NATIONAL PARLIAMENT OF
DAILY HANSARD
SECOND MEETING – EIGHTH SESSION
The
Speaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter Kenilorea took the Chair at
Prayers
ATTENDANCE
At prayers all were present with the exception of the
Minister for Department of Lands and Survey, Education & Human Resources
and the members for West New Georgia/Vona Vona,
PRESENTATION
OF PAPERS AND REPORTS
QUESTIONS
AND ANSWERS
1. Hon KEMAKEZA
to the Honourable Minister for Finance and Treasury: Will the Honourable Minister inform
Parliament of the total cost of overseas trips made by the present government
by the following:
(i)
politicians
(ii)
political
appointees, and
(iii)
public servants.
Hon ULUFA’ALU: Mr Speaker,
within the period referred to in the question, $3.7 million was spent by
politicians and $2.7 by public servants and political appointees. Unfortunately Mr Speaker, we are not able in
the short time to differentiate between political appointees and public
officers.
Mr TOZAKA: Mr Speaker,
in consideration of the poor financial situation the country is in and in the
best management and control of our finances, is there any management rule
issued to the public service in terms of composition and nature of these visits?
Hon Ulufa’alu: Mr Speaker,
the normal prudent thing in managing public finance is always applied. But since this is the first year of a newly
elected Parliament, and Government, one would expect that kind of expenditure
in place here. But hopefully in the
course of the subsequent years we should be able to bring in some control over
these expenditures.
Mr Kengava: Mr Speaker, the
$3.7 million, if I am correct on politicians, does this mean both Ministers and
backbenchers?
Hon Ulufa’alu: Yes, Mr
Speaker.
Mr Kengava: If backbenchers
are included in these overseas trips what are their roles, Mr Speaker?
Hon Ulufa’alu: Mr Speaker,
the backbenchers are members of delegations.
This does not only happen to this government but every government in the
past practiced the same thing. So I do
not see any relevancy in the question.
Mr Kemakeza: Mr Speaker, I
would like to thank the Honourable Minister for Finance for the answers.
8.
Mr KEMAKEZA
to the Honourable Minister for Foreign Affairs and External Trade: Can the Minister inform Parliament on the
present government’s policy on One-China policy?
Hon OTI: The present
Government including governments in the past do not recognize the One-China
policy.
Mr Kemakeza: Mr Speaker, I
would like to thank the Minister for his wonderful answer.
18. Mr
RIUMANA to the Honourable Minister for Communication, Aviation and
Meteorology: The Jajao airstrip in
Hograno District has been officially tested and proved successful but to-date
there were no commercial flights scheduled.
Can the Minister inform Parliament the reasons or problems, if any, for
delaying commencement of commercial flights?
Hon VAHOE: Mr Speaker, the
statement in the question that the airfield has been officially tested and
proved successful is correct. Airfield
license number 001/06 was issued on
The question on why there have been
no commercial flights to the airfield is one of the Solomon Airlines to answer,
as the Department only sets the environment for aviation companies to
operate. It does not undertake flying
operations.
Mr Riumana: Has there
been any collaboration or any working togetherness between your division and
the Solomon Airlines? Has that message
been translated to Solomon Airlines?
Hon Vahoe: Yes.
Mr Riumana: Mr Speaker,
thank you Minister for Aviation.
19. Hon
RIUMANA to the Honourable Minister for National Planning and Aid
Coordination: Can the Minister inform
Parliament on the level, distribution and allocation of funds to various
sectors such as infrastructure, social service projects and income generating
projects in the nine provinces of
Hon DARCY: Mr Speaker, in
fact a lot of this information can be deduced from the development budget but I
will summarise it to the House.
The total allocation to income
generating projects under the 2006 Appropriation Act is $28 million under the
consolidated fund and $37 million under non consolidated, giving a total of $65
million for income generating projects.
On social services, Mr Speaker, $136
million is under the consolidated fund, $3 million under the non consolidated
fund giving a grand total of $229.5 million for the social services sector.
On infrastructure, Mr Speaker, under
the consolidated fund it is $58.4 million, and the non consolidated fund is
quite little, about $0.3 million giving us a total of $59 million. That is spread across the nine provinces of
Mr FONO: Mr Speaker, these mere allocations under the budget
for 2006, can the Minister inform the House as to how much of these were
actually used on actual projects?
Hon Darcy: Mr Speaker,
as we all know the government this year has actually commenced the fiscal year
quite late and that we have so far expended about 40% to 47% of the total
allocation under government budget.
Mr Riumana: Can the
Minister inform the House if it is the government’s policy to prioritise social
services and infrastructures rather than income generating projects?
Hon Darcy: Yes, Mr
Speaker. The usual exercise will have to
be carried out during the process of budgeting and that prioritization will
have to be made based on where we see is best to allocate expenditure resources
towards the whole effort of growing the economy. All the areas that have been stated are very
important priority areas. You cannot say
social services are not important and you should just allocate to income
generation. It is also important to
develop the social conditions of citizens of this country. It has to be given equal priority.
Prioritization will have to be made
based on the way that we see resources are available from both the consolidated
and our donor partners. Yes, that is an
exercise that will have to be normally carried out during the process of normal
budgeting.
Mr Riumana: Mr Speaker, given
that allocation, what is its tangible impact to the economy of the
country?
Hon Darcy: Mr Speaker,
yes, that requires quite an extensive exercise for us to actually see. I think it is important for us to understand
that when projects are implemented it will take time for you to assess what is
the actual impact of these projects.
We are talking about some projects that have just
started. Some may be one year or two
years old, and therefore it will take time for us to assess the impact of these
projects. But I think overall we should
be looking towards a better outcome from this project.
Mr Riumana: Mr Speaker, I
wish to thank the Honourable Minister for answering my questions.
BILLS
Bills
– Second Reading
The
2006 Supplementary Appropriation Bill 2006
(debate continues)
Hon Ulufa’alu: Mr Speaker, I
rise to wind up the debate on the 2006 Supplementary Appropriation Bill 2006.
In winding up the debate, Mr
Speaker, I wish to give thanks to honorable colleagues who have spoken very
well during the debate of this bill. I
would like to thank them for having expressed their support to the
Supplementary Appropriation Bill. Of course
Mr Speaker, the Millennium Fund must have done the trick.
Mr Speaker, whilst it is true the
government is yet to fully implement its new approach to budgeting, it must
also be always be true that when you are about to introduce changes you do not
change every thing overnight because to do so is to cause chaos and confusion
amongst our people and their institutions.
Hence the government has opted for a
transition to change Mr Speaker. And
this is why we called ourselves the Grand Coalition for Change.
(hear, hear)
Mr Speaker, to expect changes to be
implemented overnight is unrealistic by those who expect it to happen because
that is not life. Life does not happen
that way.
In fact, Mr Speaker, some of us
change from good to bad while others change from bad to good. And that is a normal thing in life. It is hoped here Mr Speaker, that the change
the Grand Coalition is introducing will be smooth and will be for good. For
it to be good Mr Speaker, we have to address the problems at their root causes. And the root cause of our problem Mr Speaker,
is the dualistic life we are living.
As I have said during the debate of
this bill Mr Speaker, 90% of Solomon Islanders’ way of life has no value, it is
void because it is not legal while only 10% is legal, as compared to our counterparts,
our foreigners, our friends, our naturalised citizens who are in the opposite
where 90% of their way of life is legal and only 10% is not legal. This is why foreigners have advantage over
Solomon Islanders because the way the laws of the land have been constructed. And it has been constructed for a very good
reason because it was constructed to serve the interest of foreigners. That is the way
This is the legacy of colonialism,
Mr Speaker. Not only in Solomon Islands
but every where in the world. That is
the legacy of colonialism. And unless Mr
Speaker, we are aware of that and we know it because it is only by knowing can we
do something about it. If you do not
know you cannot do anything about it.
You will keep blaming others for the state you are in.
Mr Speaker, I myself is living witness
of what we do for ourselves. The disease
that I have is not only inherited but is made worse by all the alcohol that I
have taken during my lifetime, and all the tobacco I have smoked, and all
possible womanisation, Mr Speaker.
(laughter)
Unless
I know those were the root causes of my sickness Mr Speaker, would I do
something about it? Isn’t that the same
as this country, Mr Speaker? Unless we
know the root causes of our problem, we will do nothing about them and we will
go on blaming others for the situation we brought unto ourselves. I hope making a guinea pig of myself will
demonstrate the point to this honourable chamber so that we all look at
ourselves and do something about it because only we ourselves can do it.
That is why it was said “I am the
way, the truth and the life.”
(hear, hear)
It
means only you yourself can do something about it, and no one else. Even with all the billions of dollars in the
world that somebody is ready to give to you Mr Speaker, it would not help
you. That is why the acknowledgement of
removing the log in your eyes before talking about the speck of dust in your
neighbour’s eyes. That is where it is
coming from, and that is where all Solomon Islanders, especially the leaders in
this Chamber and in the future Chamber must realise to do something about it, not
only us today but those in the future.
There is an increase in lawlessness
in the country Mr Speaker, because we are blaming others for it. We are contributing towards it without us
knowing it.
Mr Speaker, this Government of Change
is trying to lay the basis of change. This
is why you will note in the budget itself that more than 30% of the budget structure
has changed.
The Millennium Fund, Mr Speaker,
should help constituencies legalize their structures. Honorable Members should not think that is
their money Mr Speaker. No. It belongs to the constituencies. It belongs to the authorities. Hence Mr Speaker, there is a call for that
$20 million, about $400,000 to be spent on the legalization of constituencies. That is for creating of legitimate structures
that we already inherited from God’s given grace and making them legal so that
what is legitimate is also legal.
At the moment what is legitimate is not legal. What it means is what is legitimate is void in
law. And if our way of life is void in
law, no wonder we are getting nowhere because we do not exist. Strictly speaking we do not exist. So if we do not exist and yet we exist, how is
that so Mr Speaker?
The money should be used for that. In fact it is going to be used for
establishment, capacity building, institutional strengthening and good
governance in the constituencies, because we have to create a new base for the
economy.
There is no base of our economy in
Mr Fono (interjecting): Why don’t you change it?
Hon Ulufa’alu: Now we are
changing it, Mr Speaker. That is the
roadmap that we have developed for the previous government Mr Speaker, and we
are now here to implement it so that the base is created in this country. It is bottom up. Even the Lord Jesus Christ has to come down
from heaven because life starts at the bottom.
If the Son of God did that what
about us? Are we going to live in
That is what this budget Endeavour’s
to show us Mr Speaker. To talk about the
expenditures we are asked to authorize here is because it is the way the Constitution
was written, it is the way the law of the land is written that budgets will be
prepared. There is no other way. What are the other ways, Mr Speaker? There is no other way of preparing the
budget.
The law says this and so we do it according to the law
except we have to change so that you do not start from top and fall down but
you start from the bottom and grow up.
Is that not consistent with everything in life where you start from the
bottom and grow up but not growing down?
Mr Speaker, I do hope colleagues
will understand the spirit of this supplementary appropriation endeavouring Mr
Speaker, to set the proper legal framework for the bottom-up perspective.
There is a bill coming, Mr Speaker,
to deal with the bottom-up perspective and how to finance it. I do hope that honourable Members of this
chamber will with their heart support the bill, because it is the right thing
to do, so that we can end this top-down approach once and for all, and let us
start growing from where life really begins according to the act of creation.
Mr Speaker, I want to repeat here that it is the act
of creation that gives us ownership. If
we are not a creator then we are not in the image of God, we are something
else. I do not know what that something
else is. The act of creation is the act that
give us rightful ownership of something and because of that we comply to the
rules of creation and because of compliance it is sustainable. That is what we Solomon Islanders should be
doing.
This it self is a global revolution. It is a revolution that will change the face
of the earth Mr Speaker because we attribute importance to human being rather
than the dollar which is the mammon.
The human being becomes the centre of our thoughts,
words and deeds so that our thought is only 20%, our word is 30% and our action
is 50%. That is the universal formula. If you do not keep that balance and you think
too much or deep in thought you will go mental.
If you talk too much you will go mental too. This is doing more, less thinking a little
bit more talking and action is more. So
the formula is 20% thoughts, 30% words and 50% action. What a nice place
Mr Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that the
corrigendum for this Supplementary Appropriation is now available and Members
are privileged to receive the correction that has been sorted.
With these few comments, Mr Speaker I beg to move.
The
2006 Supplementary Appropriation Bill passed its second reading.
Committee of Supply commences
Mr Zama: Point of
Order. As Chairman of the Public
Accounts Committee the Committee has just finished its deliberations on the
bill and the report of the Committee will not be available until Friday.
To give time to Members of Parliament to read through the
report, I would sincerely seek if the Committee of the Whole House be delayed
to Monday to allow time for Members to look through the Report and then
deliberate with the third reading.
Mr Speaker: It has been
suggested by the Honourable Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, only a
suggestion and it is up to Parliament to decide that maybe time should be given
for the report to be seen by Members before we proceed on the committee of
supply, which should mean we may have to adjourn the consideration at the Committee
of Supply under Order 35. It is a
suggestion by the Honourable Chairman.
What do the Hon. Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance would say?
Hon Ulufa’alu: Mr Speaker, I
have no difficulty with that but the Prime Minister is the one who is responsible
for government business and so he would probably be the best person to answer
that. I have no difficulty accepting
that from the budget point of view.
