Friday, November 9, 2012

How Does The AG File Indictments And How Do MPs Sign Impeachment Petitions?

By Basil Fernando -November 9, 2012

Basil Fernando

The Chief Justice (CJ) has reputed all allegations made against her contained in the much publicized impeachment motion filed in parliament. The CJ’s legal representatives have said in a letter

“In the circumstances, in summary:

(a) Our Client has declared all her operative bank accounts having assets in her declaration of assets and liabilities; and

(b) After her appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court, our Client has not received any remittances from anyone in Sri Lanka or abroad save and except the remuneration as a judge and the remittances from her immediate family.

Thus, clearly, there has been no financial impropriety on her part.

Our Client totally denies the other allegations and can easily refute them.”

This raises a question as to how Members of Parliament (MP) sign impeachment petitions.

Do they merely sign these on orders from above or do they do so after sober reflection and on the assessment of facts?

It is useful to contrast how they do it and what the Attorney General (AG) is supposed to do when he/she files indictments.

Before preparing an indictment, the AG’s office studies the investigation file submitted to it by the investigating police. This will include whatever the suspect may have said in answer to the allegations, besides all other witnesses, including those witnesses who have made statements supportive of the suspect’s version.

Then, the officers who study the file make a proper assessment of available evidence and arrive at a reasoned out opinion as to whether there is adequate basis to proceed to file an indictment. It is only on that basis that a decision is taken to file an indictment.

In contrast to this, how do MPs sign impeachment motions? Do they study the issue and make up their minds with a proper assessment before doing so?

Since the matter of accusing anybody is a serious affair and accusing a Chief Justice, as in the present instance, is a very serious affair, shouldn’t the 118 MPs who signed have done so with the utmost seriousness or responsibility?

Did they act in that manner?

If not, have they not done a great injustice, not only to an individual, but also to the whole nation?


Sri Lanka still volatile - Navi Pillay

FRIDAY, 09 NOVEMBER 2012
While expressing alarm at a new push by Australian immigration authorities to immediately reject a number of Sri Lankan asylum seekers UN’s Rights Chief Navi Pillay said that Sri Lanka was still volatile, despite the end of the civil war in 2009.

Pillay is in Bali for a democracy summit, also attended by Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

Ms Pillay said she had heard numerous concerns that asylum seekers could languish indefinitely on Nauru and Manus Island under Labor's revived Pacific Solution and was especially worried over the plight of children.

''I am highly concerned that detention in regional offshore processing centres such as in Nauru could result in indefinite detention and other human rights violations,'' she said.

''All people, including migrants, have the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, and this form of detention has been shown at times to violate this right.

''It could well end up as indefinite detention, and people in indefinite detention suffer significant mental health issues - and Australia should be well aware of this.''

The number of people arriving in recent months has already far exceeded the planned capacity for the two centres in the Pacific.
In a bid to toughen the deterrent, Labor plans to remove the Australian mainland from the migration zone.

The Immigration Department has sent home dozens of Sri Lankans - from Christmas and Cocos islands - deemed not to have a refugee claim.
But Ms Pillay said Sri Lanka was still volatile, despite the end of the civil war in 2009.

''Now that was a conflict area, matters have not stabilised as yet.

''All the reports reaching me are that people are concerned over controls being imposed over them,'' she said.

''So I can understand if they'd be leaving out of fear or for their personal security, and it really cries out for all the refugee protections, asylum seeker protections to be made particularly applicable to them.''

Ms Pillay visited Australia last year, meeting with Ms Gillard, and visiting detention centres in the country.
''They were all [in] very good condition, but not the detainees.

''These are, after all, not people who are criminals and so they were handling the detention badly; many attempts at self-harm, and I'm still receiving reports of self-harm, suicide attempts and protests at the off-shore processing facilities. And these are all highly worrying - and unfortunately it was a predictable outcome.''

