Foreign Relations Committee Hearing
Tuesday 28 October 2008

 

Mr Chairman:  Honorable Members of the Foreign Relations Committee, Hon. Manasseh Sogavare, Leader of the Opposition, stakeholders and Members of the public, welcome to the 8th hearing of the Foreign Relations Committee enquiry into and review of matters relating to RAMSI.  I wish to first of all thank all members of this Committee for being here today.  A few weeks ago this Committee completed its first stage of hearings and then took a break to allow its members to resume their constituency duties. Our enquiry into RAMSI however, resumes this week and we hope to undertake a few more hearings before the reporting date, which is under two weeks from today. 
            On behalf of the Committee, I would like to thank very much Honorable Leader of the Opposition for accepting our invitation, despite of many pressing demands, to contribute to this very important inquiry.  The Committee acknowledges your contribution to the governance of this country as well as your publicly known views on RAMSI and its operations in Solomon Islands.  We are also pleased to be given such an opportunity to hear from you as a former Prime Minister during the conflict years and more recently.  I’m sure that people in Solomon Islands listening in today will also appreciate this opportunity to hear directly from you on your standing in respect of RAMSI and other related matters. 
We’ve heard a great deal from various witnesses in our first stage of hearings a few weeks ago and have also collected much information regarding different aspects of RAMSI.  This committee has also heard from the Prime Minister, RAMSI and some other key institutions.  We hope in this particular hearing the Committee will be further enlightened by you on the views of the Official Opposition.  We anticipate that through this hearing you will be given a chance to elaborate on certain views, which you’ve made publicly in the past.
Since this is our first hearing since we took a break from the inquiry, perhaps it would benefit members of the public and potential witnesses for me to remind everyone of parliamentary privileges.  Please be reminded that what witnesses say in any of our hearings, the present one included, is protected by parliamentary privilege and cannot be later used against the witness in any legal proceedings whatsoever.  Because of the strength of this privilege, this Committee expects all witnesses that their answers are truthful and confined to matters relevant to the terms of reference and the questions asked by Members.  Providing false evidence to the Committee is contempt to the Committee which Parliament may well act on.  Witness should also not reflect or comment unfairly or defame others.  The privilege that is provided by Parliament to witnesses must be respected and used wisely.  I trust that as law-abiding citizens with a common aim to contribute to the good governance of this country, witnesses would testify with a clear conscience and a good heart.  On that basis I have advised all committee members to ask for evidence of any serious allegation that a witness may raise during this and other hearings.  Witnesses may be asked to withdraw such allegation if he/she cannot substantiate the allegation.  In that scenario, I will also direct that the allegation is not included in our final report. 
Provision of evidence on the other hand is perfectly acceptable and will indeed assist my Committee in this inquiry and in the write up of our report and supporting evidence.
Please note also that this hearing is being recorded by One News to be televised tonight.  The SIBC is also broadcasting our proceedings today live.  We will proceed now with the hearing. 
We will first hear a 15 or 20 minutes 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 name for the record and to please proceed with your opening statement if you so wish.

Hon. Sogavare:  Thank you, Mr Chairman.  I’m honorable Manasseh Sogavare, the Leader of the Opposition. 
Mr Chairman, thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear before the Committee to express my views on the review of International Assistance Notice.  I have made a written submission Mr Chairman and this verbal presentation will elaborate on the thoughts expressed in that submission.  I also received a series of questions from the Committee, which I am prepared to answer should they be asked today.
            But Mr Chairman, before I go into any detail on what I would like to say in this verbal submission, I would like to begin by raising two important concerns that, in my view, would impinge on the outcome of this review. 
Firstly, Mr Chairman, regarding the content and coverage of the views taken that would be reasonbly considered as fair and informed views of the people of Solomon Islands.  Secondly, Mr Chairman, what guarantee is there that the recommendations of the Committee would be implemented.  Mr Chairman, the first point has to do with getting fair results from the review. 
RAMSI has always taken the stand in protection of its position in Solomon Islands that the people of Solomon Islands still want them to stay whenever any review that they consider is threatening their continual existence is suggested. But before that proposition can relied on, a number of important questions need to be answered.  The obvious questions would include: how many Solomon Islanders fully understand the role of RAMSI in Solomon Islands and the kind of powers, privileges and immunities accorded them under the legal framework?  How many Solomon Islanders fully appreciate the reasons behind the ongoing debate about the need to review the legal framework of RAMSI?  How many Solomon Islanders fully understand the causes of the ethnic conflict and whether or not RAMSI is addressing these issues and their attitude towards these issues?  How many Solomon Islanders have any idea about the way RAMSI assistance provided by Australia and New Zealand is implemented in Solomon Islands?  How many Solomon Islanders have any knowledge of the content of the 34th Leaders Declaration on Solomon Islands in Auckland in 2003, which sets the groundwork for the intervention?  How many Solomon Islanders have any knowledge of RAMSI performance framework, which would have outlined the premise and focus of the operations in Solomon Islands?  How many Solomon Islanders have access to important reports including the RAMSI/2006 Performance Report, the Capability Stock Take, the Financial Management Strengthening Report, the Economic Unit Reform Reports, RAMSI Reports to the Forum and the Forum Eminent Person Groups Report including Oxfam Report on Bridging the Gap between State and Society 2006, which was very critical on the performance of RAMSI and its achievements. 
Mr Chairman, I know this is mouthful but these reports, documents and information are very important to get Solomon Islanders to fully appreciate the presence of RAMSI in Solomon Islands, their achievements to date and problems encountered.  I guess the point here is that if the position taken by the people of Solomon Islands is to form the basis of any review that would be recommended by the Committee then it is important that we get it from an informed population.  This is where the first weakness is recognized. 
Judging from the responses of the Provincial Premiers on the roles of RAMSI in Solomon Islands, it is clear that the majority of Solomon Islanders have no clue whatsoever.  Sadly, this ignorance has been capitalized on by the proponents of RAMSI to exert their influence over the ill-informed.  This process was well coordinated by a network of very influential people and organizations to advance a bias view of RAMSI since it came into the country in 2003.  This scenario calls into question the neutrality of any findings and content of the report that will be submitted to Parliament by the Foreign Relations Committee. 
Realizing this weakness, the former Grand Coalition for Change Government had suggested possible process that would at least provide minimum guarantee that our people would be expressing well informed views that are based on their understanding of the roles of RAMSI and the legal framework under which they operate. The process would have included a nationwide awareness program to inform our people everything they need to know about RAMSI before they participate in the review.  This is not happening in the review in progress.  Instead Members of Parliament were given four envelopes, each containing a number of documents about the review and posters to bring to their constituencies to advertise the review and get people to express the views on RAMSI.  I’m sure Members of Parliament or their CDOs would be willing to conduct comprehensive awareness programs if the government also provides budgetary assistance.  It is a forgone conclusion in my view, Mr Chairman that the views expressed would be based on laymen’s understanding of the role of RAMSI and therefore it will certainly be a distorted view.  It is also doubtful whether the Committee will get enough views from a cross-section of our people to form a balance view. 
This is a very serious point and in that regard I do not see any reason for a November deadline for the Committee’s report to be submitted to Parliament. What the Committee should really be working towards is the timing of the next Forum Leaders’ Meeting to give enough time for the Committee to do a thorough job on the review by properly consulting the views of all properly informed Solomon Islanders.  If that suggestion is taken up, Mr Chairman, then I would recommend the review strategies suggested by the former Grand Coalition for Change Government, which is carried in Appendix 2 of my written submission to the Committee. 
The second concern, Mr Chairman is to do with the commitment of the government and the Forum Leaders to take the recommendation of the Committee seriously even if it suggests a review that would undermine the powerbase of RAMSI in Solomon Islands.  It has to be noted here that the 2007 Report of the Forum Task Force, which rejected any suggestions on the review of RAMSI’s legal framework was endorsed by the Forum Leaders in their Tonga Meeting and taken on board by the CNURA Government indicating of course, that both the Forum Leaders and the CNURA-led Solomon Islands Government have agreed to delay any consideration on amending the legal framework of RAMSI. 
I might just add here, Mr Chairman, that the former Grand Coalition for Change Government rejected the report of the Forum Review Taskforce because it failed to fully satisfy the terms of reference jointly agreed to by the Solomon Islands Government and the Forum Secretariat.  It is to be noted here that the Forum Review referred to above was designed to address all the issues the SIG was concerned about including the legal framework of RAMSI and any future arrangements.  If that Taskforce had done its work properly, there would be no need for the current review.  The Taskforce was clearly biased from the very beginning and blatantly rejected any suggestions to review the legal and administrative framework of RAMSI. 
By taking the above line of thinking, the Forum Taskforce and the CNURA Government by endorsing the report demonstrate totally insensitive to the issues that really matter in enhancing cordial relationship between Solomon Islands and the participating countries of RAMSI.  This position was impliedly enforced by the Prime Minister when he presented the country’s speech at the United Nations General Assembly debate indicating that the Solomon Islands Government and RAMSI are working on a long term partnership that would see RAMSI delivering the government’s rural development strategy. 
The government needs to appreciate, Mr Chairman, that it is not above Parliament and any suggestions on the long term partnership before the people of this country had the opportunity to make their views known as mandated by Parliament would be premature.  The seriousness of this concern is premised on the fact that RAMSI would insist that whether any recommendations would be implemented or must depend entirely on the position taken by the Forum Leaders and the SIG.  This is, despite the fact that legally the Parliament of Solomon Islands is the ultimate authority on this matter. 
Australia as the strongest force in the Forum with direct vested interest in the presence of RAMSI in Solomon Islands for strategic reasons and the present CNURA led SIG with greater leaning and sympathy with the position taken by Australia makes it perfect partnership as far as this Agenda is concerned.  It is my hope that this is not an indication that the Government and the Forum Leaders have made up their minds on the issue and that the exercise currently in progress is a mere formality to satisfy the requirements of Section 23 of the Act as carried in the motion moved by the honorable Prime Minister.
Mr Chairman, I just want to express those views.  I have made a written submission to the Committee and I’ve also received a series of questions wanting to elaborate on a number of areas, and so I’ll stop here and get the questions from the Committee and I will respond.

Mr Chairman:  Thank you very much Opposition Leader. We’ve also expressed, we’ve tentatively worked together as a committee, we’ve also expressed that we need more time to do this review; to get a much more broader view from our people, and obviously there’s an education there as well to allow our people to have a more informed view, and that is entirely consistent to what you are saying as well. 
            Reading your report, I want to touch on the sovereignty issue.  Can you tell this Committee and be specific as possible, and this is very important to us because how is RAMSI impinged on Solomon Islands sovereignty?  Be as specific as possible because what the Committee may do is to basically ask RAMSI for an explanation as well.  In your opinion what are the areas which you think that RAMSI has impinged on our sovereignty?

Hon. Sogavare:  Thank you very much Mr Chairman, and in fact this is an area which the previous Grand Coalition for Change Government and RAMSI have not been able to see eye to eye on it. 
Our argument on the issue of sovereignty basically relates to the legal framework of RAMSI.  The legal framework of RAMSI comprised of a number of important documents, instruments, and first of all is the Facilitation of International Assistance Act 2003 passed by Parliament and of course the Agreement between the SIG and a number of countries for the deployment of military and police personnel to address law and order. 
Now, if you read through the Agreement and the Facilitation Act, they provide an open ended power to RAMSI and the participating visiting contingent to do basically many things.  In fact I can run through section by section of that Act.  In fact the question relating to that is also asked by the Committee.  But the argument here is that as long as we continue to have that legal framework, which gives unfettered powers to the visiting contingent, you will continue to have sovereignty issue, sovereignty problem because of the kind of powers and privileges given to the visiting contingents under those very important legal documents that make up the legal framework of RAMSI.

Mr Chairman:  When RAMSI is performing its work, doing whatever it’s mandated to do on the ground exercising their practical duties, have they broken the sovereignty of our country while performing their duties?

Hon. Sogavare:  Mr Chairman, I can actually present to this Committee letters that have been written to me by people whose rights have been violated by certain members of the visiting contingent relying on the powers accorded to them under the Facilitation Act and the Agreement that formed the legal framework of RAMSI. 
I can also refer the Committee to the incidence that members of the visiting contingent carelessly kicked the doors of the Prime Minister to get a fax machine when there was all the indication that the government then, the Deputy Prime Minister then in my absence was willing to cooperate with RAMSI to handover that fax machine.  I can go on and give examples of incidences that directly violate the rights of people of this country because of the powers vested on them by the legal framework of RAMSI. 

Mr Chairman:  This is quite important, that’s a very serious accusation you are making and it does entail that we need to find explanations for them, and we need to give an opportunity for them to answer some of the accusations you’ve given.  I think that is quite fair and this is why I asked that question to you.  Yes, it’s the legal framework but also there is performance on the ground whether they’ve actually impinged on our sovereignty while working doing their duties, and that’s the reason why I asked this question, and I’m quite delighted that you will, I assume, offer to the Committee the evidences that you have that RAMSI has breached our sovereignty, and I will as a Committee allow RAMSI to answer back as well. 
The other question I have to ask is, and your Report does look at the issue of a parallel government, an alternative government and I’m still not satisfied with some of the answers given to me during the hearing so far, is the question of actually why.  Why would 15 countries, Australia the biggest one, Tuvalu the smallest one, I assume, why do they want to form an alternative government in our country?  They have problems themselves and so they don’t wan to immerse in the problems that we have.  I mean I’m not satisfied with a lot of the answers that are given to me.  This is a very crucial question of why do they want it?  The only answer I have is that they wanted to help us.  But if you can give me a good answer to that, it would be greatly appreciated on why 15 countries of the Forum want to form an alternative government?

Hon Sogavare:  Thank you very much Mr Chairman.  I think the short answer to that is that one only needs to read the Facilitation of International Assistance Act 2003 and the International Agreement to form that opinion.  Article 5 of the Agreement expresses in no uncertain terms that the PPF, the military component is independent of the Solomon Islands Police Force and not answerable to the SIG.  
I want to read Article 5, Mr Chairman:  Article 5(1) says “The most senior Australian Police Officer of the Participating Police Force shall be the head of the Participating Police Force”.  That’s alright.  And Article 5(2) says “The head of the Participating Force shall be appointed as Deputy Commissioner of Solomon Islands and other members of the Participating Police Force maybe appointed by the Solomon Islands Police Force.  Members of the Participating Police appointed to the Solomon Islands Police shall not be required to make an oath of affirmation or allegiance to the Government, to the Commissioner of Police, and to the people of Solomon Islands.  Article 5 4(a) – “Members of the Participating Police Force are subject only to the orders of and instructions from the head of the Participating Police Force and where appointed to the Solomon Islands Police Force, the Commissioner of the Solomon Islands Police Force in consultation with the head of the Participating Police Force”.  “Subject to paragraph A(2) members of the Participating Police Force shall not be subject to the orders or instructions from any other members of the Solomon Islands Police Force.  “The Participating Force shall not be subject to any regulations concerning the administration of discipline of the Solomon Islands Police Force or to the jurisdictions of any Solomon Islands disciplinary authority, court or tribunal”.  We can go on and read the various clauses in Article 5.  I also can refer you to the Facilitation of International Act, an act that is drafted to pick up a lot of the clauses that are carried in this Agreement. 
Now, that’s for the police and the military component.  The non military component of RAMSI is answerable to Canberra through the Office of the Special Coordinator and they are not answerable to the SIG.  I guess that is what I mean when I’m talking about the visiting contingent or RAMSI having an alternative or running a parallel administration in Solomon Islands because they are not answerable to the government and people of Solomon Islands.

