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
Minister for Culture & Tourism, and the Members for
PRESENTATION OF PAPERS AND OF REPORTS
Special
Audit Report into the Affairs of the Ministry of Health and Medical Services
(National Parliament Paper No. 9 of 2006)
Solomon
Islands Water Authority Financial Statements for the Year ended
(National Parliament Paper No. 13 of 2006)
Solomon
Islands Water Authority Financial Statements for the Year ended
(National Parliament Paper No. 14 of 2006)
(National Parliament Paper No. 17 of
2006)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
11. Mr
Kemakeza to the Minister for Public Service: Can the Minister inform Parliament whether or
not the present Secretary to Prime Minister went through the normal Public
Service recruitment procedures?
Hon SANGA: First of all,
I would like to thank the Member for Savo/Russells for asking this very
important question. The answer to the
question is as follows:
The recruitment process within the Public Service
normally ends up with the appointment of an officer by the Public Service
Commission to a position within the Public Service.
The process requires under Regulation 19 of the Public
Service Commission Regulation, that all appointments be advertised unless the
Public Service Commission agrees to dispense with advertisement.
In the case of the appointment of Secretary to the Prime
Minister, the current incumbent was hand-picked. His name was name submitted to the Public
Service Commission and the Commission agreed to go ahead and appoint him after
having to wait for an advertisement.
Mr Speaker, that was the route the PSC took, which is
in the normal procedure under the PSC Regulations.
Mr Kemakeza: Prior to the appointment
of Permanent Secretaries, the Prime Minister announced advertisement of the
posts. What is the good intention to
hand-pick Permanent Secretaries?
Hon Sanga: Mr Speaker, I
do not quite get the supplementary question. But if the questionnaire refers appointment of
Permanent Secretaries then there is another question in today’s paper regarding
the appointment of Permanent Secretaries, which if it is okay with the questionnaire,
I could tackle that question together now.
Mr Speaker: Since the question
refers to Permanent Secretaries notice separately, we will come to that when we
come to it.
Mr Kemakeza: Mr Speaker, I
would like to thank the Minister for his answers.
26. Mr
KWANAIRARA to the Prime
Minister: Can the Hon Prime Minister
inform the Parliament and the people of
Hon SOGAVARE: Mr Speaker,
this issue is a very serious one and it needs the support of the total
government bench. We did better than
just Cabinet, it is the unanimous decision of the total entire government
Caucus.
Mr Boyers: It is true that
the total government bench including myself at that time but at that time I did
not vote for in favour of this and so it is not an unanimous decision.
Hon Sogavare: Mr Speaker,
if the MP for Vona Vona understands the way the Cabinet/Government system works,
it is the majority rule. If the majority
voted in favor of a situation regardless of what a few individuals say about an
issue, the issue is carried and that is how this matter is decided in Caucus.
Mr Kwanairara: Before I thank the Prime Minister for his
answers, I think the question is quite important and people need to know and that
is why the question was raised. I wish
to thank the Prime Minister.
27. Mr
KWANAIRARA to the Minister of Public
Service: Can the Minister clarify to
Parliament and the people of
Hon SANGA: Mr Speaker, I
think the answer in terms of legal procedures is quite the same as the answer I
have given in relation to Question No. 11.
To explain the background of the Permanent Secretaries
case, it was decided initially by Cabinet that all positions of Permanent
Secretaries were to be advertised.
Advertisements were made, an interview panel was formed, it initially
sat and then it continues to defer its proceedings, which is not in the
interest of the urgency of having Permanent Secretaries at post in order to
deal with urgent Government business in terms of moving its policies forward.
The Cabinet again rescinded its decision
and authorized the Prime Minister to select Permanent Secretaries from the list
of all the applicants who applied for the positions.
Mr FONO: Can the
Minister confirm that there were no interviews made before the recommendation
was given to the Public Service Commission for appointment according to the
law.
Hon Sanga: I think I
have covered that point when I said that the Interview Panel sat and then
deferred its proceedings, which is not in the interest of the urgency of having
Permanent Secretaries at post, as a result of which Cabinet again decided to
rescind its earlier decision to get the Permanent Secretaries selected by the
Prime Minister and have them appointed straight away.
Mr Fono: Can the
Minister confirm whether that step taken is provided for under law? As I understand, interviews must be done
before selection is made and recommended to the Public Service Commission for
confirmation and appointment.
Hon Sanga: I have
explained that point in my earlier answer. I think the Leader of Opposition was not in
yet and so may be I just make it again.
Regulation 19 of the Public Service Commission Regulations made it clear
that if the Public Service Commission does not agree to advertise the post, it
will go ahead straight away and make the appointments. That is the route taken by the PSC to accept
the recommendations by the Prime Minister.
Mr HUNIEHU: Can the
Minister inform the House that since the Prime Minister hand-picked the
Permanent Secretaries there were no official interviews conducted?
The Minister said that the Cabinet rescinded its earlier
decision, may be he was referring to the short-listed Permanent Secretaries the
Deputy Prime Minister agreed to when the Prime Minister was overseas. There was a list of short-listed Permanent
Secretaries to be interviewed. If this
is the decision that Cabinet rescinded, which authorized the Prime Minister to
hand-pick the Permanent Secretaries, were the Permanent Secretaries interviewed
for the job?
Hon Sanga: The
short-listing was not done by the Deputy Prime Minister. The short-listing was done by the Interview
Panel in consultation with the Prime Minister’s Office and the Public
Service. When the selection was made it
was done from the list of about 82 applicants who applied for the positions of
Permanent Secretary.
Mr Fono: Can the
Minister confirm to the House that the process of selecting these Permanent
Secretaries complied with the principles of good governance and practices?
Hon Sanga: Yes
Mr TOZAKA: It would seem
to me, may be at your discretion, of course, but preferential treatment was given
to a group of Permanent Secretaries. In
the best interest of consistency, bearing in mind the importance of the Public
Service to be consistent in recruitment of firing and hiring, is this process going
to be applied to the recruitment of other posts as well?
Hon Sanga: I’ll try and
answer it but if I go outside the question may be the person could stop
me.
Mr Speaker, in the case of Permanent Secretaries,
especially given the situation where the government was under pressure to get
the chief executives of departments to be at post, it was compelling on the
government to ensure that substantive Permanent Secretaries are at post. So that was the route taken.
In as far as whether that kind of approach will be
taken on other posts in the Public Service, I think we will normally go along the
conventional line of recruitment.
Mr GUKUNA: Can the
Minister explain or clarify whether there was indeed political interference
from the Office of the Prime Minister in the process of selecting the Permanent
Secretaries?
My second question is, why was it so urgent to hand-pick
the Permanent Secretaries and not important and urgent to complete the budget
in time this year?
Mr Speaker: I think that
question is asking for an opinion and I do not know whether the honorable
Minister wants to respond to it.
Hon Sanga: Mr Speaker,
not only that, but the answer is obvious.
This is a new regime that just came in and it wants to get things
started. The post of Permanent Secretary
is very important in the settling in period of any government.
Mr Kwanairara: I wish to
thank the Minister for his answers to the question.
34. Mr
HAOMAE to the Minister for
Infrastructure & Development: How
much did it cost the government to purchase the new fleet of vehicles for
Ministers?
Hon SOFU: Mr Speaker, the answer to your question is
$3.8 million.
Mr FONO:
Can the Minister confirm to
the House whether there was a tender for these vehicles before it was awarded
to the supplier?
Hon Sofu: The Leader of
Opposition should know that the vehicles were purchased through an arrangement
made by the last government.
Mr Fono: Mr Speaker, I
totally objected that answer that it was not arranged by the last government. The budget was initiated by the last
government but the procurement of the vehicles was under this regime.
Mr Speaker, the Minister has not answered my
question. My question was whether the
vehicles were tendered out because according to information from the Tender
Board there was no tender for the vehicles?
Is that good governance?
Hon Sofu: Mr Speaker,
it is very clear that when this new government came in the vehicles were
already ordered.
Mr Fono: I denied that
answer, Mr Speaker. The order of those
vehicles was only done by this Government for the FEM Meeting and I have proof
that it was not tendered out, but it was given to Harvest Pacific. It was hand-picked like the Permanent
Secretaries.
Hon Sofu: Mr Speaker,
when this government came into power, is it possible that within three weeks
the vehicles arrive?
Mr HUNIEHU: The Minister
should properly answer the questions when in fact one of Ministers’ has
admitted to this Parliament that the vehicles referred to were tendered and we asked
for those information to be distributed in our pigeon holes. We still haven’t received those information
and this question again appears this time and we want a proper answer from the
Minister.
Hon DARCY: Mr Speaker, it
is true that the process of tendering has been followed in procuring these
vehicles. In fact invitations were made
to all interested suppliers to provide quotations, and in the end the Harvest
Pacific was selected. So it is not true
to say that the tendering process was not followed. That information on the tendering process can
be provided.
Mr Speaker: I think that
information needs to be provided to clarify the rather contradictory answers
that seem to be put across in the House.
Mr Haomae: Why is the
numbering of Ministers’ cars M001, M007 like that of James Bond?
Hon Sofu: Mr Speaker, I
think that supplementary question is out of the original question.
Mr Haomae: Before I
thank my honorable hard working Minister for Infrastructure & Development,
I want to impress to him that the numbering is, in my view, not quite right. It might be good in the view of the
government and the Minister for Infrastructure & Development, but I would
like to ask him to review the numbering, and I thank the Ministers for
answering the question.
35. Mr GUKUNA to the Minister for Finance & Treasury: Over the past months the Ministry of Finance
had continued to tell the nation of surpluses in our budget. Can the Minister tell the House and the
nation, as to what has been the cause of these surpluses?
(a) Is it
poor budgeting
(b) Is it
institutional strengthening? or
(c) Is it
real growth in our economy?
Hon DARCY: Mr Speaker,
the surplus in the budget is basically made possible because of two
reasons. Firstly, is because of
improvement in revenue, and that improvement in revenue is represented by 13%
growth in revenue, which can be divided into 6% as represented in real economic
growth and 7% in nominal growth.
The 6% in real growth means there is real growth in
output with a corresponding increase in income in relation to growth in
production.
The nominal growth represents an inflationary growth,
and that is in relation to price increases and because of the price increase,
some of those price increases find themselves in the increase in revenue.
The other aspect relating to the growth in revenue is
in relation to compliance as a result of some institutional strengthening
measures that have been taken in the Revenue Department. There is growth in revenue, more taxpayers
are now complying to pay tax to the government.
That shows a modest expansion in our taxable capacity and therefore has
given rise to the growth in revenue.
The
second aspect that contributed to this surplus is the process of guaranteeing
expenditure requisition. As those in the
previous regime will understand, there have been measures put in place to
scrutinize, screen and assess expenditure requisition from Departments. This is
basically to ensure that we have quality expenditures on all requisitions made
by departments. That has given rise to
some control on expenditures. Overall,
putting together the situation on revenue and expenditure we were able to
achieve the surplus. That is the
situation that has given rise to the surplus that we have reported so far during
the course of the fiscal year.
Mr GUKUNA: Mr Speaker, I
thank the Minister. I think the question
has been answered quite well.
24 Mr
RIUMANA to the Minister for
Communication, Aviation & Meteorology:
The Air Services Australia (ASA) which operates from
Hon VAHOE: Mr Speaker, the
question by the MP is correct that the Air Services Australia controls the air
traffic and collects fees from aircrafts that fly through the
From 27th April 1998 to 31st
August 2006, a total of $12,580,000 has been collected in fees on the Solomon
Airlines on behalf of which in today’s exchange rate would amount to SBD$71million. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Mr KOLI: I understand
that the Director of Aviation has allocated some money collected from the
Australian Air Services for the upgrading and maintenance of terminals of rural
airstrips. Can the Minister inform
Parliament of how many rural airfields have been upgraded using this fund?
Hon Vahoe: My
Department is handling the concerns that were raised. My officers right now are touring the
provincial airfields to carry out inspection, after which a report will be compiled
and then under this fund the airstrips will be upgraded.
Mr Riumana: Mr Speaker, can
the Minister inform this Parliament how the fund is being administered?
Hon Vahoe: This fund is
administered by the Department of Finance under a special fund in liaison with
my Department.
Mr Riumana: The Jajao
airstrip was constructed without any government assistance. Can the Minister assure my people, if this
fund can be used in the later stages of the development of the Jajao airstrip?
Hon Vahoe: Mr Speaker, I
think the Jajao airstrip is a private airstrip and so the government cannot
fund it.
Mr HUNIEHU: Can the
Minister clarify his earlier statement that the fund is administered by the
Department of Finance when actually by virtue of an act of Parliament the
Ministry is empowered to spend the money outside of the provisions of the
consolidated fund? Which is the true
one, the Ministry of Finance or the Ministry of Aviation?
Hon DARCY: Mr Speaker,
yes, it is true that the special fund is established under the Civil Aviation
Act. But then the requirements of the Public
Finance and Audit Act do also apply. As
you know the amendment to the Civil Aviation Act does provide for the
establishment of the special fund. But
it also requires that it should be managed and operated in accordance with the
Public Finance and Audit Act. That is
exactly what the Minister is saying that it is being operated under the close
scrutiny in the purview of the Department of Finance and also the Department of
Civil Aviation.
Mr KENGAVA: If we have an
airstrip that is privately built, not under government funding, but the
airstrip belongs to the people of
Hon Darcy: Mr Speaker,
this is a budgetary question and the only process is to get request from the
Provincial Government to ensure that repair and maintenance and upgrading of provincial
airstrips can be made through the budgetary process. That is the process to be followed. We invite Provincial Governments to make
request through that process so that it can be enlisted in the Government’s
development budget.
Mr Huniehu: Since the
fund is spent outside of the consolidated fund, can the Minister ensure that these
expenditures are brought to the floor of Parliament for the information of Members?
Hon Darcy: Mr Speaker,
as you understand and aware special funds are no exception. Special funds have to be brought to
Parliament for Parliament to examine. At
the end of each financial year proper auditing will have to be carried out on
all special funds and the report laid before Parliament. That provision is absolutely clear in our
laws.
Hon Vahoe: Yes, this special
fund will be audited at the end of the financial year.
Mr KOLI: Mr Speaker, first
I would like to officially thank the Minister and his officials for reopening of
the Marau airstrip. I would like
assurance from the Minister for the reopening of the Avu Avu airstrip. I want the Minister to assure me and my
people for the reopening of the Avu Avu airfield.
Hon Vahoe: Yes, Mr
Speaker, the Avu Avu airfield is still on the process. I think everything must be done before work
is carried out.
Mr Riumana: Mr Speaker,
before I thank the Minister, I want to make a brief remark. While Jajao is a private airstrip, Jajao is
in Isabel, which is in
With those few remarks, I thank the Minister for his
answers.
QUESTION WITHOUT NOTICE
Mr FONO: Mr Speaker, I
rise to ask a question without notice in accordance with section 21(4) of the Standing
Orders. This question is directed to the
Honorable Prime Minister. Can the
Honorable Prime Minister inform the House and the nation that he was involved
in arranging the plane that flew the fugitive Attorney General into
Hon SOGAVARE: Mr Speaker, I
was not consulted on that question but my answer is no.
Mr Fono: If the
Honorable Prime Minister’s answer is no, why is an official from the Prime
Minister’s Office and a representative of a Private Law Firm were sent to Port
Moresby also accompanied the Attorney General designate on that flight?
Hon Sogavare: Mr Speaker, it
is true that an official from the Prime Minister’s Office and a representative of
a law firm went to
Mr GUKUNA: Mr Speaker, we
all know the story, we all know how they came in. Is the Prime Minister ready to condemn that our
laws have been broken - aviation laws, immigration laws. Is the Prime Minister ready to condemn the
manner in which they flew into the country Mr Speaker?
Mr Speaker: I think that
particular point has been clarified to the House yesterday by the Minister for
Foreign Affairs that it is now a matter of the Police to deal with.
Mr Huniehu: Can the Prime
Minister from Parliament who paid for the cost of the flight to Munda airport?
Hon Sogavare: Mr Speaker, I
am not in a position to inform Parliament about that because I don’t know.
Mr Huniehu: Mr Speaker,
is the Prime Minister aware that one of his Ministers inform Parliament that
the cost of bringing the suspended Attorney General and all his legal fees will
be met by the Government of Solomon Islands?
Hon Sogavare: Mr Speaker,
that is a different issue. That is
talking about the cost of plane. If you
talk about the cost of legal fees to challenge the case in
Hon Oti: Mr Speaker, point
of order. I made reference to that
particular point yesterday. Under Standing
Orders, a question that has been dealt with by Parliament should not be raised
again in same meeting.
Mr Boyers: Mr Speaker,
considering the dumping ground of people smuggling was in my constituency, my
people have demanded my voice for an answer in this Parliament of why a PNG Defence
Force plane landed in Munda in the early hours of yesterday morning causing
considerable concern and question. As
their Member of Parliament I would like to ask this question to the Prime
Minister. In the light of the PNG’s
Prime Minister and the Minister of Defense denying any knowledge, they can only
make …..
Hon Oti: Point of order,
Mr Speaker, I have also mentioned to Parliament that as of yesterday, to meet
normal diplomatic requirements we have also, as of yesterday, sent a diplomatic
note to the PNG High Commission so they can be relayed to Port Moresby, we have
raised those concerns that have been raised by the Member. I was also in a position to state to Parliament
yesterday afternoon.
Mr Boyers: As has been
mentioned in supplementary questions, also a political appointee from the Prime
Minister’s Office was sent to assist the Attorney General.
Hon Darcy: Point of
order Mr Speaker. I am going to ask you question
whether you are going to allow him to ask a question or to make a comment. This is asking and answering of question, and
not making of comments.
Mr Boyers: Point of order. I want to reconfirm answers from this
question. I want it answered in a good
manner. I want it clarified in this
Parliament that an officer of the Prime Minister, a political appointee was
sent to assist this particular Attorney General, as was mentioned by the Prime
Minister. Can the Prime Minister deny
that he had any involvement in this incident?
Hon
Sogavare: I think I
have answered that question very, very loud and clear.
Mr
Fono: Mr Speaker, I wish to thank the Honorable
Prime Minister and his other two senior Ministers, the Minister of Planning and
Foreign Affairs for answering questions relating to a very important issue,
which has made our nation become a laughing stock for bringing in a criminal that
is wanted by two countries - Papua New Guinea and Australia. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
MOTIONS
“That Parliament resolves it has no
confidence in the Prime Minister”
Mr
Fono: Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me the
floor
Hon
Oti: Point of order. I would like to seek clarification from the
Minister of Justice who is currently the Attorney General, if his opinion could
be provided to Parliament regarding the Motion meeting the requirement of section
34 of the Constitution for a 7 days notice since the particular motion appeared
on Notice Paper No. 11 dated 6th October.
I would just
like to know whether we are within time framework now that the notice has been put
on notice to Parliament in today’s notice paper. Just for clarification from
the Attorney General’s Chamber.
Mr
Speaker: Before the AG makes the legal clarification,
the House would understand that the motion was withdrawn from the Order Paper
of last Thursday but it was not withdrawn from Parliament. The Office of the Speaker took the notice of
this particular motion as of the 7th of September since it was
noticed on the paper since 7th September last month.
Hon
Oti: Mr Speaker, with due respect why I am seeking
that clarification is, what is therefore the purpose of Notice Paper No. 11 of
6th October.
Mr
Speaker: That suggestion was made by the Leader of the
Opposition but I told him outside of the Parliament that I am taking the notice
of this motion from the 7th September 2006, not necessarily whatever
notice subsequently because he was referring to standing orders and I said that
this motion is a stand alone constitutional motion under section 34 and the
only requirement is seven days clear notice.
It does not subject itself to the standing order provisions.
Hon
Oti: Mr Speaker, we are therefore to take it that
Notice Paper No. 11 is of no effect.
Mr Speaker: I think the Leader of Opposition was trying to comply
with the so called standing order procedures when in fact I told him that this
is a stand alone constitutional provision.
It does not subject itself to the process of standing orders. As long as it is notice seven clear days to
the Speaker’s Office, it is open for debate in Parliament and I took that
notice as of the 7th September.
And therefore the suggestion by the Leader of Opposition is non effect
because he was trying to, may be use standing orders to justify himself.
Hon Darcy: If that is
the case then just to clear my mind as to who accepts the re-noticing of that
motion. If the Office of the Speaker
accepts the re-noticing then it would mean that the office does concur with his
intention to start the whole process afresh.
Mr Speaker: It could not
be accepted as afresh because it was never withdrawn from Parliament. It was withdrawn from the Order Paper and
therefore the Speaker as far as the Leader of the Opposition knows continues to
tell him that his notice is as of 7th September.
Attorney General: You
have explained the position of the Office, but let me put my view even though
you have made the ruling.
If we look at section 34(2) of the Constitution, which
you are well aware of, a motion for a resolution of no confidence in the prime
minister shall not be passed by parliament unless a ‘notice of the motion’. The key
word is ‘notice of the motion’.
Before any motion comes to parliament, there must be a
notice, and that was also covered in the Standing Orders on section 31(1). When a motion is withdrawn, a notice required
by these orders is given. The notice is
the formal requirement under the Constitution as well as the standing
orders.
Before me now, Sir, I have two notices. The first one is the
Mr Speaker, you have already made your ruling but I am
just putting my views on this matter for our purposes
Mr
Speaker: My ruling is that the notice, I
stand by is the notice on 7th September and so the motion qualifies
for debate this morning according to that.
The Leader of Opposition is now free to move his motion.
Mr FONO: Thank you, Mr
Speaker, for your ruling. I am surprised
at Ministers questioning the Motion. If
you have the number you do not need to worry.
Mr Sir, I beg to move that the National Parliament of
Solomon Islands hereby resolves it has no confidence in the Prime
Minister. As the Leader of Opposition,
Mr Speaker, I am duty bound, it is my duty to move this motion. Mr Speaker, this is part of the job of a
Leader of Opposition. There is nothing personal between the Prime Minister and me.
There is nothing personal between his Ministers
and Members of the Opposition Group in Parliament. Mr Speaker, this is how democracy works. This merely shows we have a functioning
democracy in
Mr Speaker, from the outset I must categorically deny
that this motion was influenced by any foreign force or any development partner
or any other country, not at all, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, since this is my first time to move a
motion of no confidence in Parliament, I wish to dedicate this motion to the
children of
Mr Speaker, I dedicate this motion also for the women
of
Mr Speaker, I also wish to dedicate this motion to
those who have special needs in
Sir, before we proceed, I would like to clarify what a
motion of no confidence is. This
explanation is important for those who are listening to the proceedings of this
Parliament, throughout nation this time.
It is important too, to cast out any doubts and dispel any fears as to
the purpose of this no confidence motion.
In terms of parliamentary democracy, a motion of no
confidence is part of the ‘check and balance’ system allowed under the
constitution. In order to maintain the
balance of the system of governance, the Opposition has to check or monitor the
work of the government day. The
Opposition therefore acts as a thermometer of/for the government and for that
matter the Opposition is a very important part of the government of
The Opposition moves a motion of no confidence also
when it sees the government exceeding its mandate given under the constitution,
of course, a parliamentary oversight function.
A vote of no confidence therefore allows changes in government without
resorting to violence. A vote of no confidence
allows peaceful changes, even a regime change without the use of arms like in
other countries and also as we have experienced in the recent past.
Without a vote of no confidence, Mr Speaker, we will
takeover government whenever we feel like it; we will takeover government when
we have the means; or we will takeover government when we have the number to do
so. That is why a motion of no
confidence is a very important part of the system of government that we have in
this country. It is not new Mr Speaker,
and it is not bad either. We thank God
it is not violent. It is just part and
partial of the system we have, mandated under our constitution.
Mr Speaker, why does the Opposition decide to bring a
motion of no confidence at this time, a lot of people have been asking? Mr Speaker, that is a very important question.
It is also important because it
naturally leads to the reasons why a motion is brought at this point in time in
the life of this Parliament.
“WHY WE CANNOT WAIT”
Mr
Speaker, until a month ago we were going to wait - with a motion of no
confidence. We were very patient, and in
fact we are a patient lot. Indeed we are
very confident of who we are and what we will do. However, with the kind of a leader that we
have, in the person of the Prime Minister, himself, having such patience will
not serve the nation. Being patient, for
example Mr Speaker, would not save the former Attorney General, a very
experienced and well educated Solomon Islander from losing his job.
Mr Speaker, from the judgment of the High Court, the
former Attorney General was not at fault. He did not commit any offence. Rather, as the Court went into the first five
pages of the judgment to explain - he was merely doing his job, notwithstanding,
with the kind of unprincipled leader that we have in the Prime Minister; a
leader who says one thing and does the opposite - we could not wait.
Mr Speaker, with the kind of erratic decisions we have
seen from an unprincipled leader, we could hardly wait. If we did so, Mr Speaker, it could happen
that he might have someone else sitting in your place instead of a duly elected
Speaker in the person of your goodself.
