FRC HEARING INTO RAMSI
19 September 2008
____________________________________

Mr Chairman:  Honorable Members of the Foreign Relations Committee, Dr Lesi Koravavala, Forum Secretary representative, stakeholders and members of the Public, welcome to today’s hearing.

On behalf of this Committee I would like to thank you very much Dr Lesi for accepting our invitation to make a submission to this very inquiry into and review of matters relating to the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands. The Committee acknowledges the work of the Pacific Island Forum in the Region and in Solomon Islands.  This Committee further recognizes the key role that the Forum played in the formation of RAMSI and the ongoing contribution the Forum makes to the operations, monitoring and evaluation of RAMSI.  As the Forum Representative to this country, the Committee is pleased to be given such an opportunity to hear from you and is keen to glean the views of the Forum through you.

Over the past few days this Committee heard from a number of witnesses representing RAMSI, the government and other major stakeholders.  Today we have an opportunity to hear from you on the perspective of the Forum on the subject matter of this inquiry.  It pleases me personally that this inquiry is now broadening out into the regional level after we have looked briefly at the provincial and national levels.

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 SIBC is also broadcasting our proceedings today live.

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

 Dr Lesi Korovala:  Honourable Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Lesi Korovala, Forum Secretary Representative to Solomon Islands.

The Pacific Islands Secretariat would like to thank the Solomon Islands Parliamentary Foreign Relations Committee for the invitation to make a submission to the parliamentary Inquiry into the Facilitation of International Assistance Notice.  We would like to note that the Pacific Islands Forum Secretary’s submission is based on consultations with members of the Pacific Islands Forum and the 2007 RAMSI Review Task Force Report endorsed by leaders at the 2007 Forum Meeting in Tonga.

As preliminary remarks, the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat notes that:

• the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands commonly known as RAMSI was invited by the Solomon Islands Government as an independent state and deployed as a Forum Mission under the Biketawa Declaration to restore peace and stability in the country after the tensions of the late 1990s and early 2000.

• the engagement of the region as a whole in RAMSI is vital and RAMSI’s strength lies in its regional nature.

• the outcomes of the 2007 Pacific Islands Forum Leaders meeting in Tonga commended and confirmed the continuing support of all Forum Members as contributing countries of RAMSI as an outstanding example of cooperative regionalism. 

 

• at the 2008 Forum Leaders’ Meeting in Niue, leaders noted the positive relationship which had developed between RAMSI and the Solomon Islands Government since 2007 leaders meeting in Tonga. 

• RAMSI has undergone two Forum-led extensive external assessments, notably the 2005 Eminent Persons Group Review and the 2007 RAMSI Review Task Force.  The latter, which, was adopted by the Solomon Island’s Cabinet noted RAMSI’s strong and widespread support throughout Solomon Islands. It underscored regional support for the maintenance of RAMS’s mandate in its current state, welcoming the government’s decision to maintain RAMSI’s mandate unchanged for a further year from July 2007 as provided for in the FIA Act. 

 

• the Forum responded promptly to the recommendations of the 2007 RAMSI Review Task Force Report to strengthen mechanisms for dialogue with the Government of the Solomon Islands through the formation or the Forum Ministerial Standing Committee (FMSC), which has so far met twice with full participation by the Government of Solomon Islands.  The SIG-RAMSI Partnership Framework endorsed by the FMSC will provide a key tool for strengthening the Partnership by aligning RAMSI’s priorities with those of the government. 

• RAMSI is here to assist the government and people of Solomon Islands to rebuild the state economy and society in order that the fundamentals for growth and prosperity can once again function to the benefit of all citizens. 

 

Honourable Chair and Members of the Committee, after making those preliminary remarks I shall now move to the next stage. 
            RAMSI is the first major multilateral intervention to be undertaken in the Pacific Region under the Biketawa Declaration.  Although it incorporates features of other international interventions, the Mission is unique that it has been specifically designed to assist the Solomon Islands Government and its people.  By employing various forms of assistance from the Pacific Island Forum countries, as such it has indeed created a sense of unity and pride among Forum Members.
Understandably enough, the creation and continuing adaptation of RAMSI has involved a steep learning curve for both contributing countries and for the receiving state.  Where there has been misunderstanding and misinformation, consultation mechanisms have been established to demystify and resolve them.  Over the years RAMSI has become more knowledgeable about national priorities and is working closely with national authorities in the pursuit of these priorities.  As one community representative put it to the Forum-RAMSI Review Task Force of 2007, it is now time to capitalize on the lessons learned and move forward to new challenges.
            Meanwhile the Forum in consultation with the Government of Solomon Islands and people continues to use the lessons learned from RAMSI’s five years experience in Solomon Islands in reviewing and strengthening its operating systems, work programs and work ethics.  This means that RAMSI continues to adapt to on the ground realities and the emerging consideration of the host and adaptation that is guided through consultation and comes as a result of jointly agreed targets and conditions. 
While RAMSI’s presence in Solomon Islands is designed to strengthen Solomon Islands as a sovereign state through support to key institutions, questions of sovereignty and sustainability have emerged as key issues.  The Forum understands that successive Solomon Islands Governments, particularly at the political level, felt they were not sufficiently in control because RAMSI’s activities were not closely enough aligned with Solomon Islands Government policies.  Also, the Forum understands that there is a view amongst some parliamentarians and amongst some members of the community that the application of the FIA Act was impinging on Solomon Islands sovereignty.  The Forum fully appreciates these concerns and is pleased to offer the following views on this.
The FIA Act was of necessity, drafted and passed into law as a matter of high urgency by the relevant Solomon Islands agencies and institutions.  This may offer some explanations as to why some aspects of the FIA Act including those provisions concerning immigration, sit awkwardly with other pieces of Solomon Islands legislations.  Moreover, the Act is largely silent on how some of those provisions should be actually implemented.  We acknowledge that there maybe benefits in the formulation of regulations to the Act to assist in the implementation of its provisions.  Nevertheless, when read in conjunction with other documents such as the RAMSI Treaty, the 2003 Forum Ministers Outcome Statement and the Framework for Strengthened to Solomon Islands, the Forum Secretariat believes that FIA Act still provides an adequate and workable legal basis for RAMSI’s activities. 
The 2007 RAMSI Review Taskforce Report concluded that “any unilateral amendments to the FIA Act would inevitably have serious implications for the willingness of participating nations to continue contributing to RAMSI.  They would also damage the greater sense of partnership that is now emerging in Honiara”.  The Pacific Islands Forum would like to reiterate that the FIA Act is but one element of the little framework governing RAMSI’s presence in Solomon Islands, and that a change to any one element of the framework will necessarily have a bearing on the other elements, which is to say that the Forum feels that the Committee will need to consider the political safety, economic, social and developmental aspects of RAMSI’s presence in Solomon Islands as those elements are affected by its legal standing. 
Given the sensitivity of the question of immunities, the 2007 RAMSI Review Taskforce enquired into the nature of the immunities covering RAMSI.  It heard that the purpose of immunities is not to benefit individuals but rather to ensure the effective performance of the functions of RAMSI.  The provisions of the FIA Act are subject to the Solomon Islands Constitution.  The Act does not provide immunity in respect of actions that might infringe fundamental rights and freedoms set out in the Constitution.  Furthermore, the taskforce was assured that RAMSI does not tolerate misconduct by its personnel. 
The immunities provided in the FIA Act only applied to actions done in the course of, or incidental to, official duties.  RAMSI personnel including civilians are working in a wide range of sensitive areas.  Without immunities RAMSI’s activities could be undermined, delayed or impeded by vexatious or spurious legal claims.  It is important to know that RAMSI’s immunities are not unusual.  The granting of such immunities under the FIA Act reflects standard international practice; international peace keeping missions around the world are provided the same basic legal cover for contingents as are the staff of regional international organizations including the Forum Secretariat.  Moreover a sending government can choose to waive immunities granted to its personnel enabling this personnel to participate in legal proceedings in Solomon Islands courts and tribunal where appropriate. 
In addition to, and different from the provisions regarding immunities, the FIA Act also includes provisions that govern the choice of jurisdiction.  RAMSI personnel do not get immunity from legal action for things done outside the scope of their official duties but rather the provisions in the Treaty and the Act are to prevent them being prosecuted in two places and to allow that where possible they are prosecuted in their home country as the first preference.  If the home country cannot or does not wish to take appropriate and legal action then the Solomon Islands government can assert jurisdiction.  
On these accounts the FIA Act serves a specific purpose and is not intended to impinge on sovereignty neither preclude the application of the due process of law beyond the confines of its provisions. 

RAMSI’s Work.

The 2007 RAMSI Review Taskforce found that there was almost unanimous view among Solomon Islanders that the Regional Assistance Mission had to remain in place for some time yet.  The Forum understands that this view is still held by a vast majority of Solomon Islanders.  The second RAMSI Annual Performance Report shows that gains are being maintained and progress is made across all the areas of its mandate.  The quality and quantity of performance information from Solomon Islands sources and from within RAMSI’s constituent programs have improved markedly since the first efforts were made in 2005 to measure progress.  The running of the second people survey based on a fully representative sample gives a rich picture of the way that institutions which RAMSI is supporting are impacting (or not) on the lives of ordinary Solomon Islanders.
The Forum also noted that the Solomon Islands Government faces a number of important national challenges concerning devolution and decentralization, reconciliation and addressing the causes of the ethnic tensions.  Many of these issues were addressed in the 2005 Forum Eminent Persons Group Report. 
The 2007 RAMSI Review Task Force Report reiterate that the importance of these issues were recognizing that these issues are the responsibility and prerogative of the Solomon Islands Government, as such these matters fall outside RAMSI’s direct mandate.  At the same time there are linkages between RAMSI’s capacity building and institutional strengthened work and addressing of some of these challenges and efforts currently undertaken by the government of Solomon Islands to address these challenges can impact upon the work of RAMSI.  Therefore, the Partnership Framework currently being developed could benefit from regularly integrated independent peace and conflict impact assessments to ensure that the activities of RAMSI contribute positively to the SIG’s efforts to address these national challenges.

Relationship between RAMSI, the assisting countries and the SIG

The Forum is pleased to note that one of the key recommendations of the 2007 RAMSI Review Taskforce which was endorsed by leaders in Tonga in 2007, to establish a Forum Ministerial Standing Committee has occurred and that this forum has provided a mechanism to deliberate and resolve many of the issues that will be brought before this committee in coming months.  The Pacific Islands Forum Members would like to table before the Committee the Outcome Statements from the first and second FMSC meetings, and the summary of the presentation by the 2007 RAMSI Review Taskforce team that was presented to the first FMSC meeting, as it illustrates inclusive approach taken in that review to take on board the Solomon Islands Government Six Point Plan in its terms of reference for further consideration and discussion.  
RAMSI is working in close consultation with the Government of Solomon Islands to ensure that the Partnership Framework provides a highly effective mechanism for constructive dialogue and genuine partnership.  During their 2008 meeting in Niue, the leaders welcome the development of the Partnership Framework.  Members have also observed that the vastly improved bilateral relationship between the new SIG and the new government of Australia had had a positive effect on RAMSI’s ability to achieve its missions. 

