“Judge Urška, who currently presides over the National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia, says that she herself has no explanation for her vote, but she has said that she will vote against the proposal. She has violated the Rules of Procedure again, because there is no explanation of vote in the vote in question,” MP Jelka Godec, leader of the Slovenian Democratic Party (Slovenska demokratska stranka – SDS) parliamentary group, criticised Thursday’s events in the House of Democracy on the social network X.
The start of Thursday’s 89th Extraordinary Session was marked by a lively atmosphere in the National Assembly. The Speaker of the National Assembly, Urška Klakočar Zupančič, made it clear that she disagreed with the SDS party parliamentary group’s call not to include on the agenda a vote on the motion to call a consultative referendum on the bill on a pension supplement for outstanding achievements in the field of the arts. Article 184 of the Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly, concerning the procedure for referendums, states that “A motion shall be placed on the agenda of the first following session of the National Assembly if it is tabled no later than 30 days before that session.”
After the introductory greetings, the Speaker of the National Assembly announced that they would proceed to the setting of the agenda for today’s sitting. She said that she had received no proposals to extend the agenda. “I would like to inform you, however, that the SDS party parliamentary group has just tabled a motion for the withdrawal of agenda item 5, which the Assembly will not decide on,” she pointed out, adding that Rule 64(5) of the Rules of Procedure “provides that no withdrawal may be made in respect of matters which have been placed on the agenda on the basis of a request to convene an extraordinary sitting of the Assembly.”
Item placed on the agenda contrary to the provisions of the Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly
SDS MP Zvonko Černač asked for a procedural motion, based on what had been said. He began by explaining that, in accordance with the second and third paragraphs of Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly and in conjunction with the fourth paragraph of Article 60 of the Rules of Procedure, his group had tabled a motion to remove item 5 (Proposal for a consultative referendum on the Bill on the supplement to the pension for outstanding achievements in the field of the arts) from the agenda of today’s extraordinary sitting of the National Assembly, as it had been included on the agenda in contravention of the provisions of the Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly.
He pointed out that the SDS party parliamentary group had tabled a motion to call a consultative referendum on supplements for pensions of deserving artists on Friday, the 22nd of November, “and on the same day, the coalition tabled a request to convene an extraordinary sitting of the National Assembly to consider this motion, i.e. a request to consider a motion tabled by the opposition, and this in defiance of the Rules of Procedure”. “This is, I have to say, unhygienic and undignified to say the least, so here one has to ask who is actually the proposer of this item on the consultative referendum, the opposition or the coalition. The opposition is probably the proposer,” he pointed out, adding that this session had been proposed to deal with another topic, namely the situation at the national media outlet, Radio-Television Slovenia (RTVS), and that this item had subsequently been added to the session in violation of Rule 182, third paragraph, of the Rules of Procedure.
As the Speaker of the National Assembly had proposed to extend the agenda of Thursday’s proposed extraordinary sitting on the 109th sitting of the College, which took place on Tuesday, the 26th of November, MP Černač said that his group had expressed their disagreement and had also justified it by clarifying that the conditions of the Rules of Procedure were not fulfilled for such an action. “Nevertheless, the coalition approved the proposal for today’s extraordinary sitting, including item 5, which does not meet the rules of procedure for consideration at today’s sitting. Article 182(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly stipulates that a proposal to call a consultative referendum shall be placed on the agenda of the first subsequent session of the National Assembly if it is tabled no later than 30 days before that session. Since the 30-day deadline, which has been respected for all the other 13 motions for consultative referendums tabled this year, except for one, where the coalition blatantly violated these rules of procedure, has not yet expired, we cannot consider this item today,” Černač was clear, adding that for this reason, they expect the specific item to be withdrawn from the agenda. “Because there is no reason to speed up the procedure in order to decide as quickly as possible on the exceptional allowances of one thousand five hundred euros to individuals in the field of the arts at this sitting, in a rushed procedure and in violation of the provisions of the Rules of Procedure.”
In her response, Klakočar Zupančič noted that she had explained in very broad terms the reason for her decision at the College of the Speaker of the National Assembly, saying: “The time limit in the article you quoted, that is, the provision that actually regulates the consultative referendum, is indeed 30 days, and the wording as you read it is indeed such,” she said, adding that this wording was supposed to allow for two interpretations. “One interpretation is that the request for a consultative referendum must be considered within 30 days after it is submitted. The second interpretation is what parliamentary practice has followed so far,” she said, adding that there are more interpretations in the law. “Not only a textual interpretation, but also a purposive interpretation and a historical interpretation.” The Speaker of the National Assembly said that she had already explained why she was following the purposive and historical interpretation, as well as the textual interpretation.