Mr Speaker: Observing
the debate at the second reading that does not seem to be any difficulty of the
support of the Bill, but it is just a suggestion that may be the House should
be given opportunity to see the report of the Public Accounts Committee before
proceeding on to the Committee of Supply.
Hon Sogavare: Mr Speaker, it
will depend on what will be in that report. If the recommendation is such that we will
need to seriously amend something in the bill, which I do not know how do we
look at that in terms of the Standing Orders. But as I said this Bill belongs to the
Minister of Finance. As I said it
depends really on what will be in that report. If the report is such that it just point out
issues for Parliament to take note of, then I do not think it stops Parliament
to go ahead at the Committee of Supply in the Third Reading.
Mr Kemakeza: Point of
Order, Mr Speaker. The report referred
to by the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee is not compulsory. Since the whole House supports this Bill, I
think it is wise that we dispose off this bill since the report is not
available.
Committee of Supply resumes
The2006
Supplementary Appropriation Bill 2006
Page 3 replaced with a corrigendum
Mr Fono: Mr Chairman,
just a general comment. Can the Minister
clarify that this bill is being rushed with and that is why the whole content of
this bill comes under a corrigendum. I’m
just wondering whether it was properly scrutinized by Cabinet before coming to
Parliament. This is just a general
question Mr Chairman before we proceed.
My understanding of a corrigendum is that it is for
only one or two sections of a bill but not the whole content of a bill.
Mr Chairman: Corrigenda is
a provision given to the Parliament and Ministry to correct what is needed to
be corrected before consideration. I
think the procedure is being taken care of but has the government any comment
on this which has already been covered in the second reading debate.
Hon Sogavare: Mr
Chairman, I do agree with what you said. That related issue was discussed in the
concern raised during the debate and the government made it very clear that it
will come up with a corrigendum in line with the procedures. So I do not see any reason why we should be
concerned with it at this point in time.
Let us proceed on with the deliberation on the committee of supply.
Mr Rini: Mr Chairman, I tend to go
along with the Leader of Opposition about this corrigendum. For example, under Head 273 – Department of
Finance & Treasury, the sub-heads there are incomplete. There is no such a subhead in a budget - 001
- Public Service pay increase and what is next.
If we go to subhead No. 2 – Electricity and Water 001- it is the same
thing. And if you look at the subhead
for telephone it is again subhead 001.
001 and what is next. We are
voting on heads and subheads. This seems
to be incomplete.
I suggest Mr Chairman that we suspend discussing this
bill at the committee and allow the officials to complete the bill. The corrigendum is more confusing than the
original bill. Mr Chairman I strongly
suggest that we suspend the committee and let the officials come back with a
correct amount with correct heads and subheads under the various heads we are
going to appropriate this morning.
Mr Chairman: The
Parliament under the Constitution is asked only to vote figures to heads of
expenditures. Whilst we are referring to
various other documents, these other documents are supposed to be explanatory
notes on the Heads that are already provided and the schedules that are
provided here. We are looking at heads
and of course …….
Mr Rini: Mr Chairman, I
quite understand that the Parliament is only to vote for the heads, but at
least it should give a Member of Parliament the comparison of the original
spending so that when we come to the items Members of Parliament can ask
questions on why there is an increase or decrease. That is my point.
Hon Darcy: Mr Chairman, I
thank the Member for Marovo for raising that point. But as you quite rightly pointed out, Mr
Chairman, Parliament actually voted expenditures into the heads, and with this
particular expenditure we are talking about these are normally centralized
expenditures.
If you look at electricity, water, telephones, house
rentals, these are centrally located expenditures and what we are saying here
is that we appropriate those to a central subhead, and that is the Head of the
Ministry of Finance. And from there, there
are mechanisms provided under the Financial Instructions and the Public Finance
Ordinance Act for you to distribute these expenditures to the various
Ministries but at the moment as has been practiced by the previous government
all these expenditures are centrally located in the Department of Treasury. All our telephones, electricity and water
bills are paid for by the Department of Finance. They are sent over to Finance it from there they
are assessed to find out what amount is best for us to pay to the various
creditors.
In fact, Mr Chairman, it will not change the normal
process of the way we expend money because of the action taken by the previous
government that all these expenditures are centralized, and therefore we have
to provision the appropriate expenditure to meet the shortfalls we faced this
year back into the central subhead in the Department of Finance.
Mr Rini: Mr Chairman,
I do not agree with what the Member for Gizo and Kolombangara is saying. These expenditures are not centralized
expenditures at the Ministry Finance. If
you look at the Budget they are budgeted for in the various ministries and departments. These are not centralized expenditures. This is the first time that government has
centralized all these. This is just for the
convenience of officials for not doing a proper job. Mr Chairman, I do not agree.
I agree that there are central expenditures in various
ministries to cover for the departments but they are not centralized
expenditures as what the MP for Gizo/Kolombangara mentioned that these are
centralized at the Ministry of Finance. It is true that the Ministry of Finance makes the
payments but it makes the payments on various ministries and various heads
appropriated for in the budget but these are not centralized expenditure. This will be the first time that they are
centralized in the Ministry of Finance just for the convenience of officials.
Hon Darcy: Mr Chairman,
I think that is a very wrong assessment of what we are trying to present
here. What I mean by centralizing is the
common expenditures like telephone, electricity and water. These are common expenditures that you cannot
expect officials to abuse the way the expenditures are allocated. When all the authorities send their bills to
the Department of Finance, we cannot change them because the rate of
electricity, water and telephone remains the same. What we are saying here is that these should
be distributed to all the subheads of departments. The same effect will be achieved if we are to
appropriate it to the department of Finance and then through departmental
warrants they are distributed it to all the departments so that there is
control in the way the ministries or departments consume these common
utilities.
I do not think it is right for us to say that what is
happening right now is that officials are trying to manipulate, and play up
with the system to their convenience.
No! That is wrong. I think it is wrong.
What we are saying here is to centralize the
expenditure, the whole amount that we think should take us right to the end of
the year so that we control the way it is distributed to the Departments. So that it is possible for us to say to them, ‘please
cut down on your electricity, telephone, or your water’.
This is a control measure and I want the Member for
Marovo to recognize the fact that I am standing here answering these questions not
as the Member for Gizo/Kolombangara.
Mr Zama: Mr Chairman,
Members of Parliament would know that this Bill has won the overwhelming
support of the whole House, and the views expressed by the Committee are quite
important for Parliament to see.
Mr
Chairman, the point raised by the Honourable Member for Marovo is a valid
point. Now Parliament being vested with the
oversight responsibility is being denied that responsibility. Whilst it would be for the convenience of
officials, so in my view are totally incompetent to complete a job that is
supposed to be well presented to Parliament.
I do not think and believe that Ministers should be defending the
in-competency of the officials.
Whilst this Bill has won the support of the whole
because they do not want to lose their bottom up approach support for their
constituencies, I think Parliament should not be unnecessary denied that
oversight responsibility in terms of venting and looking at the bill properly,
looking at the heads and subheads because while it may be proper and convenient
for the Ministry of Finance to aggregate those figures in the main heads, it
would deny Parliament purpose of transparency and accountability to look at the
subheads. In my view, it would only be
proper for the officials in the Department of Finance to do a better job.
Mr Fono: That’s all
the more reason why I believe that this Bill has been rushed and not properly
scrutinized by Cabinet. If you look at
the original bill the heads are old. The
Public Accounts Committee rejected it, and asked the officials to apportion the
costs in line with the current budget where these costs are apportioned to the various
departments.
We would have thought that the consideration in the Committee
of Supply should have been done when we have access to the report of the Public
Accounts Committee, the point that the Chairman of the Public Accounts
Committee raised earlier.
The point raised by the MP for Marovo is valid that
now these items are all centralized in the Finance under this corrigendum. I still maintain that officials should
properly ascertain this to apportion the cost to respective ministries so that
we know exactly which Ministry overspent its budget on electricity and water, which
Ministries overspent its budget on telephones bills so that it justifies the
allocation under this supplementary budget.
At the moment they are centralized and so do not give very good
accountability. May be it is the
government for change and so we are changing from the conventional practice of
accounting that we used to have here in Parliament.
Hon Sogavare: I think it is
not an issue of competency as raised here.
In fact the Minister has explained what they are doing. The Parliament is here to vote items to the
heads. It is not here to sit down and
look at who spends more and who spends less.
That is not the work of the Parliament, it is very clear. We are here to vote allocations to the
heads. If the Opposition can justify by law
that they are doing a legal thing right now on the floor of Parliament then I
would be obliged to ask the suspension of the House on that matter.
Mr Chairman: I still stand
with the comments I made earlier that as far as the Parliament is concerned it
is only expected to allocate figures to heads of Ministries. If you can tell me that the figures that are being
allocated against the various heads are wrong, then I might understand what we
all talking about. Otherwise we might be
talking about administrative explanatory notes and various other things. But if the heads can be contested that the
figures are wrongly allocated against various heads then I can understand the
complaints or concerns raised. But
otherwise the Parliament is expected to allocate figures to heads and that is
where my concentration is at the moment.
Mr Rini: Chairman,
first of all I would like to withdraw my earlier statement of addressing the honorable
Minister of Planning. I withdraw that,
Mr Chairman.
Mr Chairman, the point here is not on
legality or whatever we might say. The
point here is that a supplementary is initiated or done in the original
departments and then submitted to the Ministry of Finance. Therefore, why is it so hard for the Ministry
of Finance to put the heads and subheads in their proper place? Or has the system changed? Before the Ministry of Finance prepared the
budget and then advised Departments that, that is your budget for water and
electricity. Department so and so and
this is your budget. Has the system
changed?
My point is that original submission comes from departments
and Ministries to the Ministry of Finance, which means the Ministry of Finance,
should just easily pick up the heads and subheads. That is my concern.
Hon Darcy: The nature of
these expenditures is what we must look at on why we have to vote it to one
head to ensure that whatever is distributed through a legal machinery is being
accounted for.
The legal machinery to distribute money or expenditures
to each departments, is what is called ‘departmental warrant’ and unless anyone
of you here say it is legally wrong for the Department of Finance to distribute
funds through departmental warrant then I will be surprised because that is the
legal way of distributing funds to the ministries, as it is one way of ensuring
financial control and financial management.
On these particular expenditures we
are referring to, these are expenditures that have always been abused by
departments and the previous government knows this very well. The no care attitude in terms of the usage of
telephone, electricity, water and so forth.
What we are saying here is to vote these into a
particular head and we will see how we will allocate it in a best management
way so that the resources of the government are not unnecessarily
expended. That is what we are saying
here. We are not doing this to everything
but just to these particular expenditures.
And the way they are put in this bill, in our view, is the best way to
ensure expenditures that are appropriately authorized by this honorable House.
Mr Rini: Mr Chairman,
if that is the case that everything is now centralized in the Ministry of
Finance why then do we say in this budget that the people to authorize expenditures
are the Permanent Secretaries. Has it
changed? Are Permanent Secretaries no
longer accounting officers? Is the power
given to them by the Parliament to give authorization for expenditures been
taken away? Is everything centralized in
the Ministry of Finance now?
Hon Lilo: The system
has never changed and the system will remain as it is unless we change the
whole constitutional structure of this country and we go into different
accounting system then the system will change.
The normal process of requesting expenditure will still
have to be authorized by Accounting Officers.
But when it comes to whether or not you have the provision to meet that particular
expenditure that is where we are centralizing it is centralized under this
particular head in the Ministry of Finance for allocation through departmental
warrant. When that process is done then
the authorizing officer through the normal requisition will still authorize the
expenditures. And so there is no change
at all.
Mr Gukuna: Listening to
all the comments being made and looking at the corrigendum of the bill, I have
a feeling that we are being asked to approve this money to be given to the
Ministry of Finance. Is that our job or are
we supposed to give it to the Ministries?
My fear is that in the next budget we will be asked to
give $600million to the Ministry of Finance without the subheads. If we pass this budget, as it is, we are going
to pass another big budget next year for the same things. Are we here to pass that kind of budget giving
a big lump sum of money to the Ministry of Finance – is the question. I don’t think the budgeting process of this
country is supposed to be like that. We
are supposed, as has been stated, to allocate money to the Accounting Officers.
That means if we pass this then the
Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Finance is going to be the single
Accounting Officer according to this bill.
What I’m saying is that we are now being asked to
approve this money to be given to the Ministry of Finance. That is my view. But I have said my fear is that in the next
budget it will be the same, there will be no argument but we will just pass. We pass this budget as is worded in this
budget.
Mr Chairman: According to
our present budget, although the various items appear under various departments,
for example electricity, water, telephone, house rentals, they are actually
paid centrally. The payments are done by
Finance and payment vouchers are raised by the relevant ministries for these
various items. Would that help clarify
the situation or am I throwing some mud inside as well?
Hon Ulufa’alu: Mr Chairman,
you are correct. We are getting muddled
up over management matters. What the
Chairman is saying is correct.
Everything is paid for centrally.
The accounting is done by respective heads and Ministries but the
payment is done centrally. It’s a
management matter that we are now getting confused with.
Mr Huniehu: We all
understand that the payments may be are done centrally but the allocations and
expenditures are ministerial. We need to
know which ministries are overspending and which are not. That is the point we are raising here.