Ms Pillay said that combating people smugglers was important to protect people's rights and praised regional talks.
''But I must stress that these should be underpinned by strong legal protections in line with the government's human rights obligations.'' (The Age)

Impeachment a flop: It has another error: MPs who signed an erroneous document guilty of grave partiality -JVP M.P. Anura

(Lanka-e-News -08.Nov.2012, 11.30PM)

Following the Lanka e news exposure that the impeachment motion signed by 117 MPs against the chief justice (CJ) is a document tainted by irregularities and illegalities , just a while ago , we were deluged with information that this motion is drenched in more flaws. There is a most serious flaw in the indictment No. 11 against the CJ . In this indictment it is alleged that the CJ had subjected the Magistrate Kurupuge Beeta Aan Warnasuriya Swarnadhipathi to undue harassment. This is mentioned at two places. Strangely , such a Magistrate by the name of Ms. Kurupuge Beeta Aan Warnasuriya Swarnadhipathi is not performing such a Magistrate task.

It is Ms. Kurupuge Khema Aan Swarnadhipathi who is functioning as a Magistrate. Hence the name is completely wrong. Mind you this wrong is appearing in the impeachment motion in both languages. Legal luminaries emphasize that making a mistake in the name when filing charges is a very serious error in law. They say therefore that the 117 MPs who signed this impeachment have definitely misled the Parliament.
Anura Kumara Dissanayake the JVP M .P. and its politburo member speaking to Lanka e news said, if the 17 MPs have signed this impeachment despite these grave mistakes , they have violated Parliament regulations by signing an erroneous document and misleading the Parliament.

Otherwise , they have signed the erroneous document without seeing or reading it, is the necessary inference. In those circumstances tabling an impeachment motion against the CJ who is the third in the administrative hierarchy is a partiality that is very grave and serious , Anura Dissanayake pointed out.

Sri Lanka’s judiciaryCourting trouble

An alarming split between executive and courts will produce no victors

Nov 10th 2012 | from the print edition

Lawyers watch their backs

ON NOVEMBER 6th Sri Lanka’s parliament tabled the impeachment of the chief justice. The speaker, who happens to be the president’s eldest brother, now appoints a committee of MPs to investigate the allegations against Shirani Bandaranayake. Among the 14 charges is that she failed to declare money in 20-odd bank accounts.

The state media call the charges damning. Yet it is curious that the government and not the police is investigating the chief justice. America’s state department worries aloud about the independence of Sri Lanka’s judiciary. A veteran newspaper editor says that the showdown between the government and the Supreme Court is unlikely to produce any victors: “The first casualty will be the country’s stability.”

The president had hinted for some time that the chief justice had got too big for her boots. In September the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), which she chairs, turned down a summons to meet Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa. When the president’s secretary telephoned the commission, he was told to send a written invitation giving reasons for the discussion. Then Manjula Tilakaratne, the JSC secretary, issued a press statement alleging unspecified efforts afoot to destroy the judiciary’s independence—the aspersions were clear enough. In October four unidentified men assaulted Mr Tilakaratne in Colombo, the capital. The attack was roundly condemned.

Some personal disagreement seems to lie between Mrs Bandaranayake and the president. Once, they had got along just fine. Mr Rajapaksa appointed her as chief justice a year after he made her husband, Pradeed Kariyawasam, chairman of the National Savings Bank (NSB). Mr Kariyawasam resigned in May over a questionable share transaction. The Bribery Commission, appointed by the president, fast-tracked the investigation. On October 25th the commission filed an action in court accusing Mr Kariyawasam of having caused the government tens of thousands of dollars in losses.

Curiously, the impeachment comes just as the Supreme Court ruled on a sweeping and controversial poverty-alleviation bill. The ruling, handed down by a bench headed by Mrs Bandaranayake, held that parts of the government’s draft legislation were inconsistent with the constitution. It said that one clause, unless amended, required the approval of a national referendum. It was the second time the Supreme Court had blocked the bill. In September the court ruled that the country’s nine provincial councils needed to approve the bill before its enactment. Mr Rajapaksa was said to have been furious at such impudence.

The bill, known as the Divineguma Act, has some alarming features. It vests the minister for economic development—who in this case is the president’s youngest brother, Basil—with sweeping powers. He would choose how monies in a big Divineguma Development Fund are used, with no parliamentary or public oversight. He would also control new banks and banking societies set up under the bill.

It is far from evident that this is the right approach to poverty alleviation. Rather, such measures would grant Basil Rajapaksa much political influence over the country’s rural population. Among other things, implementation would draw back to the centre powers devolved to the provinces 25 years ago in an effort to solve ethnic conflict.

