FRC COMMITTEE HEARING INTO THE REVIEW OF RAMSI
Thursday 18 September 2008

 

Prayers.

Mr Chairman:  Honorable Members of the Foreign Relations Committee, Hon. Dr. Derek Sikua, Prime Minister of Solomon Islands, Mr. Jeremiah Manele, Secretary to the Prime Minister, Ms. Ruth Liloqula, Secretary to the Cabinet, stakeholders and members of the public, welcome to our sixth day of hearings.  On behalf of the Committee, I would like to thank you very much honorable Prime Minister and your team for accepting our invitation, despite many pressing demands, to contribute to this very important inquiry into and review of matters relating to the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands.  The Committee acknowledges the strong relationship that exists between the Solomon Islands Government and RAMSI.  The Committee is also pleased to be given such an opportunity to hear from you as the honorable Prime Minister and head of the executive branch of the Government in this country. 

We heard a great deal from various witnesses over the last few days and collected much information regarding the different aspects of RAMSI.  On Tuesday and yesterday, we heard from the senior executive officials of RAMSI as well as the Development Program Team.  I believe the Committee now has a working understanding of RAMSI. 

Today, the Committee has the opportunity to hear the other side of the coin, so to speak, in relation to this partnership between RAMSI and the Government.  We hope that after this hearing the Committee will have a clearer picture of RAMSI, its nature, mandate, operations and future from both the RAMSI and Government perspectives.  Once we get to that stage, I believe the Committee would then be sufficiently equipped to venture out beyond Honiara. 

Before the hearing proper commences, let me first deal with some housekeeping matters.  Firstly, to facilitate your appearance before the Committee today, the Speaker of National Parliament has kindly agreed to appear at a later date.  For the information of the public and media, all the remainder of today’s program will be according to the schedule previously circulated.  Secondly, as you may be aware, Sir, whatever you say in this hearing is protected by parliamentary privilege.  Finally, just another reminder that this hearing is being recorded by One News to be televised tonight.  The SIBC is also broadcasting our proceedings today live.  We will now proceed with the hearing. 

We will first hear a presentation from the witness after which members of this Committee will ask questions of the witness.  Could I now ask the witness to please state your names for the record and to please proceed with your opening statement?

Hon. Sikua:  Thank you indeed, chairperson of the Foreign Relations Committee and members of your Committee.  My name is Dr. Derek Sikua, Prime Minister of Solomon Islands.

Ms. Ruth Liloqula:  Thank you Chairman and members of the Committee.  My name is Ruth Liloqula, and I am Secretary to Cabinet.

Mr. Jeremiah Manele:  Thank you Chairman of the Committee and members of the Committee.  My name is Jerry Manele, Secretary to the Prime Minister.

Dr. Sikua:  Thank you Chairman and members of the Foreign Relations Committee.  As I had briefly informed the Chairman of the Committee prior to this meeting, I have a statement to present to the Committee on the review of RAMSI before we go on to the questions that have been prepared by the Committee for me, my Secretary to the Prime Minister and the Secretary to Cabinet to respond to the questions you have prepared.  But before I read the statement, I just want to convey to the Committee on the misunderstanding that was reported in this morning’s Solomon Star on the call by the Committee for the public to respect the Committee and it went on to report on my absence of not turning up to the Committee yesterday. 

Mr. Chairman, as you may have been aware we had a conflict in terms of my schedule yesterday on my time to appear before the Committee at 10:00 o’clock as well as the swearing-in ceremony that was also scheduled for 10:00 o’clock, yesterday at Government House to swear-in the new Minister for Education, the Honorable Matthew Wale, Member of Parliament for Aoke/Langa Langa and also to swear-in a new member of the Electoral Commission.  That is the response I would like to make in relation to that inability for me to appear before the Committee yesterday.  I hope that misunderstanding is now clarified to both our people and to the Committee and, of course the media.

I will now proceed to make my presentation Mr. Chairman and I have three sections to this statement; the first section is on the background.

Background

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, it is my pleasure to contribute to this review of the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands - RAMSI.  In this part of my presentation/submission, I would like to cover some background information with regard to RAMSI and the ensuing decisions and actions etc. to ground where my government is coming from when I moved the motion for this review to take place.

At the outset I wish to go back to the period before the arrival of RAMSI to acknowledge those development partners that gave budget support, ensuring that government still functions during the crisis and up to 2003 prior to RAMSI’s arrival.  However limited, this support allowed dedicated leaders and civil servants to continue do their best to ensure there is a government and that some services were still provided under very difficult circumstances.  I commend these men and women of Solomon Islands for their dedication despite not being paid for up to three pay periods quite often as government funds were looted. 

I acknowledge the partnership between women, churches and other brave individuals who partnered with the then government and Minister for National Unity, Reconciliation and Peace, Hon. Sir Allan Kemakeza to initiate peace, including the UNDP and the EU in the demobilization of special constables, during those darkest hours in the history of our country.

I also thank the majority of our people for taking it upon themselves to be law-abiding citizens of our country in the absence of law and order.  There are many more partnerships that fought for what is good for our country and for peace and security but when faced with armed conflict would not have succeeded.  They needed a partnership that can deal with this knowing very well that peace, law and order and security is only possible with our contribution should such a mission be possible.  Into this picture came RAMSI, a helping hand extending to Solomon Islands.

In this regard, I acknowledge and pay tribute to the huge contribution that this Mission has made to the re-establishment of law and order and security in Solomon Islands.  Our country cannot deny the fact that this assistance has given our country space, the environment to re-build our country and the opportunity to map out a future for our people and make decisions and implement programs that address the root causes of the ethnic tension.  RAMSI has given us and our development partners that opportunity, and I say thank you for coming at a time when this country needed such help.

Having said so, it is equally important to acknowledge that the achievements of today are the result of the partnership that this program has, not only with the government and its people, but also with Solomon Islands other development partners.

To again re-iterate, RAMSI has provided to the Solomon Islands valuable environment to begin the journey back to normalcy and beyond but there are areas that will need major improvements or a change in strategy and approach to reflect where we are at in this journey.  These areas include local ownership; cultural appropriateness of capacity building strategies; complaint and oversight mechanisms; regional engagement; including issues at the core of development and security.  In this regard, of particular importance is the need to address the root causes of the initial conflict.

We know that the operation came about at the peak of continuously worsening circumstances in Solomon Islands and a combination of other factors meant for those who could best offer assistance in the form of RAMSI, the timing was right.  The Biketawa Declaration was also ready having been negotiated by Pacific Islands Forum leaders in 2000 and providing moral and political cover for this Australian-led operation.

The Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands was the first regional engagement in a Pacific country under the terms of the Biketawa Declaration and perhaps the first in the world in terms of the extension of its mandate to go beyond normal peace conflict missions of the UN, NATO and others. 

Through the International Facilitation Act, RAMSI is expected to be accountable to the Government and people of Solomon Islands unlike UN sanctioned peace missions who are accountable to the countries that sent them and not the host country.  Members of the Committee, this is the difference and the uniqueness of this Mission and it is right that we are now reviewing it to find ways and means to ensure that it works for Solomon Islands and for the Pacific Region.  This is where my government is coming from with regards to this review and where I wish to contribute to without having to repeat what has been said by others.  Let us be frank to find ways to improve and make this Mission a model that we can be all proud of.  Let us, however, not overshadow the role that our other donor partners are playing and will continue to play, and be mindful that all partners are acknowledged in this rebuilding process.

With these opening remarks, giving you some insights into where my government is coming from, with regards to this review, I would like to make the following contributions to this review:

• I note the terms of reference of the Committee established by my government, the scope of its investigations, and the hope that I have that its findings will allow my government to decide whether we need to pursue negotiations with the assisting countries to amend the Act, or whether this legislation is sufficiently robust to allow us to continue strengthening our partnership with RAMSI.
• As a background to my understanding of the circumstances that led to this piece of research, I would like to inform the committee of the following facts, as I have been advised and alerted to.
• Prior to the passing of the FIA Act in July 2003, there had been various agreements and memoranda that were the precursor to this piece of legislation.  Of particular relevance to this committee is the ‘policy statement on offer by the Government of Australia for strengthened assistance to Solomon Islands of May 2003.”  Within this document many of the platforms that the subsequent assistance mission operated upon were established, and it is my view that it is within these initial agreements that some of the present challenges reside.  It is important to acknowledge concerns that were even raised then, and therefore now that we have been through five years of it, it is time that these are re-visited with a view to improving them.  Government’s submission to RAMSI takes into account some of these areas. [e.g. capacity building, sustainability and rural development].

The offer was based on acknowledging the sovereign rights of Solomon Islands under the UN Charter, and particularly article 2(7) that guarantees the right of domestic jurisdiction over any intervention by an external force.  Hand in hand with this is Article 57 that guarantees the right of ‘national self defense’.

I raise this last point only because of suggestions put before the committee that my government may wish to consider the introduction of a defense base provided by the assisting countries onto Solomon Islands soil.  Under Article 57, my government would need to consider such a proposal with utmost care and deliberation as to its potential implications and effects.

• Within the offer of May 2003 there were detailed specifications with regard to the nature of the intervention and its scope, which together formed the basis of our subsequent responses and undertakings.
• The nature of the intervention contained 5 provisions governing the military intervention.
• Respect for sovereignty;
• Non-selectivity that stated that decisions of intervention must be in accordance with the country’s needs.  (I draw the Committee’s attention to this principle as it underpins the current submission of the Government, and planned negotiations around the new SIG/RAMSI partnerships framework);
• Proportionality which allowed for the nature, size and duration of the intervention to be proportionate to the needs of the situation in Solomon Islands.  (Again gentlemen, this principle is very relevant to our current circumstances).
• Impartiality in the targeting of the intervention to all ethnic groups, sects and minorities.  (Again gentlemen, a point that I will be referring back to later)
• Targeting the clearly defined objectives and scope of the jurisdiction under assistance.

• Under that initial offer, the two (not 3) targets for the assistance were clearly defined, and that is of addressing the law & order problem rebuilding the economy

• Under the final framework these two targets remained the paramount focus of the assistance.  Entrenched within the text describing the economic recovery was one brief reference to the need to rebuild the essential machinery of government, and that is [Public Sector Administration re-establishment, reform and capacity building] in order to pursue economic reform.  Later references throughout the text of the framework refer to such initiatives as ‘downsizing the public service, cleansing the payroll and stopping extortion’ the emphasis clearly is to support economic growth.

• There were also brief references that it was imperative that Australia and New Zealand continue, and indeed, to increase their budgetary support for health and education sectors.   

• A final statement that leads my government to understand the existence of this third pillar under the assistance mission ‘machinery of government’ - is the requirement to ‘support rebuilding essential institutions and capacities to support the functioning of government’.  However, it is essential to point out that this pillar was never formally included in any agreements under its current scale and scope.  Furthermore, it was not extensively discussed by the then government of Solomon Islands as was the case in the other two pillars of the mission.  It is the view of my government to guide this process and improve on it so that it can build real and sustainable capacities and institutions of government.

• Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the Committee, with the benefits of hindsight in 2008, it would appear that the framework agreement attempted, very briefly and peripherally, to address many of the other underlying social issues that influenced the tension in the first place.  These documents ended up becoming ‘all things to all people’.

• Our current FIA Act was drafted with an emphasis on “making provisions for the restoration of law and order in Solomon Islands and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto”.

• Under that Act, gentlemen, there are no provisions for the economic reform assistance clearly prioritized within the preceding agreements and frameworks, and most certainly nothing that ratifies the emergent and evolving machinery of government ‘pillar’.
• On the face of it, it would appear that your committee would have to find that the Act as it currently stands is not sufficient to allow two of the three RAMSI pillars of assistance, and it certainly would not cover any expansion of assistance into other areas of need.  Since it is our Parliament that passed this Act, I see no difficulty in realigning the Act to allow for the expansion that will benefit our country and bring about sustainability whereby law and order, for example, will have to reach the point where it is no longer reversible as a measure of sustainability.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Foreign Relations Committee, I will now go on to Section 2 of my statement that deals with other circumstances that led to the existence of this Committee.  In this part of my submission I would like to cover the circumstances that led to the existence of this committee.

It is important to again note from the beginning that this assistance mission was and is operating in a jurisdiction that spanned traditional peace support as well as areas of development more commonly addressed through bilateral or multilateral donor agreements.  It is not usual for peace building or conflict reducing forces to also engage in the development of the machinery of government.

In my opinion, again with the benefit of hindsight, all of the original intentions were and continue to be very positive with the benefits of the Solomon Islands uppermost in the decision makers’ minds.  However, to ensure that this mission continues to be positive for Solomon Islands, it is important that we take serious note of two critical situations which have emerged from this scale of assistance.

• RAMSI personnel whether by intention or through ignorance, or through the assumption that Solomon Islanders and the government will not notice the uniqueness of the mission, adopted a world view where they saw the assistance mission in the same model as a United Nations or NATO force, accountable to countries that sent them and not to the host country.  The sovereignty of Solomon Islands and the role of the Government as ‘host’ is secondary to their need to be accountable to that external ‘authority’.  Gentlemen, you will note that previous governments have reacted strongly to this sense of being ‘colonialised’ and its concurrent sense of losing our sovereignty.  This is not the nature of RAMSI, and whilst it may have been necessary at the initial phases of RAMSI, circumstances have now changed thus the need to re-look into this.

ii)This then leads to a second problem. If RAMSI continues along this path more and more, it will be difficult for RAMSI to maintain the support and consent of the local population and its leaders; a situation that Solomon Islands cannot afford.  In this regard, you have been advised that the provincial premiers are feeling disenfranchised in this RAMSI assistance.  RAMSI itself has stated that it has found it difficult to pay sufficient attention to the development issues in the provinces.  It has been recorded in the literature that such ‘comprehensive’ missions are often faced with such challenges as these.  Not everything will be possible under RAMSI but what we have now we can improve on and mould it so that support from our local population and leaders and indeed the government is assured.

This RAMSI world view of being the guiding hand, the holder of the purse strings, and being accountable first to a forum of our regional partners has provided a context that we now face.

• Firstly, because this country was in a state of chaos with a few of our governance institutions operating effectively, the initial assistance believed that they were coming in to a ‘blank slate’ where they had to rebuild up from nothing.  They were also tainted by the belief that all of our officials were corrupt or worse still, criminals and therefore could not be trusted.  They therefore began their assistance by taking over the in-line positions or doing the work for us of rebuilding our police force, our prisons and our treasury.  In many cases, they may have been correct in that assessment and we certainly needed it to create that space for us to recover and think things through.  But we have continued for 5 years with that impression, and that impression has devalued those of our public servants who did then, and still are, trying to do the right thing.  This is not capacity building and furthermore is not building sustainability within these institutions.

Some of our senior officials and especially some of my permanent secretaries are of the belief that the capacity of their staff is less now than it was when RAMSI first came here.  Or worse, they believe that our public servants have become de-skilled, in some instances.
We did not have a blank slate here gentlemen.  We had good sound institutions and legislation.  It was [and still is to some extent] just that many people employed to carry out those duties were not performing professionally.  It is true that perhaps some of our systems and processes could benefit from a review and a strengthening.  But it is truer that our people needed a complete focus on building up their skills, their confidence and their ability to serve the people of Solomon Islands.
After five (5) years, I cannot say that this is has happened.  And further, I can say that this is the central focus of our proposed new partnership agreement with RAMSI.  My government believes that with consultation and cooperation and respectful partnership between the SIG and RAMSI, this can be corrected.

• There is an underlying current of belief on the part of many advisers and RAMSI personnel that this government should gratefully follow and accept whatever assistance is designed and funded for us.  Further, we should then accommodate the technical advisers they select for us, whether we believe they are suitable or not.  In fact, the assessment of the value of those advisers is made by the quality of the reports they provide to RAMSI rather than the value of their contribution to strengthening the ministries they have been attached to.

Years of this attitude has led to the current difficulties the proposed partnership framework will be facing.  In the preface of that document my government has emphasized that firstly we wish to continue this relationship, but as equal respectful partners; and secondly, we believe that the assistance would be most valuable if it could address the current priority needs of Solomon Islands, and the current priority needs of Solomon Islands that Solomon Islanders can claim ownership for.
You will recall at the commencement of my presentation to you gentlemen, that I referred to the guiding principles underpinning the original agreement – that of ‘non-selectivity’, ‘proportionality’ and ‘impartiality’ – responding to the scale, scope and locality of the needs of the country.  I believe our position is in accord with those principles as we make every effort to reach an agreement with our assistance mission partners.