Conclusion
While the Pacific Islands Forum is of the view that some amendments to the FIA Act may enable the Solomon Islands to better discharge its functions, which is consistent with the RAMSI mission of self-sustainability, those changes should not include amendments to the immunities provision of the FIA Act.  Furthermore, to uphold the spirit of cooperation among the contributing countries and as agreed to by the SIG, any proposed changes to the Act should only occur after extensive consultations with all participating countries.  To this end, the Pacific Islands Forum welcomes the initiative of the Solomon Islands Parliamentary Foreign Relations Committee to undertake these consultations with as many stakeholders as possible.  While the Pacific Islands Forum’s preference is for continuation of the status quo, RAMSI is a living entity and will, in conjunction with stakeholders, remain responsive to adapt to new government priorities in the interest of the long term sustainability of Solomon Islands institutions.  However, they may be structured in the future. 
The Forum has put in place a number of multi-level oversight mechanisms for consultations about the mission, which will assist the Solomon Islands Government and RAMSI to continue to make such adaptations including the development of the partnership frame work.
Honourable Chair and Members of the Committee, there ends the submission.

Mr Chairman:  Thank you very much, very well presented.  Thank you, Dr Lesi.  Let me start off as a lot of questions are in front of me.  You mentioned something in your statement as ‘pride’ and how emotions are important in the Pacific, very important.  In a way our word is our bond.  We’ve talked about these before, you and I.  How proud is the Pacific Forum Countries of RAMSI.  Can you enlighten us on that please?

Mr Lesi:  Might I return to the signing of the Treaty by the 16 Members of the Forum at that time, 14 of which were heads of states and heads of governments, and only 2 were represented by their high commissions.  That, in itself, indicates the seriousness to which members of the Forum attach to their being called to assist a neighbor as a member of the regional family, Solomon Islands. 
Today, over the years since 2003 the leaders pay particular attention to the development and progress of the work of RAMSI in Solomon Islands.  They are keen to learn of developments and areas where improvement needs to be made. 
Their decision in Tonga to establish the Forum Ministerial Standing Committee on RAMSI is evidence of that seriousness by the leaders to discuss, to demystify, to clarify, and to resolve issues that indicated the statement that might be brought before your Committee during this hearing and the days to come.  That indicates the seriousness and the honor the leaders attach to their association with Solomon Islands through RAMSI.  Thank you.

Mr Chairman:  There have been talks in the past.  How do you see Australia and New Zealand sit within that Forum and the Pacific in general?  Do they sit comfortably within or is there still a bit of slight tension but there is a big focus now on New Zealand and especially Australia into the Pacific Region, especially the present government of Australia.  How does it fit? 

Dr Lesi:  On the strategic question about positioning of Australia and New Zealand and the Region, I would like to take that on notice and refer to the Forum Secretariat for views on that.  But with regards to the membership of the Forum, the Forum as you would understand operates on respect and equality of status within the membership of the Forum.  The Forum accords respect to Australia and New Zealand in their membership as in all other members of the Forum.

Mr Chairman:  Let me go to one Forum country, Niue.  I think nine Police officers are looking after Niue and two of them came here.  The solidarity that the Pacific Islands holds together in looking at a problem occurring in a brother Pacific country, tell me about that.

Dr Lesi:  Niue has been a classic example of the commitment that the region places on its own work here in Solomon Islands through RAMSI by committing over 20% of its Police Force to work through RAMSI.  That, in itself, as you have rightly pointed out is an evidence of the commitment that the leaders and members of the Forum associate with through RAMSI for Solomon Islands and its people. 

Mr Chairman:  And it was also very difficult.  I was involved with this in 2003, and there were lots of consultations, lots of haggling, lots of efforts in getting the 15 countries, 16 including us, to have an unanimous consensus to come in.  But it has been difficult.  Do you think RAMSI is basically one in a lifetime experience?  Personally, I don’t think we can get another RAMSI again in our generation.  What do you think? 

Dr Lesi:  I would expect that I will be summoned at a later stage to provide some further elaboration on the question you put before us for the Forum in looking through the list of questions that are before me this morning.  But I would say that yes, we believe that the leaders would like to see a successful ending to the deployment.  It is the first under the Biketawa Declaration, it’s the first in the Region and they would like to see, as evidenced by their commitment to the Mission to see good progress to successful ending.

Mr Chairman:  It’s an opportunity we cannot afford to lose. 

Dr Lesi:  Absolutely, Chairman!  Might I add here Chair that I see on the list of questions a number that is referring to the 2005 EPG Recommendations and 2007 RAMSI Review Taskforce Report.  The Forum has a metric of implementations for both Reports.  It will be, in our view, help the Committee to go through the recommendations and how the implementations are gone to date and probably consider those and if there are questions at a later stage, I’ll be pleased to return to the Committee to make clarification and answer questions. 

Mr Chairman:  In terms of the Partnership Framework, which I think the SIG and RAMSI are working on right now and I believe the provincial governments will also be coming into play as well, can that framework fit in easily within the legal framework that we have of RAMSI right now or do we have to change it, do we have to change the Facilitation Act to get this partnership framework or this partnership agreement?  Can it fit in easily with the existing legal framework that we have now? 

Dr Lesi:  Thank you honorable Chair.  The 2007 RAMSI Review Taskforce recognized that there needs to be developed and jointly agreed indicative conditions based timelines for all activities of RAMSI.  That has been endorsed by the Leaders and that has also been endorsed by the Cabinet of Solomon Islands.  So it’s along those lines that we are now working with the Solomon Islands Government in the development of the Partnership frame work. 
            The Forum Ministers Standing Committee Meeting on the 22nd February 2008 indicated that there is sufficient scope under the existing three pillars of RAMSI to be able to consider the type of things that the Government of Solomon Islands had put forward in the policy framework.  However, any need for expansion of the mandate would need a decision by the Leaders.  I have pleasure of tabling these Outcome Statements with the submission this morning to the Committee. 

Hon. Tosika:  Dr Lesi, if you look at question 22 on the question paper, the Committee notes that in the recent Forum Meeting in Niue, the Forum took note of Japan’s interest in joining RAMSI and resolved that the Secretary General consults Forum Countries and to seek clarification from the Government of Japan before referring the matter to the Forum Ministerial Standing Committee.  Could you please inform the Committee of the status of Japan’s request or the Secretary General’s effort?

Dr Lesi:  The Forum Secretariat has received the request from the Government of Japan and is already now in the process of consulting with members of the Forum. 
On receiving the views of Forum Member Countries, it will be collated in preparation for it to be submitted before the next Forum Standing Committee meeting here in Honiara, which is scheduled to be either at the end of the year or early next year.

Mr Chairman:  With the Forum receiving a request from Japan, how would that fit into the regional character of RAMSI?

Dr Lesi:  One of the views that has been received is the protection of the integrity of the Regional Mission.  The FMSC had directed the officials and the Forum Secretariat to collate the views and examine what are the modalities that could be employed in this particular regards in relation to Japan’s request? 
The Forum Ministers noted that within the space of the character of RAMSI as a regional mission and the cooperation of Japan, the offer of assistance of Japan to RAMSI, the officials will look in the middle and see whether we can incorporate the assistance offered by Japan.  Thank you.

Hon. Tosika:  Dr Lesi, as you understand very well the Notices of 2003 very much impinged on the law and order situation at that time and now RAMSI has created other machineries.  What is your view on RAMSI where in this case we have bilateral arrangements with other countries and these countries are trying now to come through RAMSI arrangement to fund certain activities, which in my view can be done through bilateral arrangements?  Do you think that RAMSI is one of the charitable organizations that would take up responsibility from donor countries?

Dr Lesi:  The Forum through the Forum Ministerial Standing Committee would like to be seen to be transparent in the way it handles requests that are put through it, and this particular case is a request for assistance from Japan and the Forum with the Ministers are following that process to understand the nature of the request for what is being offered for assistance so that they can put forward, if possible, options or modalities that could be adopted if that is going to be the case. 
The Forum and RAMSI does not wish to encroach into areas where bilateral assistance is in existence and is best handled with.  What the Forum Ministers’ meeting is doing is to consider the request that was put to it before coming to a decision.  At this point we are unable to speculate what type of decision that will be but we are following through the process to consider all the issues pertaining to that particular request.  Thank you.

Hon. Maelanga:  Dr Lesi, question No. 3 on the question list says, having seen the operations of RAMSI over the five past years, do you think the Forum or any other sub-regional group has the capability to provide regional policy with no or less support from Australian and New Zealand? 

Dr Lesi:  I think I’ve answered that question partly in one of the initial questions raised earlier.  It is difficult to see an operation of this nature without the assistance of Australia and New Zealand.  The 2007 RAMSI Review Taskforce also gave recognition to that fact in its observation.  Thank you.

Hon. Boyers:  Dr Lesi, you mentioned in your presentation in regards to the work of RAMSI outstanding issues that were recommended, for instance provincial governance, reconciliation etc, and you also mentioned that there should be regular peace impact assessments.  Do you think that communication between the SIG, the Forum and RAMSI is open and that there is a good relationship or does it needs to be improved?

Dr Lesi:  Honourable Chair, from the Forum’s perspective we believe that there is good communication between the Forum, RAMSI and the Government of Solomon Islands.  Their leaders have directed the establishment of certain mechanisms for dialogue from the bottom, which is the ……, the three men team of the Special Coordinator, the Forum Representative and the Permanent Secretary (Special Duties to RAMSI).  They do the leg work on consultation and dealing with issues on a daily basis.  They fit in too and do the reporting through the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Cabinet of Solomon Islands.
The offices of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister are open to RAMSI and the Forum all the time.  At the higher level, we have the ECM the Enhanced Consultative Mechanism Meeting, a committee of officials from the region comprising ……., the past chair, the present chair and the future chair of the Forum including Solomon Islands and Australia as the lead nations in RAMSI, where we discuss issues that pertains the operations of RAMSI.  This meeting has now become the preparatory meeting for the FMC, which meets on a six monthly basis and the ECM meets on a quarterly basis.  It is through these mechanisms and from the Ministers that they report to the leaders.  It is through these mechanisms that all issues pertaining to RAMSI are dealt with. 
We’ve had good communication and we envisage no reason why that communication will weaken in the foreseeable future.  The development of the Partnership Framework will add, will complement the good communication that we have and we are looking forward in through process in completing that process as we are working through it now.  Thank you, Chair.

Hon. Kengava:  Dr Lesi, in your presentation earlier on you made a very strong and important point that any unilateral amendment to the Facilitation of International Assistance Act will affect the willingness of participating groups in the mission.  Can you further explain this statement because why would a unilateral action affect the willingness of participating countries?  Thank you.

Dr Lesi:  I refer to the Pacific Treaty that was signed on the 24th July 2003 where Leaders made an agreement, the Leaders of Government, Heads of States and the representatives of governments made a commitment to themselves on how they are going to organize the mission in Solomon Islands and they stand by those commitments.  That is their word of honor.  Thank you.

Mr Chairman:  In 2005 the Eminent Person’s Group noted the concerns in Solomon Islands that RAMSI is predominated by an Australian exercise.  Has the Forum taken steps to neutralize this perception since 2005? 

