• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

NATIONAL PARLIAMENT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS 8TH PARLIAMENT – 1ST SESSION – 4TH MEETING DAILY HANSARD

THURSDAY 16 TH AUGUST 2007

(Draft Copy – Subject to Changes upon revision)

submitted by the Honourable Member for South Malaita The Speaker, Rt Honorable Sir Peter Kenilorea took the Chair at 9.30 a.m. following the withdrawal of a similar motion on Prayers Friday the 10th.

ATTENDANCE

At prayers all members were present with the exception of the Ministers for In giving my ruling on the no Commerce, Industries & Employment, confidence notice submitted by Honorable Lands & Survey, Culture & Tourism, Haomae, I feel that it is important that I provide Women, Youth and Children Affairs, the House with further elucidation on certain Communication, Aviation & Rural matters within my ruling of Friday 10th August Development, Provincial Government & 2007. Rural Development and the members for The first issue I wish to cover is the sub West New Georgia/Vona Vona, West judice rule (Standing Order 36(2)) as it relates to Guadalcanal, Ranonga/Simbo, East Are this particular motion. Are, North Malaita, Gao/Bugotu, South The sub judice rule as it has been Vella La Vella, Hograno/Kia/Havulei, applied in other parliaments around the world North Guadalcanal, North New Georgia, relates principally to matters before criminal West Kwaio, Ulawa/Ugi, North Vella La courts. This aspect of the rule stems from the Vella and South New traditional fear that statements made in Georgia/Rendova/Tetepari. Parliament regarding pending criminal cases might prejudice the decisions of potential jurors and judges. Ruling on the Inadmissibility of the Motion of In terms of civil proceedings, the sub No Confidence proposed by the Honorable judice rule is less strictly applied. Matters are Haomae not sub judice until they arte actually before the courts and only to the extent that the Speaker Mr Speaker: At this point in time the Chair, rules considering each circumstance. Thus, the wishes to take advantage of Order 13(c) to pass mere issuance of a writ of summons does not the message in relation to an issue that has render a matter sub judice. In this regard it has created a lot of public interest, both to the House been said and I want to quote: of Parliament and hopefully to the public so that the issue can be properly understood, and “A factor which the Chair must take hopefully stop the media to keep coming to the into account in making a judgement Office of the Speaker about it. This is in on the application of the sub judice relation to the motion of no confidence convention is whether the matter is of a criminal or civil nature. The practice of the House provides for The first no confidence motion greater caution in the case of In relation to the first motion by the Hon criminal matters... In the case of a Huniehu which was placed on Order Paper last civil matter it is a sensible Friday, I ruled then that the motion was in order provision that the rule should not and that the matter proceed. The member apply ‘from the time a writ is however decided to withdraw the motion under issued’ as many months can Standing Order 31 (1) and the motion was duly intervene between the issue of a writ withdrawn. The member withdrew in the and the actual court proceedings. following terms, quoting from the Hansard The House should not allow its record: willingness to curtail debate so as to avoid prejudice to be convoluted “This motion, if it is moved now into a curtailment of debate by the is about the honorability of this issue of a ‘stop writ’, namely, a Parliament and the integrity and writ the purpose of which is not to respectability of our court bring the matter to trial but to limit systems and the judicial and discussion of the issue, a step therefore I have no intention of sometimes taken in defamation and creating animosity, acrimony other cases¹.” and confusion by moving this motion now. As I have already explained in my first Mr Speaker, whilst I ruling, and I emphasize again here, that in could move the motion now and exercising my discretion whether or not a matter with the submission made by raised in this House is sub judice, I must balance the Prime Minister that the High that rule against the importance of Parliament Court will be hearing this case proceeding with its own business without any within eight days period, I have outside interference. There are indeed many decided that this motion be precedents for this. One such occurred on deferred until after the High Monday in the neighbouring country of Papua Court made its judgement on New Guinea. this motion.” As many of you may be aware, certain members elected to the new PNG Parliament Standing Order 31 (1) – Withdrawal of challenged in the Supreme Court the eligibility motion of Hon Somare or the Right Honourable Somare Standing Order 31(1) provides that: to be elected to the office of Prime Minister prior to parliament meeting for the election of “ A motion or an amendment the Prime Minister. Obviously this House is may be withdrawn at the request aware from the announcement made by our of the mover by leave of Prime Minister on Monday that court action, Parliament or the Committee which is to be heard this Friday, did not prevent before the question is fully put the PNG Parliament from proceeding with the thereon if there is no dissenting election of the Prime Minister. I took a similar voice. A motion or amendment stand on Friday 10 August and I still maintain which has been so withdrawn that stand today. may be proposed again, if, in Having said that, let me make it clear to the case of a motion, notice the parliament that in relation to the previous required by these Orders is motion of no confidence and the one recently given.” submitted that it is my ruling that the sub judice rule does not apply for reasons I outlined in my In other words for a motion to be ruling on Friday and expanded on today. withdrawn it requires the unanimous agreement of Parliament. On the basis that no member opposed has taken a decision during the the withdrawal of the first no confidence motion, current or preceding two that motion was duly withdrawn by the leave of meetings of that Parliament this House. This House clearly took a decision except on a substantive motion on that matter – it resolved that the motion be to rescind that decision moved withdrawn. with the permission of the However, that does not prevent the same Speaker.” or another member bringing up the same matter again, which is what has occurred with the In that regard, I am encouraged by the notice of no confidence motion submitted by the precedent laid down by the courts in the case of Hon Haomae on Friday 10 August. This motion Danny Philip v Speaker (1990) to take into is a new motion, the notice of which requires the account the subject matter of each motion when Speaker to consider its admissibility under the dealing with no confidence motions. criteria set out in Standing Order 27(3). Given Earlier I explained that the no the complexities involved I have considered the confidence motion of the Honourable Huniehu is matter deeply and sought appropriate procedural a matter that has been resolved by Parliament. advice over the last several days. For present purposes, however, that motion is relevant to my determination on whether the Provision of Standing Order 27 ‘same question rule’ applies to the new motion. In determining whether a proposed The question before me now is whether motion is admissible or inadmissible, the the subject matter of this new motion is Speaker is guided by standing Order 27. It substantively the same as that of the motion stipulates in paragraph 3 that: which was resolved last week. The obvious answer is, yes these two motions are essentially “If the Speaker is of the opinion one and the same. that the proposed motion or Notice of the new motion was submitted amendment ...(g) contains 3 hours after the first motion was duly disposed matter which is inconsistent of by this House. Both motions were proposed with paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (5), by the same group of members presumably for (7) or (8) of Standing Order the same reasons. However, this group of 36 ... he may direct ... that the members withdrew their first motion on the motion or amendment be basis that they proposed waiting for the pending returned to the Member as court cases to be determined. No such inadmissible ...” determination has yet to take place and it is unlikely to happen in the near future. I have as, required by Standing In the light of these observations, there Order 27, considered the various is clearly no change in circumstances between paragraphs of Standing Order 36 and the first motion and the one submitted by the that Standing Order 36(3) is the relevant Honourable Haomae and for this reason, I am provision on which my ruling must be inclined to rule that the subject matter of both based. motions is substantively the same and as such, the new motion contravenes the ‘same question The ‘same question rule’ which applies to rule’ and is therefore disqualified by Standing Standing Order 36(3) Order 27 (3)(g). As I pointed out in my ruling on Friday, For clarity, in my first ruling, I was Standing Order 36(3) provides for the ‘same faced with a motion proposed in July 2007 as question rule’ and states: compared to a similar motion moved and defeated in October 2006. Given the passage of “ It shall be out of order to time and the potential for changed circumstances attempt to reconsider a specific since October 2006, I ruled that the ‘same question on which Parliament question rule’ did not apply to Honourable Huniehu’s motion of last week. The same Chair. There is now some consistency. If I conclusion cannot be drawn in respect of the looked at the mover’s statement he deferred that present case. The ratio of the Danny Philip case motion. But it was your chair who said that of 1990 if applied to this new motion would no there was no provision in the Standing Orders doubt support my conclusions in this regard. I for deferment, hence the withdrawal. Why is must inform the House however that in relation there inconsistency in your ruling? to no confidence motions, I view the application of Standing Order 36(3) in the restricted manner Mr Speaker: The inconsistency here may that I outlined in my ruling on Friday and simply be because my notice was not drawn to consider that I have applied that consistently in the deferment at that time, hence I did not raise the current circumstances. it whereas this particular one, I think my memory was working quite well then and I Ruling remember that there is no provision for My ruling therefore is this. I have deferment of motions. There is deferment of considered the admissibility of the new no questions but not for motions, and hence I confidence motion and in so doing relied on the alluded to that fact and I understood that the criteria set out in Standing Order 27(3) as read motion was withdrawn, not deferred. Not only with Standing Order 36(3) and rule that the following my explanation but I think honorable motion proposed by the Honourable Haomae is the Member for East Honiara also stood up to inadmissible. move the motion that it be withdrawn and it was Thank you honourable Member, I wish withdrawn on that basis. to make this publicly so that the public is aware and the media stops running to my office. Hon Sogavare: In the light of that ruling, Mr Thank you very much indeed. Speaker, I would request your permission to ask the Attorney General to make some Hon OTI: Point of order, Mr Speaker. For us announcements on behalf of the government. to be absolutely clear on the interpretation of Parliament having considered the same motion Attorney General: Mr Speaker, I advise, as would therefore mean the part that you instructed by the Government, in the light of mentioned, non objection to the withdrawal of your very carefully reasoned and impeccably the motion tantamount to Parliament resolving stated ruling to inform the House of the that the motion has been resolved, henceforth Government’s and in particular the Prime that motion cannot come back on the floor of Minister’s decision to withdraw and discontinue Parliament. the proceedings currently before the courts which touch and concern the subject matter of Mr Speaker: Right. your ruling, as announced to this House. I am also pleased to advise the Speaker Hon Oti: It is not that the parliament had and the House of that decision and my disposed of the motion through a motion being undertaking as well to ensure that those passed or voted, but the fact it was withdrawn proceedings are immediately terminated in the parliament has resolved that it be withdrawn. High Court by the filing of the requisite notices. Hence Standing Order 36(3) as you said, strictly applying that standing order, the withdrawal of a QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS motion amounts to a resolution by parliament because no objection was raised. National Planning - publishing of the national development plan Mr Fono: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Whilst we accept your ruling, if you look through the 3. Mr FONO to the Minister for National Hansard of October last year, the motion that I Planning & Aid Coordination: When are we moved was also deferred from one Friday to the expecting the release and publishing of the following Friday, and that was accepted by the National Development Plan the Government has question is, Mr Speaker, since the NERRDP was promised this nation? widely agreed upon previously, is this proposed National Plan by the government going to Hon ABANA: Mr Speaker, the National consider the NERRDP which has been approved Planning component has been transferred from before? my Ministry last year and therefore I do not have any response to that question but I would Hon Sogavare: Mr Speaker, this is a rather ask the honorable Prime Minister to responsible government. I think a big success in respond. the way governments function is that we look at ourselves as a standalone entity. That is Hon Sogavare: We are thinking to release and supposed not to be. The Solomon Islands publish the National Planning document to Government is an entity that lives forever, coincide with the handing down of the national governing parties come and go. People want to budget probably in the November Meeting. see themselves as very closely attach to this entity called SIG. The programs that are good Sir Kemakeza: The subject of national will continue, in fact they do continue. planning has been transferred to the Prime If you look at the NERRDP, it is Minister’s Office, which is the right place and I structured in a way that looks at what eight wonder whether there is any intention by the development partners are going to do for us, the Government to change this National Planning so bulk of it is actually funded by aid, and the that it does not confuse the public because the programs are still continuing. Even if this planning subject matter has gone to the Prime government is yet to come up with a plan the Minister’s Office which I support that idea. But programs still continue. They are not affected the Ministry is just a skeleton and what is it by the fact that this government is yet to come doing? up with a plan. Sir, I can assure the MP for Hon Sogavare: No, Mr Speaker, it is not a Savo/Russells that the good aspects of the skeleton. In fact it has a very, very important NERRDP still continue. responsibility, which is aid coordination. The budgets that were presented before this House, Hon Fono: What is the basis of this new the bulk of them are funded by our development development plan in terms of the years? Are we partners, and the intention of the government is just looking at 2010 or 2015 or 2020? Can the to make this Ministry more effective in aid Prime Minister inform the House what period coordination. time are we looking at here, whether it is a There is, in fact, the ………………of medium or long term plan? aid fund in Solomon Islands on the performance of governments, not only this government but Hon Sogavare: In fact the delay is first because every government that have held the reign of the planning function was transferred to the power is very small and is not very encouraging. Prime Minister’s Office and we need to re-think Because of that we want that Ministry to the whole thing about planning. Because you concentrate very heavily on coordination of aid should not be under any illusion that planning is assistance from our development partners panache to our economic problem. Because if it because it is a very, very heavy responsible. It is is, then this country has lived through 29 years for that reason that we transfer the national of existence as a nation and plans have not planning function to the Office of the Prime worked well for us, and so we need to find Minister. reasons why these plans do not work for us. This country does not lack plans. In fact Sir Kemakeza: On the same subject matter, when this country gained its independence, it this government is now in its second year now was given a series of seven years of and therefore the National Plan of the development plan. If we look at the way the Government might come out in 2010. The plans are being implemented there is nothing really that change anything in our country. So Hon Fono: Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister did we need to really look at it very carefully to find not answer my supplementary question. I am out why it is like that. asking for the base of the plan whether it is a We have identified some thinking. We medium term development plan whether it is 5 have a problem, in fact, it is an ongoing problem years, 10 years, 15 years or 20 years. I would where there is still to be a meeting of mind like to know the base of the plan we are looking between the Solomon Islands Government and at. our partners in terms of priority. They have their own priorities and that is why you will see Hon Sogavare: There are two aspects to this. Parliament not appropriating their money. And We will look at an immediate successor to that is because no matter what we can say about NERRDP so that we continue to take up the our plans they have their own priorities. That is good work left behind by NERRDP to fit in our one thing we need to come to terms with. We program. There is debate going on and we need would like to seriously address that with our aid some advice on this whether there is a need to partners. We need to seriously talk about it. In go on very long term plans. I am looking at 20 fact they are asking us what time the plan will to 30 years plan that we need to do, and the aid come. We need to settle this question. If we donors must come in. Maybe we legislate so need to come up with a plan that we all that it is requirement of the law that we all recognize then let us all put our money to where implement the plan – the aid donors and us, all this plan says. That is one issue. of us. The other issue is that in the light of the We are looking at two components here. new direction the government is taking - the One is an immediate successor to the NERRDP bottom up approach, the participation of our and the other one will be looking at a longer people are very important. And that addresses term development plan, even if it goes to 40 the other question that plans so far have been years plan and then legislate it so that it focused on what aid donors have done for us. addresses the question of what to do. The NERRDP is a case in point. I think what to do is something which I This government wants to come up with do not think any government that comes in a plan that looks at the very heavy participation should argue on it. It is how to implement that of our own people using the strength of this plan that we come up with our small manifestos, country. The strength of this country lies in our our programs on how to implement the ‘what natural resources and the wealth that are in the question’. villages, and more than 85 percent of our people If it is agreeable to the House, we will are living there. In other words, we basically be seeking the view of the House in the later part turn the table upside down and start to involve of this year, probably at the budget session our people. That takes time to be considered. whether it is good to legislate these plans so that The other thing that comes up clearly as well we live it there and any government that comes here is that, and I do not know because of the in, the plan is already set, the aid donors way may be things are happening that our understand where we are going, we only come people cannot be trusted as yet to relate to plans. with how to implement the plan. Thank you. It needs a lot of education. If our people are to be actively involved in implementing the plans Sir Kemakeza: Mr Speaker, I do not know who they need to be prepared. It is for that reason the Prime Minister is lecturing. He seems to that this much talked about PV, which some mix himself up with all these things. Members of the Opposition raised, is taking on The NERRDP will be reviewed in 2006- board that program. That program is aimed at 2007, to which he said he will ensure to take it preparing our people right in the village level – onboard. The question by the Leader of all of them to take effective part in Opposition also confused him. If he does not implementing the development plan. Thank trust the input of aid donors, this NERRDP you. comes from a wider spectrum of all sectors within the community of Solomon Islands, including the Prime Minister’s ideas too are leadership. Are you not planning to legislate for inside the NERRDP. That is why I said it is a you to be a Prime Minister for 20 to 30 years? good plan for him to take onboard. For the information of the Prime Hon Sogavare: Mr Speaker, they are really Minister who is trying to lecture to us about confused. When I talked about legislation I can planning, there is the Vision 2020 which comes see every one in the front line nodding, they out from all Solomon Islanders. The Vision seem to agree. 2020 was chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister Sir, it is something the government has and it is a very good work. If he believes on in mind, and eventually this proposal will come Solomon Islanders then he must also consider before Parliament and we are to decide on it. It Vision 2020 which my Cabinet approved last is just an intention judging from the fact I have time. explained that there is no meeting of mind The question is, why is it taking this between the government and the aid donors in government two years to produce the terms of priority. They have their own priority development plan because all the materials are that is different from the government. No matter there? It is just a matter of putting things how much we say, no matter how much we put together. Or is it because of this bottom up in the plan they do not recognize it. approach idea that they are confusing the It is just a suggestion that may be it is a country with, which is not a new thing since good idea to legislate it so that everyone independence that is causing the delay. recognizes it because it is enforced by law that this is the direction we are going. When I Hon Sogavare: Mr Speaker, I have already explained it I said we should only legislate the answered that question. I think it was the MP ‘what’ aspect of the plan - the frame work so for Savo/Russells who was confused. that it is open to any government that comes in. Sir, what is one and half years to do this We are not pinning anyone down, it is open, and thing properly. We have 29 years of existence any new government that comes in addresses the as a nation. And as I said already if we are in an ‘how’ question to implement the plan. illusion to think that development plan are panache to our problem then we are very wrong. Mr Gukuna: This side we are nodding our Plans do not work for this country. If heads but that side was mesmerized by what the plans work for us then just look at us after 29 Prime Minister is saying. My question was not years; pointing straight at us. answered. Are you not planning to legislate so that you are the Prime Minister for 20 years? It Sir Kemakeza: Including yourself. is just a simple yes or no.

