Talala and Viliame Vereivalu were also charged with defeating the course of justice by instructing other police officers to make false statements. Source: Fijivillage News
Manasa Talala: Eight years with a non-parole period of five years.Seruvi Caqusau: Eight years with a five year non-parole period.
Kelevi Sewatu: Seven years with a non-parole period of four years
Penaia Drauna: Seven years with a non-parole period of four years.
Filise Vere: Nine years, mainly because the judge said he was a principle offender as he was the one that was rubbing chillies and also sexually assaulting Vilikesa Soko.
Viliame Vereivalu: Nine years imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years.
Jone Davonu: Nine years with a non-parole period of six years.
Pita Matairavula: Nine years with a non-parole period of six years.
Senitiki Natakasavu: Seven years imprisonment with four years parole-period.
Manasa Talala and Seruvi Caqusau have been sentenced to 8 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years, Kelevi Sewatu, Penaia Drauna and Senitiki Natakasavu were sentenced to 7 years imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 4 years while Filise Vere, Viliame Vereivalu, Jona Davonu and Pita Matairavula have been sentenced to 9 years imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 6 years.
Manasa Talala, Seruvi Caqusau, Kelevi Sewatu, Penaia Drauna, Filise Vere, Viliame Vereivalu, Jona Davonu, Pita Matairavula and Senitiki Natakasavu were each charged with the rape and sexual assault of Vilikesa Soko and Senijeli Boila.
Soko succumbed to his injuries and later died in custody.
The incidents happened in August 2014 in Malevu, in the Western Division.
Manasa Talala and Viliame Vereivalu were also charged with defeating the course of justice by instructing other police officers to make false statements. Source: Fijivillage News
Manasa Talala: Eight years with a non-parole period of five years.Seruvi Caqusau: Eight years with a five year non-parole period.
Kelevi Sewatu: Seven years with a non-parole period of four years
Penaia Drauna: Seven years with a non-parole period of four years.
Filise Vere: Nine years, mainly because the judge said he was a principle offender as he was the one that was rubbing chillies and also sexually assaulting Vilikesa Soko.
Viliame Vereivalu: Nine years imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years.
Jone Davonu: Nine years with a non-parole period of six years.
Pita Matairavula: Nine years with a non-parole period of six years.
Senitiki Natakasavu: Seven years imprisonment with four years parole-period.
From Fijileaks Archives:
http://www.fijileaks.com/home/at-the-end-of-the-day-he-abandoned-his-men-finally-after-three-years-3-police-officers-1-soldier-with-another-on-the-run-appear-in-court-charged-with-sexually-assaulting-escaped-prisoner-benedito
http://www.fijileaks.com/home/the-soko-death-file-fijileaks-stand-vindicated-eight-police-officers-and-one-military-officer-charged-with-manslaughter-assault-occasioning-bodliy-harm-and-alternative-count-of-rape-of-suspect-vilikesa-soko
http://www.fijileaks.com/home/cloak-and-dagger-over-soko-death-now-qiliho-claims-the-police-officers-have-been-suspended-with-full-pay-yes-after-fijileaks-exposed-and-highlighted-the-double-standard-surrounding-the-soko-death-case
http://www.fijileaks.com/home/police-baton-and-robbery-suspect-vilikesa-sokos-death-rear-admiral-bainimaramas-police-caused-sokos-death-by-shoving-their-police-bation-up-the-deceaseds-rear-causing-massive-internal-bleeding
EDUCATION Minister Dr Mahendra Reddy says it was a school committee and vanua decision that stopped Social Democratic Liberal Party leader Sitiveni Rabuka from officiating at the Thomas Baker Memorial School prize-giving ceremony last Thursday.
Mr Rabuka was to speak at the school's prize-giving ceremony last week, but his invite was rescinded and he was informed this was done under Ministry of Education instructions.
In a statement on Friday, the Government said no directive was issued by the Ministry of Education, adding that a ministry civil servant acted unilaterally without ministerial or permanent secretary approval.
Yesterday Dr Reddy said the school head teacher approached the ministry's education officer in the area and asked for advice on whether Mr Rabuka should speak.
"The officer was asked by the head teacher and the officer gave his advice, but never instructed him as to what he should do," he said.
Dr Reddy said the invitation was sent when the school's head teacher requested advice from the education officer.
"The management and members of the vanua met again then made the decision. The invitation was sent first and then the headteacher spoke to the officer and then went back, and then management and members of the vanua met and then decided," he said. Source: Fiji Times, 22 November 2016
Mr Rabuka was to speak at the school's prize-giving ceremony last week, but his invite was rescinded and he was informed this was done under Ministry of Education instructions.
In a statement on Friday, the Government said no directive was issued by the Ministry of Education, adding that a ministry civil servant acted unilaterally without ministerial or permanent secretary approval.
Yesterday Dr Reddy said the school head teacher approached the ministry's education officer in the area and asked for advice on whether Mr Rabuka should speak.
"The officer was asked by the head teacher and the officer gave his advice, but never instructed him as to what he should do," he said.
Dr Reddy said the invitation was sent when the school's head teacher requested advice from the education officer.
"The management and members of the vanua met again then made the decision. The invitation was sent first and then the headteacher spoke to the officer and then went back, and then management and members of the vanua met and then decided," he said. Source: Fiji Times, 22 November 2016
http://www.fijileaks.com/home/schooled-in-fijifirst-discrimination-lesson-now-rabuka-claims-education-ministry-instructed-thomas-baker-memorial-school-principal-in-navosa-to-cancel-his-invitation-to-be-chief-guest-at-prize-giving-event
Fijileaks: We say without fear or favour that UNTAINTED individuals should come out of the woods to stand for election. Will Beddoes and Waqavonovono and their bitter running with coupist Rabuka, the SODELPA leader, be a distraction to taking on FFP? We mustn't forget the skewed D'Hondt (Dead Hunt) Electoral System that was devised to ensure that FFP won the election - with no by-election provisions in the 2013 Constitution, and those with even 500 votes can enter Parliament if the party leader has polled the highest number of votes! And even if you lose out, you can still enter Parliament if your party's winning candidate resigns or is dead - you are next in line to inherit his or her seat
From Fijileaks Archive, 21 December 2015
http://www.fijileaks.com/home/bad-dose-his-detractors-accused-him-of-running-opposition-office-with-iron-fist-and-now-he-has-resigned-but-mick-beddoes-has-always-been-cometh-the-hour-cometh-the-man-good-luck-to-him
In 2006, Fijileaks founding Editor-in-Chief Victor Lal was instrumental in persuading Government House that MICK BEDDOES must be appointed the Leader of the Opposition! From Fiji Sun archive:
MICK BEDDOES MUST BE APPOINTED LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
By VICTOR LAL
The dictates of the [1997] Constitution [s82(2)] and long established democratic convention requires that ‘The President appoints as Leader of the Opposition, the member of the House of Representatives whose appointment as Leader of the Opposition would, in the opinion of the President, be acceptable to the majority of the members in the House of the Opposition party or parties’.
In order to fulfil the constitutional requirement, the President must ask himself only two simple questions: who is the Opposition, and who is the Government?
In the factual matrix of things as it currently stands, the leader of the United Peoples Party (UPP), Mick Beddoes, is in Opposition, and the leaders of the Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua Party (SDL), the Fiji Labour Party (FLP) and the two Independents are in a multi-party Government under subsection 99(3) of the Constitution of Fiji that requires the Prime Minister to establish a multi-party Cabinet in the way set out in that section. The Prime Minister is required by subsection 99(5) to invite all political parties with 10 per cent or more seats in the House of Representatives to be represented in the Cabinet.
Since the leader of the FLP, Mahendra Pal Chaudhry, has voluntarily accepted the Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase’s offer for his elected parliamentarians to be in Cabinet, although he himself has deliberately chosen not to be a part of it, the only person now qualified to constitutionally lead the Opposition in Parliament is Mr Beddoes (unless the UPP appoints Bernadette Rounds-Ganilau as its leader). Simply put, neither Mr Chaudhry nor any of his non Cabinet FLP parliamentarians can be appointed as Leader of the Opposition. Their appointment to the post will be a breach of the Constitution and democratic convention. The President, in appointing Mr Beddoes as Opposition leader, must ignore the likelihood of ‘boycotts and high courts’ on the part of the FLP; for this time he will be simply complying in meeting the requirements of Section 82(2). The President will also be complying with the compact and spirit of the Constitution of Fiji.
Chaudhry and Opposition leadership
On 15 October 2002, the President Ratu Josefa Iloilo wrote to Mr Chaudhry appointing him Leader of the Opposition. ‘Acting in my own deliberate judgement, I have this day appointed you to be the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Fiji’. ‘In making this appointment, I am not unaware of the pending court action, which you filed to pursue the rights you claim under Section 99 of the Constitution. I have no doubt that you know what to do when the final outcome of that Court action becomes known’, the letter said.
