FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE REVIEW ON RAMSI

Tuesday 16th September 2008

Prayers were said by Celsus.

Mr Chairman:  Honorable Members of the Foreign Relations Committee, Mr Tim George and the RAMSI team, Stakeholders and members of the public, firstly on behalf of the Committee I would like to thank you for availing yourself and your senior officers to attend this very important inquiry into and review of matters relating to the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands.  The Foreign Relations Committee acknowledges the critical role of RAMSI to the peace and welfare of Solomon Islands and thus your attendance here today is of great importance to this inquiry.
I remind you at this point that what you say in this hearing is protected by parliamentary privilege and cannot be later used against you in any legal proceedings whatsoever.  Because of the strength of this privilege, this Committee expects all witnesses to ensure that their answers are truthful and confined to matters relevant to the terms of reference and the questions asked by members
I wish to advise that all public hearings of this Committee during this inquiry, today’s hearing included, will be recorded by One News and televised within Honiara and other urban centres with television coverage each evening after a particular hearing.  The SIBC will also broadcast all our hearings live for those in the provinces listening in.  We will proceed now with the hearing.
We will first hear a 15 to 20 minute presentation from the witnesses.  After that, this Committee will ask questions of the witnesses.  May I now ask the witnesses to please state your names for the record.  

Mr Tim George (RAMSI Special Coordinator):  Thank you much honorable Mr Chairman and honourable Members of this Committee.  My name is Tim George, Special Coordinator to RAMSI.  I would just like to introduce the team here at the table.  On my left is Denis McDermott, Commander of Participating Police Force.  Paul Kelly, Development Coordinator, Jonathan Austin, Deputy Special Coordinator, and on my right is Mr Mataiasi Lomaloma, Assistant Special Coordinator and on the far right is Lt Col Glenn Weir, Commander, RAMSI Combined Task Force.  Thank you. 

Mr Mr Chairman:  For the purposes of Hansard if a question is referred to you would you again state your name before responding?  Do you have a statement for the Committee?

Mr Tim George:  Yes, I do Mr Mr Chairman.  Thank you.  Firstly, could I say on behalf of the RAMSI team here assembled at the table, and thank you by the way for meeting such a large team that we thought it would be useful today.  On behalf of the team here, thank you very much for this opportunity to participate quite actively in this review that you are undertaking.  We welcome the review very much.  Five years, of course, is a fair amount of time since RAMSI first arrived and we are doing things now that we weren’t doing five years ago, and yes clearly the focus of the Mission has changed in a number of important respects. 
            We are always keen to hear views, comments, criticisms, suggestions about RAMSI and to take those on board, as a Mission we would like to be flexible and adaptable and responsive.  I see the work of this committee as very, very important in assembling of a wide range of views and coming up with recommendations in the way forward in the RAMSI/Solomon Islands partnership. 
            I must say that it seems to me the Committee is consulting very widely both in Solomon Islands and with other stakeholders, and that to me seems a very good process and a very thorough one. 
We’ve been here for five years, as a mission I think we still enjoy quite strong public support but we don’t take that support for granted.  We are very conscious that there is a lot we can do to keeping improving our performance and working with the government to improve the overall support that RAMSI is providing to this country.
Mr Mr Chairman, tomorrow, of course, a number of the so called pillar heads from RAMSI will also appear before this Committee.  They will be led by Paul Kelly, there will be the heads of the Law and Justice pillar, economic governance and machinery of governments pillars.  I just flag that because there might be quite some detailed areas where tomorrow I can promise the experts will be here to answer in some details.  As for today, I am pleased to have the RAMSI principals here with me too, so in the interest of providing as accurate answers as we possible can to your questions.  We would be very happy too to take on notice any questions we can’t answer fully today and to get back to you either in writing or orally as you see fit. 
Mr Mr Chairman, I would like to table at this stage, with your permission, a three organizational charts which might be useful to the work of the Committee, which has been prepared very recently, and there is one for each area of work in RAMSI, each pillar as we called them, economic governance and growth, law and justice and machinery of government.  We thought this might be useful to the Committee to see how RAMSI works and how its programs fit in with the governmental organizational structure here, and it gives a bit of focus on where RAMSI inputs are primarily going.  So with your permission, Mr Mr Chairman, could I table those charts now?  Thank you. 
            Mr Mr Chairman, with this opening statement, I would like to primarily summarize the written submission that RAMSI has already lodged.  But before doing that, I would just like to make a couple of personal observations, if I may.
            Firstly, as I see it, the key to the future success of RAMSI really is the strength of the partnership between RAMSI and the Solomon Islands, in principle the Solomon Islands Government but all the stakeholders, and the task is to make that work as effectively as possible.  I think it is significant that last year’s very good Forum Task Force Report on RAMSI, which very much focused on the partnership and came up with a number of very practical suggestions on how to strengthen that partnership. 
            From our perspective we find the relationship with the government as very good; we have very good partnership there; we have very ready access to the top levels of government the Prime Minister administers and others and a very good dialogue.  I think we have good access at all levels.  It is however a relationship where I think constant dialogue, interaction and identification of the way forward and identification of problems and issues is something that is very, very important.  And that’s an area we are focusing to come up with practical ways we can to make sure that that interaction is as regular as it can possibly be. 
            Something I often say to people in Solomon Islands is that if there’s a perceived problem with RAMSI, let’s hear about it.  We are very keen to know what the issues are and what the problems are.  On many occasions, in fact, on analysis, when we analyse problems together with the government or others, we find that here’s not necessarily a problem but there maybe a misunderstanding.  If we do find the problem then the thing to do is just work closely together to try and work our way through it, resolve the problem and move on from there.  And in my experience that sort of approach has worked very, very well.  As I said we do enjoy a strong sense of partnership with the government and that’s something we appreciate very much. 
            This close partnership, I think, even at all working levels, is also crucial too, to the way forward and the ultimate phase down or exit strategy of RAMSI.  Because I think the closer the relationship between people engaged in all these programs then the greater certainty and confidence.  I think all sides can have, all parties as to where exactly RAMSI is heading in its various programs, at what point it was appropriate for RAMSI to phase down or depart from a particular function to move on.  That’s one point I like to make, Mr. Mr Chairman. 
            The second one, I think is just to do with coordination.  I think this is really coordination amongst all the donors who are active here in Solomon Islands, because as I see it RAMSI fits well in a broader picture here of assistance to Solomon Islands.  I know that the Government has done some very, very good work, in my view, in forward planning, setting goals and making very clear where it’s heading, and there’s a medium term development strategy and their other policies and implementation documents, which I think are very valuable.  I think that’s very helpful to the donor community.  Within the donor community I think it’s very important that RAMSI and the other donors work very, very closely together with the government, so there’s a common understanding of who can contribute what basically and how the bigger picture comes together.  In the case of RAMSI there are certain things that we focus on, and these are things that often other donors aren’t focusing on.  On the other hand, there are certain things that bilateral donors can do very well, areas that we are not so active.  But I think if the total picture is integrated as well as it possibly can be, it can only help all parties working together for the betterment of Solomon Islands. 
            The third general point I’d like to make is just to do with the regional nature of RAMSI, which I think is a fundamental strength of the Mission, which has been there since day one.  I think it’s particular positive for the Mission that all members of the Forum are active in RAMSI, they take a close interest in the work and the future of RAMSI, and I think there’s a sense of pride amongst the regional members in the organization as well.  I think being a regional organization does bring a number of strengths both in a broader sense and also at more practical levels.  We already have good regional representation but we try to strengthen that, in particularly the civilian areas where the numbers haven’t been all that high, but there are some constraints to that, but it certainly is something we would like to achieve. 
            It’s very pleasing to see too, Mr. Mr Chairman, that your Committee, I know will be receiving submissions in consulting with a number of participating country members of RAMSI and the Forum.  I think that is a fundamental aspect of the Mission. 
            Just to other very brief general observations.  One I think is on sustainability of the work RAMSI is doing.  I think looking down the track what, of course, is absolutely fundamental that when RAMSI does complete its work in a given work area that what it leaves behind is sustainable so that the Solomon Islands Government is able to resource and provide the personnel and all the various inputs to continue on at the agreed level of performance.  I think some of the judgments about RAMSI’s success will be made some years after RAMSI has actually departed to see how sustainable, how lasting, how durable those institutions have been.  And I guess part of that is the importance that we pitch our programs at a very realistic level.  It’s probably not a good idea to be putting a lot of resources or excessive resources into a given function if within a year or two it can’t be sustained in the longer term future for that particular activity will be compromised. 
            My final personal observation really is to do with security and stability.  There’s still the presence here of the military, the combined task force, supporting the Participating Police Force.  The focus of the Participating Police Force work is very rightly, I think now very much on capacity development of the Solomon Islands Police Force.  That doesn’t mean to say, of course, that there’s not still a security role to be played by the PPF backed up by the CTF always working in partnership with the Solomon Islands Police Force.  But I think we maintain a sufficient presence just to ensure that law and order, stability and so on can be maintained.  I think this is obviously very important. 
            Our impression is that this is something the people of Solomon Islands as well as the Government and other stakeholders clearly do appreciate.  It’s a key part of RAMSI’s work.  The focus has changed but I think it remains important.  That’s something we need to keep in close touch with the government about on how we get the balance right between capacity development and playing our part to ensure stability is very much maintained.
            If I could now just say a few points, Mr. Mr Chairman, by way of summary of the written submission that we have earlier lodged.  RAMSI is a unique and successful example of a sizeable regional response of 15 countries to a significant regional challenge.  RAMSI has addressed successfully, we believe, many of the challenges that almost overwhelmed the Solomon Islands Government by 2003. 
            As a regional Mission, RAMSI has been committed to working in partnership with the Solomon Islands Government and people.  RAMSI continues to play as paramount consultation with the Solomon Islands Government and with the people of Solomon Islands. 
            The Solomon Islands Facilitation of International Assistance Act 2003, the FIA Act gives effect to the RAMSI Treaty in Solomon Islands domestic law and provides powers, privileges and immunities of the type already agreed to by Solomon Islands in the RAMSI Treaty.  As to the Treaty itself, an agreement between the Solomon Islands Government and the other 15 members of the Pacific Island Forum, that itself establishes a legal framework for the Mission’s deployment to Solomon Islands and reflects the mandate agreed by the Solomon Islands Government. 
            Within the Facilitation of International Assistance Act, as mentioned, it does provide a number of provisions relating to powers, privileges and immunities.  It’s important to note that these privileges and immunities are designed to help the Mission run smoothly and are similar to those provided for other international organizations operating in Solomon Islands and in other countries. 
            RAMSI does place the highest priority on ensuring that its personnel are held accountable to the appropriate authorities for their actions.  Since its deployment, RAMSI has helped to restore law and order, and stabilize Government finances and strengthened the Public Service.  RAMSI has a robust performance framework to enable assessment of its work against publicly stated objectives. 
            Capacity development, which is a medium to long term task, is central to RAMSI’s efforts to give Solomon Islanders the confidence and skills to run their country.  RAMSI has worked to shift its emphasis from doing to supporting.  Success in capacity development will depend heavily on effective engagement between the Solomon Islands Government and RAMSI. 
            In conclusion, Mr. Mr Chairman, despite our successes much work still needs to be done.  As the 2005 Forum Eminent Persons Group recommended, any RAMSI draw down in our view should be linked to progress in achieving the Mission’s objectives and should be conditions based.  Thank you very much.

