NATIONAL PARLIAMENT OF
DAILY HANSARD
SECOND MEETING – EIGHTH SESSION
The
Hon Speaker, Sir Peter Kenilorea took the Chair at
Prayers.
At prayers, all were present with the exception of the
Ministers for Commerce, Industries & Employment, National Reconciliation
& Peace, Fisheries & Marine Resources, National Reform & Aid
Coordination, Justice & Legal Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Public Service,
Infrastructure & Development, Police & National Security, Finance
a& Treasury, Provincial Government & Constituency Development and the
Members for Fataleka, West New Georgia/Vona Vona, West Guadalcanal,
Ranonga/Simbo, Hograno/Kia/Havulei, North Guadalcanal, West Kwaio, Ulawa/Ugi
and South New Georgia/Rendova.
PRESENTATION OF PAPERS AND OF REPORTS
Special Audit Report into the
Affairs of the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development Tertiary
Scholarships Program (National Parliament Paper No.6 of 2006)
(National Parliament Paper
No.7 of 2006)
(National Parliament Paper
No.8 of 2006)
Solomon Islands Water
Authority Financial Statements for the Year ended
(National Parliament Paper
No. 10 of 2006)
Report of the Public Accounts
Committee on its consideration of ‘The 2006 Supplementary Appropriation Bill
2006’
(National
Parliament Paper No. 11 of 2006)
Report on ‘The Gaming and
Lotteries (Amendment) Bill 2006’
(National Parliament Paper
No. 12 of 2006)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
10. Mr KEMAKEZA to the Minister for Education & Human Resources
Development: Will the Minister inform
Parliament of the present Government’s policy on upgrading of existing
community high schools from Form 4 to Form 6?
Hon SIKUA: Mr Speaker, the major priority of the
Ministry is to ensure that all children are given the opportunity of nine years
of basic education from Standard 1 to Form 3, and the Ministry hopes to achieve
this goal by the year 2015.
In
so far as expansion beyond Form 3, that is Form 4 up to Form 6 or even Form 7,
the Ministry’s policy is to deal with such requests on a case by case
basis. And in this regard, as each case comes
to the Ministry from the Education Authority, we look basically at the
readiness of the school and the community with the Education Authority to
expand beyond Form 3. We also look at
the location of the school where the request is coming from and we also look at
the affordability of the Education Authority and the Community to sustain such
a development in terms of money and the numbers required as well as community
support given to the school.
Mr Kemakeza: Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the
Minister of Education for his excellent answers.
Question No.11 deferred
22. Mr RIUMANA to the Minister for Agriculture & Livestock: Quite significant arable land in the country
has been logged which should pave the way for commercial agricultural
development. Does the Ministry have any
plans to develop logged over arable land?
Hon OLAVAE: Mr Speaker, the Ministry does not have any plans to
develop logged over arable land, however, the Ministry will continue to be
facilitating whatever rural agricultural development that landowners may wish to
undertake on those logged arable land.
Mr Kwanairara: What is stopping Agriculture not to have any plans
to develop logged over arable land? Is it
something to do with land disputes or land that is available through customary
ownership? Is that restricting
development or what is the problem?
Hon Olavae: The Ministry under its rural development
strategy wants to see rural farmers organizing themselves before they liaise
with the Ministry to facilitate whatever rural developments they may wish to
undertake.
Mr Riumana: If the Ministry wants farmers to organize
themselves, can the Ministry shoulder the responsibility to organize the
farmers?
Hon Olavae: This question is very important and that is
exactly what this Ministry is doing at the moment so that the rural populace is
aware of the importance of the rural development strategies this government is
embarking on.
Mr Riumana: I thank the Minister for Agriculture for his
answers.
23. Mr KOLI to the Minister
for Culture & Tourism: Excavation of
the suspended hidden treasure in Tulagi was permitted by
Hon ROGOSOMANI: Mr Speaker, there is no official report
submitted to the Ministry concerned about the findings.
Mr Koli: A group of people has been carrying out
similar excavation activities of suspected hidden treasure in Valiato at the
outskirts of
Hon Rogosomani: Mr Speaker, as far as the Department is
concerned I have no knowledge of the excavation mentioned other than the one
permitted by the
Mr Koli: I would like to thank the Ministers for his
answers.
Mr Speaker: I understand the honorable Minister for
National Planning is quite ready to answer question No. 20. Would the honorable member raise it again or
does he want the honorable Minister to answer it?
20. Mr RIUMANA to the Minister for Finance and Treasury: RAMSI has a
significant number of consultants serving in specific selected ministries. What is the total annual budget expended on
the consultant fees in this year 2006?
Hon DARCY: Mr Speaker, we have no information about the
total amount of budget spent by RAMSI on consultancy fees for the period being
reported and even in the past period since RAMSI arrived in
However,
should the honorable Member wish to find out, he can approach the Office of
RAMSI to find the answer.
Mr Kwanairara: Yesterday the questioner raised the same
question and the Minister for Finance promised to give him the answers today.
Hon Darcy: Mr Speaker, yes he may have promised that
only to find out it is quite difficult for us to attain that information
because the information on the level of expenditure on the number of
consultants engaged under RAMSI is actually kept outside of the country. Therefore, we were not able to obtain that
information.
Mr Riumana: Does the Ministry any plans to access the
record?
Hon Darcy: Mr Speaker,
those are some of the issues that we are trying to address through this review
of RAMSI so that information about the actual level of expenditures spent on
consultancy whether those expenditures are spent here in
It
is not a review to stop RAMSI, it is a review to find out such information so
that the public at large is fully aware of the actual benefits that we received
from such a program in terms of financial flows that are captured in the Solomon
Islands economy and the financial flows that we do not capture but are kept
outside.
Those
are issues we would want to address through this review program.
Mr Huniehu: As part of this partnership between our Government
and the Australian Government, I think it is a good idea for the government to take
stop of the various advisors, not only RAMSI advisors working in the ministries
but also reports on their effectiveness because under RAMSI program hundreds of
millions of dollars are spent on technical people. This Parliament needs to know the
effectiveness of the aid, the outcome of their work so that if there are too
many advisors deployed in the Ministry of Finance or defense for example, we
have to look where else within the government services do we need technical
people.
Mr
Speaker, I think the Ministry of Agriculture is one of the ministries that there
needs a good qualified agriculturalist and may be the Ministry of Education
too.
Hon Darcy: Mr Speaker, that is a very useful comment by
the MP for East Are Are. As you know, we
only know the number of people that have been engaged. And one of the things the government is
looking at carrying out is to undertake the review of how effective these advisors
are in terms of their engagement in the country on the various areas they have
been engaged to carry their task.
Those
are the things, as I have said earlier on that we would want to address in this
review so that we can take stock of how many experts do we have here and how do
they perform in terms of the various areas of responsibility that they been
engaged in.
That
is a very useful comment by the MP for East Are Are.
Mr Fono: Mr Speaker, does the Minister and the
department stop having quarterly consultative meetings with donors including
RAMSI where such information can be obtained?
In
the past quarterly meetings that donors and the Solomon Islands Government
through the Department of Planning are doing is where such information can be collected.
I am
a bit surprised when the Minister said that the information in relation to the
question is not available. Do you not
hold quarterly consultative meetings now?.
Hon Darcy: Mr Speaker, the quarterly consultative
meetings with donors is still continuing.
But those quarterly consultative meetings are basically to gage the
direction of donor program. The meetings
don’t go into the details of finding out how much is spent in this country and
so forth.
The
Leader of Opposition knows this very well in his previous role in the
Department. You can have the round
figure of what they are spending in the country but you don’t know exactly how
much is spent on particular consultancies that are under their program.
Donors
meeting are basically to gage the general direction of aid programs in the
country. So far with the meetings that
have been held, we have seen those programs going on very well and in the right
direction. But I think that question
deviates from the original question raised here.
Mr Zama: Supplementary question to my hard working
Minister of Planning. I fully appreciate
the work of our officials in the department of Finance and in all other
government departments under the auspices of RAMSI.
Under
the framework in which the officials were engaged in the department of Finance,
for example, under that framework arrangement there is a specific time frame,
for instance the Accountant General is to be engage for 18 months and the other
officials on a given period.
Can
the Minister inform this House what kind and type of capacity building is
engaged and what is the qualitative method in which these capacity buildings
are quantified?
Hon Darcy: Mr Speaker, that is a very interesting
question. It is a question that perhaps we
could put on the Notice Paper because it is a very good and interesting
question good for the information of this House. I would like to ask the Honorable Member to
put it as a question on the Order Paper.
Mr Riumana: Can the Minister assure this House if the
Ministry is satisfied with the performance and output of these consultants?
Hon Darcy: Mr Speaker, that is a very direct question
and I am not going to answer it directly.
But I am going to answer it in the context of this general review that
the Government is intending to carry out. And I think it is fair to gage the outcome
from such a review instead of just asking me for my own feelings.
Those
are the kind of things we would want to find out from this review, and I think
we should all support this review to find out whether or not we have been able
to achieve the kind of outcome that we wanted to achieve under this
arrangement. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Mr Riumana: Mr Speaker, I thank the hardworking Minister
of Planning and Aid Coordination for the answers.
BILLS
Bills – Second Reading
The Gaming and Lotteries
(Amendment) Bill 2006
Hon GHIRO: Mr Speaker, I beg to move that the Gaming and
Lotteries (Amendment) Bill 2006, be read the second time. This is a very simple Bill that merely involves
a minor amendment to sub-section (8) of Section 6 of the Gaming and Lotteries
Act, Chapter 139.
Objective and Reasons of the Bill
Sub-section (8) of Section 6
of the Gaming & Lotteries Act, Chapter 139 gives licensed casino operators
two years within which to complete building the premises within which to
operate. Hence, this Bill seeks to
increase the number of years that licensed operators are given a complete
building their premises from two years to such period as recommended by the
Board and approved by the Minister.
Mr
Speaker, the Bill only involves a minor amendment to subsection (8) of Section
6 of the current Gaming and Lotteries Act, Chapter 139. However, Mr Speaker, the need for doing so
cannot be underestimated.
To-date,
two of our leading investors in this sector are operating outside proper hotel
complexes as required by subsection (1) of section 6 the Gaming and Lotteries
Act. These investors have proven
themselves through difficult times of our recent past, as genuine and reliable
investors. Besides that, Mr Speaker,
together they have employed 190 Solomon Islanders.
This
figure is only reflective of the current situation. Pacific Casino when in full operation before
Yes,
Mr Speaker, these investors are Solomon Islanders who have the right to be
protected. Similarly, the significant
contributions they have made to the economic development cannot be undervalued.