I believe the Chairman of PAC is correct in demanding
this Parliament to observe the relevant committees responsible to our
parliamentary procedure. The Committee has
met to discuss this supplementary appropriation bill 2006. Unfortunately, the Minister moved this supplementary
appropriation bill before the committee met.
This Parliament must be informed by the relevant committees of their
views on the supplementary appropriation bill or any bill for that matter.
Mr Chairman, we have been talking
about transparency, good governance and accountability and yet we are doing the
wrong things here again. The Parliament
needs to read the reports of the Public Account Committee. We need to read the report so that we can be
well briefed about these things. The
Chairman himself raised his concern in the debate yesterday that he is not
satisfied about the way this Bill came into this Parliament.
I said yesterday as the Chairman of the Bills &
Legislation Committee that may be it came here through the back door and that
is why we are arguing about operational issues here. Is this the government for change but we must
do things right.
Mr Fono: I still
maintain my stand that we will be failing our part on parliamentary oversight
role if we go ahead with the Committee of Supply. Even the presentation of this corrigendum has
no mention of the original estimates, the supplementary estimates and the
revised estimates under each head. Do
you see where I am coming from? Is this the
normal way of presentation of budgets?
This presentation is not in line with the normal conventional
practice of presenting bills in parliament.
This corrigendum should reflect what is in the original bill like
original estimates, supplementary estimates, revised estimates but the
corrigendum figures do not show these.
That is why it is important that these costs need to be ascertained or
allotted to the various department, as you have rightly said, Mr Chairman, in
the original budget this year that you have quoted so that we can see the
original estimates for these expenditures. What is the supplementary estimate that this
supplementary budget is asking, which should give us the total revised estimate
under this head for this year’s budget? The
presentation of this supplementary budget is not right in terms of the
parliamentary oversight role. This is
very, very important. This is not an
administrative matter.
Hon Darcy: Mr Chairman,
we are now trying to open a new debate on the Committee of Supply. The Committee of Supply is not supposed to be
debating this. We are only supposed to
be asking short question on what is presented in this bill.
Those on the other side should know that the format in
which the appropriation bill is brought in the House is up to the manner the
Minister of Finance sees fit. If you
read the constitution, it basically says the estimates.
Mr Chairman, if you look at what we are trying to
confuse ourselves with in here, as what you said initially, the Parliament is required
to vote expenditures into the heads and through those heads there are mechanisms
established by this very Parliament too as to how they are to be distributed to
departments and ministries. Unless the
other side says the departmental warrant is not the appropriate process of
allocating resources I will be very surprised because that is the process of
allocating resources to our departments.
These expenditures we are talking about if you have done a good job last
year we would not have come to this House trying to supplement these heads.
You have not done a good job last year. You are the one who rushed the 2006
Appropriation Act and then give us a problem to try to supplement it. In view, all that have been raised here, and
I hope that you control the debate that is going on Mr Chairman, is basically that
there is nothing to suggest that the format here is unlawful for us to bring to
this House.
Mr Chairman: As far as the
format is concern there is nothing wrong with it because we are looking at
allocating funds to heads. I have
already said that according to our substantive budget the various items we are
talking about. I think it is good that
we talk about these things but the point is that these items are paid under
finance although it might be seen in the various departments as over expenditure
but the actual payments are done by Finance.
So unless the figures against the various heads are not correct I want
us to proceed. All the comments you
raised in my view should be raised as questions for explanation of the figures
against the various heads not necessarily that the format is wrong because
under the Constitution section 102 the Parliament is only asked to vote
expenditure to heads.
Head 273 – Ministry of Finance and
National Reform - $37,540,000
Mr Fono: This salary
increase of Public Servants - is this the one recently paid or are they
expecting any new increases to be paid later?
Hon Sanga: This is the overall
allocation which will take us to the end of the year.
Mr Fono: The answer is
not clear. Is it already being paid or not
yet.
Hon Sanga: Some of it
has been already received, but it will take us until the end of the year.
Mr Fono: Is it true
that public servants are still expecting a pay rise catered for under this
budget?
Hon Sanga: No, Mr
Chairman.
Mr Huniehu: I thought
supplementary expenditures are already expended and it is for the Parliament to
bless. But it now seems this $23 million
is budgeted for to be paid next year.
Hon Darcy: Mr Chairman,
salary increase is a continuous one. We
cannot say it has already been paid. The
fortnightly pays until the end of the year are still coming and so you pay as
fortnight falls until the end of the year.
So it is continuing.
In terms of this particular allocation you will also
understand that between now until the end of the year, there is expenditure
allocation within the budget and therefore the award the Government has
approved has been locked into the new pay structure and so it becomes a new pay
structure. This is basically to
supplement it, and when you put it into the budget it will take us right up to
the end the year to cover both the existing and the additional award that has
been awarded.
Mr Huniehu: Mr Chairman,
the $4 million for hosting of the Forum Economic Ministers. What special advantage is this Economic
Ministers Meeting to
Hon Lilo:
Mr Huniehu: Thank you, Mr
Chairman.
Mr Oti: This will prevent the MP for
East Are Are asking supplementary questions.
Hon Oti: I need to make
this clarification. The hosting of the FEMM
was made last year by my colleague, the Leader of Opposition when he was
Minister for Planning, unfortunately there was a shortfall in the budget for
that in this year’s allocation. This is
basically to top that up to meet the commitment that was made last year by the government.
Mr Huniehu: Mr Chairman,
it is a commitment but since we have a government for change, we can change it
on the best interest of the rural people.
This $4million can be used to develop 1,000 hectares
of cocoa in
Mr Darcy: Mr Chairman,
as what I’ve said if we are going to engage ourselves in that kind of
questioning and comment, I am surprised. What more can we say then? You are just prompting people to ask questions
here. The trips that you are taking to
There are benefits we get out of our association with
the Forum. I am sure the Honorable
Leader of Opposition making the bid last year has seen the benefits of calling
for this country to host this meeting. That’s
why we did it and we did it quite successfully.
Mr Fono: Mr Chairman,
I understand that the original estimate was only $1.4million under the current
budget. Now there is an additional $4million
on top of that. I understand $3.7million
is for purchase of vehicles that was used during the Forum. Was there public tender for the purchase of
those Mitsubishi vehicles?
This is parliamentary oversight. Was there a public tender issued by the
government when purchasing those vehicles for the use of the Forum Economic
Ministers, after which those new brand vehicles are now used by the Ministers?
My question is on the 3.7million. Was there a public tender made so that other
vehicle dealers in
Mr Ulufa’alu: Yes, Mr
Chairman, there was a public tender and that was the best price.
Mr Fono: Mr Chairman,
can the Minister distribute the notice of public tender to Members of
Parliament, because as far as we know it was only hand picked and there was no
public tender.
Mr Ulufa’alu: Mr Chairman,
we will distribute that to honorable colleagues. These are information known to exist. You just call at the office and pick it up.
Mr Fono: Mr Chairman,
I want a copy of the public notice that was tendered out culminating in the
government securing those new vehicles to be distributed to the pigeonholes of all
Members of Parliament. This $3.7million
is quite a huge amount of money to handpick a dealer and paid the vehicles from
him
Mr Darcy: Mr Chairman, as the Minister of Finance has stated,
there was a public tender and that was the best price.
I am surprised that the Leader of Opposition had asked
this question because it was him and MP for West New Georgia/Vona Vona who
called for the tender because that tender was actually conducted during their
time and not in our time.
Mr Rini: On
electricity, telephone and house rentals.
Can the Minister outline how much allocations are for the various
Ministries on electricity, water and telephones? Which Ministries are expecting an increase
and by how much? On telephones for $3.8million,
which ministries or departments are requesting for this additional amount, and
how for the various departments and ministries and also the housing rental of $1.5million?
Mr Darcy: Mr
Chairman, we will provide those information because it is of great interest to
the MP for Marovo and for the benefit of the MP for Marovo
Mr Huniehu: Mr Chairman,
point of order. I don’t want the
Minister to deny this Parliament that they are not in the business of providing
those kinds of information. These are
the information we need in this Parliament, on which Ministries are
overspending.
Hon Darcy: Mr Chairman,
we have promised to supply that information, and that is not denying this
House, it will be available and then you will know. The total aggregate amount is what we are
trying to ask this Honorable House to vote into this particular head. But for details of those department and
ministries that have overspent, we will definitely supply those information so
that we can keep abreast of which departments have not been able to manage
their resources properly.
Mr Huniehu: Can we take it
in the future that this should be the way that accounts should be presented to
this Parliament in ministerial expenditures and not in aggregates like this.
Mr Darcy: Mr Chairman,
as I have said the Constitution and the Public Finance and Audit Act are very
clear that the format of the appropriation bill into this House is in
accordance with the format that the Minister of Finance likes it.
Head 273 agreed to.
Head
274 – Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Commerce and Tourism - $1,328,000
Mr Rini: Mr Chairman,
which particular overseas mission is really under pressure for this amount?
Mr Darcy: Mr Chairman, this
is in relation to all of our offices because of the shortfall in the estimation
made in the 2006 Appropriation Act and also because of movements in our
exchange rate that gave rise to the need for extra supplementation of this
particular budget to these missions.
Mr Rini: Mr Chairman,
looking at this amount $705,000 seems very small. It is not adequate for our entire overseas mission. I think this amount could only be for one mission. Is this amount enough?
Mr Darcy: Mr Chairman,
as what I have said, what is being reflected here is based on the request made
by the appropriate departments. If you look
at the five foreign missions that we have they all have different you know
different currencies and one of the effect that have affecting the need for an
extra supplementation is the changes in our currency, like our change rate going
down and therefore we need to supplement for those losses in the foreign
exchange when we actually do the transfers or repatriation of funds into these
missions. At the same time there are
some additional requirements required by these foreign missions and therefore give
rise to these additional expenditures.
Hon Oti: Mr Chairman, (inaudible)
Head 274 agreed to
Head
279 – National Parliament – $4,700,279
Mr Huniehu: The comment I
wish to raise is in connection to that expenditure. It seems that the National Parliament is
expending too much money on accommodation for Members of Parliament coming to
attend meetings and lobbying themselves in the hotels.
I would like to know whether there are any plans to
redevelop the Parliament Rest House so that Members of Parliament can be
accommodated with less cost to the government.
It would appear to me, Mr Speaker, that the cost of accommodated Members
of Parliament in hotels is unbearable and too costly to tax payers of this
country.
Hon Sogavare: Mr Chairman,
thank you very much for bringing up that issue.
In fact the government is seriously looking into that issue. We have set up a departmental committee to
look at these issues, not only the site there but also further extension of
Parliament, the second phase of the Parliament building.
Mr Huniehu: Mr Chairman,
can the Prime Minister inform Parliament of any time frame for this development
to proceed?
Hon Sogavare: Mr Chairman,
the departmental committee is yet to submit its report to me, so I won’t be
able to inform Parliament of any time frame.
Mr Fono: Mr Chairman,
can the Minister give an explanation of the various subheads of which is first,
second and third so that it gives more light to Members of those subheads under
head 279.
Hon Darcy: Those sub-items
are salaries, housing and allowances. Subhead
1030 is salaries, 2080 is housing and 2106 is allowances.
Head 279 agreed to
Head
280 – Ministry of Natural Resources -
$401,621
Mr Huniehu: Once
again my favorite question. What are the
benefits of this Meeting to the rural people of
Hon Kaua: I
thank the MP for asking the same question, which he should understand the
reasons already given. This country is part
of all these organizations and we are duty bound to attend to host these
meetings. .
Let me explain again that this is the agreement of the
previous government to host this meeting in
Mr Huniehu: That is not
the point Mr Chairman. It is not because
it belongs to the previous government. I
am asking this question because the present government’s focus is on the rural
people. Does that mean everything that the
previous government planned is what the current government is implementing when
it came into power?
I don’t want the Minister to give such an answer. He should reply Members of Parliament in a
proper manner of the benefits these meetings are to the rural people.
Hon Kaua: Mr Chairman,
this request is for shortfall. What you are
talking about on rural development will be seen in next year’s budget. Do not take for assumption things that are
not happening as yet. Just look at what
we are trying to do at this time, and shortfall is what we are talking about
now and nothing new.
Mr Rini: Mr Chairman,
can the Minister explain items 0271-0030 for $401,721 and another one under the
same head for $549,000. This is for hosting
the same meeting but you are applying for two increases. Are these two the same thing?
Mr Darcy: Mr Chairman, recurrent
one is SIG funding, and the provision in the development expenditure is ROC
funding, a donor funded expenditure. That’s the difference.
Mr Rini: Mr Chairman,
what does it means here in the explanatory note that the first one will be
refunded by the Republic of China. Is
this $549,000 which appears here going to be reimbursed by the Republic of
China?
Mr Darcy: Mr Chairman,
the second one is funded by the ROC and the first one is SIG.
Head 280 agreed to
Head
281 – Prime Minister’s Office – $7,5060,000
Mr Huniehu: I am only standing up because I do not see this
explained in the corrigenda, this $7,500,000, which book are we looking at?
Mr Rini: Mr Chairman,
overseas travel. Apart from the Forum
what other overseas trip will the Prime Minister take before the end of the
year?