Mr Mr Chairman:  Thank you Coordinator.  We can start the questions now.  I’ve got a few first.  What is the minimum legal requirement for RAMSI to stay in Solomon Islands?  What I’m trying to say is that the legal framework providing for RAMSI’s presence requires an improvement or an amendment.

Mr Tim George:  I think my short answer to that is that no.  I believe what is in place is satisfactory.  There’s the Treaty, of course, and within the Solomon Islands Government is the legislation particularly the Facilitation of International Assistance Act.  In my view that has worked in a satisfactory manner.  I am not aware of major problems which have arisen in a legal sense about the functioning of RAMSI.  There is the provision of renewing the Notice every year, which is a mechanism provided there for Parliament too.  So in a legal sense, my view is that the framework is quite satisfactory. 
If I could extrapolate a little from that, I think most of the issues roving around RAMSI and the future are more to do with getting the partnership right so there is a clear understanding really on where RAMSI’s heading and agreement in a political and technical and sense too about the work, the programs and so on, similarly, about the way in which RAMSI operates the personnel of RAMSI and so on.  I think there are ways in which all these issues can be addressed.  But as far as the legal side is concerned, I don’t feel that there is any pressing need for a particular change.  Obviously, we are willing to take on board any contrary views there and to comment on those and see what others think.

Mr Mr Chairman:  Thank you.  To add on to that, there is a bit of people talk and we would like to clarify that view as well.  The question is, would you please clarify the process by which the name RAMSI came into existence, and if it has legal status in Solomon Islands?

Mr Tim George:  As to the evolution of the actual name, Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands and the acronym ‘RAMSI’, which of course, is now the way in which we commonly referred to both within Solomon Islands, within the region and beyond, I think I should get back to you with something a little bit more precise as to exactly how that evolved.  I suspect some of you around the table here would have a better fix on that than I would because you are all, a number of you were very prominent and important players in those days back in 2003. 
Anyway the name is very much popular and accepted usage and it’s an important name.  But let me move on to the legal side, I guess, of this name and I am aware of some views on the significance or otherwise of RAMSI as a word and as an acronym and the legal personality that may not attach to that. 
It certainly is the case that RAMSI and Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands are not defined in the RAMSI Treaty or in the Facilitation of International Assistance Act, and RAMSI does not operate as a separate legal entity in Solomon Islands.  In our view, and we’ve checked this with our own lawyers, for what it’s worth, our view is that RAMSI  as such does not need legal personality.  In other words, the fact that it’s not defined in the Act or the Treaty actually does not matter.  That’s our view.  I know there may be others who have other views, and obviously would be very happy to look at those ourselves too and see what comes out of that.  But our view is that it doesn’t need legal personality because RAMSI actually operates through the Participating Countries which do have legal personality. 
Under the FIA Act and the RAMSI Treaty, the Assisting Countries and members of the visiting contingent are authorized by law to be in Solomon Islands to do the work of the Mission. 
I might just go on at this point if you are interested in a couple more angles to do with this.  In our view too if an agreement or a contract was required as part of the Mission’s work, it would be entered into by an Assisting Country or a member of the Visiting Contingent but not by RAMSI per se.  Therefore, the enforceability of any agreement or contract would not depend on RAMSI having legal personality under Solomon Islands law. 
The FIA Act was written so that if a request for further assistance was made by the Solomon Islands Government, the Act could be applied to a visiting contingent other than RAMSI without amendment.  And for this reason, the terms ‘RAMSI’ and the ‘Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands’ are not used in the Act because it could apply in other ways with other groups or countries. 
Just as another aside, and I can’t claim to be an expert on these issues at all, but as I understand it too there are a number of other missions and organizations who operate in other parts of the world that go under a name or an acronym or whatever.  Sometimes these names changed as the nature of the mission changes too, but that is not of any great legal import; it is not perceived as a problem for the work of that particular mission.  Thank you.

Mr Chairman:  I have one more question and this is for foreign affairs part.  RAMSI, the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands, is it tailored made just for Solomon Islands in terms of its model?  Can you use that say, for instance in Timor or perhaps conversely in Burma?  Can you clarify to me whether you can use that model in other areas apart from Solomon Islands? 

Mr Tim George:  It’s probably a bit above my pay grade to answer that question as I am here really as Special Coordinator of this particular Mission.  It’s probably more for the contributing countries to comment on the applicability of this type of mission to other possible missions or organizations overseas where there maybe a need for capacity development and some other similar sorts of work. 
I guess one point, I suppose, would be that this Mission did come about under rather particular circumstances, namely the problems of that time in Solomon Islands.  There was that request from the Solomon Islands Government and the interchange between that government and Australia and then the other potential contributing countries.  There was the important role played by the Forum and obviously need for the Forum members to be introduced into the process early on, and so this whole initiative is very much under the Forum umbrella. 
I would think in a broader sense there are lessons to be learned from RAMSI, positive and negative, of course, but I think a lot of them quite positive, which no doubt other missions in other parts of the world could look at.  We would like to look at too; we find a lot of value to see what’s happening in other parts of the world and what can be learned, what works best and so on. 
I think I’ll leave it like that, Mr. Mr Chairman.  But there maybe other people you will be meeting with in the coming days that might have a better view on that than I maybe able to offer.  Thank you.

Hon. Wale:  Last week we had a series of meetings with Premiers and there was a fairly consistent message coming through from, I think just about all of them, in terms of RAMSI relationship with provincial governments and the Premiers, Premiers are largely in the dark about what RAMSI is doing in their various provinces and what the plans are and whether or not they ought to be involved.  What’s your take on this and how RAMSI is approaching relations with provincial governments, I suppose, is of interest to us.  Thank you.

Mr Tim George:  Yes, thank you.  I think that’s a very fair question.  I think it’s an important matter that relates generally to RAMSI’s work and profile in the Provinces. 
As to direct contacts in relation with the Premiers, it’s certainly something we would like to maintain and even develop to the extent we can.  I personally have been to all the provinces.  Some a number of times, and clearly every time I go it’s my intention to meet with the Premier if the Premier is available and usually that is the case.  So that’s one particular form of communication. 
We do now have regular meetings with Premiers at their annual Premiers’ Conference.  We sent a team down to Rennell last year and we have a team going across to Lata this coming Friday, which in addition to myself, will include a number of other representatives of the Mission.  We have a meeting with the Premiers and the group there.  We have, I think, a reasonable amount of ad hoc contact with Premiers on particular issues, for example, we have had just quite a lot of contact with the Premier of Guadalcanal in connection to the recent incident down at Avu Avu on the Weather Coast.  I think it’s in everybody’s interest that we talk too.  The members of the RAMSI Mission have a certain amount of contact with the provinces, and I’d say as a basic proposition, probably not quite as much as we’d like often.  There are real practical constraints in terms of time, transport, cost and all the rest of it.  But I think it’s important we would like to do more.  We do get out there to the extent we can.  This doesn’t quite answer the Premiers’ concern, I guess but there are RAMSI Police, the PPF officers stationed at 15 locations around the country.  I know some of them do actually have quite a lot of contact with Premiers as well as the Solomon Islands Police Force and other players there.  That depends a bit on the practicalities in place by place.  But we’d certainly be keen to do more in that area.  As I said there are some practical issues but it is important, in particular as we are involved in a number of activities which, I think, are very important to the provinces.  In the law and order side, of course, there is policing but the law and justice sector, the court circuits and so on, there is prison work there.  In other areas too, the provincial government strengthening program, there have been road projects and others that we have been involved in too.  So the extent we can do our best to make sure that there is full understanding of RAMSI’s work in the provinces, the better. 
The community outreach program we’ve had going now for a couple of years is quite active in the provinces, and while we haven’t been able to cover all the places we would have liked yet, nevertheless these mixed teams of RAMSI personnel have been to many parts of the provinces and on some occasions that does involve contact with Premiers. 
I suppose if I could conclude by a proposal really.  I really do think that often when I go to the provinces I feel that there is a bit of a sense of isolation out there and I’m sure the provinces and the Premiers would benefit from a lot more contact.  I think there is scope, for example, for RAMSI and Solomon Islands Government representatives maybe to often travel together to the Provinces to be able to meet with the Premiers and executives and others to talk about what’s happening on the policing side or what’s happening on rural development programs, etc.  I think to go together as a team might have some merits.  That certainly is something I’d like to raise with the Premiers and the government in the coming weeks. 

Hon. Wale:  The other message that was coming fairly strongly from the Premiers, and I see from your organizational chart that Malaita roads, for instance, under CSP is also under your organizational arrangement or chart.  
The message from the Premiers, I think, across the board last week was that they would want to see broadening of the RAMSI mandate to involve infrastructure development in the provinces.  You can argue that maybe some this should be better handled under bilateral programs or whether RAMSI is the best platform for such delivery of development.  What is your view on that? 
Mr Tim George:  Firstly, is there a need for more work to be need on infrastructure in the provinces on roads and so on, I’d say absolutely yes.  I can very much understand why the Premiers are expressing that particular view or indeed they might be seeking further assistance from RAMSI in that area. 
This does get back to the, I think, quite significant question about the RAMSI mandate and indeed the overall level of resources of RAMSI.  I guess given that the resources are finite that if RAMSI is to devote more resources and more money to one particular activity then there’s going to be a cost in another area.  But perhaps more significantly is the question of mandate, the agreed mandate going back to 2003 and what should be the focus of RAMSI’s work. 
I think there is a lot to be said for basically working within the current mandate.  Certainly there are some adjustments that can be made within that mandate, but for areas that are clearly beyond that then I think there is a lot of scope there for bilateral donors to come into with the government.  I think this also goes back to the earlier point I made about coordination amongst all the donors, so RAMSI and all the bilateral donors including the major contributors to RAMSI – Australia and New Zealand.
I guess the proposition is, if there is a need for further road building assistance in the provinces, how best can the donor communities as a whole assist the Solomon Islands Government and the Provincial Governments achieve that aim.  I think the aim is to get those results on the ground with the roads.  But could I, up to your honorable Member, but I could pass over to Development Coordinator, Paul Kelly to perhaps add to that. 

Hon. Wale:  Yes, perhaps before he answers that, you’ve listed it under your economic growth structure, so the work that you are doing with roads on Malaita is it under RAMSI or is under AusAID bilateral, and if it is under RAMSI, I suppose that brings it within the purview of the current mandate.  So there is no need to broaden the current mandate.  You are able to do that, and so the call from the Premiers is in terms of touching other provinces.  

Mr Tim George:  Yes, indeed, understood.  I’ll pass over to Paul Kelly to elaborate a bit more on that. 

