OPPOSITION
SPOKESMAN ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
LABOUR
AND IMMIGRATION
30
July 2001
THE
SENATE
REQUEST
FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE TO INQUIRE INTO
THE
FREE TRADE OF THE AMERICAS AGREEMENT AND MATTERS RELATED THERETO INCLUDING A
PROGRAMME OF PUBLIC EDUCATION.
Mister President, I rise to move a request for a select committee to look into all matters relating to the Free Trade of the Americas Agreement (known as FTAA) and matters relating thereto including a programme of public education with power to send persons and paper, with leave to sit from place to place and with leave to sit during the recess.
As Opposition spokesman on Foreign Affairs, I have been concerned for some time about the lack of public information on this process that will inexorably mean some fundamental changes to the way we conduct our affairs in The Bahamas. There has been a dearth of public information on the subject, and what information there is has remained the arcane prerogative of the economists and intellectuals amongst us. For a process that is said to commit itself to public consultation, The Bahamas Government has fallen down on the job. And so it is time for Parliament to intervene and seek to provide a solution to this problem of consultation since the Government refuses to do so.
And Mister President, it is not because the Government does not have the information. They have the information. In fact, I was able to get my hands on a rather comprehensive booklet on the subject issued in July 2000 which lays out all the positions of the Government and where we were to that point on this issue. It includes descriptions and commentaries on the World Trade Organization (WTO) and FTAA as well as Caricom. It is the first that I have seen it. And I know that my colleagues are also in the dark to a large measure about where we are officially headed on this.
We must thank, of course Sir Sonny Ramphal, the former head of the Regional Negotiating Machinery who did brief us on some of the arrangements in Kingston last year. But apart from that the information to the Opposition and to civil society generally by this Government on this very important process has been woefully inadequate.
And what is more pernicious Mister President is that the Government committed us to a process, and has begun by stealth implementing the process but at every step of the way as we see what is happening, they keep denying that they have made irreversible commitments to the processes called for by the FTAA, the WTO and Caricom.
And so in calling for this Select Committee, I intend to deal with the FTAA, WTO and Caricom. I also intend to touch on the matters that are adjuncts to these processes: the issue of globalization, the whole question of labour and how it fits into the process, the rule of law and civil society and within that the question of the judiciary. I also intend to touch on the performance of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the present inadequacies of that Ministry and what we would do should it be our lot after the next general election to shepherd this process to its final conclusion.
I should like to foreshadow at this point what we on this side regard as the philosophical difference between ourselves and the Free National Movement Government on these issues. It comes down to a simple phrase: Bahamians First. We put people first. The FNM is pro business. And while we are no doubt both patriotic, we arrive at our patriotism from different routes. The question that must be put before the Bahamian people is whether people first, Bahamians first is the way we want to go. We think that the answer is a resounding yes. And in all of our international negotiations and decisions and policies, that is what will inform those polices: putting the Bahamian people first.
The starting point on this issue is the buzzword that has been going around: globalization. Joseph Nye who is a former Deputy Secretary of Defence and now Dean of the Kennedy School at Harvard says in his book: “Governance in a Globalizing World that globalization will affect governance processes and be affected by them. Frequent financial crises of the magnitude of the crisis of 1997-99 could lead to popular movements to limit interdependence and to a reversal of economic globalization. Chaotic uncertainty is too high a price for most people to pay for somewhat higher average levels of prosperity. Unless some aspects of globalization can be effectively governed, it may not be sustainable in its current form. Complete laissez faire was not a viable option during earlier periods of globalization and it is not likely to be viable now. The question is not – will globalization be governed?- but rather, how will globalization be governed.”
I consider Joe Nye to be a conservative and so it is interesting to see him write this. Because too often we in this dispensation have been accepting the creed of globalization so uncritically, like mantra for automatic success that is unstoppable. And yet as we talk this talk and seek to walk this walk, we Bahamians still need to have a passport to go to the United States and worse still we still need to jump through hoops in order to get visas to travel to the United States our main trading partner, when no such requirement is required of U.S. citizens coming to The Bahamas.