Hon Sogavare: Just look at us, there is nothing Mr Speaker: I think that is a hypothetical right with us. We are wasting the last four years question, which the Prime Minister might find it selling the sovereignty of this country. difficult to answer. What is one and half years more, 18 months to do this thing properly so that it works Mr Boyers: Yes, I would like to thank the for us? Thank you. Prime Minister for his interpretation. I understand that aid coordination is overlapping Mr Gukuna: Mr Speaker, I am not following than affective aid delivery. the argument but I was a little bit confused when The Prime Minister mentioned last year the Prime Minister said to legislate the on planning of the country’s economic trade development plan. Development plan is subject zones. Can the Prime Minister explain whether to a lot of things and a lot of situations. It is that is part of the new plan or is it already in subject to thinking, it is subject to leadership, action? and so when he said to legislate a plan for 20, 30 years, are we going to legislate a plan. I am not Hon Sogavare: Mr Speaker, the idea of quite sure but are we going to also legislate adopting the policy of special economic zones to zone locations throughout the country is a policy of economic zones is one of key policies of this that this government is taking up. Mr Speaker, government. It is an important strategy to we do not see any reason why it should not be address some of the bona fide demands of our included in the plan as one of the strategies to people of Guadalcanal - decentralize major address our economic development program. economic development infrastructures. May be Mr Speaker, any plans that we may when the locations are zoned and incentives come up with must appreciate the changing given we can attract investors to go down to the environment. Anything we do from year 2000 provinces. and onward, unless we are blind to this, and if We are pleased to announce that a we do not take this into account we are number of investors are already prepared. As irresponsible, has to take into consideration the soon as the legislation comes through, which we reason why this country collapsed in year 2000. are going to push through in the next sitting of If any government does not take up that parliament, they will come. How that will position, Mr Speaker, it is very irresponsible. happen is that as soon as the legislation is The demands of the people of passed, the Minister of Commerce will lead a Guadalcanal are not demands unique only to the delegation to go to the places we have already people of Guadalcanal. It is a reflection of what identified to attract investors to come and invest the entire nation wants. If the demands are in those areas. And we are targeting agriculture listed down and you take a paper and shut out and areas like that. . the name ‘Guadalcanal demands’ and show that to any right thinking Solomon Islanders Hon Fono: Before I thank the Prime Minister throughout this country, they will all agree that and the Minister for Aid Coordination, I would those are issues we should address so that this like to say that sectoral policies and plans should country sits down properly. And one of the be part and parcel of the overall medium term demands that come out very clearly is to development plan including the bottom up decentralize major economic developments to approach which should not be seen in isolation other provinces. That is a very clear demand but part and parcel of the overall development from them. plan of this nation. This is what we want and we Okay, may be it is for a narrow reason have not seen that over the last 18 months. because everything happens in Guadalcanal and With that I thank the honorable Prime that is why people are coming to Honiara. That Minister and the Minister of National Planning is, I guess, why this word was driving the and Aid Co-ordination. demand. But if you look at it in a broader sense, Mr Speaker, it shows the fact that governments Aid coordination: EU micro projects funding after governments have neglected that very important duty of developing other provinces - 4. Mr FONO to the Minister for National everything is happening here. Planning & Aid Coordination: Can the Minister This is a very, very important demand inform the House on how many projects are that we all should agree upon. The development approved and funded in 2006 under the of other provinces is something we must European Union Micro-Projects funding by – address, and the only way to do it, as I explained to the people of Guadalcanal is that investors (a) Provinces can only go down to other provinces if important (b) Sectors infrastructures are established there. We have a (c) Amounts very serious problem here and we need a lot of understanding from our people as well as people Hon ABANA: Mr Speaker, thank the Leader of in other provinces too. the Opposition for this very important question. If we want major economic I must make it clear here that the EU development to happen in our provinces, let us Project not only funds provincial projects but open up, reduce land disputes so that also national projects. For national projects in development can happen long there. This policy 2006, these projects are ongoing, and the Mr HAOMAE: How long does the process question is asking for what we have until 2006. take before a decision is made to fund a project under the Micro-Project funding? A number of Provinces Sector projects have been there for the last five years. How long does the process take? Some projects Amount of our people in the rural areas have been there for quite sometime in the Ministry and so how National (3 projects) 3 on long is the process? training $194,781.00 Hon Abana: Mr Speaker, I am confused with Western (5 projects) 3 water the question. I would like to know whether what supply & sanitation $509,825.00 the honorable MP colleague is asking is whether 2 projects have been funded or not funded or how Education long is the life of the EU Micro-Project. If it is the EU Micro Project that you would to know Choiseul (1 project) 1 on how many years it will run then I can tell you health $308,088.00 that it will last until 2008 and that is why we have at least another $17 to $20m to expend. Central Province (3 projects) 1 on water supply & sanitation Mr Haomae: Mr Speaker, the tenure of the $828,855.00 Micro Project funding is not a process, but the 2 Education process is the screening of applications and so on. That is the process. How long the project Renbell, Isabel, Malaita, Makira and Temotu will take is not a process as that is already Provinces (no projects) determined. The process is the time taken from when applications are lodged to the time the Honiara (2 projects) 1 on decision is made by the screening committee. education That is the process. How long does that take $262,953.00 that because some people in the rural areas have 1 on been waiting for quite a long time and some social development have already died without hearing the results of their applications? That is the national question Guadalcanal (9 projects) 8 on I want to ask my good Minister for National water supply & sanitation Planning. $1,162,988.00 1 on Hon Abana: Projects keep coming in and health yesterday was the closing date for the projects of this year – it closed on 15th August. Sorry to tell Total you this but it is already closed. $3,267,490.00 It is like this. Projects will keep on coming and will go through the selection criteria. Applications will be considered Mr Speaker, like I said the projects are according to the criteria. When an application is ongoing and we have another set from the end of submitted it does not mean it would 2006 to June 2007, which totals $15,973,012. automatically be approved. No, it must go Those provinces that did not register any project through so that it is qualified before it is are coming in as from 2006/2007 where I am approved. beginning to see a number of their projects The selection of projects is done in a coming in. Thank you. very transparent manner. After the projects are selected they will go through a Grands Panel consisting of technical officers that represent the NGOs, the Private Sector, and the Donor that In 2007, until June, Malaita has a total provides funds for the project. of 19 projects, which is the highest. I know that there are more than 500 projects there, and we must give justice to our Mr Huniehu: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I people to go through the projects and make sure think my question relates to the allocation for we respond directly to our people informing year 2006 on why Malaita Province was not them whether their projects are approved or not allocated any projects. That is what I want to and the reasons why they are not approved. know, and not year 2007. May be I will ask that That takes time. I have a table showing the question later. projects and those who have already received theirs. Hon colleagues, may be your project is Mr Speaker: My understanding of the answers approved but you are not aware and so I am given so far is that projects are received by going to distribute this table in your pigeonholes application and not by allocation of resources to after we finish. The table shows where we are a particular province. Whoever submits his now, the amount, who is receiving what from application receives the benefit of the which province - everything is in here. I can application. distribute this to all of you. Hon Abana: Mr Speaker, one of the reasons Mr Huniehu: Mr Speaker, I am a bit concern why appraisal of projects is slow too is that the to hear that some provinces did not receive project started late in 2005 and so it needs time funding during the fiscal year 2006, and in to settle in, prepare and establish themselves. particular I am concern to hear from the Minister This is also one of the setbacks to the project. I that one of those provinces is Malaita Province. think how the project looks after us, the I think all attempts should be made to fairly provinces and the national projects is fair distribute all the projects funded under the enough to everybody. I can see no biasness Micro Scheme to all the provinces. here. I would like to know why some provinces did not receive funds. Is it because Mr RIUMANA: I want to know if income biasness is exercised in the Ministry or is it generating projects is also considered for because those working in the ministry are from funding under EU. Most of these projects seem particular provinces and so they did not pay to be mostly service oriented projects? attention to other provinces. If so, has the government or ministry has plan to have a more Hon Abana: The answer is yes. Under the equitable distribution of projects in the sectors considered as livelihood for marketing provinces because this is one way of disuniting and also social development to address the our people. We must be fair to everyone. I do youths and credit unions. In regards to not believe there were no projects submitted marketing it helps our people through CEMA on from these provinces that were considered in the copra and cocoa. allocation of funds. Mr Haomae: Mr Speaker, I come back to time Hon Abana: Thank you Member for East Are frame. The Minister did not answer my question Are. I would like first of all to categorically very well. Let me give an example so that he deny that there is any biasness in the approval of can answer it properly. projects. A certain constituent of Small Malaita Mr Speaker, as I said this project is submitted a project in 2000 and he received a ongoing and colleague our province gets a letter acknowledging the project was received. I bigger part in 2007 with a total of 19 projects am using ‘was’, in the past tense. I am not using altogether totaling $2.2million. There is no the present tense ‘is’ because he might have died biasness here, but it is just a matter of having already. Up until today there is no funding yet projects coming in and then looking at what kind and that is why I questioned about the timing. of sectors should be addressed. How long does the process take? Is it going to take 10 years or 8 or five years like this project This site was identified previously under a or how long? Can the Minister give a specific project concept that would use line off site time on this example? terrestrial digital micro technology. The technology for the solution is now obsolete and Hon Abana: A simple answer is like this. If Telekom will not implement it. you wait for your project and did not get a Our Telekom is already procuring low respond, I would like to ask you to go and check cost rural communication solution using GSM it out as it looks like it is disqualified. You must technology that provides local mobile services go down and check for your project. and internet access capability and via sat The time frame here like I said there are satellite links. This solution does not really a lot of projects there and may be it is much require very high mountain locations and work. better that you keep following up to find out any Mr Speaker, Our Telekom has already setbacks to your project proposal. That should visited Afio substation recently to locate a help everyone of us. suitable block of land. Malaita Province has given the go ahead to install a communication Hon Fono: Further supplementary question. facility there. Our Telekom is now waiting for What is the success rate in terms of percentage the Commissioner of Lands for a parcel number on income generated projects funded under the and lease for the identified site so that Telekom micro project since its establishment? Can you can install communication for communities in advise me the number of income generating the area. projects funded under the Micro Project? What is the success rate? Mr Haomae: Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for Communication, Aviation and Hon Abana: Mr Speaker, that is a very Meteorology. important question but I would say here that the success rate of projects is generally very Education – Rokera Provincial Secondary successful the way we are handling it now. In School terms of the percentage and whatever the data are, there is need for us to collate that for you. 6. Mr HAOMAE to the Minister for Education But generally it is doing well. & Human Resources Development: What is the progress to date of the Government’s intention Hon Fono: Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for to establish Forms 6 and 7 at Rokera Provincial Aid Coordination for the answers. Secondary School?