The request for a consultative referendum is, in her words, an institution that has been continuously abused to prolong and obstruct the legislative process. This, she says, “is not in the interest of the National Assembly, and even less in the interest of the citizens.” “We are all here to work for their well-being, and I do not think and believe that it is for their well-being that legislative procedures are being obstructed and delayed.” She said she would always interpret any legal provisions in the best interests of citizens. “Deadlines in law are never set for someone to be passive, be it a subject, a natural person, a legal person or a state body, deadlines are always set for someone to be active. That is to say, to exercise or not to exercise a right within a certain period of time,” she stated and expressed the opinion that, in her view, the 30-day time limit, as interpreted by the SDS party and also by parliamentary practice, was not intended for anything other than delaying legislative procedures. “Things are changing, and that is right, and they should, because that is the only way to move forward as a society,” she said, adding that as long as she was the Speaker of the National Assembly, she would not allow “procedural institutions to be abused for the sake of mutual reckoning between the coalition and the opposition”. “Unfortunately, I am still the Speaker of the National Assembly, and unfortunately, I still interpret the Rules of Procedure, and that is the way it is,” she explained, among other things.
We are talking about a law that legitimises privileges, bypassing the current pension legislation
Then, MP Černač spoke again, pointing out that what is being discussed here is a law that enacts certain privileges, privileges that bypass the existing pension legislation. “Thus, this law is not suitable for consideration in the National Assembly, even on its merits. At the same time as this area is being regulated in a systemic way by another law, you want to enact these privileged allowances of one thousand five hundred euros for individuals as quickly as possible, in flagrant violation of Rule 182 of the Rules of Procedure. The substance of this matter is also inappropriate,” he was clear.
MP Černač then read out part of the third paragraph of Rule 184: “The proposal shall be placed on the agenda of the first sitting of the next session of the National Assembly.” Already here, according to MP Černač, the question arises as to whether it is even possible to put this on the agenda of an extraordinary session. “But let’s leave that part aside. If it is tabled at the latest 30 days before this session, and these conditions are not met.” As the MP explained, the only additional interpretation of this Rule was in 2003 and it was adopted by the Rules of Procedure Committee. “It says nothing about what you are saying, Madam Speaker. I do not even know what you are basing your talk about parliamentary practice on.” According to MP Černač, 13 motions for consultative referendums have been tabled this year alone. “All of them have respected this 30-day provision, except for one, when you blatantly, brutally overturned this provision to continue the procedure on Palestine, bypassing the Rules of Procedure,” the MP was critical.
“So, in 12 cases, you have respected this provision, and in one case, you have flagrantly violated it. So, what is parliamentary practice now and who is protecting the integrity of this National Assembly, the coalition or the opposition, in this case, where we are proposing something that should not be on the agenda today? And you, as the President of the National Assembly, as primus inter pares, the first among equals, are the first one who has to protect the integrity of this National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia, but, as we hear, unfortunately you will not protect it,” the SDS MP went on to say, adding that, of course, if this item remains on the agenda, it cannot be expected that their group of MPs will vote in favour of adopting this agenda.
Klakočar Zupančič then replied that they had every right to vote according to their conscience. “This is also your duty,” she pointed out, reiterating that she had repeatedly detected “abuse of the request for a consultative referendum”. “And it is time, as you said, to protect the integrity of this National Assembly and to stop these abuses from happening again. And that is what I am doing, and that is what I will do, always.”
The New Slovenia party also opposed this type of procedure
Next, the leader of the New Slovenia party (Nova Slovenija – NSi) parliamentary group, Janez Cigler Kralj, also took the floor and recalled that at the recent College of the Speaker of the National Assembly, on behalf of the group, he had argued with good arguments that the proposal to withdraw the fifth item, namely the provision of privileged pensions for the select few, was ripe for withdrawal or not suitable for consideration at this extraordinary sitting. “The Head of the Legislative and Legal Service, who has also been invited to take the floor, should have given her opinion there, that is, at the College meeting. However, the Speaker had betrayed her and had not given her the floor,” he criticised, among other things, and made a procedural motion to obtain the opinion of the Legislative and Legal Service on whether item 5 on the draft agenda met the conditions for inclusion on the agenda, in accordance with Rule 184(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly.
As it was mentioned again and again how it would be in the people’s interest to decide on a referendum, Mr Černač said, among other things: “Look, when it came to the welfare of the people in the previous mandate, when the government was led by the SDS party and an important law, the Income Tax Act, passed in favour of the people, reducing the burden on them and leaving more money in their pockets, the 30-day deadline was respected by the coalition of the time when the proposal for a consultative referendum was tabled by the Left party (Levica). But here, when it comes to exceptional privileges, exceptional allowances that are not based on contributions paid, of 1,500 euros to individuals, here that deadline will not be respected.”
