NATIONAL PARLIAMENT OF
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE TRANSCRIPT
Inquiry into the 2007 Supplementary
Appropriation Bill 2007 - Head 281: Office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
(Uncorrected
Version – subject to changes upon revision)
Mr Chairman: The Officials of the Prime Minister’s Office are
here. We are continuing our inquiry into
the 2007 Supplementary Bill which the government is asking the current amount
of $52 million. The Prime Minister’s
Office is asking for $7.3 million of that amount. We are happy to have the officials here, the
responsible officers in the Prime Minister’s Office to explain why they should
get that amount of money. I will give
them the opportunity to make their presentation before we can ask them a few
questions. Thank you.
DSPM: Thank you Chair, and members
of the Public Accounts Committee. For
this supplementary budget as stated by the chair, we are asking for $7.2
million. Out of which $1 million is for Riots
Inquiry, $350,000 for entertainment, $½ million for Special Envoy - RAMSI, $0.4
million for Commissioner of Police and $5 million for the Constitutional Reform
Unit. That is basically the
supplementary budget we are asking for.
Mr Chairman: The detail
of this presentation is on page 15. Are
there any questions or queries on this amount?
Hon Riumana: Mr Chairman,
the Commissioner of Police according to the Ministry of Protocol is he under
the Prime Minister’s Office or under the Ministry of Police and Justice? Why is the Commissioner of Police who is
supposed to be under the Ministry of Protocol or Ministry of Police comes under
the Prime Minister’s Office?
DSPM: This case is more like that of
the Legal Draftsman. Previously the Legal
Draftsman appears under local supplementation under the Prime Minister’s Office.
This one is going to appear under local
supplementation also under the Prime Minister’s Office.
Hon Boyers: Are you
saying Chairman, that there is a post being made available for a Legal
Draftsman to the Police Commissioner?
DSPM: No. The arrangement is similar to that of the
Legal Draftsman where his pay comes under the Prime Minister’s Office under
local supplementation.
Hon Riumana: So the Legal
Draftsman is not under the Attorney General’s Chambers.
DSPM: Now it is under local
supplementation under Public Service.
Mr Chairman: The
supplementation program is normally administered by the Public Service under
the Prime Minister’s Office and that is why this cost appears under this head.
DSPM: Yes.
Hon Fono: Chairman, is
this $440,000 the package of the Commissioner of Police?
DSPM: It is for salary plus some
other things.
Mr Chairman: The Special
Envoy to RAMSI, is this the new envoy?
DSPM: It is for Mr Michael Maina. This
is cost associated with his salary and for the running the office.
Hon Boyers: What is his
salary?
Hon Fono: Can the
Committee be furnished with the contract of his appointment?
DSPM: We can provide the contract
but we do not have it now.
Hon Fono: Can you provide
it to the Secretary?
DSPM: Yes, we can do that.
Hon Riumana: Mr Chairman,
$440,000 for only one office is quite substantial. Can the Committee be informed of the actual
breakdown of this cost?
DSPM: Yes, we can do that. We can also provide the full breakdown of the
$440,000.
Mr Chairman: The original
amount in the entertainment provisions was $150,000. I think in the contingency warrant you have another
$½ million and so now it is almost $1 million.
Originally you asked for $150,000 and now you are going to end up with
$1 million. That is a lot of
entertainment!
DSPM: Previously the budget was not
realistic. After when time goes by there
were lots of visits coming in that we have to entertain high level visits. A lot of events have happened and so the
money ran short and so we have to ask for contingency warrants and now we are
asking for supplementary.
Hon Riumana: In relation
to the bottom up approach policy of the government and this substantial amount
of budget for entertainment and for commissioner of police, do these relate to
the bottom up approach policy of the government?
DSPM: There is no relationship in
this. This entertainment is for the PM
entertaining his visitors in the country.
It is entertainment of the Police Commissioner. There is some links with
the Commissioner of Police on community policing and that is something to do
with the bottom up approach.
Hon Fono: Head 281
under contingency warrant for the Office of the Prime Minister on overseas
travel vote. The original estimates were
$3.1 million, supplementary estimates $1.5 and the revised estimate is $4.6
million. That is quite a substantial
increase under the supplementary estimates.
Can the Committee be furnished with the expenditure
for that vote? Who has used that
up? We also understand that there are
some travel votes under different Ministries and this one that comes under the
Prime Minister’s Office. If we are to
add all the travel votes under various the various ministries plus this one, I
am pretty sure it would be a huge substantial increase.
DSPM: This particular vote is not
only for the Prime Minister’s travel, but it also includes Members of
Parliament, Government Members of Parliament and Opposition as well. We are also aware that there are travel votes
in other ministries but in most cases the Ministries come to us and this is because
we were using much of the resources.
Mr Chairman: The
Constitutional Reform – subhead 6005. It
has been budgeted for $180,000 and now has gone up to another $5 million. I would have expected this reform not being
planned properly last year, not probably provided for in the budget proper then
such a huge amount.
My view is that the supplementary business is to
supplement the cost. By looking at this
supplementation this item would seem to me that it was never been planned for
but it is something that has been brought up after the budget was passed. For such an important undertaking I expected
it to have been taken care of in the budget proper.
DSPM: The thing about the
Constitutional Reform is that when the previous budget was formulated that unit
was with the Provincial Government and at that time there was not much
consultation and because of that the budget at that time was very small. Now that they are positioned at the Prime
Minister’s Office, with a lot of work load, therefore the need for more money,
and that is why this $5 million.
Hon Boyers: I think at
the end of the day what we are looking at is a political issue on the basis
that through credit process you throw more money. I think over the last three years there has
been an enormous amount of consultation in the development of the
constitutional reform for this country.