Hon Sogavare: Mr Chairman, this
is only a provision. The Forum Meeting
is one that is coming up, and there is an ACP Heads of Government Meeting in
Mr Huniehu: Mr Chairman,
I understand that the Commission of Inquiry into the rioting in
Hon Sogavare: Mr Chairman,
I can confirm that this inquiry is on the 18th April riot.
Mr Rini: Mr Chairman, this
$2 million allocated for reviewing of the general orders, what sort of work is
going to be done here?
Hon Sanga: Mr Chairman,
this provision really is to update the General Orders and to print new copies. My instruction is that it will cover all
provinces. They will have to come up
with new prints and supply them to every department, including all provinces.
Mr Huniehu: Mr Chairman,
can we be informed of which people have carried out and implemented this
General Orders review?
Hon Sanga: Mr Chairman,
the review is ongoing. The review of
rates have already been made public in terms of circulars from the Public
Service Department.
Mr Huniehu: Sorry, I did
not quite hear the Minister when he responded to my question. Are the reviews done by consultants or by
just local people?
Mr Sanga: It is done by
the Departments which have powers under the General Orders to revise the rates
in terms of allowances and all that.
Head 281 agreed to.
Head
284 – Ministry of Provincial Government, Reconciliation and Peace - $600,000
Mr Pacha: Mr Chairman,
I want to know if this $600,000 is only for food or for reconciliation purposes
too.
Hon Ghiro: The explanatory
notes explain itself. The $600,000 is for
buying of food for Ontong Java. It is
for food alone.
Mr Pacha: It is
possible to put a bit more emphasis on reconciliation?
Hon Ghiro: Mr Chairman,
it only talks about food here, which I am responsible for. I am not responsible for peace and
reconciliation. I am the Minister
responsible for Home Affairs.
Mr Fono: Mr Chairman,
why is it that the government only assists Ontong Java on food whilst most
parts of the country are hard hit as well by natural disasters too and have
submitted requests to the National Disaster Council? But has the Government only assisted Ontong
Java and not other parts of the country?
Hon Ghiro: This is a
shortfall needing extra help which was assessed by officers, which qualified us
to pay this amount. There are procedures
for us to follow in making requests to the National Disaster Management Office. The province must assess it and submitted to my
office to do the payment. This $600,000
is going to be paid out by my office as it has been assessed by the appropriate
authority.
Mr Kwanairara: Mr Chairman,
I think reconciliation is one big issue that is not yet addressed. Looking at this $600,000 just for food, I
think it is important that the government must try to address
reconciliation. I think this is one very
important area and I want the Government if it can take note of that and
increase this amount, not only for food but also for reconciliation as the
honourable Member for
Mr Riumana: Mr Chairman,
if this amount is to cater for the shortfall, do you have enough funds for
reconciliation and food shortages in other parts of the country?
Hon Ghiro: Mr Chairman,
I think this amount of money is specifically for Ontong Java.
Head 284 agreed to
The sum of $52, 129,621 being the
subtotal of the recurrent expenditure agreed to
Development Expenditure
Head
473 – Millennium Development - $20,000,000.
Mr Fono: Mr Chairman,
in the closing remarks of the Minister of Finance, he mentioned there is a bill
coming for this Millennium Development Funding.
When is this bill going to come to Parliament? Is the government going to wait for that bill
before disbursement of the $20million or is it going ahead to disburse the
funds first and the bill comes in the next Parliament?
Hon Ulufa’alu: Mr Chairman,
the bill is going to come next week.
Mr Fono: Thank you Mr
Chairman, for the Minister’s answer. It
is important for the bill to come before disbursement of the money because a lot
of us Members of Parliament are looking forward to this.
As I also raised in my debate, are there proper
guidelines for us in the usage of that funding.
Is it going to be distributed as attachment or part of the regulations
of this bill? Can the Minister of
Finance confirm this?
Hon Ulufa’alu: Mr Chairman,
the Millennium Special Development Fund as you know, under the Constitution,
only the Parliament can create the funds.
Vesting of the money to the funds is done by the Minister of Finance
under the Public Finance and Audit Act. That
is the process we will be going through.
The fund will cover three broad components, which are the legalization
component, the productive sector and infrastructure and social services.
Mr Huniehu: Mr Chairman,
if this Bill is going to be introduced next year, can the Minister ensure us
that this $20million for this year is paid this year?
Mr Chairman: I think the
honourable Minister said it is going to be introduced next week.
Mr Fono: Mr Chairman,
can the Minister confirm whether this is going to be paid in lump sum rather
than paying it piecemeal or quarterly like the RCDF?
Hon Ulufa’alu: Mr Chairman,
when the piece of legislation is passed it will spell out how the funds will be
managed and controlled. That is the Bill
that is going to come next week. It is
the act that is going to set the basis of how it should be done.
Mr Kengava: Mr Chairman,
just a point to note here that since the Millennium Fund is a special one, I
would like maybe with the legislation also coming, maybe in future such special
funds covered by special legislation, we should take into consideration the
number of people in our constituencies when it comes to disbursement of the
funds money so that it is a bit fair. Larger constituencies receiving $400,000 like the
smaller ones, I do not think is fair. This
is the concern of my people in North West Choiseul. I think we should now start looking at
sharing special funds to constituency based on population.
Hon Ulufa’alu: Mr Chairman,
we are now getting into the debate of the merits and demerits of the fund. Can we keep that to the time when the bill is
introduced?
Mr Kengava: It is a point
to note and not a debate.
Head 473 agreed to
Head
480 – Ministry of Natural Resources - $549,000
Mr Fono: Mr Chairman,
why is this cost put under Development Estimate? Is it capital cost in nature?
Do
we still not have any reimbursement from the Republic of China as yet?
Hon Kaua: Mr Chairman,
that is the contribution of the Republic of China towards the hosting of the SOPAC
Meeting here.
Mr Fono: The Minister did
not really get my question. Have they
reimbursed us or not?
Hon Kaua: Mr Chairman, it
has already reimbursed the Solomon Islands Government. It is in your basket now.
Mr Rini: Mr Chairman,
I just want to ask a general question. I
want to know out of this $40 million in contingency warrant, is that $40
million included in this supplementary used up and that is why it is here or is
it only $10.2million in contingency warrant used up in this supplementary. I just want clarification on that.
Hon Darcy: Mr Chairman,
the total contingency warrant is $10.2million and the additional expenditure
requirement as required under section 102(3) of the Constitution is $42
million.
Mr Rini: Mr Chairman,
is there still another $30million in contingency warrant that the government can
use on other things that might arise?
You said that only $10million out of the $40 million has
been used. Now we are putting another
$40million needing approval now. Does
that mean the government can still use another $30million still within the
contingency warrant if any need arises?
Hon Darcy: Mr Chairman,
no. The only total amount that has been utilized
under the contingency warrant under the 2006 Appropriation Act is the
$10million out of the $40 million provision for contingency warrant. You will find in this bill before us we have
decided to reduce that contingency warrant from $20million to $10million. You will find that in clause 4 of the bill Mr
Chairman. That does not mean the $30million is still available for the
government to use. No. We have actually reduced that in this bill.
Head 480 agreed to.
The sum of $20,549,000 as subtotal of
the Development Expenditure agreed to.
The schedule is agreed to.
The sum of $72,678,261 as the grand
total of both the Recurrent and Development Expenditures agreed to
The Schedule agreed to
Clauses
Clause 1 agreed to
Clause 2 agreed to
Clause
3 agreed to
Clause
4
Mr Rini: Mr Chairman,
my reading of section 4 reduces the contingency warrant from $40 million to
$20million. That is $10million in the
development and $10million in the recurrent and so the government still has $20million
in contingency warrant if the need for any expenditure arises. Can the Minister confirm the government still
has $20million in contingency warrant it can use?
Hon Darcy: Mr Chairman,
yes, there is still a contingency provision because the Constitution says that
any appropriation will have to have that kind of provision and that is why we
still have that provision. But the
actual ceiling has been reduced from the overall $40million to now only$20
million, taking into consideration that it is only about five months towards
the end of the year so it has to be reduced.
Clause 4 agreed to
The Preamble is agreed to
(Parliament is resumed)
Hon Ulufa’alu: Mr Speaker, I
beg to report that the 2006 Supplementary Appropriation Bill 2006 has been
through the Committee of Supply with amendments.
Bills
– Third Reading
The
2006 Supplementary Appropriation Bill 2006
Hon Ulufa’alu: Mr Speaker, I
beg to move that the 2006 Supplementary Appropriation Bill 2006 be read the
third time and do pass as amended.
The Bill is carried.
MOTIONS
Sitting
suspended for lunch break
Hon Sogavare: Mr
Speaker, I wish to move an amendment
to Government Business on today’s order paper and the amendment is that the motion
to be moved by the Minister of Finance and Treasury will not be moved today but
will be moved on Monday 9th October 2006. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Government Business is amended
Motion to give Thanks to His
Excellency’s Address continues
Hon KAUA: Thank you, Mr
Speaker, for allowing me the floor to join the Deputy Prime Minister and
previous speakers in offering a vote of thanks to His Excellency the Governor-General
on the occasion of delivering his maiden speech from the throne to the nation
on the floor of Parliament on 2nd October 2006.
Mr Speaker, this is a rare occasion for the Head of
State to perform such a traditional ceremony required of him through the
democratic process under the Westminster system of government since the country
adopted when we attained Independence in July 1978.
May I take this opportunity to congratulate His
Excellency for graciously accorded his services of obligation in undertaking
the responsibility of performing the task in delivering the speech from the
throne in opening of the newly elected Parliament of Solomon Islands after the
general election early this year.
Mr Speaker, His Excellency the Governor-General in his
earlier remarks congratulates the Honorable Prime Minister, Ministers of the
Crown, the Leader of Opposition, the Leader of Independent group and all Members
of National Parliament and emphasizes the role of each and every Member of
Parliament in their respective jurisdictions expected to contribute in decision
making in their deliberations and undertakings to govern and lead this
nation.
He went on to emphatically stress the notion by our
people of their expectations of all Members, the confidence in leadership,
vision of the national legislatures, hence uttering of the national motto “ to
lead is to serve” as you diligently lead the people and the nation forward to
the harbor of peace, tranquility and progress with vision and wisdom.
Mr Speaker, to me this is a fundamental principle
expected by all of us to uphold our quest to lead this nation forward. The responsibility in doing so rests on all
of our shoulders of each and every Member of this honorable legislature, the
highest House of the land. We need to be
vigilant in contributing towards the affairs of our people and nation. We cannot keep on murmuring over the past and
telling each other who is going to do what in order to gain recognition or
scoring political expediency. That would
be best left for others to decide.
Hence political bickering, smearing on each other in
Parliament and gaining score is not the avenue in getting this nation forward.
Since the
government assumed the office for the last five months, to expect any tangible
impact or major changes at this early hour does not make sense. Mr Speaker, obviously
we need to be reminded of our past and build on the present for the future.
The policy guidelines of the current Grand Coalition
for Change Government outlined by the Governor General is a strong same
subsequent past of speeches is a mechanism, achieved as a vision to adopt in
addressing the way forward as an attempt to provide a strategic focus in the
development considerations of the fundamental significance to create a peaceful
progress and prosperous nation for our people in the 25th
century. This is not new to any
government who has attempted in the past to subscribe for the same in pursuit
of a way forward in fulfilling the same vision creating a better nation for
all.
Mr Speaker, being one who has worked and observed
policy strategies of past years, I can say with confidence that it is only
style and the use of English words did change but the fundamental principles
remain intact. Therefore, to criticize
the intention of the Government at this early stage, Mr Speaker, I believe it
is too early for one to do so. We need
to be reminded of our duties for our country. As the saying goes, “Do not expect what your
government and country can do for you, but what you can do for yourself and
also for the betterment of your people and country” for that matter.
With those few words Mr Speaker, before I resume my
seat, I wish to support the motion.
Mr MAGGA: Mr Speaker, thank
you for giving me this opportunity to contribute briefly to the Speech from the
throne.
Mr Speaker, the Speech from the Throne delivered by
His Excellency the Governor General highlights the policies of the Grand Coalition
Government for Change designed to move the country forward.
Mr Speaker, as leaders of our beloved nation
Indeed, Mr Speaker, if we are to advance this nation
forward to a better future, it requires the participation of our village
dwellers towards our development goals and strategy.
Mr Speaker, I believe that this bottom up and holistic
approach policy can only be served effectively if the provincial government
system is abolished and replace with a better local government system.
The state government based on the federal system that
we are anticipating to establish is far more expensive and would not
accommodate this bottom up approach policy that we would like to pursue.
Mr Speaker, if we want to bring development down to
the rural areas then the only way out is close down the provincial system and
replace it by legalizing the 50 constituencies into local government agencies,
and appoint the 50 Members of Parliament as presidents. Mr Speaker, ward members within each
constituency will be elected as counselors to assist the presidents and the
village chiefs will be drawn in as ex-officio members of the local
government.
This, I believe, will be the best sort of local
government we need to have in this country.
Mr Speaker, this is the sort of government our people need today. We have now realized that the foreign system
of government that we have adopted is no longer operational to our
advantage. This is because, Mr Speaker,
Mr Speaker, this is the only way this bottom up and
holistic approach policy can be implemented meaningfully.
