Up Front

with the a guest

Guest commentary by L. G. USHER , former editor and publisher of The Fiji Times.

TN a discussion with Stuart Inder about the progress of Papua New Guinea towards independence I said, “somebody ought to pass on to the constitution-makers there the advice the Prime Minister of Mauritius, Sir Seewoogasur Ramgoolam, gave when Fiji’s constitution was being dis cussed.

Stuart said, “All right. You pass it on, in PIM”.

I talked to Sir Seewoogasur in Mauritius, on the way to London in 1970 just before the Fiji Constitu tional Conference. The gist of what he said was, “You should never let anybody rush you when you are making a constitution. Under pres sure you can make mistakes which you don’t realise at the time. And don’t forget that once a constitution comes into force it is very difficult to alter it”.

Mauritius was unfortunate. Soon after independence, communal con flict brought rioting, with violence and death, and the new government had to ask Britain for the help of troops.

This move, and others needed to restore order, could be made only under a State of Emergency.

Under the constitution, the Governor-General was empowered to proclaim a State of Emergency, or it could come into being by vote of a majority of all the members of the Legislative Assembly. There was no time to call the assembly together, so on the advice of the Prime Minister the Governor-General pro claimed a State of Emergency and the call for help went to Britain.

But the constitution said that a State of Emergency proclaimed in this way must lapse unless it was en dorsed within seven days if the assembly was already in session or was due to meet within seven days, or within 21 days if the assembly had to be called together specially.

The approval required the vote of a majority of all the members of the assembly— not just of those present and voting.

The assembly had to meet vote in the time set down. If it not do so, or if a majority of all members were not present or for reason or another did not vote for continuation of the State of Er gency, the proclamation would f lapsed and there was no constitutk way of restoring it. The rioting wc meanwhile have continued, pe< would have gone on being hurt property destroyed.

As things turned out, the requi approval was forthcoming before deadline but there were some anxi days meanwhile.

Suppose that, through illness accident, or perhaps injury or trs disruption caused by the rioting, through some members being abr and not being able to get back time, more than half the total num of members of the assembly had been present at the time and pi where the vote was taken, and time remained under the constituti for another vote.

There would then have been constitutional way of maintaining State of Emergency which essential if order was to be restore All new nations learn from experience of others, and the St of Emergency provision in Fi constitution is much more reali: and flexible than that of Mauril was. The period within which par mentary approval of a govern general’s proclamation is mandat* is, for instance, six months. 1 there are things in Fiji’s three-ye old constitution which, if it w being drawn up today, would aim certainly be changed.

One example is sufficient to ill trate the point.

The House of Representatives t year passed a vote of no confidei in the Speaker, and it can be saf assumed that at the time the major (in fact all the government membei would have preferred him to be placed. But they were powerless bring this about because, althou the government has a majority of

in the House, it has less than two thirds of the total membership and the constitution says that the Speaker can be removed from office only by resolution supported by the votes of at least two-thirds of all the members.

The Mauritius Prime Minister’s second point was a crucial one. A constitution, once adopted, cannot easily be changed. Indeed, an in volved process, usually including delays, is usually written into the constitution to make change difficult.

There is good reason for this.

Chaos, or certainly instability and un certainty, could soon be created if the rules by which a country is governed could be frequently or capriciously altered.

Papua New Guinea will become self-governing in December by virtue of an enactment by the Australian Parliament. The independence that will follow will come in the same way, but there will be an all-important difference between the results of the two documents.

The first sentence of the act making Fiji independent reads: “On and after . . the appointed day, Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom shall have no responsibility for the Government of Fiji”.

With the names changed, some thing of this sort will state the position of independent Papua New Guinea. The meaning clearly is, “You’re on your own, chum”.

The affairs of independent Papua New Guinea will have to be con ducted wholly in terms of the con stitution which comes into effect on the “appointed day” of independence.

If, before that day any mistakes or errors of judgment have crept into that constitution, or if there has been any failure to realise in advance the full and precise implications of every part of the document, the results could show up in future in, at best, embarrassment and at worst, serious difficulty for the government and people of the new nation.

I offer the opinion, from observa tion and experience, that thorough ness in preparation and the degree of thoroughness of consultation that makes sure that what is in the con stitution is what the people of the country really want are more im portant than meeting some fixed date for producing the final document.

There is one thing, though. If pressures to fix a rigid but premature date for Papua New Guinea’s inde pendence come strongly from Mr Whitlam’s government it should be possible to reply delicately, “Well, we’ve been hearing from Australia recently that changing a constitution once it has been adopted is not an easy thing. We would like absolutely sure of ours in advance”.