For
the information of this House, in the last financial year (2005) alone, both
investors have paid to the government an amount of $1,130,065.58 in taxes
alone. Put that together with what is
expended in terms of salaries, these investors undoubtedly, have contributed
enormously to the economy of this country and therefore need to be
appropriately accorded protection.
One,
of these two investors have between now and 7th July 2007 to meet
the requirement of subsection (1) of section 6 of the current Gaming and
Lotteries Act, Chapter 139 or face suspension, and this amendment is the only
hope to avoiding that and the subsequent likely mass redundancy of around 150
Solomon Islanders.
Passing
this Bill will provide for any increase to the number of years that licensed
operators are given to complete building their premises from two years to such
period as recommended by the Board and approved by the Minister
Mr
Speaker, I beg to move.
(The Bill is open for debate)
Mr RINI: Mr Speaker, first of all I would like to
thank the Minister of Home Affairs for introducing this amendment. Mr Speaker, this amendment is a very short
amendment. The Minister said it is a
very simple amendment that has a wider and great impact on the economy.
Mr
Speaker, the main objective or reason of this Bill is to amend section 6 of the
Games and Lotteries Act. Chapter 39 of
the Act at present gives casino operators two years after approval to build
premises they are going to operate the casino in.
This
Bill is asking Parliament to amend this section to extend the two years period to
more years as recommended by the Board.
Mr
Speaker, I am very, very concern about the extension of time given to operators
to build their premises. We have seen
that one of these operators has acquired land, and for more than 10 years no
building was erected by this operator
The
same operator was asking for more land, and I understand an extra land was
given, and I understand very clearly here that the condition for granting the
land is that within 18 months he must build.
Now here is the amendment to extend it from the existing two years to more
years as recommended by the Board.
On
whose interest is this bill brought to Parliament? Is it in the interest of the nation or is it
the interest of investors that we are bringing this bill to this House?
Mr
Speaker, it looks like this Bill is in the operator’s interest and not the
government’s interest, and therefore I find it very, very hard to accept extending
the time period because we have seen already, as I have said earlier, one of
the operators given a land but for the last 10 years failed to build a hotel but
asked for more land and he was given land and now he is coming here through the
Ministry of Home Affairs asking the government to extend the two years period
allowable for anyone to build premises for a casino. Is this the type of investment this country
needs? I cannot see any advantage of
this investment.
We have
just heard the Minister said that the two casinos contributed $1million in the
last financial year to the government. Only $1million? Is this the type of investment we need?
We
need an investor that will bring in more than a million dollars into this
country, one that creates more employment instead of employing two or three
hundred people. Mr Speaker, I find it
very, very hard to see the rationale behind this Bill.
Mr
Speaker, the conditions on what time a premises should be build is vested under
the Commissioner of Lands. The
Commissioner of Lands has the powers on that.
Why do we contravene the Lands and Titles Act and now we are taking this
power to be given to the Board when the existing legislation already has that
power. It is stated very, very clear in the
Lands and Titles Act that the Commission has the power.
Even
in the grant instrument of lease the Commissioner states what time someone
should build. People are usually given
18 months. But in this bill, Mr Speaker,
the Minister is asking through this bill for us to extend the power. What kind of power will the Board have? The Commissioner of Lands has power under the various
instruments granted under lease.
I am
really confused because we already have the right authority empowered by an Act
of Parliament - the Lands and Titles Act to give such powers, and now the
intention is to remove power from the authority and give it to the board of casino.
Mr
Speaker, on that same section 6(j) it says “the exemption in whole or in part
from stamp duty”. There is already
existing legislation for this. It is only
the Minister of Finance who has power to give exemptions under the various Act,
which the Minister of Finance is administering and yet here we says that the
Minister through his Board will decide on the exemption in whole or in part from
stamp duty.
I
cannot see the reason why this clause has to be in this Act. It is already in the Stamp Duty Act and also
in other Acts administered by the Minister of Finance. And in this Act it is the only Minister of
Finance that can exempt or do away with any revenue the government is supposed
to be collecting.
Mr
Speaker, I can see this Act also contravening other existing legislations
administered by the Ministry of Finance who is the custodian of government
revenue.
Mr
Speaker, I quite agree with the Bill except the part that the two years should
be extended to more years and also section 6(j) which I have pointed out.
With
these few remarks, Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr KEMAKEZA: Mr Speaker, I too would like to contribute
very briefly to this Bill moved by the Minister for Home Affairs.
Mr
Speaker, I also endorse the comments made by the Member for Marovo, but I would
like to extend the debate on how the existing provision will go along with the
amended provision.
Mr Speaker, there are only two licensed casinos in
How did
the Christian people on the Government side view this bill when it comes their
way? How did the Christian (religious)
people on the government side see this bill passing their eyes and now we are
going to pass it today?
I
say this because it contravenes the real nature of the principal Act. If you read the existing Act, if I can quote
the same clause it says “No person other than foreign or overseas guests or
visitors to
The
fact, as stated by the MP for Marovo, is that the current operator of one of
the casinos has operated for more than 10 years already outside of the
provision of clause 6 and therefore, how are we still going to continue giving
him that special provision? It is for
that reason, Mr Speaker, that successive governments still maintain the two
years period to allow an operator build a hotel premise where the casino license
will operate inside. That is the good
intention.
During
the last administration the operator also asked for land and so the government
then provided the land to the operator for building of the casino within the two
years period. Here, the point raised by
the Member of Parliament for Marovo is quite valid in that why did the operator
not build the hotel within the two years given.
That is the first point I want the Minister to clarify. I am not against the intention of this Bill,
but there is conflict of interest in here.
Mr Speaker, another existing provision on clause 6 subsection
(2) & (3) and even successive provisions of the subsection says ‘permit
issued by the Board’. But this amendment
says ‘a period as recommended by the Board and approved by the Minister’, a
short phrase is added.
What
I am trying to get at here is that too many enquiries are coming forward and
therefore more and more bills are finding their way on to the floor of
Parliament, and therefore, as much as possible avoid giving power to the
Ministers because Ministers sometimes abuse the powers. That is the reason of the good intention on the
exemption before on goods and services tax and import and export
exemptions.
What
is the reason for the government giving extra power when in the existing Act,
as it is, in the two provisions, except the sub clause where the Minister is
going to make the final decision?
I am
not raising any suspicion nor am against the Minister concerned because that
Minister is subject to change every now and then. He will not be there for the whole of his
life.
The
good intention of the Bill is also for any other Ministers for that matter. That is also an area that is added to the
existing one. I would like the Minister
to clarify the point why he will now assume power otherwise he is going to give
him an extra 10 years.
In
regards to hotel development in our country, get more people to work in the
hotels, as this is helping the tourism industry in the country. That is one good intention behind this
Bill. And not only that, good Christian
people throughout the country speak against casino, and as you know, this issue
has been a controversial one as from day one where we ended up with one casino but
now it is two.
The previous
administration has put a bar within the boundaries of
Also this Bill is seeking to extend the provision that
does not allow operating a casino outside of the
I want
to question this government where some of its members are good Christians, prominent
pastors and bishops, why do you allow this bill to pass your eyes when you should
be defending the many complaints by our Churches? That is the question, Mr Speaker.
The
existing bill is good because it gives the operator to build the hotel, put his
machines and whatever inside and operate.
It is as simple as that.
As
the Member for Marovo stated, this privilege was given to this operator for the
last ten years but he keeps on breaking the law. Before it was two years but now you are saying
it is unlimited. I can assure you that
this amendment will be unlimited time, as long as the board recommends it and
as long as the Minister approves it may be 10 years or the next hundred years. That is why it is in conflict with the
succeeding provisions added to the good intention of the bill, but then this amendment
makes it to become erroneous. That is
what I want the Minister to clarify to me.
With
that, Mr Speaker, I reserve my vote.
Mr HUNIEHU: Mr Speaker I just want to briefly comment on
this amendment bill ‘The Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) Bill 2006’. This small amendment must be read in
conjunction with the 2004 Gaming and Lotteries Act, which specifically allows
only two license holders to operate casino and gaming in the country. And we all know which two operators were
allowed gaming licenses.
As a
background, one of the licensed holders is in full compliance with the Act, as it
is practicing gaming and lottery and also hotel beds are made available, which
are two requirements of the Gaming and Lotteries Act. But the other licensed holder is not in
compliance with the Act because of the difficulties it experienced with its investment.
And
that is, since the Gaming and Lotteries Act came into being, it was only
operating in a premise without providing bedding and other facilities provided
for in the Gaming and Lotteries Act. The
reason is that after the new Act came into being, it made a submission to the
government that it could not comply with the new Act because it was not given a
piece of land. So it applied and through
arrangement it was given a piece of land and it committed himself to developing
that piece of land.
This
operator developed a development plan, which was made public to the people of
According
to our information he has been promised this piece of land and arrangements are
underway for them to get the title. It
is still to come. That is the reason
this bill came into being because in order for him to comply with the Gaming
and Lotteries he needs a piece of land.
Mr
Speaker, talking about investment, the rioting in April had affected many
investment proposals in this country.
According to my investigation, more than $2billion worth of investment was
help up because of the rioting. This is
bad news for investors in the cattle industry, in the mining industry and in
the tourism industry. I believe this
investor is no different.
The
reason this bill comes into being is to allow this particular investor to
comply with the 2004 Gaming and Lotteries Act that was passed by this
Parliament.
If
we had read the report by the Bills and Legislation Committee which was just
tabled may be ten to fifteen minutes ago (sorry that it was not in the pigeonholes
for Members of Parliament to read before debate), we have also expressed these
concerns. That in our view if we have to
apply the principles of a level playing field, then we must be fair to
everyone. But our disappointments and
our concerns are well covered in the report.
Mr
Speaker, we observed that this Bill, although has good intentions, we have
expressed grave concern about the timing of it and all that. But in applying flexibility to the investor
and in trying to be fair we have made some main recommendations, and I hope my
good Minister will take these recommendations up within the spirit of the Cabinet
Conclusion on page 7, and I read: “But
notwithstanding the provision of subsection (1) & (3), the Minister on the
recommendation of the Board may by order publish in the Gazette grant holders
of commercial gaming permits, such further period as may be necessary to comply
with the requirements of subsection (1)”.
This is to disallow the Minister an open ended time frame for him to act
and when he acts the public must know and Parliament must know by making the gazettal
orders for everyone to read and know.
Mr
Speaker, I may say that if this is to be seen as a healing process of the Bill,
I am advising the Minister to move a motion to amend the provision that he had
introduced in this Parliament. That
would be, in my view, acceptable.
Mr
Speaker with those few remarks and with the good intention of this bill, the Bills
and Legislation Committee sees no difficulty in recommending this Bill and also
recommending this amendment for the Minister in the best interest of
transparency and accountability.