Now it has been taken out of the Provincial Government’s hands, which was
the leading Ministry and this government’s focus to create more governance
process by giving Permanent Secretaries more direct responsibilities for the funding.
What is happening now is that the money is getting
allocated at 500 to 600% increase and is coming under the Prime Minister’s
Office. This should be directly a
process coming under the Provincial Government.
All constitutional reform whether it is UNDP, whatever it was, all came
through the Provincial Government. Obviously
this is a political twist in the process of the constitutional reform. I think there is huge justification for $5
million increase. This is an enormous
amount.
What I am saying is that this constitutional reform
process is going to take another four years and playing so much importance to
it by having so much money. Obviously
next year’s budget is going to have an equal amount attached to it and it is
going to be justified by this supplementary.
I think we need to have more direction and explanatory notes to justify this
$5 million lump sum.
Mr Chairman, when the accounting officers come here we
do not want to be told that we have not got that yet. I think if we are going to have a proper
cross postmortem of the expenditure we need to have more explanatory notes relative
to these heads because we are not going to be gestimating situations like what
I have just mentioned. To avoid that I
think we need to have proper explanatory notes as well as the Permanent
Secretary’s interpretations.
Can we ask for a proper breakdown of this expenditure
and the reasons why? We had a task
force for the last four years which has been going up and down, up and
down. There has been an enormous amount
of work done on it. This means more task
force. I think we need to have some conclusive
explanatory notes in regards to this enormous amount of $5 million.
Mr Chairman: Thank you
Peter, I think that point has been put down on the minute and we will follow it
up. Just a general question to the
Ministry of Finance officials. I would
also expect us to look at where this money is coming from in this
supplementary. Are we supposed to know
this? We are talking about this extra $2
million. How is this money going to
affect the collections? Is it going to
end up in the deficit of the 2007 Supplementary Bill or not? I would have expected us to know where this
money is coming from. Is this supported
by revenue collections? Can we take your
words that the budget is alright?
Hon Boyers: I suggest if Finance
comes in to be examined, I think we should ask them to furnish the projected
revenues to justify these extra expenditures.
Mr Chairman: The officials
are here and that is why I must do that.
Hon Fono: Coming back
to this Constitutional Reform budget, I understand there are 32 congress
members being appointed and to my surprise one went out in the media saying that
she has not been approached giving her consent.
How were the members selected?
Who selected the members of that Task Force or Congress?
DSPM: Actually there were consultations
between the unit and the people identified.
The unit was also surprised when that person concerned came out on the
media saying that she has not been consulted. We do not know the motive behind this.
Hon Fono: Were there
any criteria used for the selection?
Were the provinces consulted?
DSPM: The provinces were consulted, the
Civil Society was consulted, the various organizations like women and churches were
also consulted.
Hon Fono: The Riots
Inquiry has just started and you are now anticipating that there is need for an
additional $1 million so the total budget now stands at $3.1 million. How long will this inquiry go for?
DSPM: It has another month to go.
Hon Riumana: And that
costs $1 million?
Hon Fono: Additional
supplement.
DSPM: We are asking for supplement.
Hon Fono: Can the
Committee be furnished with the breakdown of that?
What
are we anticipating this $3.1 million to be used for?
DSPM: On your question, the Secretary
to the Prime Minister is on leave.
Mr Chairman: Next time we
want to see the SPM in this committee.
Hon Fono: Is he on
leave every time the committee meets? I
am serious because the SPM is the accounting officer and during the last Public
Accounts Committee he did not turn up.
DSPM: Coincidence!
Hon Boyers: In relation
to the last meeting we have with infrastructure based on the contingency
warrant for vehicle purchases, and of course the supplementary for the
transport fund a question, was raised in relation to the amount of vehicles now
parked at a certain car dealer’s yard in Honiara, we have been informed to be purchased
or has been signed off by a particular government political appointee. The Permanent Secretary was unaware of any
purchases. It was never reflected in the
supplementary here. But it is our
outstanding that these vehicles have been brought in under a contract that was
made and signed off by a political appointee in the Prime Minister’s
Office. We would like to question
because it is in the Prime Minister’s Office, can you shed some light if that
contract has been cancelled or the government is going to commit to it.
Hon Fono: And who gave
the authority to a political appointee to do a contract on behalf of the
government?
DSPM: As far as the Prime Minister’s
Office is concerned we are not aware of any contract for vehicles to be
purchased by the government.
Mr Chairman: That is quite
consistent with the position of the Permanent Secretary of Works.
DSPM: We are not aware of it.
Hon Riumana: That means
the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Works is not aware and the Prime
Minister’s Office is not aware?
DSPM: No.
Hon Riumana: So that deal
was done outside and it is illegal.
DSPM: We are also not aware of the
deal.
Hon Fono: But have you
heard of it?
DSPM: This is my first time to hear
about the deal.
Mr Chairman: Well, we will
be properly informed very soon. Are
there any more questions?
Hon Fono: Some of information
that the Committee needs, if the PS, Financial Controller of the Prime
Minister’s Office can provide these to the Committee so that we are in a
position to include them in our findings before our report is tabled to
Parliament.
Hon Boyers: Especially in
relation to the Commissioner of Police, the Special Envoy to RAMSI and the
Riots Inquiry.
Mr Chairman: What is the
Riots Inquiry? Is it payment of the
people who run the office or for people to go to court?
Hon Fono: That is why
we need a breakdown of this $3 million as it is quite substantial amount in
terms of public funds.
DSPM: It is for their allowance,
office facilities and rental of the office.
Warren Cahill: We need that
information by mid next week before the report is put together.
DSPM: We take note of it and may be
we will provide it by Monday next week.
Mr Chairman: I am sure
they will give them to us by Monday.
Hon Fono: I take that assurance.
Mr Chairman: If there are
no more questions then I thank you very much for your time.