Communication: telecommunication to be Hon SIKUA: Mr Speaker, I would like to installed at Eupei Maea thank my good friend, the Member for Small Malaita for his question. The Government has 5. Mr HAOMAE to the Minister for no intention of establishing Form 6 or 7 at Communication, Aviation & Meteorology: Rokera Provincial Secondary School. Mr When will telecommunication facility planned Speaker, it is the Malaita Provincial Education for the Southern Region of Malaita to be Authority, the controlling authority for that installed at Eupei Maea Mountain on Small School that has the intention of establishing Malaita be forthcoming? Forms 6 and/or Form 7 at Rokera Provincial Secondary School in line with its Provincial Hon. VAHOE: Mr Speaker, Our Telecom Education Action Plan. But so far the Ministry formerly the Solomon Telecom is no longer is still awaiting a request from the Malaita putting telecommunication facilities at Eupei Provincial Education Authority to establish Maea Mountains because the site is difficult to Form 6 and/or Form 7 at the Rokera Provincial get to for installation and maintenance Secondary School. requirements. Mr Haomae: Mr Speaker, I was involved in the and also in some parts of the Pacific. The NPF establishment of Forms 4 and 5 of the Rokera benefited quite well from the sale and it has Provincial Secondary School during from 1997 reacquired certain shares too in the Bank of the to 2001, and we went to see the Ministry of South Pacific. Education for purposes of funds. As much as The National Provident Fund is now the Minister would like to say that the Ministry ranked to be amongst the top 10 shareholders in does not have any plans for the School, but the Bank of the South Pacific. This represents Malaita Province has that particular plan, one of the single largest cross-country ultimately they will come knocking at the door investment ever to be carried out by an investor of the Minister. in Solomon Islands to another investment off Aside from that, Sir, I thank the Minister shore. for his answer. The return on investment from the investment in BSP, Mr Speaker, I do not have Finance: investment rationale of the sale of the figure right now with me but I was quite the NBSI satisfied that the return on the investment rate is almost at par with the current interest rate that is 10. Mr GUKUNA to Minister for Finance and now offered in the country, and well above the Treasury: Can the Minister inform Parliament rate of what is being applied as the net present of the investment rationale behind the Solomon value in our discount rate being applied locally Islands National Provident Fund’s decision to in the banks in Solomon Islands. sell the National Bank of Solomon Islands to re- I would say that it is a wise decision to sell the invest in the South Pacific Oil? NBSI to the BSP. On the proceeds from the sale, there is no relationship between the selling Hon LILO: Mr Speaker, I have just seen this of the NBSI to re-investment in South Pacific question, and my apology if I stagger in the way Oil. These are separate investment assessments. I answer this question. But I thank the In fact the decision to invest in the South Pacific honorable Member for asking it. Oil was a decision based on the merit of that The decision to sell the NBSI is a particular investment following the decision by decision made by the Board of the National Shell Company to also depart or to divest its Bank of Solomon Islands. It stems from an retailing and wholesaling business in the Pacific assessment that the Bank requires a strong Region. The proposal that was put together was parenting shareholder to support its investment considered to be the best proposal given the in Solomon Islands. Apparently, with the circumstances in attracting the decision of Shell National Provident Fund holding a good Company to sell the business and the assets of majority shares in the Bank along with three formerly the Shell business in Solomon Islands other trustees for the Trusts that have been to the South Pacific Oil right now in which the established following the departure of the Bank National Provident Fund holds the majority of the South Pacific, that shareholding shares in it. arrangement unfortunately was not able to provide that strong parenting shareholding Mr Huniehu: Can the Minister explain to structure required to carry on the business of Parliament the status of the share trusts held on banking in this country. It is for that very reason behalf of Solomon Islanders in the Bank? that the Board of the National Bank of Solomon Islands thinks it is a wise decision to find a Hon Lilo: Mr Speaker, the fate of the three strong shareholder that has the capital, deep trusts is that the former NBSI Employees Trust pocket and also experience in banking to take on has now been vested and monies will be paid to the business of providing banking services all employees who are qualified under that trust carried out by the National Bank of Solomon to receive the benefits of the investment in the Islands in this country. former NBSI Employees Trust. That is in The Bank of the South Pacific was relation to that particular trust. contacted given the experience of BSP in PNG I understand that the trustee and also the now working on. Therefore, we will all have the management of the BSP are now helping the opportunity to comment and share our views on staff or the beneficiaries of that particular trust how the corporate trust concept is to be to make a wise decision as to how they are going established under any legislation. At this point to use the money. I think this is a very good in time it is good that we signal our concerns idea they are now embarking on because to about having no political involvement in the some of them this is one of their lifetime management of the public trust, but that is investment they would ever come across with exactly why it was decided that it should be that kind of substantial money. properly established under trust legislation. The In relation to the health and education trust legislation that will be presented to trust, Mr Speaker, as you know the Government Parliament in the next meeting will provide for through the Minister of Finance was able to the basis of establishing the corporate trust to strike an agreement with the two trustees to manage trusts that are established in the pubic work on an arrangement to formally transfer interest. those trust to the management under a corporate trustee so that instead of it being managed by Mr Huniehu: I had a look at the balance sheet private trust, it will now be transferred to a of the National Bank of Solomon Islands since corporate trust, and we are working on that. We the two trustees had taken over that expect to have the trust legislation to provide for responsibility, and I think they were making the establishment of a corporate trust and where sound profits during those years and have been that corporate trust is to be managed in the building up financial surplus to a credible level. public interest to be tabled in Parliament in the Has the Minister detected any problems of next meeting, so that the corporate trust that maintaining that status hence the reason for the takes over the management of these two Trusts transfer of shares into the trust board, which will will be formally appointed. But under the be controlled by politicians? memorandum of understanding we have entered into with the two Trusts, we have agreed that the Hon Lilo: Mr Speaker, again it is wrong for us two trustees will now start to talk to the two to say that these trusts will be controlled by Ministers responsible for health and education. politicians. We still have not decided as to how And once the formal agreement on the proceeds that corporate trust will be managed. But of the sale of the shares in the former NBSI is everybody are now expressing their concerns sorted out, the two Trustees will start to talk that this trust should not be controlled by with the two Ministers responsible for education politicians, and when the time comes for us to and health in relation to where the funds will be decide on the design of the legislation, we will invested in Solomon Islands. That is the make sure that this kind of problem does not situation on those three Trusts. happen. I differ with your view on the balance Mr Huniehu: Mr Speaker, can the Minister sheet of the NBSI. As you know since the BSP explain to this Parliament that the establishment departed in 2000 or 2001 the NBSI did not of these corporate trusts will not be subject to declare any dividend to the shareholders. In fact political manipulation? there was retention of dividends which have The fear we have here, Mr Speaker, is been capitalized or kept in the capital reserve of that if these trust shares are transferred to a the bank. Had they declared those dividends corporate trustee to be held responsible by you would have seen the capital base of the politicians, it can be easily manipulated and NBSI drop. It would drop. thereby affect the profitability of the enterprise. The decision by the board, and may be this was not known to you at that time but you Hon Lilo: Mr Speaker, as I have stated, the were on the government side and you did not basis in which the corporate trust will be know what was going on with the bank, the established will be enacted by Parliament. It reason why they had to find a strong parenting will be through the trust legislation that we are shareholder was for that very reason because if they had declared dividend the capital base of Can the Minister inform this House that the bank would drop. It will go down. That is if it had declared dividends during those years, the very reason why the dividend was not could the Bank have been sold at the same price declared. Had they declared it the base of the it was sold for now? NBSI would be very bad indeed. But luckily we have another strong Mr Speaker: That would be asking the opinion shareholder, which is part to it, and that is the of the Minister but if he has the facts to respond National Provident Fund that kept it going. All to then he can do so. our contributions went inside, it was holding some very strong deposits out of the National Hon Lili: That is right, Mr Speaker, he is Provident Fund and in fact good clients in asking my opinion on this particular issue. Solomon Islands too. What I am saying to him is that the facts are I do not quite agree with you that the there. A fundamental matter of any private situation of the bank was that strong. If it had investment is to declare dividend. Shareholders declared any dividend it would have been a who invest in any company would expect much weaker bank. But we have done the right dividend every year. Base beneficiaries to thing, and that is to support securing a strong health and education trust and also beneficiaries parenting shareholder, which is the BSP right through shareholding with the National now to take over the shares in the former NBSI Provident Fund were all expecting dividend and also to give support to the three trusts that from the NBSI for those years, but they do not have been left behind by the Bank of Hawaii. have it. What I am saying is that it cannot be the Mr Gukuna: Mr Speaker, I disagree with what best decision to retain somebody’s rightful the Minister is trying to put across in the dividend. It cannot be. You can use it to save treatment of dividend in relation to capital but I the situation of the company but it is a legal am not going to that. I want to ask him because entitlement that must be declared and once it is I heard rumors or information that it was the declared it has to be paid out to the shareholders. trustees of the bank that pressured the Board to If that situation is to be followed then that was sell the NBSI. Can the Minister confirm that? the complaint that continued to be expressed by the public on why dividend has not been paid by Hon Lilo: Mr Speaker, under Standing Order the NBSI since 2001. The simple reason was you cannot ask questions based on rumors in that if it had paid the dividends the Bank would parliament, it has to be based on facts. The very have been in a very weak position. It would balance sheet that the MP for East Are Are have been in a very weak position. So it is not a sighted, which if the MP for Rennell/Bellona question of whether to not pay or pay, it is a had the benefit of sighting it, would speak for rightful entitlement to pay the dividend. itself. If the dividends were declared the NBSI The argument here is that if we had paid would have been at a very weak position, and the dividend the bank would have landed in a that is why we have to look for a strong very weak position and that is why we have to parenting shareholder, and right now we have sell it. identified the Bank of the South Pacific. Mr Dausabea: Mr Speaker, before asking the Mr Huniehu: Can the Minister confirm that by supplementary question I would like to thank the not declaring dividends over the last three years, Minister for giving the shares to a corporate the NBSI has been building a strong financial trust. I think that gives me a lot of comfort base to deliver its service as a consequence of its rather than giving it to individuals. stand alone situation as a bank. The trustees, in My supplementary question, Mr Speaker my view, were making the right decision not to is, were the Trustees that hold the shares before declare dividends otherwise the financial base of they were transferred to the Corporate Trust the National Bank of Solomon Islands will not remunerated? If the answer is yes, how much? be what it was when it was sold. Hon Lilo: Mr Speaker, I am not too sure Finance: economic benefits of the sale of whether I am in a position to disclose something NBSI that is an entitlement to certain private individuals. Under Standing Order 2, I might 11. Mr GUKUNA to the Minister for Finance violate that particular rule if I do so. and Treasury: Can the Minister inform Parliament of the economic benefits to the Mr Speaker: If it is a matter of secrecy it is out Solomon Islands National Provident Fund of order to raise that in Parliament under resulting from its decision to sell the National Standing Order 22(f). Bank of Solomon Islands?