Mr Paul Kelly:   Paul Kelly, Development Coordinator.  The CSP, the Community Support Program is in fact an Australian Bilateral Program.  It is an AusAID program but RAMSI makes a contribution to it.  This is not unusual, many donors jointly work together to implement programs.  It in fact encourages good donor behavior to collaborate, pool funds and then work ideally closely with the SIG. 
The CSP is a bilateral aid program and RAMSI is funding a portion of that.  The portion it funds focuses very much on the road maintenance program in Malaita, and that is because of the important economic benefits that we are concentrating on and trying to generate in that province. 
            In terms of the mandate, RAMSI became involved in this work because indeed the CSP roads, is a follow on from the post-conflict and reconstruction program that RAMSI started.  The reason RAMSI got into this kind of activity is that it’s not strictly speaking within the mandate, but it was at a time before the conditions were right for other donors to be active, particularly in some of these environments, and RAMSI wanted to generate some early development gains and to show to communities what is referred to as a peace dividend. 
This kind of work, of course, is significant, it requires significant investments, they are a long term work and is not really consistent with the mandate of a short term intervention like RAMSI.  So RAMSI is currently looking at transitioning out of this kind of work and it is doing it very closely with its other donor partners and in close consultation with the SIG. 
In fact, it’s looking to move to use the Solomon Islands Roads Improvement Program, which is with the ADB, the New Zealand and the Australian Bilateral Programs to insure that there is a transition of the kind of work that’s focused on maintenance, reconstruction, aligning some other programs.  But that work that RAMSI is taking forward in the first few years is followed through by other donors. 

Hon. Tosika:  Tim George, you know that Solomon Islands is a country of many cultures, norms and customs and the ethnic tension has arisen because of these cultures and norms.  There are different cultures in the different islands, especially when you talk about Malaitans and Guadalcanalese.  I think the communal aspect of tradition is one of the things that has given rise to the potential of our communities, because the Malaitan Community when living in one particular place you would find their relatives and their wantoks coming together and live in a particular area with no boundaries.  You would find that a lot of Malaitans are here in town squattering all over settlements around the Honiara town because of the fact they were chased out from places they have lived in on Guadalcanal during those periods.  How do you find these traditions and cultures with the functions of RAMSI?

Mr Tim George:  Well, honorable Member, certainly you have pinpointed something that is of a very significant feature of this country about the importance of cultural aspects, the cultural diversities, and I think more broadly the significance of this in terms of the number of major national issues facing the country.  
I guess in the most direct sense where there have been issues related to that, which have become part of a national challenge, these tend to be more areas where RAMSI has had less of a direct role.  I think if we talk about, say reconciliation, for example or land issues these are not issues that RAMSI has taken anything like a major or leading role in it.  I think there’s general acceptance about that, and so RAMSI has played a supporting role in various respects. 
As to what cultural differences mean for our particular programs, I think that goes back a lot to the relationship we have with the government as with as other donors in terms of how programs are best structured and administered and worked through together in a way that takes full account of cultural sensitivities.  So we are very much guided by the Solomon Islands Government and other Solomon Islands opinion, guidance and direction. 
As to our own personnel, I think it is very important that RAMSI personnel have, in a general sense, as good an understanding they can of this country, and that includes, of course, very importantly the cultures and indeed in many cases the language.  We do put a bit of effort, and I think, over the years increasing effort into preparing RAMSI personnel for their time here in Solomon Islands in terms of training before they arrive, and indeed while they are here in the country.  Some of that is linguistic, some of that is to do with the nature of the society and the country, and so on.  But it’s an important aspect here, but I think at the end of the day it is important that we are working closely with Solomon Islanders in a way that we are alerted to and attuned to the particular environment in which our programs need to go forward.  Thank you.

Hon Boyers:  Special Coordinator, as we know RAMSI is a partnership with the Solomon Islands Government, and as such this inquiry is not just about what RAMSI has done or is doing.  The first question is, do you think the government of Solomon Islands has played its part fully and effectively?  Also what do you think of the proposition that RAMSI is effectively an alternative government?

Mr Tim George:  I can start with the second proposition on the alternative government or a parallel government as sometimes being the term we’ve heard too.  Firstly and obviously, it is something that we would like to avoid as far as possible any perception of a parallel government.  Part of that is just ensuring that people are fully informed as they can be about the nature of the partnership.  It seems to me pretty clear that it could not be a parallel government because we are here at the invitation of the Solomon Islands Government and the Parliament at that time.  We can be asked to go anytime by the Solomon Islands Government and Parliament.  We cannot unilaterally and do not want to unilaterally introduce any particular program or any particular approach.  We do this on the basis of understanding and agreement with Solomon Islands stakeholders.  To an extent there may have been divergence or perceptions of divergence, and that is unfortunate and to be avoided.  And I think the key to avoid is that is a very close relationship at all levels in the partnership and to identify where there might be any sense that there is divergence or some sort of parallel authority out there.  
In the law and order sphere, of course, and I guess things have changed quite a lot in five years, but we are very conscious now that the relationship with the PPF or the SIPF, which I think is fundamental to this is very much in support and capacity development, and as you see from the major approaches being taken, this is PPF working very closely with the SIPF. 
            As to the SIG and the partnership, I think overall my answer would be good.  I guess there have been some ups and downs in that sense.  As I said earlier I am always keen that wherever there are perceived problems with RAMSI and if the government has any misgivings about anything we are doing then we’d like to hear about it, we’d like to address it together with the government and do what we can about it. 
I think there have been some occasions going back into the past where there have been allegations made about RAMSI or perceptions about RAMSI, which perhaps haven’t been fully teased up with us or with us having the opportunity to have a full input into shaping perceptions about that.  That is certainly not the case right now.  And as I mentioned I think the state of the partnership is very good.  It is a challenging area for all of us.  I think to be able to put resources, time and effort into making this partnership work as well as it can on the ground.  
I think the government has a good initiative entrain, which is the proposal to appoint, I’m not sure how to describe the position, but as I understand it a permanent secretary level person who will basically be within the government to address RAMSI issues.  I think to have someone full time and being able to engage with us is a practical measure, which I think would work very well and something we look forward to being put in place.  There was, of course, a special envoy in the past appointed under the previous government.  From our point of view that was a good thing to have someone we could work with closely and regularly to work through, not just problems but also the very constructive agenda out there.  But I think that is resourcing issue really but I think to make the partnership work as well as possible, there is a need for quite a bit of time and attention.  That being said, I certainly have no problems whatsoever about access to the top levels of government like the Ministers, the Prime Minister and others.  That is very pleasing.  In a practical sense it’s what can be done to make sure the contact is regular, timely and well resourced, and that applies to us as well.  Thank you.

Hon. Soalaoi:   Coordinator, I agree that RAMSI has achieved a lot and the achievements of RAMSI are very much appreciated by all Solomon Islanders, and I must thank you for that.  However, Coordinator, as you know, one of the greatest challenges for Solomon Islands would be to sustain what RAMSI has achieved.  Apparently RAMSI also represents the greatest amount of support and funding to Solomon Islands during this rebuilding period.  Apart from other efforts to sustaining this, which includes things such as capacity building, ongoing training and institutional strengthening, and those kinds of things, are there any other ways that RAMSI thinks it should help Solomon Islanders to be able to sustain RAMSI achievements so far?  Because as you know, Coordinator, we can go through all sorts of training but in the absence of some other important resources we still wouldn’t be able to do much to sustain those achievements.

Mr Tim George:  I think a couple of things come in.  Firstly, the partnership framework process that we were going through with the government right now, which I think is a very good one, and I think does provide the opportunity for a much clearer identification of where we are heading with the government in the various RAMSI programs, and where would be appropriate for RAMSI to actually withdraw from a given sector.  Now part of that then rides to the second point, which is the broader donor coordination.  Part of that will involve a phase down and a phase out strategy for RAMSI from a given area, and that is where, if there is an accepted ongoing need for further external assistance in that particular sector, then the trick I think is to identify the point of which say RAMSI can withdraw or should withdraw from a particular function and other bilateral donors and institutions with the government can continue on from there.  And I can foresee that that would be quite a realistic scenario in a number of various ways where there could be a good long term, significant long term need for assistance, and if the government wishes that and identifies that need, but at the same time the involvement of a mission such as RAMSI could appropriately pull out.  This comes back to the very important about the broader context that the donor community in general.  Talking earlier about infrastructure and so on.  I guess I am not a person in the position to comment on what the bilateral donors’ position maybe on future levels of assistance to Solomon Islands, but speaking personally, I very much have the impression that donors out there are firstly coordinating better and secondly are inclined to assist this country in a fairly substantial way.  Putting these all together, the outcome may well be that there’s more and not less assistance for infrastructure.  Where RAMSI fits into the equation is a different matter but if the overall outcome is more assistance and more targeted and beneficial assistance then that to me seems to be a pretty good outcome.  Thank you.

Hon. Wale:  It would seem to me, Special Coordinator, of all the mandate given to RAMSI to do, probably the core is the Police and National Security capability that it has to build.  Not that I am entering into debate but good governance.  If you have a good police corruption squad it could probably get a lot of people anyway, who are encouraging weak systems in government and so forth, violence, April riots.  The capability of the Solomon Islands Police to be able to handle such situations, border surveillance, fisheries, maritime surveillance, and so Police is obviously and absolutely core to everything else you are trying to do and the government is trying to do and all that we want to see happen.  And so in that sense, focus has rightly, in my view, being on that capability building the Solomon Islands Police to be able to do its job.  How much progress, and I suppose the Commander of the PPF may want to answer this, has been made in this particular area, and how much longer do you anticipate the PPF or RAMSI continuing to have its mandate to continue build the Solomon Islands Police, and especially with regards to maritime surveillance, border surveillance and national security. 
I suppose ultimately, will Solomon Islands, in your view ever be in a position to sustain such a capability in terms of its maritime border surveillance and the broader national security questions.  Thank you.

Mr Tim George:  Thank you, that’s a big issue and an important one.  I think my short answer is yes, I am sure that they will come when Solomon Islands does have that capability in an external and internal sense, with regards to national security, which is fundamental of course to any nation.  I mean there may well, of course, in the future be further forms of external assistance depending on the government’s priorities at the time and so on.  Currently, of course outside RAMSI, I know for example, in the area of maritime surveillance, the Australian Government is playing quite a role in assistance with the Patrol Boat program and so on.  There will be no doubt all sorts of inputs by other countries as there have been in the past with the Solomon Islands Government on matters relating to national security and strengthening the capacity. 
As to RAMSI’s role yes, it’s a big focus of the Mission and if you look at the number of personnel here that’s significantly the largest group of personnel here with RAMSI are still the police and that’s in terms of resources that does take up a lot.  But it is important, particularly is the progression not the front line policing role in 2003 was the focus then.  Now the focus is very much on capacity building or the maintenance of security with the police, with the SIPF is also important.  It is, I think, quite a challenge again to get the balance right within our level of resourcing.  It means too internally within the Mission we need to make sure that we have adopted and well placed so that our officers can carry out this capacity development role which is very different to our traditional policing role.  That involves a lot of internal thinking about the way forward and it involves a lot of thinking too with the Solomon Islands Police Force and other authorities within the government about the most productive way we can continue that work and further accelerate that work in developing the SIPF as part of that overall partnership framework.  I think the outlook now is improved there as to how much progress been made.  I’d say, overall my impression is yes, when you look at the state of the Police Force fives years ago, you look at the sort of functions that the Police are now able to carry out.  Is there a way to go?  Yes, indeed there is.  Is there yet full confidence by Solomon Islanders in their own Police Force?  I think unfortunately not yet, but there are a number of developments that I think are encouraging and I think if placed focus on that by RAMSI and the government then I’d say the outlook is quite promising in that regard.  But I could please pass over to Dennis McDermott, Commander of the PPF for further elaboration.  Thank you.

