Heated Covid-19 debate

By LULU MARK
GOVERNMENT MPs told Opposition Leader Belden Namah in Parliament yesterday to be careful about the information relating to the Coronavirus (Covid-19) he was giving the people as it was a sensitive matter.
In a heated exchange on the Covid-19 no-jab-no-job policy, Speaker Job Pomat tried hard to maintain order as the debate developed into a shouting match.
The attack on Namah began when he was responding to a statement by Prime Minister James Marape on the Covid-19 public protest, and the Government stand on vaccination.
Namah said the “right to employment of our people is their constitutional right”.
Maprik MP John Simon raised a point of order: “Can (Namah) give me which part of the constitution says you have the right to be employed? It’s very confusing.”
Justice Minister Bryan Kramer said: “The concern here is we have the leader of the opposition making unfounded statements that are in correct in law and not factual that are going on record. So please Mr Speaker, can you advice the Opposition Leader to just stick to the issue.
“Don’t delve into technical matters he has no knowledge about.”
National Capital District Governor Powes Parkop advised Namah that his position as Opposition Leader was very important which he should use responsibly.
“(He) used his platform to talk about the rights of our people which is alright, but he must caution himself because what he says people take personally or literally that their rights is more important than our obligation to each other,” Parkop said.
“Section 48 of constitution about the right of employment says it’s not an absolute right. It’s a qualified right but it gives you a right of choice of employment,” Parkop said.
East Sepik Governor Allan Bird cautioned MPs that “right now, Papua New Guineans are tuned in to watch what we are saying here.
“All of us must be responsible in what we say. We have to check our facts.”
Bird said the section of the constitution on the right to employment read “every person has the right to freedom of choice of employment”.
“It doesn’t say that – you must have work.
“It says that you have the choice in any calling for which he or she has the qualifications lawfully required subject to the regulations and restrictions,” he said.
“We must get our facts right before we present them on this floor,” Bird said.