Now that the Supreme Court has upheld the main arguments against the bill, the ruling party’s general secretary says it will amend the bill to avert the referendum the court called for. But he did not lay out what the proposed changes would be. Few are persuaded that it represents an about-face. The government’s priority has always been the centralisation of power. That is hardly likely to change—especially with the chief justice now in the dock.

‘I Have No Objection Against The Impeachment’ Says The Most Corrupt Chief Justice

By Colombo Telegraph –November 9, 2012

“No there is nothing wrong in bringing an impeachment. If there are charges, she has to be impeached; there is no question about it. Chief Justice or no Chief Justice, one cannot have improprieties and that is fundamental. That is why I have no objection against this case.” saysSarath N. Silva, the most corrupt Chief Justice of Sri Lanka.

In an an interview with Daily FT journalist Chamitha Kuruppu, the former Chief Justice said “the charges framed against Neville Samarakoon were some frivolous matters. Charges against me were drafted by a person who writes a tabloid newspaper. In fact I wanted to answer those charges but the Secretary General of the Parliament said I could do so because the charges had not been accepted. They were absolutely frivolous. But the charges against Chief Justice Bandaranayaketouch upon financial improprieties and so on. The crucial matter is that there is a case of bribery against the Chief Justice’s husband. I feel the Chief Justice should have been well advised to take leave during that period and allow that case to go on. Or some such mechanism should have been resorted to in discussion with the President to avoid such a situation. Now the Government can also say ‘how can we charge with bribery when the wife is the Head of the Judiciary?’ To begin with, I don’t know why the Government gave that job to the husband. I blame both parties. But the upshot of it is that our whole institution suffers. The charges against the Chief Justice are fairly serious. Whether these charges are true or not is a different question.”

We below give the impeachment motion against Sarath N. Silva.

When all the 'FUN' is About Fooling Ourselves-Here in Sri Lanka, there is also polarisation of politics, a reaction to ethnic divisions and frictions within in a post war regime.

(COLOMBO, Sri Lanka) - “Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.” said George Carlin, the American Comedian, Social Critic and Satirist. “Come on, gentleman; let us drink to our stupidity.” said Santosh Kalwar, the Nepali poet and writer.

Some 'dud' somewhere had calculated that the Rajapaksa family clan have worked terribly hard from day one in power, to earn a paltry income of 120 to 180 million US dollars every year. That's only through Chinese projects and programmes. The same person has also done some arithmetic to say the real “intake” for the family clan with all other income sources would touch anything between 400 to 500 million US dollars annually. And, Rajeev Sharma in Delhi has put them all in his paper (No. 5261) that appears in South Asia Analysis Group, detailing how whole “fronts” put up by the Rajapaksas function, to leave no foot prints behind that could lead to the actual beneficiaries. But they still lead to most other conflicts in this post war Sri Lanka.

News, or rather interesting tales are not leaked to the media by politicians, ministers and Heads of States alone. They are at times leaked by others who have no stake in the issue, but, is privy to the issue. That tells us, this conflict between the Executive and the Judiciary is not the end of the story. It is only the beginning of a story that came into public domain, with Manjula Thilakaratne, Secretary to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), issuing a public statement as instructed by the JSC on 18 September, 2012. The accepted common interpretation to this conflict now out in the open after the physical assault on Thilakaratne and the subsequent “Motion” handed over to the Speaker of parliament on 01st November at an auspicious time, impeaching Chief Justice Shiranee Bandaranayake is that, the Rakapaksa regime fell foul over the determination of the Supreme Court on the “Divineguma Bill”, the Rajapaksa sibling wants implemented.

That single glossing over, does not give the actual reason(s) to the conflict between the Executive and the CJ Bandaranayake. There was nothing unusual in that determination the Speaker announced in parliament on 17 September. The Supreme Court determined the ‘Divineguma Bill’ should be referred to and consented by all Provincial Councils before it is taken up in Parliament. Yet for the first time, he notes that the Speaker had not been duly addressed too on the petition. On the following day, JSC Secretary Thilakaratne issued the historic statement to the media, to the effect that the JSC is being pressured by powerful political sources, but the JSC would not allow the independence of the judiciary and that of the JSC to be compromised in any way. Thereafter the ball started bouncing back and forth, with Thilakaratne ending up at the accident ward of the Colombo General Hospital and CJ Bandaranayake having now got to face the impeachment in parliament. The two incidents, the Speaker's announcement in parliament on the SC determination on 17 September and JSC Secretary's statement on behalf of the JSC on 18 September together, therefore draws a picture, that by itself is not the whole picture. That leaves a big question yet to be answered and is not answered by either party.

