NATIONAL PARLIAMENT OF
DAILY HANSARD
THIRD MEETING – EIGHTH SESSION
The Speaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Kenilorea took the Chair at
Prayers
ATTENDANCE
At prayers all were present with the exception of the
Deputy Prime Minister and Ministers for National Reconciliation & Peace,
Fisheries and Marine Resources, Justice & Legal Affairs, Education &
Human Resources, Police & National Security, Mines & Energy, Provincial
Government & Constituency Development and the members for West New
Georgia/Vona Vona, West Guadalcanal, East Honiara, Ranogga/Simbo, East Are Are,
West Are Are, North Guadalcanal, North New Georgia and Ulawa/Ugi.
PRESENTATION OF REPORTS
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE – PROHIBITED
IMMIGRANT
24. Mr
HAOMAE to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and External Trade: What is/are the reason(s), if any, for
declaring the Commissioner of Police a prohibited immigrant?
Hon OTI: Mr Speaker, the Order issued on the 22nd
December did not declare the former Commissioner of Police a prohibited
immigrant.
Mr Haomae: Supplementary question. The Order was made under section 11 subsection
(2) paragraph (f). The Order the
Minister made to declare the Commissioner of Police an
undesirable immigrant is
order that made him become a prohibited immigrant.
According
to those laws, paragraph (f) cannot stand alone. It is part of subsection (2) of section
11. It is not a stand alone provision,
and if the Attorney General (Acting) can enlighten us on this.
The
fact that the Minister declared the Commissioner of Police undesirable, by
implication makes him a prohibited immigrant.
Because section (f) is the source of power that is laid under paragraph
(f) derives from subsection (2) of section 11 of the Immigration Act.
Mr Speaker: Could you formulate your question please?
Hon Oti: Mr Speaker, point of order. That is exactly why I responded the way I did
because he has to rephrase that question to reflect on those legislations.
Mr Haomae: Mr Speaker, the fact that the Minister
declared him undesirable under paragraph (f), is it not embraced by the
provisions of section 11 which deals with prohibited immigrants?
Hon Oti: You can find the definition of ‘prohibited
immigrant’ under the Deportation Act.
That Order was issued under Cap.60 of the Immigration Act, and therefore
those two do not relate to each other.
They are independent. One is not
consequential to the other. You cannot
issue a prohibited order without declaring the person undesirable.
Mr Haomae: Mr Speaker, if the Attorney General can
assist here. Is paragraph (f) of section
11 subsection (2) a stand alone provision?
Attorney General (Ag): Mr Speaker,
it is a stand alone provision because under the Deportation Act a prohibited
immigrant is a person who has entered
Mr FONO: What are the reasons for allowing the Commissioner
to go overseas first before he was declared undesirable? Why wasn’t he declared undesirable when he
was still inside the country and deport him?
What are the reasons for that?
Hon Oti: Mr Speaker, it was not because he was
overseas, hence my issuance of the order.
His going overseas was on his normal leave. My issuing of the order was irrespective of
whether he was overseas or not. If he
was still here then of course he would have been dealt with under the Deportation
Act as made reference to by the Attorney General.
Sir KEMAKEZA: Mr Speaker, what are the reasons? You have not told us the reasons. Whether or not he is undesirable or whatever,
what are the reasons of these differences?
Hon Oti: Mr Speaker, I would have to base my reasons
on the appropriate legislation. The
question was framed on a different legislation which I do not have the response
to.
Mr TOZAKA: Mr Speaker, on the question of this
appointment, his appointment is subject to another independent body. Was a decision already made in terminating his
appointment before the Minister made the decision of him being an undesirable immigrant?
Was
any decision made on his appointment as the Commissioner of Police by the
independent body before this decision was made by the Minister wearing his hat
as the Minister responsible for Immigration?
Hon Oti: Mr Speaker, the appropriate legislations that
we applied in this case has nothing to do with appointments, disciplinary
proceedings or considerations. These are
under the purview of different authorities and treated under different laws
particularly the Constitution. It has no
relationship neither was it tangential to any disciplinary proceedings that may
have been put in place or applied at that point in time. This was a totally independent stand a lone
action based on the laws in question.
Mr
Hon Oti: Mr Speaker, that would be the responsibility
of different authorities. At this point
in time the person in question has been retired from the Australian Federal
Police as of the 19th February, and then of course whether or not
this law will still apply. Mr Speaker,
on the same section the burden of proof that he should not be declared as such
lies on the person, so it is not incumbent on the state or the government to
justify those actions. It is up to that
person to show cause as to why he cannot be declared as such.
Hon Fono: Mr Speaker, that provision can only apply to
expatriates considered of criminal elements in the country. The Commissioner is a public officer who is
enforcing the law. The justifications of
that order is what the Minister needs to tell the nation through this
Parliament as to the reasons why he was declared undesirable. Reasons like, the Commissioner was involved in
criminal things like this and that is why he was declared an undesirable
immigrant. That has not really come out
clear.
Hon Oti: Mr Speaker, according to the provisions of
the law in question, no. They do not
have to be declared criminals.
Mr Haomae: Mr Speaker, can the Minister consider the view
that the former Commissioner is allowed to come into the country so that the
principle of justice prevails?
Hon Oti: Mr Speaker, as I said, of course, if he has
to seek redress for actions that have been taken by the state, as I have
mentioned earlier, the burden of proof in the same law lies in that person and so
he can be accorded the right to defense himself if he so wishes.
Sir Kemakeza: Mr Speaker, now that the former Commissioner
has retired from the Federal Police, and if he decides to come to
Hon Oti: Mr Speaker, in so far as the law requires, of
course, I do not have any say on that. We
have to abide by what the law says. If
you know what the law says then you can tell us so that we can do it.
Mr Fono: Mr Speaker, can the Minister confirm that the
sole reason for declaring the former Commissioner undesirable is because during
his posting here he instigated the investigation into the suspended Attorney
General for which the investigation led to the Police raiding the Prime
Minister’s Office? That is the main
reason for declaring him as an undesirable immigrant. Can the Minister confirm that to the House?
Hon Oti: Mr Speaker, I categorically deny those reasons
as the reasons for the declaration on the 22nd of December.
Mr Tozaka: In the good effort of the Ministry trying to
normalize relationship with
Hon Oti: Mr Speaker, these are the laws of
Mr Haomae: Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for Foreign
Affairs for answering the question, but I will submit another question under
undesirable immigrant.
SUPPORT – LOCAL CHINESE BUSINESS PEOPLE
36.
Mr FONO to
the Minister of Finance and Treasury:
Has the Government given any financial support to the local Chinese business
people who lost their properties during the April riots?
Hon DARCY: Mr Speaker, my response is, no. There has not been any financial support
given to any Chinese business people.
Mr Fono: Mr Speaker, has anyone of them requested
government assistance since the burning down of
Hon Darcy: Mr Speaker, no, they have not asked for any
financial support but they did ask for incentives to reconstruct.
Mr Fono: What about their Solomon Islander employees
who suffered loss of employment; is there any policy by the government for
assistance to support them a little bit because they are Solomon Islanders who
lost their jobs during the crisis?
Hon SOGAVARE: Mr Speaker, the issue of compensation to the
event surrounding 18th April is a subject of one of the clauses of
the Commission of Inquiry, which requires the commissioners to establish if
there is any compensation to be paid to the people who have suffered during the
riot.
Mr
Speaker, until the commission of inquiry sits and deliberates on the issue and
come up with its findings, the issue of compensation is premature at this point
in time.
Mr Fono: Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of Finance
and the Honorable Prime Minister for giving those answers.
OUTSOURCING DRAFTING WORK – NON PUBLIC
SERVANTS
42. Mr
ZAMA to the Minister for Public Service:
Is your Ministry and other Government Ministries out sourcing drafting
work to non public servants, and if so why is the Legal Draftsman not providing
this service to your Ministry and other Government Ministries?
Hon SANGA: Mr Speaker, the first part of the question as
to whether my Ministry or other Ministries outsourced legal drafting work; the
answer is yes.
The
answer to the second part as to why the Legal Draftsman has not provided this
service, my Ministry is currently working on a new bill to be called the
Solomon Islands Public Service Foundation which will address public officers’ superannuation,
welfare enhancement and pension scheme. This
is a major bill that is still in draft form.
The draft that we have so far has 61 clauses with three schedules
attached to the bill. As I said this is
a major undertaking which is currently outsourced to a local former public
officer who is a qualified draftsman.
The
other outsourcing was done by the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock in
conjunction with the Ministry of Lands and Survey. This is to do with the drafting of an
important regulation to the Land Recording Act which now allows for the survey
and later acquisition of customary lands in the
Mr
Speaker, I must point out that without the regulation, the oil palm project
could not have progressed beyond the survey ceremony that was launched at Auki
last Saturday.
The
other thing I wish to point out is that the draft bills and the regulations
will be vetted by the Legal Draftsman before they are accepted. This is to ensure consistency and to avoid
any conflict with other laws.
Mr Zama: Mr Speaker, what is the cost to government
for this outsourcing exercise?
Hon Sanga: For each work on the different bills and
regulation, it is about $38,000 for the drafting.
Mr Haomae: Mr Speaker, the outsourcing that the ministries
are doing, are they engaging non public servants by contact or not? Is there a contract with non public officers
in the ministries to do this work for the government?
Hon Sanga: Mr Speaker, the outsourcing work was done by
this non public officer. He is a well qualified
person. The bill that has been processed
by my Ministry gets the consent of Cabinet to outsource the work and also with
the consent of the legal drafting office.
Mr Gukuna: Mr Speaker, by the figures the Minister has given
it looks like it is a very reasonable cheap option rather than the other one,
which is very expensive.
Does
the Minister intend to pursue that to fully outsource legal drafting in the Public
Service?
Hon Sanga: Mr Speaker, there only two qualified legal
drafting people in the country who are well trained and qualified as
draftsman. They were formally public
officers but have left the Service and are now in private practice. We continue to rely on them because of their
knowledge and expertise on local legislation.
Mr Zama: Mr Speaker, on Tuesday we heard the amount of
money paid to the Legal Draftsman as salaries and other benefits, which is
quite a substantial amount of money. Those
that are now currently doing this outsourcing exercise are former employees of
the Department.
Mr
Speaker, in my view, one of the reasons why these people left the Department is
because the current incumbent has been a stumbling block in the Department. With those reasons, for us to continue
outsourcing work when this person is very highly paid, in my view, is
unrealistic and needs to be reviewed and scrutinized in the future.
With
those, Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for his answers. Thank you.
Question No.47 deferred
BILLS
Bills – Second Reading
The Governors-General
(Pensions and Benefits) Bill 2007
Hon SOGAVARE: Mr Speaker, I beg to move that The
Governors-General (Pensions and Benefits) Bill 2007 be read the second
time.
Sir
the intention of the bill is straightforward as clearly outlined in the objects
and reasons, and of course, the preamble to the Bill which says; “It seeks to
provide pensions and other benefits for persons who ceased to hold the Office
of Governors-General and for their widows and children and to provide for matters
incidental to the foregoing or connected therewith”.
Sir,
I know that this Bill will receive mix reactions from Members of the House. This is expected because when we are talking
about committing public funds to an expenditure item that, I guess in our
estimate may be seen as out of the normal, but I must appreciate that view. In fact, the House has a duty to ensure there
is justification for expenditure of public funds.