Mr Chairman:  As you know, I was Foreign Minister in the Kemakeza Government and there were a lot of consultations between RAMSI and our government, sometimes on a daily basis.  There were a lot of acquiesce and basically RAMSI is not working alone.  This was during the Kemakeza Government time, I don’t know when you were in government.  But at that time I talked to a lot of countries that were involved in RAMSI and the Participating Forces, and all they say is that they just want to help the Solomon Islands.  They say that if they’ve done well, and they know all is going well then they can pull out.  They all had a commitment and this was expressed very much with the Forum Representative as well.  There was a lot of commitment by the Participating countries, big and small, to help us, and that was all.  This was it.  It was called “Helpem Fren”, and that’s very genuine.  But I’m still not very convinced, Leader of the Opposition that there is a conspiracy or a geo political steering behind all these, but that’s your explanation and you based that very much on the legal framework, which you did say allows the opportunity, in your idea, for abuse of sovereignty.  I’ll allow the Committee if they have any other questions and I’ll come in.

Hon. Tosika:  Leader of the Opposition, one of the mainstays of the Act is restoration of law and order.  I read the report by Professor Don Patterson and he stresses very clearly that the duty of RAMSI in terms of restoring law and order has been completed in Solomon Islands.  What is your opinion on the time frame based on the fact that they have completed their mandated intention to come to Solomon Islands to restore law and order and so there is no provision that clearly indicate a time frame for RAMSI to leave but the mandated intention has been completed, what is your opinion on this?

Hon Sogavare:  Mr Chairman, the obvious response to that, if RAMSI completed its mandate then it has to withdraw.  This is one of the questions that is also asked by the Committee that whether in my view they’ve actually completed or have achieved the initial mandate given to them in 2003.  You were Foreign Affairs Minister then and you would know very well that the original mandate of RAMSI is carried in the Agreement concerning the operations as status of the Police and armed forces and other personnel deployed to Solomon Islands to assist the restoration of law and order and security.  And these mandates were as follows:

• Restore law and order and security,
• Strengthen the justice system,
• Restore the economy and basic services. 

 

Now, more specifically, Mr Chairman, the original scope of the strengthened assistance was focused on civil order and economic recovery as follows, and I would like to list them down and comment on them.  The first one is to re-establish security in Honiara enabling the government, businesses, and the community to operate free of intimidation.  This is to be extended beyond Honiara.  That was fully achieved; law and order has returned in Solomon Islands, RAMSI officers are stationed in the main centres of the country, five years out and RAMSI officers should now be familiar with the laws and procedures.  Any fear that they may inadvertently breach Solomon Islands laws and customs should no longer be an issue for them.  In any case they are here to see that the laws of the country are followed and therefore are expected to do the same.
            Secondly, in cooperation with the Police Commissioner, reform the Royal Solomon Islands Police, introducing expatriate police personnel into line positions and providing increased resources.  Now, I appreciate that is ongoing.  The Ministry is working on implementing the Police Capability Plan drawn up by RAMSI.  In fact RAMSI argued that they need protection to effectively perform these tasks, and that is where the legal framework comes in.  Expatriate Police officers were engage under the FIAA without taking oath of allegiance to the Commissioner.  Budgetary allocations to the Law and Justice sector is about $1billion annually, the majority is used to maintain a pool of highly paid technical assistance which, in my view, did very little to improve the capacity of the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force to do their work effectively and independently because they are spent on technical assistance. 
            Now, my view is that if this financial support is to improve the capacity of the Police, they must be diverted to acquire logistic support for the Police and improve infrastructure in the provincial centres. 
            Thirdly, launch a new effort to locate and confiscate illegal weapons.  Now, RAMSI has already confiscated a lot of weapons, both legal and illegal weapons.  RAMSI also failed to remove all illegal weapons/arms in the country, and I don’t think they will ever do, even if they are here for another 100 years.  Any more efforts would doom to fail and only create more hatred for RAMSI because affected Solomon Islanders can no longer trust RAMSI and view their presence as an occupying force.
            Fourthly, investigate and prosecute new criminal offences.  This is ongoing.  Now, because of the immunity privileges and protection, RAMSI is blatantly careless in a number of cases, in prosecuting people suspected of crimes.  The number of cases failed is phenomenon.  This only raises more questions as to the qualification of these people.  It would appear that many of them were picked-green and introduced into the country.  I believe Solomon Islands Police officers know what to do and they can do it.

Fifth, strengthen the courts and prison system - that is ongoing and because of the immunities, expatriates, magistrates in the number of views expressed were clearly careless in carrying out their duties.  New prisons are being built in the main centres of the country under that mandate.
Sixth, protect institutions such as the Finance Ministry, the courts and their personnel from intimidation.  This is achieved - key institutions are now free from harassment, extortion and intimidation.  
The second mandate is under economic recovery, and that is to stabilize government finances and balance budget by securing revenue collections and control outlets.  That’s achieved.  Obtain donor and international financial institutions and technical support – that’s achieved and it’s ongoing.
Implement economic reform consistent with the recommendations of the economic governance mission - that is ongoing.  Focus efforts to deal with corruption - that is ongoing.  Downsizing of the civil service, cleansing the payroll and stop extortion – that’s ongoing.  Improve debt management - that is basically achieved and the Ministry of Finance is managing the debts of the country in a more effective and efficient way now. 
What I’m saying here is that they have achieved all those and so is it necessary for them to continue to be in the country to continue to carry out the ongoing aspects of these mandates.  That is the question.  I appreciate that most of the work under economic recovery mandate is still ongoing, and so it would be in my view, irresponsible however for RAMSI to say that they need another five years to work under an emergency scenario to complete the work.  There should now be an aggressive process of identifying local counterparts for this post and accord them with the appropriate training.  If we analyze the achievements of what has been done by RAMSI over the last five years, Mr Chairman, I think they’ve virtually achieved their original mandate, and what is left now and probably is an issue that is before the government is what then after they’ve achieved the original mandate.  That is the question that needs to be properly dealt with.

Mr Chairman:  Thank you.  You are basically saying taht RAMSI has been successful in achieving its initial mandate, but there are still some jobs that need to be done.  What do you think about the next phase of RAMSI in its capacity building, and I think you’ve alluded to that?  Do you support RAMSI’s capacity building exercises right now?

Hon Sogavare:  Mr Chairman, I think that is where it gets tricky.  My contention all along is not RAMSI per sei, but it’s the legal frame and the kind of powers they have, that is accorded to them under the Facilitation Act and the legal instruments that make up the legal framework of RAMSI.  That is the point of contention, Mr Chairman. 
            Any suggestion to extend the mandate of RAMSI to effectively take hold of what is traditionally done, carried out by traditional aid agencies in the country with unfettered powers given to them under the Facilitation Act and the Agreement will not be acceptable. 

Mr Chairman:  I’m just trying to allude that I really don’t think RAMSI will want to go into donor territory anyway.  I’m just saying that perhaps with the existing legal framework whether that is good enough to achieve what they came in here for.  Whether we need to change that because they are just here to achieve their mandate and they’ll have to go.  Now, whether that legal framework needs to be changed to achieve that is something that perhaps you have an opinion on.

Hon Sogavare:  Mr Chairman, I may need to correct you on that.  There is an active process of negotiation going on between the SIG and RAMSI to extend the mandate of RAMSI to do the usual things that normal aid agencies in the country would do. 
My view on RAMSI is that it is a Forum strategy to address a specific situation that there is a total breakdown in law and order, the government’s system has totally collapsed as a result of some happenings in the country, and that was clear in the Biketawa Declaration.  It’s never, never the intention of the Forum for RAMSI to effectively takeover the roles of the existing aid agencies.  And I understand that is the contentious issue between the aid donors in this country, RAMSI and the SIG.  There is a view by aid donors that they will not be comfortable with RAMSI under that kind of arrangement with unfettered powers taking over their role.  They would rather implement their aid under the bilateral arrangements that already existed between Solomon Islands and the aid donors. 
I’m fully aware of that and I have expressed my views that if a RAMSI style arrangement with that kind of power is mandated to do that, then I think they are stuck with powers that they really don’t need and it can be opened to abuse.

Mr Chairman:  So you are basically saying that there is no need to extend RAMSI’s mandate. 

Hon Sogavare:  Well, Mr Chairman, effectively that is what I’m saying.

Mr Chairman:  There is no need with the existing legal framework.

Hon Sogavare:  I think that is basically what I’m saying.

Mr Chairman:  When their job is done then that’s it.  They are specifically tasked to a certain job, there are other things that donors can do, and there are other things that donors can do and can’t do as well.  But donors will takeover later on, perhaps in the traditional donor development aspects of the country. 

Hon. Tosika:  Leader of Opposition, you mentioned in your presentation to the Committee that rearming of the Solomon Islands Police is something that you strongly emphasized on the basis that Solomon Islands is the only country in the world that its police or the paramilitary was not armed.  Even Japan, where after the Second World War banned arms but it has arms to protect its country.  Solomon Islands is the only exceptional country in the world that has no arms.  What is your opinion on this?  Do you think it is necessary to ask the government to rearm the Solomon Islands Police to protect its citizens because one of the provisions in the constitution is that citizens need to be protected?

Hon. Sogavare:  Mr Chairman I have a very strong view on the rearmament of the Solomon Islands Police Force, and in fact I have expressed the view that this issue was taken very lightly.  
When RAMSI disarmed the Solomon Islands Police Force, it’s not just disarming the Solomon Islands Police Force, but it is disarming the state, the Solomon Islands as a sovereign state.  So it’s quite a serious issue that we need to really think it through.
Now, there is this fear that we would be arming the same Police Officers or the same Force, the Solomon Islands Police Force that betrayed their trust in year 2000 and did what they did with state arms.  That is the fear going around in the minds of people, and I think I need to correct that.  We are not arming the same Police Officers who did what they did in year 2000.  Those officers have been removed from the Force.
 When RAMSI came in, it laid off more than 400 Police officers, this is including the officers who took part in the events of the year 2000.  So it’s not arming the same Police Officers.  Instead what we are talking about arming here are disciplined officers according to RAMSI’s report.  This is five year down the line and reports after reports coming out from the work that RAMSI is doing with the Police, they are saying that they achieved so much, officers are disciplined, there is more professionalism in the Force.  So what we are talking about rearming here is a force that is recognized by RAMSI as professional and committed to their duty to protect the state. 
We need to appreciate as well what really happened in year 2000.  These people took up arms in response to the negligence by the government to address issues that are dear to their heart.  In fact you’re talking about ethnic survival, and when it comes to Solomon Islands, when you threaten the survival of ethnic groups people will take that to heart, and no amount of loyalty to anyone would stop anyone from joining the ranks of people who are protecting ethnic survival.  That’s actually what happened in year 2000.  I think there is a lot of misunderstanding on what actually happened in year 2000. 
We are not talking about police officers holding firearms in public.  I’m not talking about that, like we see happening now their soldiers are actually holding guns and riding in vehicles.  We are not talking about that.  What we are actually talking about is for these officers to have access to firearms when the need arises.  And we cannot, it will be stupid of this country if we continue to rely on foreign forces for our first line of defense.  We were caught unprepared on the 18th April 2006 when Solomon Islanders decided to take laws into their own hands and expressed their political views and did what they did on April 18th.  The Police was totally unprepared.  That is what I’m talking about.  I’m not talking about giving arms to Police Officers holding it in public and going around shooting people, no.  And that is what happened all along; the arms are kept in the armory and officers only have access to them when the need arises.  That is what I’m talking about and I think it needs a lot of explanation to the people of this country because there are groups, there are institutions, there are bodies that have direct vested interest in not rearming the Solomon Islands Police Force, and that hurts me.  Who are you to tell us, to tell the authorities, the sovereign state of Solomon Islands not to rearm its Police Force? 
I appreciate that it’s a very sensitive issue and if the government is to go down that path, which I don’t see any reason why it should not, a thorough explanation needs to be given to people of this country for the need to rearm the Solomon Islands Police Force.

Mr Chairman:  I thought the prerogative of actually rearming is under our Police Commissioner.  He is the one who decides according to the plans that he produces for his department, not actually outside forces deciding whether we rearm.  It is government police that decides not to rearm.  They may be pressured by the public or other institutions around, NGOs to say, but it really boils down to what our Police Commissioner wants to do with the Police Department, and that is very important.  Otherwise we are going into the parallel thing here. 

Hon Sogavare:  Mr Chairman, I fully appreciate your response.  You know, Mr Chairman, I don’t know whether I should say this but the real force behind the implementation of the Facilitation Act is actually the foreign forces.  I need not to elaborate more than that.  There is a direct vested interest of foreign interest not to rearm the Solomon Islands Police Force, not so much for the protection of the people of this country but for their own protection.  The Police Commissioner, with due respect is influenced, would-be influenced, would-be advised not to by outside interests.  And right now the Acting Commissioner of Police is not a Solomon Islander.  We can go on and argue about this case and may be argue it on legal points and the Facilitation Act and that the Commissioner of Police has the power to arm or not to rearm the Solomon Islands Police Force, but what I’m saying to you is that there are outside interests that have direct influence in the way the Commissioner of Police is deciding issues on this matter.

Hon. Boyers:  The gun issue is a debatable issue and I appreciate your views on the necessity to capacity build our Police Force. 
As far as the visiting contingent is concerned, the military component of the Police was brought up in this committee hearing with others on the necessity of carrying arms by the visiting contingent because of concerns and fear by the general public. 
Looking back through the intervention, record shows a high level of tolerance by the visiting contingent on the fact that one of the visiting contingents was shot at, and there’s a recent case where a visiting contingent was hacked with a knife.  And so there has been a very high level of tolerance shown.  And this was probably one of the reasons why the Chinatown was burnt down.  This is because of the fact that even though they are carrying guns they didn’t shoot anyone, hence the Solomon Islands Police Force were looked upon, probably within the crowd that burnt the China Town as incompetent for not being able to act.  Obviously there is a need in the future for our Police Force to be armed to a certain degree. 
Do you believe, and we’ve mentioned this in previous meetings, that there needs to be reconciliation within the Police Force with past officers that have been marginalized with the present Police Force with present officers who were there during the ethnic tension?  Do you feel there needs to be reconciliation within our Police Force with previous officers and present officers before any rearmament within the Police Force takes place? 

Hon. Sogavare:  That’s a very good question.  I would agree with you totally.  If we go back to the reason why the boys did what they did in year 2000, the guys that actually raided the armory and did what they did, you will be surprised that the blame falls squarely on the neglect by the Police Authority to recognize the needs of the Police Officers. 
I was Leader of the Opposition then when that incident happened.  I received delegations after delegations of members of the Solomon Islands Police Force who were not happy with the way they were treated, and that, I guess influenced where their loyalty lies.  When the ethnic issue arose, they just fall in because there was already a lot of dissatisfaction by the Solomon Islands Police Officers.  That is why it always hurts me when people jump into conclusion and say that the ethnic crisis or what happened in 2000 is the work of rogue police offices.  They may be seen as that, but there are reasons for every action 
I would agree with you, Mr Chairman, that there may need to be reconciliation.  You may argue that there may be reconciliations before we rearm.  But what’s the fear there?  Is it the case that the Police Officers now would take matters they have against officers who took part in the events of 2000 and may be disadvantaged them in some ways and so they would want to retaliate, and think to square off things? 
But I would have thought that we are talking about, according to RAMSI’s report, we are talking about disciplined, professional officers that have gone through the Police Capability Program, the capacity building program drawn up by RAMSI and implemented by the Solomon Islands Police Force.  If that is the fear or I don’t know what the fear is then we may be dragging issues a bit too far and bringing in issues that really we may not need to worry about.  But I would agree anyway that there needs to be a reconciliation progress. 