Dr Lesi:  The 2007 RAMSI Review Taskforce Report has identified that also, and part of the reasons and the mechanisms of dialogue have been put in place also to facilitate the improvement and the regional character of RAMSI.  It has arisen that the triambret also came into play so that Solomon Islands was in a much more stronger position to express its views on the priorities and how RAMSI relates with itself.  There is a standing work on trying to engage more Pacific Islanders into RAMSI in all the appointments, particular in the civilian advisor categories.  This is an ongoing effort for us to resolve.  But they are issues also that are specific to each member countries in the Region, and this has been discussed at the triabret, raised also at the ECM and the Forum Ministers Meeting that deals with the security of employment - the availability of key personnel that could be released for work and engagement in their advisory capacities under RAMSI here in Solomon Islands.  These are the levels we’ve gone to, to try to improve the regional character of RAMSI as has been recognized by both reports.  Thank you.

Mr Chairman:  Just to add on to that.  Is RAMSI also hiring Solomon Islanders to work for RAMSI? 

Dr Lesi:  Honorable Chair, I have to check my understanding on that.  Thank you.

Hon. Tosika:  Dr Lesi, when Sir Allan was interviewed, he said that there were a few donors when he negotiated for the RAMSI arrangement to come into Solomon Islands.  In your opinion or in your view or your understanding, are there any other donor countries apart from Australia and New Zealand and Forum Island countries? 

Dr Lesi:  Honorable Chair, can I take on notice that question, please?

Mr Chairman:  Question 11 says in the Eminent Persons Group Report 2007, it was recommended that the Forum assists Solomon Islands and RAMSI by providing assistance in donor coordination, selection of suitable advisors from Forum nations and providing expertise on land matters.  Could you please advise the Committee on whether the Forum has taken any steps to implement any of these recommendations? 

Dr Lesi:  Honourable Chair, can I take that on notice and get the metrics of implementation for your opinion?

Mr Chairman:  Yes, I think the metrics would be very important.  And there are two, one for 2007 and one for 2005.

Dr Lesi:  Yes, indeed, Chair.

Mr Chairman:  Let’s go down to Question No. 12 and you may give the same answer to this.  It was recommended in 2005 that in order to minimize the dependency on and impacts of logging to Solomon Islands welfare, the Forum should encourage Solomon Islands Government to implement the 1995 Forestry Code.  How far has the Forum gone in carrying out this suggestion? 

Dr Lesie:  Honorable Chair, this particular part of the work is handled through the SPC, the South Pacific Commission.  I will have to check on the stage of progress. 

Hon. Maelanga:  Dr Lesi, question No 13 in the question paper says that the Eminent Persons Group recommended in 2005 that the Office of the Secretary General of the Forum be used to facilitate reconciliation in Malaita and Guadalcanal.  Solomon Islands has taken the initiative to establish a Truth and Reconciliation Commission since then.  Has the Secretary General’s Office facilitated any such reconciliation to date?  Thank you.

Dr Lesi:  Honourable Chair, the Forum with the UNDP and the Ministry of Reconciliation and Unity have entered into a project for peace building that relates to this type of work.  The appointment of a coordinator has been finalized recently for that particular program.

Mr Chairman:  Is this a coordinator among donors for the peace process?  Can you just explain that a little bit for, can you clarify that?

Dr Lesie:  My understanding is that the coordinator for the program to work with the Ministry of National Reconciliation in the work that relates to reconciliation in that Ministry. 

Mr Chairman:  The words that ‘RAMSI provides an environment for peace to take place’, may not be in a position to result directly peace talks but it will create that environment before it.  Can you enlighten us on this?

Dr Lesi:  Honorable Chair, your understanding is of the same as our understanding that RAMSI provides the environment that reconciliation as is stated in the statement is the prerogative of the Government of Solomon Islands and the people of Solomon Islands.  It was also recognized in the reports that RAMSI can provide logistic assistance but in terms of reconciliation, it is the prerogative of the government and the people of Solomon Islands.

Hon. Tosika:  Dr Lesi during the course of our interview with various stakeholders, we realize from their reports or statements that they do not put a fixed time for the exit strategy of RAMSI in Solomon Islands.  What is your view on this? 
Dr Lesi, I’m concerned with the fact that if RAMSI stays too long in Solomon Islands it will create some dependency syndrome in Solomon Islands, which will affect the future children of Solomon Islands because of the nature of dependence on foreign countries to support Solomon Islands in all aspects of development activities in Solomon Islands.  What is your view on this time frame guiding RAMSI’s operation in Solomon Islands?

Dr Lesi:  Honorable Chair, if I might refer to the Treaty on the 24th July 2003, the Leaders, Heads of Governments have indicated that they will stay in the Solomon Islands for as long as they are needed and they will not stay if they are no longer required.  They’ve given that undertaking. 
On the specifics of exit time, the 2007 RAMSI Taskforce Report as well as the FMSC meeting on the 17th July this year, we have recognized and acknowledged the work on the Partnership Framework and have tasked the officials including the tribret..?   to work on developing and jointly agreed indicative conditions based timelines for each sectors of RAMSI’s work. 
            In the development of the Partnership Framework, the Ministers recognize that there will be areas that fall snuggly within the current mandate of RAMSI.  Others will need to be further discussed which programs would need to be either implemented through bilateral arrangements or through a change to RAMSI’s mandate.  The discussions on the Partnership Framework will look at those and the Ministers have directed us to work on them. 

Hon. Maelanga:   Dr Lesi, I would like to ask your views on the FIA Notice 2003?  Do some of the areas within that Notice need to be reviewed or amended? 

Dr Lesi:  Honorable Chair, I’ve stated in the statement that the Forum recognizes that it is the prerogative of the government of Solomon Islands to review its Legislations.  However, based on the Treaty with members of the Forum, as the government of Solomon Islands would like to do that, it seeks full consultation in that particular review.  Thank you.

Hon. Kengava:  I’m referring to question No. 21 on this paper.  It was recommended in 2007 that the Forum should facilitate any requests for assistance by the Solomon Islands Government from the Commonwealth Secretariat and the United Nations.  What is the progress on this? 

Mr Lesi:  Excuse me honorable Chair, which question number is that again?

Hon. Kengava: Question 21.

Dr Lesi:  Honorable Chair, there have been consultations amongst ourselves, the UNDP, the representative of the Commonwealth Secretariat on mechanisms of accessing support in this area.  The Commonwealth Secretariat might have communicated directly with the Ministry responsible.  In that consultation we have also engaged with the UN through the UNDP here in Honiara through the program that I referred to earlier. 

Hon. Kengava:  In addition to that has there been any specific requests made by the Solomon Islands Government on any particular projects or assistance to any of these two organizations? 

Mr Lesi:  Honorable Chair, not to my knowledge.  Thank you.

Mr Chairman:  Question 16.  It was reported in 2007 that in terms of reporting, the weakest link in 2007 was the RAMSI Cabinet reporting.  From the Forum’s perspective has reporting in this respect of this link improved?

Mr Lesi: Honorable Chair, at the FMSC meeting on the 22nd February this year, the Ministers directed a reporting through the Cabinet before it goes to the Forum.  On a monthly basis we report through the Minister of Foreign Affairs who then advises Cabinet.  The Special Coordinator and the Forum Representative are on standby in the event that the Cabinet or the Minister of Foreign Affairs requires their clarification in Cabinet.  No report goes to the Forum until it is endorsed by the SIG.  Thank you. 

Mr Chairman: So basically they are ready the heads of RAMSI are ready to update Cabinet on a monthly basis if so required by Cabinet?

Mr Lesi:  Sorry Chair that was the recommendation of the 2007 Report.  The FMSC, given the realities on the ground, that we now provide quarterly reports through Cabinet for Cabinet update on the activities of RAMSI. 

Hon. Tosika:  Dr Lesi, you understand that before RAMSI came into Solomon Islands we have bilateral arrangements with other donor countries in which people are coming into Solomon Islands as advisors through various ministerial portfolios.  What is your view of RAMSI coming in and taking over responsibility in their advisory roles in government rather than coming through arrangements that were in existence before RAMSI came into Solomon Islands?

Mr Lesi:  Honorable Chair, can I take that question on notice please?

Mr Chairman:  Question 18.  Basically what it is asking for is the Special Coordinator for RAMSI, we have three of them and they are all Australians.  Obviously, there is a lot of consultation between Australia and Solomon Islands on this.  Would you like to see a coordinator from a different Pacific country?

Mr Lesi:  Thank you Chair.  I refer to Article 4(1) of the Treaty which reads: “The head of the visiting contingent shall be a person nominated by the Government of Australia in consultation with the Government of Solomon Islands.” 

Mr Chairman:  That is very tough and classic!  We don’t have anything else to ask but there are many questions you have taken on notice and we would like if you can submit answers to us if you may.  But thank you very much Dr Lesi for presenting your statement.

Mr Lesi:  Mr Chairman, I am much obliged and I look forward to later clarification on some of those questions.

Mr Chairman:  Okay, thank you.

TRANSPARENCY/SOLOMON ISLANDS

Mr Chairman:  Honorable Members of the Foreign Relations Committee, Jean Tafoa, Executive Officer, Transparency Solomon Islands, Bob Pollard, Chairman of Transparency Solomon Islands, Primo Afeau, Board Member of Transparency Solomon Islands, stakeholders and members of the public.  Welcome to today’s hearing, and 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 Transparency Solomon Islands in this country as a scrutiny body.  Transparency Solomon Islands is the first non-governmental organization to appear before this Committee and we look forward to hearing your perspective.
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 witnesses.  Could I now ask the witnesses to please state your names for the record and to please proceed with your opening statements?