Mr Speaker, I would now like to comment briefly on the
initiative taken by the government to establish three important commissions. As we all know they are the Commission of Inquiry
into the Honiara Riots, the Commission of Inquiry into Land Dealings on
Mr Speaker, the Government of Solomon Islands has all
the legal right to establish any commission of inquiry on any subject
matter. As a sovereign state, and tiny
as we are on the world map and in the international arena, we have equal voting
rights with some of the superpowers like the United States, the United Kingdom
or even Australia on any international forums or international meetings.
In this context, under international law and under
various international conventions, the rest of the independent states including
Solomon Islands are signatory to, Australia or any foreign state has no legal
right to interfere in the domestic laws of Solomon Islands.
These Commissions of Inquiry, Mr Speaker, were
established by the Government under the pretext of our domestic laws. The Government has the sovereign right to
establish these commissions of inquiry incompliance with the Commission of Inquiry
Act passed by the Parliament of Solomon Islands. Therefore,
Mr Speaker, I would like to comment further on the Speech
from the Throne that relates to our young people. Mr Speaker, I agree that our young people are
leaders of tomorrow, but the government must realize that if we cannot manage
and nurture our youths properly then they will definitely turn out to be
criminals for tomorrow.
Mr Speaker, because unemployment rate in
I would like, Mr Speaker, to recommend to the Government
to amalgamate the Ministry of Planning and Aid Coordination into Ministry of
Finance and create a new Ministry of Youth, Women and Sports. This is highly imperative, Mr Speaker, if we
are to dismantle this time bomb. This, Honorable Members is very important that
our young people need to be looked after. We can only do that if we create a sole
ministry for Youth, Women and Sports.
Mr Speaker, I don’t want to prolong my speech as
others would want to raise something with regards to the speech from the
throne. Thank you very much, and I
resume my seat.
Mr HUNIEHU: Mr Speaker, thank
you for allowing me the floor of Parliament to contribute very briefly to the Speech
from the Throne moved by the representative of the Queen of England, and the
Queen of the Commonwealth.
Mr
Speaker, to really appreciate and understand the Speech from the Throne one has
to really understand the person presenting the speech in this Parliament. That is the first point I wish to raise. Because
here is a person decorated with the wisdom in Public Service, the wisdom in
politics, and representing the Queen of England. Therefore, Mr Speaker, we have to really
understand the person himself and the message he has for this Parliament. Otherwise, Mr Speaker, we will be debating
this Speech from the Throne out of context.
Mr Speaker, the Governor General made a plea in the reassuring
the people of Solomon Islands that in spite of the turbulences this country
faced during the last five months since this government came to power, he hopes
that Members of Parliament, in particular the government side, will come to their
mind and restore confidence and peace for the peace loving people of Solomon
Islands.
The timing of the speech, Mr Speaker, I am sure has
given the Governor General a lot of thoughts about what he has to say in the Speech,
in particular when a vote no confidence is looming over the floor of Parliament
when moving the speech, in particular, Mr Speaker, when the Governor General
knew the public outcry for reassurance by the people of Solomon Islands of the
way to lead us into prosperity in the future.
Therefore, Mr Speaker, I am not surprised that he himself said that the
Speech is historical. And I don’t want
to assume what he meant by this speech to be historical. But I guess, Mr Speaker, maybe because this Speech
is the least volume speech of all.
I have participated in contributing to Governor
General speeches in the past, but the way they are structured, the way they are
written is completely different from this one.
May be that is why he said this is a historical speech.
In speeches of the past, all ministries provided their
contribution to the speechwriters to be included - all ministries of the
government, and there was the government statement delivered by the Governor
General underpinning the policy objectives of all the combined ministries of
the government for the four years that they are in power. This speech did not contain elaborate policy
statements from each government ministries.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for
Development Planning were the first one to decide on policy statements on
behalf of the Ministries. I thought Mr
Speaker, this policies statement unleashed by them should be part and partial
of the Governor General’s presentation. That is why there is no meat in the Speech. Or is this the new direction this government
would like to us follow that when there is a Governor General’s speech from the
throne, all the ministries pull their contributions from the speech from the
throne and throw it on the floor of Parliament as if they were the Governor
General’s.
We do not need too many Governor General’s, Mr
Speaker, we only need one, and we only need one Governor General to present a coordinated
speech on behalf of all the ministries.
No wonder when you hear the Minister for Home Affairs delivering his
speech yesterday, it only proves the point that his Permanent Secretary wants
to make a mark on the floor of Parliament, and not only him Mr Speaker, but all
the Ministers who have spoken.
But the Governor General was the one who is supposed
to deliver these statements and you are to defend the statement. That is what I
would call a traditional speech from the throne, Mr Speaker. The methodology and strategies adopted by
this present government is erroneous.
Most important of all, Mr Speaker, the Governor
General mentioned nothing about the legal and judicial issues on the floor of
Parliament. These are the issues of the
hour, of the week, of the month and they would remain as issues of the year,
four years and the decade. There was no
mention of the judicial system and how the government should maintain its
relationship with the judicial system.
Mr Speaker, whilst the first part of the Speech
acknowledges the new government, appointment of the speakers, Leaders of the
Opposition, I saw the first part of the speech as directional to Members of
Parliament and especially the government.
The Governor General really made directional issues
and I will tell you what I mean by directional or instructional statements in
the first part of the speech. For
example, Mr Speaker, the Governor General being an experienced politician must
have sighted the reason for making those statements. He must see some problems ahead of us. He must have sighted that if something is not
done to re-navigate or to recourse something will happen and the interests of the
people of
I think I know him well because I have been in
Parliament with him long enough to understand his views about development, to
understand his views about politics and to understand his views about the
administrative process of this country and to understand his views about rural
development Mr Speaker. All of these are
not new to him.
He said from his own words, Mr Speaker, that our
people throughout the nation are eagerly contemplating enormous reform changes
by the current administration, particularly through the rural development
policy initiatives being announced by the Grand Coalition for Change Government. He was merely invoking statements made by the
Honorable Prime Minister and his Ministers when dealing with the bottom up
approach, when speaking about the bottom up approach.
The reforms that we talk about in this Parliament must
be implemented in the best interest of the people of
What would happen if the reform is not implemented? What are the barriers? I am sure he must have sensed that whilst we
have been saying the right things, we are steering the boat into the reef. That is why he re-emphasized the statement,
Mr Speaker. You must read the lips of the Governor General in order to
understand the real meaning of him echoing these words on the floor of
Parliament. And he is saying directly to
all Members of Parliament that if we are to lead this country to prosperity we
must be committed, we must do what we say in the interest of our people.
Sir, this is another love letter from the Governor
General to all Members of Parliament, in particular the Ministers. This is a love letter from the Governor
General to all Members of the National Parliament. “Our people hold great confidence in your
leadership abilities and capabilities to provide leadership vision as national
legislators. May I respectful draw your attention as a reminder to the beautiful
motto of our nation as you begin your leadership journey of four years - “to lead is to serve”. May you diligently lead our people and nation
forward to the harbors of peace, tranquility and prosperity with vision and
wisdom”.
Is this statement made by the Governor General good
enough for us to digest in exercising our leadership principles in this Parliament
in the best interest of our people of
It is very clear, Mr Speaker, that he reminded us of
our responsibilities, of the motto we adopted since independence - “to lead is
to serve”. What is leadership in this
context Mr Speaker? What does the
Governor General mean when he talks re-emphasizing leadership and service to
our people?
Can you guess what the Governor
General meant by re-emphasising ‘to lead is to serve our people’ Mr
Speaker? How do you interpret this as a
statement?
Leadership in partnership. We have to develop a partnership and a
leadership that recognises the interest of all stakeholders and other key players
of the nation Mr Speaker. Partnership is
what he meant. Our people’s interest
must be put first in our leadership principles.
And what are our people’s interests Mr Speaker? It is rural development. Six thousand villages in the communities have
village economies which must be taken very seriously when we provide
leadership. That is why when he saw us
steering the boat into the reef, he started to send signals to the
captains. Of course, every ship must
have a captain.
Mr Speaker, leadership in mutual
understanding, respect and benefit. This
is what ‘to lead is to serve’ is all about.
Mutual understanding, respect and cooperation.
The Governor General must have sighted
that we are already off the track in exercising these leadership
principles. And we have Mr Speaker, over
the last five months. You do not have to
ask me where did you get your information.
You just look at the Solomon Star and the media and they tell it
all. That is not leadership. Leadership is exercising mutual respect,
mutual benefit and mutual understanding, and mutual cooperation with
development partners and those who have vested interest and stakeholders in the
Sir, the words “may you diligently
lead our people and nation forward to the harbours of peace, tranquility and
prosperity with vision and wisdom”, is what he said. He said ‘with
vision and wisdom.’ That means we
have no wisdom. He must have seen this
Parliament and this government not having wisdom to lead and that is why he
said, “may we have the vision and wisdom to lead our people”. That is what he meant here. The honorable Member for East Are Are is
telling the truth. That is what I meant,
Mr Speaker.
His statements are not said in abstract. They are said in perfect condition for us to
understand and to realise what our responsibilities are as leaders of this
country.
Mr Speaker, I also want to remind us
that one of the key foundation foreign policy of our government since
independence is ‘friends to all and enemies to none’. This is a Christian foreign policy. But now Mr Speaker, this wisdom since
independence has evaporated into thin air and we are developing foreign
policies based on confrontation, anger and what not.
Is this where you leading us the new
Coalition Change Government Mr Speaker?
This is a question for you to answer.
I still maintain that we should hold the principle of ‘enemies to none
and friends to all’. I am a better Christian
than you on that side.
(laughter)
Mr Speaker, I disagreed with one
thing he said in here that this government has a mission and a vision. He should have turned those two words
around. This government should have a
vision and a mission. But he said this
government has a mission and a vision.
You cannot do that. You have to
have a vision in order to lead the people.
The mission should be drawn out of the vision. Tell him he is mistaken when said that
here. I think he deliberately said it in
the speech, Mr Speaker. The next time he
reads the speech we will tell him to say the right words.
Sir, that is my interpretation of
the first part of a very small speech.
That is my interpretation. It is
a tall order on Members of Parliament, it is a tall order on the government and
it is tall order on my friend the Prime Minister for us to behave, for us to
lead the people of this country. Without
effective leadership and purposeful leadership, we cannot lead a nation so
divided with thousands of islands with seventy dialogues and with various
ethnic groups in this country.
Problems have risen as a result of a
leadership that did not give priority attention to the diversity, culture, to
the fragmentation of people of
I hope, Mr Speaker, all of us realizes, all of us
understand the first message presented in the Speech. He also says from Sikaiana, Ontong Java to
Rennell and Bellona, we are one people.
We are one people. So why develop
policies to split us and divide us further.
Mr Speaker, we are one people and we should have one
development plan, we should have one focus, we should have one policy, we
should have one overall plan. But it is
our actions as a government that will continue to divide the people of this
country. It is what we do that other
sectors of the community do not like it that divides us. And some of these disagreements are based on
very fundamental issues in leadership.
What is leadership, Mr Speaker? Is fair leadership to become arrogant? Is fair leadership to practice
flexibility? Is fair leadership to
practice over flexibility? Is fair
leadership when hitting the brick you do not climb up? No, you take a reverse gear, stand up and
think I cannot climb up because I have no foot I cannot walk this way because I
have no sides, I cannot move this side because my eyesight is not there and so
you have to reverse back. That is what
you should do. And when you reverse you
rethink what course of action you should take from that point on. That is what I think as fair leadership. That is what I think to lead is to serve is
all about.
I failed to see, Mr Speaker, this
fair leadership that I have emphasised was practiced throughout the last five
months. This is where I am calling on
all of us and the government to be more thoughtful about the course of action
we are going to take. This country does
not only belong to you but it belongs to the people in the villages. It belongs to tribal people in the
village. It belongs to them. You are here reaping their sweats. They pay us to do service for them, but not
to be so anymore.
He talks about creating a new and
better
Creating a better
Creating a standoff between one of our biggest donors
is not creating a new and better
The Governor General knows this because he writes this
speech. And he goes on to say, “a new
political direction necessary to take the nation forward”. Of
course, the new political direction the Governor General is saying here is not
taking the nation forward but it is taking the nation backward. That is the truth.
These are the pressing issues, Mr Speaker, facing our
people and the nation. What are the
pressing issues? Can you tell me? We are not addressing the pressing
issues. We are only addressing the
pressing issues that are in our interests here in
I just returned from my constituency and I toured
three constituencies. My people asked
me, “honorable when will the million dollars you are talking about - the bottom
up approach be implemented. That is
their question, and we have to find answers to these questions. All they hear is the standoff between
Page 4 talks about the new political
direction calling for a new mission and a new vision for our country. I said it should be the other way round. The vision for this country is to provide more
financial resources to the rural, agricultural farmers in this country.
The Minister of Finance yesterday could not find word
enough to convince me on what he calls the issue of ownership. He blames the foreigners as owing
The only reason why foreigners are manipulating the
banking system is because we have failed miserably to transform the informal
sector which made up three-quarter of this country’s resources into transact-able
value. And who is to be blamed. Do we blame the foreigners? No, you blame yourself because foreigners do
not pass legislation in this country. It
is you and me. The only foreigner who
will be speaking in this Parliament is Julian Moti when he comes in as the next
Attorney General. He is already
employed.