In other words, Mr Speaker, patience would cost the country in terms of
finance, but more importantly it will cost the country dearly, in terms of the
lives of our people whom the Prime Minister enjoys trampling on. Even for national parliamentary leaders of
this country, Mr Speaker, this Prime Minister would not wink an eye to dismiss
them, even when they are ministers of the crown. Mr Speaker, we have a Prime Minister who does
not ask for a second or third opinion before he axes people. Mr Speaker, this is a man who does not
consult, but this is a man who enjoys dismissing others.
At first, Mr Speaker, hr might have thought it was an
accident. The second time it could have
been a coincidence. On the third
occasion it might be nothing but a habit, a bad habit.
Mr Speaker, the Opposition would like to save the
nation through this vote of no confidence. In the last five months we have the Prime
Minister at the helm of this country and this nation suffers more than in any
five months of any of our previous administrations.
Mr Speaker, in this vein, the Opposition is not only
carrying its mandated duty but the Opposition is being duty-bound to attend to saving
the lives of each and every person in
Mr
Speaker, today the Opposition is responding to the cry of this country, more
especially we are responding to the cry of members of the public in
“SOGAVARE LEADERSHIP”
Mr
Speaker, if we look at the leadership we have at the moment, as I have said it
is the person of the leader and his style of leadership that is central to this
motion of no-confidence today.
Mr Speaker, there is nothing wrong
with the air in
Mr Speaker, the present Prime
Minister is a person who assumes what he thinks and what he says only is a
right thing. In fact, what he thinks and
says - that is the only thing, even if it is not necessarily right. Any person’s opinion or experience is
immaterial. That is why Mr Speaker, it
is very dangerous, so to speak.
Mr Speaker, unlike former Prime
Ministers who were embracing and consultative in their style of leadership, we
have the opposite as reflected in previous decisions over the last five
months. It is what he says that remains
a command. Unlike other Prime Ministers
who seek the opinion of his colleagues or consult widely with their technical
people behind their decisions, we have a Prime Minister’s style of leadership
that is very questionable.
Mr Speaker, this Prime Minister has
a style of leadership that speaks fear in the hearts of his colleagues and
subordinates. This is a leader whom
anyone joins at his own risk.
‘ABUSE OF NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY’
Mr
Speaker, the other reason for this motion is the abuse of national sovereignty. This is a Prime Minister who talks so much
about the sovereignty of this nation. If
the leadership of this Prime Minister does not change, this is not all. This Prime Minister abuses the sovereignty of
this nation for his own ends. This is a
person who sells the sovereignty of this country, although in the same breath,
he pays lip service to the importance of national sovereignty.
Mr Speaker, sovereignty in short can
be defined as “the possession of ultimate
legal authority”. That means we are
legally recognized to do our own things, as legitimized by law, as long as our
actions (or inactions) do not affect or offend other countries or other
nations, states or persons. There is a sense
of sanctity in reference to the sovereignty of this nation. It is a notion that is practiced with
pride. We call ourselves Solomon
Islanders, we call our nation
Mr Speaker, sovereignty is not mere rhetoric.
Hemi
no word nating. It is expressed
through our actions and practices. If we
say that we are sovereign but fail to show that in our practices, especially in
our everyday practices, then we should question whether we are truly sovereign
or not.
Mr Speaker, when the present leader
exposits sovereignty, he either means something else or has an incomplete
understanding of the word. I said this because
when the Prime Minister expresses sovereignty, he believes it in such a way
that he blindly pursues his course to the end, regardless of the
consequences. In so doing, we have a
Prime Minister that undermines the very sovereignty that he wants to uphold in
the first place. Take for example, Mr
Speaker, the case of the Attorney General designate. In the name of sovereignty, the Prime Minister
had afforded diplomatic immunity to the Attorney General designate in Solomon
Islands Embassy in
In so doing, the Prime Minister has entangled his assertion
of our sovereignty with the work of Law and Order in PNG. This had caused a huge diplomatic uproar than
the Prime Minister has expected.
Sir, we should not allow our High Commission to be
used as safe haven for criminals, whether or not they hold high offices in this
country or any other countries, for that matter. Sir, this is a bad precedent.
If the Attorney General designate is allowed to escape
facing the PNG courts on the basis of our sovereignty, and which he had already
done, then we can allow everyone else who wants the same, foreigner or citizen,
holders of high offices or ordinary criminals to do just the same.
Sir, it is clear that the criminal action of the
Attorney General designate is undermining the sovereignty of this nation that
we talk so much about. We are being made
a laughing stock in the international community for protecting a criminal. (The incident of yesterday reflects very
badly on our sovereignty).
Another example of abuse of our sovereignty, this
time, is the twisted fashion, although no less serious, is the case of where
the Prime Minister allowed a foreigner, in the person of the General Secretary
of SOCRED Party to meddle in our politics.
Where is the sovereignty of our nation, may I ask Mr Speaker? This foreigner is not yet a citizen but a secretary
of a political party the Prime Minister is leading.
The Prime Minister had allowed his General Secretary
so much allowance that recently he meddled and messed up with our banking
institutions. If this is not enough,
this person had gone into the media and abused our women leaders. Even then the Prime Minister had not done
anything to stop this foreigner neither issue any statement to condemn his
actions. Mr Speaker, if this is not
abuse of our national sovereignty by this foreigner, I am not sure what you would
call this.
Sir, when we want to restore our sovereignty damaged
during the ethnic tension or which was only held by a few with guns in the name
of sovereignty, for example, we want to rebuild this nation. Sir, in rebuilding the nation we need RAMSI
as an expression of neighborly support (helpem friend). But we expel the Australian High Commissioner
whom we have disagreed with, for one reason or another or even for our own personal
reasons, we have undermined the effort required to rebuild the nation and
restore our sovereignty. And since
Mr Speaker, indeed, our sovereignty
is not for sale. In the same breath we
must know more than that simple shibboleth.
We must know and appreciate the sinews, with which we build our
sovereignty. We must appreciate this
especially after an ethnic tension as we have recently experienced.
For sure, Mr Speaker, sovereignty for a poor and weak
country, does not mean much. Therefore,
we want to build our country to make it strong, to make it a truly sovereign
nation. This Prime Minister undermines
this whole process. After that he then
turns around and says that he is doing this to protect our sovereignty.
Mr Speaker, saying all this is not
realistic; it does not serve of purpose, especially when we are weak. Not when
Mr Speaker, I again repeat our
sovereignty is not for sale. At the same
time, Mr Speaker, it is a moving concept.
It needs to move with time, in such a manner that will make Solomon
Islanders a truly sovereign nation. From
the way the Prime Minister has behaved we would drop down - dead - with
sanctions before we realize that all along, we have failed to learn simple
lessons from the maze of modern day diplomacy. In other words, we will learn when it is too
late that our sovereignty depends also on the support of our neighbors and our
development partners. Mr Speaker, friends are, of course, the whole family of
nations as we are part of the International Community. Take for example, Mr Speaker, if the
diplomatic standoff between
INTERFERENCE IN THE JUDICIARY
Mr Speaker, the other reason for this vote of no
confidence, for the nation to hear, is interference in the judiciary. In the
history of our young nation, as far as we know, read and we can recollect, this
is the first Prime Minister who has unabashedly interfered with the work of the
judiciary. This is the first Prime
Minister who has acted as a “court to himself”.
Mr Speaker, the separation of power
principle serves as an important purpose.
The concentration of power in one group or person always presents
dangers. Therefore, in our system of
government, power is divided among the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Although there are overlaps, the three
branches function within the ambits of their constitutionally mandated
authorities. That is why we do not have
an autocracy in this country. Not yet,
and we thank God for that.
Recently, Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister
wanted to change all these. He wants to
have a bit of power from each branch - all at the same time. When he took power after the April riots he
began to experiment with judicial interference.
Realizing that two Members of Parliament who were very instrumental in
his power play were taken into custody he immediately promoted them to become
Ministers of the Crown
Mr Speaker, how it would ever be
possible for two Ministers of the Crown to deal with government matters when
they are in Police custody. It is an
issue the Prime Minister alone can answer.
For mere mortals like us, Mr Speaker, we would find it hard, if not
impossible, to comprehend such an action.
Sir, if anything, the Prime Minister’s action appeared
to have ridiculed the two MPs in custody. We know that a person in police custody does
not have freedom. If this is not enough
the Prime Minister then instituted a commission of inquiry into the April
riots. This is a sheer ridicule of his
supposed intelligence. The best our
people would have expected was for the Prime Minister to institute a Commission
of Inquiry into the recent ethnic tension, and not just the April riots.
Mr Speaker, there is more. When the Prime Minister began work on the
Commission of Inquiry, the purpose of the inquiry was clear under paragraph 6 of
section B of a leaked secret document, one of the major purposes of the
proposed Commission of Enquiry was made clear.
Referring to the terms of the Commission of Inquiry, it states:
“Paragraph 2 (d)
& 2(e) are obviously contentious, and, Cabinet’s wisdom is crucial to guide
the Prime Minister. Whilst there are
political motives behind the inclusion of the paragraphs, the paragraphs
referred to as, especially 2(e) seeks ultimately to halt the investigation
conducted by the police on the cases of our two detained colleagues and subject
them to a proper, holistic and independent investigation by the Commission of Inquiry”.
Mr
Speaker, this exposes the purpose behind the Commission of Inquiry into the
April riots. In retrospect, this clearly
shows interference in the work of the Courts.
This document, itself, is full of references that allude to the
interference of the court. Under
paragraph 10 in section B, the document states and I quote:
‘It is
becoming clear that the attitude of the court and the way it handles the case
of our two colleagues is tainted within inconsistency and abuse of (due)
process. A clear example is the alleged
collusion between the sitting Magistrate and the DPP on
Mr
Speaker, this leaked document was produced while the two MPs case were already
in custody, under police investigation.
Their case was already sub judice.
Mr Speaker, I shall stop here because what the Prime
Minister as a leader had done or failed to do has amounted to a blatant
interference in the judiciary. This
shows a kind of leadership we have served under. One that does not stop at anything until it
achieved its aims or its ends, a leadership that pursued its aims, regardless
of whether such aims are legal or not.
Before I actually stop, Mr Speaker, I want to mention
here that this habitual interference into the work of judiciary on the part of
the Prime Minister knows no boundary or national limits. Last week, Mr Speaker, we heard the Prime
Minister again interfered into the work of the judiciary. This time it was interference in the
Mr Speaker, last month again, the Prime Minister
interfered into the work of the Police and the Courts in
Mr Speaker, this is the Attorney General designate who
was alleged to have given a private scholarship to a child of the former Chief
Justice. It was also alleged that, in
turn, the former Chief Justice awarded this Attorney General designate with a
QC status. Mr Speaker, this is common
knowledge amongst our people. No wonder we
are promoting them to higher offices in our government.
Sir, if there is a lesson we can learn from all these,
it is the message that, as leaders of this country, we must respect the
sanctity of the ‘separation of powers’ that had served us well for so
long. We must ensure our judiciary’s
independence remain unfettered or intact.
As ‘first among equals’, this is a lesson our Prime Minister should have
heeded. Unfortunately, this Prime
Minister assumes he is above reproof.
ABSENCE OF GOOD GOVERNANCE
Mr Speaker, the fourth reason for this motion is the
absence of good governance. In terms of
good governance this is what the Prime Minister is good at professing with his
Minister of Public Service, but extremely poor putting it into practice. He has failed to model this nation and the
people of
Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister defies and infracts
these procedures and practices at will.
Good governance means that if people are gainfully employed, you should not
sack them unless they break the law of the land. If they do, they have to be dealt with according
to set administrative procedures.
Allow me, Sir, to remind us that in
Mr Speaker, this is what the Prime Minister has failed
to do. When he came into power, there were
procedures in place to employ the Permanent Secretaries. There were more than 80 applicants. The Public Service and the Public Service
Commission were going to process the application and set dates for the
interviews and make the selection. In
the meanwhile, the Prime Minister was abroad. When he returned, he scraped the whole process
and put in his own candidates as permanent secretaries. That was why we were questioning the process
of the selection of Permanent Secretaries.
He ignored the whole process that was already in place, the conventional
practice of appointments and selection of Permanent Secretaries as provided for
under law. He had inadvertently caused
so many heartaches for those who have worked so hard organizing and submitting
their applications.
There is more, Mr Speaker, but I would like to end this
part with the much publicized case of the sacked Attorney General. Mr Speaker, just because we do not like a
person, just because we do not like his forthrightness, just because he or she
sticks to the Rule of Law against our miscued political aspirations, just
because he takes on his role as Attorney General as well as representative of
the crown where public interest is at stake, that is no reason to sack such a
person. The former Attorney General was a
well educated and a very experienced lawyer.
His post is a constitutionally mandated post. He has been doing the job for more than ten
years, under four different administrations.
Mr Speaker, for the Prime Minister, these were not enough. In the end he knows for himself that he cannot
please his own self. That is sad Mr
Speaker.
Just because he did not like the former Attorney
General he sacked him. Mr Speaker, we do
not have to like everyone. We should not dislike anyone, for that matter. Mr Speaker, we should sack people because we
believe we can get legal advice from other people, outside the country, or
other private lawyers whom we have vested interest in who are not accountable
to us.
No, Mr Speaker, good governance means following the
rule of law. Good governance means
complying with set procedures. Good
governance means making sure people are employed in a legally sanctioned fashion.
And when they are terminated, good
governance demands that this must be done procedurally.
This is good governance, Mr Speaker. Not because you happen to be the Prime
Minister. No, Mr Speaker. Rather it is because you follow the rule of
law. It is because you follow procedures
so that the work of this nation moves on.
And having done all these, you would prove yourself a worthy leader because
in the end the country is served.
On that score, Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister has
failed us miserably.
CORRUPTION
The
fifth reason, Mr Speaker, is corruption is now beginning to brew in the
administration. Mr Speaker, this is a
Prime Minister who comes into power on the promise that he would, once and for
all, eradicate corruption in this country.
This is inserted under their “Ethical Leadership” policy agenda. This Prime Minister has made us so hopeful
when he said he would want to see things put right.
Mr Speaker, he then went further. When the Prime Minister came into power he
even promised that he would put an end to what he had alleged as
Mr Speaker, what has come out of all these promises? Not much.
Instead we have seen that he had recanted and reneged all these promises. Was he
merely making these promises in order to garner support to get into power, may
I ask Mr Speaker? We shall leave the
public to be the judge of this proposition.
Mr Speaker, if corruption is a priority, we have yet
to see the anti-corruption bill introduced in Parliament. Even the
In the last week or so, Mr Speaker, Taiwanese doctors
have visited us to assist with the sick, the blind, the diabetic, and those who
have serious lifestyle diseases. We appreciate
that very much. However, Mr Speaker in
other words, as leaders let us not say things that we will later regret. This is not befitting of leaders. Leaders should say things that build their
people, their words would bring more friends to the country, and leaders should
discuss issues that would raise our confidence and allow us to work towards a
brighter future.
Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister seems to enjoy doing
just the opposite. Instead of arresting
the issue of corruption, he seemed to have thrived on it. Allow me, Mr Speaker, to enumerate a few
examples. As I have said where is good
governance in all these? He has hand-picked
all his Permanent Secretaries, he has hand-picked the Commissioner of Forest,
he has hand-picked the Commissioner of Lands, he has hand-picked the Security Services
overseeing premises like the Prime Minister’s Office, the Department of
Finance, the Department of
Infrastructure and others. He has hand-picked
the very controversial Attorney General.
Fortunately for this country, Mr Speaker, for the last
case, we still have a strong Legal and Judicial Commission that believes in
doing the right thing.
Mr Speaker, for all these appointments, “Why has the
Prime Minister not followed right procedures even if he had earmarked his
candidates for these posts?”
This is not all, Mr Speaker. There are others. For a person to dubs himself, an
anticorruption champion, this is just amazing.
All these, involved huge payments of our tax payers’ monies.
I take here the example that was questioned this
morning as well on the awarding of contract to a supplier in
I have information from the Public Tender Office in
the Department of Finance that there was no tender put. That is why I asked earlier on during the
supplementary budget for the government to produce the notice of the tender to
Members of Parliament. Why did we hand-picked
the supplier to provide those vehicles at $3.8million as stated by the Minister
of Infrastructure. Why? I am asking, where is good governance. We awarded it to a supplier who housed us
during the election of the Prime Minister in April. That is the case, Mr Speaker. Where is good governance in all these? Where is transparency, accountability? I have no records of public tender for these vehicles.
May be out of this $3.8million there are
commissions, there are kick backs - a term normally used in such deals - kick
backs. The government must come out very
clear on this. That is why I said that
there is corruption brewing in the new administration now.
In terms of the Social Security Company employed at the
Prime Minister’s Office, Finance and other government properties, why was there
no public tender? There are dozens of Solomon
Islanders involved in security companies.
Why don’t we give them money for the opportunity? They are Solomon Islanders. Why hand-pick? Is this not corruption? The contractor that was terminated earlier
this year when the new government came in, is now suing the government for
breach to its contract.
Mr Speaker, is this not corruption? Why is it not tendered out so that other
Solomon Islanders can bid for it? That
is accountability, transparency and good governance. Sir, we must put these things right before
corruption becomes an overwhelming disease in the government.
No, Mr Speaker, as I have said this is a Prime
Minister who says one thing and does just the opposite. The securities that are now providing security,
I am told were the ones providing security at the Iron Bottom Sound during the
election of the Prime Minister. It is
public knowledge. Are we giving job for
the boys because they supported us in taking the power of this nation? Isn’t that corruption Mr Speaker, may I
ask?
Mr
Speaker, the sixth reason for moving this motion is the
Mr Speaker, when the leaked secret document was read,
the whole impetus behind the April riots was revealed. The Prime Minister was so keen to have a
commission inquiry because there are hidden motives of this commission of
inquiry.
Mr Speaker, allow me to say this here. We do not have to instigate a riot or riots in
order to measure the magnitude and the gravity of our peoples’ state of mind or
their level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction.
If we do, we will merely indulge in mayhem, and in the end destroy
ourselves. Mr Speaker, that is not the
way to run a country.
Mr Speaker, that is why history and experience have
shown that the Rule of Law must function.
If there is dissatisfaction, there are channels that people can use to
vent their anger, their satisfaction or grief. These channels are not perfect. Far from it, but they work. They work if we leaders make them work. They will work if we refrain from committing
crimes for the sake of gaining power. It
will work if we make sure that the system we received from
Finally, Mr Speaker, it would work if Members of
Parliament cease to think they know all, listen to the ordinary people and then
work with their technical people, devise policies that will in the end give
life to all of our people in the country. These people include those who are born
Solomon Islanders and those who come to live with us.
Sir, no one, and the Prime Minister is no exception,
should use this country, its institutions, its people as fodder for the power-play
he/she wants to indulge in. Mr Speaker,
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, allow me to thank you all
our good people of
Today, people of
Mr Speaker, I therefore call on every Solomon Islander
to respect the supreme law of this land. If we finally manage to oust the Prime
Minister, do not be afraid. We will have
more than enough leaders to take his place. We will have another Prime Minister, even within
the same coalition partner. But this is
not our concern today. Our challenge
today is to support this vote of no confidence to change the leadership of the
government.
Mr Speaker, I once again move that the National
Parliament of Solomon Islands hereby resolves it has no confidence in the Prime
Minister. May God Bless Solomon
(Debate on the motion commences)
Mr KEMAKEZA: Mr
Speaker, I too would like to contribute on this motion moved by the Leader of
Opposition, my good friend against my good friend the Prime Minister. In doing so, Mr Speaker, I would like to
thank the understanding of the family of the Prime Minister, his people in his
Constituency of East Choiseul, the
In fact, the present Prime Minister
when I was minister of housing and government services was my Commissioner of
Income Tax. He served under my leadership
as his minister. When he was prime minister
in 2000, I was also his deputy prime minister and we did quite a lot of things
for this nation. We were successful in
negotiating the ceasefire because I was instrumental as his peace minister,
which led to the signing of the Ceasefire Agreement, the Townsville Peace
Agreement and the Marau Peace Agreement.
So I have every respect for the current Prime Minister.
Mr Speaker, but when you look back at
the records of this country’s succeeding prime ministers, including yourself, Mr
Speaker, when people are caught up in some kind of problems, they have to make
decisions in that instance. You also
faced such a consequence, Mr Speaker, along with the late Member for West
Makira, now the Member for Parliament for Ranogga/Simbo, the now MP for
Aoke/Langa Langa, the Minister of Finance and many others, including
myself.
This type of motion is not new to those of us who have
held the post of prime minister.
When this PM takes office again in
April this year, I have every trust and confidence in him. But as times goes on, some new developments were
beginning to take place which is giving me another thought about my
brother, the Prime Minister.
The composition of the present government comprised
many parties coming together to form the Grand Coalition for Change. When developments are starting to happen,
especially the removal of the Parliamentary Wing Leader of the National Party
by the Prime Minister and a leader of the National Democratic Party which signed
the MOU the PM talked about yesterday (I did not attend yesterday’s afternoon
meeting because I went home to attend to some family commitments, but on my way
home someone told me) when the Leader of Liberal signed the MOU, I started to
think something must be wrong. It is
starting to smell.
I started to question if leaders are signing the
memorandum, why then are my colleagues on the other side still think nothing is
wrong. That is why it changed my
position now to contribute briefly on this motion. I am not going to personalize things but only
to say that something is wrong over there.
Sir, some new developments started to surface. When the Prime Minister mentioned yesterday
that a Cabinet paper was leaked from the PM’s Office, it only shows that even officers
in the PM’s Office also dislike his leadership. Something must be wrong starting from the
party leaders to the PM’s Office. And when
the petition by the public and other institutions was presented, it made think,
am I that bad after all? Something is
wrong somewhere.
Then comes the National Council of Women issue. Because
I live at my home village I often don’t read the Solomon Star, one or two that
reaches me I have the chance to read, but article by article about things the
Prime Minister is doing. I think PMs are
very good to be blamed. Sorry, my
colleague. But things like that made me change
my mind.
When I returned yesterday I heard there was a bomb thrown
in this House by a plane. I do not know
where that plane came from. Has anyone
died, Mr Speaker? Lucky I escaped, but a
bomb was thrown over this House yesterday by none other than the Prime Minister
in his Speech. Nobody wants to contribute
because there was a bomb thrown in this House and everyone died.
Has anyone died or anyone wounded? I only found one person that is wounded
yesterday. That person is none other
than the Prime Minister. He was wounded
and because he was wounded yesterday I would respectably ask the Prime Minister
to resign. You resign.
Let the Leader of Opposition to line up whatever he
thinks. But there is one thing. Aiding and abetting of a criminal is a
criminal offence under the Penal Code. I
want the Director of Public Prosecution to …..
Hon Sogavare: Point
of Order. That is a serious, serious
allegation and is criminal in nature. Unless
he has evidence to prove, Mr Speaker that the Prime Minister is involved in
that, it is a serious allegation.
Mr Kemakeza: Thank you Mr
Speaker. I cannot withdraw that. The
actions by my brother, the Prime Minister, are public knowledge. That alone. If this motion is not passed today, the law
will take its course. So it is good for
well respected leaders on the other side of the House to think otherwise. I lose nothing and I gain nothing from this
motion.
There is a plane that came to throw a bomb yesterday. I thank the PM for mentioning that when he
moved the motion of sine die without him realizing that he is talking about
himself. He is talking about himself and
he was wounded and because of that bomb I ask him to resign respectably. No more no less, sooner or later. Aiding and abetting is complete crime. There is no evidence to look for. Nothing!
But for information purposes, yesterday whilst I was
traveling from
Mr Speaker, I do not come into Parliament
to tap the backs of other people. If
that is what I am here for then I better be a pastor, a priest or a bishop so
that I have the courtesy of saying ‘good morning son’.
I was elected to this floor of Parliament to come and
speak on behalf of my people, to talk about their welfare and the good of this
nation and people. That is my job.
When my colleague talked about the behaviors of
Members of Parliament, Mr Speaker, I started to think back to what happened on
He should not have appointed the commission of inquiry. Do you know who caused the riot on 18th
of April? It was none other than the
Prime Minister. I will prove that. Let me tell you that that was caused by a bad
behavior of a leader. Let me tell you why.
When their group did elimination of who is going to be
their candidate for the prime ministership at the Iron Bottom Sound, and he was
eliminated and the now Deputy Prime Minister was their candidate, he ran away
from them and went to Pacific Casino. He
then came across to the Honiara Hotel told the Member for Marovo (I was the
mediator that time) that he wanted to be a candidate for the group at the
Honiara Hotel. He was refused that suggestion.
When we held the election of the prime minister there were three candidates
and he was also one of the candidates. The first person to be eliminated on the
floor of Parliament was the Prime Minister now.