Mr McDermott:  Thank you, Honourable Members, and I am Dennis McDermott, Commander PPF.  Just to add a few comments to what Mr George has said, yes there is a wider gap from the PPF perspective and our understanding of what’s developed over the last few years. 
I tend to focus on the positives but there are negatives as well, and I would like to put on the table before you what I see as the real positives from a developmental perspective. 
In the last 12 months, the SIPF Executive has gone through a regime of modernization, I called it, in development and I am talking about the high levels of the executive with a couple of chief superintendents having earned that opportunity.  I will just give you the detail and you’ll see where the benefits have come from.
They have been to Tonga to train; they have been to the Australian Institute of Police Management for training, and there is a range of other auxiliary functions in training that they have undertaken.  What is also important is that there’s a Leadership Development Program been running now for three years within the Police Academy here run by the Australian Institute of Police Management, and there are about 80 in round figure, of middle management that have undertaken a significant level of training.  It has actually, of course, started again yesterday but there are not all successful outcomes, but individually there are certainly improvements.  But also in the last three years we have seen about, a round figure again of about 200 new recruits on the streets in Solomon Islands; that’s very positive. 
The work areas that I see as very effective at present within the SIPF are the crime and intelligence, and you mentioned corruption and other aspects of the corruption team does do a good job, but there are limited resources, and that’s one of the issues that we are trying to deal with, especially of its training team.  Taking into account the tragic events that arose in 2006, we now have a planning team that is very, very good at the job.  They do all the events planning, obviously with the assistance of a good advisor.  But more importantly for me is the Police Response Team development.  We have under Acting Commissioner Marshall this has been enforcement since June.  But we now have 30 capable people in the Police Response Team.  The SIPF has 200 kits at hand if ever required, and that includes shields, helmets, guards and batons.  That in itself is a very, very good development for the SIPF. 
The Police Academy, do I see that as a success story?  Very much so, given the standard of work they have been through.  The Honiara Radio Centre is another one that we have seen major improvement, and the biggest improvement there for me is the improvement in people coming to work; lack of absenteeism.  I can’t say that about the rest of the organization, that’s what I see as the negative.  But the three areas I think that whilst we focused on capacity development, I think the major thing that we need to focus on is reconciliation, not only with what’s been talked about through the government, but what needs to be done in the SIPF.  There needs to be really constructive set of programs put in place for reconciliation.
The SIPF, again under Acting Commissioner Marshall, there is a focus on absenteeism within the organization.  There needs to be discipline around that.  That is a negative for the organization, as we see it and under the guise and support of the PPF we are trying to rectify that but also just general discipline.  Whilst I use the term, about 80% of the organization does a really good job, just like most organizations, there are a few that don’t, and so we are focused on that too. 
As for the long term, we are working on a four year plan not to withdraw, but a four year plan particularly in the next two years to make sure the SIPF take more control and do more things without the PPF pushing.  I used the term pushing because the guidance, advising and mentoring is part of the process.  But I am optimistic, I am optimistic that by June next year we’ll see further improvement based on a new model that we are working on ourselves to implement.  I won’t talk about it today but one of the things that need to be done is to make the SIPF more accountable and trusted.  That is the only way I think we’ll get public confidence at the level that it needs to be.  It certainly not where I would like it to be today; I don’t think any of us are satisfied with it but public confidence is very important.  Thank you.

Hon Ghiro:  Mr Tim George, as you know rearming of the Solomon Islands Police is a very hot issue here in Solomon Islands because some agree with the rearmament and others don’t agree with it.  I just want to know your general view on any proposal to rearm the Solomon Islands Police Force?

Mr Tim George:   Well, firstly, I’d say that you know we clearly believe that the time will come when it will be quite appropriate for the Solomon Islands Police Force to be rearmed for certain capabilities.  It’s not up to me to say to what extent, I guess but the way I see it, the capabilities will include things like border protection, the close personal protection of VIPs and clearly there’s a need for some firearm capability to control dangerous wildlife, mainly crocodiles.  Now, when will that time come?  That is something that was aired fairly publicly last year; the debate on possible rearming of the Police and I guess at the levels that certainly seem to us that level of confidence in the community that would really allow the rearming of the Police in a way that went through smoothly without public concern just wasn’t there at that point. 
The other point, of course, will be the leading Police officers who were armed and would have all the professional training and preparation and all the regimes that go with that be in place as well.  The government, of course, has a clear position that now is not the time for rearming.  That certainly sits comfortably with our current view of things.
I would not like to predict how many years or exactly how long that might take to get to the point where rearming is appropriate.  I would note however, though that in terms of training the Solomon Islands Police Force, there is quite a bit going on and has been going on in terms of the capabilities in the non lethal use of force with batons and shields and so on, and they have actually stepped up to the mark well in a number of situations where there has been a need for that.  So, there’s been some general progress in capability in that area, although falling short, of course, of the actual rearming.  Dennis, do you want to add to that?

Mr McDermott:  Thank you Tim.  Just on public order management.  In the last six months every member of the SIPF has been issued with handcuffs and batons and that’s a positive step forward.  But just on the wildlife issue that Mr George mentioned, wildlife management or wildlife control, there is policy or a paper before the Police Ministry at the present time.  I think there’s a prospect similar to what they do, although I don’t necessarily say is right, but knowing the culture as they do in here, and the legislation, there is an opportunity for a control management model to be put in place for crocodile farming, if you like, a prospect for employment and certainly an opportunity for the making of items for sale.  That’s a part of it. But also furtherance to earlier comments said we are looking at alternatives that might be acceptable for the SIPF when and if we depart, like for example, close personal protection, is there a need for firearms to be used to protect the Prime Minister and the Governor-General, and certainly on the border, I didn’t address that, but on the border there is a need, there may well be a need for something there, particularly in the Western Province.  They are things that are under consideration.  We won’t do that in isolation, but we’ll do that in consultation to come up with an arrangement suitable for Solomon Islands.  Thank you.

Hon Kengava:  To the Special Coordinator; the passing of the Facilitation International Assistance Act by Parliament in 2003 went through Parliament without much legal scrutiny because of the situation facing Solomon Islands at that time and the Act has been enforced for five years.  My question is, if the result of this review recommends that the term Visiting Contingent used in the Act should be used instead of RAMSI, will that affect the performance of the Assistance Mission and its goals?  Thank you.

Mr Tim George:  That’s an interesting point.  If Parliament sees the need to change some of these arrangements and names, well that’s Parliament prerogative, of course.  However, I would hope that, that will be done for a very good reason because to do so would mean, not a big problem really, a possible confusion perhaps in people’s mind on what’s going on here, as to what has happened to RAMSI and so on.  The answer will be, nothing happens to RAMSI, it maybe just the name.  But to my mind, RAMSI is a useful name because its stand for the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands and I think it captures it quite well; it’s very well known in this country, it’s actually well known abroad and I think it could be a pity to see it removed, unless indeed there is a very good legal or constitutional or other reasons to this.

Hon Tosika:  Special Coordinator, yesterday we had the opportunity to interview the former Prime Minister, Sir Allan, who is the person who invited RAMSI or negotiated the RAMSI to come into Solomon Islands.  He made several recommendations to the committee and one of his recommendations is to set up a military base in Solomon Islands.  He requested Australia or US if they want to, they have the opportunity to have their military base set up in Solomon Islands.  What is you view on this recommendation, Special Co-coordinator?

Mr Tim George:  I think it’s like an earlier question that’s probably a bit above my pay grade, but I think from a RAMSI perspective we just continue with what we are doing, which is working with the government to make sure we are playing a proper and appropriate role in terms of capacity development to strengthen Solomon Islands institutions and that includes of course the law and order and security institutions.  We are not envisaging RAMSI down the track involving in bases and so on for others.  So it’s really for others to comment, other governments and so on if they feel the need to comment on that but I’d mention, Sir Allan’s looking quite a way down the track there.  But my RAMSI perspective is that we are focused very much on the task at hand, which is working with the government in capacity building and developing the institutions that are already in place.

Hon Tosika:  Can I ask another question?  Special Coordinator, we understand that we have a lot of bilateral arrangements or agreements in place between Solomon Islands and other countries, especially Australia and New Zealand, our closest neighbors.  You said that a lot of people thought that we have a bit of time more before the exit of RAMSI from Solomon Islands probably yesterday some or Sir Allan mentioned five to eight years. It means if its fives years, it means it will be ten years. If its eight years more, it means thirteen years in this case.  And my fear is, the dependency syndrome that will exist when the period is extended to certain length that Solomon Islands will become a depended society or country, very much on the activities that RAMSI has played in Solomon Islands. And would you think that it is appropriate that we can do an exit strategy through this bilateral arrangement so that even if RAMSI is out but those bilateral arrangement are still in place and play some major roles in the activities in Solomon Islands?

Mr Tim George:  I mean firstly, I would say dependency is always in coordination in any sort of development relationship between the donor and host government, whether it’s this country or any other country. And that is very, very important. So we need to be ensuring in our work that we have the appropriate focus on capacity development and institution building strengthening so there is a clear way forward and end point and things don’t just drift on. This is because I think no body wants that outcome of the situation; just been allowed to drift and the time going by and no clear developments in terms of strengthening institutions and ultimately RASMI phasing out.  So that is important and I think the partnership framework process is very promising one in that regard too because that provides the roadmap if you like for the way forward with all the programs. And I think very importantly too, it will provide a very good mechanism for monitoring progress so we can look at it with the government say; ‘look the aim was to got to this particular point by 2010, but we haven’t yet; the problem seem to be the following. Let’s re-double our efforts to catch up there or and so on”.  So I think the partnership framework does provide a basis for very rigorous monitoring and certainly something we would favour.
As to the transitioning to bilateral; well I think it’s important to take very careful decisions about that so that, for example, where RAMSI as a Regional Mission adds value that is not just discarded, more or less, I guess in advertedly. I think being a Regional Mission and being an integrated Mission and focusing on those institutions strengthening areas, in a sense its an overall picture and package where the assistance is being provided I think its important that that be borne in mind so that there are no premature decisions taken about RAMSI pulling out of an area and bilateral donors taking over.  Of course the other thing is, without proper planning there is not necessarily any guarantee that the bilateral donors will be in a position to continue with the type or level of support that might be necessary and that could have been provided under RAMSI. But these are probably decisions best to addressed almost on a case by case basis depending on the type of the activity. And that’s where I think the partnership framework comes into place and indeed, you know, I am sure that you are finding that RAMSI’s exit in some sectors is much ahead of its exit in other sectors, because it’s depending very much on completion of tasks, conditions-based timelines, rather than a particular date.  So it’s really a question of balancing all those things, but I agree with your basic point about the importance of sustainability and we are not being aid dependency victims of the equations.  Thank you.

Hon Soaloai:  Thank you Mr Chairman. One of the effects of RAMSI since it came in, in 2003 was that there are a lot of benefits, one group of people has been affected as they say negatively, is the people who rent out houses and they are saying that since RAMSI came the rental has risen to a very high level and people are not able to even rent houses that are decent even our public employees are not able to find a decent house to rent because of the high prices of rentals at the moment. And they are saying that’s one of the, if I think can correctly say it, to me that’s one of the negative thing that people are saying about RAMSI, apart from the achievements and benefits that people of Solomon Islands have attained from RAMSI. Those who are affected said that this is one of the negative effects. So what is RAMSI doing about this and am generally asking is what is your view on this?  Has there been any discussion between RAMSI and SIG on this issue?