Section 3:   Current situation
In this part of my submission I wish to dwell on the current situation and context.   When the CNURA Government came into power, you would be aware gentlemen that we produced our policy statements and the accompanying translation and implementation strategies.
At the Forum Ministerial Standing Committee meeting on the 20th February this year, the Ministers welcomed the CNURA Government’s commitment to working with RAMSI, and noted that there was sufficient scope under their three pillars to explore additional ways in which these policies could be supported.
With this support, and in the belief that the priority programs could be accommodated under the assistance mission, my Permanent Secretaries developed what is now known as the SIG/RAMSI proposed partnership framework.
Because it was a further analysis of the translation and implementation framework, the document represents my government’s priorities under three pillars – pillars that do not align completely with the old original pillars of the previous five (5) years of assistance.
The key to these new areas of development is the fact that the development provided by RAMSI over the past 5 years has led to a situation where we can now focus on the social and economic development of our country, and particularly our rural areas.

We have retained the law and justice pillar, but it is renamed ‘national security’ to reflect the inclusion of border security and traditional law.  The pillar does refocus the type of assistance we need into:

• Infrastructure needs – police stations, prisons and court houses primarily in the provinces.  This is an expansion of the work RAMSI is currently funding.
• A focused approach to building the capability of our Police Force.  It is widely commented upon that our Police Force is not as capable, professional or respected as we had hoped they would be after 5 years of assistance.  We are asking RAMSI to look at how they are approaching this need to ensure that our Force can be independent in the foreseeable future and provide assistance that actually does build skills and professionalism in our law keepers.

I understand that RAMSI is in agreement with this design, and is willing to negotiate the details on how this can all be effected.  It will also bring the provincial premiers more into the area of rebuilding and development.

Our pillar number 2 is where I believe a great deal of negotiation between us as partners will be required.  This is the core of the CNURA platform – the development of our rural economy through the construction of infrastructures such as roads, wharves, water supply and sanitation systems.  We are also asking for some assistance in building up our agriculture sector, particularly the palm oil development in the provinces.

This area of development is traditionally where our bilateral donors have contributed, and indeed we may have to consider shifting this out of the partnership framework for this reason, should it be difficult for RAMSI to realign its programs.

Our pillar number 3 is a broader description of strengthening our public sector governance.  Currently the existing machinery of government is only covering some aspects of this, and we are hoping to reach an agreement on this expanded area of development.  Currently, we have placed our economic development under this pillar.
Underpinning all of our pillars is the focus on a more effective way of building the skills and confidence of our public servants in particular.  We will not achieve sustainability of any of these developments if we don’t reach the stage where we can do it ourselves.  It is to this end that we have suggested a structured ‘phase out’ strategy that can hopefully assess the rising levels of capability that we are building together with RAMSI’s support but may also use it for bilateral programs for purposes of monitoring and evaluation of progress. 

Conclusion
Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, I now come to the conclusion.  From my remarks I hope I have been able to present to you an analysis of the current situation as my government sees it.  I believe that the Act will need to be redrafted in order to reflect our current circumstances and stage of development.  There is no doubt that RAMSI will be here for a long while yet and it is the wish of my government for RAMSI to continue helping us achieve our goals, and whilst doing, improve on and develop a model of assistance that can be used in the region.  However, I wish to re-iterate my government’s preference with regard to our relationship and partnership with RAMSI.  In this regard, I ask for no less than the following as successes, sustainability of improvements, great gains in leaps and bound with regard to outputs that can be achieved under these circumstances:

• Need to be considered equal and respected partners,
• We prefer that assistance is provided in proportion to our need
• Targeting the government of the day’s priorities,
• Respecting our sovereignty, and
• Ensuring that development is provided impartially, not favoring one group or one locality over another.

 

Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, like many countries and some in our region struggling to reconcile an imposed system of governance with traditional forms of organizing, Solomon Islands was, and still is, in a in turmoil with regard to process of defining what the state means and how it should function.  In this review, we must take note of the fact that history has proven that the path to a functioning democracy almost always involves conflict. 
In conclusion, Solomon Islands was in dire straits in 2003.  Although the death toll of the conflict is not known exactly, there were at least 40,000 displaced people, excluding those internally displaced within Guadalcanal itself.  Deeply caught up in corruption, the state was held ransom by violent ethnically-defined militias who had become more powerful than the Police, from whom they were often indistinguishable.  Extravagant compensation payments were made from a government that seemed solely to benefit its leaders and those who influenced them.  The public service payroll vastly inflated by ghost employees had ceased to function.  Intoxicated Police refused to surrender weapons.  The economy had crashed.  It is to help us to address these that RAMSI arrived in the country lest we forget the good work that RAMSI has done for our country and why we needed it and still do as we continue to rebuild Solomon Islands.
The conflict had its roots in longstanding debates over the appropriate constitutional design of Solomon Islands.  The distribution of resource revenues, labor mobility and the consequent intermingling of different tribal governance systems leading to loss of land by some groups, were key issues.  Whilst the most serious and violent problems were largely confined to Honiara and a few isolated areas such as the Weather Coast, Malaita and some urban provincial centres and the breakdown in state services such as education and health touched many villages, a lot of village life continued unaffected.  It is these outcomes that my government is looking into with regard to its policies and its submission to RAMSI under the SIG/RAMSI Partnership Framework.
Mr Chairman, and Members of the Committee that is my statement and I thank you indeed for your attention.

Mr Chairman:  Thank you very much Prime Minister.  That’s a very comprehensive statement by yourself and your office.  Let us staff off.  You’ve just given us a lot of information and as such trying to get that information around in ones heads and putting into perspective.  It is quite difficult right now.  We don’t have the benefit of seeing your statement before hand.  I want to come back and try to dissect what you have just said okay, and the Committee will come in and ask you questions as well.  But let me start off and just to dissect the area on mandate. 
            Prime Minister, after five years of operation do you think RAMSI has achieved its initial mandate?  Or is there any part of that mandate that you feel has not been addressed adequately considering the time available so far?  I know you have alluded that in your statement, purely because all the information coming to us if we can just be focused on that.  Has RAMSI achieved its initial mandate? 

Hon. Sikua:  Thank you honorable Chan.  RAMSI has achieved its initial mandate of restoring law and order.  The challenge is to sustain and consolidate on the gains made by continuing to rebuild the capability and capacity of the Solomon Islands Police Force and the other issues I have mentioned in my statement.

Mr Chairman:  Just to add onto that.  There is a lot of talk about expanding the mandate of RAMSI.  You have also alluded to that.  For the Committee’s record, could you, please, confirm whether or not the CNURA wishes to expand the mandate of RAMSI?

Hon. Sikua:  The CNURA Government wants RAMSI to realign its activities to support the rural development programs and policies of the government.  Expanding the mandate of RAMSI is a matter to be discussed with the contributing countries through the Pacific Islands Forum and is also an issue we are dealing with under the proposed partnership framework, the SIG/RAMSI Partnership Framework I have mentioned in my statement.  

Mr Chairman:  You’ve also mentioned in your presentation, Prime Minister, in order for you to realign and expand the mandate, the Act itself has to be re-looked at, the Facilitation Act.  Is that necessary?  Or are there other forms that can be done using existing legal framework that all the countries participating in RAMSI have already agreed on?  Is changing the Act necessary to facilitate changes in your mandate or the partnership that we’ve mentioned?

Hon. Sikua:  What I also said in my statement is that if the existing Act is robust enough for us to include what we are suggesting, then that can be done.  If not, then we may have to look at the need for us to amend the Act.  But that would be a matter for this Committee to be guiding the government on, on what is the way forward.

Mr Chairman:  You are just putting it back to us.

Hon. Tosika:  Prime Minister, you mentioned in your statement the root causes that sparked the ethnic tension.  Do you think RAMSI has achieved addressing the root causes? 

Hon Sikua:  We have a number of initiatives running alongside the work of RAMSI to find out the root causes of the ethnic tension.  Of course, you know about the Commission of Inquiry into land dealings on Guadalcanal, you know about the Commission of Inquiry that has completed its task on the April riots in Honiara and indeed Parliament in the last meeting has set up the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.  The identification of the root causes of the ethnic tension cannot be left as the work of RAMSI alone but there are other things running alongside what RAMSI is helping us with, to identify the root causes of the ethnic tension.  I hope that we can arrive at those, in the not too distant future.  
I wouldn’t say that RAMSI is yet to address the root causes of the ethnic tension as there are other things we are putting in place to assist us in putting our fingers on the issues.  Thank you.

Hon. Boyers:  I think in the concluding pages of your presentation you mentioned the pillars of SIG comparative to the pillars of RAMSI.  You said that the new focus would be on social and economic development.  In understanding that RAMSI’s mandate would be broadened and we understand from RAMSI’s submissions that in the negotiation of the new partnership framework, the CNURA Government is proposing to expand the mandate of RAMSI to cover economic development. 
The Committee has also been advised that donors of RAMSI are not in support of any such expansion to RAMSI’s mandate on areas covered by regular bilateral development programs.  What kind of compromise does the government envisage in the negotiations given the differing views? 

Hon Sikua:  The Partnership Framework Agreement that I referred to is still being drafted and I am hoping that further consultations, especially with the provincial premiers will take place next week when they come back from the Premier’s Conference in Lata.  Following that the draft can then be made available to the parties that are going to negotiate the partnership framework.  But I want to say that right across the negotiations has to be the issue of ownership.  Who owns this whole thing?  Once we realize in the final analysis that Solomon Islanders must take ownership of the process then I think the negotiations that are coming up will be successful.  I would not want to preempt that process as yet, because it’s forthcoming, but I want to mention, like I said in the preface that we have to talk about sustainability, capacity building and ownership that needs to be instilled into the whole process then I think RAMSI and this process can be successful, not only for Solomon Islands and its people but as a first in the region, for the region and indeed the world at large.  That’s what I am hoping for.

Mr Chairman:  It’s indeed a unique model.  Just to add on to that, initially what do you believe from your government’s point of view the dividing line between RAMSI and donors.  What is the dividing line?  What did they do?  What’s the dividing line?  Which ones are they not allowed to cross? 

Hon Sikua:  I did mention in my statement that whilst we are trying to negotiate the proposed SIG–RAMSI partnership framework, once we start to see areas of cooperation infringing into what are traditionally bilateral areas, then I think we should stand back a bit because there are some things that are done better on a bilateral level through our traditional donor partners and there are other things that can be done on a multilateral or inputs by a number of donors into that kind of particular program.  I did mention in my statement the fine line that we should be looking at.  It’s what we have learnt from the last five years and the nature of RAMSI that has led us to come up with this kind of things and therefore want to put these things to RAMSI. 

Mr Chairman:  I would assume Prime Minister that when you look at expanding RAMSI’s mandate that those things are taken into consideration. 

Hon. Boyers:  Thank you Prime Minister.  You also mentioned the ongoing capacity building of the Solomon Islands Police Force.  There was a view that five years down the track, there’s still a lot of confidence building in the SIPF on the relationship between the general public and the Solomon Islands Police Force. 
In our interview with the RAMSI delegation we heard the presentation of Mr. McDermott that there is a need within the SIPF for reconciliation because obviously there are some grievances of the past that are still hidden in the community.  Obviously this is a reflection on the general public of their lack of confidence on the SIPF taking into consideration that our Police Force in the days previous to the tension was the most respected in the Pacific and the most effective so the capacity is there, the respect is there, but it’s just not there now.  It was interesting to note from Mr. McDermott that there is need for reconciliation.  Do you believe this is also a contributing factor to the non-confidence of the SIPF?

Hon Sikua:  That matter, I believe is still an outstanding issue between the Solomon Islands Police Force and certain sections of our community.  I envisage this as something that needs to be addressed particularly in relation to national reconciliation.  The Solomon Islands Police Force is an arm of the government and this is a matter that we are still looking at and debating in our minds.  Where does that reconciliation come in?  Right now as you would have been aware, reconciliations are going on at the village to village level, individuals to individuals level and then it will come up to community level, to ward levels, to constituency levels, to provincial reconciliation levels, and then of course the government at the national level will need to come in to the provinces and of course the whole country. 
Why we believe there is need for reconciliation by the Solomon Islands Police Force is for it to regain the confidence of our communities.  I think it is a process of reconciliation we’re going through and I’m hoping that in the not too distant future, indeed in the next year I would want to see that happen. 
I do support that view and the need for us to get onto that quickly so that the respect and the confidence of members of our communities is regained by our Police Force. 

Mr Chairman:  Capacity building in RSIP, is a priority for your government.  Is that what you have just said?  It’s a priority when you negotiate the partnership frameworks.  Is that correct? 

Hon Sikua: Yes, that’s what I have stated in my presentation. 

Hon. Boyers:  It seems that I’m going to raise all my questions, so first Chairman….

Hon Sikua:  Mr. Chairman, before Hon. Boyers does that, I know you have a list of questions for me and if you are asking me questions from the list, there are 19 questions you’ve prepared for me, but if you’re going to ask any of the questions on that list, can you just refer me to which question you are asking.  If it’s something that stems from my statement, then you don’t have to, but if you are going to ask from the list of the 19 questions you gave me, then just ask the members to just list which question.

Mr Chairman:  Thank you very much.  It’s a little bit confusing because there are a lot of answers that you’ve already given in your statement that answered the questions because we’ve actually given the questions to all our witnesses beforehand so that they can be prepared for the topic.

Hon Sikua:  You only gave me yours last night.
Mr Chairman:  I know Ruth and Jerry are very efficient.

Hon. Boyers:  I’ll shorten my question and make them environmentally friendly.  I was recently asked by a person on the street because I’m on this Committee, and the question was, what are the three pillars of society in Solomon Islands in order that people respect the most? 
I wouldn’t have a thought of it, but he said the first pillar is custom, the second pillar is church and the third pillar is law.  In our society if we have a problem, it’s usually custom first, and church second and of course the most grievous is law.  Obviously the harmonization between custom, church and law is somewhat different.  When Sir Allan was before the committee, he questioned us as to why does our custom/tradition function, why does the church function and why doesn’t the government function. And why do we have a repeat of problems for over 30 years and we are still struggling with these issue?  But these two functions, I think he meant colonial institution but I think more or less a traditional position and church position.  He said there needs to be more relativity with the people.  Obviously the problems of today that the people on the streets or our rural sector are trying to come to terms with is the process of governance at the national level versus governance at the grassroots level. 
You also mentioned in your presentation the inclusiveness of tradition or custom within our system.  Could you expand on that a little bit, please Prime Minister?  Is that alright?

Hon Sikua:  Yes, I’m coming from the point of view that the government only came to our islands 115 years ago.  Is it?  It’s 85 colonial and 30 years independence.  That’s government and churches came in much earlier.  We have been living on these islands for thousands and thousands of years, and so we have had our own governments, our own ways of looking after ourselves and our own ways of governing ourselves. 
When we adopted our form of government upon independence, what we have done is putting our worthy customs and traditions outside of government.  We have put our laws, our traditions, our customs, our practices outside of government and we put a government in that doesn’t link in very nicely to our worthy customs and traditions and practices, and so there is no connection.  Although in the Provincial Government Act, and I’ve said this to the Provincial Premiers when I opened the Conference in Lata on Monday, I think its section 114(1) and section 114(2) of the Constitution, that provincial governments should then be making regulations for the roles of traditional chiefs.  I don’t think we’ve done that.  I don’t think any province has actually done that, to bring that in.  It’s catered for in the Provincial Government Act of 1981 but we have not really done it.  So all the while our people, our customs, the number one, was outside.  So we were like floating, our feet were floating on the air.  That is why we need to bring that in and customs has got to be at the core, customs has got to be at the core of our governance.
You look at Vanuatu, for example, I think they may have something for us to learn from.  I think to some extent they have brought in their worthy customs and stated in the Constitution that that is number one.  Everything they do custom is still first.  It’s something for us to learn.  I think that is what people meant that in any form of governance that we now adopt, we have to put in custom right at the core before we can succeed.  And once we ostracize our people and keep them outside, you look at the courts, it’s in hindsight that we started to add in things here and there that have never been there in the first place, and that is wrong, I think.  

Hon. Ghiro:   I think you have the same list of questions we have here, Prime Minister, and so the question I am referring to is Question No. 7.

Hon Sikua:  Thank you.  Do you want to ask the question first Honorable Ghiro before I respond to it.

Hon. Ghiro:  What is your view on the suggestion that RAMSI is operating as an alternative parallel government to the Solomon Islands government?  If it is indeed a misconception, can you suggest how the issue might be clarified?