Read Full Article

Rajapakse impeachment blunders unending ! even indictment 10 is false

(Lanka-e-News -09.Nov.2012, 7.00AM) Yet another monumental blunder in the Rajapakse impeachment motion brought against the Chief Justice (CJ) has come to light , according to information reaching Lanka e news. This time the blunder is in the indictment No. 10. This indictment states that while she was studying in the University the CJ wrote an article to the Centre for Policy Alternatives in the media publication division of their named 'Ground views'.
The CJ works in the University until October 1996 only. But the Ground views media division of the Centre for Policy Alternatives had commenced 10 years later , that is in 2006.In the circumstances , the charge in indictment No. 10 too is a grave , glaring and an un-rectifiable error , whereby the relevant indictment also is rendered untenable.

Impeachment Of The Chief Justice – The Charges

By Chandra Kumarage -November 9, 2012

Chandra Kumarage

Some Members of Parliament of the United Peoples Freedom Alliance (UPFA) have submitted an Impeachment Motion against the Chief Justice (CJ) to the Speaker of Parliament and the Speaker has decided to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into and report to Parliament on the charges contained in the Impeachment Motion. By evaluating the list of charges contained in the Impeachment Motion, the second and third charges are criminal offences triable by a competent, independent and impartial court, as provided for inArticle 13(3) of the Constitution which stipulates that any person charged with an offence shall be entitled to be heard, in person or by an attorney at law, at a fair trial by a competent court. Moreover Article 13 (5) mandates that every person shall be presumed innocent until he is proved guilty and Code of Criminal procedure Act No. 15 of 1979 stipulates that all criminal trials should be conducted publicly. The State media has already pronounced the respondent CJ guilty of all charges in the impeachment and the hallowed principles of the presumption of innocence guaranteed in the Constitution of Sri Lanka and the principles of Natural Justice have been put to the back burner.

It is submitted that the charge number two in the motion is very vague non sustainable in any tribunal conducting a fair trial.

The charges , three, four and five in the impeachment motion are essentially criminal and allegedly have been committed in her personal capacity as an individual and not either abusing or misusing her power as the CJ. Those are ex facie serious criminal charges falling under the Penal Code or other penal provisions of law, the complexity and legality of which could only be comprehended and adjudicated by a competent court comprising trained judges who are capable of handling such cases.

Even charge number one in the Motion , although it appears to be a serious charge, it is not alleged that respondent CJ had abused her powers as the CJ in adjudicating the fundamental rights cases referred to in the said charge. It can be easily inferred that had there been evidence to that effect the framers of the impeachment motion who should presumably have been experienced lawyers would have specifically stated so therein. There is also no evidence of allegation that the property has being purchased below the market value. It is submitted that the fundamental rights cases are heard by a panel of three judges of the Supreme Courts. Section 165(1) Code of Criminal procedure Act No. 15 of 1979 stipulates that a criminal charge shall contain such particulars as to the time and place of the alleged offence as to the person, if any, against whom and as to the thing ,if any, in respect of which it was committed as are reasonably sufficient to give the accuse notice of the matter with which he is charged… and it is submitted that even in an impeachment motion charges have to be framed according to these provisions and the above four charges have been framed so vaguely without giving the essential particulars that should be given as stipulated in that section.

By including these charges in the motion to be adjudicated by lay individuals the majority of whom belong to the complainant party and on whose approval the impeachment was originated, incurably violates the basic principles of criminal and natural justice which state that the accuser must not be the judges of his own case.

It is an essential requisite in the criminal procedure established by law that the information shall be well founded to enable a prosecutor to prefer charges against a suspect the ascertainment of which requires that the statement of the suspect as well as his/her witnesses shall also be recorded. In this instance the charges which are of a criminal nature have been framed against the CJ without taking these mandatory steps. It is also very strange as to how the bank accounts of the CJ were accessed without following the procedure established by law.