In short Mister President, notwithstanding all this talk about globalization, the world is still guarded by sets of rules that prohibit the free movement of people and services. The larger countries accuse us of being protectionist but when you examine it they also remain protectionist. Clearly the 300,000 people in The Bahamas, indeed the 5 million people in the Commonwealth Caribbean and the twenty million people in the Caribbean as a whole will not make a dime’s worth of difference to the economy of the U.S. We can be absorbed like a stone sinking in the ocean, and yet they continue with a policy that prohibits our citizens from even traveling to the United States without having to jump through hoops.
I have said to my colleagues that I think that when the day comes that the United States accepts understand that the visa requirement for Bahamian and Caricom citz8iens to visit the United States has been dropped then we will know that they are serious about free movement of people. But that day will not come soon. That is not even on the table in the FTAA discussions. What the programme often appears to be is one-way dictation by the powerful countries in the hemisphere that we are to behave in a certain way. And while the power does dictate certain realities, the fact is we in The Bahamas and the Caribbean have a moral obligation to stand up for our way of life. That way of life supports a right to privacy and an absence of income tax and the absence of regulation. The new world order of globalization seeks to impose upon us that way of life. The Bahamas Government is therefore called upon to defend our way of life.
And our negotiators at the sub political level must also have a strong sense that this what The Bahamas wants. In other words when the negotiators leave this country and go to negotiate they must know that at home stands and waits a Government and a people that want its way of life defended, that puts our people and their inertest first. We do not want a team to be carried away with the blandishments of international travel and highflying air travel and of the hotel rooms. We do not support a Government that goes away and signs away the rights of the country and then can’t explain to us what they signed away, indeed they give the clear impression that they did not even read what they signed and therefore do now know to what they have committed this country.
That’s the impression we get with the FTAA process. What this preliminary remarks tells us, what the excerpt from Joe Nye tells us is that we can defend our interests because globalization must be governed.
The discussion of globalization is indispensable to any discussion of the Free Trade Agreement of the America ( FTAA). And as I have said Mister President, we in this country are already feeling the effects of globalization, by stealth through the hands off policy of the Government on international business mergers that affect this country, the removal of double taxation on stamp duty for purchasers by foreigners of Bahamian land, the free purchase of Bahamian land by foreigners without a special permit, the harmonization of the tariffs of customs duties in line with the WTO arrangements. It is all already here.
It is here in an Immigration policy that has reverted back to the 1960s when it appeared to be the policy of the then United Bahamian Party government to ensure that native Bahamians were soon outnumbered by foreigners who would have the right to vote and forever keep us out of the Government of The Bahamas. Fortunately 1967 and 19th January intervened. We are again under threat with the existing polices of the Government in that direction. Our labourers are crying out at Sun International and at Hutchison Whampoa. But their voices are muted because the politicians who govern the country keep denying that there is any discrimination against them. And yet we on this side hear constant complaints by workers that there is a glass ceiling that prohibits Bahamians from moving beyond a certain level in the company. They say that inexperienced foreign nationals are able to walk in, with or without work permits, fire Bahamians at will, mistreat them without redress and boast about how they have good connections with the Government which is a warning to Bahamians to complain because nothing will happen. Indeed in one incident in Freeport, the then Minister of Immigration Tommy Turnquest who now seeks to be king chastised an immigration officer for arresting a non-national on a job site for being overzealous and the result was the foreign investor felt comforted enough to be able to fire 11 Bahamians for complaining to immigration. Needless to say the foreign national who was removed from the job was back the next day.
Mister President an example of the effects of globalization can be seen in a recent announcement in The Bahamas of the merger of three Caribbean banks that is to create a new entity called First Caribbean International Bank. The announcement was made in Nassau on Monday 23 July after months of denial across the Caribbean that Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and Barclays Bank PLC would be merging their domestic operations in a new company called First Caribbean International. Forty five per cent of the venture each would be owned by Barclays and CIBC. The remainder would be owned by Republic Bank of Trinidad that had earlier bought out Barclays Holdings in Trinidad. And that will mean the end of CIBC and Barclays in The Bahamas we know it.