But
this Bill does more than just creating another expenditure item in the budget. Instead it raised a fundamental issue that Members
of this honorable House are being challenged to acknowledge. That being, Mr Speaker, the duty of the State
to look after former Heads of State. I
guess the pertinent question is should the State take on that
responsibility.
Sir,
the Government is of the view and indeed convinced that the State is obliged to
carry that responsibility. There is also
the question of how far should the benefits be extended. The government is of the view that it is
reasonable to extend the benefits to the widow and children of the former
Governors-General.
Mr
Speaker, the Office of the Governors General is the highest public office in
the land and the holders of that office must be accorded the due respect they
deserve during and after their term in the office.
Sir,
we also have a duty to ensure that the respect due to that Office is maintained
through the person of the holders of that office. This Bill seeks to facilitate that by placing
the responsibility of looking after former Governor Generals on the State thereby
giving them no reason to compromise the status of the office they once
represent by seeking other employment because of financial pressures. They are statesmen and must be accorded the
due respect they are entitled to.
In
fact Sir, unlike other holders of public office, former Governor Generals are accorded
the same protocol even after they left office.
This is even stronger reason why the welfare of former governors general
should remain the responsibility of the State.
This
Bill seeks to acknowledge the responsibility of the State and therefore the
people of
The
rate of the pension is 60% of the salary paid to the current incumbent. This amount shall be paid out of the
consolidated fund and spread out and paid on a fortnightly basis.
Section 6 of the Bill
provides that the widow of the pension shall also be entitled to 40% of the
total pension as long as she or he does not remarry. Mr Speaker, the Bill also ensures that the widow
of the Governor General exercises duty of care to the children that are left to
the care of the widow.
Section
7 prohibits the application of the pension for any purposes other than for the
purpose of satisfying government or payment ordered by the court.
The
Bill also accords the following benefits:- A terminal grant of $75,000.00 to
the Governor General. The spouse of the
Governor General shall also be entitled to 50% of the amount paid to the
Governor General as terminal grant.
The
Government also Mr Speaker, is obliged to provide official residence free of
rent to the former Governor General, water, gas and electricity also to be paid
by the government. An official vehicle
for use in connection with his normal duties is also provided for under the Bill. Medical treatment as prescribed from time to
time for public officers. The former
governor generals are also entitled.
They are also entitled to receive protocols, courtesies, and benefits
spend on national side.
Mr
Speaker, as I said this Bill has noble intentions and I see no reason why it
should not receive the support of the House, and I beg to move.
(The Bill is open for debate)
Mr FONO: Mr Speaker, first of all I would like to thank
the Honorable Prime Minister or the government for that matter for seeing it
fit in bringing this Bill to Parliament.
Sir,
this Bill has very noble intentions, which is long overdue. In my view, I see it as very important to
recognize the important role that former governor generals as Head of State are
playing in our country in looking after our constitution.
This
Bill as introduced by the Prime Minister is straightforward. We have seen former Governors General after losing
office also seek employment, to some extent lowers their status as Head of
State of our nation since
Mr
Speaker, the general content of the Bill based on the recommendation of the
Bills and Legislation Committee, the areas of concern are important for
consideration in terms of precedence that this piece of legislation might
create, which I believe when passed may be Prime Ministers of this nation also
need to be given some recognition in terms of their entitlements or benefits
after they leave office.
Sir,
it is very important that respect is given to our former head of state as well
as former leaders of the government in our nation since independence. Since this Bill will go through,
consideration would also be made on former Prime Ministers of this nation.
Sir,
I believe with a developing nation like
Sir,
one reservation I see here is the grants that the spouse is entitled to. This needs some clarification because
whatever benefits may be only attributed to the office holder. The benefits that the office holder gets will
be shared by the family.
Another
point worth noting is on the official residence under Section 10. To me this should be optional to a Governor
General upon retirement does not like to settle in Honiara, a retirement home in
his/her home village should be considered according to his choice. There should be some flexibility here.
I
doubt it very much that anyone upon retiring would like to retire in
Apart
from that, Mr Speaker, the other remunerations or benefits are straight forward
according to objects and reasons for the Bill.
Mr
Speaker, on section 9, I think rather than basing the terminal grant on the
Prime Minister’s salary as mentioned in in the Bill, “equivalent to and payable
to a Prime Minister under the current PER, there should be a certain fixed
amount or percentage on the package or the basic salary that the Governor General
is receiving at this time.
Those
are the concerns I see in the Bill, and there should have been consultations
done in the first place before finalization of this bill for tabling.
However,
Mr Speaker, as I have said earlier I will be brief. This Bill has a very noble intention in
recognizing the important role that our former Governor Generals and the
current incumbent have played as Heads of State in our nation.
With
these few comments, Mr Speaker, I support this Bill.
Hon Sogavare: Mr Speaker, I guess silence connotes support
for this Bill. I thank the Opposition
Leader for contributing to the Bill and for the views that he expressed. In fact the intention of the government is to
continue to look at other important offices as well. We have looked at the Office of the Speaker of
Parliament as well as later on may be former Prime Ministers and even Members
of Parliament. There needs to be
improvement to pensions due to Members of Parliament after serving our
constituencies as Members of Parliament.
There needs to be a lot of improvement in that area to recognize all the
heartaches and headaches that Members of Parliament have to go through in
running the affairs and duties, and of course, Ministers of the Crown when appointed
to portfolios.
The
concern raised by the Leader of Opposition on the spouse, the government is of
the view that where there is great man there is always a very supportive wife
behind. First Ladies are also engaged in
a lot of official duties and so the government feels that the support they are
giving to the Governor General should also be recognized.
With those, Sir, I note that this Bill receives
overwhelming support and so I beg to move.
The Governors General (Pensions and Benefits) Bill
2007 pass its second reading
Bills – Committee Stage
The Governors General
(Pensions and Benefits) Bill 2007
Clause 1 agreed to
Clause 2
Mr Fono: This clause seems to interpret that even if a
Governor General is in office for one year and died, is he entitled to this
pension? Is that the interpretation here,
of less than one year?
Hon Sogavare: Mr Chairman, it sets the minimum period for
the former Governor General’s to be entitled.
Yes, he is correct it is not less than one year whatever happens to him.
Clause 2 agreed to
Clause 3
Mr Fono: Can the Government calculate the cost from
independence until now as of our former Governor Generals and provide that
information to Parliament? It will be
interesting to know how much public funds will be used for our former Governor
Generals since independence until now so that MPs are aware of such
information. I am pretty sure the
calculations can be done based on the entitlements provided for in this Bill.
Hon Sogavare: We can do that. In fact we have a purpose to start paying former
Governor Generals. We have provided
$1million in this year’s budget to cater for this, but that information can be provided
to the House.
Clause 3 agreed to
Clauses 4 & 5 agreed
Clause 6
Mr Rini: My reading of this clause seems to imply that
a Governor General is always a male.
What about if a Governor General is a female? Would that section also apply?
Hon Sogavare: I guess we could refer to the General Interpretations
Act to establish that in reference to widow and in its place a widower, as the honorable
Member rightly pointed out we might have a lady Governor General in
future. That is how we see that but we
can resort to the General Interpretations Act that to establish that if it also
applies to the Governor General being a lady.
Clause 6 agreed to
Causes 7 & 8 agreed to
Clause 9
Mr Gukuna: The concern has been raised in the speech of
the Leader of Opposition, and this is on the tying of the terminal grant with
the Prime Minister’s salary, which is really effectively also tying this
payment to the PER. I just wonder
whether it is correct to be determining the Governor General’s terminal grant
to the PER.
Hon Sogavare: The advice is that it is legally right to do
this. It is just to determine the amount
of the terminal grant that is to be paid.
That is all it is. If the Prime
Minister’s salary increases it will also be in line to that increase. It is just reasonable to do that because he
lives in the same environment and that Prime Minister is living in. We are to ensure that he is not disadvantaged
in anyway. It is just a way of
establishing how much to pay.
Clause 9 agreed to
Clause 10
Mr Gukuna: Clause 4 talks about pension that if the
person concerned takes up an alternative employment, the pension will cease. What about housing and vehicle? Should we treat them the same as pension or shall
he continue to live in the official residence?
Hon Sogavare: Mr Chairman, we take to mean that if he is
appointed to other public office he will be remunerated under that public
office he takes up.
Clause 10 agreed to
Clause 11
Mr Tozaka: The last sentence there, ‘with his normal
duties’. Is this in relation him being provided
with a vehicle when he undertakes any assignments on behalf of the
government? Is that the basis of
allocating him with a vehicle?
Hon Sogavare: Discussions we have held with former Excellencies
reveals that sometimes they are assigned with some duties in their status as former
Governor Generals. They have to do that
going around walking and so we feel we should also attach the use of vehicles
as one of the benefits under this new arrangement.
Clause 11 agreed to
Clause 12
Mr Fono: Would this medical treatment also include
overseas medical treatment?
Hon Sogavare: As the clause suggests they are entitled to
medical treatment as prescribed from time to time for public officers, which
also includes overseas treatment.
Mr Gukuna: We all understand that the Governor Generals
as part of their life will get old. I
think this provision while it is appreciated it needs to go on a bit further
because the Governor General will retire at old age. Is it possible to be specific on the condition
other than linking up to public officers because in my understanding a public
officer is not heavy.
Hon Sogavare: Can the MP for Rennell repeat his question?
Mr Gukuna: I appreciate this clause but in my view by
the time of their retirement age, most of the Governors Generals are in old
age, and I think this provision is not deep enough to provide for that old
age. I am just wondering whether we can
set a condition that is specific – the condition of retiring. In my view, to link it to public officers is
what we normally would think about the public servants, which is not too heavy,
a very light one with due respect to the fact that the Governors General are
getting older at this stage, their retirement should be specific with their
conditions. I wonder if we can improve
on this provision.
Hon Sogavare: That clause is general enough to maneuver
within. I think we can fit in the
concern raised by the MP for Rennell as it is a very important point
Clause 12 agreed to
The Preamble agreed to
Parliament resumes
Hon Sogavare: Mr Speaker, I beg to report that the
Governors General (Pensions and Benefits) Bill 2007 has passed the Committee
Stage without any amendments.
Bills – Third Reading
The Governors General
(Pensions and Benefits) Bill 2007
Hon Sogavare: Mr Speaker, I beg to move that the Governors
General (Pensions and Benefits) Bill 2007 be now read the third time and do
pass.
The Governors General (Pensions and Benefits) Bill
2007 passed its third reading.
MOTIONS
Motion of sine die
Hon SOGAVARE: Mr Speaker, I beg to move that at the
adjournment of Parliament on Friday 23rd of February 2007, the
present meeting shall be concluded and Parliament shall then stand adjourned
sine die.
Mr Speaker, this sitting of Parliament is committed to
the 2007 Appropriation Bill 2007, and I would naturally like to focus this
presentation around some of the issues raised in the House by those who have
spoken to the debate on the bill.
Mr Speaker, in dong so, I would like to first of all,
take this opportunity to thank the Minister and his staff for the job well
done. It is not an easy task but the
Minister has demonstrated his worthiness.
Thank you very much my Minister.
Mr Speaker, I would also like to take this opportunity as
well to thank my Ministers for the excellent manner in which they have defended
the budget to its successful passage. I
also thank your office and that of the Clerk for the excellent arrangement of
the meetings.