Hon Boyers:  I probably may be going a little bit out of the square here, but on the comments you’ve made within the legal framework of RAMSI on immunities and so forth, obviously we have to judge between the good and bad forces.  I think many of the issues we are talking about are just technical.  I think the overall force is for good and the responsibility lies on our shoulders on the decisions we make whether we make Solomon Islands a better place for Solomon Islanders in protecting their identity and their vision on how their environment will be protected for them and their children in the future.  So direct responsibility lies on us as parliamentarians to make sure that we create the environment in light of what we called the intervention on how we work around the framework, the legal aspects to suit and protect our identity.  It also falls on the responsibility of the government of the day.  I recently understand or we all understand that the interests of Australia are security issues.  Whether it’s for Australia or the protected boundaries, I think that’s well understood. 
The issue with the forum would be issues to be able to protect their boundaries.  So it sorts of interlink between security for a region and the sovereign countries within that region.  Obviously, we have a long to go to create a perfect formula for ourselves.  But in the light of RAMSI being here, it has come to my attention that the government is now engaged in a bilateral arrangement with Iran, which is one country classified as an ‘axis of evil’.  I also understand that there are Iranians in the country at the moment engaging in bilateral help or grassroots type help with Solomon Islanders. 
Do you feel that with that circumstance now in the country under the present arrangement, and I don’t know if this is a policy or it is just an accidental handshake, but do you believe that without the presence of RAMSI this could escalate?  Or do you believe the presence of RAMSI can assist us in containing this taking into consideration that we have the Bahais in our country for a very long time that were actually persecuted by the regimes after the fall of the Czar of Iran and were classified as international refugees.  Now that our Foreign Minister is engaging in bilateral arrangements with Iran, what are your considerations in relation to the CNURA Government’s policy on this and also the arrangement that we have in place with RAMSI in making sure we can affectively safeguard our Christian environment. 

Hon Sogavare:  In fact, as the Leader of the Opposition, my first response to that would be ‘shocking’.  While the Solomon Islands Government is a sovereign state and it has the right to enter into bilateral arrangements with any sovereign states in the world, we have principles to go by.  That move by the CNURA Government must be condemned outright. 
There are principles to go by.  While we have that freedom, that right, that sovereign right to enter into any bilateral arrangements with anyone in the world, we are guided by principles.  And it has been the tradition of this country that we enter into bilateral arrangements with country that we share common values with - democracy, good governance, antiterrorism.  And if the issues that hit the headline recently and the very reason why the United State of America and its Allies engaged in war with Iraq was over, one of the issue was to quash the ability of Iraq to produce terrorism.  
Iran trains terrorists, it sponsors terrorists, Mr. Chairman, and I don’t know what to say, but I’m shocked that a government that boasts itself to believe in the principles that the other members in the international community believe in, which is democracy, good governance, antiterrorism, fight against terrorism can entertain a country that works against all principles that all right thinking governments of the world believe in.
How it relates to RAMSI, Mr Chairman, well I would like to believe that this is an opportunity for RAMSI to give the kind of advice it has been giving to governments in the past.  Australia and the 13 Member Forum Countries will have nothing to do with Iran.  And they would expect Solomon Islands as a very important partner in this RAMSI arrangement to also tow the line.  They are here to help us, and if after benefiting from their assistance for five years we decide to go ahead and entertain regimes that are anti everything we believe in, then I would like to take opportunity to condemn it outright, and ask all people of Solomon Islands also to join me in condemning the latest action of the Government in entertaining the Government of Iran. 

Mr Chairman:  I might just like to add on to that, that we are also dealing, I assume, with a regime that has in its motto the extermination of the Jewish race and Israel itself and hampering the peace process.  They are trying to get started in the Middle East and your views will be taken on board.  Opposition Leader, is there anything else you would like to say.

Hon Soalaoi:  Leader, I think one of the arguments that is around since RAMSI’s arrival is the rate of renting houses in Honiara which has now increased from an affordable amount to amounts that Solomon Islanders cannot afford to pay.  That is seen by us as a direct effect on the accommodation arrangement for RAMSI personnel under the Act. 
If the Government should do anything to address this issue, what would be your advice on and what is your personal view on the effect of RAMSI’s accommodation arrangement on the rate of renting a house in Honiara.  I believe this has become an issue because even high level government officers cannot afford to rent a decent house that should help them performing well in government offices, of course compatible to their qualification.  Qualified offices are now living even with relatives.  Chiefs are living with wantoks and working in government offices.  I’m just interested, and of course, the committee is interested to know your view on that and what should the Government do to address that issue. 

Hon Sogavare:  Well, thank you very much.  In fact section 12 of the Facilitation Act actually allows the visiting contingent to negotiate the level of rent they are willing to pay. 
Now, there is a view formed by people that the rising rental, the ever increasing rent in the rental market is a direct influence by the high level of rent paid by RAMSI officers based on private negotiations.  We are yet to really establish whether there is a direct relationship that needs some empirical evidence; we need to probably analyze it before we say yes, that is because of that.  But it can be generally argued that since RAMSI came they have offered good high rents to landlords to rent their houses. 
Mr. Chairman, there’s very little that the government can do here because the Solomon Islands Government relate to RAMSI through the legal framework.  That’s how the Solomon Islands Government relates to the RAMSI establishment.  Probably, it’s too late now to deal with the rents that have been negotiated, because it’s tied down to a lot of things, for example, because of that healthy rent people have been able to get big loans.  If the government steps in and suddenly passed a legislation reducing the level of rent to what is generally affordable in the rental market, then you will have other issues to address and that would be really not advisable. 
I think what the Government can do is to deal with future cases.  We may need to amend section 12 of the Facilitation Act to provide that any negotiation on the level of rents, and I don’t know why this particular issue is taken up as a section in the law, but be that as it may, if the government is to do anything about it to deal with future cases and may be amend section 12 of the Facilitation Act to require that any negotiation must also be aware of the general affordability of the market to cope with that kind of rent.  But it is an issue that’s affecting a good number of people.  In fact, as rightly pointed out by the member, a lot of senior public officers are not able to rent decent houses.  They are reduced to renting something in the back way to survive because they cannot afford the rent. 

Mr Chairman:  Basically, it is also that RAMSI and other institutions coming in here are actually pumping money into our economy as well.  Our economy actually has a lot of liquidity.  There is a lot of liquidity in our banks.  That high price in our rental market will basically give a good signal that more houses are being built and it’s profitable.  I think there is more interest in actually go into the housing market now and that would stimulate a lot of things in our economy, but I can understand that in the long run, but in the short run the affordability of our public housing needs to be addressed.

Hon Tosika:  Leader, as you know, we are now reviewing the FIA Act and the Notices, and as you know in 2003 the Parliament swallowed this act is like a sick person who was forced to drink the quinine tablets without realizing that he is allergic to that tablet.  And I understand that it is through Parliament as well that we may be able to amend or repeal the Act itself.  The Act, as you know, is a foreign instrument that has been pushed through the Parliament of Solomon Islands without very close consideration by parliamentarians at that time because of circumstances and situations during that time. 
Solomon Islands is not an island of itself and so it has entered into various agreements with Australia, New Zealand, PNG as well as a member of the FCO, the IFC and also MCG in this case which I understand that the cooperation between the member countries was also on security basis. 
My question is, although we are doing the review, it is the Parliament that will decide whether to amend or repeal the Act based on recommendations made by, as you’ve said earlier on that one of your fears is whether the Government will take onboard those recommendations when put to Parliament.  
My question is, we have come this far and the good intention that RAMSI is here for has been completed and rather than going through the Facilitation Act we go back and revisit the arrangement, the bilateral arrangement in terms of the economy, capacity building so that there is no law that impinges on us that we have other laws in conflicting provisions with the Facilitation Act?  What is your opinion on this?

Hon. Sogavare:  As I expressed earlier, RAMSI is a special arrangement by the Forum; it is a Forum initiative to address a specific situation in any country, and in this case we have Solomon Islands.  It nearly happened in Papua New Guinea, but of course, it did not because they successfully challenged the constitutionality of the legal framework. 
Now, one can understand the need to come up with a RAMSI style arrangement in 2003; the country was basically hopeless, the police was basically compromised, the government system collapsed, the government as a very important decision making entity cannot effectively made tough decisions because of the presence of people who have different interests, and so there is a need for a RAMSI style arrangement in year 2003 
I think the question now arises after 5 years of the presence of RAMSI and we have reports that they have achieved their regional mandate, and I think the question that we left suspended earlier on is, how should the future look like with RAMSI? 
We can come up with all kinds of options because the direct response, if they have achieved what they were set out and mandated to do, then obviously the straight and short answer to that is, wind them down. 
As I have said, it is more appropriate in the restoration stage to the situation that happens in the country.  When it comes to long term rehabilitation and reconstruction of the economy, that’s where the traditional aid agencies have been and will be effectively doing if there is a need to continue to do that.  The argument that RAMSI should not take on development phase, is one of the arguments that is put across to RAMSI but through the existing traditional aid agencies. 
Solomon Islands has already need arrangements that need to address these issues.  For example, when it comes to military interventions they can be neatly arranged through the Defence Cooperation that we have with Australia.  Solomon Islands can go to other Pacific Island Countries and ask for their assistance, but I think the catch there is that who will pay for the cost of engaging military forces that are unable also to come with a package that will fund the work of the intervention.  So there are already arrangements.  In fact, this agreement is effectively Solomon Islands entering into a series of bilateral arrangements with the Pacific Island Countries, with the 13 Pacific Islands Countries.  That’s basically what it is.  And all it needs now if we there’s a need for a military intervention to address a situation that may arise because we ask RAMSI to go, there’s always avenue to address this through the arrangements that are already in place.  So it is not all hopeless when it comes to seriously decide on the future of RAMSI.  And as I said the contentious issue here for me is not RAMSI per se, but it is the kind of powers, privileges and immunities that they have and they continue to insist that they need it after 5 years when this country is already reaping the benefits of the good work of RAMSI five years ago.  My personal view on that is that they are now stuck with powers they really don’t need.

Hon. Tosika:  Leader, I understand that when RAMSI is here they brought in a lot of companies that signed contracts to do certain work for them.  One of them is Patricks Logistics, and I understand that this does not fall within the purview of the Act itself, but I understand that like any other company that invests in Solomon Islands their workers need to pay tax to Solomon Islands.  But in this particular case, these people are arguing that they fall within the purview of the Act and so they do not pay income tax and other tax that are necessary for this country.  What is view on this?

Hon. Sogavare:  Mr. Chairman, that’s very serious.  There is an assumption by the private Australian companies that are engaged by RAMSI to do work for RAMSI in Solomon Islands that they are also entitled to immunities, privileges and whatever is provided for under the Facilitation Act.  I am not a lawyer but I think that needs to be checked out properly.
What happens here is that these people, when it comes to taxation they are not paying tax because they claimed that they are also exempt.  My own personal view is that that is dragging the thing a bit too far. 
These people are engaged by RAMSI as entities that are earning income for services rendered in Solomon Islands.  The real issue here is for us to check their qualification to be also accorded the privileges and immunities provided for under the Facilitation Act.  But my view and reading through the Legal Framework, I don’t think they are qualified.  And they have not been paying tax and the legal dues to the government since they came into this country five years ago.  And this is talking about a lot of revenue that could be collected by the government to improve the much needed services. 
Also the issue of taxation in general, we need to may be, see it.  RAMSI is a special arrangement in Solomon Islands.  You are talking about a billion dollars every year that comes in, in the name of Solomon Islands.  Now that directly relates to the immunity and privileges that personnel rightfully qualify for under the Facilitation Act.  Is it fair?  
Now, the rationale behind granting privileges is because these people left the comfort of home to come and work in a very, very dangerous environment.  Is that so after five years?  And we can go on and discuss this issue of taxation. 
I think the other point that is also worth mentioning here is that the normal tax practice internationally is that there has to be double taxation agreement with the countries.  The question arises as to whether Solomon Islands has double taxation agreement with all the 13 countries that are part of the RAMSI arrangement. 
We can come up with any laws and exempt them from tax, but it has also to be supported by the appropriate legal framework, and that means we need to ensure and to establish whether the countries that form part of the RAMSI arrangements are of a double taxation agreement.  Because the rationale here is if they do not pay tax here then they are paying tax in their country.  That’s the reason for exempting them here, unless it is an all out golden handshake by RAMSI to compensate the people who are here working under rough and dangerous environment, so we do not tax them here and they also not taxed in their home country.  But the normal rationale behind exempting any person from the taxation jurisdiction over to the other country is because he is taxed in his own country.  Now we really need to establish that.

Hon. Boyers:  I would just like to make a comment.  I think the concern made by the Leader of Opposition is very correct.  I think I can remember in the November 2005 Parliament Meeting, we passed a bill that enforced the process for workers that came in on contract basis and consultants as well to be taxed.  I think provision has been made and whether that is happening or not, but the point made is a good one and must be clarified.  It’s a good point that the Committee should look into in regards to that recommendation.

Mr Chairman:  The other thing as well is about Asian countries wanting to invest in RAMSI.  RAMSI must be a good product for them to invest in.  I don’t know if they are going to get any money out of it, I don’t think so but there is a peace dividend but it must be a good project to invest in.  And as you know, the Taiwanese have invested in RAMSI.  Japan is showing interest and others as well.  What do you think why they have shown so much interest in RAMSI?  Why do they want to invest, at least, perhaps not in the personnel component but financially in RAMSI?  What’s your opinion on that?

Hon. Sogavare:  Mr. Chairman, first of all I would welcome the expansion of RAMSI to other interested countries.  It really makes RAMSI a truly regional institution across regions – Asia and Pacific Island countries.  I guess the question is, why not?  Why would we be uncomfortable with them investing in RAMSI?  I guess there is an assumption that a RAMSI style arrangement would continue in the future.  If that is the case, then I would welcome, seriously welcome the involvement of Asians countries to participate in RAMSI. 
I am reading, I am doing research and I can honestly tell the Committee that the only country that will be uncomfortable with the participation of any Asian country is Australia.  This is not what comes out from me as just guessing, but I am reading, I am getting information on Australia’s foreign policy.  
Why would they?  It’s an issue, it’s a question that all of us would want to ask.  In fact, Australia does not hide the fact that it is primarily responsible for the security of this region.  That they do not hide; it’s so clear, it’s written in black and white in their foreign policy. 
I guess the question is, I welcome but why would others, I guess, raise eyebrows in such a gesture by the Asian countries.  And I guess the leading question, one of the questions that this raises is that what benefits will we gain out of expanding the membership of RAMSI to other Asian countries.  I think there are heaps of benefits, unlike the 13 other small Pacific Islands countries that provide human resources, these people would also provide financial assistance and then probably they would be willing to contribute to the financial package that fund the operations of RAMSI in Solomon Islands. 
I think there is also the issue of really addressing rural development, for example.  By talking to, like people in India, talking to an Indian Ambassador or High Commissioner, there is the opportunity of engaging appropriate technologies in the rural areas.  These people have been doing this for ages.  Okay rural person in Solomon Islands, many of them would not be able to participate in big resource based business operations, but they can plant kumara, they can plant taro, they can plant yam, they can plant pawpaw, they can plant pineapple. 
I think the whole idea of, if we need to address the underlying issues of getting prices is about lack of opportunities.  People are coming to Honiara because there are no opportunities where they come from.  And I think this is a wonderful opportunity, in addition to other things, this is one of the areas that I see would really benefit Solomon Islands if Asian countries are engaged in the operations of RAMSI in Solomon Islands as suggested.

