~ In process of Kingdom Dispute Regulation law ~
THE HAGUE–Dutch Minister of Home Affairs and Kingdom Relations Ronald Plasterk on Thursday suggested to formulate the wishes of the Kingdom Parliaments for a Dispute Regulation (“geschillenregeling”) in amendments to the law proposal of the Kingdom Government.
Plasterk made this suggestion in the Second Chamber of the Dutch Parliament during the second term handling of the initiative Kingdom Law proposal of Member of the Second Chamber Roelof van Laar of the Labour Party PvdA to restrict the use of General Measures of the Kingdom Government (“Algemene Maatregel van Rijksbestuur” AMvRB) without a legal basis by adapting two articles of the Kingdom Charter.
The Minister explained that the Kingdom Law proposal for a Dispute Regulation, prepared by the Kingdom Council of Ministers, was in the process of public consultation until June 23, after which it would be sent to the Council of State for advice. He said that he didn’t expect the Council of State’s advice before the summer.
Following the advice of the Council of State, the law proposal will be sent to the Dutch Parliament for handling. Plasterk didn’t deem the option of starting the legislation trajectory of the second draft Kingdom Law for a Dispute Regulation, prepared by Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten, ideal.
“The question is how you can prevent two simultaneous trajectories. My suggestion would be to transfer the differences into amendments, so that these can be discussed in this setting, in the presence of the special delegates from the islands. This would prevent two simultaneous trajectories,” said Plasterk.
Member of the Aruba Parliament Andin Bikker of the PDR party immediately objected. “You force us take your law proposal as a foundation and to amend that,” he said, reminding the Minister of the fact that the law proposal of the Kingdom Government didn’t comply with the demands of the four Parliaments of the Kingdom and the Inter-Parliamentary Consultation for the Kingdom IPKO that the Dispute Regulation had been executed by an independent body and that the rulings of this body would be binding.
Plasterk responded that he was “not forcing anyone” and that he was merely making a suggestion for a “clear trajectory.” “My impression is that the differences relate to two or three points which can easily be incorporated in an amendment. This way, you have a clear, uniform trajectory to fully discuss the differences and to determine the conclusions of the Dutch Parliament.”
The Dispute Regulation came up during Thursday’s handling of the initiative law proposal of Van Laar because Member of the Second Chamber Ronald van Raak of the Socialist Party (SP) had asked the Minister’s opinion on the fact that there are two law proposals for a Dispute Regulation.
Answering questions about his initiative law proposal, Van Laar explained that his law proposal to adapt the Charter to restrict the use of AMvRBs without a legal base would reduce the so-called democratic deficit a bit, since the citizens of the Kingdom would have a little more influence on decisions of the Kingdom Government once these had to be secured in a Kingdom Law instead of an independent AMvRB.
“If this law proposal is approved, the Kingdom Council of Ministers can only issue an AMvRB in exceptional cases of an urgent nature without the consent of the Parliament. An AMvRB must get a legal basis in the Charter or in a Kingdom Law within two years, otherwise it will be cancelled. The idea behind this law is that the independent AMvRB will become a rarity and that the Kingdom Council of Ministers opts for the Parliamentary route,” Van Laar stated.
Van Laar asked Bikker to withdraw his amendment to introduce the initiative right for Parliamentarians of Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten to submit initiative law proposals to the Second Chamber. He said that the amendment, though an “interesting thought,” didn’t fit in the context of his law proposal. He said the amendment, which was co-signed by the special delegates of the Dutch Caribbean Parliaments, would also require a more in-depth discussion and that it deserved to be handled as a separate initiative law proposal.
After some deliberation and more discussion, Bikker decided to withdraw his amendment, and instead presented a motion which sought to get an advice of the Council of State about introducing the right of initiative for the Members of the Dutch Caribbean Parliaments.
This motion was also co-signed by the special delegates. Minister Plasterk supported the request to seek advice from the Council of State. Voting on the motion and the law proposal is next Tuesday.
Source: Daily Herald
Plasterk advises to use amendment tool