Mr Speaker, so much have been said about the 2007 budget
by the other side of the House. I find
the contribution of the Opposition spokesman on Finance and other senior
members of the Opposition particularly interesting. The spokesman for Finance must have written
his speech before the Minister delivered the budget because most of the issues
he raised were actually addressed by the Minister.
Mr Speaker, with the indulgence of the House, I would
like to comment on the Opposition’s main criticism of the budget as follows:
Mr
Speaker, they are concerned that the 2007 Budget does not emphasize
security. This is a very valid concern
because it is concerned about the environment within which the budget will be
implemented.
Mr
Speaker, it is clear that the concern about the lack of emphasis on security is
based on the narrow understanding of the road to peace that is prevalent
amongst many Solomon Islanders, including those who are here to help us.
Mr
Speaker, I do not blame Solomon Islanders for thinking that way because they
are framed into that mindset. There is a
perception that this country is only safe with the presence of foreign forces
because we can no longer trust ourselves.
That is very sad. Mr Speaker, I
find that very disturbing.
The
last thing that we Solomon Islanders would want is to distrust ourselves. In fact trust is the essence of national
survival and coexistence and we would be simply irresponsible to disregard it.
Mr
Speaker, I would like to emphasize that this country is talking about adopting
the state government system, and it is of paramount importance that we adopt it
on a united front, and trust is a fundamental ingredient to fostering that national
unity. Mr Speaker, I thought I express
this concern at this juncture to underpin the importance of trust and
confidence in our own people.
Mr
Speaker, going back to the concern raised by the Opposition about security, I
am afraid I just have to describe it as a very narrow minded view. Security issues are much broader than what Members
of the Opposition or any one else in this House may have in mind.
Mr
Speaker, in fact security threat to the nation has domestic and international
faces. On the international front, all
we could do as a country is to cooperate with the international community to
make the world a better place to live in.
Mr
Speaker, the country does that through our participation in the international
effort to fight transnational crime and terrorism. The greatest contribution that we can make as
a country in the global strategy is to avoid
Mr
Speaker, in the domestic front the situation is much more complex than what we
think the position is. In fact the
concern for security encompasses the social, economic, religious, and cultural
dimensions. Therefore, there is no one –
model solution to the problem.
Mr
Speaker, that is not to say that we should simply put our hands up and
surrender. No. At least this government is not going to do
that. I want to assure the people of
this country that the government is concerned about the safety and security of
our people.
Mr
Speaker, because of that, what the government is saying is that the concern for
security is synonymous with the need to sustain the peace process. In fact they are inseparable. People who are economically suppressed have
an inclination to improve their economic positions through unlawful means. That has been proven time and time again in
the world.
Mr
Speaker, what we are saying is that the first and most effective way of
addressing the security of the country is to go beyond the suppressive and
confrontational strategies where we only deal with the lawbreakers and disturbers
of peace to address the underlying issues that continue to threaten our peace
process.
Mr
Speaker, we have 28 years of lessons to learn from. It is common knowledge that the issues that
brought the country to its knees are predominantly development in nature. That is why the government is concerned that
the heavy institutional and capacity building focus of the present RAMSI
assistance may not be addressing the issues that really matter. The government will be working very closely
with RAMSI under the proposed review to refocus the emphasis of RAMSI on this
matter.
Mr
Speaker, I guess what I am saying in the context of the subject under
discussion here is that the government is taking a comprehensive view on the
issue of security. We believe that the
acts of lawlessness are responsive actions and therefore we would only be
wasting resources, time and effort if we overlook development issues.
Mr
Speaker, this is exactly what the 2007 Budget is determined to do. It addresses the issues by appreciating the
existence of different delivery agents and seeks to encourage a partnership
approach to addressing the development needs of the country. Development here is used in a broader term,
to include social, economic, cultural and religious development.
Mr
Speaker, the concern for long-term security also extends to the distribution of
investment opportunities in the country.
We must avoid putting our eggs in one basket, thereby repeating the
mistake at the domestic level – the mistake of the last 28 years which saw the
economy in a hopeless situation when the seat of government and commerce was under
siege.
Mr
Speaker, secondly, for some reasons, and without regard to the government’s
position on the matter, the Opposition is bogged down in what it wants to
describe as the deteriorating state of our diplomatic relations with Australia
and is arguing that the success of the 2007 budget will depend on the
relationship normalized.
Mr
Speaker, whilst the Government fully appreciates this concern, it would be
totally absurd to attribute the non-performance of the budget to the fact that
we have a diplomatic stand-off with
Mr
Speaker, the Opposition went straight for the trees and missed the forest on this
matter. A perfect example is the fact
that the group is still moaning and groaning about issues that the government
has fully explained to the people of this country as to why it took the
decisions.
Mr
Speaker, we fully appreciate that Solomon Islanders have the democratic right
to express concerns but for these very few individuals to go on and on, and on
expressing their concerns, especially when other Solomon Islanders do not share
their view is simply absurd on their part.
For a premier to threaten break away is even worse. It amounts to sedition.
Mr
Speaker, contrary to the argument that the issues are compromising our position
on matters of good governance, the opposite is indeed the case. Our actions are premised on the very
principles of good governance and respect for constitutionally established
institutions in the country.
Mr
Speaker, moreover, there is also the concern for mutual respect for the
sovereignty of our two countries. It is
a cardinal principle of international relationship that countries respect the
rights of each other to exist as independent nations.
Mr
Speaker, in this regard, I was amused by the Opposition’s plan as the basis for
a motion of no confidence. They jump
straight to the normalization of the relationship as the primary pillar of
their plan of action as if this government is not addressing it. I want to call on the Opposition Group to
grow up and act like leaders and adults instead of acting like kindergarten
students, and stop misleading the people of this country.
Mr
Speaker, thirdly, the Opposition Group is still bogged down with aid donors and
is seem to be suggesting that we should continue to be dependent on aid donors
for our long term survival. It was
argued that successive budgets have been donor driven, and any moves toward
getting
Mr
Speaker, this is simply absurd. The
argument strikes directly at the heart of important issues such as our long
term security and economic independence.
It would therefore be totally irresponsible of us as leaders to continue
to allow the country to be fully dependent on aid for our economic survival.
Mr
Speaker, it should be our endeavor instead to ensure that we prepare the
economy to be responsive to development strategies that aim at fully utilizing
our potentials. This is not a difficult
task; all it needs is for us to adopt development strategies that will allow that
to happen.
Mr
Speaker, this is what the present Grand Coalition Government is determined to
do during its term in office. This
country is blessed with opportunities and as leaders we should not only be
talking about it but formulate strategies that will facilitate the utilization
of these opportunities. Cooperation is
the key to success, not undermining each other through motions of
no-confidence.
Mr
Speaker, fourthly, the Opposition Group suggests that the government had its
priority wrong. We should be emphasizing
public investment on infrastructure development. Mr Speaker, the Government
fully appreciates this concern, and we agree.
In fact a serious impediment to getting development to the rural areas
is the lack of important infrastructures in the rural areas. Unfortunately, the concern is made with the
argument that the government must make that investment at the expense of
important services like health and education.
I think this is asking for the impossible.
Mr
Speaker, this only demonstrates how narrow minded we could become. We are so long, I guess, in politics that we
suffer from tunnel vision. This line of
thinking advanced the belief that the government is everything and without it
nothing will move.
Mr
Speaker, this is a fallacy! In fact it
is the advancement of policies that were formulated around this misconception
that have been responsible for keeping
this country as a least developing country all these years despite the
fact we are blessed with bountiful natural resources.
Mr
Speaker, we, the 50 of us, have a duty to come out of our little worlds and
appreciate the involvement of other important players in the economy. This is not a new idea. In fact, it is a policy issue that is as old
as this country, and it surprises me that as mature leaders we can be so careless.
Mr
Speaker, this does not mean as a government, we should disregard the important
concerns raised by the Opposition. The
government has a better solution and one, which is more sustainable than to go
through the headache of convicting aid donors to understand us.
Mr
Speaker, what this country needs is an aggressive private sector led approach,
to compliment the selective efforts of our development partners. Such a strategy should be premised on mutual
respect for the needs of the country and that of the investors; and of course
the importance of creating a friendly investment environment.
Mr
Speaker, it is on this premise that the government is adopting the Special
Economic Zone strategy to compliment our efforts and that of our development
partners. The effecting legislation will
be presented to the House in the July sitting.
Mr
Speaker, the Opposition also argued that the government would need to find 3 to
4 billion dollars to fund all the big statements that were made over the
media. In fact the government is even
accused of lying to the people of this country because it will not be able to
deliver on its promises.
Mr
Speaker, this argument is designed to mislead the public. Nevertheless, we welcome the challenge and
only time will tell. But what I assure
the people of this country is that the government is serious about delivering
on its policies and will do so in partnership with the people of this country.
Mr
Speaker, indeed, it is this fundamental concept of the new approach that is
simply misunderstood by many people.
There is the misunderstanding that the government is implementing the
bottom up approach single-handedly. That
is wrong. The 2007 budget or any
government budget for that matter is a facilitating tool as opposed to the tool
to deliver. There is glaring difference.
The
Bottom-Up Approach: What does it mean? The
rationale. Mr Speaker, the primary
objective of the bottom-up approach is concerned with the important task of
improving the ability of people to cope with the challenges of the fast
changing socio-economic environment in the country that is created by the
inability of the economy, engendered by the absence of appropriate strategies
to cope with the rising demands for employment and other opportunities.
Mr
Speaker, Solomon Islands has systematically become a victim of a grossly
restrictive environment, most of itself created and we were unable to attract
the right kind of investment and the level that would make a difference to the
ability of the government to generate the level of revenue required to empower
the government to take control of the direction of development in the country.
Mr
Speaker, because of the restrictions observed here, the twenty-seven national
budgets since the country’s attainment of political independence have never
been effective instruments of people empowerment, although they were and
continued to be passed in the name of the people. All of us must take some responsibility for
that incapacity.
Mr
Speaker, whilst it is understood that basic essential services must continue to
be the main focus of the budget, the long term sustainability of such a role
can only be guaranteed by an active process of creating more taxpaying
population. Failing that, Mr Speaker,
the country will face a situation where the demand for services will out run
the country’s capacity to sustain it.
Mr
Speaker, there is also the danger that such a development may systematically
place the development of the country in the hands of foreigners and with it,
the control of the destiny of this country.
Mr
Speaker, the trickle-down theory which inundated the development policies and
strategies of the country to this date has never worked, and will never work
because it is based purely on assumptions about the active beneficiaries of the
national wealth that is crated by the observed improved economic statistics.
Mr
Speaker, this is a glaring fallacy of the crude capitalist ideologies of
development where the gap between the “haves” and the “have nots” are filled by
a comprehensive social welfare program.
It is the view of this government that
Mr
Speaker, this placed the country uniquely different from developed countries
where the resources and important factors of production are in the hands of the
state. It is this strength that the
government would like to capitalize on in the new approach.
Mr
Speaker, there is a lot of misunderstanding on this very important government
initiative, and because of this I am hearing all kinds of criticisms against
the budget as not meeting the expectations of the people.
Mr Speaker,
the Opposition of course is still reeling in the thought that without the
support of the donor community, the bottom up approach will remain a wistful
thinking and so they are working day and night to instill doubt in the minds of
members of Parliament including the government bench that the government budget
for the year 2007 will not work.