Mr Chairman:  I am just adding on to it.  Why do they need their extra money?  It’s something that there’s going to be a shortfall in a budget of the traditional 13 countries or perhaps it’s an extension of a mandate in mind.  That’s something I don’t know.

Hon. Sogavare:  I think the Asian countries would like to be friendly.  You just need to read, and I guess may be put a finger on the problem.  Australia, Mr. Chairman, is uncomfortable with the activities of some of the bigger Asian Countries in the Pacific.  It is uncomfortable with India, Japan, China, Taiwan.  I think this gesture by the Asian Countries is just to put away the fear that we are friends; we would have to be involved in a worthy cause that will assist a friend that is in need because RAMSI has been advancing itself as the coordinator of assistance in our country.  In fact, this is how it is developing now, and that is one of my arguments that it’s dangerous to go down that path.  But if this is how we are going to go down and if this is what is going to be recommended by the Foreign Relations Committee to Parliament, Mr. Chairman then you have no options but to see many more of our bilateral friends who would genuinely want to help Solomon Islands because this assistance now is facilitated or coordinated through the RAMSI arrangement and they would obviously want to come in, and don’t want to be left out, they are our friends.  I think there’s a lot to talk about here, and I think I am guessing what the Foreign Relations Committee will be recommending to the government because it’s an issue now.  The government is actively negotiating, talking with RAMSI of a possible partnership arrangement in the long run.  And the way they are going down is that they would want to have a permanent presence of RAMSI in Solomon Islands to support the delivery of the important development policies of RAMSI in the rural areas.

Mr Chairman:  You can see their investment in their aid package as well as the multilateral one in RAMSI and so it would seem to be that the RAMSI product is a good one.  I think there seems to be a medium to long term sustainability of RAMSI in our country, and this is perhaps one of the reasons why Asian countries see this as a great benefit and probably used to be of benefit to them as well.  But like you said, I assume there’s no reason why I would always say where capital needs to go.  And there’s no reason why someone else out there can invest in the country here that works in a country there.  This is all about swaps, I guess, and you should know this as a former tax commissioner.

Hon Soalaoi:  I think this is my last question.  Leader, may be you don’t have to answer me if you want to.  In terms of RAMSI’s mandate, apart from some of the issues of contention, which you alluded to earlier on, can you, in simple terms, so that our people in the rural areas can understand, state some of the examples of what RAMSI is doing outside of its mandate?

Hon Sogavare:  Mr Chairman, I guess that forced me to cite some examples.  The Facilitation Act and the Agreement that form part of the overall legal framework of RAMSI; for example, immune them from all the debt they are not responsible if they break a custom.  It is stated clearly here that any breaches of custom is bundle of tough luck.  For example, the recent arrest of two couples in South Guadalcanal was done in total ignorance of the way we relate to extended families is one of the issues in regards to custom. 
I received, as I’ve said, letters from people who have complained of serious what would be termed misconduct directly in breach of custom, marriages breakdown because members of the visiting contingent decided to engage in relationship with spouses of some people.  I’ve actually received letters on that and I am prepared to hand it over to the Committee.  Issues like that.  These are issues that affect the lives of people by people who are supposed to be here to help us.  I think that’s the point, Mr Chairman.  They are very moving letters and they’ve asked very appropriate questions like “if they here to help why did they break down my marriage”.  Examples like that, Mr Chairman. 
What I am saying is that they can do that because it’s very clear in the legal framework, the immunities and privileges they have that they can go free; they are not responsible to address the appropriate custom practices to sort out problems like that.  I think I’ll stop there.

Hon Boyers:  A final question.  Do you think that Solomon Islands would be able to stand on its own feet if for whatever reasons RAMSI suddenly pulls out of Solomon Islands in the near future?  I would also like to add, what would you want the future of RAMSI in Solomon Islands to be?

Hon Sogavare:  Mr Chairman, that is a very serious question.  I will respond this way.  I think the notion that Solomon Islands cannot survive without RAMSI is probably taken overboard by the proponents of view like that.
Sir, if you look at all the reports that are very critical of RAMSI’s performance in Solomon Islands; just read the Oxfam report, just read the other critical reports, they all show that RAMSI since its arrival here is not actively involved in the economic sector.  Now, that’s important to sustain the peace process.  It’s very important because you should look at the reasons why.  In fact the reasons used by the people who were engaged in the events of year 2000 or the revolt, and I called it a revolt, others see it as a mere war between the two ethnic groups but it’s not, and I want to submit to you that it’s not.  It’s actually a revolt by the people of Solomon Islands against a development strategy that is basically not addressing their needs and is confused with the ethnic problems. 
What I am saying is that since RAMSI’s arrival it has been concentrating on institutional strengthening, good governance and areas like that without addressing the effects of what happened in year 2000.  RAMSI is not really addressing the underlying issues that caused the ethnic crisis, and that’s why we have this RAMSI kind of arrangement coming into the country.  My argument here is that if you are not really addressing the problems of this country then you really need to go back and address the issues that drove this country down the path of the ethnic crisis. 
The only reason why I would support a view that if RAMSI is to leave this country will collapse is, if the real issues that caused the ethnic tension remain unattended to when RAMSI pulls out.  That’s a fact, that’s reality, and that’s the issue.  The concern here is that it was never, never the intention of RAMSI to address the issues that caused the ethnic tension.  You read the mandate of RAMSI since it arrived five years ago, it was never its mandate to address these issues.  So whether RAMSI would continue or pull out tomorrow would not make any difference to the issues that really matter to the ethnic crisis and matter to this country.  I can give you statistics of the kind of may be financial support or assistance we are going to lose as a result of RAMSI pulling out tomorrow. 
I guess my thinking is this, and I must reiterate again the point that if RAMSI is really interested in addressing the problems of Solomon Islands to ensure there is long term stability and peace, the underlying issues must be addressed, and it must be an extension of its mandate, may be not through a RAMSI style arrangement but through the existing aid agencies that have already existed in the country long before RAMSI came into Solomon Islands. 
            I am saying this passionately because you can talk about what kind of arrangements and whatever RAMSI is doing in this country but if you fail to address the issues that caused the ethnic crisis, all the good work that we have been doing five years ago when RAMSI came into this country will not be sustainable. 
            Now, the other question raised by the honorable Member is what I want the future of RAMSI to be in Solomon Islands.  Well, that’s not for me to decide on.  The future of RAMSI should be decided by the people of Solomon Islands and not me.  However, in my own personal view, since you sought my personal view on the question, I would recommend that we allow RAMSI to continue but let’s review its legal and administrative framework.  That is the contentious issue and not the presence of RAMSI here.  They will argue that they will need all the protections provided here in order to do their work.  That’s nonsense and not right. 
I have already read to you the work that are still ongoing and that still needs to be done.  The work that they’ve started in year 2003 is still ongoing, after five years.  Do they need that kind of protection, that kind of immunity and that kind of privileges to put them above other people who are here assisting Solomon Islanders too?  That’s a serious question. 
So if you ask for my view, I would recommend that we allow RAMSI to continue but let’s review its legal and administrative framework, its scale of operations and its timeframe to accommodate the concerns of Solomon Islanders.  We need to be specific on that.  
What is happening in 2003 is an open ended thing.  We are shocked by what happened in 2003 and we allowed a RAMSI style kind of arrangement to come into the country with unfettered powers without setting any timeframe, we didn’t set any specific targets and so that basically allows them not to be concerned about achieving results because they can go on and continue to stay and work in the country and not concerned about achievements.  And it’s about time that we start to put them on the spot and tell them to achieve this and that by this date.  They must see that we are serious.  There has to be a clear exit strategy to be agreed with RAMSI and a date to be set for its complete withdrawal. 
During the scaling down period, I would like to think and may be request that the available resources should be directed to address issues that really matter to peace, stability and economic growth then that would be seen as helping this country. 
With that, how do I see the future of RAMSI and Solomon Islands to be, what I am seeing is that a peaceful and stable Solomon Islands that enjoys economic growth issued directly to the operations of RAMSI.  It’s $1 billion every year, and that’s to Police alone, not to mention other areas that some funds have gone towards.  Now, that’s a lot of resources and 70% of that is tied to technical assistance.  You tell me, am I crying in the wilderness?  I don’t think so.  I am telling you something that is true.  It’s not something that I am making up.  I am telling you something that’s true, and not something I am making up. 
The concern about the use of aid donor funds in Third World Countries is something that is common in every aid receiving country, and I don’t want to go through that again because I’ve shouted it out to Parliament already.  That’s my view on that. 
Unfortunately, I did not answer all the nice questions that you’ve put down here.  If I answered these questions you would fully appreciate where I am coming from in this presentation, and so I am prepared to leave these submissions with the Committee.  Thank you very much. 

Mr Chairman:  Thank you very much.  That’s all from the committee. 

SPEAKER OF
National Parliament

Mr Chairman:  Honorable Members of the Foreign Relations Committee, Honorable Speaker of the National Parliament, stakeholders and members of the public, first and foremost I would like to welcome the Honorable Speaker of the National Parliament of Solomon Islands, Rt Honorable Sir Peter Kenilorea to this hearing and to thank you, Sir, for accepting our invitation to contribute to this inquiry. 
Since the commencement of our inquiry into RAMSI, our Committee has heard from many witnesses including the Head of the Executive, the Honorable Prime Minister, the Head of Judiciary, the Honorable Chief Justice and representatives of RAMSI and member countries.  This Committee therefore considers it of great importance that it hears from you as the head of the legislature and the third arm of government.  We also invite your contribution on the basis that you played a pivotal role in the founding of this country and later in peacemaking efforts during the conflict period as an elder statesman.  We look forward to your participation in our inquiry. 
Before we hear from the Honorable Speaker, I wish to state for the records that these proceedings are protected by parliamentary privilege.  We are also being broadcast live by the SIBC and recorded by One News so that this hearing is televised later. 
Let us proceed with the hearing.  We will first hear a 15 or 20 minutes presentation from the Honorable Speaker after which members of this Committee will ask questions of the witness.  Sir, could you please state your name for the record and proceed with your opening statement if you so wish.  

Sir Peter Kenilorea:  Thank you Mr Chairman and Committee Members for this privilege.  My name is Sir Peter Kenilorea, the current Speaker of the National Parliament.  For your information I do not have any written submission but I’ll do my best to speak from my heart on the important matters that are before us for the Committee’s consideration. 
RAMSI at the moment, we are merely complying with the legal provision of the International Facilitation Act, which provides for the presence of the Regional Assistance Mission, which in that particular Act there is provision for an annual review, and so I would like to congratulate the current government the way it has decided to undertake this inquiry because previous to that succeeding governments have not really taking onboard serious compliance to this particular provision of the Act.  I am rather pleased with the current government that it has decided to go the way it has so that both the public and all stakeholders might have the opportunity to participate and contribute to the review of RAMSI.  I’d like to say that from the outset. 
You have rightly said, Mr Chairman, that before the presence of RAMSI even, I was involved in the peace process after the ethnic tension that has wreaked havoc our nation between 1998 and 2003. 
During my particular role as chairman of the peace negotiation and the monitoring role, we have rubbed shoulders with the public, important people and various sectors of our community in Solomon Islands whose cry at that time was because we were merely monitoring the sustainability of the various peace agreements.  They were getting to a stage where they were saying ‘what else have you got Mr Chairman’, and of course we did not have anything else but to simply say that we are merely complying with the peace process and the cease fire process to come and advise you that may be help is on the way and may be good times will come and let us ensure that these various agreements are sustainable, that they last but, of course, at that time things were not very good.  And so within our own little committee at that time, we were thinking aloud amongst ourselves whether or not it was feasible to even approach the United Nations for peacekeeping purposes.  Of course, at that stage we felt too that judging by, I suppose the size of our own problem then against what’s happening in the world out there, the United Nations, which is rather a cumbersome body to wake up and engage would not be easily engaged, and we and my own self then were rather concern that whilst we were taking peace, whilst the peace agreement has been signed, whilst the cease fire agreement has been signed there was no peace in the country, and the government has lost total control, and it was the government of the barrel of the gun being experienced at that time.  So it was a very difficult time until in February I think it was in 2003 that I was approached in my capacity as Speaker and not necessarily the chairman of the various peace processes and agencies, but as the Speaker, by someone in Australia whether or not I could contribute towards some suggestions for an Australian led Mission to come and involve in bringing about some resemblance of peace and law and order in Solomon Islands.  This was Professor Hugh White of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.  He wrote a letter to me and to the Governor General then whether we could jointly make submission towards that possibility.  They were looking at the ideas of may be in their own independent view, looking at the possibilities of encouraging Australia and the governments in the region possibly to come and provide some assistance to Solomon Islands. 
Quite frankly at that time, February 2003, I was not very confident in myself to express freely what I thought then because in any case such an important request extended to both the Governor General and the Speaker were not really the executive government of this country, considered at a time that I suppose is just another academic exercise by some interested people of no real consequence, and so my response to that request was not the way expected because they want us to have a joint response.  As a politician for sometimes and in terms of the context then prevailing, I felt that maybe I’d rather express my own views rather than have a joint expression with the Head of State or the representative of the Head of State on this issue, and so I went back with my little view to them that yes, we are at a stage where advice is no longer useful.  We have so many Australian advice around and they are just as good as no advice at all at this point in time, and if Australia really needs to come and help us, they need to come not merely at an advisory role but they must have some executive power and authority to come and do what they need to do, and be ready to have their hands dirty, I said in my response; not just it is interested advice, we’ve had enough of that.  And at this point in time truthfully, the analogy I shared then was that ‘a drowning man cannot save himself’ and Solomon Islands is at that stage.  We are at a stage where we are drowning and we cannot save ourselves with even the longest log floating past us.  And I was very, very pleased when immediately after that there were some official discussions at the executive level with the Australian Government and the executive with the governments of the region by the Prime Minister, I think it was in March or April at that time.  They were talking along the line of coming to help Solomon Islands on a broad based arrangement rather than a bilateral arrangement.  That is why Mr Chairman and committee members, I personally acknowledged the arrival of RAMSI in July of 2003 as a savior to Solomon Islands.  I was very pleased that they came at the time.  And my advice to the Australian High Commission then was that I don’t believe in 80 police officers as seem to have been suggested by Hugh White’s report.  I think you have to come the Solomon Islands way, you have to come our way so that you can meet us at our own level, and that is ‘shock and awe’ hence in my view they did and it was good at the time that they did because they were still so much arms around, there were still many people around who did not think peace.  They’ve tested power with guns supporting them and all that sort of thing at that stage and peace was the last thing in their minds, and so that was my advice.  Don’t bring 80 police officers, we’ve got more than 80 policemen here but they’re not doing anything.  But come with a number that would impress us from the beginning and will arrest the situation from the beginning.  
I was very pleased that they did and on the very first day I saw improvement on the streets of Honiara in terms of law and order as a result of the arrival.  Those of us who were dealing with the peace process at that time and were genuinely concerned for the welfare of this nation at the point were very pleased that Australia and the region should have had a heart to really come the way they came to help a friend, a member of the friendly region.  That was at the time, and things have changed, I know, but have they.  That’s the real question we are dealing with. 
We said things have changed, and in terms of law and order it’s pleasing to see that things have changed.  In terms of the judiciary it is actually now working to ensure that cases are being dealt.  Things have changed and in terms of the Parliament system that is being strengthened through RAMSI’s involvement and the UNDP, I am pleased that things have changed too in that regard.  
When I was listening to the debate of the Facilitation Act, I had my own questions as the Speaker of Parliament, but of course the Speaker of Parliament on the floor of Parliament is meant not to be heard.  He listens, observes and follows discussions on the floor of Parliament.  And I must congratulate Members of Parliament then who decided that we have a problem that we have to deal with, and we don’t have the capacity, we don’t have the ability ourselves to deal with it and the discussion was along that line. 
People were talking about sovereignty, but these days what is sovereignty.  You jump up and down about sovereignty when there does not seem to be any real sign of you having a sovereign authority over your own activities.  Sovereignty these days are quite relative, in my view in what’s happening and I am very pleased that they have a relaxed kind of attitude about what to allow to the law.  
People talk about parallel and alternative government created by the Facilitation Act, I can quite understand that.  And when RAMSI came in, I was the first one who was jumping up saying please don’t come and form another government because the Facilitation Act gives you some leeway to do that, I know because the Facilitation Act was created to be superior to all other laws of Solomon Islands except the Constitution.  The Facilitation Act gave control, independent control to the visiting contingencies.  The Facilitation Act provides for the kind of situation which, if not properly interpreted, could be seen as taking the government out of our hand.  But I quite appreciate it at that time it was meant by Parliament for a good reason so that they will work uninterrupted at a very difficult time, and that difficult time, some of it is still around us. 
Mr Chairman, my 20 minutes is up but that is what I would like to say by way of introduction.  I simply saw RAMSI as a savior at that time and I am grateful that there is a provision within the Act for review annually to give the opportunities both for Parliament and our people and all stakeholders to have a re-look at the activities from time to time throughout the year.  Thank you.