Did you know what happened? On
the second round of voting he swing over to the MP for Marovo, and that caused
the riot. If he had gone back to his
original position by putting his vote on the now Deputy Prime Minister, nothing
would have happened to this nation. Who
then is the culprit of all these, Mr Speaker?
It is none other than the Prime Minister now.
What do you want to appoint the commission of inquiry
for? It is a waste of money and
resources. It is the Prime Minister who
caused the April riot because he was the one who swings his vote
differently. He then was appointed the
Minister of Commerce by the Rini Government.
But do you know what happened?
There was no resignation made to the Governor General, the same morning
he walked across on this floor of Parliament.
What courtesy is that? What sort
of behavior by a leader?
He should have resigned as a minister of the crown
with due respect to that important position.
That is not what he did. He
walked across because the opposition then needs only two Members to take the
government, he made the right decision by coming over and became the prime
minister because they sold the post to him.
The birthright of the Deputy Prime Minister was taken over by
somebody. This, in custom is a
curse. It is a curse and so do not be surprised
because the Prime Minister now is starting to make some ill-decisions, which
perhaps the Leader of Opposition has already covered. I was outside when this was motion was moved
and so I did not hear what was said. That
is a behavior.
The Leader of Opposition covered appointments, but
something about appointments, as a senior citizen of the country, Mr Speaker,
you have also made your opinion like many others as well that proper procedures
have not been followed. This is a cowboy style appointment.
Mr Speaker, there are many things he
did I am listing down here. The
appointment of Ministers that are questioned by the law, the appointment of the
AG questioned by the law, the appointment of the Chairman of the Commission of
Inquiry also questioned by the law. These appointments were all done without
going through proper processes, without getting due diligences from their home
countries, as they are not citizens of this country. It only needs a little bit of courtesy. But there is no courtesy by this person. Whatever he wants that is what he is going to
get. That sort of attitude and behavior raises
suspicion to some of us. Something must
be there and that is why you insisted on this very much and went on to now
commit an offence. That is a curse.
You terminate the Governor of the Central Bank from the
Commission of Insurance, you deport the Australian High Commissioner, which again
shows you have no respect to protocols and conventions. One was what happened yesterday when another
bomb came. The Director of the Civil
Aviation said that it is a breach of protocols and conventions of the Civil
Aviation.
We are talking about something, which we ourselves breach. I don’t think the Minister of Communication
and Civil Aviation did this. He didn’t
give the orders for this. If he did he
would be fired - sacked. At whose
directive is it? Here the Prime Minister
denied it. Any of you Ministers? Surely, if some Ministers had done it, the
Prime Minister must decide on his future.
I do not think any Minister has done those actions. This all boils down to the boss. It is the boss who gave the directive. That is why the Prime Minister of Papua New
Guinea and the Minister of Justice of PNG are saying that they were not aware
of this. Then at whose directive, Mr
Speaker was it carried out? This shows no
respect of protocols, conventions and treaties.
Mr Speaker, talking about courtesy, we must show a bit
of courtesy by thanking people who come and help us either by cash or in kind,
by words or by service.
Mr Speaker, we are recipients of aid
and we will continue to be so because we are graded as a least developed
country. Even big countries in the world
are still receiving assistance. That is
why the ACP comes about – The African,
When you talk about
Mr Speaker, when you were the DC on Malaita and I was
a Police officer at that time, we used to drive from Auki to Malu’u and back
before lunchtime. The roads were very
good during those times. That was during
the colonial times. But when we take
over our people are now using ships to go to Malu’u now and not by road. Mr Speaker, we used to drive down to Lambi from
These are sad state of affairs of this country and here
we are saying, ‘we can do it’. Our
friends have the courtesy of helping us but why do we turn around and slap them
on the face? This is bad for the future of our country and
people.
What about our children who are now studying in
A bunch of politicians here cannot enter
Our sick people in the hospital here, what is going to
happen to them? The patients’ food is
funded by money from this aid donor. The
behavior of one person is now causing multiple effects in the country.
Mr Speaker, you know it yourself that once you were the
Chairman of the MPC. I appointed you
because of your capability. You are a statesman
and the father of the nation. Through the
advice and the collective ideas of many leaders, we asked our friends to come
and help us because we cannot help ourselves to restore law and order.
I thank RAMSI and now we can interact with each
other. Our economy starts to pick up,
law and order is restored and people can now travel freely. We can now go and sleep in the bushes in
The three years from 1998 to 2000, why didn’t we
leaders in
We might say only
All assistances will come to a halt. Not only that, but it will also affect the investment
environment in this country. People will not come into invest because they would
be concerned about the leadership. They
will hesitate to come into invest because they would be concerned otherwise
We might think these are small things, but they have
big effects caused by the leadership of my best friend. Is that the future?
Stop talking about the bottom up approach. Stop talking about it. For the 50 constituencies that you want money
to go through, where are the 50 substations?
Where are the houses for public officers who are going to work in the 50
constituencies? Where are the roads, the
bridges, the wharves, the telephones, the electricity, the water, the ships, the
airfields that are needed in order for work to start? Where are you going to get these? I tell you these people work in
syndicates. They are going to wait until
the next election in 2010. So who is
going to suffer? Our people. And if they suffer, please I beg us, the 50 Members
not to go for re-election. No, only I
will contest the 2010 election and not every one of you.
What have you done as a Member of Parliament during the
four years? Mind you, Mr Speaker, that
80% of the Development Budget is funded by our development partners. The Solomon Islands Government only funded
the recurrent budget but also a certain percentage of the recurrent budget is
also funded by donors. For example, rations
for prisoners, rations for sick patients, grants to schools. Don’t think that we pay for those services? Stop telling me that. Those are the effects I am afraid of, which
made me to start consider the leadership of the boss, my best friend.
I have no personal grudges against him. No, not at all. I do not want to be a minister too because I used
to be your deputy last time and I shall be the deputy speaker for the next four
years. The Prime Minister just comes and
goes and you will never sack me. I lose
nothing and gain nothing out of this motion.
What I am concern about are the people of this
country, their affairs, their future, our children, our sick people, the education
of our children, my roads, my airfields, my wharf, my clinic and my school. Those are the things I am concerned about
because we cannot fund them internally from our own budget. No, we cannot.
We, the 50 Members of Parliament, how are we going to
go about this? This is quite serious. The common words of the PM are ‘very serious’,
and ‘underlying principles’.
Mr Speaker, those are the reasons why I am going to
support this motion. There is nothing personal.
As I said, during my time, a motion of
no confidence was moved against me only after three months I was in
office. Just after three months. Do you know why? I was blamed as incapable of controlling law
and order in this country. No! That is why I tried my best and RAMSI came
into
Finally, Mr Speaker, those of you on
that side, just support the motion and put one of you in that place and you go
ahead. Are you still honeymooning? I am saying this because of new cars, new
houses, new conditions, you party and relax.
It is almost nine months but you have done nothing yet. I shall bring that up in the sine die motion
today.
Sir, even if this motion is not passed, it will
happen. And if for a good reason he
resigns because aiding and abetting a criminal is a criminal offence. I will ask the authorities to look into that. I want to tell you that even though you are a
prime minister, a Governor General, a Minister or whatever, if anyone of us commits
an offence, we are the same - nobody is above the law. We will all face the law.
Do you think bringing in a new Attorney General will
make things better? Not, at all. Let me tell you that I checked for that
particular provision last night. It is a
wishful dream. The Attorney General has
no power, he can only recommend. It is
the Minister of Police who has the power, like he has released two prisoners
already. But it is dangerous to apply
that because some of my brothers and sisters in the prison murdered people and
if they are released what would happen to the relatives of the victims. Even though there are no guns but they are
going to kill that person. Let us not
look at this one sided and forget the other side of the coin. As I said I have no personal confidence in
him because of the sequence the events happening and the future of the country.
With that, I support the motion.
Mr GUKUNA: Mr Speaker,
today those of us on this side of the House are stretching our hands in the
most peaceful manner to terminate a government that has a compelling passion of
confrontation determined by self fear and hypocrisy.
In doing this, Mr Speaker, we are
bringing a government to account for its arrogance and unilateral decisions it
has taken, and to ask why it has seen fit to use the entire powers available to
it to bypass our institutional laws yet unmoved by wider public concerns.
Mr Speaker, these, we did against
fears of possible violence in here in
Sir, what we have instead is a government with a mission
to appease, and we must be frank to appease former militants and protect
prosecutable leaders, if we can call them that.
The result is that this government, has since come into office spend its
entire energy pursuing an agenda that is dictated by former militants and their
dubious leaders, and the only way of pushing this agenda is to dictate Cabinet
and our institutions that they could not care less.
After the violence in April 2006, Mr
Speaker, we expect the Government to do a lot of things. There are a lot of things that it could do
but instead the Government has gone down the road, in particularly its
leadership, that they could not care less. It embarked on the agenda that is entirely
intimidating to friends.
Mr Speaker, the only thing that has
provided this country the opportunity to get back to its knees, has been
RAMSI. I said in this House before that
the best thing that has ever happened in this country over the last few years
is RAMSI. That is the truth. Equally true, Mr Speaker, RAMSI has created a
lot of pain for the minority who happened to possess arms in this country.
I know too, Mr Speaker, that RAMSI is dominated by
Mr Speaker, the cost of RAMSI, the entire bill of
giving us a chance is paid for by hardworking Australians who have nothing to
do with the mess that you, as a long time politician in this country, helped to
create. I don’t care if they take back
some of the money, it is their money anyway.
But I am quite happy with the peace they paid.
Sir, this is humanity at its best for us. After all we are all human beings. But some of us saw no humanity in all these
Mr Speaker. We came into this Parliament,
take government and look for a fight.
Mr Speaker, if you look at the behaviour of the
government over the last few months, you would realize that the only thing that
has been pre-determined is the intention to confront
Mr Speaker, if you are serious about
sovereignty, allow me to remind you that sending in 10, 20, 30 or 200 soldiers
into this country amounts to the same interference in our sovereignty.
Mr Speaker, how can we even talk
about sovereign when we are employing foreigners to key positions in the
government? Mr Speaker, you take their
soldiers away and RAMSI will not collapse.
You take 200 soldiers and that is the end of RAMSI in this country. Also Mr Speaker, you take the funding out and
the whole RAMSI thing is collapsed. Our
jails will swing open. The former
militants and their leaders will roam our streets. That will be the end of peace that has been
given to us.
Mr Speaker, for your information, if
you do not know this yet,
Mr Speaker, I stress again that this is not the time
to talk about sovereignty and RAMSI must not be intimidated. It is time to rebuild, it is time to showcase
this country and tell the world what we have been able to achieve as a
post-conflict country, and most importantly it is time to provide the proper
signals to those who may be interested in investing in this country.
Mr Speaker, I advise this government
that this is not the time to adopt a foreign policy of selective
engagement. We need as much friends as
we can get. So let us make enemy to none.
Mr Speaker, it is clear that this
government and its leadership have been giving hope to former militants, and
their leaders. Sir, with this motion, we
intend to simply disrupt a system of leadership that has been supporting an
infrastructure that seeks to destroy delicate peace in this country in order to
bring our people back to their knees.
That is all we simply want to do here.
Mr Speaker, the majority of this
country is hoping for a positive result today. They will accept the outcome of these
proceedings whatever in the most and in the only way they know, and that is peace.
On the other hand, Mr Speaker, the minority and their supporters who stand to
lose from all these, together with the anti-Australians in this House, this
country is not theirs to mess around with.
It belongs to every one of us. But still, Mr Speaker, I will look at you
straight in the eye and tell you that when RAMSI is out, when this peace is
taken away from this country given graciously to us by our friends, our people
will not go down alone.
Make no mistake, Mr Speaker, that you, who agree with
this motion but could not support it for fear of losing your ministerial
benefits or fear of losing your chairmanship benefits, will go down with us and
it would be too late for you to serve the people you are supposed to serve in
this Honorable House.
Mr Speaker, that is my short
contribution and I support the motion.
Hon TOSIKA: Mr
Speaker, thank you for giving me the floor of Parliament to contribute to this
motion of no confidence on the Prime Minister.
Mr Speaker, as new a Member of
Parliament for West Honiara Constituency, I heard a lot of finger pointing in
this Parliament now and even in previous terms of Parliament. I thought elected MPs should be mature in
mind, in actions and in words, but some of them, who are in this Parliament,
cannot progress further. They almost
indulge themselves in petty politics, which does not help this nation.
Sir, we, as leaders should stand firm for the betterment
of our people and nation. I am quite sad
indeed on this occasion that our government has only been in office for five
months and then a motion of no confidence was placed on the government. I, as a new Member of Parliament, I am not
here for money – I am not enticed by money.
When I contested the election I stood by my own,
nobody supported me. Some people came to
me and asked me to join their party but I refused. When I won the election people came to my
house and asked me to join this party or this group. I told them that I have seen them from top to bottom,
from the tip of the hair to the tip of the toes, and I made my stand.
Today, even if everybody on this side joins the
Opposition, I will still stand with the Prime Minister. Why follow a straight road and when there is
a deviation or detour you disagree with the detour for the right and
sovereignty of this nation.
Mr Speaker, to say “you are like the
leader in
The word ‘criminal’ being used in this Parliament is
not substantiated. Donors use the term ‘failed
state’ for our country to get money from other sources so that when money comes
through, they dish it out and get it back to their own country. They use failed state so that they can make
proposals to get money to support themselves. They continue to use
Will you continue to say that
Sir, I do not quite agree with this word ‘failed
state”.
The rural constituency development fund, you have to
start small, from the top of the tree and you go down to the bottom. You have to start from a small seed which
will then grow to a big tree and will bear more fruit. I have done it.
Mr Speaker, I think it is not the
Prime Minister himself who made decisions.
But it is the concerted decision of Cabinet and Caucus on issues that were
highlighted on the floor of this Chamber.
To merely finger point the Prime Minister and asking him to resign
without any good reasons, is not in the best interest of this side.
Mr Speaker, before I resume my seat,
I want to respond to the release of prisoners made under my power, which one of
the speakers has alluded to. I was not influenced
by anybody. I made the decision based on
a submission made by the lawyers of the prisoners. I must make this very clear. I am not here only for the Police and Prison
Services but I am here for the prisoners as well.
Do you want a prisoner to die in prison before you
release him in a coffin? When a prisoner
cannot go to the toilet or to the bathroom himself but needs the help of
someone to get him there means something is wrong. Do you want him to die and be inside a coffin
before you take him outside? It is
inhumane for us to do that.
I as the Minister responsible based on that fact released
this lifetime prisoner. I have power to
consult with the Chief Justice to release a lifetime prisoner. I did that for the good of the family and for
the prisoner as well.
That was the first time ever a Minister did it. And when I did it, it was the first time and
so everybody saw it as signaling something.
Why didn’t you do it? The law is
under your ambit. Why can’t you do it to
save a prisoner? Two or three prisoners have
died in prison and there was no compensation.
They were just taken back to their homes.
Some have been in prison for 21 to 30 years. As far as the prison report is concerned a
lifetime prisoner can be released after serving 9 years or 13years or 17
years. Why are these people imprisoned
for more than 21 or 30 years? Why are they
sick but just kept in prison?
Mr Speaker, with that simple reason,
I release this man. And I have a genuine
mind and heart for doing it. I am not
doing it because the Prime Minister says so nor am I doing it because other
people influenced me. I did it based on
my conscience.
I have already told you that even if all of you on
this side, on the government side goes to the Opposition side, you can go, but as
for me I will not because I stand on my principle. I don’t need money to make my decision. My decision is with me and I stand by that
principle and live by that principle.
With those few words, Mr Speaker, I oppose the motion.
Hon SOLAOI: Mr Speaker, I
rise to contribute to the motion of no confidence on behalf of my colleagues
from the eastern block - that is Makira and
I also would like to thank the Opposition Leader for
the motion. I would like to thank him for
any good intentions for moving this motion, Mr Speaker.
Firstly, let me say there is nothing new in the motion
moved today by the Leader of Opposition.
Everything he mentioned was already mentioned in the media. Two speakers from the Opposition side who
have already contributed also mentioned everything that people have read in the
media and so there is no need for us to keep repeating them in this House. I think it would be more appropriate for them
to work in the media too.
Mr Speaker, I will be brief and to comment on some of
the areas highlighted in the motion and I will resume my seat.
Firstly, on the issue in regards to the former
Attorney General, I would like to support my other colleagues in saying that
the decision was made, because people have been confused by Members of
Parliament that it is a decision made by the Prime Minister alone. I would like to say here that that is a
Cabinet decision. And so it is not a
valid point to make in the motion.
Mr Speaker, commonsense will also tell us that any
person holding the post of Attorney General has to be somebody the Government has
confidence and trust in because he is a person who sits down and listens to all
proceedings in Cabinet.
Mr Speaker, Ministers can only be drawn together and feel
secure to contribute in Cabinet if they know that nobody is going to release
the proceedings taking place inside Cabinet.
We know, Mr Speaker, that members of the public are
only entitled to Cabinet Conclusions, and no more no less. We, Cabinet Ministers including the AG, take oath
to protect the proceedings in Cabinet.
I would like to say here that the decision taken to
replace the AG is genuine. Every Solomon
Islander needs to know that you cannot appoint someone who sits in Cabinet
today and tomorrow releases everything happening inside Cabinet to the
public.
Mr Speaker, I do not accept the government being
labeled as corrupt against because as you know, Mr Speaker, most of us are new
Members of Parliament. I would like to
ask the Opposition Leader to apologize to the new Members for saying that.
I say this because we talk so much about the past in
this honorable House. In fact, if we
continue to look at the past when we are at the present, looking at the way we
are going Mr Speaker, we have actually lost the future.
Do not think your spirit lives in the past, the body
in the present and then trying to look into the future. If that is how we are going forward as leaders
of this nation, we are simply telling our people that they do not have a future
as far as our leaders are concerned. We
cannot continue to dwell on the past only to realize there is no future
ahead.
Mr Speaker, I would like to say that we need leaders
who have vision and who have the courage to make decisions of any degree,
because we have been mandated by our people to make these decisions on their behalf.
Mr Speaker, I am also sad to hear a week ago, the call
by the Opposition for calm in
I see this kind of call, Mr Speaker, inciting in some
sense. As mature leaders we should be
careful of statements we are making in this House. I don’t know whether I feel free walking about
in public if people hate me, but I seem to be enjoying being part of the public
in
I don’t see any tension in
I also did not accept this motion being deferred until
today. I think the public knows that
last Friday Members of Parliament were paid sitting allowances worth $200 but we
did nothing on that day because the motion, the only item on the Order Paper on
Friday was deferred. Therefore, I did
not accept the fact it was deferred until today. I would like to ask all Members of Parliament
to refund that $200 to the government.
Mr Speaker, it might sound funny, but this is serious. Small it might be, the $200 is public
money.
Mr Speaker let me say this is a new government and
must be given time and support in order for it to deliver to people of Solomon
Islands, the majority of whom are living in the rural areas.
Mr Speaker, the level of the standard of living of our
rural population today or the people of
I find it hard to believe that there are leaders here
who cannot distinguish, who cannot draw lines between diplomacy, bilateral relations
and personalities. I as a Member of
Parliament do understand after being with fellow Health Ministers recently, is
free of politics. Health has no
boundaries and for me to hear in this honorable House some Members saying, ‘do
you think that man will not touch the bilateral relation’, I can say that he is
only a human being too.
If a leader cannot distinguish between the lines, Mr
Speaker, then we have a serious problem with our leadership and with us as Members
of Parliament in the current House. I am
not saying that I am one of the best MPs in this House, but I am saying there
are leaders in this House who cannot draw between the lines.
If we are saying this is an easy thing to do, I do not
understand why it is hard for us to understand simple things that come through
this House during this Sitting. Some of
the bills we have debated, I thought are just simple, but people twisted it making
us to just waste Parliament’s time and make it look complicated. People outside listening in to us will
question whether we are still all right or not.
As I have said, Mr Speaker, as a new Member, I am
surprised to see the style and way our senior colleagues talk inside this
chamber.
Mr Speaker, what kind of corruption are you leveling at
us? When you say that the approach of
the current government is not new, it only belongs to you, and the Speech from
the Throne is a speech of what the past government has done, I would like to
say that this is a government that is creating the linkage for us to build on
what has been started already.
The style and characteristic of leaders is to come in
and create new things altogether and start all over again. Mr Speaker, we come in and destroy what has
been established and we create new ones and another one comes in and destroys and
builds another one.
This new government, the Grand Coalition for Change is
advocating a change in approach and we want to build on from what is good that
has been started already.
It is surprising to me to see some Members not
appreciating the fact that we have an opportunity to build on further from
here.
Having said that, Mr Speaker, we leaders must not
confuse our people. Listening to some
debates in this House, the bottom up approach of this new government seems to
be irritating to some Members of Parliament.
What is wrong with the bottom up approach?
I believe this approach is the only way we can give
our rural people the power to be able to purchase things they cannot grow in
the gardens.
I find it hard to understand the MP for East Are Are saying,
‘can you explain the bottom up approach’? Goodness me, children in primary schools understand
what a bottom up approach means.
Mr Speaker, some of the things I am saying might be
funny but they are serious issues that we leaders need to carefully
address. Some of the things we say in
here might make us look like hypocrites.
I appreciate the fact that you have the liberty to control
us in here, but if I can be allowed to continue, Mr Speaker.
As somebody who comes from the rural area, it is only
this year that I come to town when I won as a MP in my constituency. I know my people have trust and confidence in
me and they have mandated me to make decisions on their behalf.
I think this is a change or a shift in a new direction
which looks promising for this country.
I hope if I can learn from my senior colleagues here, in the new future
I can make a good politician.
Mr Speaker, having said that, we need to develop to become
a statesman rather than a politician all our lives. I say this because politicians merely fight
for the next election, forgetting the next generation.
Mr Speaker, I do not want to respond to some of the
things mentioned by the mover of the motion as they are public knowledge and I
don’t want to repeat them here. But I
just want to contribute on behalf of my other colleagues from the Eastern side
of the country just to re-emphasize here that our solidarity and support for
this government is based on our belief in the policies and development
strategies this government is advocating.
We are also surprised too when our Prime Minister was treated
as a criminal. Some of you are saying to
us that we too are like criminals because our boss is like a criminal.
I find it hard, Mr Speaker, to understand that it was our
academics who are saying those things confusing our illiterate population, the uneducated
people but they seem to understand much better the simple things that we
leaders fail to understand in this honorable chamber.
Another issue I would like to mention is in regards to
the Attorney General, which every day up until yesterday some people are still
asking me about it. Mr Speaker, let me
say that some of the things that have been happening and only the government was
targeted and attacked in media and anywhere in the streets, looking at it, Mr
Speaker, it is a direct misconduct and abuse of office. I believe the Leadership Code Commission is
aware of what I am saying.
I understand that as a lawyer an AG cannot represent
any other client except the government. When
I explain this to some of our people in the streets they understand me, but I
find it very hard to believe that this argument about the AG is still
continuing in this chamber.
Mr Speaker, let me say, on behalf of my people, that
we fully understand what is going on and we support the current Grand Coalition
for Change Government. We are optimistic
that the current approach taken by this new government is the answer to improving
the livelihoods of our people living in the rural areas.
Some Members of Parliament are saying that this is a ‘check
and balance’ mechanism, but it looks like it is uncivilized politics. We cannot continue to go by precedence. The truth is that if there is something
terribly wrong with the government, our people will also see it and there is no
need for it to come from us.
Without going any further otherwise I might confuse
those who are easily confused, I would like to conclude by saying that I fail
to see any genuineness and means of check and balance in this motion of no
confidence Mr Speaker, and therefore I oppose the motion.
Sitting suspended for lunch break
Sitting resumes at
Hon BOSETO: Mr
Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity. I will be brief and give some thoughts. I know that we are facing so many problems that
need addressing.
My contribution will be just to share a few thoughts, which
I believe is not only to gain votes, I don’t yes or no, but to try to see the
situation even if it is a worse situation from the political ways or from
religious or from judicial. Perhaps this
is a situation that will help us see our future. I believe God always does the best out of the
worst. We therefore should not try to confine
ourselves very much to blame or accuse our leader. I believe that we are all leaders and we can be
accused and blame either under the laws of the land or the laws of God because He
is the last judge of heaven and earth.
Mr Speaker, last night I spent a little bit of time in
my devotion and meditation and reflecting on what I have been doing in
Sir, first of all I thank the mover of the motion, my
friend and brother, the Leader of Opposition. I checked a number of things that he said were
not only addressed to the leader of Grand Coalition Government but to all of us
on the government side too.