With
those few remarks, Mr Speaker I support the bill.
Mr TANEKO: Mr Speaker, I’ll be very brief on this bill in which
the Minister concern has seen it fit and important for this nation.
Sir,
this nation is claimed to be 80 to 90% a Christian country. This is a bill, which all of us in this House
think will change the nation. Those of
us in this House are Christians and non-Christians. We go to Church every Sunday, whichever denominations
we belong, but we are believers.
Mr
Speaker, I wonder about the Minister of Home Affairs. For me, I would like to see a bill that will
change the nation and make wealth for the nation, if we are true
Christians. I will ask the Minister
concern to bring a bill to this House asking the nation of
We should
bring a bill that will change this nation and change all of us in this House,
our fellow employees, every company we are working for that we pay tithe to the
nation of
Sir,
we have tested all the possible avenues. Now we are here to approve a casino in
The
Minister of Finance has been telling us here about the truth. I thank the Minister of Finance that he is starting
to change his attitudes and character by starting to speak the truth, because
only truth alone will set us free.
I am
glad that some of the speakers who contributed to this bill are very straightforward. It is true that we have to change and amend
the bill. But are we amending it for the
betterment of the nation or for its destruction? Let us be honest, Mr Speaker, because we are
here to serve the nation - Solomon Islands.
Today
is 10th October, go back to how King Solomon lived. He wept when God blesses you, he adds more
trouble to it. Is this Bill a blessing to
the nation of
Yes,
Mr Speaker I am happy and I appreciate that this is going to contribute towards
tax on goods tax, there is going to be employment opportunities, but what is
next with this very little time that we have to live and enjoy God’s blessings.
Mr
Speaker, I am happy to see such a bill that would help our nation to grow, our
environment and I believe there are other better bills that the Minister is
going to bring to this House so that we can balance this nation.
I
would like to appeal to my good Minister that the next bill he is going to
bring to this House, which would have my support is a bill that makes this
nation into a tithing nation - a basket that would change this nation, which is
found in Malachi.
We
cannot deny this, we in here are believers.
All of us in here are believers.
All the other possible avenues have been tested.
Mr
Speaker, this bill is asking us to extend the time period from two years to
whatever for an operator to build a casino.
If there are genuine investors, and that is why we are empowering the
Minister to extend the time period, I do not know there might be a better one
where God will give us any genuine investor to come in here.
Sir,
what I am saying is that we have to be serious in our decision making. We do not have to look far to see this. The poor Solomon Islanders, the people who
give us power to be in this House are waiting for us to deliver to them so that
we can go where they are, where there is money, the bottom up approach we talked
so much about.
Do
you know what? The small copra man comes
to
I am
telling the truth here. If you Members do
not like what I am saying but I cannot help it.
I have to voice this out for my people.
Sir,
it is true that the government is going to regenerate more money from this Bill
but what are we going to do. We do not
have to look far to see the consequences the casino is causing to our families.
I
would like to appeal once again to the Minister concern, the Minister for Home
Affairs, the Minister for ecclesiastical affairs to be more serious in bringing
a bill to this House to make this nation a tithing nation. By doing that we can change this nation, 100
percent change as a nation.
It
is our decision to make, the answer is on each one of us sitting in here. I
resume my seat. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr NUIASI: Mr Speaker, thank you very much for allowing
me to speak on this floor of Parliament on this small and simple amendment made
to the Gaming and Lotteries Act. I would
also like to thank the Minister for bringing in this Bill with this small
amendment to Section 6(8), as I see it.
Mr
Speaker, I think one thing we have to realize is that this is an independent
nation and we belong to the global family where we are also affected by things
happening around us.
Having
been in Parliament for the last six months, we have been talking about a lot of
developments in which some of us have been talking much about the rural areas and
some of us have been saying what we are supposed to do in this short period of
time.
Mr
Speaker, the government system, in my understanding, always has the tendency or
the will to put in place activities that will raise revenue in order to address
the difficulties, the problems and the economic crisis that all of us are
facing.
Mr
Speaker, a lot of us have been talking as though we are Christians and we have
been saying things that would only be in the line of the Christian ways.
This
bill, as I see it, with its small amendment, is a small amendment that we
should just say yes on it. After all it
has a clause ending whereby the Minister has to comply with and he will not be
working in isolation.
Mr
Speaker, establishing a casino, as far as I am concern, is not forcing anyone
to go in there. If we are talking about
true Christian values, we are independent in our own Christian values to decide
on bad and good things, to decide on what is wrong and what is right.
Mr
Speaker, if you know very well that going to a casino will affect or disturb
your family, then you are not a true Christian. That is how I see it because you are not living
the Christian values you are supposed to live by.
Therefore,
Mr Speaker,
Mr
Speaker, I would not contribute very much, as I am one of those who sit down to
consider the Bill, and when you see it on the floor of Parliament, it means I
already support it.
With
these few remarks, Mr Speaker, I support the motion.
Mr PACHA: Mr Speaker, thank you for giving me time to
contribute to the Gaming and Lotteries Amendment bill 2006.
Mr
Speaker, I shall be very brief with my contribution this morning. The objects and reasons for this amendment are
clear that this Bill seeks to increase the number of years given to an operator.
It is only a small amendment, as other
colleagues have stated.
Now it
can be seen as a small and simple amendment but sometimes it could have what I
would like to call ripple effect, which is like throwing a stone inside a
swimming pool with its effect growing bigger.
Casino
is one of the breeding places of all sorts of problems in
Mr
Speaker, I do not want talk a lot but I see this Bill as giving additional
problems for our people who have interest in going to places like this.
Mr
Speaker, with this small contribution, I would very much like to see the
Minister responsible for Home and Ecclesiastical Affairs to strengthen areas of
ecclesiastical affairs rather considering activities that already are causing
problems in our country.
With
these few remarks, Mr Speaker, I resume my seat.
Mr KENGAVA: Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to also
briefly contribute to the Gaming and Lotteries Amendment Bill 2006.
A
lot has been said, Mr Speaker, but I want to point out one or two points so
that when this Bill is passed, the Minister and the Board would take note of
the importance of the observation I would like to make.
First
of all, it is true the Bill is very small, as mentioned by the Minister, but
sometimes so small is a bill or amendment put to Parliament that it deceives
the floor of Parliament of the real intention of the bill. This is my concern.
All
of us know, Mr Speaker, that a mosquito is a very small insect but it can kill
a person. And so is this Bill. If we are not careful, this Bill is going to
kill us. Though small is this amendment,
but if we do not control it or handle it properly the way it should be, we will
continue to bring in social problems and ordinary Solomon Islanders will not benefit
from the revenue raised from this kind of business.
Mr
Speaker, this bill, in my opinion, a layman’s opinion, is a bill of convenience. It is bill of convenience, not so much for
Solomon Islanders but just for a few investors in this country. May be for certain investors who need more
time, need more space to move around as raised by my Honorable Member for
Marovo very clearly. With only two
casinos operating in the country, we know exactly who this Bill will
benefit.
Sir,
if it is for convenience, and you are accommodating somebody’s interest then it
is not fair, in my view, that such a bill should be brought in very quickly to
this Parliament.
Mr
Speaker, if the bill is brought into this House to encourage investment, then
the bill must also accommodate certain areas that will protect the society,
protect families, protect the unemployed and protect the workers.
It is
very true, as raised by one of the speakers, that we have the freedom to choose
whether to go to the casino or not. But
that freedom must be assisted by us leaders of this nation to guide them so
they make the right decision. We should
not throw things out in the open hoping people will make the right choice. Human as we are, we have weaknesses and we
are prone to fall to attraction than to something not attractive.
As
we already know, our great, great, great grand father Adam is a very strong man,
perfect but yet Satan himself made the apple very attractive and he fell. That is the weakness of human beings and so it
is not right to say we are free to choose.
If
that is our thinking then we are not fulfilling our duty of protecting the
citizens of this country. We are bringing
a bill into this House that will cover every sector of the community.
I
know there are clauses in this bill that casinos would only operate within a
hotel. No persons from
Mr
Speaker, I think the last House also passed legislation on the same bill to
allow the operation of only two casinos in this country. In restricting the freedom of investment or
entrepreneur in this country, who are we serving in this particular
amendment?
I am
very pleased that the investor who would like to develop the Arts Gallery area is
probably still given the go ahead. But I
know one of the conditions is to operate a casino. I don’t whether the Minister will be bringing
in the next Parliament an amendment to allow for three casinos in this
country. If not, Mr Speaker, as I have
said this bill is a bill of convenience.
Mr
Speaker, before I sit down, I think it is very important that when we bring in
such a bill like this into the House which can affect the social network or
social life of our people, it must be a balanced bill that also encourages
investors to invest in the nation, and at the same time protect our family, our
society. In this way such a bill will be
fair for all.
However,
the Bill itself seeks only to extend time for investors so that there is more
time. May be two years is not enough. But past records, as raised by certain MPs,
shows that something must be done so that we can be more effective in
implementing bills or laws in this country.
I think if an investor fails
to build a hotel in the last 10 years, the failure is not on the investor, but
it is upon the administration because it fails to enforce the bill and
act.
Therefore,
with this bill coming, a small amendment as it is, small as a mosquito, it can
kill us. I would like to urge the administration
that when this Bill is passed, it must make sure that it effectively enforces
the regulations. If the board agrees to
extend it to three years then let it be so, not another three years.
Sir,
I find it a bit tiring passing bills in this House, because we pass bills, they
become laws with the necessary regulations, but we fail to effectively enforce
them in certain quarters. This
particular bill, Mr Speaker, if it is not taken advantage of, not misuse, then
the administration must make sure it enforces the regulations effectively so
that what we are asking for this Parliament to approve is correctly entertained
and remains effective.
Mr
Speaker, whilst I have no reservation on the good purpose of this particular
amendment, I think the recommendation of the Bills and Legislation Committee
must be taken seriously by the Minister.
Because if we do not so, then what is the purpose of having the Bills
and Legislation Committee advising the floor of Parliament on a very important bill
such as this one.
With
these few comments, Mr Speaker, I resume my seat.
Hon BOSETO: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to
thank my colleague, the Minister of Home Affairs for introducing this
Bill.
Sir,
I do not intend to speak on this Bill, but because statements were made on why a
pastor or a bishop is on the government side or this is a Christian country and
yet you are passing this bill.
Sir, I would like to share
what I have been trying to do when SIAC Government came into power in
1997. In April 1998 I read a statement aimed
at stopping the two casinos - Supreme Casino and the Honiara Casino.
I
made a statement not to reissue the license, but ban the whole thing because I
was the Minister for Home Affairs at that time.
