The Opposition was making the right point through the wrong means

May 11, 2023 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – A Motion is not the correct mechanism to force the Speaker and the Clerk of the National Assembly to apply time-bound rules to questions submitted by members of the Assembly. The conduct of the National Assembly is governed by the Rules of the National Assembly and it is the change of these rules which will bind the Speaker and the Clerk.

The Opposition, however, believes that many of its questions are taking an inordinate time to be answered. But once the questions are placed on the Order Paper, the burden of answering those questions shifts to the government, and if the government does not wish to answer it, you can bet they will either prevaricate or find some vague or ambiguous answer to provide.

Questions are an important part of holding Ministers and the government accountable. It has been under utilised within Guyana’s National Assembly. It is surprising, that the people have never been told if the PPPC, when in Opposition, ever asked whether the APNU+AFC government had received a signing bonus on inking the Production Sharing Agreement with the oil companies. It was civil society actors who were able to obtain the evidence that such a bonus was received. A simple question in the Assembly would have ended the suspense.

In 2005, a Needs Assessment of Guyana’s National Assembly was undertaken. It reinforced the importance of parliamentary questions in holding government accountable. This is what the report on that Assessment had to say: “[Questions are] part and parcel of a parliamentary democracy. If the National Assembly cannot question the Government except with the Government’s consent, then the whole purpose of Parliament is negated.”

At present, the government is dodging a question from the media about the interest rate which the country is paying on the oil companies’ investment. To date, there have been no reports in the media indicating that any member has asked about the interest rate which the country is paying.

There is certainly a need to hasten the pace at which questions are answered in the National Assembly. But as Gail Texeira, said during her contribution to yesterday’s debate, you simply cannot try to yoke the Speaker and the Clerk to such timelines. And you certainly cannot do so through a Motion.

While the Opposition chose the wrong means to attain prompt answers to their questions, it does not subtract from the substance of their argument. Unless questions are promptly assessed as to whether they are allowable and then promptly placed on the Order Paper, then it will be impossible for government to be questioned on any topical issue because by the time the matter is deliberated on, the issue would have become stale.

But the government too, given its announced commitment to transparency, has an obligation to treat with alacrity the questions which are asked. These questions strike at the heart of holding Ministers and government accountable. To the extent that questions take an inordinate time to be answered, to that extent transparency is undermined.

What is equally unacceptable is for a question to be disallowed because some officer of the National Assembly believes the answer to that question was or is in the public domain. Parliament is the highest deliberate forum in the land. It is an organ of supreme power. Certain comments made within that august body are subject to privilege. It is not at all in keeping with the conventions of parliament for a question to be disallowed from appearing on the Order Paper simply because the subject matter and the answer to the question were indirectly ventilated in the media.

Not all questions have to be written. The rules of the assembly provide for oral questions. But as a needs assessment done almost two decades ago found, very little use is made of this mechanism.

As that Needs Assessment Report pointed out, it is the Clerk who is responsible for preparing the Order Paper. The Clerk should not be constrained in so doing or even limited to a narrow time frame. Neither should the government have any right to determine which questions go on the Order Paper. And once a question is on the Order Paper, it is incumbent on the government to treat this with some promptness.

The needs assessment report had suggested that question should be answered no later than three weeks. It emphasised that, “If a question is accepted by the Parliamentary authorities, it is not for the Government to refuse an answer. This lack of response inevitably destroys the atmosphere of trust between Government and Opposition. The Assembly should consider establishing a practice whereby answers to written questions are provided within three weeks, except in exceptional cases.”

The Opposition’s Motion should have been directed to the government and not to the Speaker and the Clerk. And it should have referenced the Needs Assessment Report of 2005 and pointed to its reasonable and implementable recommendations.

---

---