It must be remembered that even the International Criminal Court (ICC) which tries war criminals and other offenders on alleged charges of crimes against humanity are afforded a fair trial with all due process guarantees.

The state media is now running a campaign against Dr Bandaranayake
9 November 2012

The accusations are contained in a 14-point motion to remove her from office, now being considered by parliament.

Through her lawyers, Dr Bandaranayake rejected four counts of misconduct in an impeachment motion formally submitted before parliament on Tuesday.

Critics say the charges are aimed at stifling the courts’ independence.

The chief justice - the most senior judge in the country - denies keeping undisclosed bank accounts, amassing undeclared sums in foreign currency or engaging in financial misconduct.

A statement released by her said she would continue discharging her duties impartially.

Lawyers say some of the additional charges against her contain clear inaccuracies in referring to dates and names.

The opposition says the government wants to cut the judiciary down to size for hampering the passage of bills, including one that centralises development funds.

The government denies this and says due process will be followed, but the state media is now running a campaign against Dr Bandaranayake, saying she is unfit to hear cases.

The Daily News on Thursday in its lead story quoted “legal sources” who accused her of continuing to hear cases from on the Supreme Court Bench… “In gross violation of all expectations of propriety.”

However the Judicial Services Association (JSA) of Sri Lanka defended the chief justice, praising her for “standing firm against any type of interference and influence”.

In a statement the JSA said that judges of the minor judiciary had “enjoyed greater freedom to discharge their duties without fear or favour” under her stewardship.

The statement urged the media to remember that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

Analysis: Sri Lanka’s long road to reconciliation

War returnee Genzia Mary-Photo: Amantha Perera/IRIN -09 November 2012

	Two countries in one
	Militarization of north deepens distrust
	Limited efforts to bridge divide
	Problem of impunity

PUTHUKKUDIYIRUPPU, 9 November 2012 (IRIN) - Genzia Mary, 10, is fascinated by the buses arriving in northern Sri Lanka, their jovial travellers singing in a language that, until two years ago, was completely foreign to her.

Mary lives in Kilinochchi District, part of the country’s northern former war zone popularly known as “the Vanni”. Thousands of southerners, mostly from the majority Sinhala ethnic group, come to visit war attractions as well as a well-known Buddhist temple north of the Vanni.

“There are lots of people in [the buses]. Sometimes there are old ammas [grandmothers] in them, all dressed in white,” she said. Many girls her age also visit, especially during school holidays. “But I have never spoken to anyone of them,” Mary said, disappointed. “They never talk to us.”

For years, the Vanni was cut off from the rest of the country. It was the main battle ground during two and half decades of civil war, as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) rebels fought successive governments, demanding a separate state. The war ended in May 2009 with LTTE’s defeat.

In late 2009, parts of the region were opened for unrestricted civilian travel, and thousands of travellers from the south began streaming in. The numbers have dropped from highs of over 100,000 a day, but they still figure in the thousands.

These visits could help bring communities inside and outside the war-scarred region together, but, so far, that has not been the case.

“The two communities still live in two separate cocoons. There is hardly any interaction,” said Saroja Sivachandran, head of the Centre for Women and Development, a women’s rights group in northern Jaffna. “One example of how far the gulf is: the visitors will sometimes bring their own fire wood. The only interaction with the Vanni population is if they ask for directions,” she said. Full Story>>>

Top LTTE figure in France shot dead

A prominent LTTE leader and leader of the Pro-LTTE Tamil Coordinating Committee (TCC) in France Nadarajah Matheenthiran alias Parithy was shot dead in Paris, France as a result of internal rift, informed sources said.

Sources said that Parithy belonged to LTTE's Nediyavan faction. Since the death of Prabhakaran an internal rift occurred between LTTE Europe Leader Nediyawan and V. Rudrakumaran who was also a prominent LTTE leader based in USA.

Meanwhile AFP reported a Sri Lankan man was shot dead in Paris late Thursday, a police source said.

The murder may be an example of violence within the Sri Lankan community, though no line of investigation has been ruled out, the source added.

The victim, in his fifties and known to the police, was hit by gunfire from an unknown assailant in eastern Paris.

He died shortly afterwards, the police source said.

