There was a heated argument during the consultation on the Constitution (Amendment) Bill as National Federation Party General Secretary Kamal Iyer claimed that the majority of Indo-Fijians who made submissions to the Constitution Review Commission were NFP members and supporters, however, the Special Committee on the Constitution (Amendment) Bill Acting Chair Viliame Gavoka ruled out the claim, saying there is no evidence to quantify the number of submitters who were supporters of the party.
This comes as Committee member and People's Alliance MP Siromi Turaga raised concerns about the lack of participation from members of the Indo-Fijian community during the CRC's consultations around the country.
Turaga says the lack of participation was evident as the Constitution Review travelled around the country, including in some parts of the Northern Division, where special invitations had been made but no one turned up.
While responding, Iyer says an overwhelming majority of Indo-Fijians who made submissions in various districts were members of the NFP and had been encouraged to participate by the party's branches.
He says they were not members of the now-deregistered FijiFirst, which he said had broken up into three components.
However, Opposition MP Alvick Maharaj challenged Iyer's claim, saying there was no evidence of people who appeared before the committee declaring themselves as NFP supporters or members.
Maharaj says the claim was false and needed to be retracted, stressing that the committee worked on evidence and there were no statistics to support it.
Iyer maintained that his claim was a fact, saying NFP members who made submissions in Nadi and Ba had consulted the party and provided submissions.
He says the submitters in Rakiraki, Nadi and Nawaicoba were also NFP members and that the number of submissions was proportional to the support the party received from the Indo-Fijian community during the last General Election.
Iyer says the party had records of people who attended the submissions and many had sought guidance from the NFP, which explained why their positions were consistent.
Attorney General Sevuloni Valenitabua pointed out that there was no provision or column in the attendance records for submitters to identify which political party they belonged to or represented.
He says that while the information may be known to Iyer, the CRC and the committee would not be able to determine how many submitters were NFP members from the attendance lists.
Iyer maintained that although submitters were not required to declare their political affiliations, the NFP knew some were party supporters because they had consulted the party and shared their submissions, while Maharaj again demanded that the claim be retracted due to a lack of evidence.
Gavoka then ruled out Iyer's claim, saying there was no evidence to quantify the number of people he was referring to.
Iyer again maintained that he was responding to Turaga's question about the lack of Indo-Fijian attendance at the CRC hearings.
He says Indo-Fijians make up 30 percent of the population and that the low participation showed a lack of empathy.
Iyer says the NFP knew most of the Indo-Fijian members who attended the consultations and could identify them, although there was no requirement for people to declare their political affiliations when making submissions.
Gavoka stressed that members wanted to see greater Indo-Fijian participation in the next round of consultations and has called on everyone to work together to encourage more people to participate.
Meanwhile, Turaga asked Iyer whether more people had made submissions to the special committee than to the CRC.
Iyer says the party did not know the list of submitters but claimed that most people who made submissions had not read the Bill or understood its provisions, as it had not been translated into any language or adequately explained through public broadcasts in all three languages.
Gavoka also questioned whether the extension of the consultation period was an indication that the concerns raised by the public were being heard.
He says Fiji was going through the process for the first time and was learning along the way, adding that the extension could be viewed as an indication that the concerns raised were resonating with those overseeing the process.
Gavoka also questioned Iyer's description of the proposed Constitution as imposed, asking whether he had examined the entirety of the Bill and whether it resembled the imposed Constitution.
Iyer says the NFP described the process as imposed because it was being rushed.
He says the process started with reference to the 2013 imposed Constitution and questioned the timeline for public consultations.
The NFP General Secretary says the first round of public consultations lasted 13 days and the Committee then decided on 2nd November to seek more time and return to Parliament on 30th November, despite another parliamentary sitting already being on the calendar.
Gavoka also clarified that the general understanding was for the committee to complete its work within 30 days from the second reading of the Bill.
Meanwhile, NFP Deputy General Secretary Apenisa Vatuniveivuke has stressed to the Committee that the party will oppose the Constitution Amendment Bill at its third reading.
He says the NFP supported the second reading in good faith because it believed the Bill should undergo extensive public scrutiny and parliamentary deliberation, but its support was not unconditional.
He raised concerns about the consultation process, including the initial 13-day timeframe, inadequate translations and explanations of the proposed amendments, and limited opportunities for members of the public to properly express their views.
Vatuniveivuke is asking the Committee to recommend that the Bill does not proceed to its third reading under the present arrangements, saying constitutional reform should continue after the next General Election through a more inclusive and deliberate process.
Vatuniveivuke adds there was no constitutional emergency requiring the Bill to be enacted before the next General Election.