Mr
Speaker, I sympathize with them. My
advice to them is, it is about time Solomon Islanders must come out of donor
dependency and to work towards getting
Mr
Speaker, the government’s bottom-up
approach is premised on the concept that development is a corporate
responsibility of every organization, individuals, and the various levels of
government in the country, working within a development framework that takes
the views of the various interest groups into consideration.
Mr
Speaker, for clarification, reference to organizations includes NGOs; religious
organizations; private sector organizations; various community development
programs implemented by the various donor countries; national government;
provincial governments; and individuals.
Mr
Speaker, the government has already made its position clear that for better
results and to ensure that the development assistance given to the country by
donor organizations and NGOs are properly utilized to achieve national
development goals, there must be proper coordination of the various programs.
Mr
Speaker, this is an area that the government will be working on in the course
of this year through the personal supervision of the member for Auki/ Langa
Langa. We are hoping that by July we
should be able to finalize the national framework within which the various
funding agencies should participate more transparently.
Mr Speaker, I do not see any reason why we should
not be able to increase direct government’s contribution into the constituency
focused development program by matching Republic of China’s contribution dollar
for dollar. But this can only happen if
the government is comfortable that there is a workable management system right
at the constituency level.
Mr
Speaker, as a starting point, the government is engaging the first 50 public
officers at the constituency level and will engage a further 100 officers when
the system is fully developed.
Mr
Speaker, the government will also be engaging a number of Parliamentary
Secretaries [Members of Parliament] to concentrate on developing specific
aspects of the program. I would like to
take this opportunity to thank the members of the Parliamentary Entitlement
Commission for approving the sub mission I made to them for this purpose.
Mr
Speaker, the reason for a better coordination is because the aggregate amounts
of funds channeled under the various programs are phenomenal and address the
same concern as that of the NGOs – the empowerment of the rural based
population. It is therefore important
that they are properly coordinated for greater efficiency.
Mr
Speaker, the rationale behind the need for greater coordination is based on the
fact that the millions of dollars that are being channeled through these
organizations and funds were sourced in the name of various target groups in
the country, especially in the rural area.
Mr
Speaker, the government is determined during the course of the year to ensure
that the extent of their overlaps and duplications must be determined and
addressed, to avoid inefficiency.
Mr
Speaker, there is also a need to strengthen the following aspects of the
administration of the funds channeled to the rural area through the various
funding agencies:-
(a)
Accountability
and financial management.
(b) Project
identification, evaluation, appraisal and approval.
(c) How it
relates to provincial development plan.
(d) Methods
of funding the projects.
(e) Effective
implementation and success of the projects funded.
Mr Speaker, as I stated earlier, the government is
implementing the rural focused development strategy through the various
agencies, namely: The private sector;
the provincial government; our development partners; the churches; the NGOs;
and the landowners to name a few.
Mr Speaker, the private sector/landowner partnership have
been earmarked for palm oil developments in Waisisi, and East Choiseul in
addition to Auluta Basin and Vangunu.
The Government will be working very closely with the member for South
New Georgia Rendova/Tetepari constituency to develop the proposed coffee
plantation. The willingness of the
National Bank of
Mr Speaker, the
government will also work very closely with the provincial governments as soon
as the Special Economic Zone legislation is passed to identify suitable areas
for the establishment of Special Economic Zones.
Mr Speaker, there are only few examples of the kind of
activities that the government is seriously considering under this
strategy. The government’s comprehensive
land reform program will help to open up more opportunities in the rural areas.
Mr Speaker, the government is determined to aggressively
address the decentralization of major development to other provinces in
compliance with the bona-fide demands of the people of
Mr Speaker, the successful implementation of this budget
depends on the cooperation of every stakeholder, starting with each and every
member of this honourable house. This
house must put up a united front to all our people, instead of trying to take
each other down. I am saying this
because it is a known secret that some elements of the Opposition group is
working tirelessly to topple this government.
Mr Speaker, one Minister was approached by a prominent
figure of the Opposition g group with a promise that his loan will be paid in
full by the Opposition group if he could just move across to the Opposition
group to support the move to oust the Prime Minister. This is very interesting. Where would the Opposition get the money to
do that? Of course from evil
sources! We should be ashamed of
ourselves.
Mr Speaker, two prominent leaders in the Opposition group
requested the former members of the MEF in Rove and Malaita to make false
affidavits against this Prime Minister about his alleged involvement in the
2000 coup.
Mr Speaker, in
fact I have actually seen false affidavits signed under oath alleging that the
member for East Choiseul was wearing mask and directed the raiding of the
Armoury at Rove and later went up to put the former Prime Minister under House
arrest and neutralized the security at the Prime Minister’s Office.
Mr Speaker, how can people dare to deliberately lie,
especially when they call themselves Christians? I challenge these people to stop going to
Church because they are no better than the heathens. There are people who even say that the Prime
Minister is involved in organizing the recent riot in Parliament. This is simply to tarnish the image of the
Prime Minister as a criminal.
Mr Speaker, if that is not enough, Ministers and
backbenchers have been bombarded left, right and centre by people who have
personal scores to settle with this Prime Minister. I am saying this because the other side is
going around campaigning against this Prime Minister. You know what their message is? “Let us
get rid of the Prime Minister and continue with the government”.
Mr Speaker, I find that very interesting. For refusing to bow down to the dictates of
foreign governments? For demanding
respect from those who have become totally unreasonable in their dealing with
an independent sovereign nation? For
insisting that the laws and systems of this country are respected? For insisting that the principles of Cabinet
Government system are respected?
Mr Speaker, I want to remind those who are bent on
pursuing this agenda to grow up and demonstrate maturity in leadership. If we exercise our leadership role with the
desire to cut each other down than we are no better than those who brought the
country to its knees during the ethnic crisis.
Mr Speaker, the government for the first time is taking a
bold move to engage members of Parliament who a re not members of Parliamentary
Standing Committees as Parliamentary Secretaries assigned to manage specific
program that are crucial to achieving the overall objectives of the new rural
emphasis development strategy. These
Parliamentary Secretaries will be remunerated at the level compatible with the
Deputy Speaker.
Mr Speaker, these programs include the fine-tuning of the
bottom up development strategy; the establishment of Special Economic Zones in
selected areas throughout the country as a strategy to decentralize major
development infrastructures to
Mr Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretaries will also be
engaged in the review and development of an innovative tourism strategy
targeting the rural area; and the development of a workable strategy for the
effective participation of rural Solomon
Islanders in the development of the forestry, and fisheries sector.
Mr Speaker, this needs the participation of all members
of Parliament to put aside our pride and ambitions and work together for the
advancement of our country, and not to stab each other in the back. In fact we have no reasons to.
Mr Speaker, the Accounting Officers in all 21 ministries
of the government are the next in line to ensure that the development programs
advanced under the budget are fully implemented.
Mr Speaker, in addition to the proposed Cabinet
Development Committee, and the inter-ministerial development committee, the
government would also like to see the Public Accounts Committee taking in an
active role in ensuring that the budget is implemented within the bounds of
proper rules financial management.
Accounting officers will be held accountable for any impropriety in the
management of their budget.
Mr Speaker, statutory organizations and state own
enterprises are also required to cooperate with the government in ensuring that
their services are compatible with the new direction. The ongoing reform in this sector will ensure
that these organizations are effective and efficient in delivering their
services. Any privatization of State Owned
Enterprises will be guided by strict criterion.
Mr Speaker, churches are already receiving more than $150
million direct budgetary assistance from the government for the delivery of
health and education services in the country, and therefore e have a solemn duty
to ensure that these services are effectively and efficiently delivered. Since more than 97% of the country’s
population belongs to one of the many churches in the country, churches have a
duty to nurture their members to be good citizens of the country.
Mr Speaker, indeed, a country‘s image is reflected by its
population and how they relate to issues of good governance, law and order, and
respect for authority. These issues
strike directly at the very core of the values that Christianity is advancing
and one would justifiably expect
Mr Speaker, the point I am getting at here, is, this is
where our churches are expected to deliver.
These are matters of the heart and only when one is fully converted
would he find himself comfortable with them.
Having said that, the Government is fully committed to the tithing
policy.
Mr Speaker,
considering the rising level of lawlessness in the country, one is fully
justified to question whether we fully appreciate the religion of Christ , or
better still, whether our churches are doing enough to mould our people to
appreciate their duties as Christians.
This is the difference between practical Christianity and one, which is
only based on the mere knowledge of Christianity.
Mr Speaker, it is because of this concern that the
government is determined to work very closely with our churches to reach beyond
the delivery of health and education services to touch the issue of the heart
through the tithing policy. We should be
able to establish the level of the tithe which will be based on the excess of
revenue over expenditure as soon as the 2006 Annual Accounts of the Government
is finalized.
Mr Speaker, in this regard, churches have a serious
responsibility to ensure that they take care of their flocks. The fact that our youths find the dancing
clubs, kwaso, marijuana, and other activities more appealing to them may be an
indication that church programs are inadequate and boring.
Mr Speaker, the other important group that needs to
cooperate with the government in order to achieve the objectives of the 2007
budget is the land and resource owners.
Their cooperation is important because of the rural emphasis of the
government’s development strategy.
Mr Speaker, the success of any rural development lies in
the cooperation and participation of land and resource owners. This is imperative in light of the fact that
one of the main hindrances to rural development is land disputes.
Mr Speaker, the government is taking a giant step to
address this age-old problem in our land reform program, which among other
things is designed to address the main cause of land disputes in
Mr Speaker, I think I have bored the house enough and
must stop here. If we have forgotten
what I have said, my message is this country has suffered enough and cannot
afford negligence by leaders. What this
country needs now is for all of us to put our differences aside and work
together for the common good of our people.
Mr Speaker, we have a duty to ensure that we do not
become hopeless victims of other people’s agendas because that would only make
us traitors. This is our country. Let’s be proud of it.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move “that at the adjournment of
Parliament on
Thank you.
(Motion of Sine Die opens for debate)
Sitting suspended for lunch break
Mr DAUSABEA: Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to take
the floor for me to participate on this first motion of sine as the MP for
Mr
Speaker, as alluded to earlier by the Honorable Prime Minister, I too support the
call he made for the two sides of the House to come together and work together
for the betterment of this nation and our future generations.
Mr
Speaker, we should not take that call lightly in the light of what this nation
is going through but we should take it seriously and focus on the sovereign
future of this nation.
Mr
Speaker, after winning my election for the third time as the Member of
Parliament for
Mr
Speaker, I have been in two past governments and we came in always half way to
the term of parliament and there is no focus from the beginning from the
political leaders of the government on the aspirations of our people. That is why I have decided from day one to
switch side and join this government that is more focused on our people’s needs
and aspirations.
During
my campaign, Mr Speaker, I did make it very clear that my platform is based on three
things. The first one is sovereignty of
this nation. That is in my platform when
I campaigned for the
Mr
Speaker, on sovereignty, when I was detained at Rove I listened to many Members
talk about the sovereignty of this nation.
There are different views and different beliefs about sovereignty by our
political leaders here. I took
sovereignty in my heart.