First of all, I would like to read the preamble of the
National Constitution because it is trying to look holistically at a vision. Sir, I am very happy that you were the Chief
Minister at that time who led the political groupings and you are the
foundation of the constitution that went to
Sir, I take this preamble as embracing the wisdom and
the culture of our people under the guiding hand of God. Therefore, I am going to speak very briefly on
how I see this in this messianic age. We
are now in the messianic age, I am going to emphasize that and this is God’s
time too. If we are not careful we will come
back again within the next four years perhaps or even next year we come back and
whether the Opposition will remain there and we will repeat ourselves once again,
we are going around in circles. But God
always points to the future and takes a positive move.
The preamble says, “We, the people of
Mr Speaker, I been looking at the world in struggling.
The world is struggling and looking for
ways and also this world continues to be, some people begin to say, under the
judgment of God. Natural disasters are
not like before. There is flood,
cyclone, earthquake, and all these become a part of our struggle. If you want to see this world harmonized and
stabilized in the name of democracy you have to apply militarism too.
I closely watched what is happening in
It
doesn’t matter that we come to plan for another five years development plan. That is good because that is helping people,
but at the same time we must listen more and more to our Maker and Creator of
the world. The groaning creation is in
fear because nations are afraid of each other. But because we apply nuclear power and therefore
today there is a debate going on about
I do not think we would be able to do that. We do not have an army in
Before I forget, what role will
An Islamic country is a human community. In the first society we are all humans, part
of
In the name of democracy,
Let me put on my hearing aid first because that is why
I cannot hear you properly.
For the last few weeks I have been
really struggling in coming to terms with this motion. I was thinking about what is my answer to
this motion of no confidence against the Prime Minister. What if I go and join the Opposition. Those are thoughts I have been thinking
about.
But then I say, the 50 of us are elected Members, and
may be out of this worse situation, from a legal point of view or from whatever,
God is leading us to see a new vision or perhaps a new direction.
I have been saying to my wife and some people that
perhaps out of this, we change the number to 70 or 71. So that instead of going through the election,
women should be given five seats so that during debates we can hear their
voices too. That is what I am saying,
and this is biblical.
When Moses was about to commit suicide – (Leviticus 11)
- because the people were complaining about good cabbages, vegetables and meat that
they used to eat
I am in the Ministry of Lands and I know my weakness,
but I see my staff doing very well in trying to address the unauthorized
settlers who are part of us and so we have to find ways to work with the
Sir, let me say that as a Christian country we must put
God first. Mr Speaker, our National Anthem
says, ‘God save the
Mr Speaker, if there is a moment of
our special need of God, I believe this is the moment that God is still
expecting us to look to Him.
Sir, one thing I discovered, perhaps theologians might
have also discovered this but I was not told about this in the one or two
Theological Colleges that I have attended, and that is God did not create human
beings during the six days. He only
created heaven and earth, the sun and the moon, the cow, goat, fish, the light
and day but He did not create human being during the six days. He did not say, come on, you work, you help
me create the world. No, that is not
what He said although we must be part of creating, recreating and the renewing
of humanity because He has given us the task to continue the work of salvation,
the work of uniting people. But I
discovered that He created human beings on the day of rest. He created us on the seventh day.
What does that mean?
God was not exhausted, He rest and He continued. After creating the world He enjoyed His work of
glorification. And in glorifying Him,
the human being must be part of His rest.
He linked humanity to eternity.
He wants us to continue to listen to His voice, and to continue to see His
original purpose of creating the world.
That is what I discovered. It was only us who are so busy with the fast
gripping programs of technology and sophisticated world. But we must have time for God. This brings me to the thinking that perhaps both
sides of the House should spend one week with the Churches praying
together. It is not good just to go in
and out of church on Sundays without praying together. Let us kneel down.
One of the great leaders in
SICA has organized and dedicated us to move forward
and so I believe SICA can organize us to go to an island and spend a whole day in
praying. We come here every day and
every morning a little prayer was said by the Clerk, which is a good start to a
day. But after reading Abraham Lincoln
was a great leader because every morning before he goes to the office he knelt
down and pray, I think that is what we should also be doing.
Mr Speaker, I must emphasize God’s importance of
creation linking us to eternity, we must continue to listen. We have to set a model too. We must not think that we are a small nation
or country that we could not help the world.
We can create a place where all kinds of people come and be
reconciled.
I thank RAMSI for encouraging people to
reconcile. This program must continue in
the
Mr Speaker, your predecessor, the former Speaker of
Parliament, during our first two weeks orientation in August 1997 told us the new
comers that our loyalty must be to put God first, our people second and our
constituency the third, but they are interrelated. That, I could not forget.
Therefore, Mr Speaker, the promise of blessing to all
families of the earth I believe will guide the Churches in the country,
politicians, all the good servants both in the provincial centres and national,
our good people in the villages. God’s
promise to Abraham is that through Abraham He will bless all families. That is a bottom up approach blessing - a
blessing to all families.
This has been the goal and aim of both the national
and international programs, I believe.
The law is to point and to be fulfilled into two organic divine laws of
God. I speak more from the biblical
perspective, namely the love God and love your neighbor as yourself. This is a doctrine of friends to all and
enemies to none.
The fulfiller of both the promise and the law is Jesus
Christ who carried through our hopelessness, worry, powerlessness, fear and confusion
to the cross of Jesus Christ. And how do
you carry through? First, He understands
His family. He spent 30 years before He
tried to convert theology, politics and judiciary. He served the people. In other words, it is to convert religion, politics,
judicial to serve the people.
I only speak from the point of view of the one who
expressed in theology his experiences -
Mr Speaker, sometimes I wonder what
is this bottom up approach and then I begin to see that perhaps our graduates
from the universities whether it be Australia or New Zealand, Fiji or wherever
should be given some preliminary or so many years to go to the rural areas to
learn more, to apply their knowledge in relation to the people because that is
where the majority of people are to be served by our lawyers in the
future. So those are some of the
thinking of a layman.
The experience we must see is the
experience of the transfiguration where we see our God, the Creator will
continue to speak to us and give us vision and give us His spirit of humility,
His spirit of righteousness and justice so that we may be able to move forward.
Mr Speaker, let me conclude by
saying that when the MP for Savo/Russells Government came into power in
December 2001 he said that his government is a Christmas gift to the people of
Solomon Islands. Our present Prime
Minister said that he ‘rededicates
Let me conclude by saying, Mr Speaker, not because I favor
this side, but I want to speak to all of us to be together. God can make the best out of the worst. He says, ‘I am now giving you the choice
between life and death, between God’s blessing and God’s curse and I hold the heaven
and the earth as witness to the choice you will make, so choose life. To
choose Him and to choose no will not get us anywhere. We must move forward after this situation. May God bless us, and those are few
reflections of my meditation. Thank you
Mr Speaker.
Hon TAUSINGA: Mr Speaker,
thank you for the opportunity to briefly join in the discussion of the motion
before us. I wish to also thank the
Leader of Opposition for seeing it fit to have it introduced to us.
I am sure, Mr Speaker, those who
architect the constitution have a valid reason for having the provision built
into our constitution. I am sure that
amongst the duties of the Leader of Opposition, one that is paramount is the ‘check
and balance’.
Mr Speaker, I think the provision we
are evoking at the moment is not for purpose for check and balance, but I think
it is to do with the removal of a leader, and thus the government. Therefore, for speakers to suggest that this
is a check and balance, in my view, is a wrong interpretation of the provision
in the constitution.
Sir, we have been called here today
to entertain the provision of sections 34(1) & (2) and to pass judgment on
the Prime Minister of Solomon Islands.
He has been accused of what appears to amount to incompetence - incompetence
on the basis of dictatorial exercise of his leadership over the Grand
Coalition.
We are living in interesting and challenging times
because in the exercise of our various functions and as leaders, one thing is
obvious, and that is for us to make choices of actions that we want to take in
the interest of our people and the country.
I think what is evident here is questioning the
actions that have been chosen by the government, in particular the leader -
actions believed to be in the interest of the people and the country. These actions, form the basis of the judgment
of the Leader of Opposition hence introducing the motion, and the introduction in
themselves, had the charges leveled against the Prime Minister. These charges are based on the following
facts:
·
The removal of
the Attorney General with a new appointee;
·
The Moti affair
·
The expulsion of
the Australia High Commissioner from
·
The reaction of the
Australian Government on the expulsion of the Australian High Commissioner.
That
is the deteriorating relationship now emerging between the two countries.
Mr Speaker, these charges were out
on print in the media for the past weeks, and which appeared that the motion of
no confidence was well underway in the public media and finally ended up in
this chamber, perhaps to comply with the constitutional provision that will seem
to attend the removal of the legitimate leader of the Grand Coalition for Change
Government. Thus the Leader of the Opposition
has started his motion in the media and now provided us the opportunity to say
‘aye’ or ‘nay.
The Australian Government too in
reaction to the expulsion of their principal representation made no secret about
their dissatisfaction on the leadership of the government and had cancelled
multi-entry visa of parliamentarians.
The cancellation of the visa indirectly asks Members of Parliament to
have no confidence on the Prime Minister and to disassociate themselves from
him, as it were.
It appears to me that the manner in
which we use these issues had made them as the basis of the motion to remove
the executive government (i.e. you remove the leader, you remove the
government) is not quite in order in the circumstance.
I say this because the timing is wrong. It comes at that time when
The Prime Minister and the Minister
of Foreign Affairs, whilst in the
The Melanesian Spearhead Group has
expressed its interest to mediate and has taken the initiative to explore the
help the diplomatic impasse. Therefore, the
Government is waiting to normalize the relationship, not turning blind eyes, as
it were.
The Moti Affair is very recent and
appears to emerge as a result of the dissatisfaction of him being the
replacement of the former Attorney General.
From this perception, it is a little bit tricky because the motive to
have Moti to be repatriated to
Well before he had the chance to
prove himself as the new Attorney General of Solomon Islands, the campaign to
smear his name commenced in the media locally and in
Whilst
In other words, the news of Moti to be the new Attorney
General was made well before
I do nothing for a moment that the
people will the Commission of Inquiry or the Government to interfere with the
prosecution of those who have been held in custody and to be tried in respect
of the 18th April 2006 riot related charges. This is because to do so will amount to
interference of the independence of the judiciary. The judiciary in
There are avenues to test the Prime
Minister’s actions in respect to the issues that have been raised by the mover
of the motion. Action such as the
Commission of Inquiry’s controversial terms of reference has already been
determined by the court.
I am also given to understand there is an appeal
pending on the determination of the High Court on the issue that have suggested
the non interference nature of the relevant terms of reference on the
Commission of Inquiry.
The other action, the replacement
and the appointment of the Attorney General, is the right of the Government, no
more nor less. The Moti Affair, there
are charges laid against him for illegally entering the country.
On the leadership style of the Prime
Minister, no Prime Minister has the same leadership style and therefore one
cannot assume that the present one is the same as the previous one. But leaders are the head to the structured
leadership enshrined in the constitution, and that is what the leadership of
the present government is doing. The
structure that we entertain in our leadership is the Cabinet system.
Of course, there may be times that
leaders, because of circumstances, have to take decision. When one sees that decisions are not properly
made, one just has to consult leaders in order to discuss the matter. In my involvement with the present Coalition,
I have also tried to employ that particular strategy to make leaders know of opinions
on specific matters. I have done this
with the present leadership and will continue to do so, on matters that I think
are important for the country.
Mr Speaker, much of what have been talked about,
particularly in relation to policies are something that we will have to discuss
during the course of the year, in particular when the budget is in session. So no one can tell us that the policies we
have are wrong policies. We have yet to
put them to test but we believe they are right policies. And so I also noted that the likely delay of
the budget may perhaps be brought up for reasons for this motion.
I am somewhat surprised at the ignorance of Members of
Parliament because the delay will not affect the services or program of actions
of government. It merely means that the
services and programs will continue but the budget shall be tabled on the first
quarter of the next financial year.
Perhaps the fundamental consideration is the fact that the budget will
be a government budget outlining both the recurrent and development
programs.
It will not be an opposition budget. There is no such thing like that. Thus the delay is to enable the government
properly put into program, the development needs of the people and the
country. Therefore, it would be wrong to
believe that by using the budget or the delay in tabling it for purposes of the
motion and to have it made to believe that it is incompetence of the Prime
Minister is somewhat incorrect.
Mr Speaker, in deciding to move the motion and in
moving it, the mover is establishing his interest to be the successor should
the current leadership is removed by the passage of the motion. In the first instance, Sir, he is the leader
of the alternative government and therefore logically has vested interest.
The implication is the groups that he shall lead have
better policies, better leadership style and shall deliver goods and services
immediately on assuming the office of the prime minister. In my view, Sir, track records may show some
good works but the test is the public’s view on that track record and one can
only reflect on the sad incident on April this year. However, if the mover of the motion believes
in the contrary, to move the motion first and find the candidate later for the
prime minister’s position, is a demonstration of indecisiveness and interested
party - the party that seeks to remove the Prime Minister.
How can one seek to remove the Prime Minister, yet not
interested in the position? Sir, how can
one seek to remove the Prime Minister and yet has no candidate to fill the
position? Obviously, one has an interest
to the position thus seeks to unseat the Prime Minister.
The denial of the mover not interested in the position
and the pretext that the motion is moved in the interest of the country does
seem to me to be irreconcilable. It does
not make sense because the actions of the government that are now put to test
and are now made to be the basis of the motion, are actions made in interest of
the country also.
Now let us come to the numbers game Mr Speaker. We have on the government side, as evident
today in this chamber, sufficient number to defeat the motion. The mover of the motion knows this and
therefore to move the motion knowing that such a motion will be defeated is in
my view very, very wrong indeed.
The constitutional provision must be invoked in
circumstance that there is a minimum probability of 50/50 for the motion to go
through. As it is now there is none and
thus those who speak will do so purely to smear each other, an exercise that
leaders do not normally do. So I do not
seem to see any valid reason to support the motion, but I do appreciate the
Leader of Independent to have it introduced.
Mr Speaker, there is only one thing I can perhaps ask
from the mover of the motion, and that is for him to support us implement the
policies current in the government programs.
Mr Speaker, I promise to make my statement short and I
think I have kept to that promise. I
stand to pronounce that I do not support the motion.
Mr HUNIEHU: Mr Speaker, thank
you for the opportunity to contribute to the general debate of this motion of
no confidence moved on the Honorable Prime Minister by the alternative Prime
Minister – the Leader of the Opposition this morning. I wish to thank the Leader of the Opposition
for raising many important issues in relation to leadership when moving the
motion this morning Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, as a watchful opposition, we are duty
bound by the Constitution of Solomon Islands to raise important issues we think
the leadership of this country is taking us nowhere or is taking us to a point
of disaster.
In leadership there is such a thing as positive
leadership and there is also such a thing as negative leadership. When the principles of positive leadership
are applied, everybody is happy, everybody knows where the country is heading,
and everybody is assured of a better future.
But when you apply the principles of negative leadership, people are
concerned.
I would like to inform this Parliament that there are
many leaders in the world who simply decide to apply the principles of negative
leadership which causes international chaos and chaos for their own nations.
Adolph Hitler, Mr Speaker, is one of such leaders who
apply the principle of negative leadership by refusing to listen to good advice
and decided to create war with the rest of the world because of his
stubbornness in not listening to good advice.
Saddam Hussein, Mr Speaker, in recent times is a
classic example. Saddam Hussein, as we
all know, is a stubborn leader. He is a
person who never listens. He is a
dictator who only believes in himself, only believes in his army, only believes
in his own ego, and in the end we hear from the news everyday and we watch in the
television the disasters he caused to his country. This is nothing new to all of us.
We also hear in
In those contexts, Mr Speaker, where are we going now and
where have we gone wrong? Are there
enough good reasons for the mover of the motion in moving this motion?
As the MP for East Are Are, I have never participated
in any motions of no confidence except one when I was on the government
side. I always refuse to speak on
motions of no confidence because I thought why bother.
Sir, I was asked sometime ago during my short time in
Parliament to move a motion of no confidence.
I refused, Mr Speaker, and instead opted to move a motion to dissolve
Parliament.
When I think Parliament is inadequate, when I think
Parliament is not delivering, then why waste time moving a vote of no
confidence. I want all of us to be dissolved
and fight a new election. I did move a
motion to dissolve Parliament on the basis that Parliament failed to listen to
the majestic voices of people, Parliament at that time, was involved in some
kind of economic management that runs counter to the interest of the people
with revenue declining, foreign reserve declining, and economic management and
good governance in total absence.
Because of that, Mr Speaker, I agree to move a motion
to dissolve Parliament. And one of the Ministers’s
then asked me to have a fight on this floor of Parliament, because I told him he
was telling lies to the people of
Mr Speaker, I am surprised at the quality of debate by
some Members of Parliament. They did not
seem to understand what negative and positive leadership is all about. I do not understand why such people are voted
into this Parliament because they are supposed to make viable decisions on behalf
of their people. What we need today is
viable leadership, and viable decisions on our behalf. That is what is required of us.
I am not saying that the present Prime Minister is
like Saddam Hussein. No, but I am trying
to lead us into a positive debate of this vote of no confidence.
This vote of no confidence is not about political
expediency either. No, Mr Speaker. It is our duty as the opposition to move it. I will inform Parliament that the government
after the social ethnic tension, which is this side of the House, did all it
can to navigate this country into prosperity.
That is this side of the House. Mr Speaker, we did all we can to navigate this
country out of the mess. What did we do
Mr Speaker? We successfully negotiated
an agreement with regional countries, which
We negotiated peace when war was created by that side
of the House - the social ethnic tension.
It was that side of the House that created it. I was fortunate enough to be advisors to two
Prime Ministers on that side of the House, and I rejected to be part of them. I know too much and that is why I declined
myself and decided to remain permanently on this side of the House.
Mr Speaker, we negotiated peace, and peace has brought
about fundamental changes in this country.
Peace was negotiated by none other than this side of the House. And that is why people in East Choiseul,
people in West Choiseul, people in Malaita and all corners of
There was economic prosperity, Mr Speaker, during the
last four years when we took over the government, economic prosperity in the
sense that during the social ethnic tension, total government revenue was only
$200million - $250million. But when we
left office revenue climbed up to as high as $700million. Mr Speaker, is that a bad record?
Record speaks for itself. Is this what you call petty politics? Is this what you call some Members on the
other side of the House are too long in the House and so they are starting to talk
stupid. Who is talking stupid, Mr
Speaker? None of us of here is talking
stupid. If so then it must be you, Mr
Speaker.
We also negotiated for increased aid assistance from
all our development partners. Mr Speaker,
as far as I am concern this side of the House has managed to bargain with
And, Mr Speaker, one of the most unacceptable speeches
I have ever heard in this Parliament was the motion of Sine Die moved yesterday
by the Prime Minister himself. The
speech is full of arrogance, it is full of non repentance, it is too full of
nationalism, excessive nationalism and paying little attention to the realities
of life. How can a Prime Minister do
that? How can a Prime Minister say that
just to keep his flocks together? Mr
Speaker, that is negative leadership and not positive leadership.
If you call that statement positive leadership I would
like to see it reflected in next years’ budget. I hope I will see that reflected in next
year’s budget.
Mr Speaker, EU,
Mr Speaker, even RAMSI was negotiated by this side of
the House. We negotiated for it to clear
your mess. The Minister of Mines and
Energy knows it, and he is laughing because everything I am saying perhaps is
true.
But there is improved law and order in this country in
the last four years. There is improved
law and order and that is why the MP for
Everybody is enjoying the luxury of being in business,
the luxury of making profit and that is because somebody has to bleed the
system, somebody has to do it. Mr
Speaker, we on this side of the House take pride in doing all these for the
little people of
With this kind of description, Mr Speaker, who is
taking care of the interests of the little people in
This side of the House also began a good governance
process because good governance is the ultimate goal in any leadership. We have started programs, we have started
employing people, getting in consultants to introduce the process of good
governance. Because without good
governance who would dare giving increase aid assistance to the people of
Who dares to give increase aid assistance to the
people of
I am saying these as background information to Members
of Parliament after having heard them contributing this morning and they seem
to forget the past. I think if the
Minister of Finance was here he will tell everybody that what I am talking
about is the truth.
Mr Speaker, in the 2006 general elections, the people
of this country voted for continuity, they voted for the continuation of these
policies because we have not finished the task.
And so they voted for continuity. We won the election, Mr Speaker, on the
premise that if we were to take on the government again, we will continue the
policy of good governance, the policy of economic good management, the policy
of law and order, the policy negotiation to increase more aid assistance to
induce more investment in
If a lawmaker fails to understand his basics, Mr
Speaker, the best thing for him to do is to resign today and go back home
because he is not qualified enough to be a member of parliament.
Mr Speaker, the problem started on April this year
when that side of the House, the government side, decided to take over the
government in a Rambo missing-in-action type.
Mr Speaker, it is Rambo all through when the new
Attorney General was flown into the country in a military aircraft with no immigration
clearance, no aviation clearance and without a passport. Mr Speaker, this is Rambo missing in action
style. Shame on us, Mr Speaker!
Mr Speaker: Perhaps since
you are using Ramo, you might interpret it so that we all can understand it.
Mr Huniehu: Mr Speaker, I
mean Rambo.
Mr Huniehu: Ramo and
Rambo mean the same thing. Ramo, in
Malaita means a wire miss man. He is a
bit wire miss and his actions are a bit like a cowboy but a little bit beyond
the marks of a cowboy. That is the meaning
of Ramo. But when Rambo and Ramo are combined,
it is very fitting. Yes, Super Rambo
because when Rambo acts in a movie, he jumps up, higher up in the heavens and
swims right down into the deep blue ocean and he makes every people believe
what he does.
When we pursue the principles of negative leadership,
I can describe that as Rambo and Ramo kind of leadership.
The problem we are facing today started on April when
that side of the House was not happy because this side of the House took over
the government. There were plans in
advance to take over the government within the pretext of corruption, which
resulted in the burning down of the
Mr Speaker, but in the policy statements of the
government, they continue to say this is one country, we are one people, we
must be united in purpose and we must cause development to happen. What a contradiction! It does not reflect what happened in April of
this year.
It was planned, Mr Speaker, but it is fine that you
have taken the government but lead us to where you want to lead us. For goodness sake that is what you want. We have no complaints, but only lead us to
where you want to lead us. But only two were
arrested and are now awaiting trial, the rest are not. And it is the rest who are still here that continue
to cause destabilization in government at this time because of the fear that
they would be arrested anytime and put in prison. That is the reason why we continue to argue
that the best Attorney General to come and work here is Moti because you
believe that if he is employed he will free the two in custody and will free
all of you. That is why it is very
impossible and very hard to make sense out of this kind of government. It is very hard.
Hon Darcy: Point of
Order Mr Speaker. As the Member of
Parliament for Gizo/Kolombangara, I am just not comfortable with the way the MP
for East Are Are is implying that this side of the House was involved in
planning the April riots.
This House is not for us to come and level accusations. If you have evidence you must prove it. You prove it to this House, prove it to this
House.
When you talk about economic mismanagement, I can tell
you that there are people on this side of the House who have allowed their
resources to continue during the darkest hours of this country. How can you continue to make that kind of accusation?
I am making this statement because I think it is a very,
very sad thing that you continue to make that kind of accusation in this House
without providing evidence.
Mr Huniehu: Mr Speaker, can
I continue on with my speech?
Mr Speaker, I take note of what the Minister for
Development Planning has said, but this is my time. This time is allocated to me and please just
allow me to say my piece of mind because when it comes to your time I will sit
down very intently and listen like everybody else, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, I was trying to point out what I think is
the problem which led to the tabling of this motion in Parliament.
This is Parliament and not the courthouse so that I
should provide affidavit like the Prime Minister when he wanted to table an affidavit
of a conversation between the Magistrate and somebody else, I don’t know. This Parliament is for Members of Parliament
to express their views and concerns freely.
I do not deny that some Members on that side of the Government
have also contributed to the good economic management in the last four
years. Everybody has worked together for
the good of this nation.
What I am implying is that it was this side of the House
that was responsible for bringing in RAMSI, responsible for initiating good
economic policies, responsible for good governance, and therefore it should be
given credit where it deserves.
And I was only saying that the problem that is causing
destabilization in politics and political instability has to do with the
unfortunate 2006 April incident. There
is no secret about it. Investigations
are going on and will be concluded.
I did not mention names of any person who might be
implicated. I am just saying that
investigation is taking place on those who induced the rioting and conclusions
will come up.
As a Member of Parliament I have the right to say
that. I have said at the outset of my
speech that what this country needs is positive leadership and not negative
leadership. And I am just trying to
quantify what I mean by negative leadership.
The biggest issue was from April up until now and so
why should we hide it on the floor of Parliament when it is public knowledge. Why should we be ashamed of it? Why should we fear? Do not be afraid of your shadows because your
shadows cannot fight you? They are only
shadows. If you have nothing to fear
then there is nothing to worry about. If
you are not involved in the riot then have peace of mind.
Sir, the five months the Prime Minister has taken on
leadership is interesting. Many of us
decided to work with the Prime Minister.