Mr Chaudhry wrote back on 22 October, after seeking legal advice, declining the appointment. He said he was unable to accept the position because the FLP had exercised its constitutional right to be in the Laisenia Qarase’s SDL-CAM led Coalition Government. Surprisingly, Mr Chaudhry went on to inform the President in the same letter that of the non-FLP members in the House, ‘no one is currently qualified to be credibly appointed as Opposition leader’. As history will attest, two leaders emerged to take up the Opposition leadership: National Federation Party’s Prem Singh and later Mr Beddoes. It was not long before Mr Chaudhry took a swipe at Mr Singh, who in Letters to the Editor had accused the FLP of being tyrants and despots. He described Mr Singh as a one-man band who lacked credibility and legitimacy. Mr Chaudhry said that there were sound reasons for his refusal to accept the office of Opposition leader when the President offered it to him. But Mr Singh was easy meat for he considered not the harmful implications of his acceptance on the Indo-Fijian community.
In March 2003, Mr Chaudhry also criticised the new Opposition leader Mr Beddoes, accusing him of losing objectivity in his (Mr Beddoes) unrelenting but misguided quest to have Ms Ofa Swann of the New Labour Unity Party (NLUP) installed as chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). Mr Beddoes, asked Mr Chaudhry, might want to explain why he declined an offer by FLP for him to chair the PAC? Why this compulsive urges to back Ms Swann? Is it because his own business commitments preclude him from taking up the position? While explaining why he was boycotting the Opposition leadership post, ‘because the Prime Minister seems to have scant regard for the Constitution’, Mr Chauhdry told Beddoes that he would do well to accept facts as they stood rather than try and work around it to push a weak case for his own nominee.
The Multi-Party Case and FLP
Without going into detail, the Appeals Court ruled in Mr Chaudhry’s favour that he and his FLP were entitled to proportional representation in Cabinet. But when Mr Qarase invited Mr Chaudhry into Cabinet, he turned it down on the grounds that the portfolios allocated to him were petty, and that there was no need to have a bloated Cabinet of 33 when a Government could be effectively run by a Cabinet of no more than 18. ‘Why do you need 33 people to do a job which can be quite effectively done by half that number?’ He said the portfolios were not offered in good faith.
In November 2004, with one eye on the 2006 general election, Mr Chaudhry suddenly announced that he was taking over the Opposition Leader’s job, and Mr Beddoes gracefully stepped down after performing a sterling job. Mr Chaudhry claimed that he nor his party could be a part of a Government that showed no respect for the Constitution, no respect for the laws of the country, harboured within its ranks elements implicated in the 2000 coups and practised blatant discrimination against half the country’s population on account of their ethnicity.
Ironically, last week, he made a 360 degree political somersault, and accepted that his FLP parliamentarians be a part of the largest Cabinet in Fiji’s history; even sharing power with some SDL Cabinet ministers who had served prison terms for their parts in the 2000 crisis. In other words, he and his party are now a part of the multi-party Cabinet for which he persisted for three years, and had stubbornly refused to assume the Opposition leadership role. He, therefore, cannot be considered for the post of the Leader of the Opposition.
Precedents and Chaudhry
As the nation awaits a decision from the President’s Office, Mr Chauhdry now claims that there's nothing in the Constitution to stop him from becoming the Leader of the Opposition. He says the law allows him and his backbenchers to form an opposition. ‘The Constitution is silent on that and the choice is left to the elected representatives. No one can force them into a particular situation,’ he said. His recently graduated lawyer son, who legally represents the FLP, echoes his father’s statement and sentiment. Firstly, if one examines the issue of the conflict of offices, the FLP have persistently highlighted them during the last term of the Parliament.
In May 2005, Mr Chaudhry objected to the continued presence of Government Ministers in the House of Representatives who had forfeited their membership by taking up public offices. Speaking on a point of order in Parliament, he said the former Education Minister Ro Teimumu Kepa and Trade Minister Tom Veutilovoni had taken up the chair of Rewa and Ra Provincial Councils respectively and under the Constitution had ceased to be Members of Parliament. He said according to Articles 71 (1) b of the Constitution the two by taking up the Provincial appointments had lost their respective places as MPs.
Treating Mr Chauhdry by the same yardstick, and now that his FLP has joined a multi-party Cabinet, Mr Chaudhry cannot be appointed as Leader of the Opposition. We had earlier recalled Mr Chaudhry’s attack on Mr Beddoes over the PAC. In that attack, he had raised an important constitutional issue, which is now directly relevant to his own case. Mr Chaudhry had asserted that Ms Swann was deemed to be an SDL-CAM Coalition Government member by virtue of Kenneth Zinck’s Ministerial position in the SDL government. Ms Swann’s NLUP had not taken any concrete action, he claimed, to have the matter of its legal status in Parliament rectified after it lost its case against Mr Zinck’s purported expulsion from the party. So, Ms Swann, could not be recognised as an Opposition MP, said Mr Chaudhry.
More importantly, both the Constitution and the Korolevu Declaration, he claimed, are clear that a party, which is part of a Government, cannot have members in Opposition. Applying the same test to Mr Chaudhry’s own FLP, he therefore, cannot claim that he is still in the Opposition, and that he is still the Leader of the Opposition. Like Mr Zinck, Mr Chaudhry has voluntarily sent nine of his MPs to be a part of Mr Qarase’s multi-party Cabinet.
The Korolevu Declaration
The Korolevu Declaration, signed after the 1997 Constitution came into force, clearly says that any party, which joins a multi-party Cabinet, cannot be part of the Opposition. In his quest to remain the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Chaudhry now says that Qarase rejected that agreement in 2001 when he didn't let Labour into the multi-party Cabinet. Here, Mr Chaudhry and his legal team, however, are clearly being economical with the truth.
On 10 September 2001, the newly elected Prime Minister Qarase invited Mr Chaudhry, as the leader of the second largest party, to join the multi-party Cabinet as required by the Constitution but made it clear that, ‘we think you might be happier in Opposition’. In other words, Mr Qarase wanted Mr Chaudhry to assume the mantle of Opposition leadership. Meanwhile, in response to Qarase’s letter, the FLP accepted Mr Qarase’s offer in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, and surprisingly, with that of the Korolevu Declaration (Parliamentary Paper No 15 of 1999). In a follow-up letter on the same day Mr Chaudhry, while accepting to be in Government, categorically informed Qarase that ‘my party’s participation in Cabinet and in government will be in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and with that of the Korolevu Declaration – Parliamentary Paper No 15 of 1999’.
Mr Chaudhry also reminded Mr Qarase of Clause 4 of the Declaration, notably the manner in which the Cabinet conducts its business. These are (a) Cabinet decision making in Government be on a consensus seeking basis, especially with regard to key issues and policies; (b) Parties represented in the Cabinet may express and record independent views on the Cabinet but Members of the Cabinet must comply with the principles of collective responsibility; (c) Consensus seeking mechanisms in Cabinet should include the formulation of a broadly acceptable framework, the establishment of Cabinet committees to examine any major disagreements on policy issues, and the establishment of flexible rules governing communication by ministers to their respective party caucuses.
Replying, Mr Qarase expressed disappointment that Mr Chaudhry had not expressly accepted the basic condition he had set out in his letter that the policies of his Cabinet would be based fundamentally on the policy manifesto of the SDL. He also pointed out to Mr Chaudhry that the ‘Korolevu Declaration’ was a political and not a constitutional document. It was not an enactment of Parliament. His SDL was not a signatory to this political agreement and was, therefore, not bound by it. In any case, Cabinet procedures are set out in the Manual of Cabinet Procedures. Mr Qarase also reminded Mr Chaudhry of his (Mr Chaudhry’s) statements to the press, in which Mr Chaudhry was reported to have said that ‘the parties’ (FLP and SDL) ideological differences made them unlikely partners’.
In his letter to the President, Mr Chaudhry however insisted that he laid down absolutely no conditions to the acceptance of Mr Qarase’s invitation to the FLP to be represented in Cabinet. Similarly, the Korolevu Declaration, Mr Chaudhry insisted, could not be interpreted as stipulating a condition to the acceptance of Mr Qarase’s invitation. The procedure for establishing a multi-party Cabinet, he insisted, is laid down in Section 99 of the Constitution. As is to be expected, ‘the Constitution does not provide the finer details of how the proportionate number of Cabinet seats is to be determined, how cabinet portfolios are to be allocated or how significant differences on policy matter are to be resolved in a multi-party government. These are matters for discussion/consultation.’