Mr
Speaker, after winning the election I was chased by the overseas media wanting
to interview me. It was from these
interviews that I became the target. This
is because I said it very clearly in one of my interviews to the foreign media
that the immunity clause in the Facilitation Act is not needed in this country. One of the overseas media guy asked me if I
am going to challenge that clause in court.
I said to him that since I am now an elected Member of Parliament I will
be waiting when the Bill is brought up for review, and I will try to seek an
amendment to it. That statement alone
has put me on the firing line. Mr
Speaker, after that statement I was in the newspapers, the print media, the television
and the broadcasting media.
Mr
Speaker, when one looks at the word ‘sovereignty’ you heard it from somebody
else some may take the definition differently. But for me, I will say it well and clear in
this sovereign House that the sovereignty of this country and my people is what
I will always stand for.
Finally,
Mr Speaker, I got the opportunity to be bailed to come here in this honorable
Chamber to participate and represent my people views and aspirations in this
honorable Chamber. I want to make it
very clear that something is wrong.
A
lot has been said about the budget that we have just passed. This is the first time, may be in 28 years, a
budget of bottom up approach is ever presented in this honorable Chamber. There are certain views opposing and
supporting. But like the Honorable Prime
Minister’s call this morning, which I am in support of, let us all come
together and put the budget to the test and let see whether it will work for
our people or not. Only after that, can
one make his view or opinion known after putting it to the test. Because there is a saying that says, ‘Don’t judge
a book by its cover’. Don’t just look at
the cover and make your judgment. There could
be useful advice inside the book that you need. I call on all our colleagues here, let us
support this budget that we have already passed and let us work together.
The
problem I have in my constituency is not my problem. The problem the MP for
Sir,
I am in support of this government. Last
Saturday was a milestone or history in the making in our homeland in
Malaita. Mr Speaker, I am a Fataleka man
and I know that allowing ones land is not an easy thing in our culture. But last Saturday I saw my tribes allowing
their land to be surveyed for the much talked about development on Malaita.
Mr
Speaker, the occasion was indeed very touching and moving because we have
amongst us the Premier of Guadalcanal Province and three Cabinet Ministers from
My
only disappointment is not seeing my other four colleagues on the other side of
the House attending the ceremony with us.
That is my only disappointment. Had
they attended it would have been the whole Malaitan Members of Parliament attending
the ceremony. I urge them to attend next
time. When we go for the groundbreaking
ceremony they must make an effort to attend because this is all about
development on Malaita.
Mr
Speaker, I could remember what the late Mamaloni once said to us. He said; “You solve the problem of Malaita,
you solve the problem of
Mr
Speaker, that is history in the making and a milestone in the history of
Malaita. I would like to thank the
honorable colleagues of
Mr
Speaker, as covered in the media the people received us with happy and open hearts
when they welcome us over there in Malaita.
Malaita is a sleeping giant. A lot
has been said about us but once fine tuned Malaita will move on in its
development at a pace that even this Parliament cannot stop because they are hard
working people.
Mr
Speaker, I congratulate the Premier of Malaita and the landowners for participating
in that ceremony. I look forward to the
continuation of their support until the groundbreaking and until the project
takes off the ground.
Mr
Speaker, a lot of groups have been calling on the government in
There
is even one person from
Mr
Speaker, we must be honest. I want to
make the records straight. Mr Speaker,
on one front page of the Solomon Star it was stated very clearly that the
government is wrecking the justice system.
It was by TSI.
I do
not know where they get their analysis from but as one who has gone through the
system of oppression and suppression, Mr Speaker, I do not need people to tell
me what is happening in there because I felt it and I knew it.
They
are blaming the government as wrecking the legal system. They even accused His Excellency the Governor
General. Mr Speaker, who gave them the
mandate to come out in the open and attack his Excellency? Even the German guy in the Solomon Star two
days ago called Ministers and backbenchers ‘well trained little puppies’. I am not a dog neither a puppy. I am a Member of Parliament mandated by my
people.
Mr
Speaker, for someone coming in for a hunting trip and cannot find a boat back
home turned around and called me a leader of this sovereign country a little
trained puppy is very insulting. I need
an apology from him on behalf of my people of
But
like I said earlier I want to put records straight concerning the attack on the
government as wrecking the legal system of this country. I think it is the TSI that is wrecking the legal
system of this country. I want to give a
few examples of what I meant by that on what I have gone through and what I
have experienced.
Sir,
I uphold the legal system of this country but there are certain things that are
not done by the government but by certain people mandated to look after our
legal system. Mr Speaker, I want to cite
a few examples here so that it is clear in the minds of those people and even the
TSI.
I
was arrested on the 18th of April and some where around November an
American was convicted and sentenced to three years imprisonment at Rove. He was convicted and was sent down to Rove. Mr Speaker, surprisingly he was bailed even though
convicted. An Asian was arrested for Inland Revenue Offences, which is a crime
and was convicted and sent for five months imprisonment at Rove, however, he was
bailed. I was on remand and held at Rove
after a long PI has been completed. I have
been applying for bail more than 10 times but I was never given a bail.
When
I see the TSI attacking the government as wrecking the system, I have to put it
back to them as a person who has been suppressed. May I put it to them Mr Speaker, who is
wrecking the system?
These
are convicts and yet they were bailed. I
am on remand applying 10 times until I cannot walk because I was partly
paralyzed at the
This
is why when people are talking a legitimate and elected government of this
sovereign nation in the media, I wonder if they ever did their homework. This is a free country and so we can go out
and say what we want to say but let us do in a much more balanced approach. Anyone has the right to say what he/she wants
to say about a government but make sure it is balanced and factual.
Or
was I not given bail because my skin is black, I am asking them? Was it because I am black?
Mr
Speaker, I am very, very sorry that some of us leaders allow ourselves to be
used by this people, and these people are having a free ride in our society,
they are having a free ride in our country using us to fight against each other.
Mr
Speaker, the suspended Acting Attorney General is one of such clear case. I said under no certain term in this Parliament
that we should be united together to ask who is causing all these problems that
an appointed officer of a sovereign state of
We
all should be asking, what is the cause, who is causing the problem before
making our stand. Instead we jump there because
they said. We should be protecting the
interest of this country, all of us 50 Members of Parliament and not only the
government side.
Mr
Speaker, I want to put it right to the TSI who is attacking the government for
wrecking the legal system. There are
even brothers down there who have been on remand for three to four years now,
yet to be bailed, not even convicted.
What is wrong? Justice delayed is
justice denied. That is what they
said.
Mr
Speaker, I brought this to the attention of this honorable House because may be
only when you get down there you will know what is going on down there.
There
are certain things that need to be looked into and put right. As I said earlier the normal remand period I
know of when I was a Police officer was only 14 days, not eight months, which
the time it took me.
Mr
Speaker, the other man who was arrested for plotting to assassinate the Prime
Minister was only on remand for14 days. That
is the correct time. Why did it take the
MP for
Yet
we are pretending everything is well. I
am just giving us a warning because some of us might end up there later and we
will regret it.
Mr
Speaker, that is what happen.
When
this appointed officer found himself stateless, we should be asking why was
that done to him. He should be allowed
to come into the country and they should deal with us in a more diplomatic and
sensible manner. You are dancing on that
side and I am dancing on this side but the one who is causing all these problems
is sitting in his air conditioned office looking at us saying go ahead and also
laughing at us. It is time we grow up
and stand for our people and nation.
Mr
Speaker, the other reason why I support this government is the time frame of
acquiring the federal system for this nation.
We have been talking about the federal system way back in 1987 or even
on Independence Day when you, Mr Speaker sir, became the Prime Minister. At last this government puts its feet down
and listens to the people of this nation.
This government will start implementing that process this year. That is why I support this government.
Mr
Speaker, nobody in this House dislikes RAMSI. No we all want RAMSI to stay. It is this Honorable Chamber that invited
RAMSI to come into the country. But we
invited them in with a clear line of responsibility, a clear line of
performance of duty and a clear line on the rules of engagement in their areas
of responsibility.
Mr
Speaker, what has now transpired is that there seems to be no demarcation on the
rules of responsibility between the two – the invited brothers of ours and the
sovereign government of
When
RAMSI was invited, Mr Speaker, I wish to make records right that I was with the
former Prime Minister on that Saturday morning. He told me that he was going over to
Mr
Speaker, the same Foreign Affairs turned around and said it is our internal
problem. Anyway I am still grateful that
RAMSI came and I did my bit as a parliamentarian at that time to help return
465 high powered guns from our militants in Malaita. I did my part as a responsible leader.
But
one thing is for sure that I am always on the wrong side of their approach. This is one thing we need to put right in this
honorable Chamber as well. When RAMSI
came in it already had in its list the names of those they are going to arrest
because some jealous people fed them with the wrong information.
Sadly
the MP for
The
MP for
Mr
Speaker, fabrication is another thing. I
want this honorable chamber to know that this is what is going on and this is
what happening. If we all put
fabrication aside and we all go for the truth, this nation will be a very
lovely nation because we will live in the truth, and walk in the truth. Even the Son of the Almighty says, “If you
know the truth the truth shall set you free”. Mr Speaker, is that true? We need to be free inside and not only
outside. Mr Speaker, it should not only be
on Sunday that we wear necktie and go to church. Our hearts must be first of all cleansed.
Mr Speaker, I am not going to
bore you and my colleagues very much but I wish to put things right that these
NGOs who are claiming to represent 90% of this country I am challenging them that
they only represent 009%. Many groups
are coming up, many organizations are being created because they get funding from
the very forces that want to topple this government.
If
they want to prove the 99% or 95% that they claim to represent, I will call on
them through another arena, and that is to call on my constituency to prove that
number. Let us not tell lies on the
paper. The person from German also claimed
to represent 90%o of the people. We must
be honest and true.
This
government is addressing the much delayed and talked about development since independence. After only eight months in office the Auluta
Oil Palm survey consent was signed last Saturday. These are the kinds of development we need in
this country. We have to create
development so that the people who are causing problems in my constituency can
go back to their respective land and engage in employment, useful employment
making a meaningful life for their province and this country as a whole.
I am
happy
Mr Speaker, before I resume my seat I would just like to
conclude by thanking once again my landowners of East Kwara’ae and
Once again, Mr Speaker, I thank you very much and I
resume my seat.
Mr HUNIEHU: Thank
you, Mr Speaker, for allowing the
floor for me to participate in the debate of this traditional motion of sine
die moved by the Honourable Prime Minister this morning.
At
the outset, I wish to welcome the Honorable MP for
Mr Speaker, in the concluding statement of the Prime
Minister this morning, he said it is time that we all work together for the
good of this country. I think the Member
who has just spoken also amplified the same statement that we must all work
altogether because we have suffered too long and therefore the only thing left
for us to do is to put our hands together and work together for the interest
and benefit of the people of Solomon Islands.
I am in support of that statement as well.
Sir,
but I would like to outline why I see it impossible for us to work together as
a Parliament, as a government and as an Opposition Group because it has to do
with our policies. You cannot expect me
to work together with the government when I do not believe in your leadership policies,
in your development policies, in your policies of managing the affairs of this
country. If the Prime Minister is
serious in that urge then I am also appealing to him to take on very seriously
the views of the Opposition.
Mr
Speaker, the differences we have on the issue of security are unmatchable. The Government side believes that the way to
secure the security of this country is to engage in arguments with the very
institutions this Parliament brought over to address the security issue of this
country. This side of the House believes
that we should continue to maintain strong relationship with these institutions
because time is not right for us to start kicking the door suggesting that
drastic changes have to be made to the arrangement of security.