When the Government’s statement of policies was released we thought that
was the way to go because it was precise and was talking about the little people
in this country. But then all of a
sudden you deviated from attention and from the focus of leadership, positive
leadership.
From day one, the Prime Minister decided to take on
the legal fraternity head-on. He started
on this floor of Parliament by asking the Speaker if he could produce and table
an affidavit in this Parliament. An
affidavit is for the courts to look at and not Parliament.
Then comes the issue of the Attorney General. In view of objections raised by the public,
the government went on to do what it decided to do. I don’t have to continue to dwell on that
because it is all well covered in the press media - the Solomon Star, the SIBC,
and you name it. It is all public knowledge.
That was a direction intently decided by the Prime
Minister and the government to pursue. That
was well and eloquently covered by the mover of the motion. We are now side tracking from the good
policies that we have established during the last four years and moving on to un-chartered
waters.
Questionable cabinet/government decisions, I know what
a cabinet/government decision is. The
decision of Cabinet is done by Cabinet and those decisions should not be tampered
with.
I know the process of recruitment, and handpicking is
not the way of applying good governance - handpicking of people. The Leader of the Opposition said it all this
morning. There is handpicking of the
Secretary to Cabinet, handpicking of the Director of Forests and others as well.
And the way the Minister of Public
Service answered questions this morning implied that even Permanent Secretaries
were also handpicked. Mr Speaker, these
are misdirection, in my view, and the people of this country must know.
The consequences of those decisions will be felt by
the people. We have now decided, as part
of our confrontational policy with our development partners, to start accusing
Mr Speaker, why should we do that? These are people funding our projects. If you do not want their money then tell them
we do not need your help. Tell them courteously.
If you do not need their assistance just
tell them like, ‘can we negotiate to shift your assistance from this sector to that
sector’, but not criticize their aid assistance, labeling it as boomerang,
senseless or whatever.
Many times I also criticize Australian aid, but the
way the Prime Minister did it is out of context in the sense that whilst the
little people of this country still need Australia’s assistance, we are saying
it in a language, in an environment that will be seriously felt in our
development budget.
The Foreign Affairs Minister and the Prime Minister of
Australia have both said that they will take robust actions against
How come the Australia Government continues to pump in
millions of dollars into this country and we continue to make cowboy decisions
in this country? Mr Speaker, I am sorry to
call this government Rambo, but that is what I heard on the streets. People were calling this government Rambo and
it was not me who is saying that statement.
These actions, I am definitely sure, will have serious
implications on the level of aid assistance to this country by some development
partners. The investment flow will also
be seriously affected.
I have heard from reliable sources that some billions
of dollars worth of investment have to be suspended because of fear the
investment could be seriously affected by government actions and policies.
Sir, the people of
In fact, Mr Speaker, I wrote to the Prime Minister in my
capacity as the Chairman of the Bills and Legislation Committee saying that I
would like to work tirelessly reviewing the laws of this country that have
loopholes for administrators to practice corruption. The Committee is thinking of making recommendations
to Cabinet – the Government to start making amendments to all the laws. One of such laws that need reviewing is the
Land and Titles Act to find out why is it that one person can own two to three
hundred plots in
My
committee also wants to review the NPF Act to see whether its lending policies
are consistent with the original act that establishes it. My committee also wants to review the
Provincial Government Act to see the things that need change. My committee also wants to establish an
architectural act because all the buildings in
My committee wants to review all the Acts of
Parliament - the transport acts, the fisheries acts because in last year’s
sitting of Parliament, we were informed through reports by the Accountant
General of massive corruption taking place in those departments. Little do we realize that it is these acts of
Parliament that have given leeway for administrators to do whatever they have done.
And many more Acts of Parliament need
reviewing.
I wrote to my Prime Minister telling him that I am
ready to work, but these issues came up again, which could hinder my
committee’s work. The very same laws
that we want to review are now being debated and challenged, which is going to
affect our work.
This vote of no confidence, Mr Speaker, is all about
principles. For me, Mr Speaker, I pass
my judgment in the interest of the people of East Are Are. If I think that government policies will
affect projects in my constituency, I will be able to explain myself to my
people that I supported the motion because of this, and seriously I begin to
see this happening.
It was not my intention to be a Member of Parliament
to send development aid money away from within the reach of my people. But this is exactly where we are heading.
It is sad to see Members of Parliament calling
themselves representatives of people in the rural areas, speaking pretty
languages in this Parliament saying ‘I represent the people of so, and so’,
when we are doing something to the contrary.
I would like to do the best for my people but we are now engaging in a
tug of war, which will deprive our children of educational funds they need and
for the Ministry of Education to implement the educational programs.
Sir, you may disagree with me, Mr Minister, but what
is happening now is leading to that direction. This year may be is a good year for you but if
you cannot reconcile our differences, it will all happen. That is why we are sounding out this message
to all us.
Mr Speaker, I want to conclude by saying that the
intention of this motion, we believe, is to redirect
Sir, as I have said many times in this Parliament,
I hope many Solomon Islanders who are listening to the
debate in Parliament should not take what I am saying out of context. I think the mover of the motion had genuine
concern about the leadership in this country and although it is only five
months since this government took power, it is better to check you up in the embryonic
stage of leadership.
If you have to continue to lead for the next three or
fours years, the sound warnings have already been fired on the floor of
Parliament. Many of us here would like
to see the Prime Minister and his government, if possible, to change direction
- if you can in the best interest of the people of this country. That is what this motion is talking about
because I can see that many projects will be seriously affected.
With those few remarks, Mr Speaker, I would like to
thank you for allowing me and I would like to thank all Members of Parliament
for listening.
If I have said something that someone of us doesn’t
want to hear, I can only apologize to you, but that was said inside this Chamber
but outside we are good friends again.
Thank you very much.
Hon SIKUA: Mr Speaker, thank
you for giving me this opportunity to contribute to the motion. I speak on behalf of the Guadalcanal Block on
this side of the House. Before I
continue, Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Honorable Leader of Opposition
for bringing this motion for debate in this honorable chamber. I realize and do respect his right for bringing
this motion as a mechanism of check and balance for us in terms of our parliamentary
democratic system. I think it is a
healthy one and it is one that we should use as such.
Mr Speaker, just as he dedicated the motion to the
children, women and people of special needs, I would like to share and say that
the policies this government has put out and the framework we are going to
implement those policies is dedicated specifically to improve the lives of all
Solomon Islanders, including children, women and people with special
needs.
In introducing the motion, the first reason for moving
the motion was on the PM’s style of leadership - his style of leadership is
erratic and unprincipled.
Mr Speaker, I wish to dispel any notion that the PM’s style
of leadership is erratic and unprincipled. Never at anytime have I felt that his style of
leadership does spell any threats or speaking fear in the hearts of any of my
colleagues and so I dispel that notion.
Sir, on the issue of abuse of national sovereignty, if
indeed national sovereignty is a moving concept that has to change with time,
if you look at it carefully this is exactly what this government with its
current leadership is trying to do.
What the other side is showing is trying to resist
change, Mr Speaker. We have been used to
going the same way and here we come trying to challenge the old ways - the same
old ways of doing things, the same old ways of approaching and talking to our
donors or how we treat them in terms of our diplomatic relation.
Here comes this government under the leadership of the
Prime Minister and says, look I think we need to rethink and recheck ourselves
as to how we relate to each other, and it is that change that I see as being
resisted by the other side and therefore is complaining because it is uncomfortable
with how we are treating one of our major donors.
Mr Speaker, in terms of interference with the judiciary
and the thinking that the government is only pushing forward for a commission of
inquiry into the April riots, is not true.
If you read the Speech from the throne very carefully,
there are two more commissions that are coming, and they are the commission of
inquiry into the land dealings on
Mr Speaker, with the establishment of the other two
commissions of inquiry, it is hoped that during the hearings and the
deliberations of these two commissions of inquiry we can be able to know the
root causes of the ethnic crisis on
Mr
Speaker, in regards to corruption in the administration and the appointment of
Permanent Secretaries, indeed the Prime Minister has consulted his Ministers on
the question of whether we want to keep our Permanent Secretary or we want to
change him/her. He has consulted all his
Ministers, and there are Ministers who said they want to keep their current
Permanent Secretary and there are Ministers who said they want another new one.
That is the basis of the consultation the
Prime Minister has done with his Ministers.
If you look carefully, Mr Speaker, about 90% of
Permanent Secretaries retained their positions with only about three or four
new ones. If you compare that to the
past it is always the other side of the House that has this reputation of
saying this government is coming in with new Permanent Secretaries and doing
away with old ones. So it is not only this
government that is doing that.
I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that the Prime Minister has
consulted widely on the issue of appointment of Permanent Secretaries. So you cannot say that it is just him who handpicked
these people. No.
Mr Huniehu: Point of order,
Mr Speaker. I just want to clarify that
the last administration’s policy is to employ Permanent Secretaries who are
from the system. Most of the Permanent
Secretaries were under secretaries and were promoted.
Hon Sikua: But it is the
same people who are still there and so there is no difference. Whichever way you look at it, it is still the
same. The same people are still
there.
Mr Speaker, I have been hearing a
lot about ‘this thing we are doing is going to drive our donors away’, it is
going to deprive our people of the much needed donor support that we so badly
need. I think that is too much of an
assumption. We will cross the bridge
when we get there. At the moment there
is no cause for concern because we have not heard anything to that effect from
any of our donors, including
Just this morning, Mr Speaker, I met with the Head of
the EU Delegation in Moresby and he assured us there is no problem in education,
keep going, just clear the cloud and move on.
As a major donor, I think that is an indication that these things are
going to blow away and subside in the course of time. So do not worry too much about these things. That is just a normal run.
On RAMSI Mr Speaker, the Government’s
position hasn’t changed. The Member for
Rennell/Bellona was concerned when he talked about RAMSI in his contribution
this morning. The Government’s
commitment and position on RAMSI has not changed. It says so in the Speech from the Throne that
the Government is committed to continue to work with RAMSI in the spirit of
true partnership and cooperation for the common good of our people. So there is no shift in our policy with
RAMSI.
On education, Mr Speaker, as the
Minister for Education, I have not heard any adverse signals from our donors. We all believe without donor the future of
our people depends upon the education of our greatest resource, and that is our
own people. I think it will be counterproductive
for any donor, say in the education sector to do otherwise.
What we are talking about is between governments and I
do not think it is between people. Let
us make the distinction.
Mr Speaker, I would like to say that this government
has policies in place that will improve and increase opportunities of employment
for our people. I think in terms of what
we are doing in education on technical vocational education and training, you
can have policies at the employment private public sectors. But I think the thing to do is to ensure that
we have in place the necessary mechanisms for our people to acquire skills from
the school system to equip them with skills that they can live with when they
find themselves anywhere they can live or work.
Sir, I am sure this government has those policies in place.
On the bottom up approach which the government is
adopting in terms of its rural development strategy, I have written a PhD on
the whole bottom up approach. It is bias
towards education but I have proved in my PhD that the bottom up approach is
the correct approach to use as a development strategy in
Mr Speaker, I do not want to spend
too much time and so with those few comments I on behalf of my colleagues from
the
(applause)
Mr TANEKO: Thank you, Mr
Speaker, for allowing me the floor of Parliament to contribute to this very
important motion on behalf of my people of Shortlands Constituency. I am going to be very brief, Mr Speaker, and
I will talk in general and speak on the points.
Mr Speaker, before I continue with
my speech I would like to take us to Proverbs Chapter 11, which is today’s date
because today is a very important time to make a decision on the leadership of
this nation on where we are heading to. I
quote, “A city becomes great when the righteous give it their blessing; a city
is brought to ruin by the works of the wicked.
Proverbs 11:11. There is a lot we
can derive out of that verse.
Mr Speaker, I would like to thank my
people of the Shortlands Constituency for having as their Member someone who has
experienced the bad times. When I came
in year 200, I wanted to represent my people in a peaceful government of
Mr Speaker, may I say in here that
we are going to make a decision, all of us in here, Members of Parliament whether
to give our support or not to the motion, but it is each one’s decision. I believe our own conscience is very
important at this time.
Mr Speaker, it is through the
constitutional process that we experienced what happened on the 18th
April. We had a lot of experience on
that event. I thank God that I am on the
Opposition side of the House, and I also thank Him for the government side as
well. But as a leader we have to know
exactly how we want our nation to go.
This is very, very important.
Mr Speaker, you will remember that I
was the Minister for Police and Justice during that time and we went through
all hardships, taking risks and talking to militants with guns. I can remember the time we talked with
militants in the Guadalcanal Plains and we were in tears. I cried.
This is reality, Mr Speaker. Here
we are now enjoying peace that this side fought so hard for and therefore there
should be appreciation for this side of the House.
But, Mr Speaker, I have not heard
any appreciation and thanks to this side of the House for making this nation
into a peaceful nation to where we are now.
Can’t you just say thank you or appreciate us a bit?
You can see the man talking to you now, I went through
risks and hardships talking to militants so that peace would prevail in our
country,
(hear, hear)
Mr Speaker, I found it hard to give directive and make
decision as the Minister for Police and Justice at that time because there is
problem in law and order. There was no
security in the nation
You have been talking about the bottom-up approach but
just go down and have a look at classrooms in the Shortlands. It is reality and practical.
I wish the Minister for National Planning is
here. The leadership that we want is
like a father giving directives to his ministries to go and visit the
constituencies and see what is needed in there.
That is the kind of leadership we want.
We do not want us to come and be
divided and rule because that is destruction. The opposition is an alternative government
and so we have to make sure the leader that reigns and rules this nation is
doing the right thing.
I thank the Almighty God, Mr Speaker,
because here we are enjoying and acknowledging RAMSI and other partners. I have been there in the Ministry of Police
and Justice twice, and I can remember people who came into the office wanting
to give their support to the nation of
Mr Speaker, I can remember the day
when there was discussion to bring in RAMSI into the country on June 5th
2003. It was not easy at that time Mr
Speaker. It was a decision we made at
that time to make sure we bring in our fellow big brothers to come in and help
us salvage the nation Solomon Islands, a sunken vessel, an empty vessel with no
cargoes. We should appreciate and thank
them.
Mr Speaker, I for one believe in the
appointment of the Attorney General of Solomon Islands. I believe there are many academically qualified
local Solomon Islander lawyers in the nation of
Mr Speaker, this very important
motion that we are debating must be seen from many angles on how we are going
to come in to select a leader that will lead this nation peacefully and
receiving the nation as a whole, receive his cabinet, the backbenchers and the
opposition. The leader should summon
them because that is the only way we are going to lead this nation to where we
want. It is indeed a very hard thing, Mr
Speaker.
As a nation of different
constituencies that we represent, with different cultures, diversity, beautiful
Solomon Islands. However, it totally
lies on the voting of the leadership today.
I believe that we come to our own consciences so that
we can vote whom we want to be our leader.
It is a difficult thing, Mr Speaker, because the party system divides us
and the
The law says that we abide with the constitution of
Mr Speaker, during the tension time, every day I sit
in my office at 8.00 a.m. I would expect gunmen, big stones, big timbers to
come flying to destroy the office. That
was the experience I had, Mr Speaker, at that time.
You will also remember, Mr Speaker, the time we went
to Tamboko. I was in tears when I saw
how our people made our nation into problem.
It is now our time leaders, not to make the nation of
We are here today to be of one mind making sure our
leader leads us and gives us peace and harmony for this nation to be united
together as one nation.
What does that mean, Mr Speaker? There needs to be more consultation. A leader must consult with his people more
often. He must consult with spiritual
people. If that is what the leadership
of this government does, I think he have enough security because of his
consultation with people. He must be
willing to listen and receive advice. Advice
is best and is a cure for everything. Listening
and receiving good advice is a difficult thing to do.
Many times we come across problems in our own
families. We must look at our own
background where we come from. We must look
at our families, our constituencies, and see how we can rule and reign in there
Mr Speaker. It is just within us.
Even though we are against each other in this House in
words but when we go out we are still one.
Let our hearts be one as one nation of
Our time is running out. We are people who just come and go in this
House. But if we lead our people in the
right direction, one day when we are finished there will be memories and
revelations telling us that we have done something good for our nation and for
our people. That is a very big thing.
As the Minister of Health alluded to earlier on today
Mr Speaker, there are some new Members in this House but when you come in here
whether you are new or old you must share the best wherever you can to help our
nation. So young minister, continue to
build this nation Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, our time is running out but the decision we
are going to make is totally in our streets.
I just want to put it this way.
We must select a leader according to our own conscience. I just hope this government will lead our
people so that they will enjoy their nation peacefully, accept our neighbors,
be a friendly nation, rebuild and return this nation to the once happy isles
one more time. We do not want to repeat the
events of the past four years.
With those very few remarks, Mr Speaker, I support the
motion.
Hon SOGAVARE: Thank you
very much Mr Speaker. I am beginning to
hear repetitions on the things we are saying.
After listening to those who have contributed to the motion, I can
basically see what they are talking about.
Sir, I am now in a position to
respond. The level of debate and the
things we are saying in here, there are some serious allegations raised that we
cannot prove. For example, such
allegations as the Prime Minister involving in aiding and abetting, this side
of the House was involved in the 18th of April riot, and so on.
We set up the commission of inquiry to look into those
questions, and before we even could reach the end, we have already made
conclusions and are very judgmental in the way people have been talking when contributing
to the motion.
Sir, the issues that are raised in
here are not new, as speakers in this House have said. Those are issues that we have been seeing in
the media. The motion of no confidence
actually started already in the media, in here and also abroad.
In listening out to the debates, Mr
Speaker, I was right that the very same issues that was canvassed in the media,
in here and abroad were again raised as issues to try and convince this
Parliament to vote out a Prime Minister that was duly elected by this very
Parliament.
Sir, to do the right thing, at the
outset I would like to thank the Leader of Opposition for moving the motion and
for all that he has said about the Prime Minister. As the leader, what he was saying is
basically what the Group have met and discussed and used as the front lone
attack, which would be supported by subsequent debates by members of the
Opposition. And I know where he is
coming from and roughly know what is actually driving him to move the
motion. My only fear, which is reflected
in the contribution by the Deputy Prime Minister, is that we could play right
into the hands of somebody.
This parliament is the parliament of
the people of
I am saying this because I am going
to prove this on the floor of parliament today where I feel this side of the
House can see where this motion is coming from, and the interest this motion is
creating in people who have vested interest in the outcome of the vote that
will be taken, in about may be three hours from now.
I hope those who have sponsored this motion will be
able to sleep tonight after they will come to their senses that they have acted
irrationally and allowed their vanity to take the best of them on the floor of
the people’s parliament today. But
before I delve into the substance of this motion, I would like to express my
observations on what we consider as driving this motion.
Sir, the motion is moved under the authority of
Section 34 (2) of the National Constitution and therefore in terms of law it is
in order.
A motion of this nature is very serious, and I hope
the mover had given serious thought to it because what he is basically saying
is that the very parliament that voted unanimously for a Prime Minister and his
Government that had the support of the people in May of this year (in just a
matter of 5 months ago), is again requested to vote that it had no confidence
in that very person. That is a bit
problematic.
Unlike other countries where the
government is effectively voted into power by the people on election day, the
situation in
Why am I reminding us of this fact? I want to drive the point that it is that
very power that Solomon Islanders resented giving to the legislators as clearly
demonstrated on the 18th of April 2006. People regretted that they gave that power
to the hands of legislators. I think
this is driving some very interesting policy issues that we need to think about
in giving this power to the people, and not us because we cannot decide.
What the people were actually saying on that day was
that parliamentarians were totally incompetent to make any sensible decision on
that matter.
The picture changed on the 5th of May 2006
when the present incumbent, this very person now standing before you, Mr Speaker,
was elected by this very Parliament.
There was overwhelming approval as clearly demonstrated by the people
themselves on the streets of
Sir, I am seeing the repeat of what happened in June
2000, when the present incumbent was also elected by this very Parliament to
take over the leadership of Solomon Islands Government during one of the most
trying times in the history of the
Sir, what I am trying to get at here is that the
people of this country have demonstrated on two separate occasions that the
parliamentarians’ choice of the Member for
Sir, the significance of this scenario is that in
personally attacking the Prime Minister in the person of the Member for
Apart from all the garbage that we see in the Solomon
Star and foreign newspapers, which were purposely designed to be biased against
the government, there was no open revolt against this government by the
grassroots in
I stopped reading the Solomon Star now, as if the
Government does not exist. All the
writings on the papers were just against the government, against the
government, but by just a very few people and not everybody. Very few people are writing on the newspapers
and they keep printing the articles.
That proved beyond all shadow of doubt that the people of this country
have no problem with the leadership of this government.
Sir, I listened with amusement to the call by the
leader of the Opposition to the people of Malaita (I am also married to Malaita
too) to refrain from expressing their disapproval of any outcome that would not
be acceptable to them. I join those who
have spoken before me that, that call is totally unnecessary and sends a wrong
signal to the people as to the real motives of the motion.
Mr Fono: Point of
Order, Mr Speaker. That call was made
based on rumors. I stand by my call as a
leader. The current Prime Minister is
using the ignorance of the populace in
Hon Sogavare: I can
understand the feelings here. He has his
time to respond to this motion. I did
not interrupt him when he moved the motion this morning. Let us be fair.
Sir, what I was saying was that call
was totally unnecessary, and I will explain.
If you are doing the right thing, why call on the people of
Sir, I am not surprised because the personal nature of
this motion augurs well with the threat issued by the Prime Minister of
Australia, when he said that there would be personal consequences to this Prime
Minister as well as his government. In
fact, the involvement of
He went on to say, “The Australian Government has
stepped up its campaign to unseat the
Sir, the report has placed beyond all shadow of doubt
that the political crisis that
(hear, hear)
I quote, “The political crisis has
been engineered by the Australian Prime Minister and his Government, which
targeted the Solomon’s Government after the Australian High Commissioner
Patrick Cole was expelled earlier this year for meddling in the country’s
internal affairs”. End of quote.
Sir, this is a very serious situation indeed and calls
for a concerted effort by all Solomon Islanders to protect our country from the
grips of re-colonization. We must not
allow this Parliament to be used as a tool to undermine a democratically
elected government of the people of
In case we forget, this Parliament belongs to the
people of
I felt sorry for the Leader of the Opposition because
he is being misled by a very superficial and carefully designed public opinion
that is hyped up by an aggressive media propaganda campaign both in the local
and Australian media following the removal of the Australian High Commissioner
to
It is a grossly careless act that is motivated by
pride and vanity, and the Leader of the Opposition and his supporters on the
other side are too blind to see that they are being used by a foreign
government to get at the Solomon Islands Government. Where is our sense of national pride? Where?
This Prime Minister thinks for his country. I will protect it with my life.
Sir, in line with the concerns raised here and after
listening to the Opposition Leader’s reasons, the motion should really be
worded as, “That the National Parliament of Solomon Islands resolves that
Canberra does not have confidence in the Prime Minister”, or alternatively, it
should be worded “That this Parliament resolves that the Leader of the
Opposition, Canberra and a handful of his disgruntled supporters do not have
confidence in the Prime Minister”.
Of course, these people never have any confidence in
the Prime Minister from the very beginning and therefore it is not surprising
that they now make this position very clear in public, and for very personal
reasons, and for that reason beg Parliament to share their point of view. This side of the House will not share their
point of view.
Sir, this is akin to banging one’s head against a
brick wall because this side of the House is not convinced that the issues the
Leader of Opposition is accusing the Prime Minister about, have anything to do
with his ability or commitment and zeal to get the GCCG to deliver on its program
of action. That would have been an issue
worthy of consideration, not personal attacks.
What this motion is really concern about is the
feelings of
Sir, in fact, the actions and decisions he is
complaining about were taken in the interest of getting government to deliver
on its promises, and therefore are crucial decisions as far as the government
is concerned. Of course, they hurt some
people, even within our group.
Unlike the Leader of the Opposition who is
capitalizing on these decisions and actions to make his point, this side of the
House took them professionally. We are
grown up leaders – professionals. They
are normal day to day matters. I am
surprised the Leader of Opposition is making a fuss out of them.
Going back to my earlier point, it is a fact that this
Prime Minister is not popular with
As a matter of fact,
This is one of the inferences of the Prime Minster,
Howard’s advice that thee will be serious consequences for me personally, and
my Government due to the actions to remove the head of the Australian Mission
to
Sir, I guess what I am saying here, is, as leaders
where do we stand? Do we just allow
foreign governments to do whatever they like in this country and get away with
it? You make your choices, but as for
this Prime Minister, he will not allow these bullying tactics to go
unchallenged. There is so much at stake
here and we cannot afford to be careless in the name of peace and stability.
In fact, it is already a talk around the
That being the case, in consenting to be the agent of
That is understandable because that was their attitude
of the government then ruling from 2001 – 2005, which the Leader of the
Opposition was part of. The reversal of
that status quo is considered threatening, again for narrow, selfish strategic
reasons.