Mr Tim George:  Yes, thank you.  This is a difficult one because you know inevitably with a Mission such as RAMSI involving a large number of advisors coming to Solomon Islands and specially Honiara.  Their presence in an economic sense probably cuts both ways a bit. There is unfortunate sense I guess that if people pay more for rents that’s I can understand that that’s a difficulty.
On the other hand, I think there a lot of factors that could go into the high rents here in Honiara and that’s just one of a number of factors.  On the other hand there are broader economic benefits by having these people in the country I guess in terms of the money spent and the various forms of support where a Solomon Islander business and individuals do play a part. So it does cut both ways. 
As I say, in terms of the overall level of rentals in Honiara there’d quite a few factors there. To quantify precisely the RAMSI factor I would be too confident myself to be able to put a figure on that but that I can understand the issue. Am not sure if my colleagues wish to add anything to that? Just hand over the Paul Kelly for a couple of more comments.  Thank you.

Mr Kelly: While on the impact of the Mission, it’s emanation that didn’t cover your point about Housing for all government employers is of interest for RAMSI as well and its actually working with the government to look at how it manages its stock of government housing both in terms of the availability but the cost of the government of running these things and policies around how they are allocated and managed.  This is something been done under our Machinery of Government pillar and we’ll have an opportunity tomorrow when we have the pillar heads available to talk in more detail about that and some of the achievements or priority of that project, if we wish.

Hon Boyers:  On a more serious note, Coordinator you refer in your submission to RAMSI’s role on improving gender equity in Solomon Islands.  Obviously, looking at the make up of your desk and ours we still have a long way to go.  What is being done in terms of improving this important process which is linked to improved governance?

Mr Tim George:  Yes thank you Honourable Member.  You are right about the numbers here at the table.  I am happy to say that throughout RAMSI the balance is little bit at the net but there are probably improvements we could make there too. 
I think this question of agenda is something that we are increasingly focusing in on and there have been a number of initiatives in recent times which are worth noting and again I’ll pass the microphone to Paul Kelly to elaborate on those.  Thank you.

Mr Kelly:  Certainly in terms of civilian development program at the very least, coming from a development perspective, development agencies are well aware that development work that response to the needs and priorities and perspectives women and men is going to more effective.  And for RAMSI to be successfully, it needs to consider gender issue. 
In all of RAMSI development programs consideration is required to be given to some of those gender issues; how the issue impacts differently on men and our women under different consequences and efforts to engage both men and women in the development and the implementation and review of these programs. 
RAMSI has put effort in, in particular last year it relates to government strategy, which was aiming at getting more female representation within all levels of the Public Service to increase the potential of women to be elected to government; and to build capacity in organizations that support women in elected decision-making positions, and that includes strengthening the national women’s machineries such as the National Council of Women in their work. 
            RAMSI is articulating objectives for gender improvements and its performance framework has targets against which to measure its performance, and that has been assessed in the annual RAMSI performance reviews, an independent assessments.  
And while it notes that there are some areas that are going well, of course, there are areas that need to be improved.  One of the recommendations of the last RAMSI Performance Framework was that RAMSI employ a full time general advisor. This is a recommendation that RAMSI principals have endorsed doors; we would like to do that, and we are seeking the agreement from the SIG that it too thinks it is such a worthwhile thing to do. 

Hon. Kengava:  The Special Coordinator, I understand that the proposed Partnership Framework will spell out, may be the tasks that RAMSI will be addressing in partnership with the SIG, and this could be used as a mechanism for an exit strategy.  What will be the time frame to successfully implement the new Partnership Agreement, 10 or 15 years? 

Mr Tim George:  The actual time frames that will emerge from the document have not yet been set.  Where things are right at that, we are currently working on the draft Partnership Framework document with the government.  The general timeline on that is to complete about by the end of this year, and that is the sort of timeline that the recent Forum Ministerial Committee indicated.  That document will have in it, where possible, indicative timelines for completion of tasks under the different headings and in the different areas, and the indicative timelines would generally be different for different functions depending on the scale and the likely time frame for that job.
I think Sir Allan yesterday actually indicated that, in a sense, RAMSI has pulled out of some areas already, which is true, and there’ll be some coming up on the horizon fairly soon, particularly where there is something straightforward such as infrastructure being completed for a particular task where it is fairly clear that the target date for completion of this or that building is such and such, and there it is.
A number of various, of course, are far more complex than that in terms of predicting when the task is completed.  For example, when would the Solomon Islands Police Force be of a sufficient level of professionalism and enjoy the sufficient level of trust of the people to in a sense say that RAMSI has completed its work. 
Now there can be quite a lot of specificity put into the outlook in terms of training and development in the future and at the same time there is a conditionality there because there are certain assumptions and risks that are made in focusing on these indicative timelines, so that has to be worked through.  But the key, I think, is that it is an agreed outcome between RAMSI and the government.  
Once this document is completed, which is really only a few months away, but I think it is very important to note that it would be a living document and so it will continued to be adapted, refined and adjusted depending on the outlook at the time and how much progress is being made or whether there has been a change in priorities and so on.  It is to reflect the ongoing partnership and all the programs as it goes along. 
On that basis, I’d prefer not to look at particular dates just as yet but just simply to note that the dates will vary depending on the actual dates of what’s regarded as completion of tasks. Thank you.

Hon. Wale:  Mr Coordinator, the number of guns that are still out in the community, I am just going on may be media reports from two or three years back that there are guns still out in the community, the public perception is that RAMSI has basically given up on those guns; they are not trying to collect them or go after people who have the guns.  Is this true?  Has RAMSI given up on one of its, obviously early programs? 

Mr Tim George:  I’ll hand the microphone to Commander McDermott. We certainly haven’t forgotten about the guns.  It is certainly true that the assessment is that there are still some guns out there, even though .….

Hon. Wale:  How many roughly?

Mr Time George:  I’ll pass on to McDermott for further comment but a very large number were surrendered and indeed destroyed shortly after RAMSI’s arrival.  I think everyone would accept that there are still guns out there in the community, and as long as there are guns, in particularly guns that potentially could function then there has to be a concern. But anyway let me just pass over to Commander McDermott for further comment.  Thank you.

Mr McDermott:  That’s an interesting question by the honorable Member.  We understand from the tension times or the time when the guns were removed, still 184 of those are unaccounted for.  May I just add though that in the last 14 months there has not been a great deal of incidents, thankfully, involving firearms.  I haven’t got the exact figure but I think there have been four handed in over the last 14 months in various ways.  There have been probably five or six incidences where there have been allegations of firearms being used but no firm evidence to support those, and unlikely the recovery of weapons from those incidences.  There has been a couple of part firearms handed in certainly, but we haven’t given up on that at all.  Like all the issues around those times we have not given up and neither is the SIPF for that matter.  There is their ongoing investigation, a number of them from that period and we will continue to do and continue to provide support to the SIPF to make sure it’s done.  Thank you.

Hon. Wale:  It’s so quiet at this corner over here, and so I’m just going to ask a question.  What is the current level of military capability maintained in Solomon Islands?  And again pardon me for being ignoramus but there is a rapid response capability that is based in Townsville and how is that related or connected to the capability that you maintain in country.  Thank you.

Mr Tim George:  Thank you.  I’ll just hand the microphone to LT. Col. Weir.

LT Col. Weir:  Honorable Member, LT Col Glenn Weir. Our capability is, currently we have four contributing countries with forces in the vicinity of 220 shelters predominately based in Guadalcanal. They are neutral and impartial in their actions, and I can assure you that they are disciplined and capable force that will offer proportion and appropriate response to any unlawful behavior. 
We are here to support the Solomon Islands, specifically the Police; the SIPF and the PPF, and as long as they need us we are here to assist them.  We think that force size is sufficient for the level of threat, which is today in Guadalcanal a benign threat , it is a low threat, however, the soldiers are here to provide protection to the Solomon Islands Community, and specifically those officers in the Police Force of the SIPF and the PPF who risks their lives out there trying to apprehend some militants or criminal elements. 
As I said I believe the Force is sufficient and however the Australian Government is a friend of the Solomon Islands and a long term friend, and they have the capacity, as you are aware out of Townsville if any additional soldiers are needed they will come here in a very short period.  Thank you.

Mr Tim George:  Mr Mr Chairman, could I also pass the microphone to Commander McDermott to add a few comments, given, I guess in terms of RAMSI security presence is very integrated so that the CTF role is very much one of support to the PPF and the SIPF.  So Denis’ comments too relates to this question of readiness and preparedness to handle any perceived threat.  Thank you.

Mr McDermott:  The purpose of this arrangement today, I’ll just touch on very quickly that there is 5 ….. response to events in Solomon Islands.  I have to say that I’m very confident and very pleased to be able to show that in the past couple of months, particularly the SIPF PRT response capability, although not used, and thankfully not used, has been tested and again Acting Commissioner Marshall may talk more about it tomorrow but we’ve had a couple of tests in the last couple of months, I think there is about 180 in the first event, responded within 15 minutes and then the next one, I think, was in the vicinity of 85 responded in about 20 minutes.  That is SIPF members. That is equal to or even better than in most places in the world to have a response capability.  What I’m saying is that they have a call out system where they responded to the Rove Sports Ground, and they have that is very, very comforting in the event of being needed.  But also to add to what LT Col. Weir said is that the capability out of Townsville varies in hours but also the New Zealand Defense Force has a capability to provide support if needed, and again they are friends of the whole process, and we must be pleased that we have that ability. 
There are two quick reaction teams, and I don’t mind saying this publicly.  There are 2 quick reaction teams out of GBR; one is the CTF and one is the PPF.  The PPF is the first but the CTF certainly can react very quickly if needed.  
For the security perspective, we’ve operated very well in the past 12 months, and we’ve had a couple of events where we have to respond and we will continue to man that security blanket in support of the SIPL.  That is crucial.

Hon. Wale:  Just a follow up again, and pardon my ignorance, and this is on the issue of carrying firearms in public by both the PPF and the Military personnel. Now it is understandable that perhaps military personnel could be viewed as targets in themselves, and you’ve said before that the level of threat on Guadalcanal is probably best described as benign.  Given that that threat is benign, the soldiers going around in the trucks in Honiara, is there need for them to be carrying these firearms?  Are they for their own protection or some other purposes?  This is an issue that was also raised by the Premiers last week across the board and probably one that needs better understanding.  Thank you.

Mr Tim George:  I might just make a couple of general comments before handing over to Lt Col. Weir.  I think this issue does crop up from time to time.  We try to be responsive if there are concerns.  There has been some quite and significant changes made in terms of carriage of weapons, particular in public.  Firstly, situations change in terms of the need and the perceived threat, and secondly if it is drawn to our attention that having soldiers with long arms walking around Auki Market, for example, is of concern to children or whoever then we take these things onboard. 
There have been quite a few adjustments made.  We keep that under review all the time and at the same time there are some other operational requirements that particularly relate to soldiering and so on that there is a certain basic level of requirement.  But we try to be sensitive to these issues.
It’s probably worth making the point too that we get criticism and took comment on this issue from different perspectives too.  Some people were asking why RAMSI military are carrying guns around in a certain area whereas some people have the view that it is not a bad thing and would like to see that, particularly in certain situations where they think the visibility of an arms presence is actually positive. So there is a bit of balancing that goes on there and there are some professional considerations as well, but over to you Lt. Col. Weir.