I am
talking about the RAMSI operations facilitated through the Facilitation Act
passed by none other than this Parliament. When this government took power it started to
seriously address RAMSI by threatening everybody that during its leadership it
would like to send off RAMSI from
This
side of the House is persistent that there is nothing wrong with RAMSI because
only Parliament can review the Facilitation Act and leave it to Parliament
because anything else is not acceptable.
We
also do not agree with that side of the House’s involvement in the Judiciary. Cases have been appearing in the Solomon Star
and in the press from day one when this government took power. How could I be asked to cooperate with a
government which I do not believe in its policy of starting to show the exit
door to RAMSI when the time is not yet right?
How could I be asked to cooperate with a government that started to
interfere with the work of the Judiciary?
It is non-negotiable as far as I am concerned. Unless you seriously address this issue and
stop tampering with the Judiciary, then I can agree with my friend, the Prime
Minister. I have no problem working
together with him.
During
this Parliament Meeting the Government opposes a motion from this side of the
House asking the government not to rearm part of the Police Force. In spite of the fact the whole nation was
with the Opposition that the time is not right to rearm the Police the
government rejected that motion. And
here the Prime Minister is calling on the MP for East Are Are to join him to
work together. But rearmament is a
fundamental difference in policy. I
believe that all
Mr Speaker, even the motion asking the government to
allow the PNG Commission of Inquiry to enter
Mr
Speaker, our relationship amongst our neighboring countries of
As I
understand it, the Commission of Inquiry in PNG is now demanding the Prime
Minister of PNG to be called to the witness box to answer for himself as to how
he is not involved in authorizing the clandestine flight to
Sir,
on the Budget this side of the House concluded that the budget is a public
sector expansionary budget and is not addressing the real issues in the rural
areas. With a $970 million budget only
$188 million was allocated for development. Are we so blind to see this minimal allocation
to development projects in the country? During
our time it was $300 million but now it has gone down, and $80 million of the
development budget was funded by local revenue.
Because had we maintained cordial relationship with our development
partners, the development aid for this 2007 Appropriation Bill 2007 should have
been $300 to $400 million.
Of
course, I can take refuge in what the Prime Minister said that we should not
continue to depend on aid. I think he
has not properly thought out that statement. This country, since
Mr
Speaker, if foreign aid is not in the best interest of our country, then as a
government you do not have to accept it.
But it is your duty as a Prime Minister, and as a government to market
the interests, the needs of our people to our overseas development partners, but
you have not been doing that to the last budget.
Mr Speaker, why was the debate of the budget prolonged
from last year to now? We thought the reason
for prolonging the debate of the budget was for you to improve, but there was no
major improvement on the Budget. This is
a fundamental point that I will continue to amplify that the 2007 Appropriation
Bill 2007 is a public sector driven budget.
I could not be convinced one bit that this budget is for the rural
people of
The
development budget is $188 million, but there is no project for my constituency
and no projects for
Look
at this book. This is the book. I appreciate what happened last Saturday, and
I think it is a good start. But it was
started by the last government and so this is only a follow up. The Minister for Agriculture knows this very
well. He used to be the Secretary to
Cabinet and he knows it. He is nodding
his head and that is denying the truth.
As a Minister you are not allowed to deny truth in this Parliament. That is one of the reasons why there is barrier
between the government and the Opposition. You better fix our doubts.
The
investment barrier is a consequence of your attitude and recalcitrant behavior,
and it is affecting the budget. It has
affected the budget and it will continue to affect the budget for next
year. That is the truth. It will flow over to next year. We only hope our local revenue source will
improve and implement taxation reform, and you can improve by $100
million. Stop the duty exemptions, make the
taxes to be fair, broaden the tax base and you collect more out of the tax
revenue to fund more rural developments. And most importantly there must be savings in
the public sector budget.
Sir,
we cannot afford to continue spending money and approving expenditures in this
Parliament, building hedges around us, around our political appointees, and
around the public servants who are supporting us. No, this country does not belong to these
people alone. It belongs to both the
Opposition and the Government side and the little people in this country. This country does not belong to the big
people. It belongs to the little people
in the rural areas who have been deprived for a very long time.
There
is no miserable way of addressing the development aspirations in the
budget. Just look at the development
budget and you will see that $80million of the $188 million is from local
revenue. Well and good. But when we were in government the revenue
increased from zero level by 80%. The
revenue base had increased by 80%. We
started the system and we hope you build upon it. I am trying to relate nothing but the truth
that is required of Members of Parliament in this House. We are in total difference.
The
investment barriers must be removed. This
side of the House began the process of trying to engage in meaningful
partnership and negotiation with foreign investors until these same foreign
investors became threatened of their investment as a result of some of our
actions or if not they are threatened by all of our actions. I never heard any positive message from the
government since it took office.
The
question of tithing as well is confusing the public. The government is deliberately confusing the
public and the Churches. We, on this
side of the House want a proper message to be given to our Churches because tithe
is interpreted as 10% of the gross revenue of the country. But the government interprets it as 10% of
the net revenue. But I tell you that by
withdrawing the $11 million from the Development Budget from the Ministry of
Aviation, the projected surplus revenue of $5 million will make the budget in
deficit so how can you pay 10% tithing of a deficit budget.
I
have seen a corrigenda that $11 million credited to the Consolidated Fund has
to be withdrawn because the Parliament has passed a legislation allowing the
Ministry of Aviation and Communication to collect its own funds and deposit
those funds in its own account to be administered by the Minister sitting there
and the Permanent Secretary.
Mr
Speaker, the Budget also indicated that there will be a net surplus of $5million. That withdrawal is a deficit. The Prime Minister was saying that we will have
to wait and see the figures coming out in the media on the level of expenditure
and revenue but it was already revealed in this budget that this is a deficit
budget.
Mr Speaker I do not have to be an economist to be able to
see this. I learn my economics and
economics theory in this Parliament. I
did not learn it overseas. I learned it here
and only Parliament can confuse me, that this is what I read from the
budget.
Sir,
sovereignty is the catchword and in fact this is the very word that drives the
Prime Minister so made. He thinks that somebody is robbing the sovereignty of
this country. Nobody is robbing our sovereignty.
Sir,
I made a statement on this floor during the debate of the Facilitation Act saying
that we have been brought down to our knees, our sovereignty is at stake, we
are not providing sufficiently for the table and so I can compromise
sovereignty for foreign assistance to rebuild the status of our sovereignty. That is the truth about three to four years
ago.
All
Solomon Islanders were merely chasing up funds at the sub-treasury, in
particular the able Police Force continued to rape the little finances
available in the Ministry of Finance much to their own benefit and there was
nothing left for people in the rural areas that we talked so much about. So there is a limit to what we mean by
sovereignty.
To
you mean sovereignty might mean
I
know that I am a Solomon Islander and all of us are Solomon Islanders but let
us not overemphasize sovereign because it can be negative to development
virtues that we very much need.
‘The
underlying causes’ of the social ethnic tension is a phrase the Prime Minister
always wants to use in all his speeches. But what appears here is seriously
nothing. He is using the underlying
causes may be to get the Malaitan people and the
For
me, expression alone is not good enough.
You have to define what you mean by the underlying causes. I cannot see it in this budget, and I will
continue to complain until you provide something concrete and evidential in the
next budget next year or this year. So
you are proposing a mini budget, another one is it.
Mr Speaker, on the millennium funds from the
Sir,
I am urging my good friends on the other side not to see foreign fund as
negative development approach for our people.
The Prime Minister mentioned in his speech that many Members of
Parliament would like to think that Solomon Islanders can be bogged down with
development aid as the basis to develop their plans to take over the
government. No! Mr Speaker, our policy has always been to make
friends to those with development aid in order for them to inject funds into
our little economy.
Sir,
if we can get eight to nine hundred million dollars from the Millennium Challenge
Fund from the United States, that is where we should be starting the bottom up
approach. We are preaching bottom up
approach here with no funding arrangement.
This is a fundamental issue. It
hinges on our foreign relations, it hinges on our foreign relations, it hinges
on our partnership, it hinges on the way we develop partnership with our
development aid partners. We must grow
up and see this as taking away our sovereignty.
There
is a big point of difference between the government side and this side of the
House. The Minister for Foreign Affairs
who is not here said during an interjection by the MP for Renbel that ‘
They were here and have already left and so it is up to
us to qualify under their rules of compliance. How can you expect the Opposition side to work
with you when you are obstacles to development aid assistances to our country?
The political theory that is going on now is that the government
must be Malaita influenced. This is
building up, this regional type of politics.
As leaders of this nation we must see all of us as leaders of this
country and we must not promote regional politics. I hope that the Prime Minister’s statement
this morning that four Members from this side of the House who did not attend
the celebrations in Auki was not meant to be an insinuation on Members of this
side of the House – political insinuation.
I hope this is not what he meant this morning. In other words, ‘since I have got 13 already
never mind four of you’ but we are the four wise men but too many. If we want to comply with the Scripture four
is too many so I do not know which one is not one of the wise men may be the
one speaking now and I accept that. But
politically Mr Speaker, this is dangerous for political leadership in this
country.
Sir,
I am complaining because what about the displaced victims at Burns Creek. What about the squatters here in
I
want the 13 MPs from Malaita to make the point enough is enough. We have been talking so much about
development for
Sir,
during our time $4million was allocated for Bina. Where is it Minister for Development Planning? When will it come? Where is it the MP of
I am
sure the MP for
Mr Speaker, I am just relating to this Parliament why
some of us on this side of the House find it difficult to cooperate with the
government. If you address these issues
I would be the first one to jump. I was
the only member of the Opposition Group who attended the launching of your
statement of policy at the
They
talk about having strong ties with our development partners, foreign affairs ties,
and yet they are engaging in confrontational politics. They behaved as if we in this country are
donors. We can get rid of this donor
partner it is okay because we can get funds from it. No, Mr Speaker, this is where marketing
The
Prime Minister must understand that his role as Prime Minister is to market the
interest of
Sir,
I would like to see the bottom up approach of this government defined. The only time I see some sensible writing
about the bottom approach is in the Prime Minister’s speech this morning. I think he was trying to justify and define
what the bottom up approach meant. The
bottom up approach is not new. It has
been here with our colonial masters who were better implementers of the bottom
up approach but now all our funds are politicized and I do not know whether they
can be implemented under these difficult circumstances.
Sir, RAMSI development aid, I am very serious about this
because the reason why we want to maintain strong partnership with RAMSI is
because one day we should be asking them to scale down its technical aid on
security when the right time comes. At
the moment RAMSI is spending a billion dollar just on the Police. When the right time comes we should be
telling them to divert more funds from this to development aid on agriculture,
fisheries, renewable energy so that it can benefit the majority of our
people. That is what you are saying but
you are not practicing it. You are
creating road blocks, and this is what I am telling you.
Mr
Speaker, I see what you are doing as creating road blocks. My goodness, this is like throwing a fishing
line to a big rock. What kind of fish
will bite your hook when you throw 10 tons of rock after the fishing line? Isn’t this what I am trying to say?
