By Lynford Simpson, News EditorDEVELOPMENT MINISTER Dr. Paul Robertson, having caused a major uproar in the House of Representatives last Tuesday after walking out while being questioned by a member of the Opposition, has said that he will apologise but conditionally.
To Dr. Robertson, whose record as a Cabinet Minister in different portfolios has been dismal, I say keep that apology to yourself. If the Minister fails to apologise unconditionally, including to Pearnel Charles, who was on the floor when he walked out, then even at this late stage I suggest that the hastily called meeting of the House which is set for tomorrow to sort out the matter, be abandoned. For that meeting itself is likely to descend into further chaos if the Opposition does not get the type of apology it wants - one without condition. It should insist on one.
Information Minister Burchell Whiteman said on Wednesday that Dr. Robertson would offer an unconditional apology. By the following day however, Dr. Robertson was at it again - embarrassing the Government further as, according to statements attributed to him, his apology will be conditional. He has said he will not apologise to Mr. Charles. If that's your position, I urge you to stay home tomorrow Dr. Robertson. Only real men are able to apologise fully when they are wrong.
What kind of a man is Dr. Robertson anyway? The irony is that he walked out while the Opposition was responding to a Ministerial statement he introduced on the future development of the Highway 2000 corridor, causing the proceedings to descend into chaos. His objection - the suggestions from Mr. Charles that Government had sold out the rights to any future development of the railway as a means of public transportation.
EMBARRASSING EVENTS
He's singularly responsible for the embarrassing events that followed although the other members who allowed themselves to be carried away, must take responsibility for their own actions. The Development Minister ran from the Chamber, a sign of weakness, instead of seeking protection from the Speaker. Is it that he was not confident that O.T. Williams who was deputising for Michael Peart would be able to offer him such protection?
As bad as Dr. Robertson's behaviour was, and it was atrocious, the behaviour of Ed Bartlett and several members of the Opposition totally overshadowed his walking out. Despicable is most appropriate to describe the lifting of the Mace by Mr. Bartlett in what he has ignorantly said was his effort to get the "out of his depths" Deputy Speaker, O.T. Williams, to reconvene the sitting. A resumption of the sitting would have allowed the Opposition who temporarily outnumbered the Government Members, to sanction Dr. Robertson based on Standing Order 24 which provides for the suspension of a member without the requisite notice that motions normally require.
The Opposition argued that the Deputy Speaker was partisan and adjourned the sitting because he realised the Government would have lost that motion. However, Standing Order No. 43 (12) allows the Speaker to adjourn the sitting forthwith without question put in the case of grave disorder. Dr. Robertson created the atmosphere for such disorder last Tuesday. However, grabbing the Mace, as Mr. Bartlett did, could not force a resumption of the sitting and so the Opposition will have to wait until tomorrow to see what action will be taken against Dr. Robertson.
If Keeble Munn was suspended for six months in 1969 for fleeing with the Mace, Mr. Bartlett must be sanctioned for his stupidity last week. The lifting of the Mace by anyone unauthorised to do so constitutes grave disrespect for one of the ceremonial symbols of the Legislature, the highest court in the land. An example should be made of Mr. Bartlett; He should have nightmares every time he sees the Mace.
MANDATORY SESSIONS
Speaking of Standing Orders, one wonders if the Members of Parliament even read the document. If they cannot be relied upon to read it on their own, then maybe the Parliament should organise some sessions which should be mandatory for first time MPs. Last week's incident showed up the ignorance of the MPs and it was obvious that not even the Deputy Speaker seemed certain that he had the authority to adjourn the sitting.
Do our parliamentarians claim ignorance of the law in the place where they make the law? It is far from funny that those who make the law are not familiar with those laws that govern their own business.
As for Mr. Williams, he has again proved that he is a weak Speaker and was perhaps rightly accused by the Opposition of being partisan.
Again, an apology should not be
enough to let Dr. Robertson off the hook for disrespecting the rules of the House. Both he and Bartlett should be disciplined by the House as an example to others that the nation's Parliament is about serious business.
