PARLIAMENT OF FIJI

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

DAILY HANSARD

THURSDAY, 30TH NOVEMBER, 2006

The House resumed at 9.55 a.m. pursuant to adjournment.

MR. SPEAKER took the Chair and read the Prayer.

PRESENT

All Members were present, except the honourable Member for Tavua Open (D. Nair), the honourable Member for Lautoka City Open (D.U. Manufolau), the honourable Minister of State for Education, Technical and Vocation and Special Education, the honourable Minister of State for Agriculture, Alternative Livelihood and Outer Islands Development, the honourable Minister of State for Fijian Affairs, the honourable Minister for Commerce and Industry, the honourable Minister for Local Government and Urban Development, the honourable Minister for Primary and Preventative Health Services, the honourable Minister for Agriculture, the honourable Minister for Energy and Mineral Resources, the honourable Minister for Labour and Industrial Relations, the honourable Minister for Environment and the honourable Minister for Tourism and Transport.

MINUTES

HON. LEADER OF THE HOUSE.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move:

That the Minutes of the sitting of the House of Representatives held on Wednesday, 29th

November, 2006, as previously circulated, be taken as read and be confirmed.

HON. M. BULANAUCA.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to second the motion.

Question put.

Motion agreed to.

COMMUNICATION FROM THE CHAIR

MR. SPEAKER.- Honourable Members, a very warm greetings to you all and I also take this opportunity to welcome our visitors in the gallery. This morning, we have the students and parents of Ratu Nalewavada Public School in the Nausori Highland. On behalf of the House, I warmly welcome you this morning. I know you have travelled long distance to get here. E khawa dokai vakei au mequ kidavaki mutou na qwata nikua. O mutou na vero vuli o mutou na jubujubu qai mutou na qwase ni vuli. E qwa dokai vakei e na lequ tadratadra va Speaker e na ledju yahana va veiyawane mequ kidavaki mutou e na qwata ni kua. Vina valevu na la mai veisiko nuitaki na kalougata na lemuju no na vuli muju na lehu me lemutou na vacegu.

QUESTIONS AND REPLIES

Baulevu Road

(Question No. 63/06)

HON. S.C. MAHARAJ asked the Government, upon notice:

Would the honourable Minister for Public Utilities and Infrastructure inform the House on

the following:-

(a) How often does the Government carry out maintenance work on the Baulevu Road;

(b) Why has not the road been tarsealed; and

(c) When does the Government intend to tarseal the road, which is one of the oldest in the country?

HON. S. TIKOINASAU (Minister of State for Public Utilities Reform).- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise to respond to the question as follows:-

(a) Routine maintenance works on Baulevu Road is programmed within six to eight weeks.

(b) Major drainage and road pavement upgrading works were being undertaken on this road this year. Also included were the tarsealing of the road to Baulevu Indian School and section of the road fronting Kasavu Village.

(c) There are no immediate plans to seal this road. Nevertheless, the phasing of works that are being done will be very beneficial, if sealing is considered at some later stages.

HON. M. RAKURO.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I did ask this question before the road to Baulevu ends at Nakini. Is there any hope of extending that road to villages on the upper hills, Calia and so on?

MR. SPEAKER.- Honourable Member, the subject matter this morning is Baulevu Road.

Financial Assistance - 2003 South Pacific Games

(Question No. 66/06)

HON. M.P. CHAUDHRY asked the Government, upon notice:

Would the honourable Minister for Finance and National Planning inform the House on the

following:-

(a) The total amount of financial assistance given by the Government from the consolidated fund for the hosting of the South Pacific Games (SPG) in Suva in July 2003;

(b) Name the organisations which received the financial assistance and state the amount paid to each of them;

(c) Have the accounts of the SPG been audited and if so, by whom;

(d) Why have the accounts not been tabled in this House some three years after the Games were held, and who is responsible for this inordinate delay; and

(e) Will the Government consider instituting independent investigation into the serious allegations of fraud, corruption and misappropriation in the use of SPG funds made by the former Minister of State for Youth and Sports and widely reported in the news media?