Hon Sikua:  I’d like to thank the Honorable Member for Central Makira for the question.  On the suggestion that RAMSI is operating as an alternative or parallel government to the Solomon Islands Government is the reason why we called on RAMSI to realign its activities and programs to support those of the sovereign government of Solomon Islands so that it is not seen as operating a parallel or an alternative government or administration,  and so the need for a partnership framework to provide the basis for both the Solomon Islands Government and RAMSI to work together. 

Hon. Soalaoi:  Prime Minister, as you know, all of us know that the CNURA Government prioritizes rural development.  The suggestion that the nature of development happening currently in Solomon Islands when we termed it as post conflict deprives other rural areas that we want to reach out to.  Don’t you think that the government’s rural advancement policy will be affected by donors coming into post-conflict rehabilitation and restoration activities?

Hon Sikua:  I think towards the end of my statement I did mention that whatever we do in terms of the government’s policy on rural development, we meaning the government and donors, must not do it to the disadvantage of any particular locality, any particular sect and any particular group of people in the country.  The approach we should be taking in our quest for rural advancement is that it must be balanced and must be felt throughout the country by different groups, by different sects and no one is disadvantaged in anyway or that rural advancement is one-sided.  I did mention that in my speech, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Kengava:  Hon. Prime Minister, you mentioned in your opening statement that the Facilitation of the International Act probably needs to be redrafted in order to meet the changing situations that we’re now in. 
My question relates to the point that if we are to redraft the Act, would it prefer to use the term ‘Visiting Contingent’ or replace the ‘Visiting Contingent’ with the acronym RAMSI, which is now widely used today.  In my view both terms have different implications.  By saying that RAMSI is a visiting contingent that clearly points out that they are visitors to the country.  By saying RAMSI it tends to have a local flavor to it, and therefore tends to camouflage the fact that RAMSI is actually a visiting group of people coming into assist us.  Thank you.

Hon Sikua:  I would like to thank Hon. Kengava for this very important point that he raised.  Like I said at the beginning and in my respond to an earlier question, issues like that will depend on the outcome of this review.  I would like to think that it may be just a question of review rather than redrafting, reenactment of something like that.     But like I said, I am putting this question back to this Committee.  I think this Committee has the mandate to point the government to where we should be going when we have this kind of issue arising from the original Act.

Mr Chairman:  It’s also important for our Committee to take the government’s view as well.  You’re all very important.  We need your views as well.

Hon. Tosika:  Prime Minister, today you mentioned a core issue, like customs is a core issue that needs to be revisited.  I am on the same line with you in relation to our customs, norms and traditions.  These are things we have overlooked for quite sometime now, which may be could be root causes of the ethnic tension that we have experienced.   You mentioned in your statement cultural capacity building - “building our cultures”. 
My question is, in your negotiation of the Partnership Framework, would you be in favor of including things like customs, traditions, norms and so on to become part of the framework, so that they can be considered to be included in our various legislations or even the Constitution of Solomon Islands to reflect the importance of our cultural norms to become  part of our society so as to create a harmonious living that people would understand as they have been living like that for a long time now.  Do you think it is necessary for those to be part of this review to be included in instruments that we will negotiate with RAMSI for the future? 

Hon Sikua:  Thank you Honorable Tosika for that very important question.  In the first place, I think the issue of our worthy traditions, customs and cultures coming into the main frames of the government we have needs to be looked at in relation to the issue of constitutional reform.  But the framework can look at the issue of how RAMSI can assist us in our initiative of a broad constitutional reform. 
That issue, as I have mentioned can be included in the proposed framework, but may be for assistance in personnel or funds because our constitutional reform is ongoing at this time, and there are specific skills that we want people to be involved in, especially skills in terms of constitutional lawyers.  Maybe RAMSI can assist us to look for people with such skills or help us fund them and so on.   Whilst the assistance is in the framework the actual work is currently being undertaken with the overall constitutional reform that is ongoing now under the Office of the Prime Minister.  I think that is what I meant in my statement.

Hon. Soalaoi:  Mr. Prime Minister, I think one of the things that people are very much concerned about is peace, and as you mentioned in your statement that the achievements of RAMSI need to be sustained.  Whether we would be able to sustain that after RAMSI leaves or not.  The concern of the people is that they want to live in peace and also investors would want to come in and invest in the country where there’s peace.  If for some unforeseen reasons or circumstances that RAMSI immediately leaves without properly informing us to prepare ourselves, as the Prime Minister is there any plan by way of contingency in place if that happens.  Otherwise anything bad suddenly happens when RAMSI leaves.  Our people will need to be comforted that the government has a contingency plan in place even, if we have to prepare ourselves to keep peace in the short term.  Is there any contingency plan in place when a situation like that arises?  You don’t have to say what it is, but is there anything like that in place?

Hon Sikua:  Mr. Chairman, if Forau had asked this question in Parliament, I would say that it’s a hypothetical question, and I would ask you to rule it out.  But let me just say this Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee that I don’t think that would be allowed to happen.  With the support we’ve had from Forum countries, with the support we’ve had from our bilateral partners and the overall thinking by the majority of our people that we don’t want to go back to those times again.  I think people have had enough of it, and given that kind of atmosphere I really don’t want to think that such a thing can happen again. 
Like I said it’s a hypothetical question but what I would like to say is that, that is why the CNURA Government has made it clear that if such a thing has to happen then there is need for us to continue maintain dialogue and consultations with RAMSI and the region.  We just need to continue keep the doors open for dialogue and consultation.  And that is the avenue the government, the CNURA Government is providing.  The doors will not be closed.  Any issue that comes up must be put on the table, let’s dialogue, let’s consult and continue to move forward. 
I think because of that stand by the CNURA Government, which I am leading, is what is making the regional leaders and RAMSI very willing to come forward and work with us.  Because if we start to close the door and stop the dialogue and consultations, only then would the situation mentioned by Honorable Forau would arise because there is a deadlock.  But if the doors are kept open for dialogue and consultation whenever issues arise, I think that kind of thing cannot happen.  The policy of the CNURA Government is to keep the doors open that when there are issues, let’s put them on the table, let’s dialogue and consult and find a way forward and not going back because we cannot afford to go back. That is all I want to say about that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr Chairman:  Just to add on to that Prime Minister.  There are high level as well as official level consultations taking place now between RAMSI and as your government.  Is the Cabinet being updated of these consultations?

Hon Sikua:  Yes, Mr. Chairman.  The reporting that was agreed to in the recent meeting of the Forum Ministers Standing Committee on RAMSI, is that RAMSI will report to Cabinet first before it goes to the contributing countries.  The reporting now comes through Cabinet, comes through the government first before it is released.  That is the way RAMSI reports to contributing countries on its activities in Solomon Islands.

Hon. Ghiro: Prime Minister, you are the head of Cabinet and so I would like to know what are your views as Prime Minister on the rearmament of our local police.  Solomon Islanders are confused on this issue whether they are going to be rearmed or not.  As the head of government and Prime Minister, can you give us your views on this issue?  Thank you.

Hon Sikua:  I would like to again thank Honorable Ghiro for that question.  The CNURA says no to guns, and that is very simple and very clear.  We say no to guns and we say no to rearming any part of the Police Force including the Close Protection Unit of the Prime Minister and Governor General. 
If we want to talk about this issue, as I said very clearly we must carry out a national referendum on this for people to decide on whether we need guns or not.  But the government I am leading at this time is saying no to guns and no to rearming any particular division of the Police Force.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Soalaoi:  May be the last question.  Honorable Prime Minister, I think one of the key posts that is still vacant or correcting me for my ignorance, is the post of the Special Envoy to RAMSI.  Do you have any plans of filling that post in the immediate future?  I am asking about the Special Envoy to RAMSI.

Hon Sikua:  Yes, thank you Honorable Forau for this very important question you’ve asked.  As you might be aware the salary paid to this person who was formerly referred to as the Special Envoy to RAMSI has just been approved in the recent meeting in the Supplementary Appropriation that went through Parliament.  The salary that we put in is equivalent to Permanent Secretary at SS2 level.  This person would probably be referred to as Permanent Secretary on special duties to RAMSI under the Office of t he Prime Minister. 
Having got the money to pay for his salaries, his appointment is now with the Public Service Commission and the Public Service Commission, I believe will make his appointment, maybe if not this week then maybe any time it meets next week will make the appointment for this person who will now be referred to as Permanent Secretary on Special Duties to RAMSI under the Office of the Prime Minister. 
The submission is now with the Public Service Commission and therefore the Commission will make the appointment anytime it meets.  Thank you.

Hon. Kengava:  Mr. Prime Minister, I just want to hear your view on the proposed new partnership agreement or framework with RAMSI stated in your presentation. 
I think this would be an opportunity for the Solomon Islands Government to realign the functions of RAMSI to deal more with development needs of the provinces.  At the same time this agreement or framework can also be used as the benchmark for RAMSI to exit from Solomon Islands.  What is your Government’s view or your views on using this framework as an exit strategy for RAMSI?  Thank you.

Hon Sikua:  Thank you Honorable Kengava for that question.  Mr. Chairman, with your permission I would like to refer this question to my two Secretaries so that I could rest a bit as I have been talking for a very long time.

Mr Chairman:  Yes, absolutely. 

Hon Sikua:  If I could first ask the Secretary to Cabinet to talk and maybe some responses will come from the Secretary to the Prime Minister.  Anything else will be filled in later by me when those two have responded.  

Mr Chairman:  Sounds like a good idea. 

Ms. Ruth Liloqula:  Thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you Honorable Kengava for the question.  I’d like to comment like this.  The SIG/RAMSI Partnership Framework, the Solomon Islands Government has put forward a phase-out strategy to allow us to measure when we are ready to take on those programs.  We did not call it an exit strategy but we called it a phase-out strategy because some of the problems that RAMSI is addressing are long term problems, chronic problems and therefore, it would take time to achieve them, thus I called it a phase-out strategy and it will apply to programs and not to the Mission as a whole as yet.  Thank you.

Mr Manele:  Thank you Chair and thank you for the question.  Just a supplementary answer to what the Secretary to Cabinet has mentioned.  As she said, part of that draft is a phase-out strategy.  I only wish to add that, that will help the government in terms of determining the sustainability of the programs because there’ll be some sort of targets or timeframes attached to particular programs.  As and when RAMSI completes the programs or if the government needs to take over the programs, the phase-out strategy does help the government to determine what sort of resources it will have to put into that program, if RAMSI leaves the program for the government to take over from.  Thank you, Chair.

Mr Chairman:  Prime Minister, do you think you need to add to that?

Hon Sikua:  The phase-out strategy that we have is in a nutshell saying that RAMSI will go when we are ready.  Overall that is what it means; that RAMSI will go when we are ready, not before and so forth but it will only leave when we are ready.  Thank you very much, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman:  There are two more questions.

Hon Kengava:  Honorable Prime Minister, I am referring to question no. 16 on this guiding paper.  Do you think an independent audit to demonstrate the long term effectiveness of the Mission is required, separate from the monitoring and evaluation currently being undertaken by RAMSI and the Forum?  I think this is important because how could someone doing the job evaluates and monitors it himself.  Maybe someone different would give an impartial view on this.  Thank you.

Hon Sikua:  Thank very much for the question.  I think he has already answered his question.  I think it is important that an independent audit is undertaken on RAMSI.  I believe Cabinet has already made the decision for an independent audit of RAMSI to be undertaken.  As you already said Honorable Kengava, once the audit is undertaken by the government, it will only provide its own views on the issue and if RAMSI carries out its own audit for its own purposes, but we have to have someone independent to give us an independent and balanced review on RAMSI.  Thank you very much, Chairman.

Mr Chairman:  Just one more question and this is the last one.  I know that your time is very important.  It’s question number 11 and you have been quite silent on that in your statement.  What is your view on the appropriateness of the immunities provided to RAMSI in the FIAA?

Hon Sikua:   You are right, but it’s part of the phase-out strategy.  This is a matter for the government to undertake consultations on with RAMSI troop and the contributing countries on the issue of immunity.  It is something that we need to undertake consultations on with the Troop and contributing countries and of course the Forum since the current situation is different from when RAMSI first arrived.  There is need to review the immunities provisions that are provided to RAMSI in the Act. 
What I am saying here is that we will be reviewing the immunity provisions but in consultation with the Troop and the contributing countries and the Forum itself.  Thank you.

Mr Chairman:  Did you want to say something Ruth?

Ms Liloqula:  I would just like to add on to what the Prime Minister has said that when you look at RAMSI it is a military style operation at its inception.  Now that it is moving more and more into other areas and scaling down of those, of course the nature of those programs will also affect the issue of immunity.  As it becomes more of a surveillance operation or whatever.  Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman:  This is the last one.  It was very quick and you have answered very well.  On behalf of the Committee and the Secretariat, Prime Minister it was a delight and wonderful to have you in this meeting.  Thank you.

Hon Sikua:  Thank you too.  I want to say that you have been doing very well so far and I would like to have that recorded and formally write to the Committee to showthat you are doing very well so far and I hope that you will continue to do the good work.  If anything comes up and you would want me to appear again before the Committee I can come back again or may be if only my two Secretaries, my Secretary to Cabinet or Secretary to Prime Minister needed to come back, then please feel free to invite them to come back or indeed even myself.
Thank you very much for all your questions and I enjoyed answering your questions.  I am prepared to go through until the evening but it’s okay that we are done.  Thank you very much.

CHIEF JUSTICE

Mr Chairman:  Honourable Members of the Foreign Relations Committee, Honourable Chief Justice, Albert Palmer, stakeholders and members of the public, the Foreign Relations Committee’s inquiry into and review of matters relating to RAMSI continues this afternoon, welcome to this hearing.
Firstly, on behalf of the Committee I would like to thank you very much, Sir, for accepting our invitation to participate in our inquiry. The Committee acknowledges your contribution to the strengthening of the judicial system in the Solomon Islands and is very pleased to be given the opportunity to hear from you.
As you are aware, this Committee has been tasked by Parliament with an inquiry that touches on virtually all aspects of RAMSI.  We realize that in our search for facts and opinions on RAMSI’s nature, mandate, operations and future, the Committee may tend to ask questions on critical and sometimes controversial issues.  However, earlier we decided to limit our questions for you Sir for a number of reasons.  This Committee understands that you Sir are the head of the third arm of government under our Constitution.  As such, we will respect the separation of powers and avoid doing anything that might run counter to that fundamental doctrine.  Moreover, the Committee respects the high degree of expectations and limitations placed on the office of a judge and a Chief Justice.
Thus, to avoid unreasonably placing you in a difficult situation, we propose to only ask of you questions that we sincerely hope are general and non-controversial in nature.  Of course, you may decline to answer any particular question if you consider it inappropriate.  Alternatively, you might like to take a difficult question on notice and the Committee is happy to receive a written response from you on that particular question at some later point if you choose to take this alternative.
For the same reasons, I stated earlier and as you requested, the Committee has decided that this hearing will not be televised.  However, SIBC will still broadcast this hearing live as with previous hearings.  Further, Hansard will record our deliberations today for the Committee’s records.
Before we continue, it is standard practice of parliamentary committee inquiries that the Chair reminds all witnesses of parliamentary privileges.  Thus, please be reminded, Sir, that you are protected by parliamentary privilege in your capacity as a witness in this inquiry.
We will proceed now with the hearing.  We will first hear a 15 to 20 minute presentation from the witness.  After that, this Committee will ask questions of the witness.  Sir, could you please state your name for the record before making your presentation?