Hon Lilo: Of course, they are private trustees Hon LILO: Mr Speaker, in terms of economic charged with the responsibility of looking after benefits, it is quite wide but in terms of the the trusts of Solomon Islanders. I cannot speak financial benefits to the National Provident for the former NBSI Employees’ Trust but I Fund, yes it is quite substantial and I think it is think we can speak for health and education to the tune of some $40 to $50 million, and that because these are for the benefit of health and has contributed to the heightening of the return education in Solomon Islands. on investment that has led to the recent To my knowledge, yes, and the declaration of crediting rate to all shares in the documents I have sighted reveals that the two National Provident Fund of about 18%. Trustees are entitled to certain remuneration In terms of economic benefits, with that under the Deed of Trust. I am saying that they kind of return to the National Provident Fund on are entitled to certain remunerations and the the sale of shares of the NBSI, we have a strong remunerations are quite substantial, and it Bank right now with a strong shareholder and it stemmed from the Deed of Trust that was signed is now picking up very well in terms of issuing between those Trustees and the Bank of Hawaii. credit facilities to the private sector, offering good services to the private sectors and so the Mr Gukuna: I am not quite sure what the economic benefits in terms of increasing private National Provident Fund is up to because it sector, creating more employment and income seems that it is supporting all these South Pacific within the economy is there but I cannot entities like the South Pacific Bank and now it is quantify it. In terms of immediate financial South Pacific Oil. I hope it does not turn the benefits to the National Provident Fund, yes, it NPF into the South Pacific Provident Fund. has increased the reserve that has led to the I am coming to the South Pacific Oil recent credit in rate in the declaration of 18%. issue where there are also rumors that you and the Prime Minister have shares in the South Mr Gukuna: Before I thank the Minister I Pacific Oil. Can you confirm or deny that? would like to say something about rumors. This place is filled with rumors, rumors, rumors and I Hon Lilo: Mr Speaker, I think at certain point think a lot of things go out of hand because we in time you have to stop people asking questions do not stand to clarify those rumors. While it is based on rumors. I feel very offended by that true that it is rumors I think it is good that you comment made by the MP for Rennell/Bellona. clarify it so that we put an end to those rumors Please he should stop asking question based on once and for all. Having said that, I would like rumors. We do not have any shares in this to thank the Minister for answering the question. investment. Hon Lilo: Mr Speaker, can I just make a Mr Gukuna: My apologies Minister that I did comment. I think we ought to be guided by the not mean to offend you, but it is just a Standing Orders. In terms of asking and straightforward no or yes that I want. I would soliciting information through Parliament, we like to thank the Minister for comprehensively have to be guided by Standing Orders. I am answering the question. making that comment in relation to Standing Orders 22 and the rules therein, stated very clearly as to how we can go about soliciting enforcing the requirements of this Act on that information on matters that may have been particular SOE. rumored in the public. Mr Haomae: First of all I want to correct the BILLS statement made by the Minister yesterday. I am not the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Bills – Committee Stage the Solomon Islands Printers when I was a politician. I am not a Parliament Member in the The State Owned Enterprises Bill 2007 last term, but I was a private citizen when I was appointed Chairman of the SI Printers. So the Parliament resolves itself into the Committee of Minister of Finance is incorrect in informing the Whole House to consider the Sate Owned Parliament and public yesterday about that. I Enterprises Bill 2007 want to correct him as I was not a politician at that time but I am a politician now but not when Mr Huniehu: I just want to seek the Minister’s I was the Chairman of the Board of Directors of explanation as to when he intends to implement the SI Printers. That is what I would like to this Bill if it is ratified by Parliament. If he can clarify that to him. I did not do that yesterday just give some time frame, please. because I was attending to a legal matter summoned on us by the Prime Minister. Hon Lilo: Mr Chairman, we intend to enforce the requirements of this Act by the end of the Hon Lilo: That has nothing to do with this Bill. next three months, which would be around I can say to you that there was a flow on period November to get SOEs to start to plan ahead in of his chairmanship as a Member of Parliament terms of how they can meet certain requirements whilst he is also the Chairman of the Printers. It of this Act. We are looking at within the next is that flow on period that effectively means that three months to arrive at some understanding on he was still a Chairman of SI Printers in the the enforcement date of this Act. current time when he is a Member of We will hold consultations with all the Parliament. That was the effect of my comment SOEs Board and Management to ensure yesterday. everybody understands what is required of them under this Act. Mr Haomae: The Minister of Finance also removed me from the Chairmanship because I Clause 1 agreed to was a member of the Opposition and not the Government bench. When I took over the Mr Huniehu: Can the Minister explain the chairmanship of the SI Printers it was really terms ‘accountable Ministers’ and ‘responsible down on the floor and when I left, it picked up. Minister’? What does it mean? I was quite offended by the insinuation made by the Minister yesterday. But any way Hon Lilo: Mr Chairman, accountable Ministers let us come back to the Bill. In terms of Clause are composite, it includes both the Minister of 2, the Minister of Finance will now be the Finance and the Minister responsible for that responsible officer of other statutory authorities. particular sector. Responsible Minister is the In the past he was not. In this umbrella bill, the Minister responsible for that sector. As you can structure is that the Minister of Finance will also note in Clause 2 of the Bill itself, the responsible be the responsible Minister for SIWA and SIEA. Minister is the Minister responsible for that In terms of the enabling legislation of those particular sector. If the SOE we are referring to statutory authorities, the Minister responsible for is the SOLTAI Fishing, for instance, then the that sector is answerable to the Prime Minister responsible Minister is the Minister of Fisheries. and then to Parliament. Now the minister will But both the Minister of Finance and the be answerable to the Minister of Finance, the Responsible Ministers are jointly accountable in Minister of Finance to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister to the Parliament. In the event that those two ministers on that particular SOE he has the power to say have conflicting views who is going to prevail. no. What we are saying here is to share the Is it going to be the Minister of Finance who is responsibility that instead of the Minister of responsible for this Bill or this Act or the Finance himself, it is shared equally with the responsible Minister for that particular statutory responsible Minister. Therefore, when it comes authority or SOEs? That is what I would like to to fisheries or shipping it would be the Minister seek clarification on. of Infrastructure holding 50% and the Minister of Finance 50%. That is what it is like. Hon Lilo: Mr Speaker, I would just like to Also as we go into the clauses in here elaborate on the fact that the appointment of the we will find that decisions are made jointly, and MP for Small Malaita as chairman of SI Printers the reasons must prevail, not personality or flows on into his current period as a Member of personal differences. Reasons and those reasons Parliament, and I effectively directed to remove will have to be assessed properly based on him from that chairmanship, and because of that assessments made by the management through he is also a chairman of a statutory body for a the board, properly assessed and those are short period of time in his capacity too, as a reasons that both ministers will act on. Member of Parliament. I think we need to take this correctly In terms of his claim that the Printers is because even the media, last night, wrongly now on sound financial footing, I read the misquoted that this Bill will give more power to accounts of the SOEs, all other ICSI portfolio the Minister of Finance. It is not, it is reducing companies, I am concerned about the Printers, the power of the Minister of Finance. and my concerns the Printers still remains, and If you look at other legislations, Mr that I will deal with them at the appropriate time. Speaker…... In terms of the ‘responsible minister’ in the bill, under the ICSI Act the Minister of Mr Huniehu: Point of order. The Minister Finance is the sole shareholder of every ICSI made a statement that we had it all wrong. That portfolio companies. What we are trying to do is just a simple reason why as the Chairman of here is to share that responsibility. So it is the Bills and Legislation Committee pleaded totally wrong for anyone to say that in this Bill yesterday that the report of the Bills and we are putting the Minister for Finance to Legislation Committee should be properly overpower the other ministers. We are, in fact, comprehended by all Members of Parliament trying to share the responsibility of overseeing and a request for this Bill to be deferred at a and managing these SOEs together with other later date. ministers. When we come to that particular I do not think we have it all wrong. We clause later on you will see that there is an equal were only expressing our concern on issues that shareholding held by the Minister for Finance we think would in the future affect the good and the responsible minister of a particular intention of this Bill. sector. That shows sharing of responsibility where they will both act together jointly, not on Hon Lilo: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I their own and on their own behalf but on behalf appreciate the comments but still it is wrong of the crown. That is what the Bill says. premised on very wrong facts. I still maintain Starting from the Leader of the that I need to make this clarification well right Opposition yesterday, the MP for West New now. Because in the case of other statutory Georgia, the MP for East Are Are took it all bodies like the Solomon Islands Water Authority wrong. If we had a test yesterday everyone will (SIWA), the Solomon Islands Electricity get one out of ten on that particular point - one Authority, there are certain powers exercised by out of ten points. That is what we are trying to the Minister of Finance prescribed by law in do here - share that responsibility. those Acts where those entities cannot enter into Under ICSI, it is the Minister of Finance any financial agreement without the approval of that holds 100% and therefore even if a the Minister of Finance. responsible minister tries to impose something Therefore, even those Acts have the The status of the Central Bank is quite intention of having the Minister of Finance different. The Central Bank is a bank of the exercising certain powers in those SOEs Mr government, and it is a specially designed Chairman. What I am saying here is that I see institution that must remain independent in any no reason whatsoever as to why there will be a economy. The Central Bank cannot be directly conflict between the two Ministers when making put to this kind of situation. decisions who are shareholding ministers in the The status of the Central Bank is very SOEs. different and the way the Central Bank runs its affairs, its accounting practices is not only Sir Kemakeza: Mr Chairman, the Minister for limited inside the country but internationally. It Finance referred to a case, and I think this side follows certain prescriptions prescribed by the of the House has related the concern if that is the International Monetary Fund, which is the larger case because it has happened in the directorship overseeing central banking monetary authority of the Solomon Taiyo – Ministers are by name. throughout the world. So it is quite different in I think that is one good example which is very this particular case. However, the Central Bank hard legally to clear. also declares dividends to the Government. My question to the Minister is, where do Where the Central Bank makes profit it is the government enterprises come in, in this requirement of the Act that it pays that into the interpretation? What I meant is whether this Bill consolidated fund. It also provides temporary also covers the half private and half government fiscal facilities within the operations of the Bank entities, for example Solomon Taiyo, Our to ensure that the economy does not Telekom, the NPF. unnecessarily go through problems when the The second question is, what is the need arises. It provides temporary facilities and status of the CBSI and therefore was not listed it also has the power to create money for a in the schedule. For example, the CBSI, SICHE special reason and so forth. It is a very different etc. these are also owned by the Government but animal altogether. are not in the schedule. Mr Huniehu: The Minister has said that the Hon Lilo: Mr Chairman, in the case of Investment Corporation Act stipulates that the companies that the government holds partial Minister of Finance himself is the sole shares in them, those partial shares will be shareholder on behalf of the government, and shared equally between the two Ministers. It that is the reason why none of the portfolio will be held equally by the two Ministers. For companies of the Investment Corporation of instance, in the case of the Solomon Taiyo