HON. RATU J.Y. KUBUABOLA (Minister for Finance and National Planning).- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise to respond to the question as follows:-

(a) The total amount of financial assistance given by Government from the consolidated fund for hosting of the South Pacific Games in 2003 was $21,186,998. The breakdown is as follows:-

Total infrastructure grant - $17,800,000

SPG Organising Committee - $1,405,000

SPG Security - $475,000

SPG Equipment/Preparation

and participation - $1,130,000

VAT component - $376,333

(b) SPG Organising Committee:

(i) Administration - $745,500

(ii) Additional provision for games

village capacity building USP - $660,000

Sports Council/Fiji Police Force:

(iii) SPG Security - $475,665

FASANOC:

(i) Equipment/Team Fiji Preparation

and Participation - $1,130,000

(c) The Government grants have been audited through the normal audit by the Auditor-General. The SPG Organising Committee's accounts were audited by KPMG in 2006, while FASANOC was completed in 2004.

(d) The accounts have been tabled in this House some three years after the games were held. I wish to mention that the SPG Organising Committee is a limited liability company and there is no requirement for them to table their accounts here, although it was tabled in this House in the last sitting. The reason for the inordinate delay was mainly because this was a total project, starting from December 2001 to August 2005 and the need to ensure that proper acquittals were done by the committee in relation to grants provided by Government. Also, some of the disposal assets were acquired duty free and they did not wish to have the accounts finalised carrying a huge amount of redundant assets, otherwise there would be continuing accounts to be done and provided by the committee, hence the reason for the delay.

(e) No, but if the honourable Members or others in this august House have any information in relation to these allegations, I would strongly urge that this be directed to the relevant agency.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, I take this opportunity to thank all those who were involved in the preparation and organisation of the SPG, who worked tirelessly in ensuring that the games were successful. Some of them are in this august House today. Sir, the securing of the games to be held in Fiji was done in 1997. It was not until 2001 that serious work was carried out to ensure that the 2003 SPG was going to be successful. A lot of work was done behind the scenes, especially in securing sponsorship funds and others. As I said, there are those within this House this morning who did a lot of work and I would like to take this opportunity to thank them for that.

HON. M.P. CHAUDHRY.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, the honourable Minister has not answered part (b) of the question, which is very specific; name the organisations, which received the financial assistance and state the amount paid to each of them. The honourable Minister said that $17.8 million was paid out for infrastructure development. I want to know who did this money go to, $17.8 million is a lot of money and it cannot be passed aside by saying that it was paid for infrastructure development. I believe this money was given to the Fiji Sports Council. The Fiji Sports Council has not submitted its accounts to this House. In fact, it has not submitted its accounts to this House since 1992, despite a specific requirement in the Act, requiring the Minister responsible to table the accounts and the Annual Report of Fiji Sports Council.

HON. I. LEWENIQILA.- You are lying!

HON. M.P. CHAUDHRY.- You are the liar, you were the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, it is specifically provided for in the Fiji Sports Council Act. The nation knows what has happened.

HON. I. LEWENIQILA.- The nation knows about you.

HON. M.P. CHAUDHRY.- Where has the money gone - the $17.8 million? When a Minister who has been dismissed from his Ministerial portfolio, (simply because he wanted to drag the truth of this issue before the public, got wrapped in the knuckle, while the criminals, the people who had abused this money, had corruptly used it and misappropriated it, are now sitting in this House and talking cheeky. Mr. Speaker, Sir, it is time that these people are exposed and brought before justice because it is time this side of the House report the matter to the Police. They are not going to get away with it.

HON. T. YOUNG.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, a point of order.

HON. M.P. CHAUDHRY.- I have said what I wanted to say, they can raise any point of order.

HON. T. YOUNG.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I refer to the question that he is asking. He should be asking a supplementary question and not spilling venom in the morning of your Christmas party. Secondly, imputing improper motive on the former Minister for Youth and Sports. Sir, I think the honourable Member should retract that statement, accusing the honourable Minister of being a liar. The whole of Fiji and the whole world knows who is a liar in this House.

MR. SPEAKER.- I do understand that the honourable Member for Ba Open (M.P. Chaudhry) was asking about the names of the organisations. I do not know whether the honourable Minister for Finance would like to respond to that or not.