 

Chief Justice:  Thank you honorable Chairman and members of the Foreign Relations Committee.  My name is Albert Palmer.  I wish to take this opportunity to thank you for allowing me to come and make some comments and suggestions to this inquiry and review.
            I also wish to take this opportunity on behalf of the judiciary and join everyone else in thanking God Almighty for the intervention which took place in July 2003.  The intervention was a gift and answer to the prayers of the people of Solomon Islands and a manifestation of the grace of God to us. 
            One of the fundamental characteristics of a gift is that it places a very important honour or responsibility on us on how we use it.  It also places responsibility on the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands (RAMSI) regarding how that assistance is given and administered.  As a gift, both the Solomon Islands Government and RAMSI are accountable on how this assistance is carried out.  It is accountable to God, accountable to the Pacific Islands Forum Countries and accountable to the people of Solomon Islands.
The focus of the mission was restoration of law and order and security. RAMSI was invited to intervene and come to the assistance of the Solomon Islands Government because it could no longer govern the country effectively. You would well appreciate that the rule of law and forces of democratic governance were being flouted, ignored and ineffective.  We all know that democratic governance only flourishes where the rule of law flourishes and peace and stability is on the ground; where people do not take the law into their own hands when they have a grievance or dispute but allow the law to take its course.  Every major and successful country in the world today will trace their success to this foundational cornerstone.  People live in peace and harmony together because this fear, this reverence and respect for the rule of law is ingrained in their hearts and minds.  That is one of the challenges of our developing nation; to develop the culture of the rule of law in our city, provincial towns and communities. 
The primary purpose and reason for the intervention, quote: “was to assist in the restoration of law and order and security”.  The approach initially was interventionist, direct at the outset.  It had to be, because of the circumstances on the ground. In many instances, the Army and Participating Police Officers of the visiting contingent had to intervene directly in enforcing and applying the laws of Solomon Islands because our Police Force and Prison Service were not in a position or did not have the capacity to do so.  That was understandable and we accepted it and tolerated it.
There were misunderstandings and disagreements sometimes in how things were being done because many members of the visiting contingents were not familiar with our laws and so when carrying out their enforcement duties relied on their knowledge and understanding of procedures, processes and laws as applied in their countries.  I think the same also happens in the civil service with advisors and expatriates engaged under RAMSI.  Many had to quickly learn our processes and procedures to serve effectively.  
In the Judiciary we emphasized this point because there were some lawyers, for instance, who were using processes and procedures that were different to ours.  Many expatriates holding line positions or as advisors, you will well appreciate were engaged in government service in line positions and assisted in restoring government functions, services and processes.
In the Judiciary again, for instance, Judges were recruited, advisors and lawyers, for example, for the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Public Solicitors and so on, were engaged.  Criminal activities were curbed overnight, offenders arrested charged and prosecuted.  Restoration was the key word and that was the focus in that period.  To that extent Mr Chairman and Members it has been very successful. 
The assistance to the Judiciary has been remarkable, in the sense that the Judiciary has been strengthened and supported through the criminal and civil justice system, to establish confidence in the rule of law, police prosecutions, defense and prisons.  There was also institutional strengthening; support to the court, the legal sector agencies, the court processes and infrastructure activities were also strengthened.  There was a lot of capacity building and development on an individual and organizational basis and there was provision of technical assistance.  The delivery of justice was enhanced and strengthened.
Our mission is “making justice visible, tangible and accessible”.  What we mean is that people see justice, feel justice not in a bad way, and touch it so that they can access it; that’s the mission.  We feel that when that takes place it helps in developing the respect for the rule of law. 
The delivery of independent, impartial and fair justice was one of our focuses.  In strengthening that, we also made sure through assistance that regular sittings of the Court of Appeal was done and in a way we were able to have two sittings of the Court of Appeal each year.  That was targeted as well. 
Provincial outreach is again one of our major focuses with the assistance.  Court circuits were enhanced to try and maintain the administration of justice out there in the community. 
We were also able to deliver effective and efficient services through the assistance of support services.  Support was provided through the Case Support Unit again under the assistance.  We had a Transcription Unit that immediately transcribes records of evidences in court and so on, which we did not have previously.  Again that facilitated when matters go on appeal at least records are there available straight away. 
We also had a team of interpreters, which we did not previously have.  This again was provided under the assistance.  Corporate services were enhanced; we had administrative officers based at the High Court and the Accounts Section, and the list goes on.  I cannot continue on with that. 
            Let me come to the second part, and this is five years on.  Five years on the focus now is on rebuilding and development of services.  If we look back, Solomon Islands was crawling on its knees.  Today Solomon Islands has stood up, confident and is beginning to walk again, and I think the inquiry and review to that extent is timely. 
Let me put it this way, while it is a review about RAMSI, it is my view that it is also as much a review about us.  In a way I think it is time we ask ourselves some very pertinent questions; do we know where we are going?  Do we know what we want?  Because only then, would we be able to review RAMSI effectively and only then would we be able to enter into effective discussions or negotiations on how best that assistance can be provided or how it can be better and more effectively provided.  This brings me to the issue of coordination of funding.
The progress and achievements made through the re-strengthening and rebuilding exercise, in particular with the Judiciary must be seized upon and enhanced.  That assistance must be honed, focused and streamlined.
I’ll make a recommendation here and the recommendation is that there should be a paradigm shift so that the assistance is channeled through the Solomon Islands Government.  There are advantages to this which I will highlight.  First, this will bring certainty to the funds that are available and release more funds; (2) middle management levels are removed, reducing costs and releases more funds; (3) also I think this is sustainable that we make use of local expertise and skills.  In terms of materials, again these are used and again reduce costs.  (4) this directly supports other institutions to become involved and again five years on we have government ministries which have been strengthened.  This should be utilized in terms of administration of funds, the Ministry of Finance.  
Five years ago, yes, there were a lot of questions, queries and doubts about that but five years on now they can step in and take up a bigger role.  (5) also this reduce delays; under the current system there are delays in that.  That is where the advantage that I see in terms of this shift; (6) also I see that it will be more responsive to our needs and flexible because it comes through the government and so we deal directly with the government in that regard; (7) and for accountable purposes I guess the government accounts to RAMSI in that regard; (8) it maximizes the assistance that is provided; (9) there is a sense of ownership of the activity and it is driven by stakeholders.  It is the Judiciary that is driving it and also the SIG; (10) it also enhances the rebuilding and re-strengthening exercise and refocuses the assistance towards the Solomon Islands Government sector agencies, rather than it being diverted or spread out; (11) also in terms of increased transparency in terms of resources that are used and decision making processes, and so there is accountability in that regard. 
I’ll give an example, Chairman.  In terms of funding given at this point in time, while we may have a bulk sum, we do not really know how much is available for this and that.  Requests are put through the Law and Justice Program sector and that is processed through.  That is how we deal with it at the moment.  That is the recommendation.  While we have made a lot of progress and a lot of achievements, I am talking about five years down the line, in terms of funding and that is the recommendation that I will make in terms of how it can be made more transparent and accountable. 
Shall I still continue?  I have some comments yet to make, is that alright? 

Mr Chairman:  Please, go on.

Chief Justice:  Let me comment on the recruitment of expatriate officers and advisors in the National Judiciary.  Request for this should come from each Justice Sector Agency as to what their needs are.  Expatriates who come to work here should have no doubt in their minds that they come to work here for us.  While RAMSI maybe responsible for paying their salaries etc., there shouldn’t be any doubt in their minds as to their loyalty and commitment.
RAMSI’s role is to facilitate their services in the country.  Expatriate officers and advisors are recruited for their skills, experience and expertise to serve us.  They are therefore accountable to us and we should be able to determine how long we would want such officers or advisors to stay for as a minimum. 
Too many come for only 12 months and leave, and this is simply to some extent unsatisfactory for our purposes.  In terms of continuity in development goals, sustainable training and mentoring, minimum returns are attained and achieved in such an environment.  We must be able to recruit people who can stay for up to two years and even longer if the need is there and we should be able to determine where they should be placed.  If we want an expatriate Magistrate, for example, to be based in Malaita, then we should have that flexibility.
Changing the coordination of funding to the Ministry of Finance or some other suitable bilateral arrangements will give us the flexibility to do it and maybe we can compare that with how the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Corporation funded workers, technical advisors under the European Union Funding is done.  There are comparisons we can make to assist us in taking this forward. 
This inquiry and review as I feel it is more about us than RAMSI.  If we do not know what we want then of course there will be confusion and uncertainty and we cannot blame RAMSI if it does not know what its role or its purpose or even confuses itself or somehow misdirects that assistance or aid.  We should make clear to them what we need and what we want.
            Finally, I’ll make some personal observations and comments before you can ask some questions that you have.  This is more of my personal observations and comments in terms of the Army and the Police contingent.  Five years on, it is respectfully submitted that the Army personnel should be reduced to a bare minimum.  I do not think maintaining such a huge number at this point in time is justified.  Costs will be saved and can be diverted to other areas. 
In terms of the Police contingent, again it is respectfully submitted that this should be absorbed fully five years on into the Police Force.  I say this because of the following reasons.

• This means their assistance provided is not divided or spread thin.
• The current system is not sustainable and there is no continuity.  There are two forces, the PPF forces and resources are spread out between the two.  For continuity purposes I am making that submission.
• Refocuses assistance to what it should be to strengthen and to rebuild the image of the Police and Prison Service as a professional Police Force in that regard. 
• Also it should redirect focus to actual policing on the ground.
• Assistance is maximized, funds, training equipment and every support is focused towards the Solomon Islands Police Force.
• It should also enhance and focus institutional strengthening, capacity building and development.  I know these are going on since then up until now.  But this submission is a change that is recommended for consideration.
• It will also remove the image of a parallel force or a dual force working in the country
• On the ground training and mentoring can be provided by experienced and senior Police officers from Pacific Island Forum Countries (PIF); and
• There should be counterpart experienced Police advisors at key positions working with counterpart local officers employed by the SIG and directly engaged as Solomon Islands Police advisors or officers actually working for the police and for the government in that regard. 

 

Mr Chairman, I think I’ll stop there.  I understand you have some questions and I’ll try my best to answer them.

Mr Chairman:  Thank you your Lordship.  We have a couple of questions here.  Let me start them off.  Could you please explain to our committee your understanding of the legal framework of RAMSI, how it was set up, the legal basis for its operation?

Chief Justice:  I think RAMSI, we all know, came about through a request by our government and then there was a treaty between Solomon Islands and the PIF countries that entered into that agreement.  Then there was the enactment of the Facilitation of International Assistance Act 2003, which paved the way for RAMSI to enter the country. 
What that legislation provided was giving additional powers to those coming in within that setup into the country.  The one that is more familiar to us is the non-civilian bit, this is the Army and the Police but there are also none civilians.  I do not know who comes under that and are given special powers as well under that legislation, but I think it is important to appreciate the difference between those groupings that have come into the country and that is why special privileges are provided for them to enable them to carry out what needed to be done under that legislation by way of facilitating the treaty that was signed. 

Mr Chairman:  My second question is what do you understand as the functions of RAMSI and what would you consider as the legal source of such functions, the RAMSI Treaty or the Facilitation Act 2003?  And if there is any inconsistency between the RAMSI Treaty and the Facilitation Act, which in your view would prevail in our courts?

Chief Justice:  To answer the first part of your question on what do I understand as the functions of RAMSI, again if we look at the legislation itself, it sets out in very broad terms the role or functions of RAMSI, which is the restoration of law and order and security.  And if you look at the Treaty, I think it spells out in more detail what was envisaged.  If you read it through it talks about a package of strengthened assistance, policing operations, armed peace keepers, program of assistance to strengthen justice and restore the economy and basic services, assist in the effective functioning of government, restore confidence in law and order and economic recovery.  The Treaty and the Facilitation Act describe for us the functions of RAMSI in broad terms.
On the second part of the question on what do I consider as the legal source of such functions?  I think the answer is already there within itself that there is the request and there was a treaty and the Facilitation Act.

Mr Chairman:  If there is an inconsistency between the RAMSI Treaty and the Facilitation Act, I assume it is international law and domestic law, if there is inconsistency between the two, how would the court look at it?

Chief Justice:  Yes, thank you.  I’m not sure if this is a right question to ask because the Treaty is a government to government agreement and is binding on that basis, whereas the Facilitation Act actually addresses the activities of RAMSI on the ground in the country.  In that context I do not know whether a conflict will ever arise. 
I think the more appropriate question is whether a matter that is an issue is a matter covered by the Facilitation Act or needed the Facilitation Act to validate it in the country. 
What the Facilitation Act does or did is that it gives additional powers to those coming under the treaty to do their work in the country, for example, the power of arrest, because a normal person, a normal citizen coming from abroad would not have that additional power or special power.  That is what the Facilitation Act is for.  I think it is important to understand that that is the purpose of it.  
We have a lot of expatriates here, many of them come under the so called RAMSI assistance and that is why I said some of them may come under that legislation in terms of privileges and immunities and some of them are not.  And they don’t need the Facilitation Act to validate their existence and activities in the country.  They can carry out so many normal activities as you can see many of them are doing serving in our government departments but they still come under the grouping of RAMSI.  I think that is important to appreciate.  I think the issue that may arise is whether anything that arises is validated under that Act. 

Mr Chairman:  Committee members do you have any questions?

Hon. Soalaoi:  I am just referring to, I think, a similar arrangement in PNG where the issue of immunities was challenged and thrown out.  Your Lordship, what do you see as the difference between that case and RAMSI in Solomon Islands?  How does our Constitution cater for the immunities enjoyed by RAMSI personnel in the country?

Chief Justice:  Yes, thank you for that question.  I think the issue that was before the Courts in PNG was actually dealing with two cases; the Andrew Nori case and Makasi case when that was addressed.  But very quickly in the PNG case there was an offending article, which was part of the law and was included as a schedule to the Enhanced Cooperation between PNG and Australia Act 2004.  So there was a schedule and there was an agreement entered into.  The offending article is article 3.4 of that agreement between them. 
That article stated one of the bit which was found to be the offending part was that “the Head of the assisting Australian Police shall be responsible to the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police in Australia”.  That is where the PNG Supreme Court held to be inconsistent with Section 197 and this relates to police functions in the Constitution and Section 198 in terms of command and control of the PNG Police Commissioner.  That is the offending bit in terms of accountability, functions and command and control.
Now the distinguishing thing with us is that the head of the PPF is appointed as Deputy Commissioner of Police, under our Constitution.  That is really the distinguishing bit in that case.  This is to put it very short. 

Hon. Maelanga:  Your Lordship, if there is a reduction in the number of RAMSI lawyers working in Solomon Islands or if there were to be a swift in the focus of these lawyers/advisors away from practicing to capacity building only, what effect do you think this would have on the performance of local lawyers? 
In your opinion how much longer would RAMSI lawyers need to remain in practice alongside local lawyers before we can consider our own lawyers in public institutions as competent enough to take over the work currently headed by RAMSI lawyers.  .

Chief Justice:  Thank you for that question in two parts.  If there was a reduction, I think there is already a reduction in terms of the number of RAMSI lawyers.  If there were to be further reduction then, yes, definitely it will not improve the performance of local lawyers in terms of capacity building. I think capacity building is very important, not only do you need lawyers to be actually observing in court, but also that they are being built up and trained and that requires time.
If the number of lawyers is actually reduced then we may not have senior expatriate lawyers taking up court cases and our local lawyers will miss out in capacity building actually in court room practice in that regard. 
Unfortunately, when we had a lot of senior lawyers coming in initially, the opportunity was not there because not many of our local lawyers were appointed and so they missed out on that training and mentoring.  I think, the answer is, yes.

As to the second part, in terms of competency, I think our local lawyers are competent.  I think that needs to be made clear, it needs to be distinguished.  Our local lawyers are competent.  I think the issue is complex cases that come in requiring people with experience.  I think that’s the area we miss out on.  We definitely need someone specialized to deal with complex cases, and so if we

don’t bring them in then we will miss out on building and developing of skills and training.

Hon Tosika:  Your Lordship, this question will be a bit different from the questions we have provided, but it goes like this.  As human beings we have a defense system in our body to protect us from diseases and sickness.  I think the only people who have no defense system in their bodies are AIDS victims and so if they catch malaria they will die because they have no defense system in their bodies.  
For the past five years Solomon Islands does not have any defense system that is properly armed taking the oath of allegiance to protect our country.  In your opinion, five years on, do you think it is appropriate to rearm our Police Force?  What is your opinion on that issue?

Chief Justice:  I think we can focus on rearming or we focus on the issue of the Police Force being an effective unit.  The question of rearming in my personal opinion is none issue.  If the Police are carrying out their duties well, and that is if they are strengthened and supported and law and order is on the ground, enforcement is effective and efficient and courts are functioning, and as I have said making justice visible, tangible and accessible then respect will exist in our community.  When you talk about rearming you are talking about how the Police can protect themselves or be able to enforce or carry out their duties more effectively, especially when confronted by criminals they know how to deal with it.  That’s simply part of strengthening the Police Force; making sure equipments are there, training is there so that they able to deal with this effectively. 
Maybe at this point in time rearming is a very sensitive issue because of experiences we have had, and that is why the recommendation is still there in the sense that the Participating Police Force who are entitled to carry arms and weapons but are absorbed within the Police Force.  It is also restricted to certain personnel to enable them continue to carry out their duties. 

Hon Boyers:  I am probably going to ask an unorthodox question but you mentioned at your opening remarks that the intervention was a gift and we should be thankful for that.  You also mentioned that we should be accountable to God, the Forum and the people of Solomon Islands, the last two being earthly institutions and oversights that we look towards in governance.  But the question of being accountable to God and our job is to bring Heaven down and not hell up because that’s what I believe the Lord’s Prayer is all about, but how can we be accountable to God?  Is this a reflection of the churches’ oversight role in this area?  Do you think the churches have a role to play as an oversight institution in governance for this intervention?