The announcement said that there would not be any major affects on the staffing but we know that this has generally been a hollow promise if the past is to be believed. What this will lead to is less bank branches, less people hired and it will particularly affect those persons who have been working for over twenty years. All of them are on notice that their jobs will soon be made redundant notwithstanding that they have not been formally told so.
Now what is interesting about this Mister President is that no reference at all in the announcement was made to the regulatory authorities of The Bahamas. In fact, it is assumed that there will be no problem with the approval of this new entity to do business in The Bahamas. And what is also remarkable is that the Central Bank of The Bahamas with its new found autonomy and the power to rummage into the private affairs of the private citizens of this country at the behest of international non elected bodies had nothing to say about the announcement at all.
We as a people have to ask the question whether this is good for The Bahamas. Is the merger anti-competitive ? Will it result in a deterioration of services? Already banks in this country have perhaps apart from public corporations like BEC and Batelco the worst records on services and for overcharging than any other entity in the country. The Central Bank does nothing to protect consumers from price gouging by banks and what I see happening with this merger is yet another excuse for high interest rates on loans, low interest rates on deposits and high user fees for services that aren't worth the costs that you are charged.
Of course, Mister President, both CIBC and Barclays relocated some of their decision making to Barbados long ago where it is apparently easier than even The Bahamas to get work permits that will allow non-nationals to work to the exclusion of Barbadians. So it has been for sometime that loan approvals for CIBC were actually being done in Barbados and not here in Nassau. All that happened here was the paper work.
And now Mister President, the Bahama Journal has written that Citibank, an American bank that knocked the socks off the high price gouging some years ago when it sought to compete in the domestic market here now has its domestic business up for sale and may be selling it to Commonwealth Bank. Again, no comment from the Central Bank of The Bahamas.
And so that is globalization as it now rears it head in The Bahamas and under the FTAA arrangements we can expect more. The background to the FTAA discussions is the Summit of the Americas held in Miami, Florida in December 1994. In that year, the Prime Minister of The Bahamas met with 33 of his counterparts in the hemisphere and committed The Bahamas to a process. All countries of the hemisphere were there except Cuba, that was absent at the insistence of the Americans because Cuba does not have multi-party democracy and does not have a commitment to democratic values. I would like to quote from bits of that document:
“ The elected Heads of State and Government of the Americas are committed to advance the prosperity, democratic values and institutions, and security of our hemisphere. For the first time in history, the Americas are a community of democratic societies. Although faced with differing developmental challenges, the Americas are united in pursuing prosperity through open markets, hemispheric integration, and sustainable development. We are determined to consolidate and advance closer bonds of cooperation and to transform our aspiration into concrete realities…
“ We recognize that our people earnestly seek greater responsiveness and efficiency from our respective governments. Democracy is strengthened by the modernization of the state, including reforms that streamline operations, reduce and simplify government rules and procedures, and make democratic institutions more transparent and accountable. Deeming it essential that justice should be accessible in an efficient and expeditious way to all sectors of society, we affirm that an independent judiciary is a critical element of an effective legal system and lasting democracy. Our ultimate goal is to better meet the needs of the population, especially the needs of women and the most vulnerable groups, including indigenous people, the disabled, children , the aged and minorities.”
The heads then went on to declare that they would promote prosperity through economic integration and free trade, and they resolved to that end to construct the Free Trade Area of the Americas in which barriers to trade and investment will be progressively eliminated.
That was a grand declaration and the process is to be completed by 2005. There have been several meetings of heads of state since then to review the progress and reaffirm the principles of the first declaration. The heads also agreed to guarantee sustainable development and conserve our natural environment for future generations.