Shortly after that the SIAC Government was overthrown under the barrel
of the gun and somehow it was allowed. I
know at this stage that only two casinos were allowed in the country. Therefore, since there were allowed they want
to come in a little bit more.
The
question of investment and employment were the major things the Minister
emphasized, especially employment.
Employment means to sustain the livelihood of the people, family,
children, and school fees in town. An investor
would like to see that he has income or some return as well from an investment.
We
are now trying to open the door more and more, and this comes back to the Country
and Planning Board where it is said to be a civic zone, a zoning of some 30
years old now, pending to fit in certain applications for residential, commercial
activities and so forth.
But my thinking now has changed. When Jesus came into the world, He wants to
be in the world to be tested. He did not
run away from temptation but He faced it, and He also answered questions. Therefore, development brings into the
country good and bad things. Perhaps the
good side of development is that it brings in money to help the nation, it
provides employment for our people, and as a Christian country we are happy to
see that.
Even
now you can see that movies that are shown in the theatres are good and bad as
well. Which movies do people choose to
watch? That is a challenge to every people. Video is free and it is entering the family
home. But what types of video do
families borrow or loan to show in their homes?
The internet is also here as well. That means most of the things we want are now
entering our homes.
We
do not want phonographic pictures but now our people create phonographic
pictures. Those are temptations and the
kind of things that come into our country because we are still living in
Some
comments were made as to why do we bring in the casinos. My way of looking at it is that we are in the
world, we want money, we want employment, and therefore, it is up to us to
control it through regulation, through administration and follow the
instructions in relation to this Bill, which we are going to pass.
Therefore, although I am a pastor on this side and also
an old man, I am 73 years old, but my way of looking at it is that the things
we do not want sometimes are very tempting and as a Christian we could not
stand against them. But the answer is that
we must not go to the place that we think is not good for us, places that will weaken
our faith. The answer is to listen to
the voice that says to us, from a Christian point of view, ‘go’. But I hope this Bill will also bring
investment to investors and also employment to our people.
That
is my view on this Bill, and since I belong to a democratic government I have
to be with those who support the motion, and so I support the motion.
Hon WAIPORA: Mr Speaker, I will be very brief so that
others who are interested on this bill will have a chance to talk.
Mr Speaker, a sentence in the bill says, “Hence the bill
seeks to increase the number of years that licensed operators are given to
complete building their premises from two years to such period as recommended
by the Board and approved by the Minister”.
I would like to talk on this sentence.
Mr Speaker, those who have contributed to this Bill have
expressed concerns about casino. I want
to say that some of us here are sad that we come in when the casino is already here. Those who brought in the casino bill into
this Parliament and eventually became an act know the reasons why the casino is
allowed in our country and so every one of us is concerned about it. But this amendment is just calling for an
extension period so that whoever operates a casino has time to build a hotel or
build the premises for the casino. Because,
as we know, two years is not enough time to build a big building like a hotel. Some hotels probably take about five years to
complete. So it is just a concern of
extension of time to enable investors build buildings suitable for their
purposes.
Mr Speaker, the casino, as stated by the Minister for
Lands, also provides employment to our people.
I do not the exact number of people employed, but the Minister himself will
be in a position to tell us the number of employees employed at the two casinos
this time.
This Bill is only a very small amendment seeking the Parliament’s
approval for extension of time. And I am
happy that approval for this extension period will involve the Board and the
Minister, as final.
In
saying that, if we leaders lead the country with value and ethics of leadership
that calls for honesty, integrity, accountability, transparency and impartiality,
if we hold that, there would not be any problem. I know we have human weaknesses, but if we
want to lead this country properly, we, leaders must be honest and have the values
that I have mentioned.
Mr Speaker, this Bill is just a call for extension of
time and so I am satisfied that the Board and the Minister will be involved to
decide as to whether it is justifiable for an investor to extend the period of
time than the two years allowed under the present act.
With these few remarks, I support the Bill.
Mr
First of all, I must thank the Minister and his staff for
seeing in fit in bringing this amendment.
Sir,
most of the time we talk so much about development in our country, most of the time
we talk so much about unemployment in our country, and yet whenever any bill to
open up investment comes before Parliament we always criticize them.
Mr Speaker, I stand here as a former Minister of Lands to
clear a few doubts that colleagues may have on this floor of Parliament, so
that we are furnished with the right information. I would like to clarify the background to the
land this investor acquired, which most MPs talked so much about that has never
been developed for the last 10 years.
Mr Speaker, I believe nobody will deny the impact of such
a development as the casino. My simple
reading of this Bill, as mentioned by other colleagues, is that it is not
seeking for another 10 casinos. The casino
is already there and its social impacts that we talked so much about are
already there.
We
are concerned about the increase in unemployment, but in order for this
development to have a conducive environment to enable it expand its development
is the purpose of this Bill.
Referring
to one of the casino operators here, and may be some colleagues are in doubt
about this land this operator has acquired, which has never been developed for
the last six or seven years, I would like to give a brief background of this
land.
Mr
Speaker, when the particular developer acquired this land, there was a caveat
lodged on the said land followed later by a High Court application. This has been going on for about five to six
years. After this matter was cleared by
the High Court, the developer needs extra land so that it can fit in with its development
proposal. The developer applied for
extra land, although we heard the particular land was allocated to the developer,
administratively the Department of Lands is yet to transfer the land to the
developer. Until the Department of Lands
transfers the land to the developer, he will have legal title over the land
which he will be then in a position to develop the site.
Mr Speaker, my personal opinion on the timing as required
by this Act, I do not think it will interfere with any provision or any
condition that will be inserted in the caveat under the Lands and Titles Act
because it is a separate act.
The freedom of choice, the freedom of movement, and the
freedom of religion are all there. I
accept what other colleagues are saying that we are leaders and so we must
create things that are conducive to our people.
How
many problems do we have in
Sometimes
we must learn to absorb and accept things in order for us to move on. Especially with our country that is currently
facing unemployment problems, we need to make some radical moves. Not radical in a sense that we break the law,
but it must follow the law so that we try and alleviate the unemployment problem. Or haven’t we realized what is going on in
our homes, in the suburbs in
This
small amendment is just to make our environment conducive waiting for this
developer to expand. And if it expands,
although some of us say it is only benefiting the developer, what about the
three or four hundred workers employed by the developer. Who are these workers? They earn their living for bread and
butter. Are these workers foreigners?
Whilst
we may be looking very far please try and look closer at home so that we can see
the things I am talking about. On fact
is that our own people will benefit from employment. And not only that, but if it develops into a casino,
our farmers (most of us here give out projects on poultry, piggery, farming)
they can come and sell their products to places like the casino.
Whilst
we may be only looking at one side of the coin, try and look at the other side of
the coin too and balance it up. Is it
going to benefit only one side, Mr Speaker?
Some of us can see that it is going to benefit every one of us because
after all it is our country. We need to
accommodate this kind of investment.
Sir, I think rather than us seeing
this amendment differently, it is just for extension of time period so that the
environment is conducive for this developer so that he is able to establish and
employ more youths in
With
this short contribution, I support the motion.
Mr MAGGA: Mr Speaker, I would like to contribute
briefly to this small Bill. First of
all, I would like to say that I term
Many
people are complaining that we do not need a casino in this country and we are
not ready to have a casino in this country.
But I want to make a classic example about
Mr Speaker, I look at this bill as a bill that should
come in two folds. The Minister of Lands
should also bring in a bill to change the 18 months of constructing a building
on a land. Here we are asking for the
Minister of Home Affairs to extend the period of allowing a casino developer to
develop a casino on a land. In my view
this is not right, because under the Land and Titles Act it states very clearly
that when you acquire a land you are allowed only 18 months to build a house on
it. Now we are asking for a period of more
than 18 months.
The casino
act states very clearly that an operator is only allowed two years to construct
a building to run your casino on a land and here we are asking for more.
I
want to challenge the government, this is not because I’m not on the government
side, I am on the government side, but when I see things are not right, I have
to speak out.
As I
can see there must also be a bill to change the 18 months before it qualifies a
casino developer to build a building on the land. I see the reason govern by this amendment but
I speak as a leader of this nation that I want and I will go along with the
changes made by the Chairman of the Bills and Legislation Committee. I would go along with their amendment because
it is not right for us to ask more time for casino to be developed on our land
yet the Act stated very very clear you are allowed only 18 months to build a
building on your land.
Customary practice also tells us that if you are
allocated a land and you set up a foundation, then you comply with the 18
months. In my view two years is a long
period of time.
Sir,
I support this motion but I support it on the basis of the amendment brought in
by the Chairman of the Bills and Legislation Committee.
As I
said this country is like the prodigal son where we are asking too many things
that do not warrant us to run in this nation.
Sometimes things that do not benefit our people, we as leaders pass in
this Parliament, as if we need them. I
think this is not right.
Although the Bill is very simple it has many implications. If we are to increase the time period then I
believe the Minister for Lands should also bring in an amendment to amend the
18 months allowed to build a house on a land.
Mr Speaker, I will not take more time, but I just want to
make those observations so that we carefully look into those things. If the extension of two years comply with certain
legislation and acts passed in this Parliament then it is all right. If not, then certain things have to be
amended or certain acts be brought into Parliament so that they go in line with
the request by the honorable Minister for Home Affairs.
Mr Speaker,
I resume my seat.
Hon TOSIKA: Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing the floor
of Parliament to speak on this bill, the Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) Bill
2006. I would be very brief.
Mr Speaker, my observation of this bill is that if this is
a bill to pass gaming and lotteries in the first place I will oppose it. This Bill is seeking amendment to section 8
to extend time from two years to more years.
If
you look at section 6(3), this amendment is very genuine on the fact that to
acquire land in
I
think the 18 months period should apply after someone has the title to the land
that if you do not develop the land within 18 months, the Commission of Land
can forfeit the land through an order by the High Court.
Sir, I said this Bill is very genuine to investors to
comply with the provisions of the Gaming and Lotteries Act on the basis that section
3 says, “No person other than foreign or overseas guests or visitors of
The
fact here is to allow more time so that investors show their genuineness in establishing
a building. The Act says that unless a
building is built whether it is a motel or hotel before a casino is located
inside. This means only people who are
guests of the hotel or foreigners are allowed to play in the casino, and not Solomon
Islanders. At the moment people who do
not own a hotel are given the casino license and so they are operating the
casino in a normal building and that is why Solomon Islanders enter and play.
This
amendment is to see the genuineness of the investors who come into the country
to invest. We give them more time
because they have to go through a lot of constraints made by the Solomon
Islands Government. When investors come we
must give them the full package of development. That is what we want. But most of the time we find investors also
finding it difficult to acquire land because of the government system they have
to go through that is causing a lot of constraints to them.