HON. RATU J.Y. KUBUABOLA.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I do not have the names of the organisations, but I do have the breakdown of how the $17.8 million was used and I will be glad to provide the honourable Member with that. As I mentioned, if there are allegations of fraud or corruption, please direct them to the relevant agencies.

HON. M.P. CHAUDHRY.- I find this most extraordinary because this House is accountable to the people of this country and for the honourable Minister for Finance to say that he does not have the names of the organisations, when the question was specifically asked, why did he not bring the name of the organisation to this House? What is he trying to hide? Who is he trying to protect? It is no use telling us here that we go to the Police or the agencies, when you are holding all the documents and know what happened to the money. I think it is about time that this matter is honestly dealt with in this House, because a lot of money has gone into the wrong hands and we all know that. Sir, I thank you and since the honourable Minister said that he will provide information on part (b) of the question later on, I would be very happy to receive that from him.

Navutulevu - Queen's Highway

(Question No. 72/06)

HON. V.D. SHARMA asked the Government, upon notice:

Would the Honourable Minister for Public Utilities and Infrastructure Development inform the House, when will the Ministry plan to provide maintenance on the Queens Highway from Navutulevu to Suva, which has several hundred potholes for more than four months now? Sir, this question was filed some time in August and it has finally appeared today.

HON. I. LEWENIQILA.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, point of order. I yesterday raised, Standing Order 116. I think, your caution and advice has fallen on deaf ears and the same honourable Member is standing up again without his coat.

MR. SPEAKER.- Honourable Member, that Standing Order was raised yesterday and you were to take note of that. I am sure you will never forget that in the future, if you can follow that Standing Order, but I will give you the opportunity to ask your question.

HON. S. TIKOINASAU (Minister of State for Public Utilities and Infrastructure Development).- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise to respond to the question on behalf of my line Minister and the Ministry. Works are in progress.

HON. V.D. SHARMA.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, a supplementary question. It was a very simple answer that work is in progress, but would the honourable Minister inform the House as to when this work would be completed and if the honourable Minister could give a time frame because these potholes have been there for the last eight months; on Fiji's major highway - the Queens Highway? Sir, this is a real concern for all motorists, in particular those people whose tyres are blown up and suspension parts are damaged and thousands of dollars go out in foreign exchange to buy spare parts.

HON. S. TIKOINASAU.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, when weather permits.

HON. G. SINGH.- Mr. Speaker, the honourable Minister has replied that work is in progress. Actually, Sir, I am a regular user of this Highway - travelling to and fro four times a week. I just came from Ba yesterday morning and the weather was very nice, and I did not see any single person working on the Highway. Sir, I say this because I also wrecked one of my land cruisers due to the bad road conditions. I therefore request the honourable Minister that if the road cannot be tarsealed, can it be graveled again so that we do not lose our vehicles and waste our money.

MR. SPEAKER.- Honourable Member, I am in the same boat as you. I travel that Highway every week. I have made enquiries with frustrations, and they keep saying that they are doing it in stages, part of remedial and that takes a little while. So, I have been suffering in silence as well.

(Laughter)

HON. A.D. SINGH.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, before I ask the question, I would first like to correct the layout of the questions, where question (d) should be the continuation of question (c), therefore, there will be no question (e).

Ethnic-Based Assistance - Affirmative Action Programme

(Question No. 76/06)

HON. A.D. SINGH asked the Government, upon notice:

Would the honourable Minister for Education, Youth and Sports, please inform the House on the following:

(a) Whether the Ministry of Education has reviewed or is reviewing the present ethnic-based assistance provided under the Affirmative Action Programme which is in breach of the 1997 Constitution according to a report of the Human Rights Commission;

(b) If the answer is in the affirmative, how far has it been implemented;

(c) If the answer is in the negative, what is the reason for ignoring the plight of the equally and more deserving students of other ethnic origins; and

(d) What is the total number of Fijian students attending non-Fijian managed in both primary and secondary schools?