Mr Speaker: Could you
refrain from mentioning names please?
Mr Huniehu: I withdraw Mr Speaker. Yes, I am calling on my Minister of Finance to
please stop complaining about foreigners manipulating, foreigners misusing the
banking system, the economic system because it is your job to cause
redirection. That is your job. That is what you have been assigned to do and
the Minister for Development Planning.
Both of you are known economists.
If you cannot do it now how can you expect me to do it? I am not a qualified economist. Your question falls on you yourself. If you turn back you can see the other one -
the Minister of Development Planning is sitting behind you. That is your question to answer.
Mr Speaker, that is the problem with
the third world. The third world is so
enriched with resources and yet there are no laws made to recognize the value
of these resources. You start working on
the law tomorrow the Minister of Finance so that we can use this enormity of
wealth into transact-able value for the banks or whatever.
Yes, the Governor General talks
about the bottom up approach. I want the
Minister of Finance to clarify what he means by the bottom up approach because the
bottom up approach had started even before the colonial times. The Minister of Finance whenever he talks he
always blame the colonial people. What
do you blame them for? They have gone
back a long time ago leaving this country for you to manage, and so why keep
bothering them. May be when they hear
you talking about the colonial people they laugh at you and say an intelligent
person who has all the legal tools at his hands to do it, is still referring
and blaming the colonial people. Some of
these days we have to put our thinking and our statements in Parliament right.
I want him to redefine what this bottom up approach
is. Bottom up approach to me is a subsidy scheme where after the colonial
government has left is cancelled, is withdrawn. That is a bottom up approach. And it was the colonial bottom up approach
that created the coconut and the cocoa industry and it is the Solomon Islands Government
that destroyed these policies, and I want us to reintroduce these
policies.
You
talk about land disputes but there were no land disputes when the coconut,
copra and cocoa were planted many years ago.
Why? Because each individual
landowner went and farmed his own land and there is no land dispute. This is where we should be moving towards. You provide the funds and I can guarantee and
assure you that 200,000 hectares of cocoa and coconut can be planted. You need to find money for the subsidize
scheme.
The Minister of Agriculture is listening very intently
because that is what he needed. He was
complaining the other day when he was speaking that he has no money to
implement his policies but this is where he should be drawing his wisdom from
the MP for East Are Are.
Mr Speaker, the Governor General
talks about creating a God fearing society.
I shivered when I heard this in Parliament because what we do is causing
enmity. Our Constitution talks about one
people, the Governor General talks about one people one country but we are
doing the opposite. We burned down the
I can assure you that some of you are bishops and reverends
that if there is a meeting held in Lawson Tama for you to preach I will not
attend that meeting because you are doing the opposite. I love people more than you. We must not misuse text from the Bible, and
we must not misuse text from God, the Father of the universe.
This is not leading and serving our people with the
highest respect and ethical standard. I
do not want to talk about ethical standard because I am not qualified to talk
about it. May be the reverend should
talk about what is ethical leadership.
I am saying this because the Governor General mentions
ethical leadership. The second part of
the Governor General’s Speech, the second theme is about constitutional reform,
ethical leadership, truth and reconciliation.
After we corrected the principles of our leadership before we can talk
about truth and reconciliation. Let us
talk about ethnical leadership and let us talk about constitutional
reform.
Talking about constitutional reform means talking
about development reform. If we do not
correct the leadership principles that we exercise and practice, how can we
correct the truth and reconciliation of this nation because it must come out
from a heart, a true heart that pumps out peace, tranquility and reconciliation
or whatever you call it.
Mr Speaker, the Governor General was
right when he said that we must repent first of our leadership inaccuracies before
we talk about reform. He was totally
right. He was just right to the point,
and I am pleased that he mentioned this.
Although I was disappointed that this speech does not reflect a
traditional speech because it does not contain all ministerial contributions
but when he talks about constitutional reform, after telling us to readjust our
leadership principles, I think he is on the right track and all of us should
support him.
He said ‘let us not forget that nation building is a continuing
and challenging task. We are as a nation
have been through a lot of very trying and difficult times within a recent past”. He was not talking two or three years
ago. Mr Speaker, when he mentioned the
recent past he was talking about two or three or four months ago. So this speech is a vote of no confidence in
the government. It is a vote of no
confidence in the government. Little we
do realize that he was only talking about the recent past. I am surprised the Cabinet approved this speech
for him to deliver in this Parliament.
Mr Speaker, he then went on to
emphasize the importance of maintaining good and cordial relationship with our
development partners like Taiwan, Australia, England, USA, Cuba, Libya, New
Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Fiji and everyone because they are all contributors
to national interest, and he was right.
He is a politician. He is a very
senior politician so what he was saying is intended for us to digest in the
most holistic way.
He is also telling us to rectify problems and
reconcile with our development partners and our bilateral friends. That is what this statement is talking about
because if we fail to do that Mr Speaker, he fears as the Governor General that
some of these aids will be withdrawn, will be reduced or will be seriously
affected and therefore will have an implied cost to the rural people of
I am sorry the Minister of Foreign
Affairs is not here but I would like to recommend that we start the process of
reconciling our differences with
What is the problem not to begin the process of
reconciliation and dialogue, and resolve it?
Immediately! I do not see any
problems, I do not see any issues. If it
is personal take it back to your home and not on the floor of Parliament. And it is personal, I believe.
I would like us when we negotiate
with our development partners not to have any barriers at all with our
negotiation process. Now if you
negotiate to increase funding from
Mr Speaker, then the third part of
his speech he starts talking about development.
He starts talking about the logging development, fisheries development,
he started talking agriculture development, he started talking about infrastructure,
he started talking renewable energy.
That is the last part of his speech and so it was a well timed and
thought out speech.
He talks about increase of financial assistance to the
rural people. He talks about an economic
system that benefits the little people of this country. He talks about law reform that will enable
certain ministries to perform better in revenue collection and what not Mr
Speaker, and he is in a way instructing Members of Parliament and government
what to do.
In the last part of his speech he
devoted much time in talking about these resources and how to get them. First he talks about correction of our
leadership principles. Second he talks
about the need to reconcile differences with our development partners. He talks about the need to have
constitutional reform, ethical leadership, and then he talks about the real
menu, the real course defined in his own words - real development.
I will remain in this Parliament for only one purpose and
that is to underpin the need for this government, for this Parliament to think more
positively about rural development.
I have criticized my good Minister of Finance
yesterday that whilst this government’s focus is on rural development, the
first thing it did was increasing our pay, which is contrary to the interest
and the principle of mutual benefit leadership in the country.
Mr Speaker, when we talk about the forestry
issue, I want to say in this Parliament that every time we complain that foreigners
get 65% of the contract agreement and the locals get 45% and the government in
terms of revenue gets may be 20% and the locals get 15% and that is the reason
why many local companies apply for concessions, exemptions, duty remissions but
now it is not possible. But in a logging
operation, the machinery is expensive but because of the lucrative nature of the
logging business it is not hard for Solomon Islanders who own 400,000 cubic
meters to own their own machineries. It
is the government that has to develop the financial mechanism to recognize
these resources to enable resource owners to own machines so that resource
owners can have full control of the revenue derived from their own
resources.
Whilst
we failed miserably to address this in this Parliament and the government, why
should we continue to say that
One of the presidents in
We can do it. Why not start up a cooperative store in
Over the last years when the RCDF was introduced Members
of Parliament have expended hundreds of millions of dollars. Why can’t we refocus, why can’t we rethink
our strategies? Are we just here to complain
that our legal system is owned by foreigners, the economic system is owned by
foreigners, and so what do Solomon Islanders own?
Mr Speaker, if we continue to
complain nothing will happen. We will
complain today, tomorrow, next year and when we come back to Parliament we still
complain and nothing will happen.
Did God make you to continue complaining? No. He
has given you the best IQs. He has given
us the best IQs to be part of the solution and not continue to be part of the
problem. That is the simple message I
think this speech is talking about.
The Speech is also talking about land reform. Yes, the Governor General was right. If the obstacle to development is the
inadequacies of our laws then why not do it according to the Governor
General. We need proper land reform, and
this is a dear subject matter of the Prime Minister. He has written a big thesis about it, and I
hope if he survives the vote of no confidence tomorrow he should start doing
something positive about land reform, which is emphasised in this Speech from
the Throne.
Many Members have already touched on
other key issues the Governor General talks about in the Speech from the Throne
and so I do not need to continue to repeat those sentiments already
raised. I think they are all valid.
The reason why I am here is to remind Parliament of
what I think the real message of the Governor General is contained in what he
termed as a historic Speech from the Throne because it is the most simplest and
it is the only one that does not have contributions from most of the ministries
of the government.
Mr Speaker, I hope and pray that
When the former SIAC Government was
in power, Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister then was using his position of
leadership to wield support from the backbenchers. He was successful. Maybe he got five or six backbenchers but now
they have all left him and I see this practice repeated again this time.
Mr Speaker, I was expecting the Integrity Bill to be
the first one moved on the floor of Parliament.
Never to be. But he was
continuing and repeating what his former colleague did during SIAC, and it will
never work. Or are we waiting for the
number to increase in our parties before we can move the Integrity Bill because
the Integrity Bill will stop crossing the floor? This is political corruption. Little do we realise that this can be seen as
political corruption.
I hope our leadership will patch us
together, not only us here but those who have vested interest in this country
and the people in the rural areas.
With those few remarks, Mr Speaker,
I support the Speech from the Throne.
(applause)
Mr TOM: Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to contribute by way of
thanking His Excellency the Governor General of
Mr Speaker, as a new face in this
honourable chamber, I was also deeply moved by His Excellency’s reassurance to
all Members of Parliament that our people hold great confidence in our
leadership abilities and capabilities to provide leadership vision as national
legislators, reminding us of the beautiful motto of our nation “TO LEAD IS TO SERVE”.
For those familiar with speeches from the throne, this
speech may not have the tradition and the expected tone and content but it was
a timely speech, most appropriate and relevant for this nation at this
particular point in time.
This Speech from the Throne highlights
the political directions of the government, emphasising the pressing issues,
and indeed endeavours to direct our thoughts and minds to what is important and
what our responsibilities are whether we are Members of Parliament, public
officers, the private sector or just ordinary citizens. We all have roles to play and the quicker we
recognise what that role is, the sooner we can all achieve peace, progress and
prosperity. This is why I say the Speech
is timely, appropriate and relevant for us at this important and crucial time
in the development of our beloved country.
It was relatively a long speech and
covers many important and relevant aspects and the hope and the desire of our
people to make progress in our political, social and economic development, but
I wish only to highlight two important areas, which I feel have not been
adequately covered by those who have contributed to this motion.
Firstly, Mr Speaker, 28 years of
independence, 85 years of colonial rule, more than 400 years of our Whiteman exposure
have taken us so far from the Melanesian culture and the traditions of our
ancestors of 5,000 years that for the past 400 years we have gotten used to not
being told what to do by those in authority.
The Speech from the throne has
outlined with a ring of authority the development strategy of a new
Although under the Constitution the
Governor General has no executive powers to direct the affairs of the government,
it is well within the Melanesian culture and tradition that we take advice and
instruction from our chiefs, our heads of tribes and clans. In this regard, Mr Speaker, may I urge Members
of Parliament and leaders of this nation to note that the directional and instructive
message of the speech from the throne in our true Melanesian tradition, it is always
wise to listen to our chiefs and those who are leaders and hold responsible
positions be it executive or otherwise.
This traditional speech from the
throne has been absent for a while and the Governor General must be
congratulated for re-establishing a fine and important tradition that also
reflects a truly Melanesian tradition of the big chief addressing an event
especially such a big meeting as a Parliament.
In our structure of government, I
see the Governor General as also representing all our traditional chiefs and
community leaders, and I am encouraged that the current administration as
indicated in the Speech will take measure to recognize our traditional chiefs
and their important role in our nation.
Most of our population lives in
village or rural areas and whether we appreciate it or not our traditional
chiefs have an important role in the welfare of our people even in
Just as our Governor General plays
an important role in the overall framework of our government structure, our
traditional chiefs do have an important role to play in the running of our
nation that mandated us no need to be given, it is by virtue of our traditions
already there. We have all witnessed the
important role our traditional chiefs have played in the many crises facing
this nation, especially during the ethnic tension. It is indeed wise and prudent that we take
measures to engage and involve our traditional chiefs in the governance of this
nation.
It is heartening and very encouraging to learn that
the Makira/Ulawa Provincial Government is in the process of engaging
traditional chiefs in its political development and that the Boaboa House of
Chiefs in Malaita is spearheading an educational programme on the role and
function of our traditional chiefs.
These are encouraging developments, and I am sure the government will
take the liberty and responsibility to progress forward the need to not only
recognise the good work carried out by our traditional chiefs but to ensure
that our chiefly system is not just another avenue for conman and charlatans to
further reduce the credibility of our most important leadership aspect of our
beloved country.
Let us come to the rescue and the Makira Ulawa
Provincial Government and the Boaboa House of Chiefs may have the directions that
we should go.
Mr Speaker, the important role of chiefs has a lot to
do with the peace and harmony that should go hand in hand with the peace and
tranquility of the environment.