Lt Col. Weir:  We carry the weapons for both self-defense and deter destabilizing elements in the community and any threats to the PPF or the SIPF.  We had to reassure the local community that we have a secure environment.  I can assure you that we have reduced the posture of how we carry our weapons, and mainly they are slung that we hope are not threatening.  The soldiers are strongly controlled by the rules of engagement to ensure that there is no unfortunate incidence.  We have a graduated level of response, as we spoke before, to any threat that comes.  It isn’t straight to weapons or so forth in the first instance. 
The weapons are to protect, not to attack and they are to preserve and not to destroy.  So the military from the contributing nations are here to help the Solomon Islands people.  The only ones who need to be worried are criminals or those wish to take the law into their own hands.  Thank you.

Hon. Soalaoi:  My last question.  Coordinator, some people are saying that the peace process is still fragile, perhaps not based on any assessment. What is RAMSI’s view on this?  Based on RAMSI’s assessment how fragile is the peace we are having now?

Mr Tim George:  I’d make several points I think.  Firstly, in a day to day sense on law and order, it’s quite encouraging to see how stable the country has become for quite a long period of time, and people can clearly get about their daily lives without any particular fears or hustles, and I think that is a very good thing. 
A major security incidence is really the April 2006 riots and so on, and one or two things one can pinpoint, but overall since 2003 the situation in that sense has been very encouraging.
In terms of return to militant activities and other activities pre-2003, again there has been very little of that type of activity, and the sorts of people who were involved in the ethnic tensions and militancy, many have moved on to other things, of course, and have different priorities.  That being said, I think there is that underlying sense of a degree of fragility, at least, that comes from the fact that there are some major unresolved issues still out there.  I know the government, in my view, very rightly has a very high priority on the reconciliation agenda there and so they are keen to move ahead to ensure there is reconciliation at all the different levels to.  The point that people are happy about those processes that they have been completed successfully where there’ll be a true sense of injuring confidence, I think in the future.  
If you look at the issues within some provinces and between provinces and other levels as well, and Commander McDermott has talked sometimes about the Police and so on, there are a number of areas where I guess there is quite a bit of work to be done, and when all those processes and some of the other underlying issues are progressed in a positive sort of way, that that real sense of confidence will come.  But certainly it is very encouraging the general level of people’s ability to get around enjoying their normal lives is good. 

Hon Boyers:  Just to add on to that.  If RAMSI leaves tomorrow, do you think we would be enjoying the peace we are enjoying now?

Mr Tim George:  I think the short answer is no.  I mean I wouldn’t like to be too analytical about the precise consequences, but one can see from various surveys and so on that there is a continuing reason being strong level of support for RAMSI to continue on for sometime, not indefinitely.  But for the moment, yes there’s strong community support and I think that’s based on a perception that there are still unresolved issues out there, and to have this particular Mission here does perform a useful and valuable role at this time, until there is further resolution of those issues. 
I wouldn’t like to try and predict precisely what might be the consequences if RAMSI were to move out tomorrow, but I think that the public perception would certainly have some basis, at least that there would be a lot of new problems out there to address which could lead to a difficult period in the short term, at least. 

Hon. Wale:  On the level of funding for RAMSI and the commitment in terms of the total budget, how much in terms of percentage is spent within Solomon Islands and whether there is capacity for more rather than less to be spent in Solomon Islands.

Mr Tim George:  Again I’ll ask Paul Kelly to make further comments on this but just some general points.  Firstly, RAMSI being the Mission it is and has a fairly large component of particularly Police from outside and military, particularly the military and to a degree Police too, these are not typical and traditional aid donor or development donor type of arrangements and spending, and for very good reasons.  The expenditure and the payment of these people and so on is usually offshore basically.  That’s I think probably inevitable and understandable.  
As to the development programs, that is much more akin to traditional aid delivery mechanisms and programs and so on, although again there can be some differences, and Paul can well elaborate on that.  
Just one other further point which, I think has to do with expenditure in support of RAMSI personnel and programs.  I can see, say purchasing could be food or something like that or logistics, equipment would be good to see Solomon Islands companies and businesses and individuals have a good scope there. 

There are a couple of issues there.  I think in principle that is a good situation to be in that Solomon Islanders can participate in.  They can indeed and it’s a level playing field in terms of opportunity for a number of suppliers, and indeed there is a certain amount of local employment, about 250 Solomon Islanders, for example, employed at the GBR base and there is a certain amount that is purchased locally.  But on the other side of the coin, a lot of what is purchased needs to meet certain guidelines in terms of, could be health or safety or whatever and it’s quite a complex picture.  I guess in the practical sense that can make it harder for local companies unless they are of sufficient size or well resourced enough to meet all the particular requirements.  It’s something we’ve

talked to the Solomon Islands Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SICCI) about.  One of those things we’ve tried to do too is to explain through them and others how the system operates, what the opportunities are and so on.  But it is an area we want to continue to develop because it’s certainly a good thing in principle to see more opportunities for Solomon Islanders.  That might be slightly tangential to the main part of your question but I thought that was part of the picture.  Thank you.

Mr Paul Kelly:  My response is in regard to the development programs.  And I guess there are two considerations in that respect.  One is direct sourcing of local services and goods and the other is indirect.  I am just starting with the indirect.  There is around 150 or so civilian staff in the country, and of course, all of those individuals live within the community and use local supplies of goods services whether they be food, repairs, maintenance, obviously the impact that RAMSI has in that regard and the creation of small businesses is quite significant, I think. 
            In terms of directly sourcing, our starting premises are open and competitive, approach to contracting, so if Solomon Islands companies introduced that have the capacity to reliably deliver the goods and services and meet quality and quantity requirements, then they would certainly be taken into account, they would be welcomed to bid for the kind of services and goods that we are seeking. 
Indeed there are a range of activities where local companies are already providing services.  For example in 2007, there was over $6 million worth of contracts in the areas of logistics, communications and IT.  Since 2006 there’s been over $132 million in terms of infrastructure and construction services.  In terms of some of the road constructions that we referred to earlier, there was $6 million for things like community engagement in some of the maintenance programs and some local contracting in some of the imports. 
You asked about a percentage, I can’t give you a precise percentage now but we can undertake to provide that to the committee. 

Mr Chairman:  That’s it; we don’t have any more questions.  Thank you Special Coordinator, Tim George and your staff for participating in this meeting.

Australia High Commission Office

 

Mr Chairman:  Honorable Members of the Foreign Relations Committee, Ms Alison Duncan, Acting Australian High Commissioner, Ms Eileen Krugan, Acting Development Cooperation Counselor, Australian High Commission, stakeholders and members of the public:  Firstly on behalf of the Committee I would like to thank you for availing yourself to attend this very important inquiry into and review of matters relating to the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands.  The Foreign Relations Committee acknowledges the critical role the Australian Government has played to the peace and welfare of Solomon Islands and thus your attendance here today is of great importance to this inquiry.
I remind you at this point that what you say in this hearing is protected by parliamentary privilege and cannot be later used against you in any legal proceedings whatsoever.  Because of the strength of this privilege, this Committee expects all witnesses to ensure that their answers are truthful and confined to matters relevant to the terms of reference and the questions asked by members.
I wish to advise that all public hearings of this Committee during the inquiry, today’s hearing included, will be recorded by One News and televised within Honiara and other urban centres with television coverage each evening after a particular hearing. The SIBC will also broadcast all hearings live for those in the provinces listening in. 
We will proceed now with the hearing.   We will first hear a 15 to 20 minute presentation from the witness.  After that, this Committee will ask questions of the witness.  May I now ask the witnesses to please state your names for the record and please proceed with your opening statement?

Ms Duncan:  Thank you Honorable Chairman, Members of the Committee.  My name is Allison Duncan, I’m the Acting High Commissioner from the Australian High Commission.  Accompanying me is Ms Eileen Coogan, who is a member of our AusAID Bilateral Development team at the High Commission. 
“Mi laek for toktok waitem iu fala tude long pidgin bat mi sore tumas talem iu pidgin blong mi hemi nogut, hemi rabis.  Mi kam lo Solomon Island one month ago no moa and mi lanem yet, so mi hope iu fala no mind mi toktok lo English”.  Is that okay?

Mr Chairman:  That’s fine. 