Mr Chairman: Thank you very much Sir Peter.  Let me start it off.  I think this is going to be perhaps quite a long interview.  Let’s go back pre RAMSI days.  What you are saying now is with a ‘shock and awe’, this is an intervention that we had to have, there’s no doubt about its history as we had to have it. 
You’ve also mentioned about the United Nations.  Would it have been different if we took the United Nations?  I think the United Nations is more peacekeepers.  This regional intervention, I guess is more than peacekeeping.  Some would say it is peace enforcement.  The civilian component, the military and the policing component, it is very special.  If we had the United Nations, would that have worked?  Or this was the only alternative we have, the regional package that we have?  Can you basically give us your impressions on that?

Sir Peter:  My view is that if we were to take the United Nations alternative, the basis of which they come would be different in the sense that the arrangement we have now came as a result of an Act of Parliament whereas the United Nations would have its own system of arrangement to come.  And as you were saying, Mr Chairman, there was no peace to keep if they were merely coming for peacekeeping role.  There was no peace to keep.  The place was anything but peaceful at that time, especially Honiara.  There were other, and I suppose that’s the beauty about having an island nation, there are other provinces out there enjoying relative peace and going about their own business and that sort of thing, but there’s no peace to keep in Honiara.  I feel that this was the best alternative that the government of the day has decided, not to allow invasion but to allow an intervention, allow it at the conditions set down by the government rather than being forced into either you have this or ‘take it or leave it’, kind of attitude.  The intervention part of it has been provided by an act of Parliament, which sovereignty was involved in the sense that we might be seemingly undermining our sovereignty, like some others would like to think but we’ve decided to do it that way.  I think it was the best way.

Mr Chairman:  Also RAMSI is basically 15 nations signed up on it and it’s all our Pacific neighbors and brothers who’ve come in.  Would it be different if it was just Australia or New Zealand or more of a bilateral intervention?  But we basically have a very multilateral intervention.  What do you think of that?

Sir Peter:  That’s why I considered this arrangement as the best arrangement because it has the island input because they understand our dispositions, our own lifestyles, looking at life, and the cultural differences not that accentuated.  If we have it the United Nations way, I suppose they’ll come to us the way they’ve always done it elsewhere where considerations might not necessarily be care for our culture and all these other things.  They’ve got a job to do and they come and do it the way they would normally do it elsewhere. 
I think the island content here is very useful and this has been very good.  Even Australians and New Zealanders have been island people for a long time and whether they pretend not to know it but they know our culture.  May be sometimes they would rather look differently.  Look the other way when they want to do their work but they know the island culture and the behavior of our people.

Mr Chairman:  In your opinion was the initial mandate of RAMSI appropriate in Solomon Islands circumstance at that the time and do you think RAMSI effectively fulfilled those initial mandate following its arrival?

Sir Peter:  In terms of bringing law and order and ensuring that as much as we are able to, we have collected the arms and ammunitions out there and stabilizing our finances, especially when pre RAMSI period some of us were not being paid for months even.  May be I still have some outstanding pays.  They stabilized our finances and they are now, of course, helping us to recover.  But my own view is, not quite the unfortunate, but the tendency to depend on RAMSI by Solomon Islands for everything.  RAMSI is not the government of this country.  We have to do it ourselves sometimes somewhere and we need to learn sooner than later.  But otherwise they’ve fulfilled their initial mandate for which they were required to come.

Mr Chairman:  That’s perhaps not a criticism of RAMSI but maybe it’s something that our national government needs to step up to the plate.  Would you say, Sir, that’s a fair comment?

Sir Peter:  Yes, that’s a very fair comment because RAMSI is not the Solomon Islands Government.  RAMSI is not a sovereignty.  We are dealing with an organization specifically intended under law for the purpose of which it has been invited.  Our sovereign friends, our bilateral friends we deal on an equal footing with them, and for this purpose we’ve decided to ask this particular arrangement to come and they will not be here for life.  That’s what I am trying to say.  They are aware of that, we are aware of that, and it’s nice to know the tendency in the current government is to operate in partnership with RAMSI.  But that’s a kind of policy language that we seem to be using.  We need to see the actual Act in the context of that kind of language. 

Hon Boyers:  There’s been a lot of talk about sovereignty and a parallel government.  We’ve asked previous speakers the role of RAMSI, and one of the answers we have was that if RAMSI leaves tomorrow or even if they stay, the problems would still be here because we never address the root causes of the ethnic tension. 
On the sovereignty and parallel government issue, some are saying that unless RAMSI deals with the root causes of the ethnic tension, this place will always remain in a status quo limbo, but at the same time, is it RAMSI’s responsibility to deal with the root causes.  On one hand we are saying don’t interfere, you have been a parallel government interfering with sovereignty and on the other hand we are saying that you should be basically dealing with issues that are sovereign to our country.  What are your thoughts on RAMSI’s role and responsibility in relation to the root causes of the ethnic tension?

Sir Peter:  The root causes of the ethnic tension will be with us for as long as Solomon Island is here because they are based on land matters, human prejudices, greed and selfishness, and all these sorts of things and they’ll be here as long as the Solomon Islands country exist.  We are different, we have our different cultures, 80 different languages speak of the fact that this is a very diverse country, and I don’t RAMSI is going to solve that, nor is it should be expected to solve it.  Well, it is not the government of this country; RAMSI is not the government of this country.  It is the government of this country that needs to set its policies right and make RAMSI fully understand that this is the way we want to go and so can you help us in whatever you can help us logistically, financially, personally, and all these other areas.  But the issue of human greed is a natural element of man and it will continue to be with us.  We try to think that may be education might help us over this difficult situation, but it has not so far done so.   We will continue to hopefully work at it may be at our own time and with understanding.  But we should not expect RAMSI to eliminate or solve the basic problems of Solomon Islands. 

Hon Tosika:  Sir, I understand that you chaired the TPA, and during the time before RAMSI came, already the two warring parties entered into a cease fire agreement.  Under the TPA certain agreements or conclusions were made that the two warring parties have to live by.  I also understand that the TPA has never been enforced in full strength and then we see RAMSI coming in.  May be the TPA has brought about some kind of restraints on both parties and also has given confidence on RAMSI to come into the country without encountering any militants because the militants have agreed with good faith to relinquish their arms and come to the table.  
In your thinking Sir Peter is it important for us to revisit the TPA to understand so that we fully go through the TPA to build the peace process, which you were the chairman of so that we can see people who during those days fighting against each other come to the understanding and realization so as to assist RAMSI.

Sir Peter:  I do not support revisiting the TPA because it would mean re-involvement of the militants in the process because that’s the other party to the TPA.  But what I’d like to see is for the government to understand that certain aspects of the TPA, which the militants appreciated when it was negotiated and on the basis of which they laid down their arms need to be followed up by the government.  You know the various rehabilitation programs, the various developmental programs on Malaita, Guadalcanal; wharves here, wharves there, roads develop - all the content of the TPA that brought the understanding amongst our boys to cease their activity needs to be taken up, not necessarily by the government of today but the government of the day, successive governments.  They should not lose sight of the contents of the TPA in terms of development aspirations of the people involved at that time.  But to re-involve them personally into it again, I find it even very difficult to call them to meetings when the TPA was still alive.  It was alive for only two years, and in my view it was good that we didn’t extend it because it’s coming to a stage where it was very difficult to get them to meetings and it’s very difficulty to hold them down to obligations and the terms of the TPA.  But I think it should be understood by the government that the reason for them ceasing at firing each other and bringing about peace are well documented in the TPA, and succeeding governments should not lose sight of that. 

Mr Chairman:  Are you saying now that we are now approaching where we are building back our nation, and nation building needs a more inclusive broad based approach where all Solomon Islanders from all parts of our country are involved in building of our nation.  Are you saying that is really the priority now?

Sir Peter:  That is a priority and it has to be guided by the government of the day.  But in terms of the TPA per se, the contents for which militants have laid down their arms are there, they are still in the TPA and they should not be lose site of because they will continue to refer to it.  And I think it’s good that it has been documented.

Hon. Ghiro:  Mr Speaker, we all know that RAMSI has been here for almost more than five years.  In your view has RAMSI had any positive impact on provincial assemblies throughout the country since its arrival?

Sir Peter:  If we were to go back to where we started, RAMSI came in for a very special purpose, and of course if they involved all provinces they should also be felt; their work and services should also be felt in all the provinces.  But if there are immediate reasons for coming in short of that, then I suppose it would be unrealistic to be expecting RAMSI to be felt in all provinces.  I think they serve where the immediate requirement of them was needed at that time.  But at the moment I am sort of hearing that there are programs to help provinces in strengthening them.  There is a strengthening program for our provinces, but as I said if were thinking along the line of developing the provinces, then of course it’s our government that must take the lead in terms of its policy guidelines for

RAMSI or any other development partner who may wish to come to our assistance.  I think we can have the benefits of RAMSI if we are very clear in our policies and we share it with them.
I seem to sense too that when they are not very clear on policy guidelines, they are here to do certain work they’ll go and do it.  May be that is when we see some parallel activities or them running ahead of us or that sort of thinking.  But if we are very clear in government policies and say this is our policy so please help us out with this policy, I’m sure they will do so. 
They’ve been here five years admittedly and they’ve done a lot of good work.  They are getting into development, projects, they are work now but quite obviously doing so, in my view, half heartedly because there are no development agents.  We need to guide them, we need to involve them before they act that way.  That’s my own personal observation, which might not mean anything.  But they are here to help us.

Mr Chairman:  Sir, your observations taken onboard are very acute. 

Hon. Tosika:  Sir, as all of us are well aware under the Notice there is definition of ‘public purpose’ and I think this public purpose has been achieved.  It’s one of the mainstays of the Act and that’s restoring law and order in Solomon Islands.  And in restoring law and order in Solomon Islands there are some areas based on the fact that Solomon Islands is a diverse country and also on the basis that we are a communal and cultural society where a lot of things are meaningful to us.  In some cases because of the definition of public purpose, RAMSI is very strong in justifying their purpose in here in the carrying out their duties they are bound to do here without due consideration to our cultures and norms.  For example, in our culture even if our children are married we would still love them, we would keep them in our houses and still feed them, unlike the western countries where when a child turns 18 years old he/she becomes independent and can go his/her own ways.  This is causing conflict in terms of the definition of ‘public purpose’.  
We know that this happened in a recent case where two couples were arrested because they harbored a criminal who is their son.  This is a situation that I would like to know your opinion on.  We want peace to prevail and there is harmonious and peaceful co-existence in the community.  One is general public purpose and the other is communal and also our norms and customs that we still have for our children. . 

Sir Peter:  Thank you honorable Member.  When we asked for RAMSI’s help and assistance in the area of law and order, it was specifically law and order.  We did not specify culture in Solomon Islands.  We have to be very careful about culture because that is human obviously.  When we give them the authority in the area of law and order they must operate as any law enforcement authority would act in any situation.  I suppose that’s what they’ve been doing.  I think it is good that we see the difference between law and order enforcement and the judiciary.  Let the Police do their work and the Judiciary decides whether their work is right.  They’ve apprehended someone for a good reason, with evidence and things like that.  Let us not think that every case the Police brings before the court would be satisfied according to Police thinking.  That’s not so.  The independence of the Judiciary is such that they will decide on matters of law at that time.  
It’s true that they are operating within different Solomon Islands cultural situation, and we can hope that there is some understanding of our culture.  But where does culture ends and crime starts and who is responsible for apprehending crime?  It is very true that they are working in a very difficult situation in terms of cultural context. 

Hon Boyers:  The Committee is aware that some have questioned the legal status of RAMSI as an international body.  In your opinion, does the fact that the term Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands or RAMSI is not in the Facilitation Act or the Treaty have any bearing on the legality of RAMSI’s presence and operations in the country? 

Sir Peter:  I am not a lawyer.  That’s a very legal question, but my own personal view is that RAMSI is a trade name for operation under the Act.  It has been used that way anyway in my layman’s observation.  Of course, in the Act we refer to the visiting contingencies and contingent, and all that but they’ve decided administratively to develop a name under which they operate and RAMSI has become, in my view, the trade name.  But the legality of it, let the legal boys answer that question. 

Mr Chairman:  As you know the CNURA Government has recently established the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Committee knows that the government poses to establish a commission of inquiry into the conflict of 1998 to 2003. 
Given that such bodies deal with the reasons that eventually brought RAMSI to our shores, do you think RAMSI should play a part to assist such bodies?  If so how could RAMSI assist the whole idea this thing is, I assume, and if you can touch on this question whether we can actually have peace before justice?  I’d like to hear your comments on that please?

Sir Peter:  I suppose in terms of Solomon Islands culture its justice before peace - compensation before shaking of hands.  But the involvement of RAMSI in the Commission of Inquiry, I think it will be an independent status to be involved because maybe our own local police might not be seen in that light.  In terms of independence and involving and helping with the inquiry, RAMSI should be able to help.  Certainly, logistically they are always willing to help because they’ve got the means, but beyond that I suppose it’s for the commissioners to guide those who’ve been involved in such an inquiry. 

Hon. Boyers:  Much has been said of what RAMSI could do to help Solomon Islands and Solomon Islands people and government.  It was raised by some, particularly by the Office of the Auditor General that corruption at the government level continues to persist.  Do you think successive governments, since RAMSI’s arrival, have done enough about corruption to make RAMSI’s work lighter and what more can the government do to minimize corruption and bring those responsible to account if SIG is to play its part of the RAMSI/SIG partnership?

Sir Peter:  Corruption is a word that has developed in recent times in our country and seems to have stuck with us. 
I think RAMSI under its program has been doing what it can.  For example, they’ve been helping the Auditor General’s Office from two staff member from the day they arrived to now 20 staff or whatever.  I understand too that they’ve been helping with the Ombudsman’s Office in terms of personnel, they’ve been helping with the Leadership Code Commission in terms of personnel too.  I don’t know whether improvements needs to be done, not necessarily at the personnel level but the basic legal instruments that gives authority and independence to these various bodies to do their work properly.  But that is the only way to improve this body, improve their independence under the legal instrument that help them do their work and provide the personnel they needed so that they are able to do their work. 
Apart from that, they will continue to find difficulty to really apply themselves fully and the situation of corruption will continue to be a worry to us all the time.  But I’ve been particularly pleased with the Office of the Auditor General, for example, it’s been reporting quite well and other law enforcement agencies of the government need to pick that from them. 