The Korolevu Declaration, Mr Chaudhry claimed, was subsequently endorsed by Parliament as Parliamentary Paper 15/99. The procedures, practices and recommendations therein were applicable in the event of a dispute or disagreement between the political parties on any subject covered in the Declaration. The fact that the SDL was not a signatory to that document was of no significance in its application. The Korolevu Declaration, he claimed, had established a practice, which was agreed to by all political parties at the time and successfully used in establishing a multi-party government following the 1999 general elections. It, therefore, follows now in 2006 that Mr Chaudhry, who was a signatory to the Korolevu Declaration, must accept that any party, which joins a multi-party Cabinet, cannot be part of the Opposition. By extension, he himself cannot be entitled to be in Cabinet as well as to act as the official Leader of the Opposition in Parliament.
In President’s Deliberate Judgment.
In appointing the new Leader of the Opposition, the President Ratu Iloilo must exercise his own deliberate judgment. It is his prerogative at the end of the day. Firstly, one of the contenders, Mr Beddoes has confirmed that he is available for consideration, and most importantly, he has already told the President’s Office that his UPP had declined to join the FLP in the multi-party Government and opted to stay in Opposition.
Secondly, the President must take into account his letter of appointment of 15 October 2002, in which he had unilaterally appointed Mr Chaudhry, but which Mr Chaudhry had declined. He had cited that since he had initiated court proceedings, he was not willing to accept the President’s decision or appointment. Now, in 2006, the FLP has again served notice that it intents to challenge the results of certain seats. The FLP is also calling on the Government to set up a commission of inquiry into irregularities in the recent general elections. Mrs Lavenia Padarath, who narrowly lost the Nausori/Naitasiri Open seat, says it makes her question the credibility of international election observers when they say the elections were free and fair. She says the observers only say that because they did not witness any violence and bloodshed.
The FLP has prepared an eight-page list of what it says were election irregularities and sent it to more than 20 organisations and individuals including foreign diplomatic missions in Suva. The letter alleges that the Elections Office conspired with some returning officers to commit serious acts of election irregularities to ensure an SDL victory. Acting on the following facts, the President would be unwise to reappoint Mr Chaudhry, in the event that he again declines the appointment, on the grounds that as far as the FLP is concerned, the general election was not free and fair, and the matter is before the courts. The President would also be sending a powerful signal to future aspiring political leaders that you couldn’t have your political cake and eat it at the same time.
In this particular instance, it is my considered legal and personal opinion that the only person entitled to be the next Leader of Opposition is Mr Beddoes of the United Peoples Party. He has the constitutional right to occupy the Leader of the Opposition’s office and Opposition leader’s desk in Parliament.
And if the nine FLP Cabinet ministers stage a walkout in support of their political master, they should be welcomed to do so at their own political peril. For the nation had limped on without a multi-party Cabinet for the last five years. And under the Mr Qarase led SDL government. The nation did not miss Mr Chaudhry for three years as Leader of the Opposition. We did not miss him because Mr Beddoes did sterling job, and service, to the nation in her greatest hour of need following the 2000 upheaval.
He is entitled to shine again. To paraphrase Mr Chaudhry’s advice to Mr Beddoes, he ‘would do well to accept facts as they stood rather than try and work around it to push a weak case for his own nominee’. In Mr Chaudhry’s case, his own nomination for the Opposition leader’s job.
In any event, the Prime Minister has not ruled out the possibility of Mr Chaudhry joining the multi party Cabinet in the next five years. He said that Mr Chaudhry made the decision himself that he did not want to be part of the Cabinet. He hopes things will change as the SDL and FLP ministers work together in the multi party Cabinet.
As for the President’s decision, the term ‘In his own deliberate judgment’ means that he is not obliged to take advice from anyone. Regarded the other way, the President is able to select as Leader of Opposition who he wishes to have’.
But in this instance, it has to be Mr Mick Beddoes, constitutionally speaking. For Mr Chaudhry deliberately chose not to enter Cabinet, forfeiting his constitutional right under Section 99 of the Constitution. His party is also a signatory to the Korolevu Declaration.
Mick Beddoes to Victor Lal in 2006: "Just got app[oin]ted"
By VICTOR LAL
The dictates of the [1997] Constitution [s82(2)] and long established democratic convention requires that ‘The President appoints as Leader of the Opposition, the member of the House of Representatives whose appointment as Leader of the Opposition would, in the opinion of the President, be acceptable to the majority of the members in the House of the Opposition party or parties’.
In order to fulfil the constitutional requirement, the President must ask himself only two simple questions: who is the Opposition, and who is the Government?
In the factual matrix of things as it currently stands, the leader of the United Peoples Party (UPP), Mick Beddoes, is in Opposition, and the leaders of the Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua Party (SDL), the Fiji Labour Party (FLP) and the two Independents are in a multi-party Government under subsection 99(3) of the Constitution of Fiji that requires the Prime Minister to establish a multi-party Cabinet in the way set out in that section. The Prime Minister is required by subsection 99(5) to invite all political parties with 10 per cent or more seats in the House of Representatives to be represented in the Cabinet.
Since the leader of the FLP, Mahendra Pal Chaudhry, has voluntarily accepted the Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase’s offer for his elected parliamentarians to be in Cabinet, although he himself has deliberately chosen not to be a part of it, the only person now qualified to constitutionally lead the Opposition in Parliament is Mr Beddoes (unless the UPP appoints Bernadette Rounds-Ganilau as its leader). Simply put, neither Mr Chaudhry nor any of his non Cabinet FLP parliamentarians can be appointed as Leader of the Opposition. Their appointment to the post will be a breach of the Constitution and democratic convention. The President, in appointing Mr Beddoes as Opposition leader, must ignore the likelihood of ‘boycotts and high courts’ on the part of the FLP; for this time he will be simply complying in meeting the requirements of Section 82(2). The President will also be complying with the compact and spirit of the Constitution of Fiji.
Chaudhry and Opposition leadership
On 15 October 2002, the President Ratu Josefa Iloilo wrote to Mr Chaudhry appointing him Leader of the Opposition. ‘Acting in my own deliberate judgement, I have this day appointed you to be the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Fiji’. ‘In making this appointment, I am not unaware of the pending court action, which you filed to pursue the rights you claim under Section 99 of the Constitution. I have no doubt that you know what to do when the final outcome of that Court action becomes known’, the letter said.
Mr Chaudhry wrote back on 22 October, after seeking legal advice, declining the appointment. He said he was unable to accept the position because the FLP had exercised its constitutional right to be in the Laisenia Qarase’s SDL-CAM led Coalition Government. Surprisingly, Mr Chaudhry went on to inform the President in the same letter that of the non-FLP members in the House, ‘no one is currently qualified to be credibly appointed as Opposition leader’. As history will attest, two leaders emerged to take up the Opposition leadership: National Federation Party’s Prem Singh and later Mr Beddoes. It was not long before Mr Chaudhry took a swipe at Mr Singh, who in Letters to the Editor had accused the FLP of being tyrants and despots. He described Mr Singh as a one-man band who lacked credibility and legitimacy. Mr Chaudhry said that there were sound reasons for his refusal to accept the office of Opposition leader when the President offered it to him. But Mr Singh was easy meat for he considered not the harmful implications of his acceptance on the Indo-Fijian community.
In March 2003, Mr Chaudhry also criticised the new Opposition leader Mr Beddoes, accusing him of losing objectivity in his (Mr Beddoes) unrelenting but misguided quest to have Ms Ofa Swann of the New Labour Unity Party (NLUP) installed as chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). Mr Beddoes, asked Mr Chaudhry, might want to explain why he declined an offer by FLP for him to chair the PAC? Why this compulsive urges to back Ms Swann? Is it because his own business commitments preclude him from taking up the position? While explaining why he was boycotting the Opposition leadership post, ‘because the Prime Minister seems to have scant regard for the Constitution’, Mr Chauhdry told Beddoes that he would do well to accept facts as they stood rather than try and work around it to push a weak case for his own nominee.
The Multi-Party Case and FLP
Without going into detail, the Appeals Court ruled in Mr Chaudhry’s favour that he and his FLP were entitled to proportional representation in Cabinet. But when Mr Qarase invited Mr Chaudhry into Cabinet, he turned it down on the grounds that the portfolios allocated to him were petty, and that there was no need to have a bloated Cabinet of 33 when a Government could be effectively run by a Cabinet of no more than 18. ‘Why do you need 33 people to do a job which can be quite effectively done by half that number?’ He said the portfolios were not offered in good faith.
In November 2004, with one eye on the 2006 general election, Mr Chaudhry suddenly announced that he was taking over the Opposition Leader’s job, and Mr Beddoes gracefully stepped down after performing a sterling job. Mr Chaudhry claimed that he nor his party could be a part of a Government that showed no respect for the Constitution, no respect for the laws of the country, harboured within its ranks elements implicated in the 2000 coups and practised blatant discrimination against half the country’s population on account of their ethnicity.