If an investor comes into the
country and his investment proposal is approved and land is allocated
straightaway, all the nonsense here would not apply. People of
My
observation is that this intention here as opposed to the present one is a very
genuine one. It is to extend the time
period so that we can see the genuineness of investors whether they really want
to invest in our country or not.
If
we give adequate time to build their buildings or premises but they fail to
build within the allocated time, then their license should be cancelled because
it shows that they are not genuine, it shows that they are just here to make
quick money.
The
casino, I can tell you, is producing one of the highest commodities in the
world - money. The casino is marketing
money that all of us want. There is what
is being marketed in the casino. Money
is the commodity they are marketing in the casino. And it is very enticing. In the world today, people fall by money, people
are lured by money and people are corrupted by money.
My
thinking is that two years is not enough time for an investor to come and set
up his/her buildings. This Bill allows the
respective Minister to act upon the recommendation from the Board is a sensible
thing to do so that we can see the genuineness of investors whether they will
do it or not with the time allocated to them.
By doing this, it would restrict people going to the casino, not Solomon
Islanders but foreigners and guests from overseas who come into the country and
would like to invest in
The
interest of tourists is what we would like to take on because most tourists would
want to play in the casino. They want to
spend their money in the casino, and most of them coming in are millionaires.
We
must try to encourage people with money to come in and play in the casino. And the spin-offs are what you have stated as employment,
our people will bring their market produces, their poultry and piggery for sale
at the casino.
With
these few remarks, Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr TOZAKA: Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to
speak very briefly on this amendment Bill.
Sir,
as other speakers have already said, especially my colleague, the Minister for
Lands, the gaming and lottery industries is, in fact, present on our shores. It is here already with us.
What
I mean by ‘here’ is that we have already accepted it. It landed here already and we have already
formulated it with a principal act, the act we called Gaming and Lotteries.
This
amendment Bill by the responsible Minister, which I would also like to thank
him for bringing on to the floor of Parliament, is basically to improve the ‘check
and balances’ arm of the government in as far as managing and controlling of this
industry is concerned.
Sir,
the Minister responsible was quite right in introducing this particular
amendment bill to the Principal Act in order to manage this industry. Gaming is already here and we have other forms
of money earning gaming such as dice and kura.
What
is being expressed here is the responsibility that has been placed upon us leaders
as being responsible to the implementation or the enforcement of acts in our
respective ministries.
The
question here is, do we really need an amendment to this Act to manage this
industry properly by moving this amendment.
The
first question I always ask myself is, having looked at all government legislation
and having made thorough consultation in respective ministries that contribute
to this industry, is there need of another legislation to help manage this
gaming and lotteries or is it there one already in the act - sufficiently
covered in the principal act and all that is needed is to manage this industry
responsibly, in this case the casino or other gaming activities.
Sir,
I say this because there is one characteristic that is emerging and is becoming
very clear, and that is in our leadership we tend to isolate the real
issues. We seem to alienate ourselves in
making decisions on the real issues because the decisions might be very
difficult to make. And therefore, we
make excuses in coming up with amendments.
We
are using objects to do things for ourselves. We use such instruments like this amendment
and also using other tools to do it for us.
Instead of saying like, ‘I have brought you power and authority under
this act, if decision has to made accordingly on this particular activity of
the government in order to control it, I have to use it’. There is no need for us to come up with
unnecessary amendments.
Having
listened to other honorable colleagues who have spoken, I think truly we have
lot of legislations already, sufficient legislations that cover this particular
activity to be able to control it.
Sir,
what I would like to see on this gaming and lottery is something that will
benefit us. Initially we accepted gaming
and lotteries so that it can benefit our country. The trickle down of it addresses the problem
of an employment faced by our youths.
Some
countries are using the Gaming and Lotteries Act to address needs like sporting
facilities, very expensive facilities in their countries which are willingly
funded by donors. This is where it comes
from. They use this gaming and lotteries
to support the infrastructure in the country.
Sir,
listening to the honorable Minister when presenting the Bill, he mentioned only
$1million collected a year out of the casino.
That brings another question as to whether we are collecting enough revenue
out of this organization. Those are
things I think we should be looking at, things that will help the country from
this industry.
Sir,
I am just speaking in principle about this amendment, but others have spoken
already in support of it and I just want to make those comments and I resume my
seat.
Mr TORA: Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the
Honorable Minister for Home Affairs for seeing it fit and proper in taking this
Bill into this House for us to consider whether it is good or not in making
this small amendment.
Mr
Speaker, this honorable chamber has 50 Members of Parliament entrusted by our
people in the formation of this legislature to make laws of this country.
Here
we are this morning, Mr Speaker, the Honorable Minister as seeing it fit and
proper in bringing this Gaming and Lotteries Amendment Bill 2006 for our
consideration and amending if seen proper.
Sir,
we have seen and heard the good things about this amendment bill and we have also
heard the bad side of it coming into force.
Mr
Speaker, I see this amendment as a test of our faith as Christians. We talk too much about our country as a
Christian country. It is true that all
of us are Christians, no one denies that.
But again in support of the head of a family, we as leaders must know
that a leader begins within ourselves, inside our families and then it reaches out
to where we are sitting down right now.
Mr
Speaker, I think as a leader we must consider what is good, and what is bad so
that living within our families, in the communities, and inside our country can
be better.
The
small point I would like to raise is in regards to employment where we are
seeing today a lot of people employed by the casino are without jobs at this
time. I think that is one of the reasons
why the Honorable Minister has seen it fit for bringing this amendment into
Parliament this morning.
Sir,
I believe all of us have concern for our people, the people employed by
companies. I believe this morning, both
sides of the House are concern about our people.
When
this kind of business or development is taking place in our country, it is true,
as leaders, we see the bad side and also the good side of such a development. The good side of this development or this sort
of business is that it creates employment opportunity for our young people and
it contributes towards the national economy of our country, and the list goes
on.
Some
bad effects of the casino is what we already heard from previous speakers in
their contribution this morning that it is a breeding place for problems. I don’t believe that, Mr Speaker. I for one have not seen anyone from my
constituency enter the casino. Why, Mr
Speaker? It is simply because on day one
of my people’s arrival here in
Sir,
I also told them about the bad things that may affect their life when they are
in
But
again, Mr Speaker, I can see employment as a very important thing and good side
of this Bill. I wonder Mr Speaker,
whether the employer, or the one owning the casino or the company still has
concern for those who are now unemployed at this time.
Mr
Speaker, sitting in this honorable chamber is 50 Members of Parliament who make
laws for this country, and if the responsible Ministry sees that there is need
to bring this Bill to Parliament, then this is the proper channel to
follow.
The
Minister sees this amendment will allow the developer to continue constructing buildings
or whatever and therefore has seen it fit in bringing this Bill so that we
allow time for the developer.
Sir,
I have no problem to see that in future any bill of this nature, although in
our debate we might see good things and bad things of something, but that is
how everything is meant to be.
We
make laws for this country and as time goes on, whoever is on the government
side sees fit to bring in this sort of amendment he would do so, so that
everything runs smoothly for the affairs of the country.
Mr Speaker, I think I would be the last speaker to
contribute to this very important amendment bill because Parliament will wind
up tomorrow. Mr Speaker, I see no
problem with this Bill, but again it is a test of our faith and a test of
responsibility as leaders. Because I do
not believe anyone of us has ever gone into the casino. Like myself, I worked in
(hear, hear)
And I do not even know its
location except I used to go to the Pacific Casino, not to play casino. Because I know that if I start to go into the
casino and play, like other speakers have said, it will cause a lot of family problem
because the money that you spend in the casino is going to affect the family because
that money is supposed to be spent on food and other necessities.
The previous speaker has said that this is a Christian
country and so it is a test of faith to all of us. We have to decide and make our own decisions.
If you say ‘son you go and play casino
this morning, and tomorrow I will go’.
Is that a good advice? No, I do
not think so.
With these few remarks, I support the Bill.
Mr KWANAIRARA: Mr Speaker, I will be very brief in contributing
to this Bill. First of all, I would like
to thank the Minister of Home Affairs for bringing this amendment Bill to Parliament.
Sir,
this piece of legislation came into this House way back in 1998 when I was
Minister for Commerce and Trade at that time, and Gaming and Lotteries came
under that Ministry. There were a lot of
disputes at that time regardless of the importance of gambling. Some were against it and some supported it so
much so that they wanted to abolish gambling in
However, it so happened that some of the legislation were
not in order and so the whole thing dragged on.
Mr
Speaker, the Gaming and Lotteries Act has been amended a few times to cater for
gaming and lotteries in the country.
When I was the Minister then in 1998, we went on a trip to
This
issue is not a new issue, it has been in the country for some time now. We all know about it. We all know the disadvantages and the
advantages of casino and gambling in the country. A lot of speakers have already stated the bad
sides of it, and some supported it for the good side of it.
The
only area I would like to touch on before I take my seat is the extension
period in this Bill. This Bill is
seeking the House’s approval to extend the time given to an investor to more
than two years that is now allowable under the present Act.
In
my view, two years is enough time for an investor to invest in this
country. This particular investor has
been given almost 10 years, but he has been buying time studying the economic
situation of the country. I think that
is all he has been doing for the last 10 years since 1998 until this year, which
is about nine to ten years now.
Sir,
my fear is that opening up the time period is subjecting the Act to further
abuse. This is giving more flexibility to
our investors, which is not bad, but in a way this is having less control over investors
coming into the country.
Mr
Speaker, that is an area we need to look into very thoughtfully. If we cannot control our investors but our
investors control us and control our Acts, then we would be in a very awkward
situation. I would like to point here
that when we allow ourselves to abuse our own Acts, it is a very bad thing for
the country.
I
think a couple of years ago, we tried shifting that responsibility to the Board
or to an organized body rather than the Minister taking that responsibility on
him. But here in this Bill we are now
going back to the same old story we have shifted from. This is something we need to look into.
Sir,
I am concerned about this shift because if the Minister (I am not saying the
present Minister but any Minister for that matter) thinks otherwise and keeps
on extending the time period, how long are we going to keep extending time for
investors. Some investors are buying
time, some are slow or delay in establishing their investment proposals for
reasons known only to themselves. This
is abuse of the Act and is not healthy for the country. That is my purpose of contributing to this
amendment bill. If a genuine investor
comes into the country then it is good.
Sir,
there is need for us to look into many of our acts. Even the Citizenship Act, which I think will
come at a later date, but some people who were given citizenship are just
shopkeepers married to Solomon Islanders.
Do you call that investor? This
is crazy.
