So the PUP have focused in on as UDP Senator Godwin Hulse as two of the three reasons why the motion passed by the Senate on September 30th is invalid. They say Hulse shouldn’t have voted on the motion since his involvement makes it a conflict of interest, and, two, that Hulse’s participation in that Senate meeting was unconstitutional as he violated Section 121 of the Belize Constitution. And what does Hulse have to say about that? He calls it pure mischief:.
Hon. Godwin Hulse - Leader of Government Business in Senate
"Political mischief nothing more, nothing less; I am appalled that her majesty's loyal opposition who would form the next government will demean the workings of such a high institution as the Senate in which they serve. How on earth can you suggest that a motion that comes before the Senate that is properly debated, that is voted upon is a bogus motion when all the terms comply with the requirements of the constitution Section 61A. How can you be so abject, downright mean as to suggest that an officer of the Senate in the person of Reverend Senator Ashley Rocke who presented the motion that his presentation was bogus. How can you suggest that in fact the passage of that motion 7 to 5 and had I not voted it would have been 6 to 5; so it would have passed. And if Senator Rocke had not voted on his own motion then I had not voted the president would have voted on it and it would have been 6 to 6 and failed. Are we turning the democracy on its head? Is this guided democracy? Where in the civilized world you find that any motion or bill that is passed by a duly elected and constituted parliament because you do not agree with it that you want to overturn it."
"The final vote I participated in which is my proper constitutional right as an appointee of the Senate within the separations of power between the executive and the Senate. I am not going to serve on the committee; if I was serving on the committee then you could say there's a conflict. I will be prepared to sit there for 24/7 365 and answer any question by any of the good Senators who's questioning. Now if I served on the committee you would say it's a conflict of interest. The standing order at Section 70 says that any special committee shall be constituted in relation to the parties in the Senate. So let's do the simple math. The government has 6 Senators, the opposition has 3, the ratio there is 2 to 1. The social partner have 1 each there is not social partner Senator, there is a Senator for the business, there is a Senator for the Unions, there is a Senator for the Churches. You cannot have a quarter of a Senator so you do have to have each of those bodies. So each of them sit automatically but the government sitting with 2 is fine and the opposition with 1. Now I want to make this point because I have heard, I have heard it said that Senator Rocke will side with the government; is that implying that the church, the union and the business will side with the opposition? It has to imply that. So in other words the Senate is no longer the so call social partners are no longer independent? They are now partisan? If that is the case it stands this whole appointment on its head, we don't need social partners anymore then all we need are government and opposition Senators. Because if you are suggesting that you don't want 2 because Senator Rocke is so terrible he will sign with the government, is that such a bad thing? Couldn't another Senator also side with the government's point of view? But if you're saying that it is a given he will side with the government then it is a given the other 2 will side with the opposition. So what do we have?"
Email
Print