Mrs Jean Tafoa:  Thank you.  Honorable Members of the Foreign Relations Committee before we introduce ourselves may I make a review submission of our transparency? 
Honorable members of the Foreign Relations Committee thank you for inviting Transparency Solomon Islands to make a submission to the review of RAMSI.  We are honored to be given this opportunity to present our views to you.  My name is Jean Tafoa, and I am the Executive Officer of Transparency Solomon Islands and with me today is Bob Pollard, the chairperson of the Board and Primo Afeau, member of the Board. 
Transparency Solomon Islands (TSI) is a local NGO, registered as a charitable trust in 2002.  It is affiliated to Transparency International, the International Anti-corruption NGO which has chapters in over 90 countries around the world.  As a local NGO we have individual, organizational and corporate members. 
The general objective of TSI is to encourage and facilitate activities to reduce corruption and promote good governance.  TSI does not side with any political party but is an impartial advocate of good governance.  TSI defines corruption as the misuse of entrusted power for personal gain. 
Firstly, TSI would like to congratulate the Solomon Islands Government for facilitating this review of RAMSI, in particular the transparent manner in which the review is being conducted.  TSI recognizes that RAMSI is a regional mission and as such the review must engage all stakeholders both within Solomon Islands and also regional parties to the mission. 
The assistance that RAMSI is providing to Solomon Islands is unique in the region and presents Solomon Islands with a wonderful opportunity to rebuild and strengthen the nation.  The support that RAMSI is able to provide is a window of opportunity that must be utilized fully.  This generation will be condemned by future generations if we do not take the best of this opportunity.  TSI commends the leadership of former Prime Minister, Sir Allan Kemakeza along with the former Governor General Sir Fr. John Ini Lapli and Rt. Hon. Sir Peter Kenilorea in taking the initiative in inviting RAMSI to Solomon Islands. 
Our contention is that the single most important factor that would determine the success or otherwise of RAMSI, is Solomon Islands leadership as guiding custodians working in partnership with RAMSI.  It is the partnership between Solomon Islands governing bodies and RAMSI that will create effective and sustainable change.  An absence of effective Solomon Islands leadership involvement would lead to RAMSI proving ineffective and unsustainable.  It is essential that both Solomon Islands leaders and the regional parties of RAMSI recognize and accept this reality. 
Solomon Islands leaders cannot escape from the responsibility of making sure that RAMSI partnership is a success.  The primary reason that Solomon Islands found itself in the position of needing RAMSI was because of poor Solomon Islands leadership.  The RAMSI partnership cannot be expected to succeed when the Solomon Islands leader partners are behaving corruptly and not in the best interest of the nation.  An example of this partnership working successfully is the collaboration between the late Augustine Floyd Fatai, Auditor General and the support that RAMSI provided to the Office of the Auditor General. 
Regional partners must support, facilitate and encourage Solomon Islands leadership.  This is a difficult dynamic because RAMSI comes to the partnership table with resources, expertise and experience that will almost always overwhelm the Solomon Islands counterparts.  One of the greatest risks for RAMSI in this regard is to ensure that advisors do not fall into the trap of “we know best”.  It is easy for “experts” to gain a superficial knowledge of Solomon Islands and thus become insensitive to Solomon Islanders.  It requires particular skill and sensitivity on the part of regional partners not to overpower Solomon Islands leaders.  Local understanding, knowledge and ownership can only be provided by Solomon Islands leadership. 
Solomon Islands faces many challenges from the impact of the conflict and also the underlying issue such as population growth, limited capacity and poor state of institution and social services.  It is clear that Solomon Islands faces a daunting challenge to build a viable future as a nation.  The key to successfully facing this challenge is to strengthen and improve the current poor leadership and governance of this country, an area currently requiring drastic attention. 
A classic example of this poor leadership is reflected in the legislation and management of our forestry industries.  Solomon Islands is well endowed with natural resources but our management of these resources, particularly our forests has not been acceptable.  Our Members of Parliament know that our limited forest resources have been over harvested, under declared and under valued to the extent that the country has lost millions of dollars that should have been returned to resource owners and the government.  This blatant mismanagement and poor leadership has directly deprived Solomon Islands of much needed revenue. 
It is clear that the logging industry is fraught with corruption, facilitated in some instances by Ministers of the crown, some of which have vested interest in logging businesses. 
TSI is deeply concerned that the quality of leadership being demonstrated by our current parliamentarian leaders is not satisfactory.  The level of spending on parliamentarians from public funds is inappropriate.  This is evident in a number of aspects that essentially conform to the definition of corruption.  For example, the level of financial benefits that MPs have awarded themselves in the form of Parliamentary Entitlements is excessive.  Secondly, the composition of Parliamentary Entitlements Committee dominated by MPs constitutes a conflict of interest.  Thirdly, the level and growth of funds that are at the personal discretion of MPs, including the Rural Constituency Development Fund are disproportionate, appear to lack accountability and certainly subject to significant corruption.  Fourthly, the level of per diems that Ministers are paid while traveling on government businesses is unreasonably high and relatively extravagant.  And fifthly, the appointment of MPs to statutory boards and government state owned companies with full salary packages and entitlements in addition to their parliamentary salaries is inappropriate and can be viewed as a form of corruption and such an appointment also contravenes section 15(1) of the Leadership Code Act if prior approval is not sought by the Leader from the Commission. 
Corruption has the potential to completely undermine Solomon Islands nation-building efforts.  Since the arrival of RAMSI there has been positive change, however, in 2002 Members of Parliament publicly denied the existence of corruption in this nation.  Yet in 2008 the government is taking responsibility for corruption from within its own workings and the courts have recently sentenced two Ministers on corruption related charges. 
The public also now understands and is aware of the presence of corruption in our society and recognizes impact this has on our nation.  This change in attitude and awareness has been due in part to the efforts for RAMSI in partnership with key Solomon Islands leaders and institutions including the Auditor General’s Office.  It is imperative that much more is done to prosecute those involved in corruption or else the many implicated in the many reports are not prosecuted will create the impression that corrupt acts can go unpunished. 
The TSI calls on RAMSI to further assist with the implementation of corruption prevention measures, in particular the strengthening and capacity building of the Auditor General’s Office, the Ombudsman’s Office and the Leadership Code Commission.  For example, TSI is greatly concerned that the good work of the Auditor General’s Office in producing the volumes of audit reports has not achieved maximum impact as many of the recommendations have not been implemented or prosecuted.  After the tragic passing away of the late Auditor General, it is imperative that RAMSI continues to support and strengthen the work of the Office of the Auditor General. 
In the same way that TSI calls on the Solomon Islands Government to be transparent and oppose corruption, it is important that RAMSI be transparent and vigilant against corruption within its own ranks and issues like exorbitant entitlement needs to be resisted. 
TSI believes that with sound and effective operation of the Office of the Ombudsman, the Leadership Code Commission, the Office of the Auditor General, the Courts, the Public Prosecution Office, the Solomon Islands Police Force and the Public Service, we can improve the prospects of attaining prosperity, security and stability.  With the eventual appointment of a new Ombudsman, Mr. Joe Poraiwai, TSI commends the support that RAMSI is providing, in particular the need for the Ombudsman’s Office to be properly housed.  The work at the Leadership Code Commission needs to continue with RAMSI assistance to ensure accountability of our leaders. 
The Solomon Islands Police Force working with RAMSI technical advisers has greatly improved its capacity and professionalism.  They have improved the Police Academy and created regionally recognized recruitment training programs.  Corruption has been dramatically reduced and disciplined programs reinstated within the Police Force.  It is important that the Solomon Islands Police Force continues to work with RAMSI to rebuild its integrity and capacity. 
TSI commends RAMSI’s efforts in supporting the country’s judiciary system to operate effectively, openly and fairly.  They have provided support to a lot of officers in their roles in the Public Prosecution and the Magistrate.  RAMSI assistance helped to clear backlog high court trials related to the tension period. 
However, the picture of justice is very different at the rural level.  Apart from a few high profile cases where RAMSI has applied special effort, the Police are still rarely seen on patrol anywhere outside of their police stations.  The local courts and magistrate courts are not functioning anywhere near as effectively as they once did.  The enforcement of law and order and administration of justice in rural areas is still far behind where it used to be in the 1980s.  There is still substantial ground to be covered in restoring law and justice outside of the urban centres. 
TSI notes that the suspected murderer of a former Police Commissioner is still at large and eluding arrest.  This demonstrates that particularly outside of the urban centres, considerable progress still needs to be made in establishing the rule of law. 
TSI recognizes that with the assistance of RAMSI, significant achievements have been made including law and order being restored and the use of firearm no longer prevalent in our society.  Seven classes of police officers and 17 new prison officers have been recruited and trained.  Over 1,000 public servants have received training in the re-established Institute of Public Administration and Management.  The economy has been recovering strongly.  New sectors are starting to open up or previous sectors being re-established.  Government revenue has almost tripled from $258million to 2002 to $688 million in 2006. 
TSI strongly holds the view that RAMSI should remain in Solomon Islands to continue the good work it has begun.  Corruption is rife in Solomon Islands and we need RAMSI to work alongside the Government to help strengthen all the national integrity institutions.  There will come a time when RAMSI will leave but that time will be evident by our prosperity, our peace and stability. 
In conclusion, TSI is of the view that RAMSI has achieved significant success in its first five years.  Much more needs to be done to reduce corruption and the onus is primarily on our Solomon Islands leaders to make the most of the opportunity that RAMSI provides.  Thank you, chair and members of the committee.

Mr Chairman:  Thank you very much Ms. Jean.  On the last page you said that government revenue has almost tripled.  I think from the number perspective I was Finance Minister then and you were the Attorney General then and that was the budgeted number, $258m but we actually collected about $300 million.  Let’s start off.  We talk about corruption here, I want you to tell the Committee what your views are from Transparency International, what do you mean by good governance? 

Bob Pollard:  We’re focused on corruption in our presentation and corruption is a critical issue that detracts from good governance.  Good governance naturally is much more than anti-corruption.  Good governance is leaders leading in the best interest of the country, making the best use of the resources that we have in an efficient and accountable way that leads to the peace, prosperity and stability of the country. 
I guess there are many dimensions of good governance but in simple terms it’s its leaders doing what is right in the best interest of the country.  Thank you.

Mr Chairman:  In doing what is right for our people, does good governance means including our people? 

Bob Pollard:  Certainly, we would see that good governance means include people and doing what’s in the best interest of all people as opposed to what might be in the best interest of only a few, I guess would be a response to that. 

Mr Chairman:  When I got into Parliament, there was a definition of good governance, which we’ve basically taken o heart.  There are five principles in good governance.  If you know them can you tell them to me, please?

Bob Pollard:  There is one definition that does include five elements of accountability, transparency, staying within the rule of law, using resources in the best interest of the country, should be some of the five elements.  I guess as an issue of debate we could have a variety of definitions. 

Hon. Tosika:  You understand that when RAMSI came in there is a package of salary that paid to them and I realized that some of the payments are quite well over the earnings of the parliamentarians.  For example some of them earn $10,000 fortnight or maybe above that.  I realized this when I was in Customs and the advisors in Customs earn $35,000 fortnight.  So when you talk about corruption or unrealistic remuneration to parliamentarians, how do you see this as being unfair to parliamentarians who are leaders?  

Mr. Primo Afeau:  Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, the angle that Transparency Solomon Islands is coming from is more in terms of the level of remuneration that Members of Parliament or leaders are being paid as compared to what is paid to Solomon Islanders.  We are not making comparisons with those coming from outside.  Really, it’s in terms of leaving within the means of Solomon Islands revenue ability to be able to meet those costs. 
In regards to remunerations being paid to those coming from outside, that is something for us, it’s something outside of, I would say Solomon Islands control and I would guess they would have to have extra incentives to be leaving their countries to come over to undertake tasks they have been accepted into taking.   

Hon. Tosika:  Can I ask another question?  In my view, a lot of people aspiring to become politicians or to come into Parliament are ordinary people from the rural areas.  We never entice people with knowledgeable training or people with degrees, masters and professors in the various fields of their training.  Sometimes they are denied coming into Parliament because the remuneration package in Parliament does not equate the package offered overseas.  Because of this, in most cases we find leaders, as you said, are corrupt because of the fact that they don’t have proper training in these areas.  This is why we see people coming into Parliament just for the sake of earning money rather than people coming in with the knowledge and skills they are trained for. 
My question is, how do you entice people when salaries are very low?  At this point in time we are talking about $2,400.00 for ordinary Members of Parliament.  How do you see this as exorbitant salary? 

Bob Pollard:  Thank you Chairman, thank you member.  I think it’s a difficult issue and I think the substance of our submission is saying yes, we recognize that Members need to be remunerated in fair manner that sits fairly within the context of Solomon Islands within what is reasonable within the capacity of Solomon Islands financing. 
One of the key points we note in there in terms of Parliamentary Entitlements is that there’s a conflict of interest for Members of Parliament to be awarding themselves.  There needs to be some degree of independence in that mechanism.  I think that’s one of the points we made in our submission.

Mr Chairman:  What would you suggest as a solution for that?  Should we get a judge or someone like that?  Or are there areas where there is a magistrates looking after parliamentary entitlements or what?  What are your suggested solutions for that?