In
other countries, when an investor comes into the country, he has to have with
him/her substantial amount of money for investing in the country. It is not coming in as a shopkeeper, getting married
to a Solomon Islander and then owning a big shop in
Mr Speaker, we want genuine investors, people who are
serious about investing in our country. We
do not want people who come in but wait on the sideways for the climate to be fine
before they step in. That is not a genuine
investor. We want genuine investors. We want people who have money and people who
come in with money and not those who come in to make money in
If
you go around
Mr
Speaker, I think it is better for us to look into our Act once again and leave
it as stipulated in the Act. If a person
is really genuine and wants to invest then that is fine, on merit he can be
given extended time. But I do not agree
that it should be regulated as open ending time so that anyone coming in has
advantage of this regulation we are enacting.
That
is my concern as an independent Member in Parliament. Let us not open up our Acts very much because
investors can control our acts and even abuse our Acts.
Sir, I want investors who have been given approval under
the Foreign Investment Act, whether under the old or new Act, to come with a
genuine heart to develop
I want the Minister concern to take note of all the
concerns I am raising. I am sure he can be
a very good Minister in the months to come if he takes note.
Mr Speaker, with those brief remarks, I resume my seat.
Mr SITAI: Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to
contribute to the debate of this Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) Bill 2006
moved this morning by the Minister of Home Affairs.
In so doing, Mr Speaker, I am reminded of what the former
Member for
This former Member of
The
test on us leaders, however, is as to whether or not we shall allow for this
investment to take place in this country.
We have done that. So I do not
think we should talk too long on this amendment. It is a straight forward one to facilitate
what is required.
In my on view, what I would like to share, however, Mr
Speaker, is that in the event this investor goes beyond the acceptable time
limit, then I think the Board and the Minister should have the power to say,
no. Otherwise we will just open this up
and we do not know what time this investment will take place. This is just to safeguard us. That provision, whether or not it is in the
Act, but if it is the power of the Minister to do that, then I would be
grateful to protect them. The government
should not allow investors to play around with us, it should have this
provision that can be invoked when it is necessary.
Sir,
on the issue of employment, much has already been said about that. It is true that our people are employed in
these operations, and if they expand may be more people would be employed so
that at least additional incomes can be a support for the families. But as we have all agreed, one of our
speakers in Parliament said this morning that a coin has two sides and so you
can look at this side and look at the other side, and I only hope that we are
making the right decisions.
With
these comments, I support the Bill.
Mr HAOMAE: Mr Speaker, I will be very brief. I would like to thank the honorable Member
for
My only concern is, Mr Speaker, whether this amendment has
met the test of necessity whether it is absolutely necessary to bring this
amendment to Parliament. Whether this
amendment meets the test of necessity or whether the Minister has other options
that are there so that he utilizes those options rather than bringing this
amendment to Parliament.
Mr Speaker, when will the investor apply for a license
for the casino? When? Is he going to apply when the hotel is not yet
built or after the hotel is built? I
have made the point about necessity because I would have thought that when a
new investor comes in, and his plan embraces a hotel complex, then in that
particular hotel the plan for a casino is also inside. This investor has not applied for a license
yet because he must finish the hotel first before he can apply. If he applies that time this amendment is not
necessary because he will finish the hotel complex first and so there is no
need to apply.
I am
saying this amendment does not pass the test of necessity. Because if this amendment gets through then
the observation by the Bills Committee holds water that this Bill is just to
address a particular investor who has problems with land or what, I am not too
sure at this point in time. This Bill only
provides for the convenience of one person, as stated by the Member for North West
Choiseul. This is affecting the
intention of the principal Act.
In my view, I think the Minister of Home Affairs has
other options at his command that he can use for purposes of extending time
rather than bringing in this amendment to Parliament.
I
submit to you that on the basis of the fact the investor of casino uses his
hotel complex before he applies for the gaming license for casino, this bill does
not meet the test of necessity.
Therefore, that is my concern and I thank you and I
resume my seat.
Hon SIKUA: Thank you Mr Speaker, for giving me this
opportunity to contribute briefly to the Bill. I thank the Minister for Home Affairs for
bringing the Bill to parliament.
Mr Speaker, the spirit in which this amendment is brought
to Parliament is something that has taken into account what has happened in the
past. The way the existing legislation
stands lends itself to be broken. The
period of two years as experienced is unrealistic, especially if you take into
account the vagaries of what people go through in the construction industry.
In terms of what the Member for Small Malaita has said, I
don’t think any investor will want to take the risk of constructing the
facilities first before a license is given because what guarantee does the
investor have in having his application approved. I think that risk is too big. I do not think investors in their right mind
will want to take that risk.
In terms of having the test
of necessity, I am sure there would be other provisions in the Act for the
Minister to take, but again these provision will then also be abused because
they may have been used but because of the vagaries that people go through in
the construction industry or any investment for that matter, this amendment is necessary. For example, a lot of time is needed for an
investor to acquire a land. Also a lot
of time is needed to have the plans approved and build the facilities. There is also time needed for money to be
raised for the investment to take place, and there is a lot of time taken for
the construction to take place. Even
when construction takes place, you are at the whims of the weather. The weather might not be favorable, there
might be strikes, there might be delays in the arrival of materials procured from
overseas. We have to deal with reality
here Mr Speaker, and the fact that the law is limiting, it is too rigid lends
itself to be broken. So, we, as law
makers have to be realistic and therefore amend the timing for this thing to
take place.
I am
usually skeptical, Mr Speaker, when we try to talk about religion and what we
do with our lives. I mean whatever
organization whether it be the church, the school, hospital, all need money to
operate. We need money for everything
that we do in life.
The
same dollar that passes through the casino tables is the same dollar that gets
blessed on the altar every Sunday in offerings. Is that true?
Or will the Mama look at a $50 note and say this is from the casino and
so it should be put back? Is that what
happens? No. So let us not talk about religion, being a
Christian and those sorts of things because all of us need money.
I
think the thing to realize here, Mr Speaker, is the employment opportunities
made available to our people from this kind of venture is something we must
also realize. Soon after the burning of the
Pacific Casino, the papers were full of people that were put out of their jobs
because of the burning down of the Casino. It is something that we must be mindful of.
The
positive thing that we must look at in this kind of investment is that it does
create employment for our people - employment for our people who do not have
the skills to enter other employment opportunities in the employment
sector. It does take in a certain level
of people with certain level of skills. I think that is the positive thing we need to
look at.
My
point, Mr Speaker, is that the amendment required of us here is very simple. We amend it so that the law does not lend
itself to be broken all the time, and it gives the power to the Board and the
Minister to grant the period that is required.
With
those few comments, Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr
Mr
Speaker, I support this very small and short amendment. But my points of discussion would come in a
general form.
Mr
Speaker, as we know, laws are simply rules by which man have to play by. And a lot of these rules (I call them rules
because they are only rules called laws) are quite of out of date. Some of these laws are out of time and out of
taste.
A lot
of things happening in this city, out on the streets and out in the corners are
legal things practiced the world over.
I
thank the Minister for listening to the call of Caucus by looking at the laws
that apply under his jurisdiction. But I
think he could have moved a little bit further on.
One
other law that needs to be looked into is the Liquor Act which unnecessarily
limits the time of enjoyment of our people.
Just because of limitation factors that people are criminalized. I think the Minister must look into
this.
Sir,
I am looking at this from a liberal mind, open minded, a broad sense instead of
looking at the limitations because many times people are fenced off or most of
the time people would want to play and when they play they play outside of the
rules. And when they play outside of the
rules they are called criminals. But in
reality those rules are just to make life harmonious. And if some of these rules are out of date, then
that is what this Parliament is all about.
We bring them in here so that we look at them and debate them.
Mr
Speaker, I thank the Minister for this very short and simple amendment. But I would still call on him to have the onus
of looking at the operators in here. If
we are going to be making an opening here, then let us look at other enabling
legislation so that we are seen as playing on a level playing field. I think that is the issue I would like to
raise.
With
those very short remarks, Mr Speaker, I support the Minister and I support this
very short amendment to the principal act.
Thank you very much.
Hon Ghiro: Mr Speaker, I rise to thank all those who
have contributed to the Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) 2006. Some of the contributions are valid and some
are confusing.
Mr
Speaker, I consider these as very important because of the genuineness of the
operator and also the importance of our indigenous Solomon Islanders.
I
think the Bill here, Mr Speaker, is very important in a sense that
accomplishing an investment of $5 to $10million could not be completed in a
period of two years. That is why this
Bill is important. It is to increase the
time frame so that an investor can complete his hotel complex or whatever in a
set period of time. That is the
importance of this Bill.
Also,
Mr Speaker, employment is an important part of it because of our Solomon
Islanders employees. You see what
happened on 18th April can happen again if this casino is not inexistence.
The four
important points are the time frame given so that the operator can complete his
undertaking. The second point is that
the time frame given as two years does not fall within the land issue where
this casino has faced. He was not issued
a land title. He just received the title
last year. And so the two years is not enough. That is why the Minister is so kind in amending
this bill to cater for this investor.
As
mentioned by the MP for Small Malaita, the point here is that no one will risk
investing his business. The same goes
for an investor whether a Solomon Islander or outsider. There must be adequate time given so that you are
sure to complete your undertaking before you can invest. This is simple and just commonsense.
Mr
Speaker, I think all the points raised by other speakers were also answered by
other speakers. And So I am not going to
repeat myself because the important points have been raised.
Some
of the points raised about the Bill are important. Some of the points raised, as I have said, are
valid and some are confusing. Let us not
confuse ourselves on what we are saying because this amendment is very simple.
On
Christianity, Mr Speaker, there were a lot of speakers saying that casino causes
a lot of family problems. Mr Speaker, I
must make it clear on this floor of Parliament that Christian is not joining
the hearts of two men planning to do something wrong. It is an individual choice of someone from his/her
own heart to decide what he/she wants to do.
The
same thing applies to going to a nightclub. Who tells you to go to a nightclub? If you decide not to go to the nightclub then stay
foot with your family. It is as simple
as that.
What
I am saying this in comparison to casino. Casino is not causing harm to any Christian
person. The same thing applies to going
to a nightclub, drinking kwaso. It is an
individual right to decide on his/her life.
As I
said earlier on, I will be very brief because other speakers have already
covered the important things about this bill.
Mr
Speaker, I beg to move that the Gaming and Lotteries Amendment Bill be now read
the second time.
The Bill agreed to
Sitting suspended for lunch break
The Parliament resumes at 2 pm.
Committee of the Whole
House
The Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment)
Bill 2006
Clause 1 agreed to
Clause 2
Hon Ghiro: Mr Speaker, I rise to move that the following
amendments to the Gaming and Lotteries Bill.
Delete all the words after the word “Minister” and insert instead the
recommendation of the Board may by order of a gazette to grant holders of
commercial gaming permits such further period as may be necessary to comply
with the requirements of subsection (1)”.