The tourism potential of this nation as stated in the
Speech is indeed huge. Our environment
is already an attractive tourist destination, beautiful palm fringe beaches,
prestine oceanic marine life and tropical forest. The
Mr Speaker, chiefs can easily be agents of change. Giving recognition to our chiefs can excel the
role of traditional chiefs cannot be over emphasised, and whether it is
political stability, economical vibrancy or social harmony, our traditional
chiefs have a vital role to play in the development of Solomon Islands.
I highlighted the work of chiefs because I believe
this is a missing link in our governance and the sooner we address this
important issue the better it is for us.
Let me now turn to another important aspect of
national development highlighted in the Speech from the Throne. This is the Government’s commitment to assist
the churches by directing 10% of state revenue to the churches to carry out
their duties to the nation.
This is an important Christian
principle known as tithing. Being a Christian
nation we have to live by what we preach.
This is not pride nor is it taking the name of God in vain. This is reality to practice what we preach
‘to lead is to serve’.
The Government recognizes the
important role of the churches and wants to acknowledge the invaluable role
they play in national development. They
have done much in health and education.
With this state assistance the Government believes it can take on a lot
of responsibilities currently borne by the government.
I wish to put on record for the benefit of all donor
partners that Christian faith is foundational in the development of this
nation. Donor partners must also respect
our Christian heritage and follow the example the government that has set by
respecting the work of the churches. It
is sad to see aid workers and consultants sometimes disregarding our Christian
beliefs and principles in the way they provide assistance and conducting the
lives in public.
An open challenge to our cultures,
faiths and beliefs is unacceptable. Let
us not forget that
Disregard of such values demean our
people and stand in the way of community engagement and participation. Our people’s allegiance is first and foremost
to God before Government and all donor partners and friends of
It is the responsibility of all of
us in this honourable House to fully appreciate God’s mercy upon our nation and
indeed echo the resounding chorus of ending remarks of His Excellency the
Governor General – God save the
With these few remarks, Mr Speaker,
may I once again thank His Excellency the Governor General for delivering the
speech, and in so doing I resume my seat in support of the motion.
(applause)
Mr TANEKO: Mr Speaker, I
will be very brief this afternoon in contributing to this very important motion
in thanking His Excellency the Governor General for the Speech from the Throne
on Monday delivered to us on the 2nd October 2006.
Mr
Speaker, as we all can hear from Members who have contributed mentioning the
bottom-up approach, therefore, I will begin my speech of today from the end of
the Governor General’s Speech. And I
quote from his speech on page 20: “May I
now appeal to everyone of us, to continue to work together in peace and
harmony, in our collective effort to rebuild this beautiful nation, the
Sir, this nation
I thank my people of Shortlands who mandated me to
represent them in this House of Parliament to be their legislator, to be their
voice given to me to represent them in this House of the Parliament, the
highest authority body of the nation
Mr Speaker, much have been said in this House and much
have been repeated. I am now in my 5th
year in this House, the second term and much have been said.
Mr Speaker, in his Excellency’s speech he said, “If we
have faith in the living God”. Mr Speaker, the Bible says “That faith without
action is dead”. Therefore, all 50 Members
with an open heart must come forward to rebuild the nation from the bottom of
our heart, before the bottom up approach can succeed.
That is the reality.
The practical side to it is in you and in me. Why Mr Speaker? Because the fear is that two kingdoms are in
us. One is the kingdom of the earth the
hell and the kingdom Heaven. The choice
is us.
We are representatives of our people’s culture. It is now 28 years since independence and our
book the Constitution with its 145 sections is to be implemented and to be
enforced by legislators of this Parliament.
I thank you, Mr Speaker, for brining this nation to where we are now as
an independent country.
Mr Speaker, if we are truly an independent country we
should be loving people and nation and this begins from the leadership. Leadership is the highest authority.
I do not want to see the 49 Members as different
nations. You are my brothers, you are my
families, you are my children. This is
the only way we can rebuild and reconcile this nation as one nation and unite
to bring the other speeches that have been said and the speech from the throne can
be implemented totally from the heart. It
cannot be implemented, it cannot be practical if we just say the words. The words have to come from the very bottom
of our heart as leaders.
The nation is already 28 years. Mr Speaker, I totally believe that we have to
come out from the
But we must be real and practical and to be
implemented by leaders including you on the government side as well as us on the
Opposition side so that we can change this nation
We talk about the bottom up approach. At this very time now the people who mandated
us are sweating in order to live so that they can find their fruits for
today.
Being empowered, Mr Speaker, by those poor people from
the four corners of
We have been repeating the same things. Some of you are not in this House for more than
five terms. I am now in my second term. But if there is not enough action to change
Sir, when
It is our responsibility to make it fair and just for
our own laws to suit our nation from the bottom to the top so that we can enjoy
harmony and peace in
We talk about agriculture, we talk about schools, we
talk about all those things and I don’t want to repeat myself and that is why I
want to shorten my speech because everybody have said everything and we will continue
to repeat the same things. But I just
want to remind us, Mr Speaker, that I am standing here sharing the voice of my
people, representing my people, it is true that our people and our culture are
God traditional given culture for man to rule and reign as leadership with our chiefs
and elders. Therefore, the truth is to
strengthen that area so that we can check.
Mr Speaker, I will give you one example that my people
are suffering today. So to whom are they
looking at? They are looking at their honorable
to deliver the services. That mentality
is still in our people, and so we have to educate them so that they can see the
government of the day as the body that is responsible of delivering the services.
One example is this development fund that we now have
for our people. You know what we are
teaching our people to depend on handouts.
Let us move out from
If the mission is right that we have to change the
nation, first we have to change our hearts, the heart of our nation, the heart
of our children, the heart of our people. We don’t want to turn into criminals, we want
them to be Christian people practically. That is all that is needed and we will change
the nation out of
You know, Mr Speaker, when those people left
I will tell you one parable. The 50 constituencies are not the same. Some people live on different things. Their way of life, how they find their money
is different. Let us give them the best
incentives of what they own.
Bless them if they are producing more logs to bless
the nations of
Sir, we talk about ethical leadership, and that is
true for all of us here. As an independent
country we should not be colonial minded in this House. Let us be responsible in representing our
people so that we can be owners and partners of the places we represent. We must have the ownership of every
development that we will have.
I
thank the government for including in the supplementary appropriation bill 2006
this new millennium fund which is going to change our constituency. This is a beginning of a new journey, a new
future for
I am speaking more loudly, Mr
Speaker, because I want the bottom up approach to be implemented starting this
year 2006. The mission must be
completed. And that mission can only be
completed by that side and this side of the House. We are now coming to trying times. And that trying time must first be tested from
your own hearts. You and me. We are responsible to finish and complete the
mission so that one day Mr Speaker, when I am an old man they will say we have
done a good job. When we are old we can say
yes I have changed the nation
Sir, I want to thank the Governor
General, His Excellency for a message that reminds all of us. I can criticize and I can say what I want but
this message is a message for you and me to be reminded of what we are
doing. We must continue to complete the
mission for the betterment of our nation for all of us to enjoy.
If we in this House make wrong decisions for our
people, the consequences suffered by the nation will be blamed on us. Our job in here so that the nation can go
forward is that we must be of one mind as already mentioned in the speech. There is no other way.
Mr Speaker, as I mentioned at the
end of Parliament last year in Deuteronomy 28:11, 12 & 13 that there is no
other way, and that is very true. If we
can only do God’s principle and will we will be fine. We have tested all the democratic process of
the laws of the land but the law is God given.
Why not go back to His principle bearing in mind His supreme words. May be that is the only way for
My good Minister of Works mentioned let us test the
tithes and offerings so that they can be a blessing for us. He is a miraculous God. We mentioned that many times in here and so let
us test the word because it is supreme.
I challenge all of us in here that we call ourselves
Christian, but when we are going to test the word, the supreme word that the
Book of John 1:1 says “In the beginning was
the word and the word was with God and the word is God”. Let us tell the truth that this is mentioned
in His Excellency’s speech. He said that
truth and reconciliation will set us free.
So let us test it. The
constitution is knowledge and wisdom given by God to this nation in 1978, who
brought the nation
Our people are listening to us. All they are interested is when do we give
them enough money, when do we buy enough copra, when do we buy their timber,
when do we buy their marine products. That
is what they are expecting.
We can say as much as we want in this Parliament while
the poor people who give us and mandate us their power are looking for you and me
to deliver the services through the government machinery of the day. I give you an example. There is shortage of shipping services now in
my constituency and I thank the House for their support to order a vessel. But I tell you the truth that it is painful
to run the Shortlands Shipping Services in my constituency. That is the truth and reality. At the time when privatization was made in
this House the thinking is that owning a vessel will make you a multi millionaire
or a rich man or whatever. But I believe
shipping transportation should be left with the Ministry of Infrastructure for
the government of the day to service its people. That is how I see it.
In the colonial days when they came in, Mr Speaker, they
visit all the provinces or the constituencies twice or monthly. Now when I visit my people once a month it
costs a fortune to visit the Shortlands constituency. Why?
Because when we do not make right decisions it is painful to run a
private company of your own. It is a pain,
pain, pain unless the government of the day sees it fit by allocating more finances
for a particular private vessel to service the constituency then we will be right. It is something that is hard.
Mr Speaker, the speech itself is
something for you and me and our people of the nation to be reminded that if this
nation wants to live happy, if we want to enjoy harmony, peace and unity, it
has to be in you and me. Let us own Solomon
Islands for the future betterment our people.
Nobody is going to bring peace here, but it has to be us as leaders being
leaders of our people, our Churches as the speech says. We own this nation SI. Now we are complaining about foreigners. No, instead we should thank them. You have seen how they helped us but again be
reminded that the nation when they come they have to be in partnership with us,
they have to support this nation.
Mr Speaker, with these remarks, I
support the motion.
Mr HAOMAE: Mr Speaker,
my contribution to the motion will not be from the perspective of a person
qualified in economics, planning or finance, but it will be from the perspective
of a person who graduated from the University of the Village and with the basic
wisdom of the hereditary chiefs of Small Malaita constituency.
The evil that men do live after them but the good are
buried with their bones. I therefore, Mr Speaker, wish to take this opportunity
to thank the work done by the past governments including the colonial
governments and other succeeding governments.
The fact that mistakes were made only proves that they were or are humans.
Mr Speaker, my observation of the
speech from the Throne, if it appears to be critical, that is not my
intention. My intention is to make
improvements.
Mr Speaker, the Speech is poorly
written. It reads like a composition and
not a speech. As I have already said at
the outset, my observations are meant to be with the intention of making
improvements and not being critical.
Mr Speaker, the Speech from the
Throne has underlying currents of insecurity.
What else can you say? It has
undercurrents of spiritual insecurity. That is why it refers and keeps reminding us of
things in the Bible. In Christian
aspects it indicates that there is spiritual insecurity in these four corners
of Parliament.
Mr Speaker, it also implies
political insecurity. That is my reading
of the speech from the Throne that it carries undercurrents of political
insecurity.
Mr Speaker, it also carries
undercurrents of socio economic and commercial insecurity. As I have said at the outset, Mr Speaker, if
my contribution appears to be critical that is not my intention. My intention is to make improvement.
Mr Speaker, the Speech also carries
the message of uncertainty and is not very optimistic. You can deduce that particular message from
terminologies such as ‘hope, hopefully - that which hopefully would be
operational by mid 2007’. That carries
the message of uncertainty. It is not
very optimistic. I would have thought
that the Speech from the Throne should inspire people of this nation coming
from His Excellency the Governor General.
It should not carry undercurrents of insecurity or not being very
optimistic.
Mr Speaker, I want to say something
the Speech did not mention. The Speech
did not mention good governance, respect - the objective of uplifting the
standard of living to develop this nation.
I think the Speech has not outlined these virtues to inspire the people
of this nation, the youths, the women, the very sectors of this country throughout
the four corners starting from Shortlands to Tikopia and Anuta.
Mr Speaker, the Speech outlined
areas of reform and so I would like to talk about reforms. At the outset, let me say that the bottom up
approach is a strategy and is not a philosophy - a political philosophy by
which the country should aspire to follow.
It is not a national objective.
It is a strategy.
The Speech does not outline any national philosophy or
national objective to which
As I said at the outset, Mr Speaker, my observations
are not meant to be critical, my intention is to make improvements.
On the issue of reform, Mr Speaker, which spreads throughout
the Speech, I therefore do not wish to repeat what other colleagues have said
but I will dwell mainly on the aspects of reform.
Mr Speaker, for any reform to succeed there are three
main preconditions. The first is political
will whether the Government of the day or this National Parliament or the
people of this country as a whole have the political will to effect those
reforms.
Mr Speaker, the second precondition for
any reform to succeed is that you need technical know-how. At the behest of pursing any economic reform
programme in the Public Service, we have to have technical people, people who
know how for purposes of efficiently and effectively carrying out those reforms,
not only in the Public Service but also in statutory authorities, in government’s
portfolio companies and in the private sector, which is the engine for
growth. That is very important for any
reform to succeed. The precondition of technical know-how must be there if not
you mark my words that it will not succeed.
Mr Speaker, the third is wider
public support. It is a precondition for
any reform program to succeed. I wish
to relate those three preconditions to the Speech in my contribution which is
intended to make improvements, and if I sound critical, as I have said at the
outset, that is not my intention. My
intention is to be helpful to the government as the Member of Parliament for
Small Malaita Constituency.