CJ:  Thank you, Chairman for that question.  Definitely in my respectful view, the churches have a very positive and big role to play in the country.  The churches are responsible for the spiritual aspects of our people and I think that is where they can contribute in ensuring, not only that we are smart and clever but in our spiritual growth and understanding, we know who we are accountable to in that regard.  I think that is enhancing the spiritual part; people recognizing that there is someone who oversees everything as well just as we are accountable to one another and to institutions in the country. But yes I agree with your comment that churches have a very big role and how they do that and whether the government wants to engage churches more, is a matter for the government of the day to decide on.  But I agree with you on that.

Hon Ghiro:  Your Lordship, what do you see as some of the successes, failures and areas of improvement of RAMSI programs in the judiciary during the last five years?

CJ:  I think I have already partly answered that question through my short presentation when I highlighted the successes, which are many and I cannot go through all of them again.  If we count them it is more court rooms, court buildings, a lot of cases have been dealt with.  Some cases that we designated as tension-related cases have been heard, processed through and dealt with.  Delays have been minimized.  I know delay is a big issue; people being remanded in prison for a long time.  At one stage it was for about two to three years.  Just imagine yourself being remanded and waiting for your turn for two to three years, and there were people who were crying out.  That’s where successes have been in that regard.  To get things processed through quickly needs the support of everybody.  It is not only more courts, more judges but every one has to be supported.  That’s why I highlighted transcribers, court interpreters, and the case support unit.  There has to be coordination, and it involves a lot of money.  Witnesses have to be brought in and keeping them here in Honiara is very expensive.  I mean you have cases from out there in Malaita and the Weather Coast and you have to bring them in from the villagers and look after them here.  For some of them it is their first time to come to town and live in hotels and motels and so forth; and that costs money and that’s where the assistance was very successful.  That’s why law and order and justice has been done in that regard because delays were minimized.  So yes, there were a lot of successes. 
Failures and areas of improvement, I think that is why I have highlighted funding.  I also touched on five years on for that time, five years ago I think the way it’s been done really fits us and it is good and we are happy with that.  But I think it can be honed and made even more better so that a lot more can be achieved and spread out.  The funding can be spread out as well and in terms of accountability we would be able to know exactly how much money is there for infrastructure.  We still want to have court buildings in Gizo, Kira Kira and Lata, which are district centers. In Auki, there’s a courthouse coming up.  It hasn’t come up yet, it should be coming up soon but it’s taking time to process it through.  Then the provincial centres want court houses.  This is just an example of the direction we are going so that justice is there and we can deal with things straightaway out there in the communities. 
Honiara is okay, there is no problem but the communities out there need to have justice and they need to access it.  Public solicitors need to be made available to our communities out in Lata, for example.  Previously there was a Public Solicitor’s Office there and so people had access.  These are areas that we still need to improve on.  There is a lot still to be achieved, and that’s why I said, yes a lot of progress has been made but we can still move on.

Mr Chairman:  Two more questions.

Hon Tosika:  Your Lordship, yesterday the pillars of RAMSI came and testified before the committee, and one comment made by Paul Griffiths is that traditional justice has achieved 93%.  Also this morning the Prime Minister thinks that our customs, cultures and traditions are core issues that we have to look into and improve through legislation or even in the Constitution.  What is your opinion on this area?

CJ:  I think in a way it’s true that a lot of issues and disputes don’t end up in courts.  I mean there are traditional ways of settling disputes that we are well aware of such as compensations and so on; a lot of it goes on out there.  I think one of the areas that we can look into is seeing how that can be formalized or brought into the formal structure. 
Currently there is no legislation recognizing chiefs in that regard, although they are functioning, but supposing a party disagrees with the ruling of a chief or the chiefs committee and does not want to abide to it, there is no mechanism of enforcement and it has to come to the Local Courts or the Magistrate Courts.  That’s an interesting area we are looking into on how we can formalize and get chiefs to be recognized.
My view is that once we set up chiefs committees, the government must have the responsibility to pay them just in the same way we have local courts.  These are areas to move into.

Hon Tosika:  I think I would like to further comment.  I think if we move into such areas there will be sustainability of issues as it will promote people back in the villages to have ownership of decision-making processes for the promotion of peace in our communities and villages.  This will help to ensure that our court system is sustained in the country.

CJ:  Yes exactly.  I think it’s ownership of the justice system and our justice that we are responsible for.  Once you start to take responsibility for it then you will carry out your responsibility effectively so that justice is not regarded as a foreign concept but our own.  That is where we can work in bringing in those traditional systems and giving their formality.  That’s why I said the government has responsibility in this area so that chiefs will realize justice is our own.  And who is to benefit out of it; ourselves and our people.  And so I agree fully with that.

Hon Boyers:  Sir Albert I take note of your comment that this review is more about us than it is about RAMSI.  Certainly in my capacity there is need to reform legislature to move us forward into the future to suit the needs that maybe we have ignored in the past.  Do you see it as a common dominator and a position that RAMSI has probably woken up through its engagement the need for us to facilitate better governance through legislative reform?

CJ:  Yes, I agree with that.  I think the support needs to be directed towards legislature and I think it’s there, we can see it working.  We are seeing a lot of assistance.  Definitely, there needs to be a lot more activity in terms of legislative reform, the laws.  Many of our laws are obsolete, if not need to be keep up to date, and so it requires an active legislature and definitely I agree with that.  Otherwise, courts will only be dealing with the old laws.  You see the function of the courts is to deal with that and it is the legislature’s responsibility to update our laws.  As the courts rule on certain things and you see things that need to be changed, you can change the law.  That is the legislature’s responsibility, but if the legislature does not operate and function effectively as you have said then we will be still going ahead with the old system.  But yes, I definitely agree with that.

Mr Chairman:  Thank you very much Your Lordship, Sir Albert Palmer, Chief Justice of Solomon Islands, for participating in our hearing.  Thank you.

CJ:  Thank you.

COMMISSONER OF POLICE

Mr Chairman:  Mr Peter Marshall, Acting Police Commissioner, Mr Walter Kola, Deputy Police Commissioner, stakeholders and members of the public, firstly on behalf of the Committee I would like to thank you for availing yourself and your officers to attend this very important inquiry into and review of matters relating to the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands. 
The Foreign Relations Committee acknowledges the critical role that the Police play in maintaining the peace and welfare of Solomon Islands, and thus your attendance here today is of great importance to this inquiry.  May I remind you this point that what you say in this hearing is protected by parliamentary privilege and cannot be later use against you in any legal proceedings whatsoever.  Because of the strength of this privilege this committee expects all witnesses to ensure that our answers are truthful and confine to matters relevant to the terms of reference and the questions asked by members. 
I wish to advise you that all public hearings of this committee during this inquiry, today’s hearings included, will be recorded by One News and televised within Honiara and other urban centers with television coverage each evening after a particular hearing.  The SIBC will also broadcast all our hearings live for those in the provinces listening in. 
We will proceed now with the hearing.  We will first hear a presentation from the witness after that this committee will ask questions of the witness.  May I now ask the witnesses to please state your names for the record and please proceed with your opening statements?

I am Peter Marshall, Acting Police Commissioner of the Solomon Islands Police Force.  I am Walter Kola, Deputy Commissioner of the Solomon Islands Police Force.

Mr Marshall:  Mr Chairman and members of the committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to be able to appear before you this afternoon.  With your agreement I would like to read a statement which would take me about 10 minutes.  It is a position statement in terms of setting the scene for the Solomon Islands Police Force, and I’ll certainly be happy to answer any questions arising.  Thank you once again.  
In all democracies, a good and capable Police Force is the core to good governance.  Parliaments make laws for the peace, order and good governance of a society but the Police Force is constitutionally and legislatively mandated to actually enforce those laws and preserve that state of peace.
In accordance with those mandate, the mission of the Solomon Islands Police Force (SIPF) is to work with the community for a safe, peaceful and prosperous Solomon Islands.  An efficient and effective Police Force is absolutely necessary for national security, peace and stability in the nation.  Most assessments of the SIPF in the years leading to and including the period known as the ethnic tensions determined that as a body the SIPF failed to live up to its mandate.  Indeed in many assessments, it was determined that the failings of the SIPF actually contributed to the situation that led to the invitation to regional governments to form RAMSI.  In saying this, I would like to acknowledge the fact that during those dark days there were many individual members of the SIPF who acted bravely and were loyal to their oath of office.  This is the SIPF that we are currently working hard with our RAMSI PPF colleagues to rebuild. 
The Solomon Islands Police Force is a national body with 1,069 established posts and a very broad mandate.  The SIPF provides the policing, national security, defense and firefighting capacity for the Solomon Islands.  The Solomon Islands Police Force is the nation’s only organized body capable of meeting the range of community policing, crime prevention and detection, border protection and civil defense requirements. 
The SIPF is also one of the most geographically spread government agencies being located in every province with over 30 police stations outside Honiara.  For all these reasons, the SIPF is fundamental to the long term political, economic and domestic stability, prosperity and future of the Solomon Islands.  The SIPF is a complex body and therefore the work to be done in rebuilding it, is beset with complexity.  I believe it may assist this Committee if I start up by giving you some ideas of the extent and scale of activity presently underway to address the needs of the SIPF. 
The Solomon Islands Police Force is taking necessary measures to continue to professionalize and better resource policing in Solomon Islands to match internationally recognized, sustainable and appropriate standards.  To do this, the SIPF together with valuable RAMSI/PPF assistance is working to re-strengthen law and order in this country, to continue to implement the SIPF capability plan and program, to promote community policing, particularly in rural areas and to support police stations in strategic locations in the provinces. 
With the support of the government and PPF advisors, the SIPF has committed itself to a range of projects to achieve its policy goals for the Force.  As part of the government’s commitment to providing for the peace and security needs of Solomon Islanders, issues of SIPF infrastructure, housing, equipment and training are being addressed.  As all Solomon Islanders would be aware the needs are great and unfortunately beyond the capacity of the government to address on its own. 
The SIPF welcomes, indeed requires, ongoing assistance from the donor community in many areas of need, not the least being which includes addressing the housing situation facing our police officers.  Already one RAMSI partner, New Zealand has acknowledged this housing need and the New Zealand Prime Minister, Helen Clark, announced at a recent Pacific Islands Forum meeting a significant contribution in this area. 
Despite the extent of need, initiatives are well underway in the area of infrastructure and housing.  At present a new Police, Customs, Immigration and Quarantine Station at Kulitana Bay in the Shortland Islands is being completed and will soon be operational to replace the Police Station at Korovou.  This will provide a valuable combined agency presence in the border region with Papua New Guinea’s Bougainville Autonomous Region.  Police housing in Naha, Atori, Malu’u are being repaired or replaced.  Work has commenced to repair barracks in Yandina.  Plans are well underway for housing to be constructed in Gizo and Auki and work is well advanced on new police housing and a new Police Station at Marau Sound, Guadalcanal Province to replace housing and the Police Station lost during ethnic tension.  There is also much ongoing work being undertaken to help maintain existing housing stock around the provinces. 
An effective and efficient Police Force is not just about buildings however, it is the members of the Police Force who will need its recovery and reformation into a police force that Solomon Islanders need and justly demand.  In conjunction with the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Institute of Police Management, a five year leadership development program has been put in place to help develop the future leaders of the SIPF.  The recruit training program has been reviewed and the Police Academy has been refurbished with general assistance from the PPF to provide local training for local police officers to enable them provide the police services required by the people of this nation. 
The Police Force is also keen to build a capability within the SIPF to meet the operational risk requirement to capably respond to situations of serious crime, corruption investigations, trans-national crime, border security, marine patrols, urban violence, riots and large scale civil disorder.  Already much work has been done to build capability within the Force and I look forward to more growth in this area.
The Fire Service of the Solomon Islands is an important integral part of the SIPF.  Work has been done to finalise the site for a new fire station in Gizo to house the fire truck provided by the Australian government and also complete the new fire station in Auki.  Further planning is being progressed to further develop the urban fire service capability in Honiara and this should lead to a submission seeking to commence work on a new fire service headquarters. 
Preventing crime is a priority for the Police Force.  The Police Force will continue work to establish community policing and the prevention of crime is a key priority.  Yet the prevention of crime is not just a role for the Police Force.  Everyone in Solomon Islands has a role to play in making Solomon Islands a safe, peaceful and prosperous nation.  The Police Force will work with the community to establish local crime prevention committees and will use their local skills and community contacts to maintain peace and good order across the nation and in particular our remote villages. 
The SIPF is also working with the Government to establish a Solomon Islands National Crime Prevention Council with the role of bringing all members of our diverse communities together in the prevention of crime.  The good work of the many organizations - the Police Force, other government agencies especially the Solomon Islands DPP, the Attorney General, the Ministry of Education and Human Resources, the Ministry of Women, Youth and Children Affairs and the non government sector including the Chamber of Commerce, Rotary and Save the Children Australia, to name some, will be enhanced by a cooperative working together in preventing crime and helping our youth at risk.  The Solomon Islands National Crime Prevention Council will provide this coordination and cooperative working environment. 
No doubt people will be interested to establish what has worked during the time RAMSI/PPF has been working with the SIPF.  However, the true measure of success is about the sustainability of what is presently being done and managing the expectations of what in fact is sustainable.  I believe that the question is not what is currently working well but what will continue to work well after the support of RAMSI/PPF is withdrawn or drawn down.  To that end, I am keen to continue to establish in conjunction with RAMSI/PPF personnel performance measures which will inculcate into the SIPF the need to perform independently to expected standards of conduct and capability. 
Finally, I would like to reinforce the SIPF’s commitment to work with the PPF and the donor countries in building a professional, capable and operationally independent Police Force that all Solomon Islands are proud of.  The SIPF acknowledges its neighbors who have so far committed so much to RAMSI and the nation.  We will continue to work with these neighbors to identify future strategies for the Police Force that addresses as yet answered questions about the future police, security and defence needs of the Solomon Islands. 
It is my assessment that the situation within the Solomon Islands Police Force and its capability is the product of a measured and appropriate set of responses over the last five years.  It is my assessment that whilst there have been significant gains in capability but that much is still to be done in accordance with plans agreed between the Solomon Islands Government and its RAMSI partners. 
I have attempted to make the point that there is a lot of work to be done in building the Police Force into one that this nation wants and needs.  At present the SIPF gets most, if not nearly all of its assistance in this task of rebuilding from the PPF.  The PPF also provides significant operational assistance and comfort to the SIPF.  I believe that the provisions of the Facilitation and International Assistance Act make it possible for the PPF to be in this nation, hence by extension, the assistance provided in rebuilding the SIPF and this operational assistance is a product of the provisions of this Act.  Simply put, this would have to be found elsewhere if the PPF was to be withdrawn for any reason. 
My final point Mr Chairman is that this would be an enormous loss for the people and the nation of Solomon Islands.  Thank you very much Mr Chairman and members of the committee.
Mr Chairman:  Thank you very much Acting Police Commissioner Solomon Islands.  The committee has a lot of questions to ask and so let me start something of.  Let us start about this year’s budget.  What are you requesting from the SI Government in this year’s budget?  You mentioned sustainability.  What are you looking forward to this year from the Solomon Islands Government in the budget that was extra on top of what you had last year?

Mr Marshall:  We are looking for finance in relation to housing.  Housing is the one principal area that is fundamental to the sustainability and the operational capability of the Solomon Islands Police Force.  Most of the population lives outside of Honiara, but most of our police officers are in Honiara.  We have difficulty for administrative, for welfare reasons, for disciplinary reasons to actually move appropriate staff between the provinces. 
We are very conscious that we also want to have Solomon Islanders rotate around the provinces so that people don’t go back to their home locations.  It’s not good for an efficient police organization to be limited in this regard.  And whilst police officers can expect assistance from the Solomon Islands Government in terms of housing, this is an ongoing issue that is of paramount importance to us because we have the situation where Solomon Islands Police Officers tend to go back to their villages, be housed in their villages and of course there is the ongoing perception rightly or wrongly that the wantok system could be impacting upon the impartiality of the performance of the Solomon Islands Police Force. 
I will also pass over to Deputy Commissioner, Walter Kola, responsible for administration for any additional point that he may wish to add on to in terms of the supplementary budget.