At a later summit for heads in Santiago, Chile in 1998, the heads declared further: “ Education is the determining factor for the political, social, cultural and economic development of our peoples. We undertake to facilitate access of all inhabitants of the Americas to preschool, primary, secondary and higher education, and we will make learning a lifelong process. We will put science and technology at the service of education to assure growing levels of knowledge and so that educators may develop their skills to the highest levels… In order to meet our goals within the agreed timeframes we affirm our commitment to invest greater resources in this important area, and to encourage civil society to participate in developing education.…”
They then went on to reaffirm the following: “ Confident that an independent, efficient and effective administration of justice plays an essential role in the process of consolidating democracy, strengthens its institutions, guarantees the equability of all its citizens, and contributes to economic development, we will enhance our polices relating to justice and encourage the reforms “necessary to promote legal and judicial cooperation. To that end, we will strengthen national entities involved in the study of the administration of justice and expedite the establishment of a hemispheric centre for studies on the subject.”
This change in direction from a straight out trade pact seems to have come as a result of a combination of complaints from what is now being called civil society but what we used to call the NGOs. That means the trade unions and other pressure groups like the environmentalists who argued and quite rightly that trade agreements could not succeed unless labor and the environment were taken into account. And so there is now a mechanism for consultation with civil society that for The Bahamas is headed by Dr. Keva Bethel and Trade Unionist Kingsley Black of the Bahamas Union of Teachers.
We find it curious, however is that nowhere in this process is there a requirement for consultation of Opposition political parties. In fact, changes in political direction might scuttle the whole pact. But from what we know the Caricom countries and their heads of state do not keep their opposite numbers fully informed nor do they consult on any of these matters. It's as if the Government can bind the future of the country without regard to their organized opposition within the country to their political decisions.
For example, Caricom meetings took place in this country and no Opposition leader or politicians was given a structured opportunity to meet with any of the heads of Government or for that matter with the Secretary General of Caricom to be fully briefed on what Caricom was doing here and where we were headed.
In fact, a study was done on Caricom and what the single market would mean for The Bahamas. That study is said to have been completed and made available to the Minister of Finance but the Opposition Leader has not seen the report. Yet public policy is clearly being informed by it. And during the recent meeting the Prime Minister caused considerable confusion in the country because we thought we heard him say, and from the looks on the faces of his fellow heads they heard it too, that The Bahamas would commit to the single market. Within days of course, the Minister for Economic Development was out clarifying the situation, but it shows you the high handed manner in which national policy is being contemplated and implemented on matters which should require consultation with all groups not the least the formal Leader of the Opposition.
In fact there is Mr. President an ongoing debate about the lack of consultation with the Leader of the Opposition under the terms of the constitution particularly when it comes to acting appointments. The Government seems to take the view that placing someone in an acting appointment does not require consultation. But clearly it does. And this in my view applies also to the appointment of the next Governor General. Such an appointment should not be made by the Prime Minister unless and until he has consulted with the Leader of the Opposition.
And so Mr. President the next step in the FTAA process was the establishment at a ministerial meeting in San Jose, Costa Rica on March 19 1998 which established the working bodies to get to the various constituent agreements that will be required for national legislation to be implemented It seems that the regime that is contemplated is that agreements will be reached on various subheads and then once all agreed by 2005, the national Parliaments will have to pass specific legislation to deal with the various agreements.
There were nine negotiation groups called Trade Negotiating Committees (TNC) and they are: market access, investment, services which is Chaired by Ambassador James Smith of the The Bahamas and you cans see why because of our tourist industry and banking and finance. There is also government procurement, dispute settlement, agriculture; intellectual property rights, subsidies, antidumping and countervailing duties and competition policy. These committees have been meeting and there is now a draft document of some 453 pages that is being circulated.
The Miami Herald wrote a story about that document two weeks ago and they described it as a text on which almost no one agrees. The regime of the draft is that all the passages in the text that are bracketed are the areas where there is disagreement and the Miami Herald points out that there is more bracketed text than unbracketed text. So we are still a long way off on agreement on any thing in this process but the deadline still looms of the year 2005 for implementation.
