So the Government learned the hard and predictable way that although passage of legislation requiring a special majority of three fifths is a done deal in the Lower House, such is not the case in the Upper House, where the vote of the Independent Senators cannot and must not be taken for granted.
Whether or not the failure to pass the bill on Wednesday was a defeat for the Government, the fact is that the checks and balances to ensure the passage of proper legislation only were fully operational and, because of the Senate, the country has been saved from being subject to laws that could have resulted in more problems than solutions in the fight against crime.
And whatever may be the admitted deficiencies in the Westminster system as it relates to governance in the particular context of our country, we should be thankful that there is provision to ensure a measure of independence in the legislative process.
Fix it first
One would have thought that after the vigorous debate in the Lower House, in which several members of the Opposition identified significant areas of concern with respect to the bill and the potential for abuse and lack of proper oversight and accountability of the powers to be given to members of the Defence Force, the Government would have stopped in its tracks and delayed the debate or sent the bill to a joint select committee for further consideration and consultation.
Such a move on the part of the Government would have been a genuine indicator that it was prepared to listen actively to the matters raised by those opposing the bill both in and out of the Parliament.But once again, it appeared that the Government was prepared to use its legislative muscle power in the Lower House to get its way at all costs, only to be humbled in the Senate a few weeks later.
And to save face, when it was clear that the bill would not attract the requisite majority, the Government suspended the debate for a three-week period stating it would use the time to give consideration to the points raised by those who contributed to the debate, especially the Independent Senators.
My simple point is that, with the greatest respect to those who challenged the bill in the Upper House, the Government should have realised that there were major concerns about the legislation that remained unaddressed after the bill was passed in the Lower House.The approach should have been to fix the bill, or, if necessary, lay the bill to rest.
Big talk
Instead of accepting that it acted hastily without giving thorough analysis of the proposed legislation and the impact of the provisions, the Government has now found itself in a monkey pants which even its best charlatans will find difficult to talk itself out of.One minister suggested that it was premature to say that the bill was defeated because it had not been the subject of vote by the Senators.
Surely that minister realises that the reason the Government stopped the debate was to prevent the bill in its current form from being voted upon, as it was becoming clearer as the afternoon progressed that some members of the Independent bench were not prepared to give their support.Instead of running the highly probable risk of being defeated and facing headlines the following day (which, although accurate, would not have found favour with the Government), the best political decision was made–stop the debate.
This political manoeuvre allows the Government sufficient time to assess its position and address the issues raised by the Opposition and Independent benches before resuming debate on the bill.It is hoped that all who held out the bill as a great weapon in the fight against crime and pretended that its provisions were not flawed and similar to those in other countries–when that was not the case–would spend time in the company of those who are prepared to speak the truth and give proper advice in the interest of the State.
Other related matters
In as much as this Government claims that it is on active-listening mode, I wish to bring to its attention that certain Independence Day memorabilia carrying inaccurate information has been distributed to schoolchildren. The offending inscription states that Dr Eric Williams was the Prime Minister in 1956, instead of 1962, the year in which we became an independent nation.That there are items in circulation that bear false information about our nation's history is a matter that must concern the Government.
Also, it would be important to know who was responsible for the commissioning and sign-off of the items. And while it is late in the day to fix the problem, in the case of spreading wrong information, it is better late than never.