Solomon Islands are doing better, but are all Fishing Processing, which is an example we liabilities to this nation creating more chaos than always come back to where the government developing a positive economic growth for this holds 51% shares, that 51% shares will be country. allotted equally between the two Ministers and I would like the Minister to inform the so it will be exercise jointly by the two House, the Minister of Finance himself being the Ministers. sole shareholder in the ICSI investment In the case of Our Telekom, for arrangement, now that we are talking about a instance, in which the Government only holds shared responsibility, which is two politicians 5% shares or 10% shares, it will be shared holding shares in the companies, what sort of equally as well so that both Ministers, even improvement will this arrangement do to the though small those shares may be, we are in a economy. position to ensure that development priorities and direction the government wants can be Hon Lilo: You have to take this principle first conveyed and related to the board so that it can and understand it. They are not holding the be known by the board in the process of it shares personally for themselves but they are planning for its corporate plan. holding it on behalf of the crown. What we are saying here is that other mechanisms that will enable the Minister to perform his responsibility fund. Is that the intention or is it a matter of as a shareholder on behalf of the Crown are sharing responsibility? there. They are backed up by ministerial officials to assess things and so forth. Where Hon Lilo: As you know the ICSI is establish for legal matters come up they consult the relevant one conduit for to channel dividends from SOEs legal authorities the government rely on for legal to the government. As quite rightly pointed out advice to advise them on legal issues, where by the MP for Savo/Russells, as all of us know there is need to carry out economic assessment, for over the last 29 years ICSI portfolio the ministries have the capacity to advise the companies have not been able to do that. ministers in that way. What we are saying here is that the What we are saying here is where we common problem faced by all the SOES seems have failed in the past where only one minister to be the same. Problems such as financial decides on issues, that responsibility is now mismanagement, managerial and administration shared. May be in the past there is only one of companies not being run properly, and that is Minister and that is why decisions were done exactly what this Bill is trying to address. It is just by one man and therefore did not take into trying to put the priority of financial account other interests. There is the need to management at the forefront on directors and share that responsibility and by sharing that management so that what the SOEs are responsibility and giving more ideas and established for can be achieved, and that is discussion on the issue faced by our SOEs, we declaring dividends, paying more money into will be able to come up with good solutions. the government purse in order to roll down the That is the whole intention so that the whole government purse to people in the rural areas process of governance is more balanced rather through the government budget. than just being thrown down and pushed down The objective of the ICSI Act is not single handedly by just one line of authority limited to starting of subsidiary companies. If within the government. you look at the powers of ICSI, it is quite wide. It can go into unitrust, we can even convert into Sir Kemakeza: Mr Chairman, I am very happy some stock market kind of arrangement, the with the explanation by the Minister where he powers of ICSI are very wide. himself holds the shares on behalf of the There are some very good functions of government. ICSI that still exist that ICSI is not able to I see this Bill as going towards abolishing the execute. Why? It even cannot manage the ICSI. Mr Chairman, as you know yourself any subsidiary investments and therefore it cannot dividend derived from all the State Owned do the other functions that Parliament authorizes Enterprises according to the law have to go the ICSI to do through the Investment Act. through ICSI. However, if ICSI has liabilities This is not a total dismantling of the over and above the dividends, the dividends will ICSI. We are only saying that in so far as ICSI be absorbed by ICSI because ICSI is not making capital put in by the government into investment any money. I am sorry that the Ministry of that ICSI establishes the subsidiary companies, Finance who is a shareholder cannot prove let us create this Bill so that we properly clean himself to make ICSI profitable. I am sorry and tidy up the operations of the SOE this time about the Minister for being there many years. to make it become strong. That is basically what The ICSI is defunct and that is what this Bill is we are doing. actually driving towards so that you give shares An entity that is not working cannot be to respective ministers who are holding relied upon. There are practices done by say portfolios for and on behalf of the government. financial auditors and so forth that if an entity is The question is, is the policy of the not working we put it to a new entity, carry on government to get rid of ICSI and that is why the business and clean up the part. That is what you are putting a new legislation here so that we are doing. We are trying to clean up all the responsibility is given to responsible ministers mess that exists within all the ICSI subsidiaries so that any dividend goes to the consolidated over the years by putting it into a new arrangement but still recognizing the relevant You will also find in this Bill a laws that provide for their establishment in the complimentary intention. This Bill is intended first place. We are giving more power to clean it to be enforced in complimentary to existing in a more neater way whilst at the same time aim legislations. That is a good thing about this at promoting good corporate governance, arrangement. creating more opportunities for the entity to take The thing we must understand is that the the lead in private sector development and so cleaning up of all these SOEs is a process that forth. That is the arrangement we are trying to must be done this time and it has to be done do in this Bill, Mr Chairman. lawfully and in a way that mandatory actions can be enforced to make the change to happen. Mr Gukuna: The Minister is emphasizing the shareholding arrangement that splits the Hon Sogavare: I just want to make a point of responsibility between the Minister of Finance order here. Before we proceed in our discussion and the responsible Minister. Couldn’t that be in the Committee, Mr Chairman, I would like to done to the present system because each SOEs is point Members to Standing Order 50(1) which established under an Act. Why not deal with says that “Any committee to which a bill is each one individually because circumstances of committed shall not discuss the principles of the each SOE’s are different? You could have done Bill”. The principles of a bill should be it individually so that you deal with their cases discussed in the second reading. We expect the individually and at the same time correctly Chairman of the Bills Committee and the others identify their problems. It is a management who are concern about the principles of the bill problem and the structures in existent now have to raise those issues during the debate, and we stopped you from doing something about failed to do that. We have passed that now and management. Why don’t you do that within so let us focus on the details of the bill. those Acts? You rightly pointed out that it is a management problem. How can that be Sir Kemakeza: Mr Chairman, we are here on improved by changing it when you are still behalf of our people. We are here on behalf of dealing with the same management? Is it giving our people representing our constituencies. Our you extra power or extra authority that people need to know these things from this floor individual Acts have not given you? What is it? of Parliament through their Members of Parliament who are representing them here. If Hon Lilo: Mr Chairman, as I have said when we have doubts we are asking questions on their moving this Bill, there are existing Acts but in a behalf. I want this to be understood. way they fall short of enforcing the objectives in My question is in relation to the two acts those Acts. If that is going to be done then it - the Act that is legislated for a particular will basically remove the relevance of those portfolio and this particular Act. The other act is Acts. heavily dominated by bureaucrats, and here we What we are doing here is to are taking another act which is heavily complement those Acts that instead of totally dominated by politicians and. The Acts getting rid of those Acts, we establish an governing the portfolios have strict rules by arrangement that is legally recognized to names and by posts. I am therefore not rejuvenate or make good changes that may bring convinced at all with the explanation by the about a good performance of these SOEs. That Minister of Finance. How can these two acts is what we are trying to do here. harmonize in the process of implementing this We want to identify a particular problem Act? I agree that gradually some amendments whether that problem is financial, managerial, have to be made to the Acts governing those corporate governance problem or whatever, a portfolios, but when these two are in conflict situation is created to address that problem which Act will supersede the other. rather than totally ignoring existing legislations that establish these entities. Hon Lilo: Mr Chairman, I think we are yet to come to that particular clause, and that is why if we go clause by clause we should be able to area to non commercial service areas in the answer some of the questions that have been country. raised. What we are asking here I think it would The principle of community service be wrong for me to answer here because we are obligation is a universal principle that lists yet to come to that particular clause when that things like transportation and housing as a need, comment should be made. for instance, we have to provide good housing. We require our SOEs to provide good housing to Mr Chairman: We will come to those issues. provincial urban centres that may have very Hon Fono: Chairman, can the Minister give an limited market in terms of, if we are to go on a example of the term ‘community service full scale commercial financing of housing in obligation’. In my debate yesterday I raised the our provincial centres they would not go there concern of politicizing services at the expense of but it is an obligation. It should be an obligation the SOEs. I am concerned about that. Are there for us to provide housing to our workers in the any safeguards may be under regulation on the provincial centres. We have to dictate or set up community service obligation that a SOE needs some kind of arrangement as to how our SOEs to provide so that it is not open-ended for will deliver housing in our provincial centres. politicians to abuse at the expense of SOE so That is what is meant by this community service that instead of making the SOE to be profitable obligation. they will just go towards bankruptcy. That is my fear. . Sir Kemakeza: Mr Chairman, on the same issue, and in view of the answer by the Minister Hon Lilo: Mr Chairman, the definition of of Finance, who is going to meet the bills on ‘community service obligation’ is in clause 2. community service? You are talking about An example of this would be to say, for profitability and community services and so who instance, the Airlines has to make sure it flies to is going to meet the bill of these community some of the uneconomical routes. It is our services? obligation to provide such a service. Why? It is a need that has to be done. Hon Lilo: Mr Chairman, I use community In that kind of situation, if we are to service obligation in a generic way referring to strictly follow the prescription of this bill, and our services to the community whether it is rural that is to ensure all SOEs operate within the urban or rural community service areas commercial viability principle, we would not be throughout the whole country. able to service those routes. What we are saying In terms of who is going to meet it, that here is that where there is need for us to provide is what is prescribed in this bill. If we go clause those services it has to be prescribed here on by clause it will show to you how it will be how the SOEs will go about providing such a determined, how services to non commercial service to our good people in this country. service areas in the country will be financed by There is also a provision in here that the government through the SOEs and how provides for some prohibitive clauses on how finance is to be made available to the SOEs. that service obligation is to be delivered by the In fact it prescribes some very, very SOEs. Otherwise it is a profitable route but transparent process. Where government there are directors who directly provide figures assistance is given to a SOE to service a that mislead people to declare those routes as particular non economical service area in the non commercial when they are supposed to be country, for instance, it has to be published and commercial service area for the SOEs. There is laid before Parliament so that the SOE strictly also a penalty here. The penalty is to ensure it is abides by the terms of that particular not unnecessarily used to justify certain actions. arrangement of the government giving that In fact there are very restrictive provisions in assistance rather than lumping it up claiming to this bill that restricts SOEs in the way services provide services to non economical service areas are delivered to what is commercially service in Solomon Islands and therefore incur all these losses, which seems to be the excuse that all our clause we will see it. But perhaps we could have SOEs have been using at this time. an explanation from the Attorney General?