The process is going to be long and tortuous and if the WTO regime is anything to go by there will be no implementation after 2005. The General Agreement Trades and Tariffs or GATT and the companion General Agreement on Trades in Service s(GATS) took 50 years to implement. The process began in 1948 and was not implemented until 1994. The system is a rules based system which resolves trade disputes on tariffs and barriers to trade by a court system in Geneva. Those who commit as we have to the FTAA must become part of WTO. And that is what the Minister of Economic Development is about trying to get us there within five years.
But the way the negotiations will go, countries have to go to the table to defend their national interests. That is why the PLP is so concerned about this Government’s approach to the financial services sector and the package of new legislation that it passed last year and that we are to debate shortly again. The sector is not being adequately protected by this Government’s polices. It seems to have no policy but surrender to the outside world so we say to the Bahamian people this Government is not strong enough to negotiate anything for us. They are likely to give away the store.
One of the obvious points of contention will be the area of services. And this is already an issue with our Caricom partners who have all signed on to the single market with the exception of The Bahamas. And we have to decide whether we are going to do so. The regime of the treaty of Chagaramas has apparently now been altered so that we are now placed in a position where we can no longer choose as we did in the past to be an observer, we have to either join or get out of Caricom altogether. The choice then seems clear, w e will have to join. The question is what timing we ill have to get our house in order.
While no political party can now make that declaration in this country because of the unpopularity of the provision on free movement of labour and the single currency and common external customs tariff for non Caricom made goods, the issue is not as explosive as it appears at first blush.
First while all the other countries have signed on to the free movement of labour, for example as a first step they have agreed that professionals and in particular UWI graduates should have the right to work in the countries of Caricom without having to have a work permit, it was only this year shortly before the Heads conference in The Bahamas this year that Trinidad implemented the legislation to make that possible. Not certain whether Barbados and Jamaica have done so.
And I was able to speak with a high level Trinidadian public official here for the talks and he said that he sympathized with what he called : "Ingraham’s problems" vis a vis the free movement of labour. You know our concern as Bahamians is being swamped by Jamaican and Haitian labourers. But said the official: if we open the doors of Trinidad, half of Guyana would be in Trinidad in six weeks. And you know that Trinidad has an ethnic low grade political cleavage between the Indian population and the African population, with the Governing party being Indian based and having a razor thin edge over the African party. The Guyanese population moving to Trinidad could easily shift that balance drastically in favour of the Indian population and cause instability there. Similarly, if a disproportionate number of Indians leave Guyana, where there is an even worse political cleavage, the African based Opposition party would then be in the ascendancy in Guyana.
In fact all of the countries have the same fears that The Bahamas has. Barbados thinks that the people of the smaller Caribbean states like St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Antigua, St. Kitts would all move to Barbados. Trinidad fears Guyana. The Bahamas fears Jamaica and Haiti. So none of us are quite ready for more than an intellectual commitment to the idea in principle.
Now what they say is attractive about the idea is that it could lead to less expensive services for Bahamians, since under such a regime doctors and lawyers from those countries would be allowed to compete here. But I can tell you that we are a long long way from that. Such an idea would be extremely unpopular in this country.
But we have seen benefits already from our associations with the Caribbean so it is not all one sided. Rich Jamaicans have come to The Bahamas and parked their capital here. They have bought into the hotel sector. Some of them simply put their money in the bank here because we are known as a safe private and stable jurisdiction without income tax and easy transfer of funds. Closer cooperation with Caricom might enhance that. Some say it may also enhance the investment in the manufacturing sector of The Bahamas because it would then allow duty free access of good made in The Bahamas or with value added in The Bahamas to be traded into the Caribbean duty free.