HON. RO T.V. KEPA (Minister for Education, Youth and Sports).- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise to respond to the question raised.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, it is unfortunate that the honourable Member has plagiarised the term "race-based" assistance from the Fiji Human Rights Commission (FHRC) Report of June, 2006. Race-based is an emotive, biased, slanted, prejudiced term, which unfortunately does not correctly portray what this Programme is about. However, interestingly it demonstrates more revealingly where the FHRC was coming from in the compiling of this Report, that it was coming from an emotive, biased and prejudiced position, and it also, Mr. Speaker, Sir, gives the wrong impression and perpetuates the myth that this Programme is ethnic or race-based.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, the Social Justice Act, Act. No. 5 of 2001, is based on Chapter 5 of the 1997 Constitution, which deals with Social Justice and details are that the interpretation of Affirmative Action means State policies that assist groups or categories of persons who are disadvantaged so as to enable them to achieve equality of access with groups or categories who are not disadvantaged, and this, Mr. Speaker, Sir, is a 10-year programme which has been implemented since 2002. Out of the 29 programmes implemented since then, four Programmes are with the Ministry of Education, and they are:

(a) Enhancement of Fijian and Rotuman education;

(b) Programme to improve education in rural areas and disadvantaged schools;

(c) Vocational training, entertainment of employable skills in and out of schools;

(d) Improvement of educational opportunities for students with disabilities.

Out of those four Programmes, Mr. Speaker, Sir, only one is specifically for the enhancement of Fijian and Rotuman education. The other three are for various groups in Fiji that come under those categories.

Cabinet, Mr. Speaker, Sir, agreed at its meeting on Tuesday, 7th November, 2006, that there would be a mid-term review of Government's Affirmative Action Programme. This, Mr. Speaker, Sir, is in line with section 44(7) of the Constitution, which limits the life of the Social Justice Act to 10 years, although it provides for the extension of certain programmes at the end of this period where necessary.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, a mid-term review will also enable Government to examine the Affirmative Action Programmes in relation to their legal and constitutional basis, as well as in the context of Fiji's obligations to international laws and conventions on human rights.

May I just continue to state, Sir, that in the findings of the same Report which the honourable Member is basing his questions on.

Programme 1 - which is the only programme dealing with the enhancement of Fijian and Rotuman education, we need to conduct means testing so that we improve on that targeted area, and this will come out in the review, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, Sir.

Programme 2 - to improve education in rural areas and disadvantaged schools. The findings of the FHRC were that the programmes are not discriminatory.

Programme 3 - on vocational training, entertainment of employable skills in and out of schools, the finding by the FHRC was the same, that the same programmes are not discriminatory.

Programme 4 - the improvement of educational opportunities for students with disabilities or special education, the findings was the same by the FHRC.

HON. A.D. SINGH.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, a supplementary question. First of all, Mr. Speaker, Sir, the honourable Minister has alleged that I have plagiarised the part of the FHRC when I used the word "race". Sir, that Report has been made public. I have quoted from the Report, and of course, the Report is damning. The Report very clearly states that in breach of the 1997 Constitution, and that is exactly what I have asked, and the honourable Minister has very cleverly tried to elude the actual answer to my question.

Sir, may I remind the honourable Minster that question (d) has not been answered.

HON. RO T.V. KEPA.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, in terms of the first part on "race-based", that is only found in the FHRC Report. It is found nowhere else, and the Social Justice Act outlines very clearly what the Programme is about.

In relation to question (d), I will get back to this august House sometimes in the next sitting, so that we have the correct numbers for this year's roll.

HON. M.P. CHAUDHRY.- A supplementary question. If the Affirmative Action Programme is not race based, in some respect, would the honourable Minister then explain to this august House, why indigenous Fijian students attending non-Fijian managed or secondary schools are denied Affirmative Action assistance provided to Fijian indigenous students attending Fijian managed schools? I am talking about Fijian students either in Fijian or Indian managed schools. Why are Fijians students attending non-Fijian managed schools denied this assistance?

HON. RO T.V. KEPA.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, this assistance that comes under the Affirmative Action Programme is provided for Fijian schools at the moment. When the review takes place, it might consider that the assistance needs to go to other schools as well, so we will wait for the outcome of the review.