Mr Kola:  Thank you Mr Chairman and thank you Acting Commissioner.  There was also another area that we did look into and that was to ask for additional manpower for the organization.  We submitted for an additional 151 positions and that was included in the budget as well which will increase the number from 1,069 plus 151 additional for next year’s SIPF organizational structure. 

Mr Chairman:  Is what you are saying that the priority of the SIPF under your command is housing before rearming?

Mr Marshall:  Most certainly, housing is the one major impediment to our full operational and administrative oversight and development of the Solomon Islands Police Force, as I have mentioned.  I also want to make the point that we have received considerable additional funding this year.  We are very encouraged by that additional funding from the government.  We are also very encouraged by advice we have received from potential donors in terms of this funding situation, and we expect the difficulties that we have experienced over many years to be well and truly in times to come. 
On the rearming issue, we are very mindful of the Solomon Islands Government stance on the rearming issue, and we accept that totally.

Hon Maelanga:  Acting Commissioner and Deputy of Commissioner of Police, I know that there is a division within the Police Force called Community Policing.  Does the Community Policing Division also have programs for the rural areas or just programs for urban areas? 

Mr Marshall:  Thank you Committee member.  They do have programs in the urban areas and also in the provincial areas.  We are so mindful that the future direction of the Solomon Islands Police Force has to be absolutely connected to community policing.  We are so conscious of the grown in the population of the Solomon Islands in the next 12 years, and we are very conscious that the average age will continue to lower, and in the not too distinct future it will be an average age of 12 to 13 in relation to the population of the Solomon Islands such as the growth that is expected.  We are conscious that 80% of the population, give or take, live in the rural provincial areas. 
The Solomon Islands Police Force given the increase in population, given the diversity out in the provinces needs to have that community input.  There is no if/buts or maybes about it, and the programs while still have a way to go, will certainly be the cornerstone of our development in times to come.  And as I mentioned the Solomon Islands National Crime Prevention Council is central to those issues.  Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Hon Maelanga:  I raised this question because during the previous hearings with some of the Premiers they stated that when there is no presence of PPF Police officers many crimes just happen in front of Solomon Islands Police Officers.  That is why I asked this question.  What are some of the measures that you will bring up before your officers? 

Mr Marshall:  Thank you Committee Member.  I would be extremely disappointed if crimes were being committed in front of Solomon Islands Police officers and indeed their PPF advisors without Police taking appropriate action.  I am not saying it doesn’t happen but I would be very disappointed.  The thrust of all our training, our interactions with the provincial police commanders is very much along the lines that trust and confidence in the Solomon Islands Police Force needs to be earned, they need to gain respect through appropriate dealings with their community.  Quite often I receive requests from Premiers or their representatives asking that police posts be put out in various locations in the various provinces.  As much as we would like to do that, we do not have the budget for that but we have a building process that is going to look at development of police posts and we cannot be everywhere for everyone.  The Solomon Islands is hugely dispersed in terms of its geography, we have 1069 police personnel, we do our best, we will continue to do our best, we will continue to be out in the community.  
I want to make the point that our executive within the Solomon Islands Police Force and their PPF advisors are right behind this sentiment.  We want to make sure that there is a very professional approach to that.  I know there are issues but we are doing our best.  I am not sure whether my colleague Deputy Commissioner would want to add anything further to that.  Thank you.

Hon Ghiro:  Acting Police Commissioner, there were some concerns raised in relation on recruitment into the Solomon Islands Police Force as being bias against particular provinces and women.  What do you have to say to this.

Mr Marshall:  I am sorry Sir, could you repeat the question, question of bias, as I didn’t quite understand.

Hon Ghiro:  The question is that there were some concerns raised in relation to the recruitment of women into the Solomon Islands Police Force in the provinces.  What do you say about this Acting Commissioner?

Mr Marshall:  I now understand and thank you.  The Solomon Islands Police Force has approximately 15% of women within its organization and by international standards that is reasonably good.  We could do a lot better and we have a determination to recruit far more policewomen into our organization because they are so essential to it. 
In recent times, we have promoted the first Chief Superintendent woman who is our Director of Human Resources who comes from Rennell/Bellona.  We have the Director of Academy, a superintendent who is a woman.  The Head of the Sexual Assault Unit is also a female detective.  We are very interested in promoting women within the Solomon Islands Police Force.  We have for the first time a policewoman aligned at the Maritime Unit at the Aola Base working on the vessels, which has never happened before. 
All I can say is that as the Acting Commissioner, with the full support of my immediate executive and the provincial police commanders, we want to recruit, we want to engage and hold on to policewomen because they are so essential in terms of us being representative of the community that we want to serve.  I am certainly not aware of any reluctance, but if I was I would be taking immediate action to ensure that situation is rectified.  Thank you.

Mr Chairman:  Do a lot of women apply to be in the Police Force when you first came here?

Mr Marshall:  I have been here for 20 months in Solomon Islands from New Zealand, and on this particular point I will pass to Deputy Commissioner, Walter Kola who has oversight of the recruitment program within our organization.  I certainly see a good number of police officers strategically placed around Honiara but I’ll pass over to my colleague for an answer.  Thank you.

Mr Kola:  My answer to that is yes, I have observed through the selections that women have been applying for police positions as recruits.  It is interesting to note that from all the short listings from the provinces there are females applying from every province of Solomon Islands.  So it’s not only in Honiara that women apply but provinces as well.  I may need to also say here that the executive has been very supportive of one of our senior policewomen to go for long training at the USP and is still there.  Thank you.

Hon. Boyers: Thank you Chairman and Acting Police Commissioner.  One of the questions we’ve been raising when the Prime Minister came before this Committee this morning and also was mentioned by Dennis McDermott, Commander of RAMSI/PPF is fragility of the environment where we have a secure environment but is still fragile.  In relation to the confidence, the community confidence of the Solomon Islands Police Force, Dennis McDermott mentioned that there needs to be a process of reconciliation within the Police Force, and it’s generally understood that due to the problems of the ethnic tension when the law and order enforcement institution became somewhat compromised and during the process of intervention certain police officers were marginalized during that time.  Obviously, people were talking in the community and this has direct reflection of confidence within the RSIP. 
Are you are aware of the need for reconciliation between officers or previous officers or officers within the SIPF now that the government’s priority is reconciliation for our nation?  Do you see there is a need for that so as to improve the confidence of the general public on our law enforcement body?  

Mr Marshall:  Thank you for that honourable Member.  There is certainly a need for reconciliation.  It has been undertaken in a manner to date within the Solomon Islands Police, which is not comprehensive enough to my liking.  It needs to be the subject of renewed attention, but I will pass to Deputy Commissioner Kola with his nearly three decades of experience with the Solomon Islands Police Force.

Mr Kola:  Certainly, this has been on the minds and plans of the executive of the SIPF.  We think that there will be a time ready for us to progress this through and it has to be a sort of agreement not only within the SIPF executive but within the government as well.  But I totally agree that there is need for reconciliation between police officers themselves, between the police and other communities that we really know, and that has to happen and it must happen.  We very much agree on a corporate plan between ourselves and the government to have it actually happen or occur.  Thank you Chairman.

Hon. Kengava:  I think during your presentation Acting Commissioner of Police you mentioned a wide range of duties the Police Force or the SIPF is doing from fire service, keeping law and order and may be as a defence force for the country, keeping security.  My question is, for now while RAMSI is here I think in defending this country I think we are confident of that, but let’s say one day RAMSI exits, will the SIPF be capable of defending this country when the police are not armed or are there contingency plans that one day the SIPF will be armed to be able to defend Solomon Islands.  Thank you.

Mr Marshall:  If I can cover this in two areas.  One day RAMSI will leave the Solomon Islands, but I don’t suspect for one moment that the Solomon Islands Police Force would or should be cut adrift in terms of its policing responsibilities.  I suspect that there will be a period of bilateral arrangements, for instance, and if I can use an example that if there was to be an aero plane crash with significant casualties at Henderson field, there will be the need for disaster victim identification teams - pathologists, dentists, photographers, the international community would respond, and if it is not appropriate for the Solomon Islands Police to have its own disaster victim identification team available we would look for a bilateral arrangement.  In a similar way if there was to be forensic analysis in the sense of DNA in years to come after RAMSI, we would arrange through bilateral to have DNA facilities and all the forensic skill that goes with it, aligned to that bilateral arrangement with another country. 
If I can give a very simple example of this where we had a crash expert arriving from New Zealand in relation to the tragic death of Hilda.  We didn’t have that expertise here and so we called upon other countries to assist. 
In the context of the firearm situation, there will be a need at some point after RAMSI and this will be a government policy and the SIPF will take its directions from the government in this regard in terms of the SIPF having a capability whether that be diplomatic protection obligations, whether it be our IATA obligations at the international airport whether there is requirement for armed personnel, whether it be in relation to an immediate response capability if there was a person, for instance running amok in Honiara and we would need to be able to respond or indeed more likely in relation to wildlife control, the control of crocodiles.  At the moment we rely upon our PPF counterparts who provide an excellent service in that regard. 
We won’t need to have a full capability in relation to firearms because it will be part of that bilateral arrangement that I’ve talked about before.  It will be an incremental situation brought about through the Solomon Islands Government’s policy and directions to us in that regard.  Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Hon. Soalaoi:  I know that capacity building is a concern, not only in the Police Force but also in other institutions within the government.  If you are asked to identify some benchmarks in terms of capacity building in the Force, what would that be prior to any proposal for RAMSI reduction or exit from Solomon Islands?  Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Marshall:  Thank your Mr Chairman and honorable Member.  That is a very good question that is continually being considered by the executive in conjunction with our PPF colleagues.  I want to make the point that the Solomon Islands Police Force is leading the situation in terms of where we want to be compared to where we are now.  That is the challenge for us as we go through into the next period. 
We’ve had the emergency response, we’ve had the stabilization phases, and now we are on to the rebuilding phases.  We have a number of measures in place, for instance in an overarching sense we have our strategic plan in terms of what our goals are, we have our business plans, and we have individual performance against members of the Solomon Islands Police Force.  We have unit and group measurements, and I have two examples which I can pass to you later if you so wish.  For instance in relation to our human resource area, where we have an instate goal, the present state activities that will help produce the outputs, the performance measures, the time frame and the resources that are required to achieve these objectives.  We have this and I have another example in relation to the Financial Section. 
Our challenges to get those measures in place throughout all aspects of the Solomon Islands Police Force led by the Solomon Islands Police Force with assistance from the PPF.  It is important to appreciate that the PPF have actually sit back and told us and we accept 100% and is appropriate that we now have a very significant say in terms of the nature of the capacity building should be and where we want to position ourselves in times to come. 
Whilst one side we have the strategic plan and we have the performance measures and on another basis we have executive meetings three times a week, the complete management team of the SIPF meets once a month and we have counterparts for the participating Police Force present during that time.  We discuss these issues, it’s never far from my minds, and we are also on the ground looking at what is actually being physically done. 
The Deputy Commissioner and myself are out and about looking at performance.  I think it has to be accepted that within the Solomon Islands Police Force Executive and within the Participating Police Force management and executive, there are literally hundreds of years of policing experience, and so we have a very good field in terms of where we should be and where we are going.  Thank you Mr Chairman.

Hon. Soalaoi:  Commissioners, a number of times people have tried to describe the relationship between the SIPF and the PPF or RAMSI for that matter and we hear different views about that.  How can you generally describe the relationship between RAMSI and the SIPF?  Also before you answer, I’m just wondering what has happened to the RSIP so that now it is called the SIPF.  Thank you Commissioner.

Mr Marshall:  Perhaps in dealing with the first question, the RSIP was the very proud of the Solomon Islands Police Force was very much the subject of pride within the new organization.  There was a determination back in 2006 by the Governor General who viewed that there was some constitutional issue, shall we say with the inclusion of the name ‘Royal’ within the name of the Solomon Islands Police Force.  We are still very interested in exploring that situation.  There is a legal opinion in terms of the validity of the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force that is currently with the Permanent Secretary for Police, National Security and Correctional Services.  We certainly have the desire to have the name reinstated if that is at all possible and if it is compatible with the Governor General’s expectations but we have differed to his decision in that regard.  
            In terms of the relationship with the Participating Police Force, all I can say is that is very, very good and very supportive.  The Commander of the PPF, Dennis McDermott is actually sworn in as Deputy Commissioner of the Solomon Islands Police Force as well as his PPF Commander role.  He is present at all executive meetings.  His personnel are aligned to each of the significant areas of the Solomon Islands Police Force.  I want to dispel any notion that there is a parallel police force. 
The Solomon Islands Police Force has its mandate to protect the people of Solomon Islands and preserve law and order, and I as acting Commissioner would be disappointed and very concerned if I felt there was any unnecessary influence over my constitutional role.  But that is not the case.  They are very much into assisting in terms of rebuilding the Solomon Islands Police Force as opposed to doing the work they were required to do years gone by.  Times have change. 
There are a number of initiatives, which the Solomon Islands Police Executive has put on the table.  We have decided to go down this particular way and we have sought PPF assistance to help us reach those objectives that the Solomon Islands Police Force have set for ourselves.  There is a very healthy interchange that at the end of day the decision is with the Solomon Islands Police Force.  We have on occasions changed the structure and the Participating Police Force under Commander McDermott, whom I thank enough in terms of his relationship with our organization, has accommodated us accordingly.  And that is entirely appropriate. 
Over the years there have been thousands of PPF Police Officers coming into Honiara.  Sure, there have been the odd individual personality issues, as you would expect but very, very minor and very, very at low level and there is invariably nothing that we cannot sought out certainly in the current environment through the support and encouraging relationship that we have.  Hope that answers your question, Mr Chairman.

Hon Boyers:  You mentioned in your presentation a five year leadership program and you also talked about capacity building within the Police Force that is able to handle large scale civil disorder.  Two years later when we had the April riots, which obviously is a large scale civil disorder and you are talking about the SIPF as capable now to be able to handle that sort of threat.  Of course, you wouldn’t probably consider thinking about that until 2010 but hopefully it will never happen again, and I’m sure it wouldn’t.  But are you saying that we now have a Force that is able to handle such a situation, maybe a rapid response unit or whatever but the SIPF is now capable to deal with small to medium and large scale civil disorder?  Is that what you are saying on or is it a program now being undertaken or is that already a capable issue now? 

Mr Marshall:  Yes, thank you for that.  The first point I want to make is that we have learnt from the Commission of Inquiry into the April 2006 riots.  We have studied the recommendations and we have become very intuitive in terms of what are the significant issues that are likely to trigger, if you like, the ‘excitement’ and that is the word used by the Commission of Inquiry.  To that end we set about improving our ability to respond anytime, day or night. 
The Police Response Team during that era amounted to approximately 11 people and was invariably involved with training.  When you take into account leave and sickness there was never that capacity in the first place.  We have increased the Police Response Team to 32 in total.  Now whilst that in itself is not a very large number, what is also significant is that that Police Response Team has taken upon itself in conjunction with the Participating Police Force to train and have it within a reasonably short period of notice large numbers of staff who can respond.  
Now the benefit that Solomon Islands and in particular the Honiara environment has is that they have approximately 200 Police Officers living very close to the Rove Headquarters.  We have had approximately four exercises to test the response capability of officers at very short notice.  We had two major exercises unannounced late at night, which involved basic siren system.  On the first occasion we had approximately 140 Police Officers on parade at the Rove Headquarters ground within 20 minutes.  On the second occasion perhaps they might have been weary that it was an exercise that we had 80.  But if you are looking at that number of people within 15 to 20 minutes supplemented by 200 sets of riot equipment, which weren’t there before but have been bequeath to us by RAMSI/PPF, we are very well positioned in relation to what might happen in such an environment.  There is ongoing training in terms of those personnel. 
Large numbers of other personnel have had public order management training, and most of the staff around Honiara have had that.  That is ongoing.  So we have varying levels of responses whether it be the initial response by incident patrol cars, whether it be a larger number of police officers, whether it be the Police Response Team, whether it be significant call out processes, bearing in mind that our capability is also mirrored and supported by RAMSI and indeed the PPF and the CTF.  There is a scaled approach to it.  We’ve had various exercises, demonstrations in front of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers to illustrate this tied approach. 
Can we do better?  Yes, we can do better.  Can we train more staff?  Yes, we can but we are significantly better off than the last 18 months in September 2008 compared to where we were.  Thank you.

Hon. Boyers:  May be this would be the last question.  Just to wind up, could you please inform the Committee the working relationship between the SIPF and RAMSI personnel?