Mr. Primo Afeau:  I mean that’s an issue that people have different views on.  But what we’re looking at is impartiality and seen to be impartial, and in this respect, it’s the membership of this particular board that is the issue, which means whether you have one person or have a committee it’s an issue that can still be traced.  But perhaps, one could look at having an institution or a body, a group of persons determining salaries of not only Members of Parliament, but perhaps judges and senior government officials so that they are able to look at the whole economy in one context and then set the level of parameters within which to determine what maybe considered as reasonable.  Because reasonable, as you said, can be defined by the circumstances, where in the end may be the economy of the country. 
One way is perhaps looking at the membership being more independent from those who maybe benefiting from the outcome of any decisions that are taken by the board.  In other countries, for example, they have a higher salary commission which looks at salaries, terms and remuneration of members of parliament, of judges, of permanent secretaries for example and other senior government officials.  Thank you Chairman.

Hon. Maelanga:  What is your view on some of the successes and shortfalls of RAMSI? 

Mr. Pollard:  I guess there’s a wide range of areas where we believe RAMSI has been successful.  Certainly, it is in terms of law and order and assistance with returning the country to a more peaceful state.  Their support to the government, to the integrity institutions, a good example of where RAMSI we think has been effective is its support to the Auditor General’s Office.  In our submission what we were saying is that we think that presents a good model of how RAMSI could work where under a very competent Solomon Islands leader who knew what was in the best interest of Solomon Island is able to make use of the resources that RAMSI provided for the best interest of the country.  I think what we are saying is that, that’s the kind of model that we think RAMSI will be most effective in where there is a strong Solomon Islands leadership at the helm and then RAMSI can support it.  But I think the perception is that there are many cases where there isn’t strong Solomon Islands leadership and so RAMSI is left floundering, may be doing its own agenda, maybe well intended but the challenge is that in our different institutions and our different divisions/departments, strong Solomon Islands leadership is the key to success. 

Hon. Maelanga:  Is there any relationship between the TSI or NGOs and RAMSI? 

Mr Pollard.:  There is no formal relationship.  We get our members from individuals and corporate businesses, organizations and no formal relationship.  Obviously, like many stakeholders in the country, we speak to RAMSI from to time but there is no formal relationship.

Hon. Kengava:  To the TSI Panel, you strongly stated in your presentation that there is need for good leadership who are not corrupted.  I just want to know which group of leaders you are referring to.  Is it the politicians, leaders in the Churches, leaders in the business sector, public administration or even the NGOs like yourself?   Thank you.

Ms Jean:  We are only looking at all leaders where there will be partners with RAMSI operations Solomon Islands.  When we talk about leaders taking their roles and standing up, we believe that when a leader has a good vision even with the help of RAMSI they will still keep RAMSI in position, in their right positions.  If leaders know where they are going and have a good vision, they will surely use the opportunity that RAMSI is providing for us in this nation.  Thank you.

Mr Afeau:  Mr Chairman, just in addition to that.  Of course, there are many leaders at different levels in our society but in the context of what we are saying now, I think the onus is really on politicians because they are the ones who really make the difference, they are the decision makers and without a strong political leadership there would be no change.  If you need to change the laws then you need to have that political leadership.  There are things that could easily be changed but without the political we will just not be going anywhere.  
The issue is that at all levels of the community, leaders are being challenged to work and cooperate with RAMSI in whatever areas they are doing but in the end the onus is political leadership because that is where it counts. 

Mr Chairman:  It’s becoming clearer now that when you talk about governance you’re basically talking about politicians because corporate governance is different as well.  You are basically here to talk about how we can improve politicians in the way they do things so as not to be in conflict with public demand and public ambition.
I would like to ask about conflict of interest.  From what you’ve just said, how can the SOEs be improved?  Is there a conflict of interest between ownership and the legislator and does that lead to corruption? 

Mr Pollard:  Just two points.  The point we were making in terms of the SOE management is that it was inappropriate for Members of Parliament who are drawing full salaries to draw a second full salary as chairman of SOEs.  That is one of the aspects we were making.  But to especially answer your question on conflict of interest, conflict of interest is where you are in a position to make a decision where you stand to benefit from that decision and you don’t declare your interests.  I think we referred in our submission to the case where if you are a shareholder in a logging business, it is entirely inappropriate for you to be as a Minister in making a decision on the government determined rates on logging.  That would be entirely inappropriate.  I think firstly in that position a Minister would be required to declare, and so it would be wrong for me to make a decision because I stand to benefit from the decision.  That is an example.  I guess simply with SOEs but I think probably SOEs is less likely a situation where Ministers are probably going to have direct conflicts of interest. 

Mr Afeau:  Mr Chairman, just in addition to what Bob has said.  In the context of SOEs, sometimes conflict of interest could arise in a given case.  But in the context of our submission, one of the reasons for making that is simply by using that avenue to attract one group of members from one political grouping to another, and that’s used as a bait as incentive and therefore to me it undermines political stability because the chairmanship of the SOEs are being used as tools for luring members moving from one political grouping to the other. 

Hon. Kengava:  To the TSI panel again.  I think in your presentation you imply that excessive remuneration to Members of Parliament tends to cause poor leadership and therefore corruption.  Can you further explain as to why you think this is so in Solomon Islands?  Is it because Members have too much money that they don’t work or they have too much money that they spent it on their constituents?  Or do we have so much money that we are busy with the constituencies that we don’t do much work?  Can you further explain as to what you regard as excessive remuneration that tends to make poor leadership and in the end makes one to become corrupt?

Mr Pollard.:  Thank you honorable Kengava.  We were not actually saying that excessive remuneration causes poor leadership.  I think our argument is that there is poor leadership where MPs are awarding themselves entitlements which are excessive.  So it’s the other way round, and I guess particularly in relation to the RCDF.  I think it is well known and suggested that MPs are no longer primarily law makers but they are now primarily project managers handling significantly large sums of money.  I think it’s in that context it appears clear that there’s certainly potential for corruption, potential for a Member of Parliament to use those funds in a way for their own best interests whether it be to individual friends or members or even used to gain support within their constituencies. I guess it’s in that sense honorable Member that we suggest that there’s link between excessive funds and corruption.

Hon. Soalaoi:  One of the issues that has been very controversial in the recent past is the immunities on RAMSI personnel.  What is TSI’s point of view on this issue of immunities?  Is it appropriate and necessary in Solomon Islands? 

Mr Afeau:  Mr Chairman, the provision of immunities were given in certain circumstances, and I believe this is now the opportunity for this issue to be reviewed in terms of whether these provisions are still appropriate or not.  It is not for me or for the TSI to say it is appropriate at this stage.  I believe it is part of this review that would determine whether the circumstances now have changed or whether there is still need for certain levels of immunities, and if so what is going to be the extent of those levels.  But from my personal perspective I believe that they would still be a need for certain level of immunities. 

Hon. Tosika:  I’ll ask two questions. What is your observation on the relationship between RAMSI and the local police?  The second is, how do you feel generally about RAMSI personnel carrying firearms openly in public? 

Mr Pollard:  Thank you honourable Inoke.  Maybe I shall qualify that TSI is an anticorruption NGO and so we don’t necessarily have views on all matters.  There are some matters that we haven’t necessarily discussed as a board and so there maybe outside our perimeter.  
Just in terms of the relationship between RAMSI and the local police, as we stated, our observation is that there have been improvements in many aspects. But one of the points we did make is that we perceive that outside of the urban centres there is still real inadequacy in the level of policing and their level of access to justice that many of our country folks have.  We think there is still significant room from improvement in terms of the access to policing services.
The dynamic between RAMSI and the local police, exactly in that particular aspect, I guess in fairness we don’t really have a specific view on that one. 
In relation to RAMSI carrying guns, obviously, our view in the past is that we want to see a country that is free of guns.  RAMSI has come in to help us achieve that goal and if in the view of the Police it’s necessary for them to carry guns then that is a decision for the leaders to make. 

Jean Tafoa:  Mr Chairman, I think one of the things I have observed here is that we know they have to be sensitive with the police as well and what type of service they’ve provided good trainings for the police and new recruitments.  There may be some differences between our police and theirs but I think there are a lot of things our Police have learned from RAMSI’s technical advisors in the Police Force. Thank you.

Hon. Soalaoi:  I just want to know if TSI cares to look at the way in which RAMSI is broadening the Patricks Logistics.  I’m not saying there is corruption there but what is your view on that.  Some of our companies, I think have what is needed by RAMSI in terms of logistics.  That is not my point but the point is that getting a company from outside since RAMSI is also from outside, what is your view on that.

Mr Pollard:  Thank you honorable Forau.  Firstly, TSI’s charter doesn’t include investigating individual cases.  We leave that to the journalists, but the question that you raised is a pertinent question.  In our submission we do say that in the same way that we are asking our government to be transparent and anti-corrupt, we are asking RAMSI too that it should provide the same degree of transparency, and we used the words ‘vigilant’ to ensure that it doesn’t facilitate corruption. 
Yes, the question of awarding of contracts, I presume is done in a tender process whether the prices are too high or low, I guess is something for the owners of those funds to manage.  But it’s an important issue, which should be at the end of the day I think transparency would allow some view of that.

Mr Chairman:  Just a question.  What is the limit of transparency if it impinges on national security?  Would you be able to comment on that? Are there things we cannot say about national security?

Mr Afeau:  Mr Chairman, I believe there are certain things that national security would demand that they be confidential or they be secret, and this is the processes of decision making that good governance requires transparency in the processes.  But obviously there would be issues and there would be matters that are secret and would be confidential, and this is where in the end sometimes courts have to make decisions whether certain information can be disclosed or not and the issue has to be argued before the court. 

Hon. Tosika:  We realize that in our country we have customs and cultures and in most cases there are communal societies which take care of people within tribes and also the societies.   What is your view on the communal society?  Do you regard the communal practice of giving and taking as a corrupt practice in Solomon Islands?

Mr Pollard:  Certainly not, I think.  We are a society that has rich diverse cultures.  I guess we live in a day and age that has changed over the years, and we have a situation now where we have resources, government resources which are required to be managed according to our laws.  I guess honorable Member, an example would be we feel it’s inappropriate where one person is amassing a large amount of wealth on the basis that they are part of a community and our schools and our hospitals still go under resourced - no text books in a classroom, no medicines in the clinic. I guess it’s the wider community, the community as a nation that we are ensuring that its benefit is looked after, first and foremost, all the members as opposed to one particular sector, one particular group within that.

Mr Afeau:  Just an addition.  I think that’s very important and really an ongoing issue in terms of what do you mean by corruption in terms of the cultures and the customs we have in Solomon Islands against what is defined as corruption in terms of maybe Western Cultures.  That is a real issue.  And perhaps one of the challenges is for the government, maybe to undertake some serious studies into this.  This is a personal view and not necessarily the TSI, but yes it is an issue that needs to be addressed because there maybe different concepts and understandings of what maybe regarded as corruption in the typical definition of corruption may not be necessarily taken as corruption in the context of our cultures. 
Admittedly, I would say that that’s a grey area and maybe an area that really needs to be looked into so that if our laws are going to be changed to reflect our cultures as against the broad Western culture definition of corruption then that needs to be addressed. 

Hon. Maelanga:  It has been suggested a few times in the past that RAMSI has been operating in the country almost like an alternate or parallel government to the central government instead of simply providing support.  What is TSI’s view on this? 