Sir,
we can only be successful if we maintain close relationship with these people
and genuinely ask them to divert. But
instead of maintaining the good relationship with the opening up of the High
Commissioner in here, the Foreign Affairs Minister was arranging for the Prime
Minister to have a face to face meeting in
Did you
shake hands with Prime Minister Howard in
Mr
Speaker, I am warning this Parliament that the only way we can successfully
negotiate something tangible is to maintain strong relations. It is not because we on this side of the
House are bogged down with the development aid mentality. No. We
are trying to be resolute in our thinking.
We are trying to get
You should
maintain good relationship with them and in three to five years time you can tell
them that we can now handle the security, we can now arm certain sections of
the Police to provide security but at the same time what we need is economic
development. Can you do it? If you suggest that to John Howard tomorrow
he would not agree with you. No.
Mr Speaker, this meeting of Parliament to me is very
colorful. We have passed the budget in flying
colors. We have rejected three important
motions in flying colors as well. We
have approved the Bill for the Governor General’s increment. With such a huge increase I understand
certain MPs are now vying for the job because it is good retirement
benefit. I will nominate some of you may
be my good Minister for Agriculture when it comes to Malaita’s turn you will
get my nomination.
Mr Speaker, this country belongs to all of us and in my
submission here I have tried to amplify the road blocks between the Opposition
and the Government and why I find it difficult for this Opposition to work
together with the government.
Sir,
there is nothing wrong in working together but unless you are serious in
addressing the fundamental differences in your policies. Why not?
The
MP for
Mr OLAVAE: Mr Speaker, with your indulgence I would like
to extend my sincere thanks to the Prime Minister for moving this motion this
morning and also previous speakers who have contributed to the motion.
Mr Speaker, previous speakers who contributed raised
issues on governance, economic and financial problems we have inherited since
obtaining independence.
Mr Speaker, since the creation of
Look
at our infrastructure developments throughout the country on wharves, bridges,
roads, airports and one might ask, what was the purpose of those infrastructure
developments? Those infrastructure
developments were built purposely for those people, the private sectors, and
the rural farmers to participate in economic activities so that they contribute
towards the GDP of the nation’s economy.
Decentralization
started way back during creation and when the colonial masters came in they
continued with that decentralization program.
Look at all the banks, the bank branches, the Commonwealth Bank. The staffs of the Commonwealth Bank during
the colonial days were deployed throughout the four corners of this
nation. Our people have access to banking
services throughout the rural parts of
In
fact the bottom up approach that this government is advocating has already
started even during creation and the colonial days. I am glad this government realizes that the
only way forward to revitalize our economy under this recovery and restoration
program is the bottom up approach.
Mr Speaker, our track record in the last 28 years has
shown that this country’s economy has been going from good to worse financially,
economically, governance wise and so forth.
Mr Speaker, the factors pertaining to the downfall of our economy in the
last 28 years, as we all know, is that successive governments instead of facilitating
the private sector and the rural farmers, and continue to improve on
infrastructures that the colonial masters started, it neglected them. The Government and the provincial governments
continue to run business instead of facilitating the private sector and the
rural farmers.
Look
at the infrastructures that I have just alluded to earlier. They were ingredients to stimulating rural
economy. They were ingredients to earning
foreign exchange for this country.
During the colonial days,
Mr
Speaker, because of globalization and because of our adoption of the
multilateral trading system,
Mr Speaker, during colonial days because of those
ingredients put in place such as the private sector, rural farmers were able to
participate in economic activities. There
were also good economic policies in place which contributed towards our
currency at par with the Australian Dollar at Independence Day.
But for the last 28 years the rate of our dollar to the Australian
Dollar is almost six times. What has
gone wrong? The problems we have are
inherited problems. That is what we have
been echoing here in Parliament by both the Government and the Opposition
because we have to find solution to the problem.
Mr Speaker, the solution to this very big problem that we
inherited is good economic policies, rural development strategies this
government is embarking on and other ingredients that we have to put in place
so that it will be workable. There must
also be capacity building of those 50 constituencies is also important.
Mr Speaker, 28 years is enough time for us to be able to
address the problems. This is the time
the present MPs must identify the problems and formulate policies that will be
conducive to the economic development of the country that this government is
embarking on. There has to be solutions. We all know what our problems are and all
these have to be addressed one way or the other.
Mr Speaker, last year when the government took over
office, the government increased the rural development fund from $400,000 to
$1million and the budget we have just passed also takes on board another
$1million for this year.
Mr Speaker, that is an indication of better things coming
up may be next year. What I want to see
for rural development is increase funding to the rural areas because successive
governments for the last 28 years have been draining money out of people’s
resources into the government’s tills but in return nothing goes back to where the
money came from.
I believe 90 percent of the people are anticipating for the
bottom up approach that this Government is embarking upon. Since the country has been facing economic and
financial problems or has inherited there will be a lot of time needed by this
government to really work on the issues affecting us.
Mr Speaker, before I resume my seat I think both the
Government and the Opposition side have already realized the steps we will be
taking to really alleviate the situations we have inherited.
With these few remarks, Mr Speaker, I resume my seat.
Mr
Mr Speaker, I would like to thank you for your leadership
in Parliament. I would like to take this
opportunity also to thank the Clerk and her team in Parliament, especially
those sponsored under the UNDP program that have greatly supported the Public
Accounts Committee in one way or the other in our deliberation of the budget before
Parliament met.
Mr Speaker, I will be very brief in my contribution to
this motion. It is a traditional motion
and normally it is an opportunity for Members of Parliament to thank people in
their constituencies and in the various walks of life they are engaged in.
Mr Speaker, we have just passed the 2007 Appropriation
Bill yesterday, which I believe is going up to the Governor General for his royal
assent to give authority to the government to spend.
Mr Speaker, in my view, this is the first time in the
history of
The highlight of this year’s budget, Mr Speaker, which
has been the centre of discussions by Members of Parliament and people on the
streets, is the bottom up approach. Mr
Speaker, I was not given the opportunity to give an account or definition or
meaning to this policy. But I wish to
take this opportunity to try and clarify, in my own view as to what this
proposed bottom up approach policy is going to be like.
Mr Speaker, I do not want you to agree with me on the
views that I will express but I would want you to respect the views that I will
make on the floor of Parliament.
Mr Speaker, when this policy came up and was introduced
by the government, there were a lot of mixed feelings by Members of
Parliament. There were a lot of doubts
expressed even by people on the streets, and there were a lot of uncertainties
on this policy. But whatever those
doubts are or the uncertainties expressed, they are yours and I do respect
those views.
Mr Speaker, on the periphery there can never be one
definition of this vernacular that would fit into the 50 constituencies of this
country. But on the bigger picture the
bottom up approach concept is really to empower people in the rural areas
through the creation of opportunities.
Mr Speaker, there are three statements that emerge from
this concept, and these statements are to empower people, to create opportunities
in the rural areas, and to utilize resources based in the rural areas.
Mr Speaker, in a more monetized economy there are three
main factors of production, and these are land, labour and capital. Under the proposed bottom up approach policy
of this government, our people already have two of these factors of production.
They already have their land and they
already have labour. This is why the
approach that is going to be taken by this government in moving forward will be
in a form of partnership and this would take various forms on how the policy
will be implemented.
Mr Speaker, it is important to note that as a government
and as a people and as leaders, we still always need each other. There has been a lot of talk that we do not
need our donors or people have discouraged donors. But our donors still play a very important
role in the economic, social and political development of this country. So we still need each other for the
development of this country.
Mr Speaker, moving on from that this year there has been
a lot of improvements in the constituency development allocation. I am very sad and surprised to see the MP for
East Are Are being unable to see the difference in the presentation of this
year’s budget. I do not blame him
because he is a bit ill and maybe he is blind and so is unable to read between
the lines to see the difference between the presentation of the recurrent budget
and the development budget of this year.
This year this government has made a milestone in the presentation of
the budget.
In the
previous years’ budgets the allocation to rural areas cannot be isolated and
have not been specifically identified.
But this government has seen it fit to clean up the centralized
allocation from the headquarters and departments into the appropriate sectoral
segments throughout the budget. That is
one of the big differences that can be seen in the recurrent estimates, for
which this Government must be given credit for.
The other difference I can see in the presentation of the
development estimates is that the government has seen it fit to only include
what it has authority over in the consolidated fund. That is the big difference from previous
presentations and preparation of development estimates.
My colleague from East Are Are has said that only $188
million was allocated to the development estimates. Yes, that is correct and that is what the
government has allocated to develop the rural areas. But that said there is an enormous
contribution by our donors to rural development and to this country. If all those are put together there is going
to be more than $188 million for the development estimates collectively
supported by our donors and the Solomon Islands Government. To strictly limit the arguments that only
$188 million is for the rural areas is untrue and should be ruled out.
Mr Speaker, the proposed bottom up policy is a big
development that this country will see and it will be the first time that our
people will truly participate in the economic development of this country. Our people for the last 30 or so years have
been sitting spectators, and this will be the first time that small
developments will take place in the 50 constituencies of this country.
This
is the first year and we will not expect big improvements in development. But as a first step forward we truly believe
that Members of Parliament have a big responsibility in this regard. In terms of getting this policy driven into
the rural areas, there is already $1million allocation for each of the 50 constituencies.
In
this regard, I would like on behalf of my people to sincerely thank the people
and the Government of the Republic of China for having seen it fit and
appropriate by giving this fund. The ROC
has always stood by the people and government of
Mr
Speaker, we always talked so much about people in the rural areas, and most of
that, in my view, have been mere lip service.
The assistance by our very good partner and development friend, the
Republic of China is truly in
support of this initiative through this allocation in the development budget
for our people in the rural areas.
Getting
back to the bottom up policy by this government, it is truly a new concept and
that people will not fully appreciate or grasp the meaning or the definition of
this policy and how it is going to be implemented in each of the 50
constituencies throughout this country.
But it would be wrong to suggest that the Minister of Finance and the
Minister of Planning will have the sole responsibility of implementing this
policy in the 50 constituencies. No,
that is not correct. That is the
responsibility of each 50 Members of Parliament. The 50 of us must realize and fully exploit
the potentials of our constituencies, as this has not been utilized for the
last 20 or more years. Therefore, Mr Speaker, from this year
onwards our government needs to understand and needs to realize that there is
enormous potentials that our people can play in the economic development and
nation building of this country.
Last
Saturday’s occasion on Malaita is a big, big jump for the people of Malaita and
for
There
is going to be big things happening in Malaita, and I just want to thank the government
for seeing it fit and appropriate to really push and drive for this
development. As long as I am the
backbench of the government, I will really push hard to make sure this
development takes place in Malaita. We
need to identify and associate with people and to open up opportunities that
are available in our rural areas.
Mr
Speaker, there are certain things that are disturbing our development in the
country, and colleagues on the other side of the floor have also raised the
same issues that will not make this country to move forward. That is why the Prime Minister in his opening
debate this morning has given the call to all of us to work together.
We
must put our minds together regardless of the differences in our opinions and
policies. Yes, those things will always
be there, but unless we consolidate ourselves as leaders and as a Parliament to
look at those issues that are affecting our country, we will just be going
around the circle getting nowhere. That
is why I want to call on every leader of Parliament, the 50 Members of
Parliament to work together to solve our problems. This country is moving
forward and moving on and there are good things that are going to happen to
this country if we stand together.