Although she did not have an explanation for her vote, she did not keep quiet about how she would vote
“I now put to the vote, pursuant to Rule 73(4) of the Rules of Procedure, the decision to seek the opinion of the Legislative and Legal Service on whether item 5 on the draft agenda meets the conditions for inclusion on the agenda, in accordance with Rule 184(3) of the Rules of Procedure,” the Speaker of the National Assembly said, adding, “Although I do not have an explanation for my vote, I can tell you that I will be voting against.”
“Madam Speaker, this is really becoming tragicomic now. You just said that you had no explanation for your vote, and then immediately afterwards, you broke the Rules of Procedure, of which you should be the guardian,” said MP Cigler Kralj, reacting to the remarks made by the Speaker of the National Assembly, adding that he had no other option but to propose that, following the example of one of the Vice-Presidents, she should give herself a warning. “But I ask that things start getting more serious, because this is really not at an appropriate level anymore.”
Klakočar Zupančič replied that she had only said how she would vote, but had not explained it. “I am giving you some time to laugh now. I will take your suggestion into account, and I will give myself a warning. Okay, I am giving myself a warning, I am reprimanding myself. Now, I am putting to the vote what I announced to you earlier.” With 33 Members voting in favour and 46 against, the decision was not adopted. “We shall now proceed to the decision and will now vote on the agenda,” she announced.
The leader of the NSi party parliamentary group said that he did not know why the coalition MPs were afraid of the opinion of the Legislative and Legal Service. “Do you know already that the Legislative and Legal Service would say that item 5 does not meet the conditions for inclusion on the agenda of this extraordinary session? And this has already happened with Palestine, which I explained at length at this same 109th session of the College.” He recalled that the eminent jurist, Professor Dr Rajko Pirnat, had made it clear in his opinion, which he had quoted at the 109th sitting, that the interpretation presented to the public in the case of Palestine was insane and unacceptable. “By the way, has the sincerity and honesty of these proposals suddenly become a business category? Are you going to set up a commission to judge the sincerity and honesty of business requests? And this practice was started by the so-called Constitutional Arch Coalition, meaning the opposition in the previous mandate, especially by the Left party,” he added, among other things.
The Speaker of the National Assembly expressed the opinion that they do not need the opinion of the Legislative and Legal Service. “I have said this many times before, and I interpret the Rules of Procedure, and I have also clarified the reasons why I interpret them the way I do.”
The current government does not want democracy, they want “Freedom”, which is actually a dictatorship
Next, the SDS MP Andrej Hoivik spoke up, explaining in his procedural motion why his group had proposed a consultative referendum on this law. He recalled that the Secretary of State of the Ministry of Culture had promised to make public the 36 comments on this law. “To date, these comments have not been made public. The media only started reporting on this law last week, and the public, and especially the 650,000 pensioners who have paid contributions into the pension pillar for 40 years, have not been informed about this law.”
In those 30 days, the MP believes that we would have been better informed, and perhaps the national media outlet, perhaps even some of the commercial media, from both left and right, would have had a wider debate on this law. “Then, in 30 days’ time, the honourable coalition, we could have defeated the proposal for a consultative referendum,” he was clear, pointing out once again that the Secretary of State of the Left party had promised everyone that he would publish these comments. “They are not yet online, and we cannot even know who among the culturally minded, artists or other interested public was against such a law because you are hiding it, because you do not want democracy, but you want your rule of Freedom (the Freedom Movement party), which is, in fact, a dictatorship.”
“Well, now you have also gone a little beyond the procedural motion, so you shouldn’t just reproach others, but I won’t give you any warnings,” said the Speaker of the National Assembly, referring to Hoivik’s speech and giving the leader of the NSi party parliamentary group “the opportunity to list the three reasons in favour of the 30-day deadline”. “Thank you, Speaker. I will not respond to your provocation because … You know what I was taught years ago, when I was not even in politics yet? Never let yourself be dragged down to a lower level because the person who dragged you there will also beat you there – on their home turf,” MP Cigler Kralj said in response, adding that he would not respond to the provocation. “If you are not afraid of anything, i.e. of a referendum, if you are not afraid of the opinion of the Legislative and Legal Service, suspend the sitting and ask for the Legislative and Legal Service’s opinion on whether the proposed item 5 meets the conditions for inclusion in this sitting.”
The Speaker of the National Assembly ignored this and called for a vote on the agenda. “There were 80 Members present, 52 voted in favour and 19 against. I note that the agenda for the 89th extraordinary sitting of the National Assembly has been set,” she said.
Ž. N.