Mr Chairman:  Do you think Solomon Islands is ready to see the rearmament of its local Police Force?  Do you think it is wise to reintroduce private ownership of firearms after five years of RAMSI’s guidance?  There are two questions there.

Sir Peter:  I think as a sovereign nation, our law that provides for the use of arms is still there, we’ve not repealed it.  I think we are ready to reintroduce arms for our Police, especially in the presence of RAMSI.  I mean to it gradually so that we know we can handle these things ourselves before we say goodbye to our friends.
What is happening now is that we’ve disarmed the nation, we’ve disarm the government and it would be very nice if we are living in a Utopian society to continue that way.  But the reality of life is such that there’ve been a lot of work for our policemen but with help some of the things they might need for their work as well.  My view is that it would be wise to gradually introduce some of these things to our own men when RAMSI’s presence is with us.

Mr Chairman:  How about private ownership of firearms?

Sir Peter:  I think I would be very bias here that we might as well forget that. 

Hon Boyers:  You remind me that in 2005 I was invited to the Goroka Gun Summit as an impact speaker for the UNDP from Solomon Islands on guns.  I think the perspective in agreeing with you is that as a country that professes to be peaceful, the presence of arms is not necessary, although we do have problems with crocodiles.  But it was mentioned there that, I think in one of the lines on the Lord’s Prayer that our job is to make heaven on earth and that in heaven there are no guns.  I think the battle we are looking at is do we really need guns.  If we are a peaceful people, living with the challenges and with customs that can deal with the relationship of people, do we really need guns in our society. 
This comes to the second point on how to defend our borders, and I suppose that’s the challenges we all have.  But when you have to defend the border with a gun, it shows that you don’t have friendly neighbors. 
I think your comments are very well noted in the true spirit of Solomon Islands.  We’ve mentioned a lot about how people see RAMSI carrying guns around.  Just the presence of guns even though it’s a friendly force still ignites fear amongst the mothers and children within our community.  Would you like to see the gradual phase out of weapons or guns within the RAMSI Mission?

Sir Peter:  Some of these questions are very hypothetical.  We are living in a real world and we do have people whose profession is such that they are expected to be equipped with these things.  And that goes for our own police officers as well.  
I do not think that we should be fearful of RAMSI carrying guns around, because that’s part of their work and they know how to use it; they are trained to use it.  I think the fear that has been given against our own men was the lack of trust that has come in since the tension. 
At one stage we had the very best police officers in the South Pacific, and we even started off with a police constabulary when the colonial police officers were equipped, they carried guns, and it was may be in the early fifties that we did away with carrying of guns.  I’m not advocating them carrying guns in the streets, but I’m allowing them to know that it’s part of their equipment when necessary, especially even riot gears.  I haven’t seen riot gear amongst our police officers now.  We are really working on trust at the moment.  If trust really prevail then that’s not a problem but we are not living in an ideal world, there’s always a practical world and we must be aware of at what we need to equip our police officers or our law enforcement officers.  We need to consider this carefully.  At the moment we’ve disarmed our nation.

Hon Boyers:  Just adding on to that.  Since we’ve disarmed the nation, the issue of compensation to gun owners, do you think it’s the government’s responsibility to compensate those that have surrendered their weapons, the general public that is or is it a RAMSI responsibility or is it a joint responsibility? 

Sir Peter:  I feel it’s a government responsibility.  It’s the government’s decision the RAMSI did what they did and it’s the government that must take on that responsibility, and I am happy that the current government is talking about compensating those who have been unjustly deprived of their property.

Hon Soalaoi:  Just a short question.  In terms of the operation and administration of the National Parliament Office and we are talking about RAMSI since its arrival, has there been any assistance to by RAMSI in the running of the office?

Sir Peter:  We do have a project called the Parliamentary Strengthening Program, which RAMSI and UNDP are helping us financially to strengthen our capacity in terms of manpower, equipments, and technology.  I think one of the government agencies that has benefited practically from RAMSI’s presence, of course along with the UNDP is the Parliament Office, and so we are very please with that.

Hon Boyers:  There’s has been a quite a lot of talk about other countries in the region joining RAMSI.  Do you think Solomon Islands and RAMSI would benefit from the addition of new members to RAMSI? 
Sir Peter:  I think it would be good to have a broad based arrangement, and it must be a good arrangement for other countries or the region wanting to be part it.  So I see no reason why we should shut our doors to Japan and others who might like to join in to help logistically, in personnel, financially.  I hope they are not just coming to fly their own flags for reasons best known to themselves and forget the essence of their presence here.  But, of course, that is much more the behavior of the bilateral arrangement because they talk the thing in terms of sovereignty.  When they absorb together in the multilateral arrangements or international body, I suppose they are dictated by the agreement of that body.  I think if joining in would boost our resources for the benefit of this country, then I see no reason why we should shut the door against them.

Hon Tosika:  Sir, we are five years down the ladder already when RAMSI is here, in your view how long do you think RAMSI should remain in Solomon Islands?  I have a fear here that if RAMSI stays too long in the country then it would create a society that is unproductive and creating the dependency syndrome and the country will not realize its potentials or realize its own importance and they will not have dignity and right over themselves. 
In your thinking, because the worrying part is if we go for another 10 years, another five more years then that means half of the time we have been independent, 15 years.  That’s half of 30 years since we gained our independence, which to me if we have to go for that half it means they would exceed their stay in here.  That perception and thinking would creep in and will become a norm or become a mainstay in the minds of all in Solomon Islands who are coming up and experiencing the luxury kind of life where they are only dependent and waiting for handouts and aid money to be given to them and therefore proper utilization of resources will not come about.

Sir Peter:  I think that’s a very important point.  I acknowledge the fact that RAMSI’s presence here should not be on the basis of creating the dependency syndrome.  Their presence here should be dictated by the desire of the government and their need to be here as seen by the government of the day.  As you’ve said if we are not careful we will just be dependent on RAMSI to do the other things.  That is why I was saying that whilst we talk in terms of partnership, it’s the government that must take the lead all the time and RAMSI must be seen to be as a partner helping the government to resolve or achieve its desired and planned objectives, but it must be led by the government of the day.  If not what you’ve said is very really and we don’t want to allow that because our Solomon Islands tendency is that we enjoy handouts. 

Mr Chairman:  I think that’s everywhere in the world.

(laughter)

Mr Chairman:  Just to add to that.  Because we could have this dependency syndrome, what would you suggest to include in our partnership framework negotiation that are perhaps taking place at this stage?  What would you like to include in the framework?  Is it conditions based time line or what? 

Sir Peter:  I think some timeline proposals might be useful to measure our performance.  But sometimes these kinds of arrangements can be abused too by various ones.  For example, if I want to stay as long as I like here I’ll just cause you to be unable to perform so that I will continue to say that you are not ready.  But I think it’s nice to have some indications of transitional arrangement in certain situations or certain areas.  For example, if certain personnel are here for three years, some transitional arrangements are put in place to ensure that at the end of those three years, we do have someone in place that will be performing just as well if not better than what the person has left.  I think some guidance is important and we must be honest and fear about it.  We must not play the idea of saying if you want me to go at a certain time and so or I’ll just mark time in this particular area to show that you are not capable and therefore you need me to continue  I think certain fairness needs to be seen in whatever arrangement.  But I don’t think people outside would like to stay in Solomon Islands as long as we have the ability and the capacity to do it ourselves because that would be very obvious, in my view, that people are biting time for their own convenience, we will soon find out.  But if they are here for a need that the government sees and it’s obvious, we’ll also know it as well.  That’s why an exit strategy has pros and cons, against and for it if we are not careful. 

Mr Chairman:  I actually agree with you in a way that the people that I talk to in my capacity before as a foreign minister was that they are genuine in wanting to help us.  Of course, there are also budgetary constraints and their foreign policies and things like, but there is genuineness and I understand that as well.

Hon Boyers:  This should be my last question.  When we interviewed the head of SICA, the Christian Association, and he brought a lot of question of mortality in an imperfect world, and officially that’s what this committee is dealing with - our imperfectness.  But it was evident that during the ethnic tension, the churches played a major role in the process of peace and reconciliation.  In your view, do you think the churches should be formally recognized by RAMSI and SIG in any peace and reconciliation initiatives?

Sir Peter:  I do believe in that.  I do believe in that, not because they were involved in the peace process but they are very close to the people.  There are church pastors and clergy in every village and they’ve got their own structure right down to the village people and we need to take advantage of that.  If there needs to be some formal recognition then there is need to bring that about.  They are good at it too because that’s one of the messages they know that they are here to bring about reconciliation. 

Mr Chairman:  The last question from me, and it’s about immunity in the Facilitation Act; immunities, extensive powers and privileges.  What’s your opinion on that?  Is it appropriate still?

Sir Peter:  I think immunity is appropriate.  They are not only immunities but privileges as well that involves taxation, import duties and all that are covered under the Facilitation Act.  But in my view, and I suppose it’s not light hearted comment, but as a Solomon Islander we may show our friends too that we appreciate their presence by being helpful to them too, so that we do not demand from them to excessively pay our import duties and all that sort of things.  Immunities in terms of their work, in my view, is normal elsewhere in those kinds of work.  If we frustrate them too much, they might use it as a reason not to be here. 
I hope they are not listening in to hear me saying this because they might take advantage of it.  But I feel that out of the good heart of the government, it has allowed certain privileges like import duties, taxation, income tax and all that sort of thing.  And since it is a regional and almost an international body, those privileges are quite normal. 
I served for a while at the FFA and I was given those privileges where you can import whatever you like, but I didn’t take advantage of it because I have no money to start importing anything.  So it’s part of the nature of the kind of work they are here to do, and we need to see it in that context rather than being sulky about taking too much money out of us and not giving us money and all that sort of thing.  Solomon Islands custom is that if someone helps you, you will also help him too, and that’s not corruption.

Mr Chairman:  I’m not trying to have a crystal ball at what the national government is doing now, but I got the inkling that they might want to extend RAMSI’s mandate more into the development agenda.  Do you like that idea?

Sir Peter:  I like that idea subject to what the Member for West Honiara said that we are not depending on RAMSI to do everything for us.  RAMSI, in my view and my understanding is that they’ll have to do that if we are happy about giving them that because the question is that we are giving what really is government role in the development of this country.  They might say, “Is it possible you can give us that”. 

Mr Chairman:  I thought if we going to get a whole bunch of infrastructure done in our country, whoever gives it, I don’t really care, just take it because we may not get another opportunity.  That’s my view.

Sir Peter:  In the past we used to have armed forces come and build our wharves, airfields and all those sorts of things.  

Mr Chairman:  Do you think that’s possibly why there are lots of investors now in RAMSI from other countries, purely looking more at infrastructural approach?

Sir Peter:  But at the same time I hope it’s not a reflection of the view of these other people not trusting the government of Solomon Islands, and hoping that someone they trust will receive their money and do it.  We need to be very careful about that. 

Mr Chairman:  Has RAMSI being careful about this issue that they really don’t want to step on what the government or what traditional donors are doing?

Sir Peter:  I know that because I hear it too.  It is possible that we can do this sort of thing without us being the government of the Solomon Islands.  They love it.  I mean they’ve been building prisons, building our courts, hospitals, roads, and all those sorts of things so why not allow them to continue in an extended role. 

Mr Chairman:  Do we have any more questions?  We really appreciate your time, Sir, and thank you for participating, Sir Peter Kenilorea, the Speaker of National Parliament.

 

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF WOMEN

Mr Chairman:  Honorable Members of the Foreign Relations Committee,  Hilda Kari, President of the National Council of Women,  Sarah Dyer and Ella Kahue, officials of the National Council of Women,
Stakeholders and members of the public: welcome to the final session of today’s hearing.  Thank you very much for accepting our invitation to make a presentation to our Committee on this inquiry into and review of matters relating to the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands (RAMSI). 
The Committee acknowledges the work of the National Council of Women in this country as a quasi-government body.  This Committee has heard from other institutions within the Civil Society including the Solomon Islands Christian Association and Transparency Solomon Islands, and so we look forward to your contribution to our inquiry.  We certainly hope that you will accurately enlighten us on the views of those you represent on RAMSI. 

Before we continue, I wish to remind you that the evidence you submit in this hearing is protected by parliamentary privilege and cannot be used against you in any legal proceedings.  Moreover, please note that this hearing is being recorded by One News to be televised tonight and that the SIBC is also broadcasting our proceedings today live.  Let us proceed with the hearing.
We will first hear a presentation from the witnesses, after which, members of this Committee will ask questions of the witness.  Could I now ask the witnesses to please state your names for the record and to please proceed with your opening statements if you wish?

Mrs Kari:  Thank you very much Honorable Chan for this opportunity.  I shall ask my members to introduce themselves and I shall start with the lady on my right.

Mrs Sarah Dyer:  Thank you Chairman, I’m Serah Dyer and I look after the Women’s Leadership Desk with the National Council of Women.

Mrs Ella Kahue:  Thank you Chair, I am Ekla Kahue and I’m the General Secretary of the National Council of Women.

Mrs Hilda Kari:  And I’m Mrs Kari the current President of the Solomon Islands National Council of Women.

Mr Chairman:  Thank you and you may start your presentation.