Mr Pollard: Thank you honorable Member.  No official view except just to reflect on the point we were making earlier that when we have situations where our leaders rather than providing positive leadership caught in a child of slinging match with RAMSI and that becomes counterproductive. I think we’ve seen in the past instances where rather than providing leadership we’ve had public accusations, which seem really quite bizarre.  I think in such situations we’ll find that RAMSI may end up in a situation where it’s doing what it thinks is right without Solomon Islands leadership.  But I think it’s important that both RAMSI and the Solomon Islands Government are able to work in a mutual way where Solomon Islands leaders are saying this is the direction and this is the outcome that we want to achieve.

Hon. Kengava:  I think in the conclusion of your presentation you stated, if I may quote: “much more needs to be done to reduce corruption and the onus is primarily on our Solomon Islands leaders to make the most of the opportunity that RAMSI provides”, end quote.  The question is, what is TSI’s point of view?  Do you think that the focus of RAMSI’s work in Solomon Islands should be broadened and maintained in years to come or do you think that RAMSI should now be more focused on an exit strategy? 

Mr Pollard:  Mr Chairman, we believe that there is much more to be done.  If you look around the Pacific, the position that we are in, in contrast to other Pacific Islands countries given the resources that we have, we are a country with the real potential that could be doing much, much better than we are. I think while the opportunity remains for RAMSI to assist us, we should make the best use of that opportunity.  And as we say in this submission, I think the time will become clear when RAMSI is no longer needed and that time will be time where we are much more prosperous, peaceful and stable than we are now. 
In our submission, Chairman, we are not making any specific suggestions about an exit strategy at this stage. 

Hon. Kengava:  In addition to that, if I may add.  I think the government and RAMSI are now negotiating a new Partnership Framework, in which they will spell out exactly what RAMSI and the government should be doing together so

that we know that each project or whatever is done one a time, we’ll know that they’ll end one project and move onto another one.  Now, that could be a source of an exit strategy if done properly, and for how long, we don’t want to speculate on that but it would depend on the completion of the job under that framework. 
The question is, if TSI is asked to contribute to the negotiations regarding this new Partnership Framework, what improvements to the Partnership Framework can you suggest in line of your strong point in getting rid of corruption, having good leadership and that sort thing.  Thank you.

Mr Chairman:  Basically, what would you contribute to the Partnership Framework? 

Mr Pollard:  Mr Chairman, we are just a very small NGO with very limited capacity.  What we contribute in terms of ideas, again our mandate is focused on the area of corruption and so our encouragement would be that both the government and RAMSI continue to do all they can to reduce corruption, to ensure the laws we have are upheld, to ensure areas where our laws need to be improved are improved.  A very simple example, Chairman, is our Penal Code having a loophole that allows Members of Parliament not to be possibly classified as public servants, which we’ve seen in the past has allowed some MPs not to face up on some of their actions.  I think it’s ensuring our laws are adequate and that our laws are upheld would really cause a country to move in an excellent direction. 

Ms Tafoa:  I think one of our contributions will be engaging some assistance from maybe RAMSI program.  We have not given them the proposal but we are looking at training our young generation in civic education, good governance and influencing it to our curriculum.  I think that is what Transparency wants to put into our education system.  Thank you.

Hon. Soalaoi: In looking at corruption, sometimes when you say corruption is rife in Solomon Islands, that sorts of cover every leader for that matter.  Just for interest sake, how does TSI measure corruption at the leadership level?

Mr Pollard:  Thank you honorable Forau.  Firstly Chairman, I’d like to clarify that it’s not TSI’s view at all that all leaders are corrupt.  Certainly, not.  We have some excellent leaders and we also recognized that our system is one that does make it very difficult for leaders, for example, the management of the RCDF is a situation I’m sure that puts many of our Members in situations that are very difficult, in situations where they are accused as being corrupt.  We are not saying that all our leaders are corrupt, we have good leaders.  We are saying this is the key place that our leaders can provide good leadership to move us forward. 
In terms of transparency, how do we measure corruption, for example, the Special Audit Report produced by the Auditor General gives us some ideas of the kind of corruption that is around.  I think as we pointed out in the Report, it was only a few years ago where the idea that corruption was a serious problem was laughed at.  People were saying there was no corruption.  But I think we’ve reached a stage now where we recognize it that corruption is serious problem for us, and so we are saying it is measured by those kinds of reports.  You could argue, has it changed simply that we are now identifying it, which some of it have always been there, we don’t know as it’s something we don’t necessarily have a view of.  All our view is that there is a significant amount of corruption, it’s a really important case and we are already calling on our leaders and Members of Parliament to deal with corruption as we see it’s a cancer that can really destroy the opportunity that is in front of us.

Hon. Tosika:  Mr Chairman, just a last question.  How do you see the situation where the government decides on certain issues, like a Cabinet decision that does not reflect well on that but the government has decided on it and the decision has been made?   Is it corruption when collective decision was made on certain things?
 
Mr Pollard:  Certainly, not.  I think not all decisions, and there are some decisions that are corrupt and there are some decisions that are bad decisions and some decisions that are made in the light …. but if I can use as an example the decision on the determined price of logs.  We are harvesting our forests at an unsustainable rate and is fairly clear that the amount of logs that have been exported, the amount being declared is much less, and which is actually leaving the country.  As TSI and a number have been calling for is to have a fair determined price so that the revenue the government receives is fair.  And so in this case if the Cabinet makes a decision not to have a fair determined price of logs then you have to ask the question, was that simply a bad decision.  But if there are some members in Cabinet have shares in logging companies and they haven’t declared that so that decision is going to benefit them then under the definition of corruption that is corrupt.  But not all decisions are bad decisions. 

Hon Tosika:  Just to clarify some issues on forestry.  As we are all aware, most logging companies coming into Solomon Islands have related partners overseas, and in most cases the mother company is offshore and the sister company is here.  Most times fixing of prices on related transactions have been in existent, not only this time but a long time ago which is also affecting the price.  Therefore, at the end of the chain pricing it is people who receive the contract at the other end that fix the price, not necessarily on the government that has the resources and exporting to other countries, and this is one of the difficulties that countries like Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea are facing.  They find it quite difficult to fix a price when the world market price is determined by those with vested interest in those areas. 

Mr Pollard:  If I could just comment. We have recently made a submission to the government on this very issue.  In relation to what the honorable is saying, that is correct but the price of logs is available on the internet every week, the price being purchased in China and the main markets, and so we can see the logs that we are producing is very clear to see the prices they are being sold at overseas.  
As the honorable Member stated, sometimes the sale of those logs may go through a number of hands and the prices declared here may not be the price that has been received over there, but in terms of the revenue the government should receive it should reflect the world price, the world value of those logs, and in the same way the determined price will also impact the amount of money that goes back to resource owners.  The resource owners who are receiving a proportion of what is declared, and in most cases, we know that’s what being declared is much, much less than what the world price of that log.

Mr Chairman:  Thank you very much Transparency Solomon Islands.

 

SOLOMON ISLANDS CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION (SICA)

Mr Chairman:  Honorable Members of the Foreign Relations Committee, Rev. Philemon Riti, General Secretary of the Solomon Islands Christian Association, stakeholders and members of the public, welcome to 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 good work of SICA in promoting peace and harmony in Solomon Islands, and we look forward to hearing from your perspective.
Before we continue, I wish to remind you that the evidence you submitted 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 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 name for the record and to please proceed with your opening statement?

Rev. Riti:  I’m Rev. Philemon Riti, General Secretary of the Solomon Islands Christian Association.  Thank you, Mr Chairman, for the invitation extended to SICA and I’m happy to come and present to you a very brief presentation on behalf of SICA. 
At the request of the Parliamentary Foreign Relations Committee for submission to its inquiry into the Facilitation of International Assistance Notice for review and report, the Solomon Islands Christian Association is making this submission on behalf of member churches.  The content of this submission has been reviewed and endorsed by the heads of member churches and their representatives as representing the collecting views of the Association on matters raised.  First, Mr Chairman, the Solomon Islands Christian Association greatly values the work done by the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands (RAMSI) in restoring law and order and help in rebuilding government institutions in the country.  SICA views the work of RAMSI as paving the way for the government and the people of Solomon Islands to embark on the critical task of advancing peace, reconciliation and rebuilding of the country. 
The primary focus of SICA is the process of peace and reconciliation amongst parties of the ethnic conflicts as well as the country as a whole.  While restoring law and order and rebuilding governance institutions are very important, long-term stability and progress is dependent on genuine peace and reconciliation amongst different groups in Solomon Islands, and this is where SICA’s focus is on.
In order for genuine peace and reconciliation to be achieved, focus must be on advancing a process that is owned and driven by communities.  Peace and reconciliation can only be genuine if it is from the heart of individuals and communities.  In this regard, the national and provincial governments should establish mechanisms and processes that would enable individuals and the communities to seek peace and reconciliation.  In this regard, SICA considers its role in advancing peace and reconciliation as vital. 
However, under the current arrangement and structure of the Regional Assistance Mission, the churches are not part of promoting peace and reconciliation at the community level.  Churches can play a vital role in promoting peace and reconciliation and this should be recognized by the government and RAMSI as they continue with the national building process. 
Under the current arrangement there is no provision or recognition of the role of churches in rebuilding communities and the nation and this needs to be considered.  While the government represents the collective interest and welfare of the people and communities in the country, the only organizations that have operations in the communities are the churches and there are aspects of rebuilding the nation that require recognition and formal arrangement or partnership with the churches, particularly in the area of peace and reconciliation. 
Next, Mr Chairman is the carrying of arms in public.  While the churches recognize and appreciate that carrying of arms in public is part of RAMSI arrangement, it needs to be managed and perhaps slowly phased out.  This is because many people, especially women and children who were severely traumatized during the ethnic conflict are still affected by the mere sight of guns. 
Secondly, such practice gives the impression to the people of Solomon Islands that only armed law enforcement would guarantee peace and stability.  People must be made to have confidence in the functioning of police and the judiciary without use of arms.  Carrying arms in public will contribute to perpetuating the idea that armed law enforcement is the key to long term peace and stability.  SICA views long term peace and stability as dependent of building respect for the rule of law as well as people’s confidence in their own ability to resolve issues and enforce laws without having to resort to armed enforcement. 
Creating confidence in armed law enforcement will create the kind of condition that may see reaming of the police after RAMSI exits the country and efforts must be made to slowly build confidence amongst people of Solomon Islands that law and order can be administered and enforced without the need of arms.
            The next point, Mr Chairman, is the immunity provision of the Facilitation Act.  SICA recognizes that according immunity to armed and police forces participating in such intervention as RAMSI is an internationally accepted practice, and also a necessity to allow RAMSI to operate effectively.  However, the lack of understanding by the public of what the immunity entails gives rise to the perception that RAMSI is above the laws of this country.  This perception is a rather serious problem because at the heart of RAMSI’s goal is the restoration of the rule of law, and having people perceived the promoter of the rule of the law to be not subject to the same national laws, results in people and politicians demanding such immunity to be removed.  SICA is of the view that if immunity is absolutely essential for RAMSI to function, clarity to the public as to the application of such immunity be addressed.  Questions that are often raised in relation to this matter include.  Why can’t RAMSI personnel be subject to the laws of Solomon Islands?  Is immunity only valid when RAMSI personnel are on duty?  What happens to cases where RAMSI officers break the laws when off duty, and the case involving a Samoan Police officer is a case in point?  What would happen if RAMSI officers commit serious crimes outside of their duty?  It is important that the public have a clear understanding of the scope, application and limits of the immunity provision.  Failure to address this issue would only contribute to strengthen the view that the immunity provision should be eliminated.
SICA recognizes that immunity is a critical component to enable armed, police and other RAMSI personnel to operate in carrying out the mission.  However, the growing perception by the public that RAMSI is talking about respect for the rule of the law while not being subject to national laws is a serious threat to RAMSI work.  It is therefore critical that the parameters and applications of the immunity provisions are clarified to the public.
            The next point is the time frame for RAMSI exit.  There have been calls for an exit strategy for RAMSI from different quarters.  SICA supports a properly constituted framework to be worked out between the government, people of Solomon Islands and RAMSI as to the duration of RAMSI operating in the country.  SICA is of the view that a properly worked out exit strategy is the way forward as it represents the collective will of RAMSI and Solomon Islands to slowly transfer responsibilities to the government of Solomon Islands.
SICA does not support calls made for RAMSI to exit that have their foundation on ill will.  Rather SICA supports development of an exit strategy and timeline to be a reflection of goodwill between the government, the people of Solomon Islands and RAMSI.  It is also important that people of Solomon Islands gain confidence in the ability of the government to promote, protect and advance the interest and welfare of its people.  Confidence by the people of Solomon Islands in the government is critical to long term stability. 
At present the general perception is that governance and other institutions that enable the country to function are only working because RAMSI is in the country.  People’s confidence in their own government to deliver service needs to be strengthened and getting government not to become dependent on RAMSI is critical.  A case in point is the growing call by the government for RAMSI to embark on rural development.  These are rightly the responsibility of the national and provincial governments to serve the people of this country. 
The last point is the accountability arrangement.  The accountability structure of RAMSI operation is not very clear to average Solomon Islanders.  It is understood that under accountability arrangement, RAMSI reports regularly to the government on its operations and program activities.  However, the government has not been very effective in creating wider awareness of such RAMSI report.  This is a major threat to RAMSI as the reason for its success is the acceptance of support from the population.  More efforts need to be made to ensure that RAMSI reports are made available and easy for the public to access.  When the government fails to inform the public in a structured and systematic way, then this creates gaps that are then filled by misinformation, fear mongering etc.  Public support for RAMSI has been strong consistently but when accountability structure is between the mission and the government only then the risk of the public being misinformed etc., becomes a major issue. 
Mr Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity given, and this is the end of my presentation.  Thank you.