Ironically, last week, he made a 360 degree political somersault, and accepted that his FLP parliamentarians be a part of the largest Cabinet in Fiji’s history; even sharing power with some SDL Cabinet ministers who had served prison terms for their parts in the 2000 crisis. In other words, he and his party are now a part of the multi-party Cabinet for which he persisted for three years, and had stubbornly refused to assume the Opposition leadership role. He, therefore, cannot be considered for the post of the Leader of the Opposition.
Precedents and Chaudhry
As the nation awaits a decision from the President’s Office, Mr Chauhdry now claims that there's nothing in the Constitution to stop him from becoming the Leader of the Opposition. He says the law allows him and his backbenchers to form an opposition. ‘The Constitution is silent on that and the choice is left to the elected representatives. No one can force them into a particular situation,’ he said. His recently graduated lawyer son, who legally represents the FLP, echoes his father’s statement and sentiment. Firstly, if one examines the issue of the conflict of offices, the FLP have persistently highlighted them during the last term of the Parliament.
In May 2005, Mr Chaudhry objected to the continued presence of Government Ministers in the House of Representatives who had forfeited their membership by taking up public offices. Speaking on a point of order in Parliament, he said the former Education Minister Ro Teimumu Kepa and Trade Minister Tom Veutilovoni had taken up the chair of Rewa and Ra Provincial Councils respectively and under the Constitution had ceased to be Members of Parliament. He said according to Articles 71 (1) b of the Constitution the two by taking up the Provincial appointments had lost their respective places as MPs.
Treating Mr Chauhdry by the same yardstick, and now that his FLP has joined a multi-party Cabinet, Mr Chaudhry cannot be appointed as Leader of the Opposition. We had earlier recalled Mr Chaudhry’s attack on Mr Beddoes over the PAC. In that attack, he had raised an important constitutional issue, which is now directly relevant to his own case. Mr Chaudhry had asserted that Ms Swann was deemed to be an SDL-CAM Coalition Government member by virtue of Kenneth Zinck’s Ministerial position in the SDL government. Ms Swann’s NLUP had not taken any concrete action, he claimed, to have the matter of its legal status in Parliament rectified after it lost its case against Mr Zinck’s purported expulsion from the party. So, Ms Swann, could not be recognised as an Opposition MP, said Mr Chaudhry.
More importantly, both the Constitution and the Korolevu Declaration, he claimed, are clear that a party, which is part of a Government, cannot have members in Opposition. Applying the same test to Mr Chaudhry’s own FLP, he therefore, cannot claim that he is still in the Opposition, and that he is still the Leader of the Opposition. Like Mr Zinck, Mr Chaudhry has voluntarily sent nine of his MPs to be a part of Mr Qarase’s multi-party Cabinet.
The Korolevu Declaration
The Korolevu Declaration, signed after the 1997 Constitution came into force, clearly says that any party, which joins a multi-party Cabinet, cannot be part of the Opposition. In his quest to remain the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Chaudhry now says that Qarase rejected that agreement in 2001 when he didn't let Labour into the multi-party Cabinet. Here, Mr Chaudhry and his legal team, however, are clearly being economical with the truth.
On 10 September 2001, the newly elected Prime Minister Qarase invited Mr Chaudhry, as the leader of the second largest party, to join the multi-party Cabinet as required by the Constitution but made it clear that, ‘we think you might be happier in Opposition’. In other words, Mr Qarase wanted Mr Chaudhry to assume the mantle of Opposition leadership. Meanwhile, in response to Qarase’s letter, the FLP accepted Mr Qarase’s offer in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, and surprisingly, with that of the Korolevu Declaration (Parliamentary Paper No 15 of 1999). In a follow-up letter on the same day Mr Chaudhry, while accepting to be in Government, categorically informed Qarase that ‘my party’s participation in Cabinet and in government will be in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and with that of the Korolevu Declaration – Parliamentary Paper No 15 of 1999’.
Mr Chaudhry also reminded Mr Qarase of Clause 4 of the Declaration, notably the manner in which the Cabinet conducts its business. These are (a) Cabinet decision making in Government be on a consensus seeking basis, especially with regard to key issues and policies; (b) Parties represented in the Cabinet may express and record independent views on the Cabinet but Members of the Cabinet must comply with the principles of collective responsibility; (c) Consensus seeking mechanisms in Cabinet should include the formulation of a broadly acceptable framework, the establishment of Cabinet committees to examine any major disagreements on policy issues, and the establishment of flexible rules governing communication by ministers to their respective party caucuses.
Replying, Mr Qarase expressed disappointment that Mr Chaudhry had not expressly accepted the basic condition he had set out in his letter that the policies of his Cabinet would be based fundamentally on the policy manifesto of the SDL. He also pointed out to Mr Chaudhry that the ‘Korolevu Declaration’ was a political and not a constitutional document. It was not an enactment of Parliament. His SDL was not a signatory to this political agreement and was, therefore, not bound by it. In any case, Cabinet procedures are set out in the Manual of Cabinet Procedures. Mr Qarase also reminded Mr Chaudhry of his (Mr Chaudhry’s) statements to the press, in which Mr Chaudhry was reported to have said that ‘the parties’ (FLP and SDL) ideological differences made them unlikely partners’.
In his letter to the President, Mr Chaudhry however insisted that he laid down absolutely no conditions to the acceptance of Mr Qarase’s invitation to the FLP to be represented in Cabinet. Similarly, the Korolevu Declaration, Mr Chaudhry insisted, could not be interpreted as stipulating a condition to the acceptance of Mr Qarase’s invitation. The procedure for establishing a multi-party Cabinet, he insisted, is laid down in Section 99 of the Constitution. As is to be expected, ‘the Constitution does not provide the finer details of how the proportionate number of Cabinet seats is to be determined, how cabinet portfolios are to be allocated or how significant differences on policy matter are to be resolved in a multi-party government. These are matters for discussion/consultation.’
The Korolevu Declaration, Mr Chaudhry claimed, was subsequently endorsed by Parliament as Parliamentary Paper 15/99. The procedures, practices and recommendations therein were applicable in the event of a dispute or disagreement between the political parties on any subject covered in the Declaration. The fact that the SDL was not a signatory to that document was of no significance in its application. The Korolevu Declaration, he claimed, had established a practice, which was agreed to by all political parties at the time and successfully used in establishing a multi-party government following the 1999 general elections. It, therefore, follows now in 2006 that Mr Chaudhry, who was a signatory to the Korolevu Declaration, must accept that any party, which joins a multi-party Cabinet, cannot be part of the Opposition. By extension, he himself cannot be entitled to be in Cabinet as well as to act as the official Leader of the Opposition in Parliament.
In President’s Deliberate Judgment.
In appointing the new Leader of the Opposition, the President Ratu Iloilo must exercise his own deliberate judgment. It is his prerogative at the end of the day. Firstly, one of the contenders, Mr Beddoes has confirmed that he is available for consideration, and most importantly, he has already told the President’s Office that his UPP had declined to join the FLP in the multi-party Government and opted to stay in Opposition.
Secondly, the President must take into account his letter of appointment of 15 October 2002, in which he had unilaterally appointed Mr Chaudhry, but which Mr Chaudhry had declined. He had cited that since he had initiated court proceedings, he was not willing to accept the President’s decision or appointment. Now, in 2006, the FLP has again served notice that it intents to challenge the results of certain seats. The FLP is also calling on the Government to set up a commission of inquiry into irregularities in the recent general elections. Mrs Lavenia Padarath, who narrowly lost the Nausori/Naitasiri Open seat, says it makes her question the credibility of international election observers when they say the elections were free and fair. She says the observers only say that because they did not witness any violence and bloodshed.
The FLP has prepared an eight-page list of what it says were election irregularities and sent it to more than 20 organisations and individuals including foreign diplomatic missions in Suva. The letter alleges that the Elections Office conspired with some returning officers to commit serious acts of election irregularities to ensure an SDL victory. Acting on the following facts, the President would be unwise to reappoint Mr Chaudhry, in the event that he again declines the appointment, on the grounds that as far as the FLP is concerned, the general election was not free and fair, and the matter is before the courts. The President would also be sending a powerful signal to future aspiring political leaders that you couldn’t have your political cake and eat it at the same time.
In this particular instance, it is my considered legal and personal opinion that the only person entitled to be the next Leader of Opposition is Mr Beddoes of the United Peoples Party. He has the constitutional right to occupy the Leader of the Opposition’s office and Opposition leader’s desk in Parliament.