Now Mister President in the annex to the negotiations for the construction of the FTAA are a set of General Principles and Objectives. One of these that I consider to be particularly important and as I said I intend to come back to these before I take my seat. The first I have already adverted to, namely the need for an independent and impartial judiciary. The other general objective is listed as follows: “ To further secure, in accordance with our respective laws and regulations, the observance and promotion of worker rights, renewing our commitment to the observance of internationally recognized core labour standards and acknowledging that the International labour Organization is the competent body to set and deal with core labour standards.”
It is again recognition of the need for labour to be involved in the process. And I think any Select Committee ought really to hold the Government’s feet to the fire in whether it lives up to the principles that it espouses when it comes to labour, the environment and the judiciary, given its conduct in so many of these areas of the domestic life of The Bahamas.
The Government in the case of the air traffic controllers has been engaged in the most egregious case of union busting that one has ever seen. It has acted like a colonial slave master to destroy a group of Bahamians without regard to due process and the rule of law. It has put the flying public at risk by placing scab workers and uncertified replacements in the control tower. It has spent public monies that ought have been used to settle a legitimate trade dispute to destroy a union for nothing other than petty spite. And yet it has gone and solemnly signed an international agreement saying that it adheres to a set of principles which it clearly does not. They are an absolute disgrace and ought to be roundly condemned for it. Their actions are shameless.
Not only that Mister President, increasingly citizens in this country have a right to be seriously concerned about the independence of the judiciary and its relationship to decisions when the Government is involved as a litigant on one side. Judges seem to tremble when the Government is involved. And we must now in light of the new obligations seek to strengthen the institutional arrangements of the judiciary, chief amongst which I believe is the appointment of judges, where we depend almost entirely on a foreign cadre of judges to make decisions for and on our behalf some of whom don’t even know the laws of The Bahamas with which they are dealing.
The criticism is given that too often there is evidence of intellectual laziness on the part of judges. Decisions given without reasons, and arbitrary behavior.
I have one example, lots of them in fact, where the courts in this country seem more interested in trivia than in justice. And in speaking as I have repeatedly about these things, I have put my own legal career at risk. One gentlemen even tried to have me disbarred for something that I said that turned out to be true with regard to corruption. And further, we are now faced with a situation where another guest worker to this country now ends up being one of the persons whom I criticized but who will decide my political fate in part by sitting on a Constituencies Commission to decide the fate of the General Election of this country. I am furious at all of this and the complicity of the Government of The Bahamas, particularly the nationalist that I thought I was supporting in 1992 who turned out to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Someone has to stand up for our people and for our way of life.
The commitment made under the FTAA arrangements is for access to justice. In which country, not this one. When if you can’t afford a lawyer you are sunk. Where the government uses litigation against its citizens in a clear and spiteful attempt as it is the air traffic controllers case to us public treasury monies to destroy citizens of the Bahamas most of whom supported them in 1997.
Imagine the urgency of the matter of air traffic controllers and the Court of Appeal waited until the deadline expired before they heard the matter. It is unthinkable such a state of affairs and yet that is what we have and they want us to call it justice. It is indeed the Queen’s justice and justice only for her but not for the people of this country.
And here is why the machinery of the court is so important including timely and fair access to the courts by all persons. In Annex 2 under the general objective it is listed “ To guarantee that the benefits of the FTAA liberalization process not be undermined by anti-competitive business practices”. Then it goes on to list as a specific objective: “ To advance towards the establishment of juridical and institutional coverage at the national, sub-regional or regional level, that proscribes the carrying out of anti-competitive business practices.
This means that the business community both national and international must have confidence in the courts. It also means that individuals must have confidence in the Courts. And under existing arrangements, access to the Courts is too slow, and in too many cases litigants have the impression that if their opponent is the Government they can not succeed or that judges are reluctant to rule against the Government.