Mr Chairman:  Thank you very much Reverend.  Let me start of and if I may indulge, this is something when I was a child that I always wanted to ask.  When I was a kid I always believe that Jesus Christ died too early, He died when He was 32 or 33.  If he had lived until the age of, say Moses or Abraham, we would have learned a lot more from Him, but what He left then was the Holy Spirit.  My question is, can we be inspired by the Holy Spirit, and if we are inspired by the Holy Spirit can we be able to solve all the problems and the questions that we have today - the question of poverty and peace.  Can I have your views on that?

Rev. Riti:  The human development consists of mind, body and spirit, then, of course, part of our spiritual growth and development of a person is very important.  To have a question on Jesus’ brief ministry of three (3) years in life is a question we have to ponder in our mind.  Why?  But I assume that the brief ministry of Jesus for three years has a lot for us to learn, and we have not really exhausted all the learning that Jesus has to offer to us during his time, his light ministry in the world.  His teachings still remain to be very vital up until today.  The Holy Spirit, on the other part, taking up his work and his inspiration continues to inspire us and show us the way.  If any body puts a blind eye on the leading part of the Holy Spirit then we are misleading our people, our country and our nation.  Thank you.

Mr Chairman:  Thank you.

Hon. Maelanga:  Reverend, I want to ask your view.  Looking at peace and reconciliation, we find in the country that that is our culture and the way forward in bringing about lasting peace, the way forward to solve problems so that people will never again remember and think about it. 
What is your view on things that churches have already done on reconciliation between parties that were involved in the ethnic tension?  Some problems have already been reconciled and yet they faced justice.  What is your view on these two areas since you touch on reconciliation?  It’s reconciliation and then later on the person faces justice.  Can you give your views on that reverend? 

Rev. Riti:  Thank you very much for your question.  My point of view on reconciliation and peace in our country is that it should be holistic in its approach.  It is something to do with culture and something to do with the spiritual part of it.  When the law comes in, which you touched on a bit earlier on, is the question that all of us have to think about. 
Culture and religion go together in one way and that is when people are brought together in peace and reconciliation, you cannot talk about it.  Because in our culture if a big feast of pigs is held to bring two parties together then that’s it, you cannot talk about the problem again.  If anyone refers to the problem again then he would have to make a much bigger feast, an expensive and bigger than the first one. 
In terms of the church, when two parties reconcile by coming together and prayer was offered over both parties, there are guidelines given to them so that they go back and follow up in the places they go, because we are human beings and it’s natural that past thoughts will keep coming back to us.  Therefore, a prayer done to a man or woman who comes around is the right thing to start off with.  But the commitment to bringing them together in the long run must be a commitment taken by both parties to go and pray together and then go back to their homes and bring the two families together to show that they truly reconcile with each other.  Does that answer your question?

Hon. Kengava:  Reverend Riti, you stated very clearly in your presentation that churches are organizations that are felt throughout the country are not fully recognized or made to be directly involved in the peace and reconciliation process in the country.  How and in what ways should the churches be made to directly participate in the peace and reconciliation process? 

Rev. Riti:  If the Peace and Reconciliation Ministry is set up within the government for the same people that churches are also working with, then I think somehow there should be understanding between the churches and the government to work together.  As I have said, the only organization that reaches the people and stays with people everyday is the church.  The government has set up a good way to work through and therefore we should not set up two things together, I mean two separate institutions together but we have to work together to reach people in our country.  If they work separately then our people will also be confused.  They will question as to why they have been prayed over by the church but what else is the government doing or vice versa.  People will question because the government has done a very big celebration here on peace and reconciliation, and so what else is the church doing and so forth.  We have to be seen together serving one people, and the institutions that exist in the country should be for the people of this country as well, and we have to recognize one another.  I think that’s the point I want to make.  Thank you.

Hon. Boyers:  Could you describe to the Committee the relationship between RAMSI and the churches?

Rev. Riti:  At the moment there is no connection.  RAMSI is an institution that comes under the invitation of the government and that is where it is.  As I’ve said in my presentation, since RAMSI’s arrival the churches were not invited, and we do not know our role within RAMSI and may be vice versa.  But as an institution or body that is important within the country, from time to time we invited RAMSI personnel to come and inform us on the work of RAMSI and how far they have gone in their work and so forth.  Several times we’ve had RAMSI personnel come to see our executive to discuss issues together and so we’ve had some clear understanding on the work of RAMSI.  But there are lots of things that still need to be done.  I think it was only once this year that RAMSI invited SICA and SIFGA together to a certain program called ‘Talking Truth’.  That was the only time we went and talked with them.  This made our partner organization, the SIFGA, to question RAMSI whether this is the first time for them to know that churches exist in Solomon Islands because that was the first time we were called upon as a group to meet RAMSI.  We do not have any link with them except a few times during their anniversaries maybe when we hold church services to thank you God for their work.  I think those were the only few events that we work together with RAMSI.  Thank you.

Mr Chairman:  Reverend, there’s negotiation going on now between the SIG and RAMSI on the Partnership Framework they are devising.  Would you like SICA to be involved in the meetings and negotiations? 

Rev. Riti:  Of all the work that SICA was called upon for its involvement, we are very willing to be involved.  SICA always responds positively to all the committees of the government that called upon it to be a part of.  Even today, SICA’s time is from 2:30pm to 3:30pm but because of obedience we have to come because we treat the work of our nation as our responsibility to obey.  Anything or meeting that the government would want SICA to be involved in, we are more than happy to be involved.

Hon. Soalaoi:  Reverend, as you rightly said, the focus of SICA is on peace and reconciliation.  Therefore, definitely as a church, the government or RAMSI or other organizations for that matter that would like to think about reconciliation will have to get some wisdom from SICA. 
I just want to ask the church if it can tell us that the peace we have is true peace because we want true peace.  Also the kind of reconciliations that are happening, is it according to biblical teachings?  If we don’t do it according to what the Bible says then I don’t think it will be sustainable but it will be only for a short while.  What is the view of SICA on that because definitely the government and RAMSI will have to be guided on the kind of reconciliation that is biblical?

Rev. Riti:  The church believes peace and reconciliation is the language of God.  When they talk to God, God comes in and is a part of it.  A bit of theology comes in there.  Lasting peace can only come when a man’s heart is genuine that he wants to reconcile with his brothers and sisters in the true spirit of reconciliation.  Yes, things like custom will come into play and compensation is paid, and those are things that show one is truly committed to peace and reconciliation.  But those things should not be regarded as doing those things and it’s finished.  More than anything else beyond the compensation paid and so forth, which is part of our culture, we very much treasure culture as it is a touch of the hearts of people who are willing to come forward and say yes, I want to forgive my brother or sister.  And maybe not only forgive and forget because you cannot forget but you forgive and also having the commitment to have forgiveness continue on in your life activity by praying and attending church services and also show in a practical way that you really and truly forgive your enemy.

Hon. Tosika:  Rev. Riti, we are all aware of Scripture, which says that in the last days, things like the ethnic tension will surely happen because two forces are working very strongly – heavenly forces and satanic forces and therefore we understand that things like these are bound to happen.  The Bible foretold us that nation will rise against nation, brother against brother, sister in-law and so forth.  In my observation what has happened is a problem between a brother and his other brother.  This is because of the fact that some people from Guadalcanal belong to the Anglican, Roman Catholic, SDA or United Churches and on the other side in Malaita, people there are also of the same faith as well. 
Philemon, in your own view, as I understand it, morally and spiritually the church takes care of five churches in the society and every time it harmonizes people in prayer and giving of advices through sermons every Sunday and so forth. 
What is your view on situations where people of the same faith come into conflict with each other?  Like for instance someone from the Anglican faith in Malaita fights against someone also from the Anglican faith in Guadalcanal and someone from the Roman Catholic faith in Guadalcanal fights against a person from Roman Catholic in Malaita as well.  What is your view on how to reconcile this kind of situation that we have gone through during the ethnic tension?  

Rev. Riti:  That’s very true Honorable Isaac that things like that can be part of the fulfillment of Bible prophecy and also are signs of the times.  Jesus told us that these are birth pains and not the end.  And He also said that “only those who hold on will survive”.  I think we have to call upon our nation to hold on to its faith, hold on to God.  May be we have not held on to God and that is why peace and reconciliation does not come about.  Jesus in the Gospel of Mathew 24 prophesied that pain and sorrow will come but only those who hold on to Him or remain in Him will remain. 
Now when you raised that question, it grieves my heart in that my own work is a failure in a way because the moral fabrics of this nation can sometimes be seen as weak, and I have to pull up my socks as an ecclesia to work a little bit more, may be in different churches or may be through SICA because it is clearly a moral breakdown in a way.  The work of the church needs to come up alive once again to call upon their people to hold on or come back to their commitment or come back to God.  Our people need to take their faith very seriously, not only in singing and waving of hands and praying every Sunday etc, but it should be translated and interpreted in our every day work, and that is the failure.  Yes, we can read the Bible, and can explain things but to leave it out is another thing that we have to go on to.