And if the nine FLP Cabinet ministers stage a walkout in support of their political master, they should be welcomed to do so at their own political peril. For the nation had limped on without a multi-party Cabinet for the last five years. And under the Mr Qarase led SDL government. The nation did not miss Mr Chaudhry for three years as Leader of the Opposition. We did not miss him because Mr Beddoes did sterling job, and service, to the nation in her greatest hour of need following the 2000 upheaval.
He is entitled to shine again. To paraphrase Mr Chaudhry’s advice to Mr Beddoes, he ‘would do well to accept facts as they stood rather than try and work around it to push a weak case for his own nominee’. In Mr Chaudhry’s case, his own nomination for the Opposition leader’s job.
In any event, the Prime Minister has not ruled out the possibility of Mr Chaudhry joining the multi party Cabinet in the next five years. He said that Mr Chaudhry made the decision himself that he did not want to be part of the Cabinet. He hopes things will change as the SDL and FLP ministers work together in the multi party Cabinet.
As for the President’s decision, the term ‘In his own deliberate judgment’ means that he is not obliged to take advice from anyone. Regarded the other way, the President is able to select as Leader of Opposition who he wishes to have’.
But in this instance, it has to be Mr Mick Beddoes, constitutionally speaking. For Mr Chaudhry deliberately chose not to enter Cabinet, forfeiting his constitutional right under Section 99 of the Constitution. His party is also a signatory to the Korolevu Declaration.
Mick Beddoes to Victor Lal in 2006: "Just got app[oin]ted"
"Almost no press release from NFP is ever given any coverage by these two media organisations. In fact, sometimes you see government’s response to our press releases without our statements being given any coverage. Hardly ever, we are asked by the Fiji Sun to comment on government statements and especially those that are related to our policies or us. In addition, we have political analysis from some at that newspaper which is not only biased but also without any substance. We can understand that government gives exclusively all its advertisement but that does not mean that they should not cover any stories of the opposition and especially that of our party. In fact they should realize that government advertisements are paid by the taxpayers of this country. It is the taxpayers and about 40 % of them did not vote for the government also deserve coverage in the Fiji Sun. But no ladies and gentlemen. This newspaper, which publicly declared its support for Government even before the 2014 general elections, has no semblance of balance, ethics and fair coverage. It is not even seen to be doing it."
Fijileaks: The behaviour of Fiji Sun can only be explained if one is privy to how the new management came about following the arrest, detention, torture and deportation of Peter Lomas' predecessor Russell Hunter in 2008. As for Nemani Delaibatiki, once he left for New Zealand in the 1990s, he never wrote or commented on Fiji until he reappeared on the Fijian scene in 2013 as Fiji Sun's training editor. He has no choice but to kowtow to the regime, otherwise he will be meted the same fate as Hunter. Worst, the vindictive regime will stop paying Fiji Sun staff their salaries via exclusive advertisements. As a result there is only one loser - JOURNALISM.
But we are proud to declare that Fijileaks founding Editor-in-Chief VICTOR LAL, who cut his teeth in investigative journalism under the tutelage of Delaibatiki on the old Fiji Sun of the same name in the 1980s, is flying the flag of investigative journalism without fear or favour through Fijileaks
TREACHERY: In 1986, Josefa Vosanibola, the then Secretary to Governor-General Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau, was given a six-month suspended prison sentence for leaking the documents. Vosanibola had betrayed Delaibatiki after cutting a deal with prosecution. Delaibatiki was later acquitted of the charges by the then Chief Magistrate Gordon Ward. Ironically, thirty years later, in 2006, Vosanibola was overthrown by the Bainimarama coup as Laisenia Qarase's outspoken Minister for Home Affairs, and Gordon Ward was forced to resign as President of the Fiji Court of Appeal for refusing to support the 5 December 2006 coup. Sparing on opposite sides has become a feature of life in Fiji; in 1982, Suva lawyer Vijay Maharaj had acted as a go-between the Australian market researcher Rosemarie Gillespie and Victor Lal, for her to leak to Victor Lal (then on the Fiji Sun with Delaibatiki), the "Carroll Report" that had been commissioned by Ratu Mara on how to "cripple NFP-WUF Coalition in the 1982 general election"; in 2008 the same Maharaj, acting on instructions from FIRCA, took Victor Lal to court for being in possession of FLP leader Mahendra Chaudhry's leaked tax records
1986 and 2016: "During the questioning the Police were getting a constant stream of phone calls from someone who wanted to know how it was proceeding, or who was directing them." Peter Lomas, 1986
And, in 2016: "The Policemen who interviewed me said direction was 'right from the top'..." - Jone Dakuvula, 2016
SHOCKINGLY, Delaibatiki seems to have contracted "amnesia" of past
This is what the late Robert Keith-Reid had written in his column in 1986:
REMARKS AT NFP WORKING COMMITTEE
NFP HQ, 124 PRINCES RD, SUVA
10.30AM, SATURDAY 19 NOVEMBER 2016
BY NFP LEADER HON PROFESSOR BIMAN PRASAD
(SALUTATIONS)
The Vice President Mr. Parmod Chand, General Secretary Mr. Bala Dass, our Organising Secretary Mr. Tuinadave Radogo, stalwarts and branch delegates…
I join the Vice President in welcoming all of you to today’s meeting. We meet after what many have described as the most successful NFP AGM and Convention in the last 16 years hosted by our Rakiraki Branch more than two months ago. It was an outstanding effort by our Branch led by the dynamic Semi Titoko.
Rakiraki has set the benchmark and will be a hard act to follow. But more importantly it sent out a strong and clear signal that the NFP will be a force to be reckoned with in the next general elections. No doubt the meeting later today will discuss how we deal with issues confronting our people, the challenges we face and policies that we will put before the electorate for lasting social, economic and political advancement.
Ladies and Gentlemen, we have completed two years of our so-called genuine parliamentary democracy. It is therefore appropriate for us to consider our country’s scorecard, post September 2014. As I said in my maiden speech in Parliament in October 2014, we were ready to work with the Fiji First Government on important national issues. We also promised to hold the government accountable through the parliament.
I am extremely disappointed to say that our optimism and hope has been badly shattered by the actions of the Fiji First government.
In fact we now believe that the process of vote buying for the 2018 general elections has already started, ably supported by two media organisations that are basically funded by the taxpayers of our country, one directly and the other indirectly through exclusive Government advertising.
I have always defended the media and journalists because they work under restrictions imposed through the draconian Media Industry Development Authority Decree. But despite this most media organisations have at least tried to bring some semblance of balance as far as coverage of Opposition Parties is concerned, both in and out of parliament.
But not so the Fiji Broadcasting Corporation and the Fiji Sun.
I make no apologies for saying that both the FBC and Fiji Sun have become a shameless mouthpiece of the Fiji First Government’s propaganda against the opposition. This is no exaggeration ladies and gentlemen.
Almost no press release from NFP is ever given any coverage by these two media organisations. In fact, sometimes you see government’s response to our press releases without our statements being given any coverage. Hardly ever, we are asked by the Fiji Sun to comment on government statements and especially those that are related to our policies or us. In addition, we have political analysis from some at that newspaper which is not only biased but also without any substance.
We can understand that government gives exclusively all its advertisement but that does not mean that they should not cover any stories of the opposition and especially that of our party. In fact they should realize that government advertisements are paid by the taxpayers of this country. It is the taxpayers and about 40 % of them did not vote for the government also deserve coverage in the Fiji Sun.
But no ladies and gentlemen. This newspaper, which publicly declared its support for Government even before the 2014 general elections, has no semblance of balance, ethics and fair coverage. It is not even seen to be doing it.
I will just give two recent examples. On 27th September, the newspaper ran on page 3 the Prime Minister’s attack on NFP in Parliament a day earlier, by way of his response to His Excellency the President’s Address.
I replied to the PM’s accusations in my address in Parliament on 30th September. But not a word was printed by the Fiji Sun on 1st October or any other later edition. Instead on the front page of 1st October, the newspaper ran the PM’s response to my point of order raised during his right of reply when he commented on the clothing being worn by the Honourable Salote Radrodro.
And it concocted a story about my remark of skirt journalism made in July 2015 as saying worse things about women. Nothing can be further from the truth.
If in May last year I labeled Fiji Sun’s Managing Editor Nemani Delaibatiki’s article on cane payment as an example of skirt journalism, which the newspaper printed as a Letter to the Editor, does this mean that Mr. Delaibatiki is a woman? Or does it actually mean skirting around the real issue?
The second example is our statement issued on celebrations to mark the 100th anniversary of the arrival of the last boat carrying indentured labourers, through a press conference, that was attended by the Fiji Sun on 14th October.
The reporter who covered the press conference never wrote a news item for the next day. Instead the Managing Editor News in her analysis said I was politicizing the issue. If this is not blatant bias, then what it is?