Mrs Kari:  Thank you Chairman, I shall start the session and my two colleagues later on will try to answer all the questions the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Foreign Relations will ask us this afternoon. 
This brief submission will start with just an acknowledgement to date by the Solomon Islands National Council of women.  RAMSI equates Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands as the words imply a regional body with a mission to help people of Solomon Islands.  I will try to express this word “mission” so that our submission will make sense to the Committee this afternoon. 
I would liken it to an example, a mission by my church to reach out with the Gospel of Jesus Christ which is about love to a dying world.  It is to rescue people from the world and its wickedness and problems.
When RAMSI arrived here in 2003, life for women became much safer.  That is the comment by women over time during our national executive meetings and other meetings held by women in Solomon Islands. 
Freedom to move around without being afraid came back.  Women felt that there is protection they can rely on.  Women saw their children back to schools, schools reopened, stores were reopened and people were able return to work trusting that it is safe.  In acknowledging these positive things, it is important for women of Solomon Islands to say so. 
RAMSI’s No. 1 Mission had some immediate results and some medium term results when they arrived in this country.  But this afternoon I would like to submit the long term sustainability of law and order, which is what women in Solomon Islands would like to see, happen. 
For long term, the questions are still to have answers.  Is the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force trained well enough to carry out policing work neutrally, effectively and efficiently?  Is the Royal Solomon Island Police Force ready to take over policing without relying on RAMSI, and if not yet why?  Has RAMSI carried out training of officers that can cover policing in the whole of Solomon Islands as a country?  Are women going to form half of the Police Force in order for policing to be effective in Solomon Islands? 
I would also like to, on behalf of the Solomon Island National Council of Women, raise some concerns that still remain.  There is lack of total discipline in police officers because they chew betel nut when in uniform, they smoke when in uniform, they story tell and stand around chatting with public while in uniform, very different from building public confidence if that is what they are trying to do in their behavior.  When they do such things they create carelessness in the public eye and not really concentrating on the job of bringing back confidence in our own Police Force of the country. 
Women are also concerned about police work in terms of underage young girls entering places like the Top 10 Club, the Aloha Club, without any restraint by police officers.  Instead it is the Police who allow the girls entry for their own good pleasure.  Instead of escorting these young underage girls back to where they should go, which is to their parents or guardians in Honiara, they just watch them break the law of underage entry into such places.
            Women are still victims of abuse by men and not being apprehended by law.  Some women in the provinces have brought to attention that often they see police officers in the provinces not even trying to deal with foreign companies practicing illicit sex with very young girls.  They cannot know these things happening because they sit down and do nothing, absolutely nothing in many of the provincial police post. 
There may not be huge conflicts from the period 1998 to 2002, but we’d like to submit that all over the country even today there are daily conflicts in the villages, in the homes, in social gatherings, in the families amongst women over 02s, in men over 02s and there are conflicts that can flare up.  These conflicts can flare up once again if not addressed.  And who is to address such?  We, women are concerned that little conflicts can flare into big ones. 
As a women led member of the National Peace Council who was thrown out to bring in the none active Peace and Integrity Council, I find that the strategy plan that was set by this Council was the only strategy that could sustain real lasting peace in this country through its strategic connections with people on the ground in all of our villages throughout Solomon Islands.  Even if RAMSI leaves, the NPC can still continue with the work of conflict resolution until the whole country is covered. 
As a women representative in that Council, I found that all kinds of conflict came through which were successfully dealt with, and which made the conflicting parties able to go out the one door, rather than two doors.  That is the measure of true reconciliation.
Women are very active peace builders, but when it comes to established organizations, women are the ones that are left out in participating or if they are involved in anyway, it is always one odd figure in the room, and people wonder why are conflicts escalating. 
I would like to also submit on behalf of the women of Solomon Islands on governance.  When RAMSI arrived in 2003, almost all government officers were empty of staff at work.  Many officers remain in their villages; even social and essential services such as schools hospitals and clinics were malfunctioning.  Many women especially could not turn up to work and even are afraid to go to clinics even though RAMSI was here, especially those who experienced threats to their lives and their families.  Those people who were strong and careless however used the opportunity to take advantage of the situation to use criminal ways to take money from the Treasury by force.  Treasury officers were help up at gunpoint to payout public funds to criminals, while the public servants suffered and struggled to survive. 
Corruption was rife, and there were no proper systems to secure public funds.  Leaders and people alike used corruption as a way to gain, but such activities were unchecked and so continued without any restraint.  Even the elections that were held in 2001, where some women also contested were full of criminal activities such as threats to candidates and voters alike.  As a woman who contested the 2001 elections, I had threats from ex-militants using the name of people like Harold Keke against me and also other militants who supported other candidates using similar threats.  I had to be brave to stand against such behaviors. 
Gentlemen and committee members, it is important that these things are brought out into the open.  Painfully and slowly the environment in government offices and buildings become normal, public servants return to full duties and the government becomes functional again.  In short term measure, the government becomes active again with law and order back to the offices.
I want to raise governance in medium term, especially in terms of the machinery of government.  RAMSI has the mission to help Solomon Islands in the areas of good governance or even just governing.  There are three tiers in our system; Parliament, the politician arm which is the legislature where laws are made and unmade.  The Executive, which is the cabinet headed by a Prime Minister with 22 Ministries headed by Ministers, and this is where government work is carried out for people in Solomon Islands.  It is to our belief as a council that many RAMSI personnel are now present in many of these ministries helping out to ensure that government work is carried out in order that services reach people of Solomon Islands.  Judiciary is the legal and policing body in the country. 
The Parliament, women believe and will continue to believe that a country without women in its Parliament is still an uncivilized country.  How can 50% of the population in Solomon Islands not be represented in such an important highest institution in the land.  Many issues can be addressed effectively by women if they are in parliament.  Many issues in terms of peace and order especially affecting women and young girls cannot be effectively or positively addressed by male leaders for it is not possible for them to understand issues concerning them. 
The Solomon Islands National Council of Women is not witnessing any form of assistance so far from RAMSI to assist the women’s umbrella organization in addressing this important area of women in leadership that we have been struggling so long to address, and that is getting women into Parliament.  ‘Women in leadership’ is most crucial to Solomon Islands achieving good governance. 
The executive – the Solomon Islands National Council of Women on behalf of women understand that RAMSI is holding posts in mainline ministries.  This is good but also not good, especially if we are going to look at long term sustainability of the ability and effectiveness in the work of government in this country, and therefore it is our submission that there should be a timeline on how long RAMSI personnel should hold these posts, and if they go Solomon Islands will be able to continue the work. 
The Solomon Islands National Council of Women still does not understand why the machinery of government should also be doing ‘women in leadership’ and going out to the provinces creating women groups when there is already an umbrella organization that needs assistance at all levels. 

Provincial Government

RAMSI must be aware that provinces are the worst when it comes to good governance, and this is not because of bad leadership.  Provinces do not have the right environment in which they can perform to achieve the best results to look after people they represent in their provinces.  If RAMSI is to do justice, then RAMSI must be seen as helping to also improve the working environment and working together with provincial governments. 
What would NCW want to see?  First, it wants RAMSI to help Solomon Islanders build confidence in themselves by being mentors in fields where local counterparts are available.  Second, it wants RAMSI and Solomon Island Government to put their heads together and find solutions to create opportunities for young Solomon Islanders to be more involved in economic building through schemes such as bringing into Solomon Islands skilled trainers from other countries to train young people to become artisans, mechanics, plumbers, outboard motor mechanics, roadwork skills to harvest our own forest resources, marine resources, on how to use our timber for secondary products, to be good cooks, store keepers, chefs, tourist, attendants and so forth. 
Thirdly, it wants the Solomon Islands Government and RAMSI to work together to spread equal opportunities to all provinces to stop the drifting into Honiara because Honiara is becoming very populated. 
Fourthly, it wants RAMSI and SIG to help villages and rural areas to continue improve in their living standards through economic building that is important for women of Solomon Islands.  There are certain documents that RAMSI and the Solomon Islands Government should check to ensure what kind of developments are prone to peace and what kinds are prone to conflict, and that such documents are available and I believe that they should be consulted at all times whenever developments happen.  For example, the PCDA is a document that talks about peace and conflict development analysis.  There is a document that I would like to suggest also for purposes of sustainable law and order and peace to truly return to the Happy Isles.  Women of Solomon Islands would like to see RAMSI and the Government of Solomon Islands working hand in hand until the time comes for RAMSI to take off and go home.  If there are any questions, Mr Chairman I shall allow my two colleagues to answer them.  Thank you very much.

Mr Chairman:  Thank you very much Mrs Kari.  I think at the outset let me just remind everyone including our committee to keep out of naming persons, companies, and private persons out of the discussion.  
I have one question and I will hand over to my committee for any other questions.  The year 2010 is coming up in one and a half years time.  Do you think a woman Prime Minister in this country in 2010 would do a better job in the peace process in our country?

Mrs Kari:  That is a very tall question for us to answer.  However, I would say anyone with a heart for people in this country can make it to either a president or prime ministership level and women can do it.  Thank you.

Mr Chairman:  Good answer.

Hon. Boyers:  Just a basic question.  What do you understand to be the roles and functions of RAMSI?

Mrs Kari:  Thank you for that question.  As I’ve said in my submission, RAMSI has a mission, and one which they have successfully fulfilled in 2003 and which they need to sustain is to ensure that law and order in this country continues to be enjoyed by all of us.  That’s number one. 
May be it is what we want to see as a role but may I say that one of the roles that we women see RAMSI is in the area of trying to help our government to see opportunities that are available that they can use their skills and their knowledge to pass on to this country in the area of economic development. 

Mrs Kahue:  Can I just make additional comments here.  I think RAMSI came in first of all to bring law and order back to the country, and at the same time this nation is expecting a lot from RAMSI.  Looking at the services that RAMSI is delivering, I think the government has to really work very closely otherwise certain services that the government of this country should be delivering to the people will be done by RAMSI on their behalf.  I think if you look at the governance, you look at a lot of activities that RAMSI is taking on today.  I think it should be really building the capacity of the people of this country and the government to undertake those rather than depending on RAMSI for these services.  Thank you.

Mrs Dyer:  Thank you Chair and committee members.  I would like to add on to what Mrs Kari and Ell have mentioned.  The work that RAMSI has been doing since their arrival, it is starting to make people see that there are two different programs running at the same time.  There are the services run by the government and services run by RAMSI.  I’ll give a fine example of this.  RAMSI is helping to fund some roads like on Malaita and it is getting people and communities in Malaita confused.  That is why they are questioning the government why is RAMSI doing this and not the government.  I just wanted to allude to what Ella has said that services that are being provided now although not big, but there are services being done or given to communities down there and it is confusing people.  That is why we continue to hear our communities asking what is the National Government doing and what is RAMSI doing.  It’s like two different groups providing services to our communities.  Thank you.

Hon. Boyers:  I would like to comment on that Chairman.  I think that’s the perception and reality.  I think what we are saying is a one off situation that has resulted over years, may be in 2004.  When I was a finance Minister I had a meeting with the World Bank, the ADB and AusAID and they asked me a fundamental question on what I thought was the greatest and immediate need for Solomon Islands that donors can assist.  I said to the donors, and this is specifically to the head AusAID that the greatest need now is to put necessary infrastructure on Malaita and Guadalcanal to give the people the opportunity to get to the market, get to the schools and get to clinics.  I think the perception there is a one off, and it’s coming to a close.  I think the important position is may be AusAID led in that direction, but the important position that people need to know is how the Solomon Islands Government is going to maintain those roads and maintain those services for the people.  I think we have a great opportunity when that happens.  What we don’t want to see is for AusAID to continue building roads and the Solomon Islands Government not doing it. 
I think your point is very relevant and I think it’s the concern of all of us.  What is the role of the government while it has partnership with RAMSI and that brings us to the next question?  How would you like to see RAMSI engaging with the National Council of Women in ensuring the development of mothers and young women in this country? 

Mrs Dyer:  Like I said earlier on we don’t need to confuse our communities even more.  The Solomon Islands National Council of Women have already established women’s organizations that have been there for years.  We would like to see RAMSI help to put in funds and work through these already established organizations.  The National Council of Women, which is the established body of women, has been struggling all along because it also looks after the nine provincial councils of women including Honiara City.  All these times we’ve been asking and we’ve had assistance from AusAID.  But since 2005, they told us that they are no longer going to help.  And with this RAMSI program called the machinery of government and women in government strategy, we are now seeing them also conducting similar programs or what the National Council of Women should be doing through its provincial councils of women, and this is building the capacity of women leaders whether it be in the government or in the NGOs.  I for one would really want to see RAMSI working through the already established women’s organizations, women’s institutions through the Ministry of Women Youth and Children to build up the capacity of women’s organizations that are already there. 
We have our programs and if they would want to help, they must help through those programs instead of creating their own programs and causing more confusion to the women and the people of this country.  Thank you.

Ms Kahue:  I just want to make some additional comments here.  I think half of the question would be thrown back to the government.  I believe that whatever initiative RAMSI wants to take in this country, the government has some influence.  Often, I think the challenge here is that when you ask that kind of question, you have to know the status of the Solomon Islands National Council of Women in this country.  People look at it as very political and I think that political part of it poses some sort of threat to the government, I believe, in the past.  
To really put that question forward, the National Council of Women is a NGO and we have an established Ministry of Women, Youth and Children’s Affairs and I think RAMSI is working directly with that Ministry. 
When we look at who is delivering the services, I think the Ministry of Women Youth and Children Affairs should be the body delivering services as expected.  The National Council of Women is a NGO and I think that is why RAMSI, as I heard, can work through the Ministry and it shows very clearly through one of the components within the machinery of government, which is ‘women in government’.  If RAMSI thinks highly of the work of the National Council of Women, we don’t need that, but we need the Ministry of Women to work directly with the machinery of government and implementation will come down to the National Council of Women and we would be able to deliver or implement the activities of RAMSI at the national level and the provincial level.

Mrs Kari:  I’d like to thank my two colleagues.  An important factor is that I’d like to see RAMSI helping, not only the Ministry of Women, Youth and Children, which is also our area of concern throughout Solomon Islands but also in terms of using the Council to deliver services, especially for women who are very poor in terms of health facilities and in areas of nutrition.  As we know, food security in this country is very important and we’d like to have RAMSI personnel to also assist NGO Women organizations.  The National Council of Women has the structures that can unable that.  At the moment we do not have the financial capacity even to reach out to many of the areas that we’d like to reach.

Mr Chairman:  Do you think it’s appropriate that RAMSI works with the NGOs?

Mrs Kari:  Certainly, they have not been really working as such with NGO but in relation to certain issues or certain areas they’d like to deliver on they often come for consultations with women’s organizations.

Mr Chairman:  I am just thinking, perhaps it might be a conflict of interest there.

Hon. Tosika:  President, earlier on today when you made your presentation, you talked about RAMSI to work closely with the government.  The government at present is developing a partnership framework, what do you want to see happen to the government and RAMSI in this partnership arrangement they are entering into?

Mr Chairman:  Just before you answer questions, please state your names for the sake of recording in our Hansard please?

Mrs Dyer:  Thank you Committee Member for the question.  Regarding the development of the partnership framework, I think I would like to see it to go ahead and to be properly implemented.  It would be good, like I said before we have a very high rate of illiteracy in the country.  And when things are not clear to our people they are confused, they asked questions, and they accused either the government or Members of Parliament, Provincial Members and leaders.  With what you’ve just asked, I for one would want to see it go ahead and to be done properly between the two, and not end up again one doing something else and another one doing another thing.  It must show to the people that they are really working in partnership

Hon. Tosika:  What I really want to get at is that at the moment the government and RAMSI are entering into a partnership framework, what do you want as recommendations for the government to include in this partnership agreement?  That’s the essence of my question.

Ms Kahue:  I think the government has ratified certain international conventions and it seems like throughout the years nothing has been done on those conventions like, for example the CEDO – Convention on the Elimination and Discrimination against Women.  Nothing much has been done about that and there is an increase of domestic violence in Solomon Islands and also the CRC.  When we talk about partnership these are issues affecting the women of Solomon Islands, and I think the government has to consider looking back at those international conventions and see where women are.  You talk about RAMSI and you talk about the government, but the issues affecting women of this country negatively is increasing. 
I would really like to see in that framework to address may be gender component to be clearly stated and that RAMSI can help as well as the government work towards that.  I would say that as very important.  Thank you.

Mrs Kari:  I’d like to also add to that important question on partnership.  What I’d like to see is that RAMSI has a mission, and that mission is to assist leaders and Solomon Islanders alike.  In terms of planning and action plans by the government, I’d like to see RAMSI working alongside counterparts that can easily enable our government to ensure those plans are carried out effectively and efficiently for our own people of Solomon Islands.  That’s what I’d like to see in terms of this partnership framework.

Hon. Soalaoi:  I guess whatever we want from RAMSI is based on what they can do within their mandate.  Of course, their mandate is very important in their engagement on whatever they become involved in. 
The current partnership framework the two are working is trying to see where RAMSI can come into the government’s priority areas.  It’s now trying to iron out areas that they are sometimes labeled as running parallel programs.  That framework if done without the review of the Act, I personally think it won’t be possible because we all know that RAMSI must only do what it’s mandated to do. 
In your view, as the National Council of Women, what do you want to see – do you want RAMSI’s mandate to be broadened to cater, especially for gender issues?  I’m not really sure but it may probably be covered under the current mandate of RAMSI.  Do you want to see that mandate broadened so that RAMSI can be involved in some other things that can probably cater for issues affecting women? 
Some people are thinking that may be it’s time to talk about an exit strategy for RAMSI.  What do you see?  Do you want us to talk about an exit strategy or is it better for us to talk about broadening that mandate so that issues affecting women are catered for?  I do not believe the current mandate would allow us to get in, especially when talking about women it involves a lot of things. 
We can talk about domestic issues and those kinds of things which I feel is probably not covered under RAMSI’s mandate.  Do you support an exit strategy or the continuous presence of RAMSI with a broadened mandate?