A hunt has been launched for the killer who fled the scene.

Editor flees Sri Lanka after fearing for her life

Fled … Frederica Jansz was fired after refusing to stop publishing articles critical of the government. Photo: AFP

THE Sri Lankan newspaper editor told by a government official she would be killed - but who was denied protection in Australia - has fled Colombo for political asylum in another country.

Frederica Jansz was told by the Sri Lankan government's Secretary of Defence, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, the brother of the President, that if they were at a function together ''I will tell people this is the editor of The Sunday Leader and 90 per cent there will show that they hate you … they will kill you''.

Mr Rajapaksa has said he was harassed by the paper, and the language he used was in common use.

Ms Jansz was later fired as editor of The Sunday Leader when pro-government owners bought out the paper. She has said that even after being terminated, she was followed home twice and received threatening phone calls.

The Sunday Leader has a history of confrontation with those in power in Sri Lanka, on both sides of politics. Supporters say it is alone independent voice in Sri Lanka's media, while critics argue it is biased, and carries a personal enmity for the President and his family.

The paper has had its presses firebombed twice and Ms Jansz's predecessor as editor, Lasantha Wickrematunge, was assassinated as he drove to work in 2009. His murder has never been solved.

In September, Ms Jansz applied for a humanitarian visa to resettle in Australia but was denied.

Two weeks ago, after she was warned her passport would soon be seized, she fled Sri Lanka with her two sons. She is living in a western country and is applying for political asylum.

On Tuesday a Colombo court issued a warrant for Ms Jansz's arrest, over a historic defamation case, brought by the MP Thilanga Sumathipala (Mr Sumathipala was sentenced to two years' jail for passport fraud, two judges were sacked and an underworld figure killed in a courtroom, following a series of articles written by Ms Jansz).

From her new country, Ms Jansz told Fairfax she felt safe, but was devastated to leave her homeland.

''It broke my heart, it shattered me. My sons and I were so happy there. But I was left with no option. I knew they were going to throw me in jail, or I would be attacked. I couldn't keep fighting. I felt it was important I stayed out of jail, and stayed alive, for my kids.''

She says she will never return to Sri Lanka.''There's no going back for me, absolutely not. I feel lucky that I got out of this alive.''

Sri Lanka has one of the poorest press freedom records in the world. Violence against journalists is common, and media offices are often raided by police and shut down.

''If you dare to defy the government, you will pay a price,'' Ms Jansz said.

''If you can stand it, good for you, but we see what happens to people. My predecessor, Lasantha, he paid the ultimate price.''

Thursday, November 8, 2012

FULL SPEECH: PRESIDENT DELIVERS BUDGET PROPOSALS FOR 2013

Sri Lanka:FIRST NATION BUDGET

කැලෑවේ අතරමංකර සිටින මුල්ලිකුලම් ජනයාගේ බලාපොරොත්තුව…!

Refugees for 20 Years, Tamil Catholic Families Forced to Live in the Jungle

Sri Lanka:SECOND NATION BUDGET

FULL SPEECH: PRESIDENT DELIVERS BUDGET PROPOSALS FOR 2013

The President delivered the budget speech for the year 2013 earlier today (November 8) in parliament. The Cabinet of Ministers had approved the US$ 19.5 billion Appropriation Bill 2013 at the Cabinet meeting held on Wednesday September 26.

Some of the highlights of the budget proposals included the proposal of maintaining a high import taxation policy on milk powder to strengthen local farmers, offering domestic dairy farmers a stronger guaranteed price of Rs.50 per litre of milk.

In view of promoting sporting tourism all vehicles used for racing sports will be exempt from import tax, President said presenting the 2013 Budget. The President also proposed to increase fees on revenue license for vehicles from next year.

Selling land to foreigners will be completely prohibited from 2013 but will be granted on a lease system.

Government spending on the free education sector will not be undermined in any manner, the President assured in his Budget speech while proposing that government education expenditure for 2013 be increased by 15% in comparison to 2012.

The President proposed that Rs.306 billion be allocated for the Education sector which amounts to around 4.1% of the GDP.

Furthermore, import tax on liquor is to be increased by 25% while the allowance of the Public sector employees will be increased by Rs. 1500.

FULL SPEECH -

Budget Speech 2013