For the disgruntled few, it is just personal vendetta,
which is very sad. It demonstrates that
we are yet to grow up in politics.
For the Leader of Opposition personally, I am
surprised at the very quick pace in which he changed his position on the matter
of confidence in the leadership of the Member for
When I heard about his intention to move this motion,
I was wondering what had happened to the expression of confidence just weeks
ago. I realized after giving it some
thought that the expression of support was made to me when the government was
going through some very difficult times due to the disciplinary action I took
on one of my Ministers.
In fact, I also had a visit by the Member for Rennell/Bellona. He called on to me at my office expressing
the same kind of support (we are all with you).
I now learn that these so-called supports are not genuine.
I am making this revelation, because at that time if I
had offered some ministerial portfolio to them they would have jumped for it
and would have no concern whatsoever for any Ministers that would have become
victims of such an arrangement. So much
for team work.
Sir, but this Prime Minister is not stupid. I am not stupid. Sir, I want to declare on this floor of
Parliament that I owed what I am today initially to the loyal 27 Members of
Parliament who took that vital decision on the 5th of May 2006 and
later the support I got from the Opposition Members who crossed the floor and
are now with the government. I stood on
principles and came out of the crisis unscathed.
This scenario exposed a serious weakness of the
Opposition Leader and his supporters.
That is, they would be prepared to sacrifice anybody for their personal
gain. Therefore, the proposition
advanced by the Leader of the Opposition of “outem leader nomoa and iufala
goet” is a manifestation of glaring hypocrisy.
They never had any principles. This is clearly demonstrated in the positions
they are now taking. The sad truth is,
they have sold themselves to the cunning device of
Indeed, this is proven by the very personal nature of
this motion and the fact that the issues that the Leader of Opposition is now
advancing as the basis of this motion are the very garbage that we had been
hearing in the Australian and local media outlets.
It proved beyond all shadow of doubt that the Leader
of the Opposition and his supporters have consented to be agents of foreign
interests to undermine the political leadership in
Sir, I am seeing here an attempt to repeat what
happened to my counterpart,
In that respect, the motion before us borders on
treason and shows the real colors of the kind of leaders we have in this
country, who would stop at nothing to satisfy their own personal egos at the
expense of peace and national unity.
I am therefore not surprised that the motion is not
about the program of the government but a personal attack against the
leadership of this government. In fact
the Leader of the Opposition made that position very clear when he moved the
motion based on the reasons that, if I have time, I will discuss in the course
of this debate.
Again, it demonstrates how selfish, narrow minded,
anti-development and we can basically say power hunger a person can become that
they are even prepared to go to the extent of sacrificing sanity and common
sense. It is amazing the desire to serve
our own selfish interests could do to a nation.
Just look at us, this Parliament is being held up by
people who could not tell the difference between narrow selfish interest and
national interest, or tell the difference between serving our nation
Sir, I am saying this because the issues that the
Leader of the Opposition is going on about are the very same issues that
Canberra is concerned about and capitalized on by a few disgruntled supporters
of this motion.
Sir, it is conveniently constructed to isolate the
Prime Minister form the members of the Grand Coalition. This is not a new trick, as I will expound
on, if I have to, in the course of this defense. My question to those who are intending to
support this motion, is, how can we leaders be that cheap.
I want to inform this House that I am not cheap. I have never been and will never be. When it comes to a point where I need to make
a decision between serving the long term interest of my country or the interest
of foreign governments, I have decided to stand with the people of
Sir, I make no apologies whatsoever for all the decisions
and actions I took on behalf and at the advice of Her Majesty’s Cabinet in the
interest of protecting our sovereignty and to uphold the principles of Cabinet
Government system. This is clearly
contrary to the unfounded allegations by the Leader of the Opposition that the
Prime minister failed to consult with the members of the Coalition, which I
must, I must refute outright.
In this connection, I am also amazed at the amount of
interest, as I have said, shown by non-Solomon Islanders in this motion. We are hearing comments like, “If we do not
win this motion this time round, we will have to wait for another year”, a
comment by foreigners.
You do not need to have a Masters Degree in Business
Administration or a qualified political scientist to conclude that this motion
is all about protecting the interest of somebody else.
Sir, I want to make it abundantly clear that this
Prime Minister will not allow that to happen, and I do not care what foreign
governments are saying. They can say
whatever they would like to say about this Prime Minister, but it will not
change my resolve to ensure that Solomon Islands remains a sovereign nation and
be respected by our guests in this country.
Talking about treason, Mr Speaker, I am seeing its
manifestation in this motion. If we do
not see that, then something is really wrong with us. I am not surprised, because when people are
blinded by false sense of nationalism and concern for good governance, they
will do anything, including undermining what we represent as a nation.
Sir, the reference to false sense of nationalism is to
counter the extremists who are advancing the concept of ‘
This motion is a perfect example. It is nothing more than a desperate attempt,
and indeed part of an evil strategy, to protect the strategic interests of
foreign forces under the garb of nationalism.
I am also concerned, Sir, in this regard, that the
universal principles of good governance have been severely prostituted that
they become justification for suppressive actions by foreign interests in this
country. For example, RAMSI was allowed
into this country by this Parliament in the name of good governance and yet
when the government pursues programs in pursuit of these very principles, we
are criticized and abused in the media.
What is wrong with us?
It becomes a situation where if the exercise of good
governance would expose foreign interests’ weaknesses in this country, it is
considered an unfriendly act and therefore must be discontinued
immediately. One begins to question our
real motives.
Sir, it is also clear that this country is reeling in
confusion between the demands of two regimes, and we are approaching a point in
time, where if we continue to be careless, the fine line between the two
regimes would become extinct.
The first regime is the
What is shocking is the visible attempt by the foreign
backed regime to systematically nurture Solomon Islanders into disliking their
own elected government, through a well planned strategy that ranged from discrediting
leadership to branding the government as incapable of delivering to the people
because it is eye-deep in corruption. To
guarantee a foot-hold, the country is conveniently branded as a ‘
The sad thing is that the local
sponsors of this motion are not aware that they are being led into it by people
who do not give a damn about good governance, transparency and accountability
in this country, as is clearly demonstrated in the way
Sir, it is clear that there is a
network both locally and abroad that is masterminding this motion, however, the
Opposition may want to deny it. For
example, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) did not hide the fact
that the Leader of the Opposition and his group is supporting
The partnership is bent on achieving
its objectives through an aggressive media campaign conveniently targeting the
ignorant population of
This is very clear in the number of
deliberate misreporting that is going on in the media, both locally and in
Sir, it is sad to see that a once
reputable paper, the Solomon Star Newspaper has allowed itself to be an agent
in this process, and directly working against the people of
If anybody knows about how newspapers
are arranged, matters that appear in the front page are considered
important. By putting government’s
responses to public queries in the middle pages, the Publisher is actively
taking sides with those who are anti-government in the media debate. As the Minister responsible for media in the
country, I am watching this development with great concern.
The pertinent question is, why would
foreigners who are nothing more than guests in this country take interest in
this motion and are actively involved in getting support for it.
There could only be one reason. There are people who stand to lose if the
GCCG under the strong leadership of this Prime Minister continues in office so
they are throwing their support behind the Leader of the Opposition and his
very small group and see this motion and the Leader of the Opposition as their
savior. The sad thing is that the Leader
of the Opposition and his group are too blind to see.
I am surprised that the Opposition
Group in Parliament can be so naďve to agree to be their agents. Where is our sense of national pride? Where?
This country is sick and tired of
puppet governments that have allowed themselves to be pulled by the nose and
are willing to sacrifice our sovereignty.
That is indeed the alternative government that the Leader of Opposition
is impliedly proposing in this motion. One cannot be any more careless than
that.
Sir, we are behaving as if this country has not
suffered enough yet. It is about time
that somebody stands up and says enough is enough, and return the ownership and
control of this country to Solomon Islanders.
Indeed, the actions and decisions that I will be
obliged to explain in the course of my response, and which the Leader of the
Opposition is now questioning on the floor of this Parliament, were taken and
made in the best interest of returning that control and ownership to Solomon
Islanders. I make no apologies
whatsoever for making them.
Sir, it begs the question whether the Leader of the
Opposition and his group still consider themselves Solomon Islanders and have
the concern of Solomon Islands and its people at heart because the way they
have been reacting and behaving themselves suggest that they should immediately
stop calling themselves Solomon Islanders.
I must again ask this question, where is our sense of
nationalism and pride as Solomon Islanders?
What the Leader of Opposition was moaning and groaning about and wasting
Parliament time has nothing to do with the ability of the Prime Minister to
lead as mentioned earlier. He is
confusing strong leadership with dictatorship.
I am also flabbergasted by the thought that the Leader
of the Opposition has allowed his vanity to take the best of him. It is a well-timed motion, capitalizing on
the public reaction to the series of tough decisions that were taken by the
Prime Minister on behalf of the Cabinet.
That brings me to a very interesting point and that is, while the focus
of this motion is usually on the Prime Minister, very little attention is
normally given to the mover. I consider
this to be a very important point.
I am saying this because in moving the motion, the Hon
Leader of Opposition and his group are effectively saying that a better option
is found in their group. This is a
challenge that I dare not pass without sharing my thoughts.
All this nonsense about “outem Prime Minister no moa and iufalla go het” is just a smoke
screen. The Deputy Prime Minister says
it well: How can a person who contested the prime minister’s post and even went
to the extent of resorting to acts that border on undue influence to win the
race will just give away this office if this motion were to be successful. It is nonsense.
Sir, I would have no problem accepting his proposition
to resign or be voted out of this office if I can be convinced that I am an
hypocrite, dishonest, weak, indecisive, lacking in vision, a puppet of foreign
government influences, having no concern for the people of this country
especially those in the rural areas, undermining the country’s sovereignty, and
a threat to peace and national unity.
You prove that to me and I will agree to that proposition.
Sir, I challenge the Opposition to prove that I am
found wanting on these scores. So far,
nothing at all. I believe these are
issues that really matter.
Sir, I am seriously concerned about being accused of
the foregoing which what this motion is really saying. But I would like to challenge the Leader of
Opposition and his supporters to be honest about themselves regarding these
qualities and issues.
Since he is personally attacking the Prime Minister’s
quality based on the principle of confidence, and has been heavily involved in
questioning the moral life of the new Attorney General, he must be prepared to
hear and face up with his own political and moral standing.
The wording of the motion itself is interesting, “That the National Parliament resolves that
it has no confidence on the Prime Minister”. The key word here is “confidence”, which
literally means “trust in a person or
thing”, or “trust or a trustful relationship”,
and therefore carries with it a range of personal qualities and leadership
issues, including leadership style.
In other words, the Leader of Opposition is literally
begging Parliament to doubt and question the Prime Minister’s worth; reliability;
honesty, steadfastness, commitment to principles, respect for the rule of law,
honesty, respect for the country’s sovereignty, and the list goes on.
In other words, what the Leader of the Opposition is
saying is that the Prime Minister is a person that simply cannot be trusted
because he lacks all the qualities of leadership as outlined earlier. By whom
may I ask?
Sir, I sympathize with the supporters of this motion
because they are caught in a situation where they need to be honest with the
people of this country that they are indeed concern about them. The people of this country are not stupid, as
we would like to think.
In fact, the more we are acting like this, it is us
who must indeed be concern about our behaviors in this House. Our people are reading our actions and
decisions like open books.
They know who is hypocrite, dishonest, weak, pretends
to be concern about them when they are in fact advancing foreign interests,
indecisive, lacking vision, and puppets of foreign governments and the list goes
on. I guess what I am saying is, let us
not make a total fool of ourselves in this House and pretend to be speaking on
behalf of the people when we are not.
I am taking this line of debate because in preparing
for this motion, the Leader of the Opposition and his supporters are even going
to the extent of pursuing a tactic of blackmailing and lying.
The MP for Rendova and Tetepari was approached by the
Leader of Opposition with a message that the Prime Minister was going to sack
five Ministers when he returns from
They are even stupid enough to try to get the support
of the Member for Temotu Nende, a staunch supporter of this Prime Minister and
the tough decisions we are taking on national issues.
Sir, I would be concerned about this motion if I am
being accused for undermining our national interest, but I am not. My decisions, which were taken on the advice
of Cabinet, painful though those decisions may have been to some people, were
taken in the best interest of this country, especially those who have been so
attached to the foreign regime.
To those people my advice to them is
Contrary to what I am hearing from the Opposition, I
am not a Prime Minister, who takes pleasure in sacking Ministers for personal
reasons, nor am I depending on outside advice and influence to take such
actions.
Sacking is an action that is reserved only for cases
where a Minister’s actions or inaction amounts to gross negligence or where by
such actions, the Minister is implying that he or she can no longer be a
faithful member of Her Majesty’s Cabinet.
I have so far taken that action on the former Minister
of Commerce, Industries and Employment, because, as I read it, his actions were
clearly contrary to the joint position of the Grand Coalition and therefore a
serious breach of the fundamental principles of Cabinet Government System. But I am just putting him on hold. I’ll decide later on to move him through the
system and back to Cabinet. It is just a
small disciplinary process. That is how
this side of the House does business. It
values all our human beings. As time
goes on, we will do it.
Sir, I was surprised to hear that the reason why I
took the action against the former Minister was because I was trying to protect
the General Secretary of the SOCRED Party, who it was claimed is living
illegally in
These allegations are groundless, and we were legally
advised that the restrictions contained in the work permit could be
successfully challenged under the Constitution and therefore constitutionally
incorrect. The person concerned has a
valid immigration document. In any case,
the court is open for any one who does not agree with our views to challenge
it, instead of moaning and groaning about it.
This is a perfect example of people trying to justify their actions and
not willing to admit their weaknesses.
I am saying this because the recent behaviors and
comments by the proponents of this motion clearly demonstrate that they have no
concern for national issues. These
people are only concern more about issues, which are personal to them and have
nothing to do with advancing the welfare of
On the question of worthiness, this Prime Minister
does not believe in boasting about himself and his achievements, although I can
without reservation say that he has served his country well as a committed
public servant and politician. He was
raised through the ranks of the public service from the humble beginning as
toilet cleaner and tea boy to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue, Permanent
Secretary, Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition and Prime Minister of this
country through nothing less than hard work and sweat. And so understands the hardship that many low
paid workers in this country have to go through to make ends meet. Not like some people who from the university
come and hold the big posts.
This Prime Minister comes through as a toilet
cleaner. But he initiated the first
major tax reform in this country that saw a major shift of the burden of
taxation from direct to indirect tax and the introduction of the goods tax,
which he researched, and drafted the effecting legislation without the help of
the Attorney General Chambers because they do not have the slightest clue of
what to do.
He had guns pointed to his head many times during the
ethnic tension when he was the Prime Minister during 2000 – 2001 but did not
ask to be decorated with medals and titles, and we can go on.
I guess what I am trying to say is, let others praise
you if you are worthy to be praised.
When somebody starts to talk about himself, he is having a serious
problem. I am hurt when my personal
worth as a Solomon Islander who served this country well and is serious about
the long-term survival of this country as an independent sovereign state is
called into question. I have not at any stage let this country down, and I must
refute any allegations to that effect.
Steadfastness is a serious matter too. It carries with it the idea of a focused
sense of direction; a steady leader that is not easily swayed by pressures or
the desire to be somebody. This Prime
Minister is committed to ensure that the development program of the GCCG is
carried out fully by Ministers who have been assigned these responsibilities,
nothing more and nothing less.
This is a serious collective responsibility, which we
as a government had committed ourselves to and we would be simply irresponsible
to treat it lightly.
Our goal is rural development and this government will
not be swayed by anything, or anybody in our endeavor to attain that development
goal. It is a goal that the GCCG is
committed to achieve under the leadership of the present Prime Minister. By moving this motion, the Leader of the
Opposition is effectively rubbishing our joint commitment. Nothing more could have been very insulting,
arrogant and a slap on the face of every grassroots of this country as this
motion.
Commitment to principles, which the motion also
impliedly question, touches at the very heart of what strong leadership is all
about. I feel insulted when somebody
just out of the blue alleged that my Ministers and I are not guided by any
principles. In this regard, I am totally
disappointed at the continual allegation that
Sir, I made it very clear when we took office in May
this year that this government is committed to deal with the issue of
corruption head on. What I meant was
that the government will be supporting and work very closely with the established
system to hunt down those who are corrupt.
In fact, we are surprised that we have been accused of
not doing anything about it, when the targets of the accusation of corruption
are politicians. We are just as
desperate to see the RAMSI Anti-Corruption Unit do its work quickly and lock up
corrupt leaders.
In respect of this matter, we are also concern that
while
We are concern about a possible situation of cronyism
where the agencies employed are reported to be close associates of certain
political parties in
Respect for the Rule of Law that the government under
my leader is impliedly accused in this motion is a serious allegation. In fact, I must refute any slightest thought
by any one both here and abroad that this government takes pleasure in
deliberately trampling upon the laws of this country.
I am not surprised at the allegation of disrespect for
law because the Opposition has been going around saying that the Prime Minister
along with some of his Ministers would be arrested very soon for their
involvement in inciting the April riot.
The Opposition was actually quoted as saying that this
information comes from a reliable source.
I am surprised that we can be so blinded by our hunger for power that we
are willing to sacrifice our nationalism and become helpless victims of foreign
interest.
There is also the allegation that the Government has
misused $1.8 million. What $1.8 million,
may I ask? There have also been
allegations that the Prime Minister operates a “schemes and cults”. I am
shocked by such unfounded allegations that were based on nothing more than the
motive of looking for reasons to tarnish the image of this Prime Minister.
I am also shocked to learn that the government is
soliciting support from the logging companies to support its efforts to defeat
this motion of no confidence. They are
even talking about the government asking $400,000 from logging companies.
I am not surprised at such an allegation because this
is the kind of strategy they have been employing when they were in Government,
may be. The Opposition Leader himself as
proven by documents that we have in our possession attempted to bribe certain
Members here, and I do not want to go into that.
I am raising this concern because I am sick to my
stomach when I hear people advancing themselves as Mr Clean when they know
fully well that they have a lot of cleaning up to do. If the Leader of Opposition and their foreign
masters think that this side of the House is involved in soliciting the support
of financiers to defeat this motion, you better think again.
I want to make it clear that as far as this Prime
Minister is concerned, this Government was established by divine intervention
and we do not need to bribe Members of Parliament to commit their loyalty to
the government. That would be clearly
contrary to the will of God and an insult to him who is our protector.
Sir, he opened the Red Sea when all hope is gone for
the nation of
The outcome of this motion is in the hands of
God. The God that we Solomon Islanders
profess to serve and under whose name, oaths and pledges are taken by Members
of this Honorable House to be loyal to course of our people. How would I a mortal human being, who has
personally experienced his leading throughout my life-time, will doubt him
now. So much for that.
Honesty is a serious matter. It is an embracing principle that extends to
the way we conduct our selves inside and outside of our official duties. It extends to the way we relate to our
families and our wives. This Prime
Minister does not claim that he has no problem on this front. My actions are open but the difference is
that the affairs of this Prime Minister are transparent. It is dealt with through the courts system of
this country.
Can the Leader of the Opposition look me in the eyes
and say the same about himself? I mean
we can go on and talk about issues of personal integrity because that is what
people normally jump to in their assessment of leadership quality. What have been reported to me are serious
Leadership Code issues, which we will leave it at that. If people want to pursue it they can pursue
it.
It was televised in the ABC that the Solomon Islands
Opposition is siding with
I can understand that
Having made those general comments, I am now obliged
to make some explanations leveled at the Prime Minister by the Leader of
Opposition and his supporters. The Opposition’s allegation can be neatly
categorized into five points, as rightly pointed out by the Leader of
Opposition.
(1)
The Prime
Minister abused the sovereignty of this nation in his handling of national
issues;
(2)
That the Prime
Minister interfered in the work of the Judiciary in the setting of the
Commission of Inquiry into the April Civil riot in Honiara and his public
statements on the country’s Judicial system, and alleging foreign interference
in the judiciary;
(3)
That the Prime
Minister used corrupt practices in governance, for example, hand-picking of
public servants, employing own security service at the Prime Minister’s Office;
(4)
That the Prime
Minister has misplaced priorities.
Instead of inquiring into the whole ethnic tension, he merely wanted to
look into the
(5)
That the Prime
Minister has failed to properly address corruption allegations waged by the
Government and supporters on the opposition groups;
These
are serious allegations and I would like this House to bear with me for some
minutes because I would like to explain, may be some of them.
On allegation of abuse of sovereignty, the Opposition
must be joking when they say that the actions of the Prime Minister amount to
abuse of sovereignty. Are we all right,
Mr Speaker? This is a perfect example of
the confused state that the Leader of the Opposition and the supporters of this
motion have allowed themselves to be in.
Are you telling me that the action of declaring the former head of the
Australian Mission to
By the same token, are you telling me that the action
taken against the former AG, who with malicious intentions exposed confidential
information is abuse of sovereignty? We
cannot be serious because these actions were taken in the very interest of
protecting our sovereignty.
If the reference to abusing sovereignty is the way
this Prime Minister used that argument to take the controversial actions and
decisions then I must express my deepest concern about his loyalty to this
country. He apparently does not
appreciate being a member of this Honorable Chamber.
On misplaced priorities: Inquiry not enough to address cause of ethnic
crisis, and I think the Minister of Education has cleared this point and so I
need not to go into detail. On the
allegation of misplaced priorities and failure to address the cause of the
ethnic crisis, I can only refer the Leader of Opposition to His Excellency’s
Speech. The Commission of Inquiry to the
April riot is part of a comprehensive strategy to address the cause of the
crisis. The other two Commissions are
the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, as pointed by the Minister for
Education and of course inquiry on lands in
On leadership style:
The Leader of the Opposition alleged that one of the grounds of the
motion is that the Prime Minister is dictatorial, but not really defining what
he meant by the term. But reading from
what he is on about, the Opposition is claiming that my alleged interference
with the work of the Judiciary, the Police and the Legislature is being seen by
them as dictatorship. It is very
possible that one could confuse strong leadership with dictatorial.
In his latest media interview, the Leader of
Opposition alleged that the Prime Minister is too proud and does not consult
with his Cabinet and Caucus colleagues before taking controversial actions and
decisions. I feel personally insulted by
such a branding.
I do not blame the Leader of Opposition for being very
narrow minded in this matter because he was part of a puppet government for
most of the Seventh Session that he is shocked when this Prime Minister took
the stand to remind Australia that Solomon Islands is a sovereign state and
cannot bow to the dictates of foreign governments.
Sir, I must also refute his allegation that I did not
consult Cabinet in all the decisions I took.
This is a perfect example of basing arguments on rumors. This is the highest decision making body of
the land and we who find ourselves privileged to be its members are expected to
act responsibly. You cannot just go
around making unfounded allegations to support your cause.
Contrary to the unfounded allegations of the Leader of
the Opposition and his supporters, this Prime Minister is a staunch defender of
Cabinet government system, and the rule of law, and will not tolerate those who
think they can undermine it and go unpunished.
So I do not know where this allegation of the Prime Minister not
consulting his Cabinet comes from.
On the Commission of Inquiry: the controversial Terms
of Reference and Interference with the work of Judiciary. Public debate on the Commission of Inquiry
was deliberately taken totally out of context, and unfortunately driven by the
determination of the Australian Government to see that the Commission of Inquiry
is frustrated to protect their narrow selfish interest.
This is very sad, indeed, because RAMSI, which is
dominated by the Australia Government, was allowed into this country by none
other than this very Parliament in the name of good governance, transparency,
accountability and responsibility. By
actively undermining the COI, the Australian Government is basically saying
that it does not believe in what it says.
This is very confusing to me.
This brings up a whole lot of question on the
commitment of
The question of the Commission of Inquiry (COI) interfering
in the judicial process is a non issue, as far as this side of the House is
concerned because the court has ruled loud and clear. To question that process on the floor of this
Parliament would amount to contempt of court.
The Government however is seriously concern that the
discussions and arguments on the COI has been unfairly narrowed down to the
issue of the controversial TORs without appreciating that the COI is part of
the country’s comprehensive peace process which included that Truth and Reconciliation
Commission, and the inquiry land issues on Guadalcanal under the former TPA.
It is the conviction of this government that lasting
peace cannot come to
The purpose of establishing the three commissions is
to approach the peace process through a comprehensive strategy to inquire into
the causes of the problems that the country is now struggling to cope with.
The reason for this comprehensive approach is clearly
demonstrated by the fact that the suppressive strategy entertained by the
country thus far did not work.
I made the point in my address to the nation that one
need not to have a formal degree on conflict resolution to know how to address
our peace process. It must be fully
understood by all Solomon Islanders that the issues that sparked the ethnic
crisis are cultural and custom in nature, not legal.
For any foreigners to think that they will address
peace in
Law and order was in existence in the period leading
to 2000 but it quickly collapsed when Solomon Islanders themselves decided to
take that very law and order into their own hands. Here is a perfect example of the fact that
the issues that promote unity and understanding far outweighs the enforcing of
the law itself and is more sustainable.