Here’s what Lionel Levine, a local attorney had to say on the matter of our judiciary in a letter published in The Tribune on Wednesday 28 July. He was writing in support of a complaint by Maurice Glinton, another attorney-at-law, about the inability or unwillingness of the Supreme Court of The Bahamas to re-hear a matter that the Privy Council had directed to be reheard one year ago. He talked about reading a report compiled by the Justice Committee funded by the United Nations which has considered the practical operations of the legal systems in all of the island jurisdictions and a high proportion of members of the Bar in each of those jurisdictions agreed that in a dispute between a private citizen and the government, the courts would always rule in favour of the Government. I happened to glance at the statistical column and noticed that the per cent age of lawyers so recorded was the same high figure in The Bahamas and Guyana.” Remember that many of our judges come from Guyana.
He continued some way down: “ Ultimately does this not bring into issue the real value or protection given by the Constitution for the citizen, if it takes six years of obstruction to get an appeal before the Privy Council, and thereafter the directive of the Privy Council meant to lead to the determination of the question is being frustrated and thwarted all over again.”
Despite the propaganda of the Government on this issue, despite what you may have heard, there is still a backlog of cases in the Supreme Court. You routinely have to wait six months for even short hearings for a Summons for Direction before a Registrar. And in urgent matters like the recent case of the Suisse Security Bank, the principal of that bank was complaining that while he continues to pay the staff after the Central Bank in his view arbitrarily shut the bank down, he can not get his day in Court. After complaining, one case was heard but that case was not on the merits. The other case is still pending and he continues to feel aggrieved, that the system in the country is trying to defeat him by mere inertia.
A visit to the registry of records and to the Registry of the Supreme Court will clearly show that the facilities we have for the Courts and its record keeping is totally inadequate for a modern country. There is a high per centage of lost files and delays because files cannot be found. Sometime judges can’t be found because it appears that if matters involve tortuous and controversial issues relating to the Government the judges themselves don’t want to be involved.
This morning given the announcements in the press, there is musical chairs in the Judiciary. Dame Joan is to retire as Chief Justice and is to become on 4 September 2001 the President of the Court of Appeal. Senior Justice Emmanuel Osadebay is to retire from the Supreme Court and in September after a stint as Acting Chief Justice be elevated to the Court of Appeal. Burton Hall is to demit office as a Justice of the Court of Appeal and take on the duties of Chief Justice. These are all fine Bahamians. And there is no problem at all with any of these appointments. But faces and personalities are not enough. There must a philosophical base that leans toward the protection of the individual when it comes to his battles against the state.
Throughout the Caribbean including The Bahamas you get the impression that the Courts see themselves not as an independent branch of the Government but as an instrument of the executive arm of the Government, enforcing the will of the executive. And you see it in our institutional and constitutional arrangements, where the executive has the sole say over who becomes a Judge of the Court. So one can’t escape the conclusion that Judges, being human beings, remain sensitive to their prospects for promotion and elevation that are determined by the Executive that has to do the appointing. In the U.S. they seek to solve this problem by adding the consent of the Senate to any nomination of Judges by the executive.
My view then is that some constitutional changes must take place in the appointment of Judges in order to safeguard the independence of the Judiciary. The present arrangements are unsatisfactory.
I was reading Mr. President, a notice in a Gazette dated 10 August 2000 and in it there was a note with regard to the Honourbale Justice Austin Davis who is the Principal of the Eugene Dupuch Law School. He was described as in the Office of the Attorney General and Ministry of Justice. It seemed a little strange to me that a Supreme Court Justice can be described as within a Department of the Government. And then just below there was the appointment of an Acting Magistrate James Moxey also described as being within a Department of the Government. It makes it look bad; in fact the officers often act as if they are subject to the whims of the Executive.
Clearly with our FTAA arrangements this must change. I have already adverted to the change in the constitution to allow for the Senate to have a say in the appointment of Judges. And I also say that the Senate itself ought to change as a second chamber to allow for its members to be elected on a nationwide basis by proportional representation on a five year with a five per cent threshold. This should remove the present stranglehold that the existing two party system has on Parliament under the first past the post system that we use now. It will also allow for some of the existing non-governmental organizations to have direct access to Parliament if they are able to surmount the five per cent threshold.
