Senate president threatens Montague
PRESIDENT of the Senate Floyd Morris on Friday threatened Opposition Senator Robert Montague with disciplinary action after another dispute over Senate practices.
This time, the issue was over whether or not there is a convention in the Senate that Opposition members should direct their questions to Leader of Government business, Senator AJ Nicholson, when the responsible Cabinet minister does not sit in the Senate.
There also seems to be an emerging crisis on the Government benches, with Senator Nicholson reluctant to answer questions and an apparent move by Government members to assign the responsibility to minister without portfolio in the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM), Sandrea Falconer, who has responsibility for information.
Morris and Montague, two sons of St Mary and graduates of St Mary High School, have had a see-saw type of relationship in the Senate for some time — not because they are combative, but because they hold firm to their views.
The President likes to give his own interpretation of Senate practices, and even his own interpretation of the rules in the Standing Orders. However, interpretations are usually debatable and may require the intervention of the legal advisor; and Senator Montague is not always impressed by Senator Morris’s interpretation.
The truth is that several Opposition members seem to have problems with these rulings by the President, which are often interpreted as attempts to restrict their participation in the Senate. There have occasions when the disputes between him and the Opposition have threatened to turn into a confrontation, which is obviously not good for a House which is expected to set standards for Parliament.
A good example of this was the squabble on Friday which, I believe, ended with the President taking an inexplicable position.
Senator Montague tables, by far, the most questions in the Senate, covering a wide variety of issues, and is often in dispute with the President over how his questions are handled.
On Friday, Senator Montague and Senator Kamina Johnson Smith, another Opposition member who has also had spats with the President tabled questions. However, what became evident during Question Time was that Senator Morris amended the questions, a frequent occurrence with questions from the Opposition, recently.
Morris had rejected questions from Montague, a former JLP minister with responsibility for local government, regarding the spending of money for the Equalisation Funds under Minister of Local Government Noel Arscott. However, he allowed a second question regarding the use of property taxes, with an amendment that they should be directed to Falconer, instead of Nicholson.
Senator Johnson Smith, Opposition spokesperson on education and youth, who had asked the Minister of Youth and Culture to explain her announcement of a $85- billion budget for youth programmes in the 2015/16 disallowed, appeared willing to accept the amendment.
Senator Montague insisted, however, that it is a convention in the Senate that when the Cabinet minister does not sit in the Upper House, members should direct their questions to the Leader of Government Business.
“There are some questions in my name to be answered by the Leader of Government Business and Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade and, at the expiration of 21 days, I will be expecting that he will be rising to answer my questions, fulsomely,” Montague insisted.
Senator Morris reminded Senator Montague that the questions were amended to be answered by Senator Falconer.
Senator Montague argued that questions to Cabinet ministers should be directed to the Leader of Government Business, when the minister is not a member of the Senate. However, he accepted that if it was the President’s desire, he would direct them to Senator Falconer.
But, that was not the end of the matter.
Morris said that the Senate’s Standing Orders require that, once he has amended the questions, they must be tabled as amended by him. He also suggested that Montague was being disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
Montague took exception to being called “disingenuous”, noting that by “convention” all questions to be answered by a minister who does not sit in the Senate should be directed to the Leader of Government Business.
“But, if we are changing the convention, I have no issue or problem, [and] let me assure you of cooperation from this side,” Montague added.
Senator Nicholson rose and said that there was no such convention.
“I have been in this Senate since 1997, there is no such convention: No convention either here, or in the UK, for the question to be put to the Leader of Government Business. Nothing like that,” Nicholson insisted.
The Senate President supported the point made by Senator Nicholson.
“There is no convention in this Senate that states that questions are to be directed at the Leader of Government Business for portfolios that are not in this Senate,” Morris said.
“I don’t intend to let this Senate disintegrate, you know, and I am responding because what Senator Montague has stated on both counts is inaccurate. Nothing to that sort,” he stated.
He ruled that he had made the adjustments to the questions in keeping with the Standing Orders, which give the President the authority to make the amendments, and the amendments are to be tabled in accordance.
“And, I am ruling you out of order, Senator Montague” Senator Morris went on.
“I have reached my wit’s end with your conduct in the Senate,” he added as Government members applauded. “I have had it with you Senator Montague. I am going to treat this one under advisement, but, but…”
The Senate eventually proceeded with its formal agenda, but there are a couple of points to look at.
The Senate’s Standing Order 14 states that “questions may be put to the minister relating to any subject or department with responsibility for which any other minister has been charged; and it shall be the duty of the clerk forthwith to bring any such question to the notice of the appropriate minister”.
Standing Order 16 (2) gives the President the right to rule a question out of order, or direct that the question be entered “with such alterations as he may direct”.
Personally, after 30 years of covering Parliament, I am aware that the practice has always been for questions for a minister who sits in the House of Representatives are directed through the Leader. I was surprised to hear both the President and Senator Nicholson suggest that there is no such convention.
There are also some questions:
How does the Clerk go about getting answers from the “appropriate minister”? And, shouldn’t the President consult with the member asking the question, on whether he/she wishes for the question to be directed to a minister other than the minister to whom they have been directed and, possibly, if there is no agreement, either allow them to be withdrawn or disallowed at that point.
This is another example of how vague these rules are and open to all sorts of interpretations which leads to confusion and disorder in the Senate.
The President of the Senate should not have the power to adjust questions asked by members, especially Opposition members, without consulting with the member nor, for any reason that he may conjure, disallow a question.
This not only opens up the process to abuse, but is obviously an invitation to the kinds of confrontation between the President and Opposition members which the Senate is currently experiencing.
*** Incidentally, both the House of Representatives and the Senate will go on their summer recess after meeting this week.
This week at Gordon House
Tuesday, July : 21, 9:00 am — Constituency Development Funds (CDF); 2:00 pm — Sitting of the House of Representatives.
Wednesday, July 22, 10:00 am — Public Administration and Appropriations Committee (PAAC); JSC to consider the reports of the Commissions of Parliament.
Thursday, July 23, 10:00 am — Infrastructure & Physical Development Committee.
Friday, July 24, 10:00 am — Senate Standing Orders Committee.
The Senate is likely to sit on Friday, but may also sit on Thursday to complete its business. It was adjourned on Friday for a date to be fixed.