Then ladies and gentlemen, comes the taxpayer funded national broadcaster, FBC. This entity is entirely funded by the taxpayers. In fact FBC received more than $11 million dollars in the last budget. We had written to the Chairman of the FBC board several months ago asking several questions such as: Why has the NFP leader and shadow minister not once been invited to any of the radio or television shows? Why does FBC not take comments from NFP when NFP is mentioned in their news?
For example, the Prime Minister, labeled NFP as a racist party. That was reported on FBC TV without our response. Even, after we responded, which is our right, no coverage was given. We ask why?
I don’t blame any of the journalists in these two organisations. We know for a fact that stories are doctored, why they are not covered and how there is interference in the newsroom. Can the CEO of FBC categorically deny that he does not interfere in the work of the news? Because we have had experience of his directive stopping our election advertisement, which was the Leader’s message from being aired. And this was a paid message.
And may I emphasise here – that this is in direct contravention of the Media Code of Ethics and Practice – that the Fiji First Government has established through the media decree, and uses against all other media outlets except the FBC and the Fiji Sun.
Where is our “Opportunity to Reply” that is stated in the code where “Media organisations have an obligation to give an opportunity to reply to any individual or organisation on which the media itself comments editorially.”?
Most of these articles are editorials and not fact-based hard news stories – let us make it clear. They are editorials and opinions – masquerading as factual news – and to add salt to injury, we are not offered that opportunity to reply as clearly stated in the Media Code of Ethics and Practice.
And while I am on this – the NFP and the rest of Fiji are also asking as to the state of the Media Industry Development Authority – or MIDA. Who runs MIDA? Who has replaced the Honourable Matai Akauola – who is now a Fiji First MP, as Director of MIDA? The Director of the Fiji Human Rights Commission, Ashwin Raj is also the Chair of MIDA – so may we ask – is he wearing two so-called independent hats and running both bodies? How do we then consider the quality and the independence of reports and investigations from both bodies?
Ladies and gentlemen, I took time to highlight problems we face with two mainstream media organisations because this is part of the process of rigging our polls. Rigging does not only happen on polling day contrary to widely held perception. It is deliberate and systematic suppression and even throttling the voice of opposition well before elections so that we are prevented from effectively spreading our message and the truth about governance to all people. And on the other hand, in what is clearly vote buying, Government is using taxpayer funds to give what it calls grants but is effectively handouts. This is causing disquiet amongst our members and supporters.
Where in a democracy do members of parliament need permit to meet more than 3 people? Where in a democracy opposition members would be stopped from speaking at prize giving functions in schools? He I want to point that the Minister for Education and his PS have not replied to my questions on the email sent by the PS directing a school to invite government officials and not opposition members. The Minister for Education is lying when he says that there is no ban?
Where in a democracy members of parliament have no resources to visit people and work for them? Where in a democracy we see such media control through draconian media laws? These things only happen in a dictatorship.
For the first time, we had to obtain a permit for this meeting, which is held in a private place and is for members only. But police has a new interpretation and meaning about permit requirement, which is a permit is needed if issues of national interest are discussed. What is national interest? Nowhere in the Public Order Act or the Public Order Amendment Decree is the requirement to obtain a permit on the basis of national interest. This is the suppression of a fundamental right and freedom of speech and assembly.
In fact we now believe that there is a partnership and collusion between the big businesses, some media outlets, key government institutions and key players in the Fiji First government to continue with the dictatorship in the country.
The ordinary people, the small businesses, the intellectual community, civil servants, farmers, villagers, those in settlements and those not in the partnership for dictatorship are too fearful and timid to raise any issues.
Even, when some have tried the different arms of government have come hard on them. There is now culture of oppression and people’s freedom to raise issues have been severely eroded through threats and intimidation by various arms of government and Fiji First politicians. We have received several examples where two Ministers have tried to openly ridicule and snub persons they believe are NFP supporters.
So ladies and gentlemen, we have a difficult environment. Against this backdrop the country’s problems remain. We are worse off than where we were more than 2 years ago.
Let me highlight some of the issues of concern to all of us.
The total payment for 2015 season cane is only $71.86 per tonne inclusive of the $1.38 per tonne top up to the final cane payment of 72 cents to make it $2.10 per tonne. And without this top up, the payment would have been $70.48.
Over 70% of cane growers numbering over 9,000 have received $4,029 as net income for the 2015 season minus the average cost of production of $45 per tonne. . This is almost $1,400 less than $5428.80 earned annually by a worker on the meagre minimum wage of $2.32 per hour.
Special payments of $4.80 do not and should not form part of the total payout because cane growers have repaid $3.80 of the total amount of $4.80, with the remaining $1 to be deducted next year.
This is confirmed by the Prime Minister and Minister for Sugar in a written answer to my parliamentary question (71/2016). Cane Growers have already paid this amount in two deductions of $1.40 from the 2nd payment in December 2015 and $2.40 from the 4th payment in May.
The total price is therefore $71.86 per tonne inclusive of the $1.38 top up to the final payment. This is $9.14 less than $81 per tonne growers received for the 2014 season. This raises the question of how effective the former CEO of FSC Abdul Khan was in terms of marketing our sugar because he was solely responsible for this important task that previously was an industry effort inclusive of growers as the most important stakeholders.
What happened last year?
Has help from Government disappeared because growers are overwhelmingly and vehemently opposed to the Reform of the Sugarcane Industry and Sugar Cane Growers Fund Amendment Bills?
Because growers expected the Government to naturally top up the payment to ensure the total price was over $80 per tonne, given a similar action last year.
Or is there another reason?
Ladies and gentlemen, on 26th October on FBC TV News, the Prime Minister labeled the National Federation Party as racist just because the Party champions the interests of the cane growers.
He stated that “that the National Federation Party now is not the same as the NFP of old” and furthermore said, “I would think that the NFP party now is a racist party that’s why they all in the cane fields because of the vote of the Indo-Fijians. Their policies are totally at the extreme nowadays.”
If fighting for the interests of cane growers make us racist, then the PM must use the same logic to answer the following: -
Ladies and Gentlemen: There are many other issues. We are now at the crossroads. But we must press on regardless of the obstacles in our path. We have done so for the last 53 years and we will continue doing so in future without shirking the founding principles of this great Party.
And together we will succeed.
NFP HQ, 124 PRINCES RD, SUVA
10.30AM, SATURDAY 19 NOVEMBER 2016
BY NFP LEADER HON PROFESSOR BIMAN PRASAD
(SALUTATIONS)
The Vice President Mr. Parmod Chand, General Secretary Mr. Bala Dass, our Organising Secretary Mr. Tuinadave Radogo, stalwarts and branch delegates…
I join the Vice President in welcoming all of you to today’s meeting. We meet after what many have described as the most successful NFP AGM and Convention in the last 16 years hosted by our Rakiraki Branch more than two months ago. It was an outstanding effort by our Branch led by the dynamic Semi Titoko.
Rakiraki has set the benchmark and will be a hard act to follow. But more importantly it sent out a strong and clear signal that the NFP will be a force to be reckoned with in the next general elections. No doubt the meeting later today will discuss how we deal with issues confronting our people, the challenges we face and policies that we will put before the electorate for lasting social, economic and political advancement.
Ladies and Gentlemen, we have completed two years of our so-called genuine parliamentary democracy. It is therefore appropriate for us to consider our country’s scorecard, post September 2014. As I said in my maiden speech in Parliament in October 2014, we were ready to work with the Fiji First Government on important national issues. We also promised to hold the government accountable through the parliament.
I am extremely disappointed to say that our optimism and hope has been badly shattered by the actions of the Fiji First government.
In fact we now believe that the process of vote buying for the 2018 general elections has already started, ably supported by two media organisations that are basically funded by the taxpayers of our country, one directly and the other indirectly through exclusive Government advertising.
I have always defended the media and journalists because they work under restrictions imposed through the draconian Media Industry Development Authority Decree. But despite this most media organisations have at least tried to bring some semblance of balance as far as coverage of Opposition Parties is concerned, both in and out of parliament.
But not so the Fiji Broadcasting Corporation and the Fiji Sun.
I make no apologies for saying that both the FBC and Fiji Sun have become a shameless mouthpiece of the Fiji First Government’s propaganda against the opposition. This is no exaggeration ladies and gentlemen.
Almost no press release from NFP is ever given any coverage by these two media organisations. In fact, sometimes you see government’s response to our press releases without our statements being given any coverage. Hardly ever, we are asked by the Fiji Sun to comment on government statements and especially those that are related to our policies or us. In addition, we have political analysis from some at that newspaper which is not only biased but also without any substance.