Mr Marshall:  The working relationship at the highest level, if you like, within the Solomon Islands Police Force is as I have mentioned that having the Commander PPF as one of the Deputy Commissioners within our organization, he is part of the management structure.  Each of the groups within the Solomon Islands Police Force whether it be fire, whether it be national investigations, prosecutions, the training academy, our emergency planning, whether it be finance or human resource, just to name but a few, have appropriate counterparts aligned to each of those directors and staff.  We also have police officers from PPF on the streets with their SIPF counterparts working around the clock, the 24 hour shift.  We also have PPF advisors, and that is what they are, they are advisors in the provinces.  So they are throughout the SIPF organization, in some areas greater numbers than others.  Each Provincial Police Commander has his own advisor and it works very well.  If it wasn’t working very well, I would be making it quite clear to Commander McDermott and other senior members within RAMSI that I am not satisfied but that is not the case. 
We are very appreciative of PPF support under the stewardship of Commander McDermott.  I am very clear on that point but I will ask Deputy Commissioner Kola for his additional comments whether he agrees or not, I’m not too sure.  Thank you Chairman.

Mr Walter Kola:  Thank you Chairman.  Indeed I agree with what the Acting Commissioner has said.  I can assure this Committee that our working relationship is admirable.  It is now the situation that the Solomon Islands Police takes the lead in every incidence that occurs.  For example, if there is a confrontation the SIPF makes the approaches.  We only seek assistance when there is need and when it is necessary.  But we are proud and it is time that the SIPF takes on the responsibility.  We are taking the initial steps.  There are examples of incidences that we have to request their air transport and were given us.  We have a few boats, the tier two boats are here that we can use whenever there is need to do so.  Indeed the way we work and the way we do police business together is very enjoyable. 

Hon. Soalaoi:  If I can ask this quick question.  Mr Commissioner, if we are to recommend that maybe the Police Force should have the highest number of employees as compared to the Ministry of Education, because as I was listening I guess when we talk about capacity building we talk about skills and also number counts very much when it comes to attending to any uprisings and I firmly believe that we need more police officers.  Do you agree with that proposal?

Mr Marshall:  I don’t know of any Commissioner or Acting Commissioner in the world who would say that he/she doesn’t need more police officers.  We would welcome more police officers, but again it has to be in an environment that is sustainable in the context, shall I say, of housing.  We want to be able to deploy our police officers in the areas of most need and we have a particular desire to have those police officers go out into the provinces to go and interact more closely with villages in the remote areas.  But we can’t do that without police housing, without the appropriate salaries and without the appropriate equipment.  But to answer the question, would we like more police officers, yes, conditional that it is sustainable and able to be implemented in an effective way in keeping with our overall goals.

Mr Chairman:  I just have one last question.  As you know we are reviewing the notice and we have to make recommendations back to Parliament.  We have been pretty impressed by Peter and Walter.  What do you want us to write in the recommendations?  Is housing the most important thing right now?  You want housing?  Do you want us to put in the recommendations to RAMSI that give us more money or build more houses for our police officers?

Mr Marshall:  We’ll I’m sure that there is absolutely no doubt that housing is the one major operational and administrative impediment in terms of us achieving our objectives.  I know this is a view held by Commander McDermott as well.  Commander McDermott is being extremely generous from a PPF point of view in terms of buildings the academy as alluded to before.  If there was any donor assistance from whatever source we would welcome that with open arms.  Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman:  Thank you Acting Police Commissioner of Solomon Islands and Deputy Police Commissioner of Solomon Islands for participating in this meeting.

Mr Marshall:  Thank you for the opportunity.

AUDITOR GENERAL’S OFFICE

Mr Chairman: Honorable Members of the Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Eric Muir, Acting Auditor General, stakeholders and members of the public, firstly on behalf of the Committee I would like to thank you for availing yourself to attend this very important inquiry into and review of matters relating to the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands.  The Foreign Relations Committee acknowledges the vital role that the Office of the Auditor General plays in promoting transparency and accountability in government institutions in Solomon Islands, and as such your office is of great importance to this inquiry.
I remind you at this point that what you say in this hearing is protected by parliamentary privilege and cannot be later used against you in any legal proceedings whatsoever.  Because of the strength of this privilege, this Committee expects all witnesses to ensure that their answers are truthful and confined to matters relevant to the terms of reference and the questions asked by members.
I wish to advise you that all public hearings of this Committee during the inquiry, today’s hearings included, will be recorded by One News and televised within Honiara and other urban centres with television coverage each evening after a particular hearing.  The SIBC will also broadcast all our hearings live for those in the provinces listening in.   
We will proceed now with the hearing.  We will first hear a 15 to 20 minute presentation from the witness and after that this Committee will ask questions of the witness.  May I now ask the witnesses to please state your names for the record and please proceed with your opening statement?

Eric Muir:  Thank you very much Mr Chairman.  My name is Eric Muir, Acting Auditor General.  I think as announced and commented, I’d like to make the comment that there is a perception of a conflict of interest in me attending this committee as I’m a RAMSI employee, but I would like to put up front that I’m speaking here as a SIG officer, a statutory post holder, and I would like to be well known by the committee that I’m speaking on behalf of the late Floyd Augustine Fatai. 
I have tabled a document that is called “the submission in relation to this committee’s matter”, and that is based on a document prepared by the late Auditor General before Christmas and updated to the current sitting of this hearing.  I did that deliberately so it was reflecting his views, the views of the Solomon Islands Office of the Auditor General.  So, Mr Chairman, thank you for this opportunity.  Last year the Auditor General tabled his annual report for the years 2002 to 2006.  That was the first time we tabled a report, it was to summarize the background of the last five years of that Office, particularly the last three he is building under the RAMSI environment.  Specifically three years ago he had an office of three persons, there had been no audits done for 20 years, it was a terrible state of affairs.  There were no reports to Parliament and no Parliamentary scrutiny, and against that environment the Auditor General with the assistance of RAMSI began to rebuild the office from the three that they were to the current 30 national but local people and five expatriates. 
There was a view last year Mr Chairman and members, that may be the Office of the Auditor General has already concluded its task, having already gone from 3 to 35 persons.  Be assured the Committee that the Office of the Auditor General is only halfway down its journey.  In that context, it’s very much dependent upon, not only capacity building of this office, so we will be able to sustain and carry on over the next whatever years.  It’s very much a recollection of the performance of the Auditor General that twice before the office had failed through lack of funding and other issues the office ceased to exist in any formal way.  Against that background, Mr Chairman, I just like to mention the main factors which led to the demise and talk a little bit about where the office has come from that point. 
First and foremost is the inadequate resourcing of the former office, where it did lose its funding from the Parliament and very deliberately failed to attract or enable training of staff at that time.  The staff just eventually left the office.  From the year 2000, I think there are about 11 staff and they just gradually left as funding was cut off.  There was no opportunity for the Auditor General to bring in new staff because he was not getting assistance at that time from the Department of Public Service.  With inadequate government support and inability for him to recruit staff, he just watched it basically imploded.  With that sort of background there was an urgent need to get back on track.  The only audits that were being performed were those by the private sector accounting firms at considerable costs to the Solomon Islands Government. 
When I arrived in Solomon Islands two years ago or two odd bit years ago, I realized there are some 15 to 16 years behind in accountability in almost all institutions.  The Auditor General is responsible for about 53 institutions including the 25 Ministries, the 10 statutory bodies and SOEs and the nine (9) provinces.  It was at that time that we just get about 10 staff from the SICHE College and we were able to bring them on board and gradually start to get them involved in the auditing process.  This was a deliberate move to get people straight into the office, young people who were not influenced by formal ways.  The late Auditor General put through a very robust program to start of doing revenue and expenditure audits of all key systems in government to try to work out over the years 2000 to 2005 transactions just what was the state of play.  It was a very telling story Mr Chairman as his report started to unfold.  The first full report on such matters is the fisheries, the forestry and various other issues of major concerns to government.  Soon after I arrived we tabled six (6) reports, again into a whole miscellany of areas within the ministries, and all these reports showed and demonstrated the same problems throughout all the various ministries.  There was widespread noncompliance with the various financial instructions, general orders, etc.  There were serious breakdowns and critical management controls, lack of any good financial records, documentation lost or deliberately destroyed - a whole rapt of the same issues coming through all the reports.  Eventually, 10 of those audit reports were reviewed by the Public Accounts Committee and that started basically the beginnings of the new Auditor General’s Office.  We started to recruit staff and bit by bit started to regenerate the Office of the Auditor General. 
In the beginning of 2007, the executive management team under the Auditor General identified five major things that we had to try to do in 2007 and they are referred to in the annual report that is just being tabled yesterday on the annual report for 2007.  The first area of concern was the backlog of accounts, as I’ve mentioned and we bought in three deliberate strategies to try to overcome these problems.  The Solomon Islands Government accounts have last been audited up to 1998.  That’s almost 9 years ago at that stage and that’s critical to get audited financial statements up to the Parliament so that they know the current value and performance of government.  We deliberately work with the Department of Finance to fast track getting through those accounts and were able to table accounts to this date right up to 2006 and we are currently working on the 2007 accounts hoping to finalise those within the next two (2) months. 
The second issue was capacity building where basically we are getting our staff in, we built our staff up to 30 but these people are not used to auditing and so we had to go through a capacity building exercise to identify what were the skills sets for the various levels of officers.  I’ll take you through very briefly that particular exercise because we think it’s a fundamental success of how we build up the team. 
Thirdly, we had to teach them how to audit.  When they first arrived with their little degrees or their diplomas from SICHE, the audit mentality is a thing that has to grow years and years to get that audit feeling, that nose to smell out and follow the trail as none of these had done audits before.  It’s not like other countries where we can recruit from a very good market.  These are all brand new enthusiastic young people and so we deliberately brought in a trainer through RAMSI arrangements and he trained them for 8 months in all the fundamental elements of auditing.  So we picked out each system of revenue, expenditure, liabilities, assets bank accounts, imprest accounts, and teach them the fundamental controls and then send them out to ministries to see how they go to find out what’s actually happening, and they come back in, mentor them, talk to them about the quality control of the audit, and carry on.  This is a wonderful exercise because it is both technical training in the training room plus on the job training.
            The next challenge was the provincial stock takes because provincial governments haven’t had their accounts audited for up to 15 to 18 years, and so we mounted a huge exercise funded through the RAMSI exercise where they went out to each office.  They basically went out and prepare their accounts and we now audited and signed off all provincial accounts right up to 2007.  Tomorrow I’m signing off the first one for 2008 - the Central Province is already over the wire for 2008, and that’s an enormous change in attitudes towards accountability.  
The last area I am going to touch on is the statutory bodies.  This is more critical to us, unlike the provincial governments who have just revenue and expenditure, but some of these statutory bodies like the SIWA and SIPA, have huge infrastructure assets, and again there has not been any proper accountability for many, many years, and so we had to go a little bit different to those.  We are bringing in a team, again through donor assistance to go around to each of these agencies, bring their accounts up to date, all state owned enterprises and all the statutory bodies themselves will be done by the Office of the Auditor General. 
Can I just touch on some challenges that I see going forward for the current year?  I mentioned provincial audits and because we are now with the current government, and the previous governments to be honest, very much focused on rural advancement and so we need to get out there.  The decisions are made out there, and that’s where the auditors need to travel, so we have to cater for different sort of auditing or basically need to go out to the provinces, do the provincial governments and wherever ministries got operations to review their work.
Now, parliamentary relationships have grown enormously over the last couple of years with the Public Accounts Committee doing some excellent work on those            10 reports.  However, there are many delays, and I’ll touch on that a little bit later in getting to some of their reports so its losing its currency, but it’s a challenge to us to keep working with the Public Accounts Committee to try increase and enhance their skill sets and try to get them to meet more frequently on some of these significant reports. 
The Solomon Islands Government accounts, as I mentioned are up to 2006.  We are very keen to finish 2007 because now we had three years of better management and hopefully better documentation.  We are keen to get a year that’s not the three pages of qualifications.  I’ve mentioned the SOEs and so we don’t need to talk about that again.
 The final comment is in relation to the legislative upgrade.  Three times in this country we’ve tried to put up new legislation for the Office of the Auditor General.  The last time in year 2000, the Cabinet endorsed the new legislation to create a national audit office.  However, at that time as you will know, there are various problems in the government and elsewhere and so that legislation never saw the light of day.  Again through RAMSI assistance, we got two experts over to help us draft new legislation and so this new legislation is up in Cabinet at the moment.  Obviously we are very keen to shore up the Office of the Auditor General and to clarify a lot of uncertainties in the current legislation.  The Constitution is rock solid but the Public Finance and Audit Act needs a lot of work.
Can I just touch on other documents Mr Chairman, the Skills Framework, which I alluded to and it’s included in the submission I’ve given to you.  It was a way in which we could identify for each class of officer whether they are assistant auditor, auditor, senior auditor, principal auditor or audit manager.  What are the four attributes that are required?  They are decision making, communicating, acknowledge and proficiency and administrative support skills.  So we ask the staff to work within to identify under those attributes, what are the various specific competences that they need to have and we had an agreement with the staff what they are to achieve to attain their work commitments at their level.  Then we ask them whether they are able to do it themselves, whether they are independent of support from outside or whether they are dependent or somewhere in between which we called guided and or assisted and we are negotiating with them.  We all agree that there is a long way to go but improving.  So we put in a process where every three or four months we go on one on one and as a group and discuss the progress.  It’s been an eye opener to us to see the very sincere and significant progress achieved in the four months.  The first report was tabled after the 10, the gaggle, which the Auditor General actually summarized into a report.  The Auditor General’s insight into corruption in Solomon Islands Governments summarizes the first 10 reports.  The Parliament and the Public Accounts Committee are yet to review that.  We realize that we’re swamping the Parliament and swamping the Public Accounts Committee. 
The first 10 reports have 560 recommendations, and so how can the committee and the Parliament address all those.  I ask my audit colleagues which ones are more important and they said they are all important.  They are but with respect that Parliament needed to condense that, and so he adopted a new process and say let’s summarize down to a sortable 100 page book, not a thousand, and out of that we tried to pick out what were the most important 40 or 50 recommendations related to the Solomon Islands Ministries, related to those special investigations we’ve done that was tabled by the late Auditor General on the 7th of August last year.  It’s an excellent document yet to be reviewed by the Public Accounts Committee or the Parliament, and that can be a bit of frustration obviously.  I was at a meeting with one of the honorable gentleman who made a statement in the House that the Auditor General was 16 years behind in auditing in this country.  Well that’s true but if you had read this report a year ago it said now we are right up to date in some areas.  The report we tabled last week 2008, 30th of June of 200 pages, 40 odd recommendations, talks about some very significant special audits that have been undertaken and has got some very significant issues that have come out including the tsunami and a whole range of audits.  That report is a summation of about a thousand recommendations to management.  We’ll follow those up with the management, we want to bring to this House, to this committee, to the Public Accounts Committee. These issues need urgent attention and so we need to work with the committees to get those three reports reviewed as soon as possible.  That skill set is a wonderful process for us to be able to assess the staff and their progression.
The second last thing I am going to talk about is succession planning.  The late Auditor General and I sat down and tried to plot out over the next 10 years where we’ll all be so that we can see.  There is a chart, Mr Chairman, I don’t know if you have this document but it’s in the papers I’ve provided, but it’s worth having a look at, but may be I’ll speak to it if you haven’t got the document.  What it does is summarizes the 30, 40 positions within the Office of the Auditor General and it shows for each year the first line as the Auditor General.  That’s the first one.  The next five positions which can possibly receive reasonable eyes, basically says those are the expatriate positions.  They are senior positions, and there’s no one within this country at this stage who could take on those senior positions.  There is one however, one audit manager position which has been taken up by a local fellow who has resigned from our office and leaves tomorrow.  That was one of our hopes to have him as our future potential leader for our office, regrettably we couldn’t offer the same sort of remuneration or opportunity as the private sector was able to.  But that aside the next level are vacant positions because again the rest of the local staff who only have two years experience do not have the skills or qualifications to aspire to those positions.  Then we have very senior series group of officers themselves who are learning and building up that skill set.  The report that the Auditor General tabled last year of the 22 audits, those audits were performed by our expatriate audit managers using the staff to assist them. 
The significance is that the report I tabled the last couple of weeks, 200 audits, all audits were done by the Solomon Islands staff.  We provided the QI, the quality insurance, we provided mentoring and assistance but they did the audits.  And quite frankly it’s a dramatic turnaround that they are doing the audit, and we have to keep helping, but bit by bit they are learning. 
On that projection I would like to draw your attention when you have the chance to look at the papers, we are saying at present last year we had six expatriates, now we have five.  Our expectation is by next year we’ll have four and in two years later three, then two then one.  So by the year 2015 we would expect to have the local fellows being trained up to bravely take up those positions.  We’ve identified a key senior staff who we feel is the future of the office, and of the 30 local staff 12 have already shown through the capacity building and through the training that they have risen to the occasion.  They have stepped up and are showing enormous development.  We can see them gradually taking over the jobs, provided we can keep them is the challenge because they will be pilfered and there’ll be private sector people trying to take them, and that happens in every jurisdiction but auditing is a professional career.  Auditing by profession, we went through are international problems of the world were then run on various corporate collapses.  The problems for auditors internationally are enormous and they realize that looking at the game.  Auditing is a very different professional it was 20 or 30 years ago.  It’s a profession if not get it right then a billion dollars are lost, flooding around the world against auditors and company directors.  If you need to get it right you need proper qualified people, and we have a rigorous program, not enough money, of course, but we have people being encouraged to take on university studies.  At present we have 10 studying at the USP Honiara Campus.  We have one on a scholarship training over in Fiji.  Two have recently qualified and they are now going to gain international recognition through CBA Australia or some other similar sort of activity.  So our future is dependent upon bringing that skills up to date through our capacity building, working through that succession plan and try to bring people up with skill sets.  But above all I guess it’s to make sure that they have the thirst for additional studies to get international recognition all through the Pacific and all throughout the world.  You can’t be an audit manager without appropriate international qualifications.  There are none in this office now outside the expatriates with that qualification at this point.  In two years, I hope we can say it very different.  One of our staff is currently in Melbourne on a scholarship for CBA Australia doing four units. 
Mr Chairman, there are a lot of challenges ahead.  Whilst there is the view that yes, we are right up to date, yes the local auditors are doing the job, and they are but professionally obviously they can’t meet the international requirement in standards but they will, and that’s our challenge - it’s to keep up that capacity building and the response thus far has been fantastic.  But the same document that I drew up last year with the Auditor General showed him at the helm for the next five years.  We haven’t got that breeding space any more. Our wonderful mentor and champion has gone and replacing him is a huge challenge for us and for this country, and I haven’t even started the process yet.  But we are confident however with the people coming through that it will gradually allow us to withdraw and gradually for them to be able to take on the challenges.  Thank you very much, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman:  Thank you Eric, you make audit exciting.  We’ve just had the police with all the guns, the military and all that but you make me want to be an auditor.  Your greatest challenge from what you’ve just said is basically recruiting people with good qualification and holding them.  Is that true?