Mr Huniehu: Mr Chairman, that is the concern Mr Chairman: And I will affirm the vote we raised that if a community service is to be today that please refrain from debate and regulated then only the Minister will gazette it continue asking as many questions as possible. without Parliament knowing the extent of the regulations and what will be covered under Attorney General: The reminder that you community service because regulations are not have ...... is irrelevant in respect of Standing part of bills that come before parliament. The Order 50(1) which says exactly what this debate Minister prescribes it and gazettes it. Whether states that is to concentrate on its details and to parliamentarians like it or not, he did it the way ventilate on to concerns about principles which he wants it and therefore some of us fear that if a have already been decided on. board of the SOEs are full of politicians they are The issues raised by the honorable going to use these provisions for politicking in Member expecting the power of the Minister to the year 2010 and beyond, and this is why we make regulations can, of course, be tested in have concern on this provision. court as to the insufficiency of those regulations For example, a board member who is a in compliance with the elementary principles of sitting member in an urban area where electricity law, issues of defects emanating from ultra vires and water is provided could during election time provisions. So there is sufficient protection for ask for community service so that the electricity those concerns by mitigation which should and water bills of their supporters be address the concerns he is ventilating at this reconnected. This is very dangerous to the point in time. financial viability of the SOEs, and therefore The other issue is perhaps if it is such a Parliament ought to know precisely what concern at this stage then it might just simply community service means. It is a requirement pass over this clause and move to other that all of us should know because as it is stated substantive provisions of the bill which have here it is open ended and it can be abused. been telescoped in our discussions now and return to the definitions in the clause and allay Hon Darcy: I will ask the Attorney General to those concerns. Those are my observations to provide some enlightenment on that particular guide the committee to hasten the process of the issue. But I still come back that the MP for East deliberation of this committee. Are Are has not read this Bill because if he has read the bill there is a lot of connectivity in here Clause 2 agreed to. that really connects the way community service obligations are decided as part of the notice that Clause 3 comes into Parliament. We are still hovering around Clause 2 Mr Haomae: Mr Chairman, I want explanation because if we move on we will find a lot of on clause 3, which says “This Act shall bind the answers to some of the questions that you are Crown”. asking now. But again I would ask him to read ahead because you will connect yourself very Attorney General: The need for it to bind the well if you read ahead. What the MP is Crown needs to be spelt out in the legislation to concerned about is exactly what is prohibited in dispel the long standing convention that acts do this bill. Any directors of any SOEs that not state that it would bind the crown, I presume knowingly mislead the SOEs and the do not bind the crown. Government in providing a community service The entity is being regulated as state obligation which should not be, is subject to owned enterprise and there is a necessity that the penalty in this Bill. It is a big fine. I do not crown is bound by its own statute because the know how much it is, but when we come to that entities themselves are crown entities. The definition of crown which is stated in the bill refers back to the definition in the Constitution … …………. otherwise the issue of common which is, the definition being the crown of law liabilities …………………….as does the Solomon Islands. The simple answer to the issue of negligence ……………….. question is, yes it does need to bind the crown, it The suggestion made by the Leader of does so explicitly. the Opposition is constructive also because it is something that will be addressed ……………… Clause 3 agreed to will be addressed later when the Company’s Act Clauses 4 & 5 agreed to overhauls and ……………… and would like to engage in constructive dialogue with the Leader Clause 6 of the Opposition to formulate adequate laws to Mr Fono: Directors’ roles – why are Director’s govern the situation ……………….. liabilities not included here? In most cases the liabilities of directors are not known whether Clause 6 agreed to under the Company’s Act or the Fisheries Act. There is the tendency to jump to become Clause 7 directors not knowing the liabilities of directors. Is it possible to include liabilities under Mr Haomae: In terms of the rationale behind Clause 6 – Directors’ roles so that directors the honorable Ministers, which is the Minister of know exactly their liabilities in the event that the Finance and the Minister responsible for that company they are directors of become insolvent particular state owned enterprise. The Minister or bankrupt so that they have some concern has already stated, and I am not debating, Mr whether or not to become directors in the state Chairman, but I want to clarify the point before I owned enterprises. I do not see any clause ask the question so that it is very clear to the relating to liabilities of directors in the Bill. Minister and is able to answer me properly. The rationale of bringing in another Hon Lilo: Mr Chairman, sub clause 8 does Minister to be a shareholder because it was provide for that liability. There would be also already amplified in the other statutory regulation made under clause 24, which will also legislations, published in the Act is the provide for stringent requirement of what the connection with the Minister of Finance. directors’ roles are and the liabilities they are You can also argue that in terms of the exposed to in the event they may have acted ICSI portfolio companies, that connection is contrary to the intent of this Act in their role as already there between the Minister responsible directors. But perhaps the Attorney General can for the SOEs and the Minister of Finance. This also enlighten us. Bill is merely emphasizing further and that is why it was clamed that the Minister of Finance Attorney General: The question is very simply has more powers over most authorities as is answered that those directors were members of explicitly stated. ] already an appointed company governed by the In the event that they disagree, which Companies’ laws which include the Common Act will take precedence? Is it the enabling Law regulating the liabilities of the directors legislation or the Act establishing? along with their provision of obligation which are enforced by the Common Law. Those Hon Lilo: That is such a very long statement provisions are …… ………………………….to leading to a very small question. I do not know the Leader of Opposition’s question is a how that particular clause will fall into the constructive one liability of those directors of context of the responsibility of Ministers. But I statutory authorities which are not companies. have already stated that reasons will prevail, not And if understand it that would be the intent of any interest that the Ministers might have over the question then yes, there is a penalty imposed that particular issue in question. ……………. of a very significant amount of In relation to this particular clause, I do money of a fined of up to $100,000 which is I not know how that part will come in because believe an office incentive, not to be criminally both are accountable to Parliament and when they are both accountable to Parliament, it is an the government. But in this particular case we obligation that they must both be accountable to are regulating the activities of the Directors. If Parliament on a given reason that is required by any actions link to the Minister then the Penal Parliament over a particular SOE. That is how I Code is there to link any case of an implication can put it. that might imply the involvement of the Minister to a particular Act that is in breach of this Mr Tozaka: This is on responsibility, Mr particular provision. If it is something that is Chairman. The responsibility has now been fraud, fraud is a chargeable offence under the increased not only to the Minister responsible Penal Code and nobody is immune from it. but also to the Board Members, which is good. My question here, which partly implies the daily Mr Huniehu: But we should only have one law checking of this new responsibility given to the for everybody. If the Minister is charged for state owned enterprise is going to be going out misconduct in office under the Penal Code, the from the traditional way of doing things, and fine he will pay is just small, may be for a that is only when reports are submitted that we couple of hundred dollars. But in here the know but now the performance is going to be a prescription is that any one who is found guilty daily basis. Can the Minister explain how that of an offence he pays a fine of $100,000. Why will be monitored? should there be two justice systems for one people? Hon Lilo: Mr Chairman, may be when we come to that particular clause we will explain to Hon Lilo: Mr Chairman, this is the thing that I the honorable Member how the SOEs through continue to ask these people to read the Bill. the management will be accountable to the We spent our time planning the motion of no Board and then to the Minister. This particular confidence and that is why we have not read this clause is for the two Ministers to be accountable bill. Mr Chairman, read the Bill on sub clause 4, to Parliament. ‘Any person who knowingly directs or There is a clause in here that refers to encourages a director or the Board of Directors accountability, for instance, one month before of SOE to make a decision he shall be liable to a the end of the year or three months before the fine of $50,000.’ If he is a Minister, is he end of the year, the SOE is required to come up immune? No. with a statement of corporate objective to be Mr Chairman, may be we should break endorsed by the two Ministers, and it will be for lunch so that it allows these people to read strictly enforced by the Board during the course the bill. May be it is lunchtime and so our sugar of the year in the operation of the SOE. That in level drops, our IQ drops and we can forget a way is a process of monitoring the about the planning of the motion of no performance of the SOES. confidence so that everything will be straightforward. Clause 7 agreed to Mr Haomae: I think the point here is that the Clause 8 Minister is confused about the question. In here it says anyone who influences the Director, and Mr Huniehu: My question is on clause 8 to be the Minister correctly said that if the Minister read in conjunction with clause 6 sub clauses 5 influences the Director he will be in the same and 8. It appears to me that the shareholder is boat. What about if someone influences the immune from clause 6 sub clause 8 - the Minister, I think that is what the MP for East penalties prescribed there. Is that meant to be Are Are is getting at. true? Mr Chairman: I think these things need to be Hon Lilo: Mr Chairman, I do not think the clarified. The Minister when he represents the intention is to immune the Minister from being Government in this organization is also the part of any scheme of misleading a SOE or even director. There is no such thing as the Minister and a Director different. If you hold the the decisions they make on the floor of directorship on behalf of the government you are Parliament and outside it. This is a super added the director. responsibility by statue. It is an addition to what is already there in other legislations. That super Hon Lilo: Mr Chairman, exactly yes, and also added responsibility has a punitive element now vice versa if anybody influences the Minister. to it. We are now criminalizing activity, which The logic of this provision is getting submission previously was simply condoned and this is an from the Board and so it is comes from the opportunity now to do that and therefore this bottom up, and it is not from top down but from Bill. If I have not answered your question then I underneath coming up - from the bottom to the might not understand you. top. But if in the process of the bottom coming up and the Minister himself too is involved then Mr Chairman: One other legal aspect he was sub clause 4 applies. That is my point. This is a raising was the Minister appointing himself. bottom up approach. Attorney General: Does he want an honest Mr Huniehu: That is why we have the answer or a legal answer. The Minister cannot, Attorney General here. We have raised a legal he would have an abuse of office issue and he issue. Very much so, we are talking about would also be caught as they should by the directors on clause 6 but the Minister who is the Leadership Code provisions of the Constitution. shareholder appoints the directors. He does not He will bring his integrity into question under sit in as a board, no, Mr Chairman, and that is Section 94 of the Constitution which applies of why we need clarification. In my view, this is course to leaders, and then of course you have exempting the Minister, the shareholder from the Leadership Code Further Provisions Act, punishment share on sub clause 8. which is another veneer of protection of and I do not see any prospect for that opportunity arising, Mr Chairman: Could we ask the Attorney certainly, not under my advice. General to clarify that aspect of our discussion please? Clause 8 agreed to Clauses 9, 10, 11 & 12 agreed to Attorney General: Mr Chairman, I think I am completely mesmerized, is the right word this Clause 13 time by the question because I do not see it as an issue of ……………. The Constitution clearly Mr Tozaka: Mr Chairman, in regards to specifies the collective responsibility of Cabinet accountability, the Minister earlier on stated in in terms of administration of legislations by all the interpretation that this Bill will start three in Ministers. And that collective responsibility month’s time. What happens to the performance principle extends to accountability to parliament. of state enterprise before that? How would we take them into account when this Bill comes into Mr Huniehu: Point of order. We cannot hear force? properly, can you speak up a bit more? Hon Lilo: We are in the process of going Attorney General: Can I start again with the through the cleaning up of previous year’s elementary principle of collective responsibility financial report of all SOEs but we are contained in the Constitution. That is the first determine to move forward with the veneer of the principle of supreme veneer of requirements of this Bill next year. That’s why accountability. in the next three months we ensure that the Bill At the second level you have the is put to force and all other requirements in ministerial responsibility for the administration particular the requirements under Clause 13 and of Acts they are obliged or charged with. Then others must be complied with within the time we come down, we descend to the Act itself, frame required before the commencement of the which again Ministers are required to explain next financial year of most of these SOEs. As I stated earlier we will go through Clause 23 the process of cleaning up previous years, and Mr Gukuna: Mr Chairman, just a concern on we are going through that process now including the word ‘described’. Does it require the name even government accounts too are now going of the person to appear in the certificate? I through that quarantine treatment you know would have thought that the right word there process of cleaning up. The same is with the should be ‘prescribed’ instead of ‘described’ so Solomon Islands Printers who is also going that it requires the title of the Minister of through that process, and it will be of interest to Finance to appear in the certificate. Can the the MP for Small Malaita. Thank you. Minister also explain what sub clause 2 is?