We can understand that government gives exclusively all its advertisement but that does not mean that they should not cover any stories of the opposition and especially that of our party. In fact they should realize that government advertisements are paid by the taxpayers of this country. It is the taxpayers and about 40 % of them did not vote for the government also deserve coverage in the Fiji Sun.
But no ladies and gentlemen. This newspaper, which publicly declared its support for Government even before the 2014 general elections, has no semblance of balance, ethics and fair coverage. It is not even seen to be doing it.
I will just give two recent examples. On 27th September, the newspaper ran on page 3 the Prime Minister’s attack on NFP in Parliament a day earlier, by way of his response to His Excellency the President’s Address.
I replied to the PM’s accusations in my address in Parliament on 30th September. But not a word was printed by the Fiji Sun on 1st October or any other later edition. Instead on the front page of 1st October, the newspaper ran the PM’s response to my point of order raised during his right of reply when he commented on the clothing being worn by the Honourable Salote Radrodro.
And it concocted a story about my remark of skirt journalism made in July 2015 as saying worse things about women. Nothing can be further from the truth.
If in May last year I labeled Fiji Sun’s Managing Editor Nemani Delaibatiki’s article on cane payment as an example of skirt journalism, which the newspaper printed as a Letter to the Editor, does this mean that Mr. Delaibatiki is a woman? Or does it actually mean skirting around the real issue?
The second example is our statement issued on celebrations to mark the 100th anniversary of the arrival of the last boat carrying indentured labourers, through a press conference, that was attended by the Fiji Sun on 14th October.
The reporter who covered the press conference never wrote a news item for the next day. Instead the Managing Editor News in her analysis said I was politicizing the issue. If this is not blatant bias, then what it is?
Then ladies and gentlemen, comes the taxpayer funded national broadcaster, FBC. This entity is entirely funded by the taxpayers. In fact FBC received more than $11 million dollars in the last budget. We had written to the Chairman of the FBC board several months ago asking several questions such as: Why has the NFP leader and shadow minister not once been invited to any of the radio or television shows? Why does FBC not take comments from NFP when NFP is mentioned in their news?
For example, the Prime Minister, labeled NFP as a racist party. That was reported on FBC TV without our response. Even, after we responded, which is our right, no coverage was given. We ask why?
I don’t blame any of the journalists in these two organisations. We know for a fact that stories are doctored, why they are not covered and how there is interference in the newsroom. Can the CEO of FBC categorically deny that he does not interfere in the work of the news? Because we have had experience of his directive stopping our election advertisement, which was the Leader’s message from being aired. And this was a paid message.
And may I emphasise here – that this is in direct contravention of the Media Code of Ethics and Practice – that the Fiji First Government has established through the media decree, and uses against all other media outlets except the FBC and the Fiji Sun.
Where is our “Opportunity to Reply” that is stated in the code where “Media organisations have an obligation to give an opportunity to reply to any individual or organisation on which the media itself comments editorially.”?
Most of these articles are editorials and not fact-based hard news stories – let us make it clear. They are editorials and opinions – masquerading as factual news – and to add salt to injury, we are not offered that opportunity to reply as clearly stated in the Media Code of Ethics and Practice.
And while I am on this – the NFP and the rest of Fiji are also asking as to the state of the Media Industry Development Authority – or MIDA. Who runs MIDA? Who has replaced the Honourable Matai Akauola – who is now a Fiji First MP, as Director of MIDA? The Director of the Fiji Human Rights Commission, Ashwin Raj is also the Chair of MIDA – so may we ask – is he wearing two so-called independent hats and running both bodies? How do we then consider the quality and the independence of reports and investigations from both bodies?
Ladies and gentlemen, I took time to highlight problems we face with two mainstream media organisations because this is part of the process of rigging our polls. Rigging does not only happen on polling day contrary to widely held perception. It is deliberate and systematic suppression and even throttling the voice of opposition well before elections so that we are prevented from effectively spreading our message and the truth about governance to all people. And on the other hand, in what is clearly vote buying, Government is using taxpayer funds to give what it calls grants but is effectively handouts. This is causing disquiet amongst our members and supporters.
Where in a democracy do members of parliament need permit to meet more than 3 people? Where in a democracy opposition members would be stopped from speaking at prize giving functions in schools? He I want to point that the Minister for Education and his PS have not replied to my questions on the email sent by the PS directing a school to invite government officials and not opposition members. The Minister for Education is lying when he says that there is no ban?
Where in a democracy members of parliament have no resources to visit people and work for them? Where in a democracy we see such media control through draconian media laws? These things only happen in a dictatorship.
For the first time, we had to obtain a permit for this meeting, which is held in a private place and is for members only. But police has a new interpretation and meaning about permit requirement, which is a permit is needed if issues of national interest are discussed. What is national interest? Nowhere in the Public Order Act or the Public Order Amendment Decree is the requirement to obtain a permit on the basis of national interest. This is the suppression of a fundamental right and freedom of speech and assembly.
In fact we now believe that there is a partnership and collusion between the big businesses, some media outlets, key government institutions and key players in the Fiji First government to continue with the dictatorship in the country.
The ordinary people, the small businesses, the intellectual community, civil servants, farmers, villagers, those in settlements and those not in the partnership for dictatorship are too fearful and timid to raise any issues.
Even, when some have tried the different arms of government have come hard on them. There is now culture of oppression and people’s freedom to raise issues have been severely eroded through threats and intimidation by various arms of government and Fiji First politicians. We have received several examples where two Ministers have tried to openly ridicule and snub persons they believe are NFP supporters.
So ladies and gentlemen, we have a difficult environment. Against this backdrop the country’s problems remain. We are worse off than where we were more than 2 years ago.
Let me highlight some of the issues of concern to all of us.
- Cyclone Winston Recovery strategy has been a failure. The report on the damages and cost of those damages were never presented to parliament. In fact the whole recovery effort by the government has been a disaster. Apart from the haphazard response immediately after the cyclone, not much appears to have worked. The help for homes has been a scandal where few hardware companies have benefited. Those taking in the cards and not being able to supply the materials have not been able to explain why? Taking the money by swiping the card and not being able to supply the materials tantamount to taking money on false pretenses. This scheme and its operation must be investigated by an independent body to ascertain if there was corruption involved and unfair advantage to the hardware companies at the expense of the victims of the cyclone
- Deteriorating health services- drug shortage, shambolic free medicine scheme. Even the newly appointed Health Minister has publicly admitted that it will take her time to fix some of these ills plaguing our public health system. Only three days ago an elderly retired civil servant went to the CWM Hospital pharmacy to obtain basic medication. He was told that while medicine would only be made available to those who have been registered under the Free Medicine Scheme and not any other patient. This is preposterous. It shows the Ministry is rationing medicine and there is no improvement since we highlighted this problem through the media more than three weeks ago.
- Increasing youth unemployment is putting the future of our young in jeopardy. The last time the National Employment Centre released unemployment figures of youth registered with them was in July 2015 and the figure stood at 46,277. In 2014 it was 33,000. If that trend were taken into account then by mid-2016 it would have been almost 60,000. Furthermore, an insignificant number of our youth are seen to have been recruited for the seasonal work scheme in Australia and New Zealand. Even Government through the Employment Minister has publicly stated that Government prefers to recruit workers from the same tikina and settlement. This policy clearly discriminates against others in urban and peri urban settlements seeking to be recruited as seasonal workers.
- The Cost of Living has increased. And TC Winston is not the sole factor that has contributed towards this hike. The 30% increase in freight charges, increase in indirect taxes on service oriented goods have contributed to rising Inflation. For examples most restaurants are now required to charge 25% tax on items they sell. This means out of every dollar 25 cents is tax. Then there is VAT on prescription medication. From January next year hybrid vehicles that were duty free would be slapped with duty.
- The Education Sector is in a mess. This is confirmed by only a 65% pass rate in the Year Eight Examination Results. And the Minister blamed TC Winston and scrapping of examinations as the reasons for this pass rate. This is laughable because the Minister himself said that some schools destroyed by Winston recoded a 100% pass rate. Then he says that the 35% of students who failed will enter Year 9. Then why have examinations? Why do students have the stigma of being labeled as failures? Another example is the Zoning Policy. More than 99% of schools in Fiji are owned and operated by community organisations, religious and cultural bodies. By implementing this policy and then saying schools may recruit students from outside their designated zones is curtailing the freedom of students to choose schools of their choice. This also contradicts the Minister’s earlier policy of withholding grants from schools who enroll students outside of their zones. Even this was a discriminatory policy because no one has the right to dictate the use of taxpayers’ money outside of official policy. Like many others, we are amused by his antics and wonder why this Minister continues to hold this important portfolio despite implementing many ill-conceived policies.