HON. M.P. CHAUDHRY.- I do not think we should wait for the review. The anomaly is quite obvious. I think it should start from the beginning of next year. Why wait for the review for something that is quite obvious? That is discriminatory.

Duty Rebate on Fuel - Inter-Island Vessels

(Question No. 88/06)

HON. P. MUPNAR.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, before I ask the question, I refer to (d), where it reads "eight ( months". This question was filed in early September, I hope that the honourable Minister for Finance in his reply would consider the current period as well, until today.

Would the honourable Minister for Finance and National Planning inform the

House on the following:

(a) How much has been paid out to-date to Inter-islands vessels due to granting of 100 per cent duty rebate on fuel as per 2006 Budget provision through section 10 of the Customs Tariff Act;

(b) Which inter-island vessels benefited from 100 per cent duty rebate and by how much in monetary terms for each vessel;

(c) What was the Government's intention for allowing 100 per cent rebate on fuel and whether the achieved target set is being met; and

(d) Whether the nation economically benefited, particularly in terms of export expected increases in the last 11 months and by how much?

HON. RATU J.Y. KUBUABOLA (Minister for Finance and National Planning).- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise to respond to the question asked by the honourable Member for Nadi Rural Communal (P. Mupnar).

(a) Allow me to clarify that the fuel concession allowance for inter-island vessels is not granted as a rebate as in the case for the bus industry. There is no grant of any kind by Government directly to these vessels, as it seems to be indicated in this part of the question.

In the case of inter-island vessels, the fuel is bought at a duty free price upfront from all companies such as Mobil and BP, and the duty free concession is then accounted for in the monthly returns submitted by these companies to FIRCA. Since its introduction this year, the total of the fuel bought at duty free price by inter-island vessels that qualified for this concession was 4,028,278 litres as at the end of October this year, with the current fiscal duty rate of 18 per cents per litre. The revenue foregone is $813,617.

(b) There is a list here and I wonder whether the honourable Member would be agreeable for me just to provide this to him, if not, I will read it out.

(c) The overall intention of this concession was to provide some form of assistance to the transportation industry, particularly those that are mostly used by the public at large. The irregularity in the shipping services in the Maritime provinces is common knowledge. It can become very uneconomical for companies to provide transportation services to these provinces. As in the bus industry, where 20 cent per litre is given as grant from Government, free fiscal duty is granted to inter-island vessels to assist the vessel owners in mitigating the high fuel prices, and impacting positively on first charge to our people in the Maritime Provinces.

(d) At this point, we have not been able to quantify the exact benefits, however, we believe that the concession has provided some assistance to producers in the Maritime provinces assisting them in the marketing of their produce both locally and abroad. It is anticipated that in helping the vessels, the vessel owners through this concession, overall transportation costs to Maritime producers will be minimised and regular trips will be a norm, and this should favourably impact on our exports.

HON. P. MUPNAR.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I thank the honourable Minister for the detailed statistical figures that he has given in his reply to (b). I would like to ask the honourable Minister that by providing this concession, whether all the islands were serviced as initially intended under the 2006 Budget, or some of the islands were missed out as they did not meet the purpose or intention that was set out in the 2006 Budget?

MR. SPEAKER.- Honourable Member, that is not really part of the original question. I think the honourable Minister may probably have to look into that, because I am sure he has not prepared the names of the islands.

HON. RATU J.Y. KUBUABOLA.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, this assistance is to all vessels. However, another assistance that is provided is the shipping franchise scheme, to assist those vessels that service the uneconomical routes, which will then be able to service all the other islands not normally serviced by the normal shipping routes. So, those two assistance will enable all islands to be serviced.

RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON THE

EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BILL, 2006

HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, in the absence of the substantive Minister for Labour and Industrial Relations, who is away overseas on official duties, I rise as Acting Minister for Labour and Industrial Relations to reply to the debate on the Employment Relations Bill, 2006 (Bill No. 8 of 2006). In doing so, Sir, I would first like to make some preliminary remarks.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, the Bill in its current form, was introduced in this august House by the honourable Minister for Labour on 22nd June this year. It was then referred (as we all know) to the relevant Sector Committee - the Sector Standing Committee on Social Services for further scrutiny and consultations. The Report of the Sector Committee was tabled before this House and the debate on the Bill resumed.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, I am obliged to thank all honourable Members, who contributed to the debate on this Bill. I feel certain that they were in turn, greatly assisted by the findings contained in the Sector Committee's Report (Parliamentary Paper No. 49 of 2006).