Mr Muir:  Not so much recruiting, I think but training up.  We have 30 and it’s bringing them up to the mark and retaining them.  We have an establishment of 41 and we deliberately stop at 30 because that’s too many to already bring up to date and bring up from scratch.  The 12 at the top and the others who are coming through, we want to nurture them up.  If we start losing some, we’ll bring some more in.  But I think it’s trying to recruit some at a higher level but above all is to grow them by ourselves.  Some new recruits have past experiences that I did not have.

Mr Chairman:  Churning them up.

Mr Muir: Churning them out into the right quality. Yes, that’s the challenge.

Mr Chairman:  That’s a very exciting topic.  What’s the major issue raised in relation to corruption?  How serious is the level of corruption in the country?  In your opinion do you think there’s enough effort put into addressing corruption?

Mr Muir:  Mr Chairman, I guess this is the very subject of the Auditor General’s report in revealing corruption in Solomon Islands Government.  It’s only a short report but it does summarize those 10 earlier reports, and categorically it’s exactly the same issue that we allow corruption to flourish in this country because until recently there weren’t proper accounts and records.  The attitudes that prevail and customs that prevail helping each other, bypassing systems, using political influence to enable decisions to be made which override proper and justice decision making processes.  There’s a whole rapt of exactly the same sort of problems in all of our reports.  The opportunity was ripe because there was no real monitoring on behalf of management but no proper systems in place and practices, past practices permeated the way people prefer to work.  Not having auditors out there for 20 years didn’t help the case because no one was looking for it, and some people flourish in that sort of environment.  I think it’s incumbent upon us to keep flushing out these issues, it’s incumbent upon the government, and so let’s be serious, let’s address these fundamental issues that are being identified and have proper record keeping, have proper people and educate them; skilled people in the right places and have a monitoring process to be able to flush out erroneous transactions, and retain the records so that evidences can go up.  So often our reports allude to issues but the evidences are gone, because there’s no good record keeping.  The records are already being destroyed, and you can’t take people to the court process if you don’t have enough records.  The audits we signed of in the last couple of years, we would say that 40 to 50 percent of the transactions have no fundamental records behind them, so how can you make a judgment. 
The tsunami report is a very interesting report.  The records lack information on the revenue coming in and expenditure going out, is a prime example of here we are in 2007 and 2008 still lack of records.  And people often override proper processes because of their influential positions.  That’s a recipe for disaster.

Hon Boyers:  Thank you for that Eric.  The question I would like to ask is, how would you describe the relationship or the level of cooperation between the office of the auditor general and other government Ministries and the functions of your work?

Mr Muir:  Is it compared to other countries or this country?

Hon Boyers:  No, this country.

Mr Muir:  Our relationship with the ministries is improving dramatically.  I think two years ago before we started auditing the ministries there was lack of support and cooperation on what the Auditor General is doing.  I think we’ve seen a turnaround in the last 12 months or so where auditors are now part of the necessary environment.  Our reports are being reviewed by the Public Accounts Committee and becoming a greater awareness.  Unfortunately the last three haven’t been reviewed but the ministries are now actually welcoming us.  When we go and see the Permanent Secretaries as we do before we enter into each Ministry, now they understand and know what the Auditor General is all about.  We have to sign off the accounts, and to do that we have to look at the transactions in each of the major Ministries, and so we have a whole process of going through each Ministry with an opening interview.  We did one this morning with the Ministry of Finance and another one tomorrow morning with the PMO basically saying these are the six issues we are going to look at, these are the three special investigations, whereas before there would be reluctance, there is a great cooperation now starting to appear.  Some of the Permanent Secretaries are actually saying now “look, we are very concerned about this, that and the other, would you be able to take those on board”?  So we have been inundated with requests to do more work.  I think the relationship is definitely improving. 

Hon. Boyers:  That brings me to my next question, which is on state owned enterprises (SOEs).  It’s bit of like a thorn on our side the SOEs.  Could you just give us a run down of which SOEs have been audited and how far have you gone in up to date audit of those SOEs.

Mr Muir: I am delighted to honourable.  In the report we tabled last week on page 173 is what we called a Financial Statement Audits.  Can I just run very quickly through it?  The SIG Ministries are all up to date to 2006.  The Provinces, all up to date to 2007, as I mentioned one about in 2008.  The SOEs and statutory bodies are the interesting ones.  CBSI, right up to date, as you would expect - 2007 was signed of early this year.  The SIBC is up to 1997, SIEA up to 1996 – no wonder why electricity goes up every second day, SIWA up to 1998, the NPF right up to date 2007, and good to hear that, SICHE up to 1992 although I’m signing up four sets tomorrow, and so that would bring it up a little bit closer.  The Ports Authority up to date to 2004, S.I Visitor’s Bureau up to 2006, CEMA up to 1998, the poor old DBSI up to 2005 and then we have the Investment Corporation of Solomon Islands which is up to 2002 - getting pretty close to 2003, and only recently we are about to take over the Solomon Airlines Ltd, we understand that only recently it come under our umbrella is up to 2005 and finally is the good old Solomon Islands Printers where we understand that it is up to 2000.  That is the very emphasis where contract is being let through AusAID to an offshore company of accountants and auditors to come in and bring all those up to date and the time frame working with us is over the next 12 to 15 months.  They are actually in the country now.

Hon Maelanga:  How would you describe the relationship or the level of cooperation between the Office of the Auditor General and other government Ministries?

Mr Muir:  I guess it’s a similar question.  I think it’s an improving relationship and I think they are a lot more tolerant now, understanding and happy to work with us.  But the trouble is always when we find issues and it is incumbent upon them to issue an action plan on how they are going to address those, some ministries are better than others at executing true about what they are doing.  Some of those other reports have action plans that have not been actioned too well, and I think it’s up to the Public Accounts Committee to reconvene and start to push those Ministries back up and generate some of the right responses that we would expect of a responsible Ministries.  Some are better than others but I think there has been a lot more knowledge that auditors are going to be coming back and they are going to keep updating those positions. 

Hon. Kengava:  Eric, I think in your presentation you mentioned putting up legislation for the Auditor’s office.  I just want to know what is the intention of the legislation and how would it help the Auditor General’s Office?

Mr Muir:  Thank you very much honorable.  The new legislation proposes to address about 31 different new initiatives.  I guess to some extent until Cabinet look at that and give it some sort of support.  It would be inappropriate to get into too much detail on that but it’s fair to say it’s attempting to strengthen up the Auditor General’s role and reporting arrangements.  At present, the Financial Administration Audit Act basically talks about the Auditor General having a report once a year.  That is inappropriate.  
At present we are unable to do performance audits to look behind the financial transactions to try and look at the value for money issues and how the performance of an entity so that the situation that we’ve got all these entities that haven’t been reported on for years and years would have been brought to the attention of Parliament and other committees. 
There’s a whole raft of issues to try to give the Auditor General more powers and I guess more autonomy.  We are losing our number one Audit Manager today.  I wonder whether we could have retained people like him and encourage others to come and join us and encourage people to stay with us if we can’t be competitive in the professional market.  At present there are very few accountants in this country, and as soon as you train them up I think they are going to be very well sort after.  So again, it is trying to give more autonomy to the Auditor General in the setting of salaries and remuneration rates.  But above all it’s the parliamentary scrutiny, at present we are linked to the Prime Minister’s Office, and previously we were linked to the Ministry of Finance.  Both of those are not really appropriate.  We are saying it should be answerable to an Audit Committee of the Parliament so that the Committee would decide on the budget for the Auditor General, not the bureaucracy, to allow the Parliament to decide at the end of the day because that is who we report and they are the ones who know how an Auditor General has to be competitive or you run the office back down.
If you look at our colleagues in Fiji or PNG, all the auditors there have professional qualifications as we bring them up in this country I think we are going to flat out retaining them, and that is a big issue for us.  It’s not world shattering stuff, it’s really just twigging, to say, the current legislation doesn’t enable enough good linkages, so if we find some problems we can get direct linkage to the Police, the Leadership Commission and other areas to bring it more in the scene with what happens internationally because our legislation is a bit dated.  
The Constitution is rock solid in saying the Auditor General has all the power.  That’s a one page and you need to underpin that and say how we go about that and I think with respect that the Finance and Audit Act 1978 does need a little bit of an up date. 

Hon. Soalaoi:  Eric, it sounds like the number of officers in your office you are somewhere close to having the right number of officers needed in the office.  Are you still sourcing out audits to private firms?  You’ve mentioned having done a lot to bring records a bit up to date.  Let’s say just as recently as last year, how many audits have been outsourced and how many were done by the Office of the Auditor General?

Mr Eric Muir:  Thank you very much, that is a very good question.  It is fair to say because of the terrible situation that we just been through in bringing records up to date, we only have three current audits outsource. And I referred to in our last report, only tabled yesterday but basically the three large ones are the CBSI, the NPF, and one of the special audit reports in relation to the Ministry of Infrastructure and Development.  Those are three large audits. 
My previous experience was not to give out audits to the private sector if they have problems because the audit bill through the ceiling.  You give audits out when you know they are on track and you then hand them over.  You don’t give anyone problem job because the fees will go through the roof. 
When I first arrived here the audit fee for the national accounts was almost a million dollars and at the end of it you couldn’t form an opinion because there were no records.  And so you’d think what is good of auditing for a year and then you cannot form an opinion.  I guess it’s trying to say we’ll take over the audits that are troublesome and we are keen to get them all up to date and start handing them back out as they get on track. 
So I would think, for instance, the nine provinces will be able to discern very quickly which ones are better than others, and quite frankly some are a lot better than others.  There’s enough reason why we can’t contract them out if there are suitable contracting firms in this country.  There aren’t many, only a couple but I would respectfully say that one two maybe coming into the country, and that would be wonderful to build up that expertise. 
We have 30 audit staff of great quality in growing daily.  The largest firm in this country might have 10.  And so we have a capacity now to do auditing.  But we want to do business with them, we want to work with the private sector because it’s a cross fertilization.  As I said we don’t need to do the job if they can do it just as well.  If it’s a problem solved we’ll retain it.  As we bring the SOEs up to date, there’s every expectation that some of those would be given back to the private sector when they are on track, not when they’re not on track, and that’s the fundamental difference, I suppose.  Some of the statutory bodies, like SICHE is a prime example, has reasonably good records, it produced accounts but never had them audited properly.  Ones like would be suitable to be given to the private sector.  But others that are saying we haven’t got a balance or reconciled systems, why give a hornet’s nest to an audit firm who charges on average up to a thousand dollars an hour.  Our charge and rate is a hundred dollars an hour.  And we have to work that through too because you can’t say to a client this year we are going to charge you $100,000 because we gave you to the firm, and next year the auditor general does it and will do for it $10,000.  This is crazy stuff.  We have to try to be able to get a closer relationship with the private sector that is controlled a bit better by us.  Our market here is not the right sort of markets as it would be too strong with the private sector until the private sector builds itself up a bit more too.

Hon. Soalaoi:  Since the arrival of the RAMSI have you seen any improvement in the way government ministries and institutions are cooperating with the Office of the Auditor General and have you seen a decrease in the level of corruption, to say the least?

Mr Eric Muir:  I think there are two elements to this question. The first one basically if we look at our report tabled last week, it talks about the years 2004, 2005, and 2006 in the Ministries.  Each year was getting marginally better, still qualified, lots of problems in the accounts but getting better.  By 2006 and that is why we deliberately said that we will go easy until 2006 but 2007 onwards is a fair game.  They’ve had three years to prepare proper accounts.  The proof of the pudding would be the current audit which finishes in a month or two.  We know already that there are improvements but there are still fundamental problems that we are not happy with. 
When you bring up the word ‘corruption’ in Solomon Islands, I guess every audit we do, seems to find problems, and until this country wrestles with those problems and somehow rather works out what is the Minister’s role, what is the bureaucrat’s roles, and where the levels and where the boundaries are, I think you are going to have major problems.  Every audit we look at, every second of it we look at, there’s intervention incorrectly applied on bureaucrats to make decisions which they wouldn’t otherwise make.  It is a significant cultural problem, to some extent, that needs to be gradually worked through.  It needs a lot of strength of character from the Parliament, a lot of strength from Permanent Secretaries who have the Finance and Audit Act, which says you are responsible, and Section 22 also says if you are irresponsible in the conduct of your duties you should be surcharged.  Now it would be interesting if start applying some of those requirements on people who make mistakes, deliberate mistakes, maybe they should pay the money back for their errors. 
There are a lot these issues in this country with corruption but the fundamental answer is in having a proper robust sound system, the monitoring of it, the whole training and people like ourselves are strong in internal auditing. Internal audit is a total joke in the government. Two or three people in the Ministry of Finance are not able to even cover any territory.  Unless there is good sound internal audit in all your ministries, there is really major problems.  It’s a fundamental control strength for management, and it’s not there and so you haven’t got the day to day oversight.  You haven’t had us until recently, and we’ve only just started to look at 2006.
We know, everyone knows if you read the papers in 2007 and 2008 that there are issues and problems.  We haven’t got to them yet.  Yes, it’s still running but hopefully as you keep shaking the tree and things fall out bit by bit we will improve and internal control systems would come up to the mark and accountability of ministries and their PSs will force them.  You are responsible for a budget, you are responsible in discharge of those accounts and you have your own set of accounts that you have to sign off.  At present there is only the central account.  Everywhere else in the world there are ministerial accounts, ministerial accountability but we haven’t got that.  That is a little bit down the track because we haven’t got good systems in Finance but you should have it.  You can’t say to the Minister, you are responsible and then Finance can come along and transfer transactions and intrude.  It has to be accountability eventually at the ministerial level when there are good systems, good people, good monitoring and good control and all those sorts of things.  But at the moment it’s a little bit down the track, I think. 

Mr Chairman:  I have no further questions. I think you’ve made the point very clear that we need to do a lot more.  You would find that the SOEs are really in trouble because their audit reports are way back, and the ones doing fine are those that are up to date.  That’s proof in the pudding there.  But good luck.

Mr Eric Muir:  Thank you very much Mr Chairman, and members.

Mr Chairman:  Thank you very much for your time.

End of the session