Mr
Speaker, the amendment Bill would now read as follows: “Notwithstanding the
provisions of subsection (1) and (3), the Minister on the recommendation of
Board, may by order publish in the gazette, grant holders of commercial gaming permits
such further period as may be necessary to comply with requirements of
subsection (1).
Mr
Speaker, the intention of the proposed is to enable Parliament intervene under
its power provided under this act.
Mr
Speaker, I beg to move.
(Motion on the amendment is open for debate)
Mr Kwanairara: Mr Chairman, would that amendment confine
itself to a particular investment or is it still open
for the two in bracket?
Mr Chairman: The amendment now is of a general
nature. It does not restrict itself to
any one particular investor. Any
investor who invests in this particular business would be covered by that amendment.
Hon Ghiro: Mr Chairman, this amendment is to allow the Minister
to extend the time. It does not allow
the Minister to have any say in the business but just to allow the Minister and
also to allow the Parliament to intervene.
Mr Fono: My only concern is that this amendment is not
written and distributed to Members so that we can be clear on this.
I am
talking on this motion that the Minister has moved that whilst I am do not have
any problem with the motion, it would have been better if that proposed
amendment to this section is distributed to Members so that Members can read it
and take it into the context of the whole amendment.
At
the moment, just by reading it, is making it very difficult for us to
understand the context of that amendment.
Whilst I accept the motion in moving this amendment, it would have been
better if it is written in black and white and distributed to all Members so
that we are able to see the proposed amendment to this particular section.
Hon Sogavare: Mr Speaker, thank you, I would like to
contribute to the debate of this motion.
I appreciate
the comments raised by the Leader of Opposition. But I think it is clear in the Bill on section
6 or CAP 139 sub clause 2.
What
the proposed amendment is doing is that it is replacing the entire clause and includes
all the word in black, ‘may by order published in the gazette’. Those are the words included. So the new amendment instead of reading
“Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) and (3), the Minister may on
the recommendation of the Board grant holders of commercial gaming permits such
further period as may be necessary to comply with the requirements of
subsection (1)”. That is the original amendment. The new amendment reads, with the addition of
these words, “may by order publish in the gazette, and so the new amendment will
read
as follows:- Notwithstanding the
provisions of subsection (1) and (3), the Minister on the recommendation of the
Board may by order publish in the gazette, grant holders of commercial gaming
permits such further period as may be necessary to comply with requirements of
subsection(1).
It
is clear like that, Mr Chairman, and I support motion.
Mr Chairman: For the information of other Members of
Parliament, apparently the Minister has taken on board the recommendation of
the Bills and Legislation Committee, which is on page 7 the Committee’s
report. If you are concerned about the
language he simply accepted that amendment by the Bills Committee.
Hon Sanga: I will briefly contribute to the debate of
this amendment. First of all, I would
like to thank the Minister for Home Affairs for being flexible enough to
consider the many concerns raised on the floor of Parliament on the general
debate of the bill itself.
I
think when we talk about gaming, and in particular with reference to corporate
entities like the casinos, it is a matter of real concern to everybody. The fact that many Members of Parliament from
both sides of the House speak on the bill this morning merely reflects that
concern.
What
this amendment is doing really is extending the participation of stakeholders
for the general public and at the same time for Parliament to get involved in
the process of determining the commercial gaming permit especially for purposes
of extension can be considered or granted if recommendation is made by the
Board.
My
view of this is that if orders are made, the orders hopefully will be subjected
to scrutiny by the Cabinet. And the fact
that it will be published in the gazette will be further subjected to scrutiny
by members of the public. Orders, as it
were, are subsidiary legislations and obviously they will need to be tabled
before Parliament. And if there are
concerns made by Parliament, although the Minister has powers under this new
arrangement to grant the permit, if Parliament thinks otherwise, it can
intervene in the license or the permit the Minister granted under this new
proposed amendment.
What
I would like to say is that I think the concerns raised during the general
debate this morning have been taken on board by the Minister concerned. I would like to also thank the Bills Committee
for making this recommendation to improve how this new law will be taken into
effect.
With
these few comments, I would like to support the amendment bill.
Hon Ghiro: Mr Speaker, I wish to thank all MPs for their very
effective contribution and also for understanding the amendment.
With
this, I beg to move the motion.
The amendment agreed to
Clause 2 with the amendment agreed to
The Preamble agreed to
(Parliament resumes)
Hon Ghiro: Mr Speaker, I beg to report that the Gaming
and Lotteries Amendment Bill 2006 has gone through the committee of the whole
house with amendments.
Bills – Third Reading
The Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment)
Bill 2006
Hon Ghiro: Mr Speaker, I beg to move that the Gaming and
Lotteries Amendment Bill 2006 with amendments be now read the third time and do
pass.
The Bill passed its third reading
Mr Speaker: I understand the Minister for Foreign Affairs would
like to make a statement before we go on to the motion.
Hon OTI: Thank you Mr Speaker, for granting me leave
under Standing Order 34 to make a ministerial statement regarding what has been
reported in the media today.
Mr
Speaker, the Government would like to clarify that we have been informed that
the Attorney General who was held in
Mr
Speaker, there has been a full briefing with the Commissioner of Police and
other core authorities including Immigration Officials, and the matter is now
in the hands of the Police.
Mr
Speaker, also I have called the
As of
this afternoon, it is now within the hands of the Police to take care of Mr Moti,
if I can mention the name, and he will now be subjected to the Immigration laws
of this country including the breach of the Passport Act.
Thank
you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker: That is a Minister’s statement and is not
open to debate. But short questions can
be asked.
Mr Fono: Mr Speaker, according to section 24(2) can I
ask a question to the Minister.
Mr Speaker: Yes, you may ask short questions.
Mr Fono: Thank you for you indulgence, Mr
Speaker. Can the Minister inform the
House as to who will meet the cost of the plane that brought this person from
Hon Oti: Mr Speaker, that in essence is why I have
called the High Commissioner so that he is questioned how the plane came and
who is going to pay the cost. So that
would be made known to us. But at the
moment what are we concern about is breaching of the laws of this country and
he will now be subject to the full brunt of our legal laws.
Its
financial consideration is a matter that is now before the Papua New Guinea Government
through its High Commission here for us to be informed. .
Mr Fono: Mr Speaker, I would like to know whether his
appointment is still valid or not so that he comes to
Hon Sanga: Mr Speaker, I think that question is a little
bit beside the point since it has to do with the person concerned. I would like to confirm that the appointment
per se is still intact.
MOTIONS
Sine Die Motion
Hon SOGAVARE: Mr Speaker, I beg to move that at the
adjournment of Parliament on the 11th October 2006 the present
meeting shall be concluded and Parliament shall then stand adjourned sine die. I will be brief and to the point, as I will
have the opportunity to round up the motion after it is debated on.
In
moving this motion, Mr Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to make
some explanations on the actions of the government, which were clearly taken
out of context by certain people including Members of this Honourable House,
which resulted in barrages of unfounded allegations against the Government.
But
before that, I would like to start by thanking a number of people who
contributed significantly in making the present meeting worthwhile. Firstly, of course, I thank His Excellency,
the Governor General for gracing this House with his presence to deliver the
Speech from the Throne.
Yes,
as recognized by all who spoke for the motion to thank His Excellency, it has
been quite sometime since Parliament had the honour of hearing an address from
the representative of the Head of State of Solomon Islands and therefore in
that context, the event was rightly described by some Members of Parliament as
historical.
On
behalf of the people of this country and of course this Parliament, I extend to
His Excellency our warm and heartfelt words of appreciation, thanks and we wish
His Excellency and Lady Waena the richness of God’s blessings and good health.
Mr
Speaker, I would like to assure His Excellency that the Grand Coalition for
Change Government is committed to take custody of Her Majesty’s Government in
the bounds of the rule of law to respect constitutional established
institutions and to ensure that our constitutional rights are protected and
respected, Mr. Speaker.
I
would also like to extend the Government’s profound words of appreciation to
the Head of the Judiciary, the Honourable Chief Justice of Solomon Islands, for
gracing this House as well with his presence during the delivery by His
Excellency of the Speech from the Throne.
Indeed, the occasion brought together the heads of the three arms of
Government which is very encouraging.
I
would urge your office, Sir, to take the suggestion that the Honorable, the
Chief Justice made privately to you and I that it would be nice during such
occasion that the House is also graced by members of the Bar Association, of
course in full legal attire. After all,
it is the legal fraternity that helps interprets the many laws that passed
through this Honourable house.
Of
course, I would also like to thank your office and that of the Clerk for the
excellent arrangements that contributed tremendously to the smooth order of
this meeting.
Mr
Speaker, I would also like to thank the Permanent Secretaries and the Public Servants
for their unwavering support of government and the development strategies we
are advancing for this country. The
Public Service is very often unfairly criticized by politicians without a
slightest appreciation for all the pressures they have to go through amidst all
the politics that are going on.
The
same goes for the Permanent Secretaries, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister was criticized for
handpicking them since the commencement of this present sitting by certain
Members of the Opposition, and this House continued to complain about this
matter.
Sir,
there seems to be the argument that the Government is grossly careless and is
replacing Permanent Secretaries left, right and centre and with people who are
incompetent. The same people also complained
about the engagement of a non-indigenous
Sir,
I want to challenge this so-called protector of good governance and advocates
of human rights to be genuine. I am
saying this because I guess I am sick and tired of hypocrisy. These very people, of course, would not
hesitate for one moment to advance racist agendas when it suits them and dare
to advance themselves, as having concern for good governance and all it entails
Mr. Speaker.
The
problem with some of us, Mr. Speaker is that we quickly suffer from serious
memory loss. There is a tendency for
people to speak before they think. I
would advise all of us to grow up. I
would like to ask this question how dare we brand Solomon Islanders new
Permanent Secretaries as incompetent and cronies of the government. That is not right.
For
the information of this House, Mr Speaker and any one else who may be aggrieved
by the action of selecting the new team of Permanent Secretaries, I want to make
it clear that I have no other interest other than the interest of state in the
selection of the Permanent Secretaries.
All of them are qualified Solomon Islanders who are willing and
committed to do something to help the government achieve its objectives.
I am
amused by the attitude of some of us who would like to treat the government as
our property even when we are not in government and we take the appointment of
the Permanent Secretaries as if they are appointments to our own companies, and
we complain about them.
Sir,
there is also the tendency that every appointment to important posts in the
government must be tainted with cronyism and corruption. Sir, I just want us to come off that. Just think of how can the government be
careless of its appointment of Permanent Secretaries or anyone else for that
matter. That would be akin to, I guess,
committing suicide.