It is on this premise that the government is concerned
about the heavy-handed, legalistic approach to addressing the problem of this
country, as clearly manifested in the way the country’s peace process had been
handled. Unless this trend is reversed
now, we will be in danger of driving this country down the path of another
ethnic conflict that could be more serious.
The Engagement of Julian Moti as the New AG: People are talking about the former AG. If there is anybody who has very close
affinity to the former AG, it is this person.
Mr Speaker, he is my in-law. He
married my daughter. The concerns raised
are that the Prime Minister does not have a heart. He sacked people left and right. He does not care about people.
On the issue of the new Attorney General I can only
comment on the question concerning the manner in which he is appointed. The engagement of the new Attorney General of
Solomon Islands was done constitutionally and procedurally, contrary to all the
nonsense I am hearing in the media.
It makes me sick to my stomach to hear Solomon
Islanders pretending to be concern about procedures and the laws of this
country when their very act is supporting the arguments to the contrary makes
them total hypocrites.
The manner in which the new Attorney General was
appointed to the post was consistent with they way all former Attorney Generals
were appointed to the office. As a
matter of fact, the office of the Attorney General is a public office
established under the Constitutional, and Section 42(2) of the Constitutional
is very clear on how appointments are made to the office. The Judicial and Legal Services Commission
makes the appointment acting on the advice of the Prime Minister.
His manner of appointment to the office of the
Attorney General is consistent with the constitutional rationale that the
constitutional office of the Attorney General is held at the pleasure of the
Government of the day, because he/she is the principal advisor to the
Government and Cabinet. Neither the
Constitution nor
It is important therefore in that context that the
holder of that office must be trusted by the government. The position of trustworthiness is so
powerful that it ranks above any other arguments including localization because
it is totally possible for a local incumbent to be untrustworthy. Therefore, in addition to the incumbent being
holder of relevant legal qualifications, he or she must be a person that the
government can work with.
Concerns are expressed that a non-citizen would leak
out state secrets because the Attorney General has access to Cabinet Meetings
and confidential documents and therefore a local incumbent is advisable. I have this to say that the Government had
just gone through hell with a local incumbent in that regard. He has no regard for state secrets. So where does that leave the Government?
I am therefore baffled at the groundless concerns
raised by a number of
The two former Attorney Generals did not make any fuss
when they were asked to move out of the office, and I cannot just see any
justification in the very protective attitude of the immediate former Attorney
General.
The fact that
The Office of the Attorney General plays a crucial
role in the implementation of government programs and therefore the incumbent
must be tuned and amendable to the direction to which the Government of the day
is taking the country.
This is where the Government is most concern when the
former Solomon Islander incumbent was clearly working against the Government on
the Commission of Inquiry and in doing so working against a very important
peace strategy.
If a so-called indigenous Solomon Islander who is
supposed to be concerned about the long-term peace and stability of this
country is working with the Australian Government against the Solomon Islands
Government, where does that leave us?
Do you expect the Government to just fold its hands
and give in to the dictates of foreign governments and do whatever they
like? Over my dead body, Mr
Speaker. This is my country and I cannot
just sit down and allow the Australian Government to continue to bully us over
issues of national importance like the proposed Commission of Inquiry.
This is where I find the new Attorney General
different. Although he is not an
indigenous Solomon Islander, he has more heart for
In this respect, I am extremely disappointed at the
attitude of so-called well to do Solomon Islanders, openly working against
their Government, pretending to be concern about issues of good
governance. They ought to be ashamed of
themselves. It is obvious that many
Solomon Islanders have yet to come to terms with the problems that this country
has gone through and behaving as if everything is just normal. This is shocking and I am asking leaders to
start acting like real Solomon Islanders.
I guess you have to be in Government or even be the
leader of the government like the Member for
I am surprised and extremely disappointed that some
Solomon Islanders and surprisingly educated Solomon Islanders cannot simply see
the wisdom in what their government is doing to address lasting peace in this
country, but would rather work with the Australian Government to undermine
these very important programs. We should
stop calling ourselves Solomon Islanders and migrate to
My point here, Mr Speaker is, this Government of the
people of
It is just common sense, if you cannot work with the
Government than it would be simply inappropriate for the Government to continue
to keep you in service. This is
commonsense, and you do not need any formal qualification to understand.
This is where I find the Country’s new Attorney
General different. He is determined like
the government to go to the underlying issues that caused this country to
collapse in year 2000, which to date have yet to be fully addressed by the
Solomon Islands Government in partnership with RAMSI.
It is obviously that
The absurdity about this whole thing is that Mr Moti
has been going in and out of Australia for the last 10 years after he was
acquitted by the Vanuatu Magistrates Court and yet no attempt was made by the
Australian Government to arrest him if indeed the alleged crime committed by Mr
Moti was serious, as it now appears to be.
The raw truth here, is, that
They are prepared to even shoot down their own
citizens and tarnish their image as they did with former justice Marcus
Einfeld, who has given 40 years of outstanding service to the Australian
Judiciary Service, and it is only when he was appointed to head the Commission
of Inquiry that he became a criminal. He
has 40 years of powerful service.
The Government is aware of a number of high level
corruption that were conveniently brushed under the carpet all these years by
people who have direct interest in these issues. They are dead scared that if Mr Moti took up
the office of the Attorney General, he will expose these corruptions. Just wait for it.
I must at this floor of Parliament condemn in no
uncertain terms the latest action of the Australian Government to arrest the
It now brings into question the genuineness of
Australia’s involvement in the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands
and whether it is now time for the Solomon Islands Parliament to exercise its
powers under the Facilitating Act to review Australia’s participation in RAMSI,
and may be it is now time to involve other regions as Asia in the area of law
and order and the development of the Judiciary.
I want to make it abundantly clear on the floor of
this Parliament that the Solomon Islands Government will not take this
unwarranted attack on our sovereignty lightly.
It is not right.
In fact the government is seriously concerned about
what is clearly a strategy of selective justice entertained in this country as
well, and unless it is put on check now, we will face up with the consequences
in the not too distant future.
In this regard the government is seriously concerned
about the un-Solomon attitude of some well to do Solomon Islanders and until
these people come around to appreciate these problems and where this country is
heading, we will be forever controlled by foreign governments. A perfect ingredient for revolt and
lawlessness.
It needs to be appreciated that what happened on the 5th
of June 2000 is a result of people’s dissatisfaction of development strategies
that were simply insensitive to the feelings of Solomon Islanders. We would do well to learn from the lessons of
the past.
I am extremely disappointed at the attitude of leaders
regarding this matter and as long as I am in position of responsibility, I am
determined to fight these injustices and return the control and ownership of
this country to the people of
On the 100 Days Program (allegation of non delivery of
Promises.
The GCCG is in for the long haul and does not
entertain the childish attitude of political point scoring at the expense of
our people. The 100 days strategy is
nothing more than a load of political garbage which adds more to confusing
implementers who would in all cases confused with what the government of the
day is trying to say in its 100 days program.
We have, as you would hear from the Speech from the
Throne delivered by His Excellency, moved forward in our joint policy
statements to formulating a work program and a development plan that would
address medium and long term strategy of the country.
I would like to take this opportunity to assure all
Solomon Islanders that your Government is fully committed to deliver on its
development strategies which has as its important focus rural development. We therefore have no time for this motion.
Reference is made by some Members of Parliament that
the GCCG is talking too much about rural development and the bottom up approach
development and yet has delivered very little.
This people are either deaf or blind or are simply stubborn and
irrational.
This Government is just five months old. Rural development and the bottom-up approach
to development are a major redirection in national development strategy and
need a lot of preparation. Moreover, it
needs a budget to deliver. Most, if not
all, members of the Opposition Bench and the president of the National Party of
Solomon Islands who criticized the government openly in the SIBC are fully
aware of the budgetary process. The 2006
Budget does not belong to the GCCG, and therefore our hands are tired when it
comes to the use of the allocations.
It is simply stupidity for anyone in this Honorable
House, especially the Opposition to insist that the GCCG must deliver on its
election promises immediately. I am
surprised that people can be so blinded by personal hatred of the Prime
Minister and are even willing to throw away their sanity.
Of course, the government is entitled to tell the
nation what its national development plans and strategies are. Nothing is wrong with that. In fact what we are telling the people of
this nation are what we are planning to deliver through the implementation of
the 2007 national budget.
That does not need an expert in government finance to appreciate. I can understand if members of the opposition
bench and their agents outside criticize the government during the
implementation of the 2007 budget. You
are barking too early.
The Australian High Commissioner: The issue of the expulsion of the former head
of the Australian Mission to
I am surprised that some people in this House continue
to discuss this matter and are over protective of the former head of the
Australian mission to
As a former Solomon Islands High Commissioner to
Just imagine how
Handpicking People for Appointment to Public Service
posts: I was also accused of handpicking
people to fill important posts in the public service. I have this question to ask, Mr Speaker. Do we have any good things to talk
about? If the Leader of the Opposition
is thinking that the Prime Minister will chicken off and make excuses on this
allegation, well I am not.
I stood by the people I appoint to public office. If you can convince me that what I did was
illegal, I do not see why people are so concern about that style of appointing
people to public office.
People who jump up and down on such an issue do so
without giving the matter enough thought.
There is a tendency to associate such appointments with nepotism,
cronyism and corruption. I am fully
mindful of that and if it can be of any comfort to anyone, this Prime Minister
is not naďve and stupid to be easy prey of people who are so narrow-minded to
only look at the negatives in life.
In case we forget, the GCCG is a political grouping
that owes its existence to its ability to deliver on its promises. This is a reality that people who are quick
to criticize government’s actions on this matter do not appreciate. In fact it is easy to criticize when one is
not directly responsible for government’s inaction and failure to deliver.
Political governments survive or fall on their ability
or inability to match their election promises with positive actions. It is important therefore that the people who
are entrusted with the responsibility to assist the government to achieve its
election promises are trustworthy and serve the political government with
utmost commitment and loyalty.
A sensible way of getting the right people is by way
of direct appointment to these important offices. This is exactly what the government has done
in the appointment of the Permanent Secretaries, Attorney General, and
political posts in the Prime Minister’s Office.
And for the record, I make no apologies whatsoever for taking that
action because it is done in the best interest of the Government and its development
program.
Relationship with Colleague Ministers: I was accused
for entertaining a dictatorial style of leadership and therefore my
relationship with my Ministers and colleagues have deteriorated.
Are we running out of any good reasons to justify the
moving of this motion? I am saying this
because I fail to see how I exert my role as the coordinating Minister to
amount to dictatorial. There is a
difference between strong leadership and dictatorial. Strong leadership carries with it the notion
of responsible leadership where error is called by its name and dealt with
firmly.
Dictatorial is irresponsible leadership where the
ultimate objective is absolute power. I
do not see how this Prime Minister could even contemplate such a thought when
our system of government demands and operates on collective decision making
process.
I must refute in the strongest possible terms that I
ever exerted my authority over my Ministers to develop an inferior/superior
relationship.
I am insulted by such inferences. If the Opposition Leader is concern about my
handling of matters relating to the discipline of members of the group then he
is overstepping his jurisdiction.
On the allegation of failing to address corruption, I
am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition is accusing the government on
this. We are also concern that the
so-called ‘big-fish’ are still walking around.
We made it very clear when we took up office that we will cooperate with
the RAMSI anti-corruption squad to address corruption.
On the fear that we may lose Australian aid, I have
touched that issue during the moving of the Motion of Sine Die, and so I do not
need to go through it again.
In conclusion, on the basis of the arguments I have
presented before this House, the only sensible conclusion as to the real motive
of this motion by the Opposition is to please the Australian Government. I am saying this because the domestic and
foreign media were littered with the same issues that the Leader of the Opposition
was moaning and groaning about in the media in support of them.
He is now using the same issues in this honorable
house to justify his argument to vote the duly elected Prime Minister of this
country out of office. I find his
reasoning totally absurd, to say the least, because it directly contradicts his
claim of caring about the future of this country.
I am total disappointed that the Opposition Group who
present themselves as the alternative government or government in waiting as
the Leader of Opposition puts it, can be so selfish and arrogant so as to place
the interest of foreign forces before the interest of this country. In taking that position, the Opposition Group
has declared itself before this House totally unfit to lead this country.
Their real agenda is to place this country further in
the hands of foreigners. I am not
surprised because that was exactly what they did during their term in office.
They were so careless to the extent of giving the full
authority to run this country to foreign governments who hide behind the guise
of having concern for the welfare of Solomon Islanders, when in fact they were
really concern about their own strategic interests in this country. That is gross carelessness.
With all these, nobody in his right frame of mind
would lend their support to this motion.
As long as I am in this position, I will continue to ensure that the
country’s sovereignty is protected.
I have done nothing wrong, my actions and decisions
are as open book for people to see. I
have adhered to the principles of Cabinet Government system and put the
interest of this country before my own.
Accordingly, I oppose this motion.
God bless
(loud applause)
Mr HAOMAE: Mr Speaker, I
shall be very brief. I am prompted to
take the floor of Parliament at the dispelling notion that the Member for Small
Malaita is a chief or not a Solomon Islander.
Mr Speaker, the motion of no
confidence we are debating at this time is in order. I have no problem with the motion. That is the price we pay for deciding to be a democracy. I am used to heated debate in this Parliament
because the grass gets disturbed whenever elephants either fight or make
love. So I am use to such a situation.
Mr Speaker, my intention to
contribute to this motion is not to belittle anyone, especially my friend, the honorable
Prime Minister. I was his Deputy Prime
Minister in a previous government when this country was at its knees. I was also his Minister of Police, Justice
and National Security at that point in time.
I was the deputy Government Leader to the Ceasefire negotiations, and
with the honorable Member for Savo, I was then the deputy leader of the
Government delegation to the negotiations of the Townsville Peace Agreement in
Sir, I will be speaking from the
perspective of a personal conscience. Not
as a member of the government or a member of the Opposition group but on
conscience, as the Member for Shortlands is asking every one of us.
Mr Speaker, we have to use the
mirror of the past to project in the future and so therefore, the issue of
sovereignty has been raised in this Parliament.
My reading of that is that the definition of sovereignty has been made
limited in its application. The fundamental or ultimate meaning or definition
of sovereignty is the government as a country.
In that sense, Mr Speaker, I have served in a number of governments that
run this country. I stood head and
shoulder with the Member for
To say that some members of the Opposition are not
Solomon Islanders is not true. I wish to
dispel that comment.
I have said that the definition of sovereignty has
been made too limited in its application.
In the year 2000 we also have sovereignty. From June 5th 2000 to 2001 I
served in that government and at one point as Deputy Prime Minister and
Minister for National Security & Police & Justice under the present
Prime Minister. There is no member in here
including the Prime Minister had their houses shot at and bullets just missing
them inside their house. That happened
only to me.
My small daughter got sick since that time until
today. I have gone long by around the
whole
I know we have sovereignty at that time, but is that
the sort of sovereignty we want? Yes, we
have sovereignty at that time. But is
that the sovereignty you want or not? I
as the Member for Small Malaita do not want it.
Today my daughter is still sick from that kind of sovereignty and so I
don’t want that sort of sovereignty. What
sort of sovereignty are you talking about?
Do not make the definition of sovereignty too limited in its
application.
The most important and fundamental of sovereignty is
to make us have total power in our country.
At that time only Solomon Islanders run it. There is no outside forces, no Australia, no
New Zealand, no United States, not even our Pacific neighbors. Is that the sovereignty you want?
My family will say, no and the Member for Small
Malaita will say, no. As I have already
said, not one of you, including the Prime Minister had his house shot at like
my house was shot at, but that is when we have sovereignty in the country. We
have sovereignty at that time. Is that
the sort of sovereignty you want or not, may I ask? And so we have to be careful.
The concern of the chief in Small Malaita and their Member
of Parliament is that the peace we have at this time is only a bumble peace,
which needs to be strengthened and sustained.
If we are not careful and that peace breaks down we will return to 2000
and 2001, when my house was shot at. Is
that the sovereignty you want, may I ask, Mr Speaker?
I am not going
to repeat what others have said, but I wish to speak on the particular point
that is that the sovereignty we want.
The Member for Small Malaita said, no.
The people of Small Malaita do not want that sort of sovereignty.
Today I am still watching. I even went to
Sir, my reading of the situation in this country is
that if we are not careful we are going down that road again. There is no Minister in here that has moved
an Amnesty Bill in Parliament, but only the Member for Small Malaita did that. He also moved a constitutional amendment bill
giving amnesty to ex-militants, as the then Minister for Police & National
Security of this country.
Sir, I do not want to see anyone of
us moving that kind of bill in parliament again. I do not want the particular situation that existed
in the country at that time to be revisited by our country again. That is why I would like to caution my friend,
the honorable Prime Minister and his government because collective
responsibility Mr Speaker, if we are not careful can become collective dictations.
I am supporting this motion, Mr
Speaker, not because
Mr Speaker, the peace that we have
now is very fragile and needs to be nurtured, sustained and worked on. Like my daughter who is still sick at this
time, Solomon Islands too is still sick, it has not fully recovered, and therefore
for a sick person to go and fight, to me, is not right because you are going to
be whipped down very quickly. It needs
the cooperation of everyone, the cooperation of the 50 Members of Parliament,
and of our development partners.
As I have said in my contribution to the Speech from
the Throne, if the government’s bottom up approach, your reform or whatever
direction you take the country to, if it is not supported by a wider public it
will not succeed. So the peace we have at
this time is only bumble peace.
If RAMSI leaves tomorrow we will get back to square
one. Because the fighting that happened during
the tension period has nothing to do with
Sir, you mark my words that if RAMSI leaves tomorrow
we will get back to the same situation as in 2000 and 2001. And then that is going back to
sovereignty. That is sovereignty. But is that the sovereignty you want, may I
ask one more time?
As I have already said at the outset, Mr Speaker, that
the definition of sovereignty has been made too limited in its application in
this House. We need to redefine
sovereignty in the national interest of
If the Prime Minister changes direction in handling
the situations, then well and good because I will come along and sit with him
on that side. As I have already said
earlier on I was once upon a time his Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Police and National Security, and so there is no problem with that. But we, Small Malaita people are worried
about this. I must tell you this.
I know the Prime Minister is an honest man because I
served under him, and that is why I am talking honestly to him right now. We are worried and this worry will provide the
direction to where I am going to tender my support on this motion. It is part of the checks and balances of our
constitutional provision.
I want to explain that my vote is not influenced by
any other foreign forces. No, not at all
or by what they call carrot and stick strategy or tactic. My vote is influenced and directed by the
concern of my chiefs and people of Small Malaita and my assessment of the
performance so far of the government.
That is my short contribution and I want to assure you
that I am a pure Solomon Islander. My genealogy
goes back some 10,000 years ago on Small Malaita and the Member for Small
Malaita who is on the floor of parliament now is not a chief. I feel a little bit hurt when comments to the
effects that members of Opposition are as chiefs.
As I have said at the outset I was not supposed to
speak on this motion but because of that particular situation, I have to, on
behalf of my people, explain to them where the position of their Member is at
this point in time. Mr Speaker, thank
you and I resume my seat.
Mr HILLY: Mr Speaker,
at the outset I would like to make my position clear in regards to my position
in this Honorable House.
Mr Speaker, I represent the National
Party in the Grand Coalition Government.
We worked so hard to form the government. Unfortunately, the Party was dismantled by
none other than the honorable Prime Minister on issues of very unimportant
matter.
The Grand Coalition has a very wide, very attractive
policy guidelines redirecting development in the rural areas. That attracts quite a lot of impression from
the Opposition and from the public at large.
Unfortunately, the Party that tries to organize the government was
dismantled. The issue as I said is very
insignificant.
Mr Speaker, in leading up to the
formation of the government, similar voices was heard over the radio that the
majority of people who later form the government support mainland
Yesterday, Mr Speaker, the National Party Executive
formally accepts the resignation of members of the National Party in the
Coalition. The executive of the National
Party has worked very hard for these Members to win their seats in the last
election both in supporting them morally and also financially. Unfortunately, the Party now has no money
because they borrowed the money, which they are still trying to repay until
today. And it was also yesterday that
the National Party formally withdraws itself from the Grand Coalition
Government. In actual fact it was
basically forced out of the Grand Coalition. So it is in this context, Mr
Speaker, that I shall be making my contribution to this motion.
Mr Speaker, in my more than 20 years of being a Member
of Parliament, I spent quite a lot of time with ……. In the early days of our independence, I held
several ministerial posts. About 20
years ago, Mr Speaker, the Government budget was around $100million. I could not recollect well. Today the budget
is about $400million - the recurrent part.
But more than 20 years ago in terms of dollar strength, about $3 Solomon
Dollar is $1 Australian Dollar.
In terms of trying to compare the amount of money the
government is voting for the services of people, in terms of dollar strength,
it would seem that we did much better in those days than today.
The population is quite small too unlike today it is
much bigger. One dollar is not enough in
today’s term and this is why we want every government that comes into power to
make improvements in such a situation. It
must improve the economy to provide for the rapid growing population that we
have.
I had the opportunity, Mr Speaker,
to lead the Government in 1993, though short-lived, but that is a record and I
also had the opportunity to be part of the government that was forced out of office
in 2000, which is also in the records. It
is my only hope that successive governments that takeover the running of this
country must see that improvement are necessary for the development of our
nation.
Mr Speaker, I am very happy to be
part of a very ambitious government that wants to direct development to the
rural areas. But what does that
mean? Because about more than 20 years
ago, the whole country knows about land utilization, meaning people know where
cocoa can grow, they know where coffee can grow, and they know where other
crops can grow.
The government started development in fisheries, sets
up statutory bodies, cattle developments, livestock development, provided urban
housing, which has been a problem area. In those days, copra was the main stay of the
economy. People spent their every day life making copra. If you ask people at home how to make copra
they know it very well. But today all
these things had collapsed. CEMA had
collapsed and every other development that past governments have tried to do
have also collapsed. Now that we want to
redirect development, Mr Speaker, what are we trying to do? These are important questions that I expect
the government of the day to look at.
Does it mean to encourage growing cocoa again? Does it mean to encourage cattle farming again? Does it mean to encourage fisheries
again? These are developments which for
some reason or another don’t seem to work.
Or does it mean going into soya bean growing or ginger. I mean these are end results of what the
government would want to achieve when it establishes its policy guidelines.
Mr Speaker, I find it very difficult
to see how the government is going to carry out its promises. It is a very nice and good policy, Mr Speaker,
but I think the government is spending its time on a different priority. Because of that, I do not believe the
Government is going to achieve its policy ambitions.
Whilst the government is very ambitious and has a very
good policy, I want the government to prove me wrong otherwise. If it can prove me wrong then that is
actually what the country wants. But I do not think the Government will be able
to fulfill its intentions in the policy guidelines of the government.
Mr Speaker, the postponement of the
budget is one of the weaknesses starting to be seen in the government. Why postpone the budget?
If you ask all the Permanent Secretaries they will
tell you that the Recurrent Budget is now ready because there is not much to
say about the recurrent budget. Hospital
services have to go on, civil servants’ salaries have to be paid, the Parliament
has to continue. Perhaps only 10% is added
on to the figure and so there is nothing wrong and nothing difficult about it. But one thing we must be careful about is
that the development budget is still financed by outside donors. We may not agree on asking our outside friends
to help us because sometimes they have their own conditions to the assistance
they give us. But what can we do.
Sir, if we want schools to go on we just have to
accept the conditions. If we want
clinics to remain open we just have to accept their conditions. And it should be, and I see it in the
government policy reduction in aid dependency, as one of the many policy
guidelines of the government, which is very good.
To say that we totally do not want aid but failing to
organize ourselves to implement programs in the rural areas that we want for
our people then that is not telling the right thing to our people.
Mr Speaker, what I would like to say
here is that I do not see the government, in these few months it is in office, serious
about its policies. If the government is
serious enough we should have the 2007 budget now. There is plenty of time in our hands to come
up with the budget.
If the reason for the delay is because we want to
properly organize our priorities, but where are we going to get money from because
all our revenue is eaten up by the recurrent budget and our development budget
is financed by outside sources.
This leads me to another point, Mr Speaker. Yes, we talk so much about
Mr Speaker, I therefore think we should not over react
in our international relationship. We should
maintain our relationship with the outside world so that whilst we know they
have their own interest, as long as we have the understanding that we too are receiving
assistance from them. I think our
relationship should be maintained at that level.
Sir, this is my personal view on our international
relationship, not only with
Mr Speaker, there is a lot of
discussion in this chamber about the weaknesses of RAMSI. I am very sorry, Mr Speaker, that whilst the
Facilitation Act provides for review of RAMSI this year, the government decided
it is not time to do that and we skipped reviewing it this year. I am very sorry because I was part of the Cabinet
when that decision was made because I think there are many things that need ironing
out in regards to the operations of RAMSI.