Sir,
so much has been said about RAMSI. I
want to take this opportunity to thank RAMSI and all our donor partners that
are here with us for being in
Mr
Speaker, as I have said I will be very brief, I would like to say on behalf of
my people of South New Georgia/Rendova/ Tetepare say that we will always
support this government in its efforts and endeavors. The chiefs in my constituency told me that
our land is available. The constituency
is available. Whatever the government
wants to do, it is open. This is not
going to be the first time my constituency is opened up for development or it
continues to support the government or it continues to support this country.
Sir,
for the last 20 years my constituency was badly destroyed environmentally for
the good of this nation and so we will stand behind the government. We will stand behind this country to continue
to support even to the extent that may be our reefs would be destroyed and our
forests would be destroyed, but this is for the good of this country. But out of destruction goodness will come,
and that is why we will always work with the government.
Sir,
we will open up the
Mr
Speaker, on that note I would like to thank you for your leadership as Speaker
of Parliament. You have all my
confidence and support. To the Clerk, I
would like to take this opportunity to thank you. Some of us have not been sitting long in our
chairs but you have been very committed to your work. Also the staff of Parliament, the Hansard
officers, we have not seen them here but they are hard at work. Whilst we are talking here they are going
ahead cracking the machines. Surprising but
that is how efficient our officials are, and on this note on behalf of my
people I would like to thank every one of you for your leadership in Parliament.
Finally,
Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Prime Minister, Ministers of the
Government and my colleague backbenchers, the Leader of Opposition and all
Members of Parliament on the Opposition bench.
I call on every one of you to day, especially the MP for Rennell and
Bellona who is also a shipping tycoon himself who has allocation in the
development estimates for tourism development on Rennell and Bellona, please be
part of this development. Come and join
the government in the efforts this government is doing.
I
also call on the MP for East Are Are to be part of the government. Do not just sit there on the Opposition side
making a lot of noise on the same issues, which are boring to this
country. Let us work together. Those issues that we are discussing will get
us nowhere, absolutely nowhere. The same
issues are what we hear during question time and I believe the same issues again
will be repeated in the motion of no confidence that you are going to move. Who do you want to convince?
Mr
Speaker, those issues have been dealt with by the government. For you to continue to deliberately mislead the
public and people, as a leader is very irresponsible leadership. I hope people listening out there will
carefully read between the line of argument and debate on this floor of Parliament.
Mr
Speaker, my people as I have said are always in support of this government from
day one and we will always support whatever governments that come into power because
there will always be only one government.
The Opposition is an alternative government and it is not the government,
and so I cannot support the Opposition. I will only work with the government because
there will only be one government and it is only through the effort, support
and contribution through the government that we can have developments in our
constituency. Whatever development
aspiration and endeavors we would want to do can only be realized through the
government.
Finally,
Mr Speaker, on behalf of my people I like to thank all Members on the government
bench, the 32 of them who have just recently made their commitment to the
government. I want to call on the Leader
of Opposition and the MP for Small Malaita who is not here, he must be working
his guts out thinking and breaking his mind to please come and join the
government. Support the government
because you obviously do not have the number in your intentions and attempts to
move this motion because the government is extremely solid with its numbers. This is not a bluff colleague MPs on the
Opposition bench. We see it as inappropriate
and untimely to continue moving motions of no confidence on the
government.
The
door is open, the Office of the Prime Minister is open to all of us, and not
only the government. The Leader of the Opposition
can just lift the telephone or the MP for Small Malaita and talk to the Prime
Minister. If you leave the telephone you
can go and see the Prime Minister because he is not only the Prime Minister of
the government bench but he is the Prime Minister of Solomon Islands. Whatever feelings or misunderstandings or misconstrued
thinking you might have, the Minister of Foreign Affairs is there, go and see
him, knock on his door, he is your minister and my ministers. He is the minister of the government and the
minister of
I would
like to thank the hardworking Minister for Commerce, a young but hard working
minister and also the Minister for Health. My best friend, the Minister of Fisheries has
just announced that more money is coming in the fishing industries. My Minister, make sure you supply our
constituencies with this bottom up approach where our people can go out and
fish for themselves. I am pretty sure
that after this meeting we will have an audience like you have promised to come
and see you in the office. So I will
come and come and see you for more dialogue for developments we want to do in
our constituencies.
On
that note, Mr Speaker, finally thank you very much on behalf of my people and
constituency of South New Georgia and Rendova.
We will always stand behind the government and we will always support
this government whatever it takes.
With
that I thank you and support the Prime Minister on this motion.
Mr GUKUNA: Thank you again Mr Speaker, for giving me
time to make a brief contribution to this sine die motion that has been moved
by the Honorable Prime Minister.
Mr
Speaker, in my very short time in this Parliament I found this particular
motion of sine die very pleasing. It is
very pleasing because it is the first time that I have seen the Prime Minister
smiled when he delivered his introduction speech. That was good and I am serious to see the
Prime Minister put a very human touch to this motion ending three weeks of
arguing and debating.
It
was good too to have received some lesser bashing from the Prime Minister and fury
as an opposition MP this time. Having
said this, let me say that most of our criticisms on the budget were meant to
be constructive. There are many
questions that have the good intention of making sure that the good intentions
carried in the budget become real.
Mr
Speaker, the Prime Minister saw this otherwise, and he saw no need to thank us for
supporting this very important budget.
Nevertheless, over the last three last weeks we have had the privilege
of making ourselves known to our people. We debated, argued and expressed conflicting
views on issues of interest to us and the people we represent in this honorable
House.
We made
comments, we questioned and in some instances we threw insults and
recriminations in order to press our points. Our views may have been diverse, we may have
expressed them in different ways but at the end of the day we did all
these. Regardless of how we interpret
them it is because we all love this country, all of us in this House.
Mr
Speaker this country is our country for good or for worse, and ugly it may have
been, it is our country and it is ours forever.
No one, no one will take this away from us. Mr Speaker our forefathers who went before us
passed this country on to us and we will in turn pass this country to our
children and their children.
What
kind of
By
enormous Mr Speaker we have no right to decide for them but by convenience only
however we have been mandated to decide for their future. Therefore, the best we can do for them is to
work together and decide together in order for us to pass on to them the
Mr
Speaker, I believe this is why we talked so much about development during the
past two weeks. We did this because we
recognize that development is the key to improving the standard of living of
our rural people, the people who send us to this honorable House.
Mr
Speaker, one truth here is that we will not stop talking about development in
this House. Those who went before us
talked about it. We are talking about it
today and our children and their children will continue to talk about
development.
Mr Speaker, just this week we all agreed to place the
hopes of our people on an approach to development that we have judged to be the
best way of attuning development for our people.
Mr Speaker, we have agreed to put this approach to test
and we have no quarrel about this. Sir,
we agreed to be very mindful that this approach will face challenges never mind
our good intentions. Over the past days
we discussed expenditures at length. We
spent a lot of time discussing expenditures.
We spent time on this to ensure that they are right and that they match
our intentions. In fact we have been
careful because these figures represent one of the most immediate challenges to
development, and that is the cost of development.
Mr
Speaker, this budget is necessary, not so much because of accountability on its
own. Rather the primary reason for
budgeting is because the financial resources we need to develop our people are
often not enough. This budget is meant
to ensure that these limited resources are spread out properly to take on the
cost of developing our people.
Mr
Speaker, fundamental to our desire to development we must always recognize that
development is not a destination that we can reach but rather development is a
journey, a journey that will not end as long as we remain human. Also, if we are to attain any level of
development, we must overcome the cost of development. Of course, Mr Speaker unless we overcome the
cost of development we will not achieve any real development.
For
these reasons Mr Speaker, the three constituencies in
Mr
Speaker, while on these Honiara Constituencies, allow me to remind my good
colleague MPs for
Mr
Speaker, I said that fundamental to development we must over come the cost of
development. To this end I am so pleased
that the 2007 Budget Speech recognizes the importance of overcoming the cost of
bridging the distances that separate our many islands if we are to move on in
development.
Mr
Speaker, what this recognition amounts to is that the cost of developing our
people and our island villages is driven by our geography and the vast
distances that separate our islands and our people.
Mr
Speaker, I am sure that you have been to the
Mr
Speaker, this is one of the least populated areas in the country. If we are to make a deliberate decision to
allocate to these islands development funds based on per capita, we might as
well make alternate decision to live them alone, and not to give them
development funds because this decision is justice.
Mr
Speaker, I myself come from one of the most beautiful parts of this country
representing a people with unique cultures. We have the only recognizable lake in the
country, the biggest in the South Pacific, excluding Austraila and New Zealand,
the biggest raised coral atoll in the world, and undoubtedly one of the most
pristine and unspoilt environment setting in this country with an unique
ecology of world standards.
Mr
Speaker, not long ago because of our status we have made a deliberate decision
to commit all these. All we have
acquired as our heritage for our future generation, to at least allow them the
chance to appreciate in the distant future the original land where our fathers live,
is our simple and noble intention.
Mr
Speaker, but irony of this innocent commitment is that this place is
underdeveloped, as it has failed to attract adequate development funds and
commitment to promote any meaningful development in these islands.
Mr
Speaker, because of our desire to develop, allow me to now inform the
government that our need now is to turn our underdevelopment to a set of
national and international standard. That
is an intention that we will need injection of substantial capitals to get
through. With this reason also I must
thank the government for allocating some funds in this budget through its
bottom up approach for us to at least set the basis for this new development
direction.
Mr
Speaker, as I have said I believe we all had a good intention of improving the
lives of our people and create a much better
Mr
Speaker, I have expressed some opposing views because of these sole reasons. These are views that have been based purely
on my interpretation of government actions and stated policies. Sir, we have not misconstrued their policies.
We are not complaining because we have
not been consulted. We have made our
position of some of these policies, particularly this gun issue known in this
House, and I must thank you, Sir, for allowing us plenty time. Let me just say this that if you have any
more reasons to defend these policies, I will leave it to you to explain these
reasons to the parents who lost their children, the motherless and fatherless
who lost their parents through guns over the last few years.
Mr
Speaker, I took a strong opposition on rearming of the Police because I believe
the government is not sensitive enough to the damages that guns had caused to
this country only three years ago and the potential damage that guns could
impose on this country again. Of course,
Mr Speaker, I did so as a Solomon Islander neither as an Australian nor a
pro-donor as has been painted by the government.
Mr
Speaker, the worst we can do for our children is to pass on to them a country
that is full of unworkable credit schemes. The worse we can do for our children is to
pass onto them a land system of collateral that the banking system will not recognize. The decision to pass on to them a country
that they will have to travel interstate or may be internationally between our
islands is already bad enough.
Mr
Speaker I believe that the best we could do for our children is to pass onto
them a country that is full of confidence for our banking institutions and
overseas investors. Sir, these bankers
and investors are very smart people.
They will not be attracted to this country by our words and whatever
schemes that we come up with.
Mr
Speaker, the only thing that will give them confidence is our actions and our behaviors. It is therefore important that we act in the
right way because our action will speak out louder. My concern is that we have been acting
contrary to our words and what we have written on paper.
With
these comments, Mr Speaker I thank you for your indulgence. That is my contribution to this sine die and
I thank you again for allowing me this chance and I support the motion.
Hon Sogavare: Mr Speaker, I beg to move that the debate on
the Sine Motion be adjourned.
Debate on the Sine Motion is adjourned under Standing
Orders
The House
adjourned at 4.20 pm