Hon. Boyers:  It was mentioned the other day that the three pillars of Solomon Islands are culture or custom, church and law.  You also mentioned earlier that custom and church or tradition and church work hand in hand in social burden in the community and justice and integrating communities and the rural sector. 
Can you tell me how the church can benefit in the gap between the church and law or church and government?  Can you recommend to this committee whether you think the church can sustain cohesiveness within our country and also within t he systems that we are subjected to?

Rev. Riti:  I don’t really get your question but let me say that I cannot suggest anyway how we will work together or church and law can work together.  In fact my understanding is that I think every law should be based on the Commandment of God and they are very much seen to be part of the Commandment of God and that is why the church and the government or the church and the law of the country have a common goal to reach, and that is none other but that people should live in harmony with one another, respect one another, live in a sisterly and brotherly way and live in peace with one another.  By looking at the law, which somebody says is common sense or is also very much related to the biblical law of do not kill, do not commit adultery, do not steal and so forth of the ‘do nots’, which are also embodied within our law.  This is talking about the one and the same thing - the law and the church.  Therefore, our teaching should be strengthened in that way.  How they can work together is dependent on whoever is the leader of this nation leading us so that we work together and recognizing one another. 

Hon. Tosika:  Reverend, just before lunch we had witnesses of Transparency Solomon Islands and throughout their statement one key area they seem to highlight most is corruption - they want to see corruption reduced, and I think they want RAMSI to be involved in looking at corrupt activities. 
My understanding of these things, and which I’ve also mentioned earlier on that according to Scripture in the last days corruption will prevail  in every society in the world and not only in Solomon Islands.  As you said earlier on ‘hold on’ and hold on is one thing, but what is your view on how to reduce corruption?  Do you want RAMSI to involve churches in addressing corruption so that the gospel of righteousness and honesty can eradicate corruption?  It is biblical that we are fighting against nature, and the nature of human being cannot stand against what the Lord has said.  What is your advice on this?

Rev Riti:  When we talk about corruption it boils down to dishonest practices of people, people are not honest.  When we talk about accountability and transparency it is talking about honesty and truthfulness in whatever things we are doing.  That is the simple term we use in describing corruption.  It is to be truthful and honest. 
            On this word ‘corruption’ that we are talking about, whether it is an international word or homegrown bred in our system, it can only be broken down if people have honest hearts.  And how that can be achieved is something we are still grappling with and trying to come to terms with. 
            If there is the claim that well over 95% of the population of this country are Christians and every Christian reveal their true Christian hearts then there wouldn’t be any corruption but honesty and truthfulness will be revealed.
            When SICA talks about truth and reconciliation we do not only talk about reconciliation and peace but we say truth and reconciliation.  There must be an element of truth in it before reconciliation can be meaningful so that a person can confess his/her failures and downfalls in true and honest ways – being honest to one another.
            It is very difficult to untangle the system we have gone through that brought about corruption into our country.  If we only come back to what I’ve referred to earlier on as honesty and truth then we can solve the problem.  People getting things which they claim to be theirs must be given.  When it’s time to work we must work and wages must be paid equally according to our hard work and sweat.  We should not ever think of getting money the easy way, which is under the table deal and not on the table deal.  It comes at our back giving us something before we say it, and our conscience is telling us that we are not telling the truth.  All along, it doesn’t matter how dishonest we are, the conscience that God has given to us is telling us that we are wrong and we are getting things wrongly. 
Now I come back to the answer I’ve given earlier on, which is remain strong, hold onto Jesus and Jesus also says, “I am the Truth, I am the Way, and I am the Life”.  So if we go back to that I am, the truth, the way and the life, as a clergy and Christian that is what I believe in.  We must come back to why we are receiving every Sunday and every day in reading our Bible and that is to live in the truth and honest way. 

Hon Soalaoi:  One short question.  Reverend, this exercise we are doing today is aimed at reviewing the Facilitation Act or Notice, which made RAMSI to come into our country.  What is the position of SICA in regards to this review because some would like to say there is no need to review and some are in support of the review?  It depends on which side you are on.  I am interested to know the position of SICA on this review.  Does it support the review or not?  

Rev. Riti:  I think generally the Churches support the review so that we look at ourselves again, take stock of what is our relationship with RAMSI so that we can move forward.  We think it’s a good move and therefore we are in support of the review.

Hon. Kengava:  Reverend, you stated earlier on in your presentation that maybe a mechanism needs to be set up to allow individuals or groups to use as a means of having peace and reconciliation.  I just want to know your opinion that recently Parliament passed a bill called the Truth and Reconciliation Bill, which in the end will set up a commission.  Do you think this is a right mechanism in bringing about peace and reconciliation in the country?

Rev: Riti:  I think it was SICA that initiated this idea in the first place.  We came up with documents whereby we asked for a truth and reconciliation commission to be established.  We didn’t think of anything beyond except that truth and reconciliation have to come together so that healing can come forward amongst our people.  I say this because only when true and real medicine is put to a wound it will heal but if it’s a counterfeit and false medicine the wound will not heal.  Therefore, truth must come to heal the wound and proper medicine is given or proper advice is given or what else is to be given before there is healing because at the end of the day healing will come when there’s true reconciliation.  And so people are very much supportive of the review.  When the government came up with the idea of setting up a commission we invited the wider community including government representatives too at that time to think about setting up of the commission and so we support the setting up of the commission.

Hon. Tosika:  Reverend, earlier on in your presentation you mentioned that a proper timeframe and timeline is what we need for an exit strategy.  In looking at the three pillars that RAMSI came under, which is law and order, economic reform and machinery of government, what kind of timeline or timeframe would you use to measure the three pillars?

Rev. Riti:  It is very difficult for me to answer this question.  I don’t know the process the three pillars have gone through.  At the outset, the general public is grateful that law and order is achieved in a way that people are no longer holding guns to fight each other and people allow themselves to come around the table for peace and reconciliation, and that is the process we are very happy with. 
I included that in my statement because some people would like RAMSI to go and some people would want RAMSI to stay.   In my presentation I made these thoughts.  First, we should not say that RAMSI must leave at this time.  There must be understanding between the government and RAMSI on how RAMSI has achieved the three pillars it came to achieve.  And that is why we would also like reports on the status of RAMSI’s work to be given to us so that we too are able to know what RAMSI has achieved so far in its working relationship with the government.  That is the first point.  
The second point is that if RAMSI also stays on in the country, we are always going to be dependent on RAMSI because the dependent mentality has always been with us.  We are only 30 years of being independent.  The churches and government have not been self existent for a long time as yet.  We have just come out of the colonial people, both missionaries and government.  And so the mentality of our people is such that we think what would England say, what would New Zealand say, where would money come from and so forth.  The dependent mentality has always been with us.  And so we do not favor the idea for RAMSI to remain in the country with us for a long time so that we keep depending on them.  I think it is time that we look at ourselves and do things on our own.  I would like to leave it to the government to see how far we have gone.  I think the government is in a better position to advice SICA on how to phase out RAMSI, our friends from this country.

Hon. Tosika:  I think this is my last question to you. Reverend, I understand that a program assigned by the United Church to Solomon Islands is PV training where Solomon Islanders are trained to better understand what their assets and liabilities are and to be able to run their own family business in terms of promoting their own families and the country as a whole. 
In your view, as a Church that is encouraging PV in Solomon Islands, do you think it is necessary for RAMSI to encourage and support PV training in Solomon Islands?

Rev. Riti:  If RAMSI supports that program I would be very happy because it’s a program that doesn’t allow people to look elsewhere but enables people to look at their backyards, their own houses – their own means to start from there and move on.  As you are aware that every now and again people will come to you filling up your houses saying ‘give me money because I voted for you’.  That is demanding, and I think that kind of attitude should be controlled.  Our people must learn to respect their leaders by stop coming to bother you in your houses.  Our people should be told to go back to their homes, their own houses and start from where they are.  It would be good if they come to you and say ‘I have started a small piggery project and so please can you help me with this amount to expand it’.  That is the kind of request that would be acceptable and not requests like ‘please buy me a bag of rice, tinned meat, and all sorts of things like that.  Help our people to see their own worth and value and help them to discover who they are.  Maybe it is not necessary that all material things are the answer but ones quality of life can be the answer to living, and if I have to tell you a story about this it would be very long. But a certain tourist always saw a man go fishing at the wharf every day and so he went over and asked man what he is doing to which he replied that he is catching fish.  The tourist said ‘why don’t you buy an outboard motor and engine’.  What for, the man asked.  He said so that you could go out to the deep sea and catch bigger fishes.  What for?  So that you call sell them at the market.  Then what?  You get more money and then you could nets and you could do more fishing.  Then what’s next?  You could buy a much bigger boat and become a fisherman and have a big fishing industry.  Then what’s next?  The tourist said you can then travel around and see the whole world.  And then the fishermen said to the tourist, ‘my friend, this is my world, I am not concerned about what you are talking about’.  So we have to teach our people to enjoy the world they are living in and what means they have. 
I think that is the whole purpose of personal viability.  And that is why I invited the person to come when I was bishop and moderator of the United Church.  And I’m happy to see our first speaker at the time of graduation to be Hon. Peter Boyers.  I want that program to be continued with.  Thank you.
Hon. Boyers:  Just to add on to what the Reverend said.  Would you like to see the Government support the Church in helping the Churches to empower their people in the communities in relation to Personal Viability courses?

Rev. Riti:  Yes, and as I’ve said it’s the churches that reach the people every time.  When you talk about the bottom up approach that is what the churches have been doing by reaching people out there.  The churches would be happy to work in partnership with the government.  But that should not take over our responsibility to preach and teach because the Bible says in the book of Acts that when the apostles are involved in the distribution of food to the people they sort of neglected their responsibility of teaching and preaching the word and not food distribution.  So there must be some well established kind of program within the Church where able people can help in taking up that work so that our work of preaching and teaching continues on and at the same time we can help.  But we would be happy to have that kind of partnership going between the government and the churches.  Thank you.

Hon. Kengava:  Reverend, Sir Allan in his presentation on Monday this week to the Committee said that the colonial government and the churches were very successful in administering the country before independence for the last 85 years.  But 30 years after independence it seems that successive governments have failed to meet the aspirations of the people.  My question is, why do you think the churches were very successful in maintaining peace and stability in the communities?

Rev. Riti:  The churches maybe are sustainable in their programs in a way because they didn’t use large amounts of money as they depend very much on the pockets of people.  And mind you that sometimes we bother people a lot.  But with the small commitment from whatever people are giving we survive on it.  We don’t live on big salaries and so forth.  I think people live on commitment.   There are no allowances of all sorts.  Even if we hold meetings for a whole day or for two weeks and so forth we only eat what people give us but there are no allowances.  But let me say that we must not see things as failures in our own eyes by comparing the past as successful to the present time.  But at the same time too, I think we have to see our community and nation as together – the churches and the government moving together.  In that way we can identify our strengths and weakness together and move forward or backwards whatever it is.  But moving together is an important part in the life of the community because as I’ve said earlier on, the churches and the government are serving the same people.  Therefore, it’s not the arrangement or program but we have to be seen working together.  Thank you.

Mr Chairman:  Thank you very much.  That is all from our Committee. Reverend Philemon Riti, the  Secretary of the Solomon Islands Christian Association, thank you very much for participating in our meeting today.

*******************end of the session*************