Mr Speaker, if you read through the
Speech, as I had said earlier, it has undercurrents of insecurity. The political will might be there but it is
mixed with other considerations, and therefore I would like to ask the
government that if the reform program is to succeed it needs political
will.
If you read on page 8 of the Speech on federalism, decentralization
and diversification, the Grand Coalition is therefore embarking on finalizing
the new Federal System, which hopefully would be operational by mid 2007. ‘Hopefully’, is not embracing a total political
will. It connotes elements of uncertainty. It is not very pessimistic. That is not political will.
Why is there no political will on that fundamental
aspect to make constitutional adjustments in order to transform it from the
unitary system to federation, may I ask?
I do not detect political will there. I only deduce political uncertainty. So I
would like to impress on the government to inspire political will.
Political will does not only embrace the 50 Members of
this Parliament. It also embraces
everyone in the country, the civil society, the youths of this nation, the
women, the Churches so that they hold the fabrics of our society together from
collapsing.
The stakeholders in economic development, the private
sector and everyone should pull together.
This embraces the political will. The Government must aspire to ensure the
collective political will of the country must come up in order to effect the
necessary reforms however painful they may be. I will standby to support it,
but you must have political will and not half will or half caste or uncertainty,
half minded or not very pessimistic.
Mr Speaker, we have to be realistic
and put the reality to our people. Don’t
hide those things to our people. If the
undercurrent of that particular phrase is in the movement, in the aspects that
there are certain provinces who are at this particular point in time need development
projects for purposes of that development before we enter into the federal
system of government then let us face it.
Let us not run away from it because we are political leaders of this
nation. We must not run away from
responsibility. If I want to run away
from responsibility I would not have stood for the electorate of Small Malaita
Constituency to be their Member of Parliament.
But No! I stood with a clear conscience that come what may, I will
pursue it further.
I would like to ask the government not to have
political uncertainty. Just go ahead to
do your work and hold the bull by the horn, and not to be half hearted. Prior to ensuring that you convince our
people, the Members of Parliament, Provincial Members and the various sectors
of our community must rally behind the reform program. Do not chase them out. As I have already said at the outset
political will is a pre-condition for any reform programs to succeed. Failing that, Mr Speaker I have to tell you straightaway,
and you will hear it from the MP for Small Malaita Constituency that it will
not succeed.
Mr Speaker, technical know-how is very important. We are living in a world where science is so
advanced with brainy and intelligent people and all those things have become
informational age that it needs our people, Solomon Islanders with the
technical know-how to implement those reforms.
If there are no Solomon Islanders in place at the moment because they
are either trained in overseas technical institutes or universities, or they
are still small or because they are not yet born then there is no harm in
recruiting genuine and enlightened people to come and help us in terms of
technical knowledge.
It is quite straightforward that if there are no
qualified people with technical knowledge or know-how to implement those reform
programs, no matter how many reform programs you may have it will be difficult
to succeed. Because one thing is a plan
for you to have a program and the other one is for implementing of that program. Having one is a different matter and
implementing it for the benefit of this nation is another matter.
For purposes of the implementation of any reform
program, people with technical know-how, is a pre-condition. If you do not have that then you can get it
from the MP for Small Malaita and your reform program will have a heart to
succeed.
Mr Speaker, for any program reform
program to succeed, it needs wider public support from everyone starting with
the Cabinet, the backbenchers of the government, the 50 Members of Parliament,
the Public Service and their Unions, teachers which the Ministry of Education
is yet to solve their problem. I mean he
is handling the situation at the moment.
The economic stakeholders the private sector, the statutory
authorities, the portfolio companies of the government, the civil society, the
teachers, the women, (I have heard there are differences that women are now
speaking louder), is what we do not need.
We need to take them on board to support the reform program.
Our people in the rural areas, if they don’t support
the reform program, it will not succeed although they are copra cutters or farmers. And also our development partners because no
man is an island and if no man is, how can a country be. We also need our development partners and
wider public support for purposes of any reform program to succeed.
My
reading of the strategy of the bottom up approach, we in Small Malaita are
already ready, you are late but it will be funded by development aid. And so we need wider public report in order
for any reform program to succeed.
Sir, I talk too much on reform because reform is from
page 1 to the last page, apart from the salutations in the speech. Including the theme which says “creating a new
and better Solomons” is a theme, if read properly is a reform, whether it is a
reform of human beings sideways or underway or top way or side cut but it connotes
a reform agenda.
Sir, I want to impress on the government to be a bit
careful with the interest, the lives, the daily living of the people of this
nation - the 20,000 people of Small Malaita Constituency inclusive. We are also part of the country. Even if the population of Small Mala is small
but we are part and parcel of
Therefore, on their behalf I want to ask the
government to be careful with the lives of our people and their interests. When restrain is necessary please exercise
restrain in handling the affairs of the state. I’ve just returned from my Constituency of
Small Malaita last week where I held a lot of meetings in the three wards. I have already given to the Ministers the
plan of Small Malaita Constituency. With
due courtesy I have given a copy of the plan to the Honourable Prime Minister,
a copy to my friend, the Minister for Provincial Government, MP for
My people told me to tell the government about the
present situation we have with our near neighbour because they are quite concerned.
When the Coordinator of RAMSI said that RAMSI will not go, we in small Mala are
worried because in a diplomacy a yes can be a no and a no can be a yes or
somewhere in between.
Mr Speaker, if I can indulge into
aspects I am also a man of diplomacy in Small Malaita. My tribe for the last five to ten thousand
years ago until today has been playing diplomacy in a local way between
states. They too are the hereditary high
chiefs. They are worried about the
present state because reading between the lines and considering the subtleties,
the decorum and etiquettes of diplomacy, it is a bit of a concern.
I would like to ask the government to look after the
affairs of our state properly as it is the life of every one of us in the
country, including the 20,000 people of Small Malaita Constituency, which is
the largest rural constituency in the country, if not in population then land
wise it is really big. If you are not
careful we are an island ourselves and a kingdom and so we can declare
independence for ourselves.
So think very carefully about the
state of affairs as you have been mandated to run the affairs of our country
and please look after it properly.
Sometimes to win is to lose and to lose is to win. It is a matter of human nature where human
relation comes into being. That is the message I would like to relay to the
government at this point in time.
Mr Speaker, as I have already said
at the outset that if my comments in contributing to the Speech from the Throne
may sound critical, that is not my intention.
My intention is to be helpful and to make improvements. If otherwise I will not be telling the truth,
Mr Speaker, and I will have a guilty conscience myself. That is why I have to say what I am saying
now, Mr Speaker.
With those few comments Mr Speaker,
I support the motion.
Mr TOZAKA: Mr
Speaker. I would also like to contribute
like other honorable colleagues including the Member of Small Malaita who has just
spoken to comment on the Speech from the Throne by His Excellency, the Governor
General in the motion moved by the Honourable Deputy Prime Minister in this
Honourable House.
In doing so, I would like first of
all to thank His Excellency for availing himself to deliver the speech to this
honourable chamber on behalf of the government of the day.
I also recognise and acknowledge
your good self, sir, for your respective presiding role in the address from the
Throne. I also thank the Honourable
Deputy Prime Minister for moving the motion on the speech.
Mr Speaker, the Speech from the
Throne is basically a formal and traditional speech as other colleagues have
mentioned, an academic exercise for the purpose basically to introduce the
government’s policies and programs of actions to the respective office of His
Excellency the Governor General.
Mr Speaker, the government of the
day through the respective ministries and departments has been able to do this
particular traditional task for us, and so I would also like to acknowledge
with thanks their good work.
At the same time, sir, on behalf of
the people of
I will not dwell on them in detail
as there are opportunities to do so later, but in principle and in general,
they are set policies that successive governments have been talking about for
many years in the past.
Mr Speaker, having said this and as
far as our people in the rural areas are concerned, unfortunately the mechanism
of dissemination of information through the Speech from the Throne does not
bear much meaning to them. Simply and
obviously they do not have the means to have access to the Speech nor do they
understand how the speech itself directly relates to their daily needs and
livelihood in the village.
Mr Speaker, as other honourable
colleagues have commented, the Speech’s overlap situation with the outgoing
government has invariably posed some difficulties in the implementation aspect
of their policies.
However, awkward this position is, I
would thought that an urgent introduction of the national budget 2007, which I
commented on yesterday when the Honorable Minister of Finance introduced the
Supplementary Appropriation Bill could have been the priority task of the
government, but this is now not possible.
Mr Speaker, on one hand the Speech
gives us hope and encouragement especially to govern ourselves effectively and
efficiently through our respective government machineries, but on the other
hand, I find that when we look at the realities, it is sad to note that we
continue to fail keeping our words and uplifting the credibility of these
policies. Mr Speaker, this dilutes and
displaces the credibility and significance attach to this address from the
throne at this particular point in time.
Mr Speaker, in pointing out some of
these continued weaknesses that I am referring to, I would appreciate the
responsible ministries of the crown who have already explained their position
and who have taken some positive actions in addressing them.
For
example, Mr Speaker, how do we verify the statement from the throne on promoting
a highly disciplined Public Service in the face of the recent discovery of the
Auditor General of a number of public officers serving themselves with the
funding scheme established to assist business operations in the rural areas?
Similarly, the question of how do we
expect the public service to be disciplined and efficient and productive, if we
continue to have direct interference and manipulate the procedures and the
system of proper implementation of government policies.
On the same token, on our legal and
judiciary service, I would like to question as how do we reconcile our policy
on capacity building, localisation program in the light of the independence of
the service on the case of the removal of the outgoing Attorney General, a
highly qualified and respected Solomon Islander replacing him with someone from
outside the country who at this point of speaking, is reported sheltering in
our High Commission in Port Moresby, the outcome of which led to the honorable
House left without a substantive Attorney General to attend its meeting.
Furthermore, Mr Speaker, the
bottom-up approach as the government’s rural development policy drive, to take
our nation forward, which I support in principle, how do we justify this policy
when we have already seen the end of the beginning of this bottom-up approach
in the recent reported abuse of funds to the small business association and to
other schemes which the Minister of Finance, and I commend the Finance for his swift
action in intervening to suspend these schemes.
On the same token, how do we justify
the recent proposed women’s bank which is supposed to be welcomed by our women
folks, instead they raised stiff objection in terms of its contradictory
approach, and the defense of the proposer, he has broken a fundamental policy
of the government promoting women in participation, let alone the custom of the
land by telling our women folks to be silent.
Mr Speaker, the Speech highlights
the Government’s policy directive on regional partnership to grow from strength
to strength. How could we say this with
our shoulders and heads high given our current diplomatic row with
Mr Speaker, in defending his action, the Honorable
Minister says that he is doing this in the name of sovereignty. Mr Speaker, who in this mighty world has
questioned us on this status? Everybody
knows that
What everybody is questioning us, Mr Speaker, is when are
we are going to govern ourselves properly so that what we preach all over the
world about our sovereignty is real and meaningful to our people?
Sir, I consider it hypocritical that here is a country
protecting its own sovereignty by requesting its citizen to face justice in its
country and here we are emphasizing sovereignty rights and hiding their citizen
in our embassy.
Mr Speaker, I wonder if the Honorable Prime Minister
has been properly advised about the big picture of the potential repercussion
of the events that we are going through.
My leading question, Mr Speaker to this, is what kind
of professional management of our country’s diplomatic affair is this? Is this the diplomatic management style this
country prefers in developing our principle policy of “to be a friend to all
and enemy to none”.
We have failed, Mr Speaker, to run a full marathon race
of patience, consultation, dialogue, and endurance which are fundamental values
in diplomacy, instead our diplomatic marriage with
Two of our good neighbors have put their hands up to
help us mediate in this stand off. Are
we going to ask our friends to come and help us every time? When are we going to learn to govern our
selves? What time or when, may I ask?
Mr Speaker, having said all these, I personally feel that
we have to go back to the basics and answer, as we know others have reminded us
already in this Honorable House, is in you and myself in relation to the one
who put us on this position in the first place.
Mr Speaker, I humbly urge us honorable colleagues, honorable
Members to let us change our attitudes and behaviors and come down from our
highest level of thoughts in our respective positions and humble ourselves to
know the will of the one who put us in our respective positions in the first
place. I believe we will then be able to
see and lead and rebuild this nation according to his will and for his people
in this nation.
Before our country sways to get anywhere following the
assistance of RAMSI which returns our sovereignty, this is the time to make a
drastic change by addressing the real issues affecting our people in the rural
areas.
Sir, our people and country have suffered enough, they
suffer enough and they do not want go back again to the darkest days of the
past. They want to change and to move on
and to be governed sensibly and be governed properly by us leaders.
Sir, with these comments and observations on the Speech
from the throne, I thank you for giving me the floor and I resume my seat.
Mr Speaker: I notice that
the debate on this particular motion is not to be concluded today on our Order
Paper, and so we may continue again next week if anyone wants to continue the
debate.
Hon Sogavare: Mr Speaker,
there are others who would want to speak to the motion and so in accordance
with Standing Order 35(1) I beg to move that the debate on the speech delivered
by His Excellency the Governor General be adjourned.
The motion for adjournment on the debate
of the Speech from the Throne is adjourned
Hon Sogavare: Mr Speaker, I
beg to move that this House do now adjourn.
The House adjourned at 4:00 pm.