Mrs Kari:  It is very important for us to realize too as a country that RAMSI cannot stay with us here forever.  When we talk about broadening, may be for us women, women issues and anything to do with community involves women’s participation in everything.  When it comes to right kinds of development for the children, for the community and even for the family, which is a very important part to us.  I think I would like to talk about an exit strategy because we must for know ourselves what we want to see in terms of improving our living standards as people of Solomon Islands rather than broadening. 
May be I am not very familiar with the framework, I may not have properly read it or something like that, but what I’d like to see is an exit strategy that would put important areas in front for RAMSI to really go hard in trying to achieve areas that are impossible for us to do so that they help us with.  
In terms of gender, I see very little about this in the framework.  I don’t see where gender comes in, in the framework in terms of how much in that framework is their assistance towards the women.  That’s why you’ve heard Mrs Dyer earlier talked about the part that ‘it is in the machinery of government’, and which we are not really happy about because we feel that rather than working together with us to achieve what the Council has a plan, some of the areas were repeated.  This is why we think it’s not really right.  
In terms of an exit strategy, it’s important that we look at the critical areas that will continue to sustain our law and order and also sustain the kind of development that will go down and reach everyone, the whole population of Solomon Islands.  May be Ella would like to add on to what I’ve said.

Ms Ella:  I think it’s important the gender is properly spelled out in whatever because I believe that when you invite us to be part of a forum like this, we can only talk about issues affecting us, and if whatever you talk about do not cater for issues affecting women of Solomon Islands then what are we talking about here, why are we here because we are addressing issues affecting women.  I believe that RAMSI is already doing it, even though it’s not in the criteria or whatever, working through a component within the ministry machinery of government where part of it is ‘Women in Government’.  That’s already gender as it’s dealing with women and RAMSI is supporting that.  I think that there would be no harm if it is expanded a bit. Thank you.

Hon. Boyers:  Just by listening to some of the answers, I’m trying to get a grasp on the relationship between the National Council of Women in the Ministry and RAMSI.  And it seems as though the National Council of Women is the voice, the Ministry is like an administrative body and RAMSI is trying to fit in between both, somewhere 
You also mentioned that you’d like to see the National Council of Women as a service delivery body on behalf of the Ministry.  You also said that the NCW is lacking a lot of funds.  I’ve asked the question of the relationship between RAMSI and the NCW and it seems to me that there’s a void in coordination between the NCW and the SIG in its capacity.  There is a ministry representing the women and the Council also represents the women.  Could you please explain to the Committee the relationship between the Ministry and the NCW?

Hilda Kari:  My colleagues are very happy for me to answer this important question.
            In terms of the relationship between the various organizations dealing with women’s issues or women in this country, there is a very good working relationship between the NCW and the Ministry of Women, Youth and Children.  There is no doubt about that, and also with RAMSI for that matter.  I think it is only on certain issues that there is often disagreement between the two parties, and we say so during our meetings together.  I hope we are not painting here that we are fighting or something like that.  We have a very good working relation but we differ on issues that may be we see as repetitions of what could be done by the umbrella organization.  I think that is the only contention we had for a while, but that is now being ironed out and we are working together again in terms of reaching out to all the nine provincial councils where we are all working together.  Thank you.

Hon. Soalaoi:  One of the very sensitive issues that has been thrown around since RAMSI arrived is the issue of firearms.  Before, even when our Police Officers were armed you don’t see them carrying arms around the public, which is quite different to what we see around at the moment where RAMSI personnel are carrying firearms even during traveling in vehicles. 
What is your general feeling as women seeing these personnel carrying firearms?  I tend to think that women are easily frightened than men.  Even on seeing a snake you start to shout.  What is your view on seeing firearms visibly carried around in public?

Ms Dyer:  I think we’ve raised that concern with RAMSI a few times already but we still see these vehicles driving around with personnel, all in uniform ready to go at anytime.  I don’t think there is real need for them to be driving around in vehicles with arms.  Say, if you go down to the market and you see them at the market, the women will start looking around thinking there is trouble somewhere and that is why they are there.  
I just want to say that we have raised this concern a few times already and I don’t know why they are still driving around in vehicles full of armed personnel with guns and all that.  Personally, I don’t think that they should be driving around every day carrying arms.  May be if there are problems or we see problems coming up that they might but I don’t see the need for them to be driving around the place with guns.  It looks like they just drive around the place doing nothing with uniform and guns. 

Ms Ella:  I remember when we went to visit both Prime Ministers, former PM Sogavare and the present PM Derrick Sikua, there were two issues that we brought before them - peace and security, which are two issues very much in the heart of women and children of Solomon Islands.  I think if you look very carefully, a reflection on attitude of the people of Solomon Islands is that when they see a local police officer carrying a gun it’s different from RAMSI.  This is responsibility. 
Hearing stories from women, and I can remember that the NCW was very affront on the proposal by the previous government on rearmament and one thing that came out very clearly when meeting with women was that during the ethnic tension, local police officers, and I’m not saying all of them, but those who were involved were somehow irresponsible.  I think these people are carrying guns and not even one single Solomon Islander raised anything in the media to question why these personnel are carrying arms/guns, reflects that people are comfortable with these people carrying guns around.  I think if Solomon Islands police officers start carrying firearms around town, you would see the reaction of people.  So there is distance of whether people are still confident in our local police officers or they are more confident in RAMSI rather than our local Police Force.  Thank you. 

Hon. Soalaoi:  May be the last question.  Still on the same line of firearms, and just what you said in your last sentence before you finish on the issue of rearming our Police Force. 
RAMSI has started a program of training a Police Force that is disciplined and they are doing that.  We tend to believe now that maybe our local officers are now ready to be armed.  When the idea was introduced then, the NCW was not very supportive of the idea of rearming a part of our Police Force.  What is your opinion at the moment?  Do you now feel that our Police Force is somewhere near to being rearmed or do you ever want to see them rearmed?  Or do you still think that we can no longer trust our police officers carrying firearms?  Bearing in mind, of course, when I said that before they were disarmed, we had Police Officers who were armed but we never see them carrying arms around in public; they only pick up arms when there is need.  
What I’m trying to get at is, where are you now in terms of rearming of our Police Force?

Hilda Kari:  May be because women easily get frightened when they hear people talking about guns and from our experiences and what we’ve heard from women on the field when guns were around.  It’s true that Police Officers before when guns were available for them to use at certain times they don’t carry guns around the streets like in other countries that we know about. 
As Ella has already said, I think the fear here for Solomon Islands to rearm is that we women, honestly, don’t want it.  But then it really depends on the government.  We do not have the power to really say no.  We can say that we don’t like it because of fear, the fear that what would happen to these things, especially in a society like ours.  Of course, I don’t want to say too that we should continue to mistrust ourselves.  Gun is a lethal thing, and we the women stand on that; we are frightened of guns, full stop.  However, in terms of security and other areas like that, we, the women must give our careful and deep thoughts on it first.  If the government comes up with the idea of rearming whatever groups, we are going to seriously think about it first before we can accept it.  
I don’t know whether what you are saying is that there is already a plan to rearm a part of the Police Force now; I didn’t get you clearly, but if that is the case, we, the women would still say that we are fearful and we are surely going to talk out.  In fact during the last three years, we are talking about a gun free society.  We prefer a gun free country, if at all possible we are going to trust God to help us in our security.  For me my trust is in Him, of course, all the time.  But in terms of governance, it depends on the government of Solomon Islands on what it sees fit for our security purposes in the country.  But I know that the women would still say that they are fearful of guns.  

Ms Ella:  Just to add on to what the president was saying.  I think any country that fails in equipping its Police Force with arms shows that that society is stable.  I think Solomon Islands women see that unless there is intensive training for Police Officers to be responsible enough to handle firearms, the responsibility to say yes to that is up to the government.  We can only advocate, we raise issues but the final decision is with you, the government.  Thank you.

Ms Dyer:  On the issue of rearming or guns, I think my two colleagues have said it all.  I just want to ask this question, why do we need guns?  Why would we in Solomon Islands need guns?  You need guns if you know you have an enemy out there who will also use a gun.  Every time this gun issue comes up, and as the president said earlier on, we women will not allow guns because we have experienced what guns have done to us and the country, and some of us are still living with the fear and are still trying to come to terms with that.  So if it’s anything to do with guns then I think women are out of it. 
I would like to say that we must ask ourselves the question why do we need guns.  It’s only when you have enemies that you would be afraid.  We talk about guns every time but what about knives.  We have a lot of problems now with people using knives.  That is what I would like to say.  I don’t think Solomon Islands really need guns here.  We don’t need guns here.  Unless we are an enemy of another country and so we need guns in case our enemies might shoot us.  But if not then we don’t need guns at all.  May be Solomon Islands is developed and so we want to use guns like the other countries.  But to me that’s not development. 
I think we should really ask ourselves the question, the government and the people of this country, why guns, why do we need guns? 

Hon. Tosika:  Just to comment in relation to what Sarah has said.  I think the same question that must also be asked is, today Solomon Islands is not an exceptional country, it’s vulnerable to organizations like terrorists or other bad activities might ill-filtrate into our country or maybe a group within Solomon Islands wants to takeover the government or something like that.  The question that needs to be asked is – if we don’t have any arms to defend our country from such circumstances and situations, what would happen to us if a dictator wanting to takeover the country comes in at nighttime, smuggles in arms, comes in here and sets up a group and takes over the government.  Because Solomon Islands does not have arms and so it would be just a free takeover.  The question is what would happen to us in such a circumstance?

Ms Dyer:  I think we should look at it this way.  We have the Immigration, we have the Customs and I think we have them stationed right around the country like we have them right at the end of Western Province at Shortlands or Gizo and then this side of the Solomon Islands and here in Honiara.  I think we need to step up our security through the different government ministries, the Immigration and Customs of people coming in, our entry points.  Work really needs to be done on those and then we don’t need to be frightened of guns.  We may caught up with people who might be smuggling in guns and so we need to tighten up our security in terms of the Customs who really need to do their work properly and efficiently.  The immigration, everybody who comes in, there must be proper logistics at the Customs and Immigration.  If we step up measures in the responsible ministries we will be caught up with anybody who wants to bring in guns illegally or we don’t really need guns at all.  We have to look at the different avenues.  The government really needs to look at these avenues.  Of course we cannot deny the fact that Solomon Islands is prone to what is going on around the region, what is going on around the world but as a sovereign if we are to really look after our country and its people we need to step up our institutions, our government ministries that are responsible for people coming in and going out of this country.   

Mrs Kari:  Very important check points, is what my colleague Sarah has just raised.  Also, today we are talking about fast technology, fast travel modes, fast everything, everything is moving fast and we have good neighbors to our country.  There was a comment sometime ago that the armed forces of RAMSI will thin out and they will go back but we can call upon them anytime that we need their help.  That is also another venue that is a possibility in terms of not having guns in this country.  We, women prefer that question by your Committee Member is very, very important.  It is a fact that needs to be considered at all points.  For now, of course, we do not want to say that something is going to happen soon and they will come to shoot us.  At the moment we, women will continue to stand.  We prefer that our current Police Force needs to be fully trained in terms of responsibility to handle lethal weapons and then it’s up, of course, to the government of the day in Solomon Islands to make the final analysis and the decision in terms of the question raised.  Thank you.

Mr Chairman:  One last question.

Hon. Boyers:  This should be my last question.  You mentioned earlier on issues of gender and quality leadership in politics, and obviously we have the gender position visible in the administration and not visible in politics.  Before I go on, I take note of Sarah’s comment that there are no guns.  It’s interesting to note that 99.9% of all gun holders in the country were men, and it seems to be that the nature of men is to make war and women to make peace.  I think that is a reflection of the gender issue that guns is men, and so it’s very relevant.  Also coming back to the gender issue on leadership and obviously it is very difficult in this country and the nature of progressing that gender is now coming online and is obviously a very important one. 
I heard that we are going to be increasing the number of constituencies from 50 to 60, and that means instead of 50 men we are going to have 60 men in Parliament, if that is the trend.  But on the same token, it was also taught in the past about making sure there are allocated seats for women in Parliament.  How to do that is the question.  Now to move from 50 constituencies to 60 there has to be a constitutional amendment or a bill passed in Parliament for that.  Has the National Council of Women think about engaging in dialogue with the government in the light of an amendment to the constitution to change the number of constituencies for an allocated number of seats for women?  For instance, if there’s going to be 60 constituencies maybe there should be an extra nine reflecting the nine provinces to be women, one woman per province to be allocated a seat in Parliament, which should take it to 69.  But it’s an opportunity that is coming forward because of the population pressure for more constituencies. 
Is the National Council of women aware that this could be a window of opportunity for women’s voices to be heard and to be part of that constitutional amendment for the good of women? 

Mrs Kari:  Mr Chairman, that is the most important question for this afternoon, and thank you for that question.  I would like to raise very humbly before this Committee that the question you have just raised to the NCW is the heart of the women of Solomon Islands.  As we have told you we have been struggling for almost 25 years to get women into Parliament.  And as you have rightly said, it is very difficult to vote women into Parliament because there are many surrounding issues and reasons why women are not being voted even by women. 
As you have told me this information, I believe that is part of the work of the National Council of Women that has raised this issue not only to two Prime Ministers, the former and the current, but we have been raising this concern with all Prime Ministers who have made it to the Prime Minister level right from the beginning. 
We have also raised this with Ministers of women who have taken up the Ministry of Women as a portfolio.  We have raised this at the Pacific and Regional Forums, and now once again we thank you very much for this question this afternoon, a very important question.   We can only say that right now it is men who are in power, and you need two thirds to pass any constitutional amendment.  But it is our desire and hope and our request for this afternoon that may be in this present government or this present Parliament we would like to see 10 seats put aside for women to contest and we will follow that through.  Thank you very much.

Mrs Dyer:   As the officer responsible for that within the National Council of Women, yes we are aware of what would happen and we will go for whatever that will allow women to be in Parliament. 
Recently, there was a report that came out from the United Nations saying that any country without women in Parliament will not develop.  I think we need to look at that as a reality for Solomon Islands.  
The late Bartholomew Ulufa’alu raised this concern in Parliament if I can remember well about reserving seats for women.  We are even talking about quotas for women and we’ve been talking at the regional level on special measures for women.  Whatever it will be, we would want to know as women what will work for us, but definitely we would want to see women in Parliament.  And we will ask the 50 men to support anything that comes up to allow for women to be in Parliament, and the next one will be 2010.  Thank you, Chair.

Ms Kahue:  I think it reflects the attitude of people towards women and leadership, but I would like to emphasize here that the government is not investing in women and girls enough in this country, and that is why women cannot even go beyond where they are.  Because in this country you have to have a lot of money before you can end up in this House. 
Just finally I have attended the 52nd Commission on the Status of Women in New York last year and very sadly the government of Solomon Islands didn’t send anyone to participate in that Commission because the theme of that Commission was investing in women and girls.  I would really like to see the government put in its national budget may be an allocation or a grant that will focus on women because if we continue to go where we are now, we continue to be where we are now, the way we are now, I don’t think even though you are sitting facing me and talking about gender equality, this country will never experience that.  Thank you.

Mr Chairman:  Thank you very much President of the National Council of Women, Mrs Hilda Kari, Sarah Dyer and Mrs Ella Kahue for participating at this hearing.

end of the hearing