Clause 13 agreed to Hon Lilo: Can we ask the Attorney General to Clauses 14, 15 & 16 agreed to make clarification on this?

Clause 17 Attorney General: Mr Chairman, I think the question is misconceived. The use of the word Mr Haomae: I thank the Minister of Finance. I ‘described’ in the clause is simply because that think he knows that I can be appointed as is how it ought to be. The word ‘described’ director if I am not a Member of Parliament. means the person who bears the description of But the appointment was made. the Minister of Finance and the Minister of The question, Mr Chairman, is why is it Finance is referred to by title. 5 days, within 5 days and not 6, 7 or 12 days or If you read further on in Clause 23, it 1 month. Why 5 days Mr Chairman. says ‘legislations such as the Companies Act which requires the perpetual, depending on how Hon Lilo: Well simply because 5 days is there. often governments change or Ministers of Five days is ample time to table the documents Finance change, and the practice is being in Parliament. Even two weeks of tabling arrested here through a statutory modification in documents in here have not ended up in the Clause 23. It is simply held in the name of that parliamentary standing committees. So it person, the Minister’s title rather than the doesn’t even make any difference if it is 5 days. individual. This particular provision comes about because there was a rather sad practice Mr Haomae: In numerical terms it does make a developing where people whose personal names difference, Mr Chairman. Why did the Minister were inscribed in documents that occur select 5 days and not 6 days? Because 5 days companies office, companies registry started numerically is quite different from 1 day, 5 being a bit difficult and started demanding months or 1 month like that. So it is that point ransoms to release themselves and relinquish of why 5 and not 6. themselves from those responsibility. This is a very advisedly proper step to Hon Lilo: It is just basically to put pressure to take to ensure that there is both continuity and the Minister that they have to be accountable to perpetuity in the ownership as described and Parliament within 5 days, within a very short therefore inscribed. period of time we expect Ministers appointed to Crown positions to respond effectively and Mr Gukuna: If the description of that word is efficiently. Right now we still have 14 days, 30 okay then that qualifies the name of the person days and so on but we did not comply with it. I and so I cannot see any need to put the name of think by reducing the days would put pressure the Minister there. Why should we not just use on Ministers to act responsibly and in an the name of the Minister of Finance so that the efficient and affective way. Thank you. next Minister who comes in takes over instead of having to keep changing this thing,. Clause 17 agreed to Clauses 18, 19, 20, 21 & 22, agreed to Hon Lilo: I thought the Attorney General has already explained that. If you look at sub clause 2 that is exactly what clause 2 says and that is to with all that formality, making things simple, ensure continuity and perpetuity of shares held making things clear, making things transparent by the government in the name of the Minister and doing so by the accountable provisions of of Finance and the other responsible ministers Clause 23 for the good governance of by title. Governments change but the shares companies. held by those two Ministers who will occupy them later on remains. Mr Gukuna: I would have thought that when a name is changed those things must be completed Mr Gukuna: Mr Chairman, I am still confused, because you are changing the holder of those excuse me. But the statement that says ‘not shares and those things must be also completed. necessary to complete or register a transfer of Are you only going to rub the name and change shares’. Can the Attorney General explain it a it? bit more? Hon Lilo: Mr Chairman, my understanding of Attorney General: Mr Chairman, currently the this is that the requirement under the Companies companies, if you are dealing with companies Act that you keep changing is what we are and I believe we are dealing with companies if saying here that we will exempt from that the Members questions are directed towards that process. This provision allows us not to do that. problem, currently the requirement of companies It is not really necessary to do what is required of a company’s legislation mandate, so that is to under the Companies Act where every time say compels a form, a return to be filled out and shareholders change there is need to fill up a submitted to the registry in compliance with that form, submit it and things like that. This Clause requirement. says that it is not necessary to do that. That is What this dispenses with in terms of the what it is. change of especially the filling out of those The requirements under the Companies forms and secondly the change of ownership or Act, some of them, not all of them, and may be transfer of shares to be done so without firstly, this is one of them where we will not necessarily completing those forms because you keep on follow those requirements. having under current companies law which is not made for the kinds of situations we have Mr Chairman: Would it also be that the gone through, remembering that the Companies appointment is by office and not by name? Act is for public companies and not private ones as well. Hon Lilo: Not by name, yes. Those situations are addressed by this necessity to dispense with that formalism. They Clause 23 agreed to. are prescriptions which have no necessity or reality about them. That is prescription. The Clause 24 discrepancy between prescription and practice has been remedied in Clause 23. Mr Haomae: Mr Chairman, where does this There is the other requirement but apply? Does this apply to other statutory because government is also the derivative authorities too or merely ICSI portfolio shareholder, the derivative owner of the transfer companies and state owned enterprises, the of those shares or of those certificates, there is whole lot? Who is going to make the an artificiality currently about going to the regulations? Is it going to be only the Minister Ministry of Finance, the Inland Revenue of Finance or responsible Ministers too? Division to put a mere stamp, a rubber stamp which says ‘exempt’ from various requirements Hon Lilo: Mr Chairman, if you read Clause because government does not need to pay stamp 26(3) there is a saving provision there for the duty and the stamp duty legislation is a process of the appointment of existing SOEs that requirement or a prerequisite to their registration are under statutory authorities with separate in the companies registry. We are dispensing legislations. That will not be disturbed. In fact those requirements will still be applied in the way these regulations will be enforced or Mr Haomae: Mr Chairman, if the Minister of enacted. So your big worry on the existing Finance reads it that way then it means that statutory bodies is on Clause 26(3) and that is Clause 26 makes Clause 24 obsolete - there is no why I kept saying read the Bill. need of Clause 24.

Mr Gukuna: Mr Chairman, the powers of the Hon Lilo: Mr Chairman, we have to make sure Minister of Finance derived from this Bill is where there are doubts in the way this Act is based on shareholding. Here we have a situation enforced, you have to make sure each area is where 50% shareholder has been prescribed. accommodated. That is basically what we are What happens to the other Minister because he saying here so that you save some of the good also has the same shareholding power as the principles out of this act and enforce them as Minister of Finance and I thought that he should part of the regulations too. But it does not take be involved in the selection of these criteria over or it does not undermine one part of the Act because they are on equal shareholding? over another. No, I do not see it that way. Why is the Minister of Finance given a specific clause in empowering the Minister of Mr Gukuna: Mr Chairman, I am concern about Finance whilst the other one goes down? I can this clause because this whole bill comes down see some rooms for disagreement between the to this clause. I interpret the whole intention of Minister responsible and the Minister of Finance this bill as giving more powers to the Minister of in here. Finance. He is going to become the most powerful man in the government, and that is Hon Lilo: The Attorney General has already why I am concerned. explained the collective principle of Cabinet that Even though the other shareholders when regulations like these have to be made, the share the shareholding equally, why does this Minister cannot act alone in making the clause narrow it? It is the selection of the board, regulations. The ones occupying those positions the criteria that is important. Who is going to do not hold those positions personal to them. take the bucks here? Is it going to be the board They hold them on behalf of the crown and we or the Minister of Finance? If you are willing to have a collective responsibility to the crown take the responsibility for failures of these SOEs through Cabinet. That is what the Attorney it is acceptable, but if you are going to pass the General has alluded to. I do not know how else buck to the boards, as you did to Solomon we are going to explain how the Ministers will Airlines then this clause is wrong. exercise all these responsibilities here. Where provision requires the exercise of Attorney General: Those concerns in the these responsibilities, obviously it is incumbent conclusion, from a legal point of view, require a on the Ministers to make sure they widely rather large leap of imagination. Mr Chairman, consult the Ministers concern and then finally the purpose of Clause 24 is clearly what it states. the Cabinet. These regulations cannot be made Regulations are made for the selection, just by the Minister out of his own mind. It has appointment and reappointment of directors to to be endorsed by the Cabinet. SOEs. It is to do with criteria. It is to do with qualifications. It is to do with all the things that Mr Fono: Mr Chairman, I think why the have not been done till now because of colleague MP raised that concern is because that discretion. I cannot as I say it requires a rather clause only gives the Minister of Finance and large leap of imagination to come to the not the other responsible Ministers. There is no conclusions expressed just a while ago. information to say that the Cabinet sanctions the As regards to the Leader of Opposition’s regulations the Minister is making, and that is earlier concerns to articulate the duties of why the point was raised. There is no mention directors, here is an opportunity by regulation to of Cabinet having the authority to approve those at least codify some of those duties as regards to regulations made by the Minister of Finance. making of directions. What is the form of those directions? What are the principles of those prescribes it better so that you and I will not directions? That is the modality or the need a person like the learned Attorney General principles which need to be made transparent this time who really knows the law, can read it which have hitherto been rather of ache to take well and do it in a way that will be good for this away discretion and subject it to sunlight. Take country. That is what it says here. it away from the dark cupboards where they Where it is not prescribed in the other have been vesting and growing and expose them Acts where it says in Clause 21(1) will be to sunlight. So this is a sunlight principle. exercised jointly in here, and remember what the Attorney General said earlier on that all Sir Kemakeza: Mr Chairman, I am not regulations will have to go to Cabinet. The convinced at all with the explanation by the Cabinet will have a say on what the regulations Attorney General. Clause 24 is really the color will look like. For you to continue to say you of this bill. It will be heavily politicized. The are suspicious about the Cabinet, how can you behavior of this administration really shows out be suspicious about the Cabinet? The Cabinet in this clause. They can hire and fire the board has given the mandate, it is lawfully elected to of directors. That is actually going to happen run the government and you must have here. All the clauses have accountable Ministers confidence in the Cabinet. The responsibility of but when we come to this clause it supersedes the Cabinet is to run the affairs of the Crown. all the accountable Ministers. This is the real Through that explanation on a layman’s color of this Bill, and it has been happening view there is no way we can change our colors. since day one of this government. Here you are The situation of the Airlines is very simple. The going to nationalize the SOEs saying only the problem of the Airlines started off under government can do it better than the private yourself. Expenditures were posted to the sector. This is what is actually happening. You balance sheet instead of profit and loss and you are saying that the Government does it better declared false profits in 2004 and 2005. I will than the private sector. This is the color of this come to that later on. But these are the things bill. Yet here you are you coming back and that we are trying to avoid in this Bill. is why I am not convinced for one inch with the explanation of the learned Attorney General. Mr Kengava: The concern about Clause 24 is that some are asserting the fact that the Minister Hon Lilo: Mr Chairman, this Bill is brought of Finance will make regulations which will here by only one Minister and not two Ministers, make him become very powerful and also and the Minister who brought this Bill too has to having this hire and fire attitude. But my be the prescribed Minister making the question which I want to clear my mind on is regulations. that I understand the Minister may make Every other law that we brought in here regulations for the SOE but I am sure after has the same wording where there is a making consultation with the respective SOE requirement prescribed by those bills to make and the Minister responsible and therefore the regulation says that. The Tobacco Bill that will hire and fire may not be the Minister of Finance come in will say that it is the Minister for Health but the board or the management of the who will make the regulations. respective SOE. As the Attorney General had already explained where the criteria for selection and Mr Haomae: Mr Chairman, I could follow the something like that is not prescribed in the other rather outburst by the Minister for Finance, SOEs but which is contained in some of the Acts unnecessary as it is. Mr Chairman, if you read it is saved under Clause 26 and 23 and they Clause 24, 25 and 26 together, Clause 24 has the exercise it jointly. Clause 26(1) says it. upper hand because under Clause 25 it is this What do you mean by changing colors? Act that will prevail in the event there are I do not know what sort of color are you going conflicts. Clause 25(2) says “Where the to change here? We are not changing any provisions of this Act or any regulations made colors here but we are simply ensuring the law under this Act conflict with the provisions of any other enactment, the provisions of this Act There are all the safety nets to ensure or regulations made under this Act shall the regulations must be done by the Cabinet in a prevail”. This means it is the Minister of collective way to safeguard the other interest Finance who is the mighty big man, and that is that everyone has to ensure we promote good the point. governance and transparency in the way Why is the clause not saying, “the regulations are made. Minister of Finance and the responsible Minister There is no need for us to continue of that SOE”? Why is that not stipulated in making up stories to frighten people that such Clause 24. That is the concern. That is why I and such will happen. Some of you may be said the Minister of Finance will become more frightened because very shortly we will be powerful because he is going to interfere into the digging into some of these SOEs. But this Bill ministry of everyone of you by virtue of Clause is not to dig into the SOEs. It is to improve the 25. SOEs to move forward. Later on we will dig I am not saying the Minister of Finance into them. should not be involved, the Minister of Finance All the avenues for us to safeguard one is responsible for money and so he must be particular person acting into the position to involved but another Minister who is responsible enforce regulation that is required by law by should be included so that is in line with Clause himself, is a very remote situation, as what the 26. If not, you mark my words, Mr Chairman. Attorney General said in the first place. You cannot have that kind of situation. No! You (laughter) cannot have that kind of situation. Even if the regulations are made and because they just The Minister of Finance will be the most regulations they can be revoked and thrown out. powerful. The Minister of Finance said That is how flexible regulations are. yesterday that he cannot mark my words. He The most important and substantive part was mistaken on what he said yesterday, Mr of this bill is Section 26 which gives collective Chairman that in this Parliament I only responsibility to the two Ministers to act in mentioned ‘mark my words’ two times. The accordance with the provision of this Bill to first time was on the program of reforms when I ensure the interests of SOEs are advanced. said pre-requisite for the implementation of reforms …. Mr Haomae: That is one way of looking at it. There is also another way of looking at it too in Mr Chairman: Could we keep to questions on view of the shortcomings of human nature, we Clause 24. are mere human beings. So I am not afraid. What should I be afraid of? I am only Mr Haomae: That is a point. Clause 25 is concerned. I am expressing a concern in view of making the Minister of Finance to be very the limitation of human nature. powerful. Why not include the other Minister, What if the Minister of Finance and the for example my Minister for Mines and Energy? Prime Minister both agree? If that happens is the Prime Minister going to dismiss the Minister Hon Lilo: Mr Chairman, the administration of of Finance? No. This is human shortcomings. this Bill when it becomes an Act has to be We are expressing these concerns and we have vested on one Minister and the implementation nothing to be afraid fo. of the various parts of this Act will be on two Ministers. Hon Tosika: If this provision is read properly it For you to think the Minister of Finance says “make regulations for selection”. The will make regulations and puts all the criteria to regulations are yet to be made and that is why it suit himself would be the first man the Prime gives the Minister of Finance power to Minister will sack. The Minister of Finance will formulate regulation. This is not power to be the first man the Prime Minister will sack if appoint but it is power to make regulations and that is what he is going to do. set criteria before appointment can be made on the basis of reappointment or removal. This is a behalf of the Crown, we think it is only for our provision of setting criteria in place. There is no personal interest. point arguing to say the Minister has power to I think you have to rule against that kind hire and fire because the regulations are yet to be of imposition, Mr Chairman. made. Mr Fono: Point of order. I think we should Sir Kemakeza: Mr Chairman, I respect your take into context that this is a law of the nation, order as your Deputy Speaker. But yesterday I and it is not for yourself. You will be there only did not have time to debate the principles of this for a term and whoever comes after would Bill and so allow me to ask some more questions implement this law. Therefore, to think that because it is unfair to the people of somebody going there is for personal interest is Savo/Russells that I did not contributed to the not acceptable. This is a law for the nation and general debate of this Bill. is not meant for you yourself and this The Minister of Police is totally government but it is for any future governments. confused. We just want to tell you that it will be the Minister of Finance who is going to make Hon Lilo: Mr Chairman, we are getting into the regulations. He is going to make the illogical debate. You have allowed the debate regulations and it will be the regulations that yesterday and this is the committee of supply will safeguard appointments, qualifications and and I think we should follow the Standing whatever. We are to know the baby that will be Orders. born out of this Act. It is that power that will be given to the Minister, and this is the point we are Mr Chairman: In relation to any amendment concerned about as it is already stated in Clause Standing Order provides for amendment with 26. That is why I am not convinced at all with one clear day’s notice. It cannot be allowed the explanation of the Attorney General. without notice.

