Two legislators who are not on the delegation to the United Kingdom to negotiate a new constitution, Hons Myron V. Walwyn (R6), left, and Melvin M. Turnbull (R2), right, are not in favour of all aspects of the House of Assembly (HoA) position on what should be in the constitution. Photo: Facebook/File

The Committee of the House did not view recall as an appropriate constitutional or legislative mechanism and will not support a constitutional amendment. Photo: VINO/File

Members who opposed a recall provision noted that questions of political confidence or voter dissatisfaction should continue to be addressed through the ordinary electoral process. Photo: VINO/File

Two legislators who are not on the delegation, Hons Myron V. Walwyn (R6) and Melvin M. Turnbull (R2), are not in favour of all aspects of the House of Assembly (HoA) position on what should be in the constitution.

The Lisa E. Penn-Lettsome Constitutional Review Commission recommended enacting legislation to establish a recall mechanism for elected Members and amending the Constitution to include recall as a ground on which a Member may vacate their seat.

HoA Committee Decision

Only two of the elected officials, Hons. Walwyn and Turnbull, agreed with that recommendation. However, the other legislators rejected that recommendation.

The Committee of the House did not view recall as an appropriate constitutional or legislative mechanism and will not support a constitutional amendment.

The majority of the Elected Members recommended relying on existing constitutional, legal, and parliamentary mechanisms to address misconduct by elected Members, including the Integrity Commission, the HoA’s disciplinary powers, and the Commission of Standards.

Members who opposed a recall provision noted that questions of political confidence or voter dissatisfaction should continue to be addressed through the ordinary electoral process.

Rationale

An elected majority of Members considered that recall could be open to misuse, may destabilise representative government, and may not be administratively workable in a small jurisdiction. Members also considered that existing mechanisms, when properly applied, are sufficient to address misconduct and integrity concerns.

However, Hons. Walwyn and Turnbull supported a recall provision and went out of their way to make a Statement of Dissent.

In their dissent, they suggested that where no recall process exists, the electorate is left without a meaningful remedy in cases of a loss of confidence or a failure of representation. Hons Walwyn and Turnbull stated that an elected official could wilfully neglect his or her constituents for a 4-year period while receiving a monthly income from taxpayers, and they would have no other recourse but to remove him or her during a General Election, 4 years and thousands of dollars later.

Both Messrs Walwyn and Turnbull believe that a carefully regulated recall mechanism would enhance, rather than undermine, democratic stability by reinforcing public trust and ensuring that elected officials remain answerable to those they serve throughout their term in office.