Ms Duncan:  So, I’ll go ahead in English now if that’s acceptable to the Committee.  I very much welcome the opportunity to appear today on behalf of the Australian High Commission and we welcome this review that you are conducting into RAMSI.  I hope that I’ll be able to answer your questions to your satisfaction and if there’s anything further that I don’t have an answer to today we will follow up on that and get back to the committee. 
Before, I give a bit of a summary of this submission that the Australian Government has provided to this hearing, I’d like to just talk a little bit about the Port Moresby Declaration which our Prime Minister announced in March this year.  As you would all know, Australia has a new government as of the end of 2007, and our Prime Minister took an opportunity early in his term as the new Prime Minister to talk about Australia’s commitment to the Pacific Island nations. 
I’ll just quote a few parts of the Port Moresby Declaration.  He said “The Government of Australia is committed to beginning a new era of cooperation with the island nations of the Pacific”.  He took that comment very much to heart.  Our government is committed to a partnership with the Pacific and part of that is a proposal to pursue Pacific partnership for development with our Pacific Island neighbors.  These partnerships for development will provide a new framework for Australia and our neighbors in the Pacific to commit jointly to achieving shared goals. 
Under the Pacific Partnerships for Development, the Government of Australia is prepared to provide increased development assistance over time in a spirit of mutual responsibility embracing commitments by the Pacific Island nations to improve governance, to increase investment in economic infrastructure and to achieve better outcomes in health and education.  Those are the kind of key parts of the Port Moresby Declaration.  I think we come here in that spirit today to talk about the way Australia and RAMSI would like to move forward in partnership with the Solomon Islands Government.
As I said we have provided a submission to the Committee and that submission touched on RAMSI’s key achievements, RAMSI’s legal framework and previous reviews of RAMSI and future directions.  I’d like to give you a brief summary of what was included in that and then I’ll answer any questions that you might have. 
Since the beginning of its deployment RAMSI has pursued its goal of assisting the Solomon Islands Government to establish a peaceful, well governed and more prosperous Solomon Islands.  Its mandate is based on restoring civil order, stabilizing government finances, promoting longer term economic recovery, and rebuilding the machinery of government.  Australia agrees with the assessment of the Pacific Islands Forum RAMSI Task Force, whose 2007 report said that RAMSI’s mandate continued to be appropriate and it didn’t need to be changed. 
One of the most visible of RAMSI’s successes has been its contribution to building stable and long term security in Solomon Islands, and that remains a fundamental part of what RAMSI is here for. 
As you talked about this morning with the Special Coordinator, RAMSI has already removed 3,600 firearms from the community.  And although there still may be some firearms out there, that’s an awful lot better than the situation was in 2003.  RAMSI Police have a presence in all nine provinces of the Solomon Islands, and I believe 332 new police recruits have graduated. 
RAMSI has provided support to Solomon Islands institutions to ensure that the justice system operates effectively, openly and fairly.  Half of the tension trials have now been completed and RAMSI is supporting the Correctional Services with personnel and advisers, training and improvements to infrastructure and equipment. 
On the economic governance side, RAMSI’s program is supporting the Solomon Islands Government in economic and financial management and its encouraging reforms to generate economic growth.  It has assisted Solomon Islands to develop balance national budgets, to better manage revenue and expenditure and to reduce public sector debt.  Since RAMSI’s arrival government revenue has increased by over 50% and the economy has grown by an average of 5% per year. 
In terms of machinery of government, RAMSI’s work under this pillar focuses on improving planning and management systems and developing a professional public service to ensure effective, transparent and accountable governance.  RAMSI has helped to strengthen formal accountability institutions, such as the Auditor General’s Office and the Leadership Code Commission. 
I understand there have been some discussions up until now in your review about RAMSI’s legal framework and so I thought I’d touch on that as well.  And I think there have been, in particular some confusion over the immunities that RAMSI personnel are entitled to while they are in Solomon Islands.  The Facilitation of International Assistance Act, as you know implements the RAMSI Treaty under your domestic law in Solomon Islands, and that Treaty was signed between Solomon Islands and the contributing Pacific Island Countries in 2003. 
The RAMSI Treaty provides the basis for RAMSI’s operations and it grants powers, privileges and immunities that are essential for RAMSI’s effective functioning.  It’s important that RAMSI personnel continue to have these immunities as provided under the FIA Act.  The immunities are there to help RAMSI run smoothly and to insulate RAMSI personnel against politically motivated or vexatious legal claims that could distract them from their main purpose, which is helping Solomon Islanders. 
It’s important to note though that those immunities only cover conduct falling with the official duties, falling within the official duties of RAMSI personnel.  If people commit a crime for example and it’s not connected with their official duties then they have no immunity in that situation.  So if I was a member of RAMSI and I went to your place and stole your TV, I can be prosecuted for that; it’s not a general immunity.  It’s important to note that because I think there has some confusion.  Similar immunities are available all around the world for missions of this type.  Internationally and regionally this reflects standard practice.  Similar immunities are provided for in international organization/mission such as the UN operation in East Timor, the previous operations in Bougainville, in the Sudan; all of these have had immunities that are similar to what occurs here.  The Solomon Islands High Court has found that these immunities are consistent with the Solomon Islands Constitution. 
In terms of previous reviews of RAMSI, we think it’s very useful to do periodic reviews.  The Mission has been in this country for 5 years now and the situation has changed considerably since then.  The 2005 Eminent Persons Group and the 2007 Forum RAMSI Task Force Review were both very useful exercises that provided constructive feedback to both RAMSI and the Solomon Islands Government.  We understand RAMSI and the Solomon Islands Government have worked together to take those suggestions on board.  For example, the Eminent Persons Group in 2005 suggested a shift towards capacity building, and that’s being taken up.  Those reviews certainly have provided useful feedback and that has been taken on board. 
I note that the 2007 Pacific Islands Forum RAMSI Task Force Review noted that RAMSI had strong and widespread support throughout Solomon Islands.  The Pacific Islands Leaders Meeting last year commended and confirmed the continuing support of all Forum countries as contributors to RAMSI.  That was an outstanding example of regional cooperation. 
The Task Force Review Report also noted that any unilateral amendments to the FIA Act, all of the contributing countries to RAMSI would need to be consulted because that would have ramifications for the RAMSI Treaty. 
In terms of future directions I understand that RAMSI and the Solomon Islands Government are currently negotiating a partnership framework.  And the idea of that framework is to better align RAMSI’s priorities with those of the Solomon Islands Government to create a shared responsibility for priority setting.  The partnership framework will contain an exit strategy and that will be a mutually agreed conditions based timeline to reduce RAMSI’s engagement in critical areas of government as the capacity of the Solomon Islands Government continues to grow. 
I know there’s been some talk about what time frame that should be, and I note that the Premier of Malaita, last week had some comments to make on that which I think the Australian Government very much agrees with.  He said that we shouldn’t be looking at an actual date, but we should be looking at conditions that once those conditions are fulfilled then RAMSI can progressively start to leave the country.  There’s no point setting a random date, say 2013 and say RAMSI has to be gone by then because if their work is finished sooner or their work is finished later, it’s inappropriate to have a set date.  The Australian Government would favor a conditions based approached to the exit strategy. 
The Solomon Islands obviously has different needs now to what it had in 2003 and we recognized that and RAMSI has responded to the changing conditions by regularly reassessing its programs to ensure they address the most pressing needs of the country.  In this way we believe that RAMSI’s strong negotiated and agreed mandate remains appropriate to its goals. 
This year Australia will spend around AUD$240 million in assistance to the Solomon Islands, around 200 million of that is through RAMSI.  The remaining $40 million is through the bilateral aid program.  Australia’s bilateral aid program has been in place for over 20 years now, and it’s a long term program.  In March 2008, our two Prime Ministers agreed to establish a Pacific Partnership for Development and that’s coming from the Port Moresby Declaration that I spoke about before.  We hope that – that partnership will strengthen the framework for bilateral development cooperation in line with your evolving priorities. 
I think it’s also important to note that if RAMSI gradually starts to pull out of Solomon Islands, that doesn’t mean that all of the money that’s been spent by the Australian Government in relation to RAMSI will go with it.  Our aim is to roll some of that assistance into the bilateral development program as part of the Pacific Partnership for Development, which will be negotiated hopefully by the end of this year.  Basically the message is there that Australia is not going to abandon the Solomon Islands.  As long as our assistance is needed and welcomed we’ll provide it.  And barring some catastrophic events that destroys the Australian economy and we have to come and ask you for aid, this is going to be a long term partnership and whether it be through RAMSI or through the bilateral aid program we definitely see it as that.

Hon. Wale:  We would certainly welcome if you come to ask for aid.

Ms Duncan:  Thank you:  I’ll pass that on to my Prime Minister. 
In conclusion I think RAMSI is a wonderful example of a region pulling together to help its friend and Australia is very proud to be taking part in that.  We’ll continue our commitment to RAMSI for as long as RAMSI is welcomed to stay in Solomon Islands, for as long as it retains the support of other RAMSI contributing countries, and as long as there’s a job for it to do in the Solomon Islands.  Thank you.

Mr Chairman:  Thank you, your Excellency.  We’ll start the questions, and my first question is this.  It is common knowledge that before mid 2003, there have been calls by Solomon Islands leaders at that time to Australia asking for assistance.  Australia initially declined but later it agreed and thus led in the formation of RAMSI. 
Could you please explain to the Committee, Australia’s reason for a shift in its policy towards the Solomon Islands conflict and for taking a leading role in respect of RAMSI?

Ms Duncan:  Thank you Chairman.  Can I ask a question?  Were those calls for assistance, were they formal requests to the Australian Government before 2003?

Mr Chairman:  Yes.

Ms Duncan:  They were formal requests.  I’m afraid I can’t speak for the pre-2003 government’s reasons for saying no to that assistance at the time, but I can certainly ask Canberra for clarification of that and get back to you.  But what I can say is that when the first informal request was made in 2003 to then Prime Minister Howard, my understanding is that that was a request aimed directly at Australia and not at the region.  Prime Minister Howard then consulted with the New Zealand Government and spoke about how best we could respond to the difficulties being faced by Solomon Islands.  The proposal then put forward by Australia and New Zealand was that a regional response would be more effective, and I think everyone would agree with that, that one of RAMSI’s key strengths is its regional nature.  Australia was very happy to take the lead on that in 2003 and remains very happy to do so.  But I’ll have to get back to you whether there was a different perspective prior to that. 

Hon. Wale:  Your Excellency, if I can, may be follow on from that, it was said, I think, by one of your own academics back then that the changes or the shifts in international politics was because of the 9/11 and the world order changed somewhat after that and then we had the Bali Bombing.  So Australia’s own national security interests were paramount in Australia’s mind but also generally in the mind of the Western Countries.  And Solomon Islands being a weak and may be failed state, as some argued, and so it was vulnerable so the reasoning went, and therefore Australia really was acting in its own best self interest to ensure, of course, we appreciate all these, to ensure that Solomon Islands was not a weak and vulnerable state. 
We had Sir Allan here yesterday giving evidence and so therefore it wasn’t so much the request from Sir Allan, but Prime Minister Howard figured he could solicit that request, and of course the rest of the process then kicked in.  There are a couple of questions to follow from this.  This came out from your own academia and I’m wondering what you have to say about that.  Thank you.

Ms Duncan:  I’m shocked that the Committee would think that Australia had its own interest at heart rather than just the interest of the Solomon Islands in assisting.  I think the reality of international politics is that countries act in their own interest.  But let me say that Australia does have a genuine wish to be seen as a good international citizen.  We do take our international responsibilities seriously.  We have the luxury of being a reasonably wealthy country, and for that reason, Australian citizens who vote in elections demand that Australia use some of that wealth to assist its neighbors and friends.  Australians don’t like to sit by and watch their neighbors and friends turn into, as you said, failed states. 
Of course, we also have our own interest at heart.  Australia doesn’t want to have failed states on its doorstep.  It’s in Australia’s interest that all of its neighbors including the Solomon Islands, are peaceful stable and prosperous, and there are a number of reasons for that.  
Basically you will understand yourselves having lived through the days of difficulties in Bougainville. It wasn’t good for Solomon Islands to have problems in Bougainville.  Guns come across the border, violence and lawlessness spill across the border and that’s not good for Solomon Islands just as it’s not good for Australia to have violence, lawlessness and lack of prosperity in Solomon Islands. 
Yes, we do have our own interest at heart as well, because Australia wants to have a market for its products and we want to be able to buy yours.  We want to be able to invest in your country and we want you to be able to invest in ours; we want to trade with you.  We want to spend our holidays here, and in the end, in the final sum we would like to not have to spend as much money here on development assistance as we do because I think the end point that we would all hope is that the Solomon Islands is a peaceful, stable and prosperous country that doesn’t need assistance from any other country so that the $240 million we are spending here this year could be spent back in Australia. 
I’m not sure if that’s the answer you are looking for but basically yes, Australia does have interests here that aren’t just about being autistic, but they are also about our own national interest.  I don’t think that’s a zero some game.  I think our national interest and your national interest are very much alliance in that both countries would like to see Solomon Islands stable and peaceful.

Hon. Wale:  On the question of immunity, you touched on it briefly before and it is a matter that some people have been jumping up and down about.  If the current immunities in the Act were either lessened or removed, what would be Australia’s position on RAMSI and its participation in RAMSI?

Ms Duncan: As I mentioned before, any changes to the FIA Act that reflected immunities would then require a change to the RAMSI Treaty.  All of the contributing countries would need to agree to that.  Australia thinks that the immunities are very important to ensure that staff can get their job than here without interference. 
I’m not going to preempt any particular government position if Solomon Islands were to decide to change those immunities, but what I would say is that it’s very hard to find quality personnel to undertake missions of this sort if immunities aren’t provided because as I mentioned before it is a regional and international standard that we are adhering to.  I think we’d have to think very carefully about what could be done to change that if there indeed was an incarnation on behalf of the Solomon Islands Government to change the FIA Act.  We’d urge you to consult with all of the contributing countries before such a step is taken.