Mr Chairman: Honorable Members we must Mr Gukuna: Clause 24 is okay when we have allow our time in terms of specifics. I should a benevolent Minister of Finance but this is also remind the House that you have the right to Solomon Islands but some crazy people can make amendments if you are so concerned about come in and abuse it. Having said that, I reject specific issues. That obviously has not come in the Attorney General’s explanation as he was and so we simply enter into general debate explaining from the prescription side of it and again. does not relate to interpretation, and that is why I am concern about this clause. The prescription Mr Fono: Mr Chairman, in that regards can we side of it can be fine but when we come to make an amendment to Clause 24 to read, “the interpret it, it will be interpreted in different Minister of Finance may make regulations for ways. the approval of Cabinet” and the sub clauses. Hon Lilo: Mr Chairman, that comment has Hon Lilo: Mr Chairman, that is totally nothing to do with Clause 24. I think we should unnecessary. Do not make that kind of move on to put a vote on this particular clause suggestion here. The principle of how this right now. particular clause will operate is very clear, well canvassed and all public interest well safe- Attorney General: Mr Chairman, I must take guarded. For anyone to think that any particular the floor on this particular point. The individual that gets into the position of comments which have been made somewhat constitutional power is only there for personal derogatory of my advice need to be redressed interest is what you are nagging on. What you now. There is no prospect of regulations being are nagging on is that every one of us in here made ultra vires power in Clause 24. If you gets into that position for personal interest and need me to explain that further I can, and I will therefore in the exercise of this position on do that over lunch adjournment. The question simply is: Regulation 24, for a regulation to be made under regulation must be valid in law. Hon Sogavare: Point of order. I do not know The question of the validity of that regulation what these outbursts are all about. Obviously, can be tested in a court of law. And what does the feelings that come out from the other side law means, it means, is it lawful. If you go are very clear. No one is saying that you have beyond the powers to make regulations for the no right to stand up and express your opinions in purposes specified in Clause 24 then of course here. No one says so. Who says so? You are you trespass those powers and the regulations wrong. made will be held to be unlawful by a court Mr Chairman, the Member for when you test it. I do not see how the comments Savo/Russells says no one has the right to stop you are making presuppose that the laws will be him from talking. And on one is stopping you. made whether drafted by the Attorney-General’s The law also allows, the constitution allows the Chambers or anybody else for that matter will Attorney General to express his views in here. trespass the requirements of law. It is quite clear So what are you talking about? Thank you, Mr that the Constitutions says there is a Supreme Chairman. Law where a person cannot discriminate against someone else. Therefore, if the Minister of Hon Lilo: We should move on. What I am Finance says that a person born in Fiji could, for saying is that I think the system is well example, occupy the post of a director that is canvassed to ensure whatever regulations will be discriminatory and will not be allowed. Because enforced under Clause 24 do not in anyway run as you know there should be no discrimination into facilitating any personal interests. It is the on the basis of a person’s place of origin, color, interest of the Crown. However, anyone in this creed etc. These kinds of issues will be, of Chamber would want to try and construe that course, brought to the attention as the Honorable this will be the ultimate outcome of this Member for Savo has very difficulty particular clause, I must say that you are understanding my advice. I want to make this expected to go to Rove. Who wants to go to very clear. We will not, in the Attorney Rove by make regulations to cut his road in General’s Chambers allow something unlawful going down to Rove. to leave us to be gazetted before it is made. There is no way as long as I am Attorney Mr Huniehu: Point of order. I think the General that will happen. Attorney General has every right to clarify legal issues in this Chamber but not to make speeches Sir Kemakeza: The Attorney-General in this Parliament, if I may seek your indulgence specifically mentioned the Member for on this. If he is asked on a legal issue he has Savo/Russells. I have every right on this floor every right but not to make speeches. of Parliament to make comments, especially when I am not discriminating here. I am Hon Sogavare: Mr Chairman, can the Member describing the statement put forward by the give an example because all the Attorney Attorney General on this floor of Parliament. I General is doing here is explaining legal am simply saying that I am not convinced by the positions on the sections. I do not think the learned Attorney General’s explanation. That is Attorney General is making speeches here. what I am saying and I am not discriminating any color - yellow or blue. Mr Haomae: Point of order. The Attorney I term this particular clause as having General has every right to express an opinion to colors, and it will become yellow after it has advise the government on matters of law. But gone through this floor of Parliament. Who is my understanding is that he cannot go beyond the Attorney General to stop the Member for that one. When he said ‘withdraw’ then he has Savo/Russells to say his mind? Who is he? He no right to do that because he is not an elected has no right to stop the Member for Attorney General to Parliament. He cannot say Savo/Russells. I have been elected to this floor those things. I think that is what has caused this of Parliament and I can say anything. slight row. Whilst the Attorney General has all the right to make clarification on points of law back to Parliament for amendment of the and advice the government on matters of law he schedule or regulations that will dictate what has no right to go beyond that. power the Minister has?

Mr Dausabea: Mr Chairman, I just want to say Hon Lilo: Mr Chairman, there is a process that that there is no problem with this clause. The will be followed in terms of privatizing any real problem here is because we assume things entity identified to be privatized. This Act does will happen. Let us allow it to work and if there provide for that provision and so there is no is any problem to it then take it to court and need to come back to Parliament to amend it. In challenge it. I think that is what is right. the case where any entity is to be privatized then it is privatized. What more should we come Mr Gukuna: Mr Chairman, the MP for East back here for if it is privatized. Honiara was one of those people who complained to me about this Bill outside. Mr Fono: Mr Chairman, who has the power to decide on that? Is it the Cabinet or the Minister? Mr Haomae: We are doing our job in scrutinizing the Bill. Hon Lilo: Mr Chairman, we keep coming back to this question of how the government operates. Hon Lilo: Mr Chairman, the pressing issue in Ministers do not operate in stand alone as this Bill is the interest of this country. The alluded to by the Attorney General. They do not debate so far and the points of orders you have act alone. They must act collectively through been allowing have drawn us out of the interest the Cabinet principle of government that we of this Bill. We are in the committee stage have. discussing this particular Bill. Can I impress on Look at clause 28, and I am telling you you, Mr Chairman, to move on with the to read the Bill. Let us read this bill. We have deliberation on this bill? spent the last two weeks planning the motion of no confidence and that is why we never read this Mr Chairman: We have been trying to say that bill. The Cabinet through the responsible many times already but everyone wants to have Minister may from time to time by notice in this their say too. I just want to make it clear that as gazette add or remove from the schedule the far as the chair is concerned we have not heard name of a company or statutory corporation. anything about withdrawal said by the Attorney This is Cabinet that decides on privatization and General. That is just for the record. divestment of any SOEs regulated under this Bill. Clause 24 agreed to. Clause 26 agreed to. Clause 25 Clause 27 Sir Kemakeza: This is where it is even stronger. I just want to make a point on this Sir Kemakeza: Just a general point on the point clause referring to my earlier statement. raised by the Minister of Finance. He said we were busy with the motion of no confidence and Clause 25 agreed to. not reading this bill. It is our duty to examine this Bill and to hear from the Minister our Clause 26 concerns. So stop saying that we were busy with the motion of no confidence. Likewise you Sir Kemakeza: I know that there perhaps were so busy with many things that you cannot would be privatization or corporatization bring in any plan at all. according to government policy on the SOEs. In any event the government thinks otherwise to Mr Chairman: We are getting out of the Bill privatize any of them, will the Minister bring it again. clauses 8 and 9, which says ‘schedules shall be Hon Lilo: That is what I am saying. I could disposed of and a schedule may be replaced or a not relate that particular comment to this new schedule inserted in the same say as particular bill. But in the same way I am clauses, and I read that to mean after the clauses. worried about his capacity to participate in the That is for the sake of completeness in clarity. deliberation of this Bill and that is why I raised Thank you Mr Chairman. that comment. That the Schedule stands part of the Bill Clause 27 agreed to. The Preamble agreed to Clause 28 agreed. Hon Lilo: Mr Speaker, I am pleased to report Hon Lilo: Mr Chairman, point of order. We that the State Owned Enterprises Bill 2007 has may have overlooked the schedule. passed through the Committee of the Whole House without any amendments. Mr Chairman: I thought the schedule was covered earlier on. BILLS Bills – Third Reading Sir Kemakeza: Point of order, Chairman. The State Owned Enterprises Bill 2007 Whilst the Minister is interested on the schedule, is it intentional to omit the CBSI because it is a Hon Lilo: Mr Speaker, I beg to move that the profit making state owned enterprise too. After State Owned Enterprises Bill 2007 be now read this Bill is passed include the CBSI. That is just the third time and do pass. a point for consideration to the Minister. The Bill is carried. Hon Lilo: Mr Chairman, I have already made the point about the difference of the status of the Mr Speaker: I have indication that the Central Bank, and why it cannot qualify under honourable Minister is still working on his this particular Bill, and it will never fall under motion, and so I suspend sitting until 3.30 pm the requirement of this bill because it has a wider international overseeing role over it as Sitting suspended for lunch break well. It is not only the Government that is overseeing the operations of the CBSI but the Parliament resumes International Monetary Fund as well. In the way it is established it is quite different from any Mr Speaker: I adjourn Parliament until SOEs that would normally fall under the status tomorrow morning at 9.30 am of companies registered under the Companies Act. It is covered under the Financial The House adjourned at 3.36 pm Institutions Act as well.

Mr Chairman: For clarity sake financial bills, we would normally vote for the schedules. For normal bills I thought it is covered in the body of the bill when the body of the bill is discussed and in this case Section 2 of the Bill. I wonder whether the Attorney General could advise us whether or not we should vote for the schedule too as well.

Attorney General: Mr Chairman, I think for clarity sake having regard to Order 52, sub

Load more

  34

Copy Link