- The sugar industry has not shown any signs of improvement in the last ten years under both the military and Fiji First Governments.The country’s cane growers had a bleak Diwali because they were shortchanged following the announcement of the final payment for the 2015 season,
The total payment for 2015 season cane is only $71.86 per tonne inclusive of the $1.38 per tonne top up to the final cane payment of 72 cents to make it $2.10 per tonne. And without this top up, the payment would have been $70.48.
Over 70% of cane growers numbering over 9,000 have received $4,029 as net income for the 2015 season minus the average cost of production of $45 per tonne. . This is almost $1,400 less than $5428.80 earned annually by a worker on the meagre minimum wage of $2.32 per hour.
Special payments of $4.80 do not and should not form part of the total payout because cane growers have repaid $3.80 of the total amount of $4.80, with the remaining $1 to be deducted next year.
This is confirmed by the Prime Minister and Minister for Sugar in a written answer to my parliamentary question (71/2016). Cane Growers have already paid this amount in two deductions of $1.40 from the 2nd payment in December 2015 and $2.40 from the 4th payment in May.
The total price is therefore $71.86 per tonne inclusive of the $1.38 top up to the final payment. This is $9.14 less than $81 per tonne growers received for the 2014 season. This raises the question of how effective the former CEO of FSC Abdul Khan was in terms of marketing our sugar because he was solely responsible for this important task that previously was an industry effort inclusive of growers as the most important stakeholders.
What happened last year?
Has help from Government disappeared because growers are overwhelmingly and vehemently opposed to the Reform of the Sugarcane Industry and Sugar Cane Growers Fund Amendment Bills?
Because growers expected the Government to naturally top up the payment to ensure the total price was over $80 per tonne, given a similar action last year.
Or is there another reason?
Ladies and gentlemen, on 26th October on FBC TV News, the Prime Minister labeled the National Federation Party as racist just because the Party champions the interests of the cane growers.
He stated that “that the National Federation Party now is not the same as the NFP of old” and furthermore said, “I would think that the NFP party now is a racist party that’s why they all in the cane fields because of the vote of the Indo-Fijians. Their policies are totally at the extreme nowadays.”
If fighting for the interests of cane growers make us racist, then the PM must use the same logic to answer the following: -
- Does he know that almost 30% of cane growers are Fijians of i-Taukei descent?
- Is he refusing to accept sound and sensible solutions proposed by the NFP to resuscitate the sugar industry and improve the livelihood of cane growers because he thinks upholding the interest of growers who comprise of 70% Indo-Fijians and who are descendants of the Girmitiya is racism?
- Does this mean that the Prime Minister who is also the Minister for i-Taukei Affairs is a racist because the Ministry exclusively looks after the interests of our i-Taukei community?
- Does this also mean that the Prime Minister, who was Commander of Republic of Fiji Military Forces for 15 years, an organisation whose personnel are almost exclusively i-Taukei, is a racist?
- Does this mean that just because the elite arm of RFMF (CRW Unit) helped George Speight execute the coup in May 2000 to overthrow a Government led by an Indo-Fijian, make the Prime Minister racist because he was Commander of the Army?
- Does this mean that the abrogation of the 1997 Constitution and then Commander Bainimarama’s refusal to re-instate the Fiji Labour Party Leader as Prime Minister following the end to the hostage crisis in 2000 , actions later proven in Court of Appeal to be in defiance of the rule of law was an act of racism?
- And does this mean that when as Commander, Bainimarama executed the coup to topple an i-Taukei led multi-party multiracial Government in December 2006, was yet again a racist act?
Ladies and Gentlemen: There are many other issues. We are now at the crossroads. But we must press on regardless of the obstacles in our path. We have done so for the last 53 years and we will continue doing so in future without shirking the founding principles of this great Party.
And together we will succeed.
FOREIGN diplomats who disregard Australian law will be named and shamed by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade amid a crack-down on reckless driving.
The department has struck a deal with the ACT Government to ensure diplomats are no longer immune to having their licences suspended for serious offences that endanger the public.
Freedom of Information documents reveal the crack-down was prompted by concerns about a litany of offences on Canberra roads involving excessive speed and, on occasion, drink-driving.
One Saudi diplomat received a $1,811 fine after being caught travelling at 135 kilometres per hour near Parliament House at 2:00am on a Tuesday.
Another told police he had not had anything to drink despite returning a blood alcohol reading of 0.15, triple the legal limit.
DFAT's chief of protocol briefed 90 diplomats on the new rules in August and "strongly reiterated the message of compliance with Australia's laws".
Internal documents showed the department would no longer be redacting the names of diplomats who broke the law and refused to pay fines.
"[It is] DFAT's view the embassies/high commissions should face the reputational consequences if their officers disrespect the road rules or drive recklessly," the document said.
"This is a fundamental issue of safety. We expect diplomats not only to obey the law, but also to pay fines without delay."
The department has battled to get foreign diplomats to pay their fines for years causing frustration for staff, the police and the ACT Government.
Documents showed Saudi Arabian diplomats paid $54,353 of outstanding fines from the past four years.
Earlier documents released by the department showed the embassy clocked up close to $140,000 worth of fines in that time.
"While we appreciate efforts by Saudi Arabia and other embassies to pay their outstanding fines, we nonetheless expect a sustained improvement in driving behaviour by all diplomats in keeping with their obligations to respect Australian road rules," the documents said.
The documents revealed the department would not disclose a small number of offences because they "had the potential to damage Australia's international relations with some countries".
"In addition, the information released on this occasion includes advice on the new demerit point system for diplomats to be implemented in the ACT under which diplomats will no longer be immune from having their licenses subject to suspension for three months if they incur a total of 12 demerit points or more within a three-year period," one document said.
In the case of serious traffic infringements, DFAT's chief of protocol can request that ambassadors or high commissioners "express concern" to their diplomats or ultimately, cancel a diplomatic visa.
Who were the worst offenders?
The documents also ranks the worst offenders when it comes to unpaid fines.
From October of last year to September of this year there were 203 unpaid traffic fines, amounting to $66,768.
Fiji was the worst offender, with 35 unpaid fines totalling $9,904.
Egypt was second-worst, collecting 22 unpaid infringements worth $9,054.
Saudi Arabia came in third, failing to pay 18 notices amounting to $3,133 and Slovak Republic had 11 fines worth $2,872. Source: ABC News
The department has struck a deal with the ACT Government to ensure diplomats are no longer immune to having their licences suspended for serious offences that endanger the public.
Freedom of Information documents reveal the crack-down was prompted by concerns about a litany of offences on Canberra roads involving excessive speed and, on occasion, drink-driving.
One Saudi diplomat received a $1,811 fine after being caught travelling at 135 kilometres per hour near Parliament House at 2:00am on a Tuesday.
Another told police he had not had anything to drink despite returning a blood alcohol reading of 0.15, triple the legal limit.
DFAT's chief of protocol briefed 90 diplomats on the new rules in August and "strongly reiterated the message of compliance with Australia's laws".
Internal documents showed the department would no longer be redacting the names of diplomats who broke the law and refused to pay fines.
"[It is] DFAT's view the embassies/high commissions should face the reputational consequences if their officers disrespect the road rules or drive recklessly," the document said.
"This is a fundamental issue of safety. We expect diplomats not only to obey the law, but also to pay fines without delay."
The department has battled to get foreign diplomats to pay their fines for years causing frustration for staff, the police and the ACT Government.
Documents showed Saudi Arabian diplomats paid $54,353 of outstanding fines from the past four years.
Earlier documents released by the department showed the embassy clocked up close to $140,000 worth of fines in that time.
"While we appreciate efforts by Saudi Arabia and other embassies to pay their outstanding fines, we nonetheless expect a sustained improvement in driving behaviour by all diplomats in keeping with their obligations to respect Australian road rules," the documents said.
The documents revealed the department would not disclose a small number of offences because they "had the potential to damage Australia's international relations with some countries".
"In addition, the information released on this occasion includes advice on the new demerit point system for diplomats to be implemented in the ACT under which diplomats will no longer be immune from having their licenses subject to suspension for three months if they incur a total of 12 demerit points or more within a three-year period," one document said.
In the case of serious traffic infringements, DFAT's chief of protocol can request that ambassadors or high commissioners "express concern" to their diplomats or ultimately, cancel a diplomatic visa.
Who were the worst offenders?
The documents also ranks the worst offenders when it comes to unpaid fines.
From October of last year to September of this year there were 203 unpaid traffic fines, amounting to $66,768.
Fiji was the worst offender, with 35 unpaid fines totalling $9,904.
Egypt was second-worst, collecting 22 unpaid infringements worth $9,054.
Saudi Arabia came in third, failing to pay 18 notices amounting to $3,133 and Slovak Republic had 11 fines worth $2,872. Source: ABC News
editor@fijileaks.com
ARCHIVES
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
October 2012
September 2012