Mr. Speaker, Sir, I must now especially thank and congratulate the Chairperson of the Sector Committee and Member for Kadavu Provincial Communal (K.T. Yabaki), and Members of the current Sector Standing Committee on Social Services, who have continued the good work started by the previous Sector Standing Committee on Economic Services before tabling their comprehensive report to this august House, together with their valuable recommendations. Sir, their critical evaluation of Government policies reflected in the Bill, has helped us further improve on the quality of the Bill. Sir, I shall not traverse in detail the comments made by the honourable Members who contributed to the debate on this Bill, but I wish to thank all of them for their general support for the Bill, and to assure them that all the issues they raised and the comments they made will be taken into account, particularly in the implementation of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, we all acknowledge that this is a very important Bill, comprising a total of some 265 clauses and eight schedules. After consultations with the top officials of the Ministry of Labour and Industrial Relations, we have decided that the best treatment we can give the Bill by way of our reply to the debate on it, is to go through the recommendations of the Sector Standing Committee on Social Services, as contained in its Report and to indicate Government's reaction to each of those recommendations. I will then also address and explain the reasoning behind the amendments to the Bill, as proposed in the Notice of Amendments already circulated to honourable Members.

Sir, the Sector Committee's substantive recommendations are outlined on pages 320 to 325 of the Report itself. Out of a total of 265 clauses and eight schedules of the Bill, the Committee recommended amendments to 30 clauses and one schedule. Sir, I need to assure this august House that the Sector Committee's recommendations have been very carefully studied by Government, in order to take into account the intent of the many written, as well as oral submissions received by the Sector Committee, and the Sector Committee's own reasoning behind its recommendations after its clause by clause analysis and deliberations. In this assessment, Sir, we have also taken into account the contributions made by honourable Members during the debate on this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, of the 30 clauses and one schedule proposed by the Sector Committee for amendments, Government has agreed to amend a total of 27 clauses and three schedules, which means we went ahead and made amendments to two other schedules, although they did not arise out of the recommendations of the Sector Committee Report. Sir, as has been our practice, all minor editorial amendments will be left to the Secretary-General to make, pursuant to powers vested in her under Standing Order 67(4). If I miss out any necessary editorial amendments, I have no doubt that the Secretary-General will pick those up.

Sir, the more significant amendments as proposed by the Sector Committee basically fall within these 14 areas of the Bill, and they are:

(a) the definition of redundancy;

(b) no wages on detention or imprisonment;

(c) medical examination in contract of service;

(d) flexibility to sell annual leave;

(e) shift worker entitled to paid public holidays;

(f) redundancy pay;

(g) officers of trade unions assisting other unions;

(h) timeline for CEO positions of the Ministry;

(i) secret ballot for a strike;

(j) amendment of Schedules 1 to 8;

(k) appointment of chairpersons to the Wages Councils (Schedule 3);

(l) reduction in list of essential services (Schedule 7);

(m) removal of trade union recognition; and

(n) maternity leave.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, there will be a couple of amendments which Government has proposed in addition to the ones recommended by the Sector Standing Committee. Before I begin to go through the various recommendations of the Sector Committee, I would like to explain two particular issues, which have given rise to closer scrutiny by Government after the tabling of the Sector Committee's Report. They concern maternity leave and trade union recognition.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, Government agreed on maternity leave with the current policy under the Bill, for employers to pay maternity leave for all births, as reflected under Part 11. After considering the diverse views expressed by shareholders, however, Government has considered it prudent that any amendment at this stage should have maternity leave payment for all births, but with a graduated scale.

In this regard, Sir, it is agreed that the maternity leave provision be amended, to ensue that only the first three births be fully paid and thereafter, half payment for all other births. Sir, I believe, this is consistent with both the