The
fact of the matter is that it is in the interest of the government that we
deliver on our election promises and because of that fact we must ensure that
the people appointed to the posts are people we trust who can make it happen
for the government. In any case, the
Ministers were fully consulted on the appointments. Interestingly, more than 80% of the current
Permanent Secretaries were reappointments.
Sir,
I would also like to express my disappointment at the way, I guess some of our
very senior politicians, are behaving themselves. All the politicking that is going on during
the present sitting is clearly engineered by senior politicians, and this makes
me sad. This is not right.
I am
appalled of what I would like to describe as very childish attitude. Senior politicians have a duty of care for
the newcomers in this House. The way we
debate issues and how we conduct ourselves are read like open books by our new
Members.
In
my view, these are the last people that I expect us to act irresponsibly. To be honest, I hope the stability of this
government with the new Members of Parliament would not take any non-sense of
the so-called experienced politicians from both sides of the House.
There
is a determined effort I observed by some Members of this Honourable House to
pull this government down. Like I
understand the memorandum of understanding is openly circulated to get people
to sign up on what I see as a very evil agenda.
Thank God, Mr. Speaker, this determination is equaled by the
determination of our new Members to stand for principles and what is right for
this country. I would like to take this
opportunity to acknowledge the steadfastness sand commissioning of the Members
to the mission of this government.
I
want to take this opportunity to let the people of this country know that this
government is committed to its mission and will not be deterred by the evil
agendas of a very few individuals in this House. We are determined not to disappoint the
people of this country. (A little later
I will comment very briefly on the intended motion of no confidence).
Sir,
I guess much is said about ethical leadership.
I find it very amusing when people who advanced this concern relate it
very narrowly, and for very obvious reasons to the way the Prime Minister is
handling our relationship with
To
put any speculation to rest we make no apologies whatsoever for the actions we
took as a government. Contrary to what
the Opposition group is telling the world that the Prime Minister was taking
his actions on his own accord and therefore a dictator. The Cabinet and Caucus are consulted and so
this Prime Minister is not stupid.
I am
fully aware of the principles of Cabinet/Government system and the need to
consult. If that is all we know about
ethical leadership then no wonder we are confused ourselves. Ethical leadership must be viewed in this
context if we are to make any sense of perceived actions and behavior.
A
perfect example is the demonstration of determination by the Prime Minister in
the way he handles the current issues, which is misconstrued by all people as
stubbornness, eccentric, madness and the list of adjectives goes on. The problem with a lot of us is that we jump
straight to the trees and we missed the forest.
We judge issues by our feelings and perceptions rather than facts and
truths. We allow our egos to be fueled
by misinformation, fabrication, hyped up by media propaganda to a point where
we find it difficult to recant when we have proven to be misinformed. So much for ethical leadership.
Sir,
this is clearly demonstrated in the way some of Members of this House
especially the Opposition Group and their sympathizers I guess are determined
to make this Prime Minister look like a criminal, and surprisingly in support
of alien agendas.
As
explained by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in a statement issued on the floor
of this Parliament there is a determined effort by the Australian Government to
frustrate the Commission of Inquiry.
That was clearly stated and we have proved to that effect in
conversations that we have with the Australian authorities.
Sir,
this is an issue that the Grand Coalition for Change will not back up because
as explained that policy is an integral part of a comprehensive piece strategy
of this government and nothing will move the government to abandon it. All other actions are intrinsically related
to protect the integrity of the Commission of Inquiry and that includes some
controversial appointments.
Given
the above explanation, Mr Speaker, this side of the House cannot understand the
attitude of
For
the information of this Honourable House, Mr Speaker, the Commission of Inquiry
was established in the name of good governance, transparency, accountability,
the very principles that are advanced by the Regional Assistance Mission to
Sir,
by continuing to undermine the Commission of Inquiry Canberra appears to
demonstrate double standards. If
transparency would support their cause then it is all right. If it means it will expose weaknesses then it
must be ruled as criminal. It makes me
sad as leader of this government.
Likewise when the Prime Minister of Solomon Islands and his Cabinet are
determined to protect the integrity of the Commission of Inquiry they are
branded as enemies of
To prove, Mr Speaker, that they will stop at nothing to
frustrate the Commission of Inquiry they are now trumping up a new position based
on a leaked Cabinet paper to the Solomon Star newspaper. They are now saying that the reason for the
establishment of the Commission of Inquiry is to facilitate the release of the
two Members of Parliament. This is
laughable. I sympathize with the person
who may have leaked secret Cabinet papers, which in itself is a serious breach
of confidentiality, but they would not care because it serves their purpose, a
perfect example of what I referred to as blatant hypocrisy.
That
issue aside, it is a fuss over nothing.
If they have an understanding of the decision making process in Cabinet
Government system, they would realize that confidential memorandum by Ministers
are nothing more than personal views of Ministers concerned, and that view is
subject to the decision of the Cabinet.
It is Cabinet decision that matters on any issue ultimately.
I am
raising this matter because I just read the papers that come from abroad and I
have it right here. There are plans to
raid the Prime Minister’s residence because of this leaked paper and the
allegation is that the Prime Minister is using the Commission of Inquiry to
release the two MPs in prison. I find
that very, very insulting and a slap on the face of this government and what it
stands for. We will stop at nothing to
frustrate the work of the inquiry.
Sir,
if that is not enough, this side of the House is seriously concerned that the
sponsors of the vote of no confidence motion are now using threats to get
Ministers and government backbenchers to switch side, and a statement to this
effect will be made on the floor of this Parliament. The nature of the threat is if the Members
and the Ministers concerned do not change side they will be arrested for their
alleged involvement in the
This
is a sign of desperation, Mr Speaker, an evil strategy indeed. It is not straight. If you want to win argument on issues, use
the issues and do not use evil strategies like that because it is not
straight.
But
the real motive of the motion is to just remove the leader but the government
will continue. So we are not surprised
because that is exactly what
There
is also a lot of concern by the Opposition Group that the stand off might
affect Australian bilateral, and Australian funded regional aid assistance to
The
issue with aid assistance from this particular aid donor is not that Solomon
Islanders does not appreciate it.
No! Our concern is that we do not
want
If
aid donors want to help this country then please be genuine with us. It would be very interesting to see how these
people would react if we show them the true impact of such aid assistance from
this particular donor to Solomon Islands including the ones channeled through
the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands.
Sir,
I am raising these issues because I was attacked personally, not only by the
media people here in
Sir,
I want to make some very important positions clear here as far as
Firstly,
if aid donors think that
In
fact I am insulted by the comments that beggars have no choice. We should think more seriously on statements
like that. We have no beggars in this
country. Anyone who is hungry here can
just go and dig the cassava and plant potato and other crops in the garden to
eat. Anyone who wants fish can jump into
the sea. So that statement is very insulting
and is not right.
Sir,
I’m not saying that
Unfortunately
so much is said about aid assistance and this particular donor under the
Regional Assistance Mission to
In the case of this particular aid donor to
We
talk about big, big figures. If aid and
the million dollars we have been talking about are coming into the country it
would have improved this economy. There
is double tragedy here because all these assistances are by way of human resources. We made a mistake. I do not know intentionally or forced to do
it. We even exempted them from paying
tax.
The
international law, the Convention on Taxation is that you pay tax where
services are rendered. This is a poor
country and if they recognize that this is a country that needs that help then
pay tax here.
A
rough calculation if they are paying tax it is more than $100million in income
tax, import duties on goods they are bringing into the country. That is all we are asking. If you say ‘Helpem fren’ then be genuine with
us.
The
report goes on to say, “What this equates is a boomerang effect that sees the
majority of aid money - 80% flowing back to a small number of Australian
companies and the people of the developing world get left behind”. In fact companies like, and mentioned in the
report are ACRL, GRM, AC SMEC and … end of quote. I can go on M. Speaker and talk about this
matter but I guess I made my mind.
Secondly,
I am
quite surprised, as I’ve said, of a number of politicians who would not come
out of this strategy. They would rather
remain as slaves than puppets to aid donors.
Talk
about sovereignty, talk about the rights of our people, talk about the bottom
up and we are complacent. We are saying
the bottom up will not work because aid donors will not help us. Of course, they are very concern about it
because it is about helping people right in the rural areas by strengthening
them, empowering them economically. That
is exactly what others do not want. If
you are economically independent you do not need them. People are afraid of the strategy this
government is putting forward.
Just
look at this country, we are victims of aid management strategy by aid donors
since we became a nation. We are carried
away with huge amounts of munitions. Are
you saying $1billion comes from and other billion comes from there and yet we
forget to do something for ourselves. We
become dependants. This syndrome also
creates a careless attitude in developing countries as clearly manifested in
the pathetic way we are managing our natural resources.
Despite
of this we continue to be parasites. I
guess what I am saying here is if we are to take this country forward we must
learn now to grow out of aid the dependency syndrome. If not we will continue to remain the same
again for the next 28 years. This is why
this country is serious about facilitating Solomon Islanders themselves doing
something for themselves. All the
ingredients are there in the country because resources belong to the people,
they are in the hands of the people and it is managed under the customary land
tenure system. That is strength. We look negatively at the customary land
tenure system saying it is a hindrance to development. And this government is seriously looking at a
reform that appreciates our customary land tenure system. We will implement it as soon as it is
finished.
Mr.
Speaker, aid is becoming an effective instrument of foreign control. ‘You do as I say or lose aid’. Come on
Sir,
the Foreign Affairs Minister has made a Statement on the floor of Parliament as
to how the government views the recent events that relate to the principal
advisor of the government. Sir, there
are concerns raised and I fully appreciate them – statements and concerns
raised which do not fall on deaf ears.
The
problem here is that we have some serious principle to take care of as well and
when they see the government as being stubborn.
Even in the newspapers on letters to the editor they are saying is the
PM okay or what. I do not blame them for
such statements because that is how it is perceived from outside.
As I
said already there are merits in those concerns. Clouded by the fact is the concern that he is
a foreign lawyer and we should be engaging our own
The
issue here, as I am going to tell you the government’s position is no longer
the person concerned. It is no longer
him. In fact he is dispensable. They can get rid of him tomorrow. But as I have said there are serious
principles that are at stake here. What
is making this case so important, not only to
It
is ironic that a central argument advanced by
Mr Speaker,
Sir,
I do not have the intention to cover all the areas the Opposition may be
concerned about, and since I am going to wind up this motion I will respond on
issues that will be raised at the debate of this motion.
Mr
Speaker, I would like to end right here and beg to move that at the adjournment
of Parliament on Wednesday 11th October 2006 the present meeting
shall be concluded and Parliament shall then stand adjourned sine die. Thank you very much.
(Debate on the motion is now open)
Hon Sogavare: I beg to move that debate on the Motion of
Sine Die be adjourned until tomorrow.
The debate adjourned for
tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 3 pm