The case of Muhammad Harajchi and Suisse Security is frightening in many respects and we will be watching very carefully to see what happens as the matter winds its way through the Court system.
I would now like to turn to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Mister President, as Opposition Spokesman on Foreign Affairs it should come as no surprise that I believe that the FTAA, WTO and Caricom arrangements should all be handled out of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and not out of the Ministry of Finance. These are essentially foreign affairs matters, international treaties, with certain trade aspects. It is my view that the Foreign Ministry has been asleep at the wheel and the Foreign Minister is asleep at the wheel in so many foreign affairs matters. The country receives no briefings or updates on what we are doing and where we are headed. And the Opposition Leader receives inadequate briefings on matters involving sovereign relations between countries. These matters need to be institutionalized.
In order for the Foreign Ministry to be able to play its role in all of these matters whether consular or diplomatic, there needs to be in place a disciplined, well ordered and competent staff of well trained Bahamian professionals at our beck and call. It is clear that there are scores of Bahamians who are ready willing and able to fill their roles in the Foreign Service. It is clear that today there are scores of dedicated men and women serving us overseas and in The Bahamas in pursuance of our foreign affairs goals.
This Shadow Minister wishes to thank them all for their service to the country over and beyond the call of duty, some times without thanks or adequate pay, and many times in the most appalling working conditions that can not seem to be rectified.
Pay is an important consideration. Clearly the pay is inadequate across the board given the duties that these people have to perform. But demands for pay might be ameliorated if the executive would pay some attention to working conditions and terms of service.
Over the past year at least a dozen persons with degrees in international relations and other related subjects have simply thrown their hands up in the air frustrated by a regime both at the administrative and political level that is too overbearing and insensitive to respond to their needs and by a political directorate in the Ministry that appears to be de-energized and fast asleep.
These persons, men and women have simply resigned from the Ministry in frustration and gone to the private sector. Others who remain continue to face the most appalling working conditions. They complain about a building that ought to be condemned, that needs substantial repairs. They complain about their tours overseas and the lack of support for them and their families while overseas and when they have to repatriate to The Bahamas.
There ought to be sensible allowances for the return of their personal belongings, covering the complete costs, including cars. There ought to be arrangements made for spouses to join their husbands or wives who are called upon to work overseas. There ought to be sensible and adequate housing allowances where people have to work in some of the most expensive cities in the world. There should be adequate transportation allowances.
These issues continue to be a sore point with employees at the Ministry and the Minister appears not to be responding adequately to the cries of her employees.
The Prime Minister ought to conduct an immediate investigation into the Ministry and the status of the staff and address the complaints that they have, in fact hear the complaints. We can not continue to have an unhappy foreign affairs staff.
There is in addition a group of local foreign affairs staff members that need to receive special attention. These are the protocol officers that you see well dressed and upright helping out at the various official functions when there are international visits and state occasions. Their pay is inadequate and many of them are volunteering their time away from their regular government jobs but working horrendous overtime hours without adequate rest or compensation. If the Government were a private employer they would have been reported to the Department of Labour and then on to the Tribunal to resolve these issues.
And this Government has entered into an international pact that supports workers rights and pledges that workers will be protected by our laws. What is happening in protocol is wrong. They sometimes get a fifty dollar gratuity for their work. They need to be properly paid and compensated and they need a uniform allowance. The present situation is unacceptable.
And my favourite peeve is when you look at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs the building itself from the outside is a disgrace. The gift given to us by the Mexican Government is rusting and deteriorating and no one seems to give two hoots about it, even though presumably the Minister has to pass the darn thing every morning when she arrives at work.
Mister President, FTAA, WTO and Caricom are acronyms that will figure large in the consciousness of the Bahamian people for many years to come. It is this side's view that we are interdependent, a part of a globalized world whether we like it or not. But clearly, we must be adequately prepared and informed about what these developments will mean for the Bahamian people. There must be adequate information, a programme of public education. What better place to start than with informing Parliament what the Government is doing. And that is why I move this morning this request for this select committee.
-end-