Today we talked about boomerang aid and the only way
to sort out the boomerang aid is through the review of the Facilitation Act. But I am very sorry that we see it not
necessary to review the Act this year.
Mr Speaker, I do not want to use
this honorable chamber as a court room to say who is right and who is wrong in
regards to the legal arguments going on in the country today. I think we have talked so much about
sovereignty in this chamber and our laws are part of our sovereignty. As lawmakers
and legislators in this House, our first and utmost duty is to be law abiding
people. Therefore, if anyone breaks the
law let the law takes its course. But for
us to attack each another in this chamber saying that someone is breaking the
law or not, is not right because if anyone breaks the law, the law surely will
catch up on him/her - the laws that we in this House pass for the betterment
and smooth running of our country.
Mr Speaker, the passage or defeat of
this motion, whatever that comes after it would be the result of the decision
of this Parliament. If the passage of
this motion will bring bad things to the country, then of course that is the
decision of the Parliament. Or if the defeat of this motion will bring
something bad to this country then that is also the decision of the Parliament.
Whichever way the decision will take us
will tell us whether what we are doing is right or wrong. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr TOZAKA: Mr Speaker,
thank you for allowing me to speak on this very important motion moved by the honorable
Leader of Opposition and honorable Member of Parliament for Central Kwara’ae.
Sir, I thank him for moving this motion and to admire him
of his tenacity, his bravery and his honesty. As a young emerging leader in our
country he is moving this motion to raise some weaknesses of the government as the
basis for this motion.
Sir, this motion is perfectly in order according to
the constitution and it is, as other members have spoken, a check on the
operations or work of the government.
Sir, I also will be contributing a little bit on why I
also will be speaking in favor of this motion, and this is basically in regards
to the leadership style. There are three
types of leadership that I can see. One type
of leadership is where we know there is a problem or there is something is
wrong but we just overlook the problem or we turn a blind eye to it.
Another type of leadership is leadership where a
leader assumes everything is all right and so lives in a world of what is
called a fool’s paradise. In other words,
the leader does not know or care about what is going on because maybe he is uninformed
and also assumes everything is fine.
The third type of leadership is leadership that tries
to find out, assesses and identifies problems and brings up the problem for
discussion openly to see how to go about fixing the problem.
Sir, some colleagues who have spoken
mentioned that this motion was brought in too early as the government still needs
time to settle down to implement its policies.
On that point, time really does not exist here, simply because time is our
way of helping to organize ourselves to keep track on things. I see this as an opportunity for us to assess
the operations and work of the government since it came into power, from the
day it took office until this time.
Sir, having assessed the activities
of the government from day one until this time, there are many
disappointments. A lot of
disappointments have been expressed, and one of such disappointment being
expressed generally here is an important task the government is suppose to be
producing here for the House to consider and approve, which is the national
budget. If the Government had introduced the budget
this year to this honorable House, I would have been very happy.
I am saying this because the response I am getting
from the other side of the House is that the reason why the Government fails to
achieve this very important objective is because the government needs more time
to do the budget.
What I can see here are two
things. One is the production of
policies and the second one is implementation.
The government has competently, as stated by the honorable Prime
Minister, produced its policies and programs which were already brought to the attention
and knowledge of our people at home, especially the concept of the bottom up approach
or driven policies of the government on the concept of the bottom up
approach. Our people are aware of this
and they welcome this policy.
Some MPs, like myself, have taken the opportunity of
going home to explain to our people this policy the government of the day is
going to introduce. I told them that Parliament
is going to discuss the budget for this particular policy for its introduction
early next year during the budget session.
Now that is not happening at this particular time and the reason given for
the delay was based on nothing more than operational matters - matters that have
nothing to do with us or with those responsible to implementing this particular
important task of the government.
Sir, I can see us going back again
to the old style of running the government where at the same time policies are
approved we also want to start implementing the policies at the same time. In other words, we interfere or manipulate very
much our assistance and therefore the policies are not implemented. That is one of my main disappointments at
this meeting of Parliament.
This motion by the Honourable Leader of the Opposition
is questioning the operation of the government in this context. And I think he is perfectly right in doing
that. As responsible leaders, I think we
should listen to the weaknesses this side of the House is pinpointing to the
government.
Mr Speaker, there were a couple of
things raised about the policies of the government, which I too am very
concerned about. The policies have been
interfered with by the government that instead of leaving them to the
responsible authorities to carry out, it has infringed into respective
authorities, which created confusion to our people.
Mr Speaker, one of my concerns too
is in regards to donor assistance. We
talked so much about our heavy reliance on donor assistance. I think we cannot deny that when we become
part of a money economy we are part and parcel of the system.
There is no country in the world or organization for
that matter that does not depend on donor assistance. It is a fallacy if we think so - if I may use
that word - quite strong but it is true.
When we started ruling this country we depended heavily on donor
assistance. That is a healthy relationship
with our partners, and that is the reason why we establish diplomatic relations
with our partners because we must share each others’ resources. We share with each other. What we do not have we have to ask others to
help us.
Mr Speaker, I can see the point that
we should not heavily depend on donors in our developmental activities. I think it is very difficult for us at this
point in time not to do that, especially at this time of rebuilding our nation,
we have to work with our donors.
Mr Speaker, on the point of
rebuilding the nation, some of us will remember what actually happened to our
sovereignty, which I am very proud of it too as a Solomon Islander, but I would
like to see us as leaders taking control of this country. But as you know we came to the time where we
have utilized, used all our resources, and used all our means of addressing the
situation our country was placed in during the time we had this problem, and we
came to the point where all our means of solving the problem was exhausted in
terms of our traditional system, our custom and our religion.
The churches also took part and they also exhausted all
their resources in addressing the problem that we had. And in the end, we decided that there is no
choice but to ask for assistance outside to come and help us.
This assistance was catered for very
well in our region through the Biketawa Agreement, and the
I think the people who have been helping us did so in
goodwill and courage. They come here
with open hearts just for the purpose of helping us. It was us,
and may I repeat, us, who asked the
Mr Speaker, I have had the privilege
of representing our country abroad, and I too look into this country and can see
exactly the problems that we are grappling with at the moment. And the problem I see is ourselves.
The problem is that we know we needed help and we have
the help here in our country now. We
have the donors here. The donors are
here, present in our country, in our soil right here. And we also have the
Mr Speaker, I can see us as being so
conscious about our sovereignty and we tend to forget that we need help. We
need to rebuild this nation because we have lost our sovereignty. We lost our sovereignty and our sovereignty
was brought back to us by this particular
I want to inform the House not to forget what had happened.
It was this House that requested this
Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the
government through this motion moved by the Honourable Leader of the Opposition,
to take stock and ask itself why are these things happening, and to ask the
question whether we are making use of the Mission that has all the resources in
the world that we need to rebuild our nation.
How can we use this
We do not have to ask them to come again because they
are already here - they are already present in our country. We do not have to apply again to ask them to
come.
Mr Speaker, I do not see the logic in us questioning
the countries or the donors that are already here to help us. The leadership should address these issues and
problems directly.
Mr Speaker, I would like also like
to comment on the peace process. Peace
in this country is a collective business of the government and us. What we are interested in is to see peace
take place in our country. I am very
interested myself, as the Member for Vella, to work together with the Government
to see that peace is achieved, sustained and lasts in our country.
The question here is how are we
going to achieve that? Is the way we are
doing things now as leaders going to achieve that peace? I do not think so, Mr Speaker. We need to talk together about this Mr
Speaker. Why don’t we come together,
take this opportunity as leaders to talk about these issues. These are the issues we miss talking about in
Parliament when we come for Parliament meetings. These are the issues we are missing. We are not talking about the real issues
affecting our people. We are just
interested in maintaining the status quo.
We are more interested on how to maintain our respective positions.
Mr Speaker, I would like to inform
the House that the interest of those on the other side is also the same
interest of us on this side of the House. But we would like to see the issues raised by the
Honorable Leader of the Opposition to be addressed by the leadership.
Mr Speaker, the events that have happened
and we are facing at the moment, is a great embarrassment. We have imported international embarrassment
into our country. Don’t we already have
enough problems in our country that we have to engage ourselves in another
problem?
Mr Speaker, is this the way we want to manage, run or conduct
our international relations with other countries, may I ask? No, Mr Speaker, this is
Solomon Islanders are known internationally and known
in our country as well as very friendly people.
We are friendly people, and that is what we are known for. We are happy
friendly people and we are very nice people.
Our country is a very nice country.
Some people call it paradise.
That is what I know whilst living outside on how
outsiders see our country. I am talking a
bit lengthy here on this issue.
Sir, I am quite ashamed of myself that some ordinary
Solomon Islanders have taken the initiative of showing good examples to
us. The ordinary people are doing this
without any financial gain. They are not
getting any perks and allowances like we are receiving for doing that. A good example of this is the ambassadorial
work they are doing through our cultural source in
Another ordinary people in regards
to our youths is our soccer team, which is already in the international world,
from nothing and they are going to take part in international competitions. This is us, Mr Speaker, out of nothing. But
it is out of hard work, sweat, commitment, dedication and discipline in their
work. They are showing good examples to
us.
Now what about us leaders? Can we take these examples, Mr Speaker, and
ask ourselves whether we are doing the right thing. Are we directing this country in the right
direction? Is this what our ordinary
people want from us? Certainly not! If the answer is no, then the next question
is where have we gone wrong. I think we
have to go back to the basics - the very basic things. We have to come back and humble ourselves and
accept the fact, accept the position we are in, whatever positions that I am
and you are in.
Mr Speaker, I know some of the words
we have used in this Honourable House, for example beggars, what can beggars
do? If you are drowning, what would you
do? We are not using this word in its
negative concept.
You see, we leaders always think and look at the
negative side of things. When the Member
for East Are Are referred to
We know that at the end of the day we are still
Solomon Islanders. I am still the Member
of Parliament for
Consultation, Mr Speaker, is a very
important concept. Consultation does not
only happen with our advisers, not with permanent secretaries alone, and not
with officials in the public service alone.
We have the economy. We have many
Solomon Islanders available who can help.
There are resources in the churches, resources from the civil society, resources
from women organizations and resources from youth organizations.
Let us consult with them. When we are about to put into action a
particular decision, we consult with the youths and ask whether they agree with
us or not. Why not! But that is what I am saying, there needs to
be a change of attitude. Ask the youths,
ask the women? Is it right to introduce
this bank? If the women say I agree with
you in principle but we think it should be done this way, then that is a
message for you. Why not, Mr Speaker?
Let us open up because after all we are not that many. There are only 500,000 of us, the majority of
whom are in the villages and only a handful of us in
Mr Speaker, I have spoken long
enough but I would like to make those few points. I have heard the response by the Honorable
Prime Minister, and I can see the leadership qualities I have been talking
about. I think both sides of the House
should look into these issues and try to improve more on them.
The riots that have taken place in
our country are not things that we should look at in the negative sense but they
should be view in the positive sense.
What is the message there for us?
The Honorable Prime Minister himself had said it. Let us look at them and see what are they telling
us to address, Mr Speaker, and we leaders collectively should address them.
Sir, with those few comments I thank
you once again for allowing me to say my bit on this motion, and I support the
motion.
Mr FONO: Thank you Mr
Speaker, for allowing me to wind up the motion.
I am reminded to lower my voice, not to speak in high tones and bang the
table as my Honourable good Prime Minister had done.
In winding up the motion, Mr Speaker,
I would like to thank every Member of Parliament who has spoken on this motion -
both sides of the House. I think what have
been presented on this floor of Parliament, Mr Speaker, is very, very timely in
order for the Prime Minister and the Government take stock of how they have led
us for the past five or six months, and the leadership style displayed. Mr Speaker, I want to categorically
deny as totally false (whatever word is acceptable) the statement by the Prime
Minister that this motion is sponsored by foreign aliens. Never at any time, Mr Speaker, have I talked
with Australian leaders about this motion.
We are purely Solomon Islanders, Mr Speaker. We, the Opposition members are Solomon
Islanders, and we have respect from our constituencies and that is why they
elected us into this House. We have a heart
for our people to say that we do not have sovereignty at heart. That is not acceptable to me - not
acceptable. I do not accept that.
Sir, I am representing more than
20,000 people in my electorate of Central Kwara’ae, similar to provinces, like
the Province the Prime Minister comes from, just one constituency only.
Sir, I cannot accept the Prime Minister labeling me as
a puppet of the Australian Government. I
just do not accept that or the whole Opposition Group does not accept the label
that we are puppets of the Australian Government.
This motion, Mr Speaker, is not of
my own. It belongs to the Parliamentary
Opposition Group, as provided for under the Constitution.
Mr Speaker, I know the Prime Minister and certain
senior Ministers have used this diplomatic standoff between
However, Mr Speaker, if one is to
talk to the private sector, certain private sector representatives, they would tell
you that they have fear that decisions now being taken by the government are
creating insecurity to our nation. Is
that what we want in our promoting of sovereignty? No, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, I am going to be brief. I do not want to go over what have already been
presented in the motion.
Mr Speaker, I am not hungry for power either. And so I do not accept too what my good
friend, the Deputy Prime Minister alluded to that by pushing this motion I am
trying to become a Prime Minister. Not at all, Mr Speaker. Who wants security guards to follow him all the
time so that he does not have freedom of movement?
I do not aspire to become a Prime Minister, and so I
categorically deny that statement or that sentiment alluded to by my good
Deputy Prime Minister that moving this motion the Leader of the Opposition aspires
to become a Prime Minister. No, Mr
Speaker, my time will come.
(hear, hear)
I
have just turned 44 years old yesterday, and I am still young. Of course, in the next election I will stand
unopposed.
(hear, hear)
In
the last election I only had one challenger compared to five and seven in the
last two elections.
Mr Speaker, as a responsible parliamentary
opposition group, we must move this motion to tell our good Prime Minister, to
please take stock of his leadership style because it is degrading our
international reputation, it embarrasses the government and it embarrasses
Solomon Islanders.
Of course, we uphold sovereignty, Mr Speaker. We know we are an independent nation, and we
cannot compromise sovereignty. But then
again there are reasonable ways of addressing sovereignty, and not with
arrogance. No!
Mr Speaker, I feel sorry for members
on the government side. Why? Every time in that is the approach the Prime
Minister is taking in Cabinet, which is also reflected here in Parliament. Some Ministers told me that the Prime
Minister bangs the table, which is creating fear amongst my good ministers. If that is shown here in this chamber, it
would be even shown in Cabinet.
When we address issues or when we
address you, Mr Speaker, I am now scared because instead of just speaking in
our normal voices we are shouting. Mr
Speaker, that is the leadership style we in the Opposition have seen, which will
not, in anyway help our nation to progress forward.
Mr Speaker, when we say that decisions taken by the
government must be in the best interest of the nation, we just have to look at
the appointment of this foreigner to be the Attorney General. Is this in the best interest of the
nation? Are there not qualified Solomon
Islanders who can take up the job? Mr
Speaker, we have many qualified Solomon Islanders who can take up the Attorney
General’s post. Why are we so insisting
on this foreigner with a very bad character internationally to become our
Attorney General?
Mr Speaker, it makes our country become a laughing
stock to the international community.
That is why even the general public, and statesmen like yourself, Mr
Speaker, want some credibility in the leadership of this nation. Maintain credibility in the leadership of
this nation so that it is not being made a laughing stock in the international
forums.
Mr Speaker, I am cautioning the government that there
seems to be a Robert Mugabe leadership of
Sir, I made a call for calmness earlier because it is
not you in the government side that will be threatened but those of us on the Opposition
side. The so much talked-about support
the Prime Minister made here in this Chamber that he has popular support here
in
The Police needs to investigate the raid on the
properties of the MP for Roviana/Vona Vona, the same week he was suspended from
Caucus to see if there is a correlation Mr Speaker or is it an isolated
incident.
I was made a target, and this was made known to me by
my people at the Border. I was told that
if I move the vote of no confidence and the Prime Minister goes down, my
properties would be burnt. My goodness,
what is wrong with me? Do you think they
are going to threaten members on the government side? No, because they are part of the
government. They want to maintain their
government so that supporters are given their dues.
I was not given any answer to my question on why the
security services at the PMO and Treasury were handpicked, Mr Speaker.
Sir, I am giving this very warning that we do not want
to create a
Mr Speaker, I know the issue of sovereignty has made a
lot of Members on the government side to remain firm with the Prime Minister so
that he addresses the diplomatic stand off, which he himself too has created
between
Sir, I believe that leaders should be humble enough to
accept our weaknesses and make improvement to our leadership style so that our
nation can progress forward and satisfy the aspirations of our people who have
very high hope on this government on its bottom up approach on rural
development.
With those few remarks, Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
(applause)
Mr Speaker: The question
is that Parliament resolves that it has no confidence in the Prime
Minister. To satisfy the constitutional
requirement, in that an absolute majority of the vote of Members thereof is
met, we will need to call individual Members’ names to which you will respond
appropriately whether you are for it or you are against or whether you abstain
from voting.
This is a constitutional motion which does not subject
itself to the normal division votes under standing order 42, but in respect to
its importance, I will use that procedure under that particular standing order
to include ringing the bell for two minutes.
I will now ring the bell for two minutes before the
roll call or the counting of heads or however we make it continues.
The bell was rung and the House waits
for two minutes
A
division was called for:
Result
Ayes: - 17
Noes: - 28
Abstentions: -
5
Total - 50
Mr Speaker: The result of
the motion is in the negative and so the motion is therefore defeated.
(applause)
The motion on the vote of no confidence
is defeated.
MOTIONS
Hon SOGAVARE: Mr Speaker,
in accordance with Order 8(4) I beg to move an amendment to the sine die motion
to substitute another date for the statement on the original motion as follows:
Mr Speaker: Permission
granted.
Hon Sogavare: Thank you Mr
Speaker. That at the adjournment of
Parliament on Thursday 12 October 2006, the present Meeting shall be concluded
and Parliament shall then stand adjourned sine die.
Mr Speaker: The amended
motion before the House is that the sine die motion date is being amended to
the 12th October instead of 11th October. Are there any speakers to the motion?
Mr Fono: Mr Speaker,
there are quite a number of reports the government has tabled, and so it is
only fitting that Parliament should be extended to next week to debate these
very important reports.
If the sine die motion is adjourned tomorrow, and these
reports are not debated, I feel that they will not be discussed or debated in
the next meeting next year.
If the Government is serious about Parliament playing
its oversight roles, then these very important statutory reports should be
debated at this meeting Mr Speaker.
I am raising this concern, however, if the Prime Minister
and the Government thinks it has no urgent commitment so as to close the
government business by tomorrow. Thank
you Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker: The Honorable Leader of the Opposition is at liberty
to amend the amended motion if he wanted to formally? Do you want to amend the amended motion to
another date because that is the only amendment we can do with this
motion. We can only alter the date.
Mr Fono: In that
respect, Mr Speaker, I move that we amend the sine die motion so that instead
of Thursday 12th it is put forward to Friday the 13th so
that at least some reports can be debated.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker: The amendment
to the amended motion is that rather than adjourning sine die on the 12th October,
the adjournment be on the 13th.
The amended motion is open for debate.
Mr Huniehu: Mr Speaker,
as the Chairman of the Bills and Legislation Committee, I have given notice to
commit the committee of the whole house to discuss a number of these
reports. In fact the first six or seven
which came to us under the relevant standing orders of Parliament.
Sir, I do not see the wisdom in extending Parliament to
another day because these reports are very voluminous and therefore we would
need about two weeks to discuss the reports.
I just want to put on records, Mr
Speaker, the importance of these reports.
Parliament is duty bound to do its oversight role in ensuring that
reports tabled by Ministers are properly debated and taken into consideration. Therefore, with due regards to the proposed
amendment by the Leader of the Opposition, I consider it not enough and we will
be doing a complete disservice to these reports.
I believe, Mr Speaker, that most
Ministers who tabled these papers in Parliament would like to see these reports
systematically debated in the committee of the whole house, and therefore it
would be in order to allow Parliament a further two or three weeks. I am not proposing for another two or three
weeks for sitting allowances, Mr Speaker, but I can see the importance of
accountability and transparency here.
For example, one of these reports presented to Parliament is a special
audit report into the Immigration Department.
It is very important that we know what is happening in that Ministry in
relation to the accusations leveled at Ministers and public officers in that
Ministry.
Mr Speaker: Could I ask
whether the honourable Member wants to amend the honourable Leader of the
Opposition’s date to any other dates for us to consider?
Mr Huniehu: I am sorry
for taking Parliament’s time but I would like to further make amendments to the
Leader of the Opposition’s motion for Parliament to continue for another two weeks.
Mr Speaker: The standing
order is quite clear that you have to state the date that you would like to make
the amendment, not just two weeks but you have to mention the date.
Mr Huniehu: Mr Speaker, I
would like to concur to the wisdom of the Minister for Education to allow
Parliament to sit for another week and to adjourn on Friday 20th
October next week.
Mr Speaker: The amended
motion as moved by the MP for East Are Are is for Parliament to rise sine die
on 20th October 2006, next week is open for debate.
Hon Darcy: Thank you Mr
Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to contribute to this motion.
Mr Speaker, I am inclined to agree
to the Prime Minister’s motion, and that is to have the sine die motion amended
to Thursday 12th October 2006.
I say this for the very reason that these reports are quite highly
technical. There are some datas in the
reports, which I am sure Members of Parliament will require some time to go
through, analyse and compare with other departments that have been implicated
in these reports. I think we should give
time for Members to study, research and be prepared to come to Parliament and
debate them.
Mr Speaker: Honorable
Minister you seem to be debating on the original motion. We are debating the motion that suggested adjourning
Parliament sine die on the 20th October.
Hon Darcy: Well, in that
respect I am saying that I do not agree with the motion that has been moved to
amend it. I think we should take a break
now and then go and have some time to study the reports and then we can come
back and discuss the reports at a later date when the Government will call
Parliament to convene again.
Mr Speaker, the fact that these reports are tabled now
does not mean that they will be totally out of this Parliament. They are still documents of this
Parliament. So even in future meetings,
any Member can move a motion for Parliament to deliberate on these motions.
In that regard, Mr Speaker, I do not
support the motion to further amend the motion being moved by the Prime
Minister. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Zama: Mr Speaker, I
am inclined to support my colleague Chairman of the Bills and Legislation
Committee.
I am speaking here as the Chairman of the Public
Accounts Committee. We have before
Parliament the 1997 National Accounts which, in my view, should be put before
Parliament to be scrutinized and all of these very out of date reports, Mr
Speaker. But with regards to the timing
of Parliament and the duration it will take, although I support the suggestion
that these voluminous reports need to be properly scrutinized by Members, I do
not think Members will have ample time because they are quite technical and
involved. I think it would be good for
purposes of good governance, transparency and accountability that these reports
are properly debated in Parliament.
In terms of the timing that is proposed by the
Honourable Member for East Are Are and the Leader of the Opposition to try and
move the Parliament Meeting for a further week, in my view, would be
impractical in terms of government business and what the Government has to do
in its work program. I would therefore
agree with the Prime Minister that this House be adjourned sine die tomorrow. If he then gets the concurrence of Members of
Parliament that we have another meeting to purposely deliberate these reports,
then I would go along with that. Thank
you.
Mr Speaker: The question
is that the sine die motion date be the 20th of October 2006?
The motion for Parliament to adjourn
sine die on the 20th October 2006 was defeated
Mr Speaker: Could we come
back to the Honourable Leader of the Opposition’s amended motion of the
amendment? Any further speakers to the
Leader of the Opposition’s motion that Parliament be adjourned on the 13th
of October, which is this coming Friday?
Hon Darcy: Thank you, Mr
Speaker, for contributing to this motion again.
Mr Speaker, I will echo the same sentiments I have said in relation to
the motion that has been voted on by Parliament. Members of Parliament should be given time to
research these reports so that when Parliament next meets, some Members can see
it fit to put a proper motion for Parliament to deliberate on these reports. Because of that Mr Speaker, I do not support
the motion.
Mr Kengava: Mr Speaker,
whilst it is true that the reports need sufficient time to debate, I think the
motion of sine die itself is very important. Only one day tomorrow given to debate it, in
my view, is not enough time for Members to express their feelings and therefore
we should base the extension as to discuss the reports, but I think enough time
as well must be given to Members to debate the motion of sine die.
The one day extension proposition by the Prime
Minister is insufficient. To allow enough
time to Members to debate the motion of sine die is very important Mr Speaker, and
therefore we should end the meeting on Friday. Therefore, I support the Opposition Leader’s
motion of amendment.
The amendment to have Parliament adjourn
sine die on Friday 13th October 2006 was defeated. Parliament will adjourn sine die on Thursday
12th October.
Hon Sogavare: Mr Speaker, I
beg to move that this House do now adjourn.
The House adjourned at 7.15 p.m.