Mr Chairman:  Two years ago I met Thabo Mbeki, the President of South Africa, and we talked about RAMSI.  And he said I wish I had something like RAMSI for the African Union to carry out missions in certain countries in the African continent.  Basically he said you are a very lucky country.  Is Solomon Islands a lucky country?

Ms Duncan:  I think it’s fair to say that the whole world is watching.  It might not seem like that sometimes in Honiara that RAMSI is very highly respected around the world.  I believe your Prime Minister is going to be giving the UN General Assembly an update on how RAMSI is going next week.  And I’m sure that that will be very strongly welcomed.
I think the fact is that RAMSI is almost an unprecedented regional response to a regional problem, and it had its ups and downs, of course, but I think most of the things that have come out of RAMSI have been positive.  I think your views so far have shown that stability and peace have largely been restored in Solomon Islands, and you have come so far since 2003.  In that respect, I suppose President Mbeki had good reason to say that Solomon Islands was lucky in that a lot of countries have not been able to turn around in such a short time, the domestic situation that was as troubled as the Solomon Islands situation was in 2003. As I said before, Australia is very proud to be taking a role in RAMSI because it is such a great success.  Today there have been a lot of positive developments and it definitely is something that the whole world can potentially learn from.

Hon. Tosika:  Your Excellency, when you talk about official duties, I understand that the contingents are on rotational basis and when they took up their duties assigned to them from Australia, they are taking up official duties in Solomon Islands. 
What line do you draw between the official duties in Solomon Islands apart from sending over of the police contingent to Solomon Islands, as I understand it when they leave Australia they come here to perform official duties under the RAMSI arrangement, so what line do you draw in here whilst on unofficial and official duties here in Solomon Islands?

Mr Duncan:  Is that in relation to the immunities?  I am not a lawyer, well I am a lawyer, but I am not a Solomon Islands lawyer and so I don’t want to give you a definition of what’s official and what’s unofficial, because I think that question, if it were to come up, would be looked at on a case by case basis.  It would be looked at by your lawyers, our lawyers and RAMSI lawyers.  That’s probably not a very satisfactory answer, but I don’t believe that there is a predetermined definition.  For example, if there was an incident and it was unclear as to whether the person involved was taking part in an official duty or whether they were off-duty, I think that would have to be looked at in relation to that particular case in the circumstances surrounding it. 
Let me say as well in terms of immunities, we are not in the business of excusing people from doing the wrong thing.  There are very strict rules that apply to all RAMSI deployees in Solomon Islands whether they’re in uniform or whether they’re civilians.  All member countries, all participating countries of RAMSI can also waive those immunities, in particular instances if it’s appropriate.  We are certainly not in the business of allowing people to come here and commit crimes or to break the laws of Solomon Islands.  Australian staff as well as all other RAMSI staff are under very strict instructions as to how they should behave, and those instructions are a lot more stricter than what they would face in Australia or in the countries they come from. 
I’d like to reassure you on that point that we are certainly not about letting people get away with inappropriate behavior.  If people do the wrong thing, even if it’s not breaking the law here, they do the wrong thing they’ll be sent home, and that has happened in the past.  We do take that very seriously.          We understand that there are a lot of different cultures within Solomon Islands and those cultures and customs are very different to what we have back home and to what other RAMSI contributing countries have in their homes.  We are very careful to make sure that we don’t offend cultural sensitivities.  You know that can be …….. offence as well as actual offence against the Solomon Islands law.

Hon. Soalaoi:  Your Excellency, I think you are aware of requests by countries outside the region to join RAMSI.  What is Australia’s position as a major contributing country to RAMSI on those requests?

Ms Duncan:  Australia, as I have mentioned before very much values the regional nature of RAMSI.  That said, we welcome other countries getting involved to assist in supporting RAMSI.  We have a very active donor community that RAMSI and Australia both engaged with to make sure we are all on the same page and that all of our efforts are complimentary.  But at the same time I think our preference is to preserve the regional nature of RAMSI. 
That said, any decision about other countries becoming contributing countries is one to be made by all of the participating countries together.  If all of the other participating countries were pushing for the inclusion of another country, we would certainly consider that.  But again, this is a regional mission and I think that has been one of its strengths to-date, and that’s part of RAMSI that we very much welcome.  Thank you.

Hon. Boyers:  Excellency, seeing that RAMSI has brought peace in the restoration of law and order and sustainability through economic recovery and growth, as you’ve mentioned, looking into the future, as you mentioned that RAMSI is more focused at aligning with the Solomon Islands Government priorities. 
It was interesting to note today by RAMSI officials the mention of peace dividends.  Looking into the future, we look at our economic situation, our budget, the ability to generate revenues to create services to this country; it would seem to me there’s going to be a big deficit for many, many years, taking into consideration that we need to have free education, basic education to have a viable growing youthful population.  To create and maintain stability we need first health, we need to maintain and sustain infrastructure developments.  Taking into consideration our national debt it’s going to take at least 20 years to pay them off.  What vision does Australia have to sustain a prosperous peace dividend that will eventuate in free education and economic opportunities for this country to be able to enjoy what our regional big brother is enjoying?

Ms Duncan:  I am concerned that you are referring to Australia as a big brother.  But to answer your question, as I think it was mentioned this morning, we have to be careful about the dependency syndrome.  Australia does not want to be seen as the big brother.  What we’re hoping to do through RAMSI is achieve the three pillars that RAMSI is here to achieve.  We know that RAMSI should not stay here for the very long term because we don’t want it to act as a de facto government.  That’s not good for you and it’s not good for us or any of the other contributing countries.  That’s why I mentioned before that, we are looking to transition some of what we do through RAMSI into the bilateral development program. 
I’m hoping, and we’re all hoping that the Pacific Partnership for Development that we’re going to be negotiating soon, we hope to have in place by the end of the year, will address some of these issues.  The idea is to look at the Solomon Islands Government priorities and how Australia through its bilateral aid program can assist in reaching these long term goals. 
I understand that we’re already doing that in particular in the health sector.  We are looking at the Solomon Islands Government’s needs in the health sector and we are supporting that through a sector based approach. 
Education, I believe, the lead on education at the moment from the donor community is being taken by the New Zealand and the EU, but Australia also provides some assistance in that sector and we intend to continue to do so if that’s what the Solomon Islands Government wants. 
But as I say it’s not for the Australian Government to decide what it is that you need.  We would like to assist as much as we can and through this partnership for development, we would like to assist in meeting the Solomon Islands Government priorities.  That’s how we will do that.  We are not going to give you a proposal that says, ‘here is what you have to do and here’s how we are going to do it for you’.  It is about doing this together.  It is about a partnership.  We understand that there are significant development challenges facing the Solomons, which are medium to long term challenges, and that’s why I said that a bilateral program is here for the long term. 
We hope that these negotiations towards a partnership framework will meet those challenges.  I’ll ask by colleague if she would like to add anything.  Eileen, would you?

Ms Eileen Krugan – AusAID:  Thank you, Eileen Krugan from AusAID at the High Commission.  This is probably not the place to go into the details of the partnership itself.  In fact there is a meeting of officials on Monday next week looking at the best potential draft and outline of what a partnership for Solomon Islands might contain. 
PNG and Samoa have already signed their own specific partnership for development.  Each is tailored closely in cooperation and consultation with the relevant government, in this case the Solomon Islands Government.  But the Port Moresby Declaration, which Alison referred sets up some clear principles under which we will move forward in terms of any increased support through the bilateral program.  And that is, that we are committed to increase and have a more effective development assistance program in mutual commitment with the government of the Solomon Islands.  We want to look at those areas that the Government itself has identified within its medium term development strategy.  So we are talking about improved governance, sustained macro economic stability, public sector capacity development, enhanced private sector development, investment in economic infrastructure and improved access to quality health and quality education. 

Hon. Boyers:  Just as a point of interest.  May be I should be saying I have dream, but the issue I see in Solomon Islands is obviously a very long term recovery process to be able to set an economic base that would sustain us. 
When I was Minister of Finance I had an inland RAMSI officer as my under secretary by the name of Jim Hagen.  He’s now the Executive Director of the World Bank, and I’m not surprised.  The help that he gave this country at that advisory level was enormous. 
But looking into the future, the enormous responsibility to educate the population, I don’t believe is going to be facilitated by our economy.  These are the pressures I wouldn’t go into, but obviously Australia’s role or RAMSI’s role is also to assist the Solomon Islands Government in donor coordination.  I should say, may be soliciting assistance from organizations like the World Bank, the ADB and other donor partners. 
Is Australia happy with the level of donor coordination and donor assistance through RAMSI and also in partnership with the Solomon Islands Government? 

Ms Duncan:  In terms of whether Australia is happy with the level of cooperation between donors, I can say yes.  We do have regular donor coordination meetings that occur between all of the donors that provide assistance to Solomon Islands, and that includes RAMSI as well as the bilateral donors and the international organizations that provide assistance.  I think that’s done quite well. 
I haven’t been to one of those meetings yet but I believe they are quite positive.  I believe there’s very little overlap in the assistance that’s provided, and those countries generally try and make sure that what they provide to Solomon Islands compliments each other.  Yes, I think we are quite pleased with how donor coordination is going.

Eileen Krugan:  If I could just add one more comment, which is to say, yes we are quite pleased but we are always looking at ways to improve that performance.  We certainly put a lot of effort and energy into working with other donors to ensure coordination.  A step further from that is alignment, and so it is alignment with the Solomon Islands Government priorities. 
As I mentioned before in the negotiation of the partnership, it will be very much up to the Solomon Islands Government to identify its priority areas for development.  Alison has mentioned we don’t currently work within the education sector.  That’s not because we don’t believe it’s important.  We have a commitment to the Millennium Development Goals with all donors and education is one of the eight goals that are seen as a very important priority.  It’s New Zealand and our colleagues in the European Union whose funds are currently directed towards the education sector.  But as we increase the inputs to the bilateral program, we will be seeking advice from the Solomon Islands Government as to where it would like to see those priority funds directed.  And each year we negotiate on an annual basis the partnerships are setting up a long term sustainable commitment to areas to strengthen those elements that I mentioned before, particularly infrastructure, macro economic growth, health where we are a very active partner in a sector wide approach using the Solomon Islands Government systems.  Thank you.

Hon. Ghiro:  Alison, you mentioned earlier that you have spent about $240 million assistance for Solomon Islands.  Which areas of assistance did you inject this 240 million into?

Ms Duncan:  As I mentioned before, of that $240 million that has been spent this financial year, $200 million of that is going through RAMSI.  So I’ll leave it to my colleagues from RAMSI.  When you speak to the pillar heads tomorrow to explain in more detail.  I’ll ask Eileen to talk a bit about which areas we are spending the additional $40 million on in the bilateral aid program.

Eileen Krugan:  I should point out that all donors share with the Solomon Islands Government their commitment.  So the information I am going to be providing to you now is information that has already been provided to the Government in relation to Australia’s 2007, 2008 & 2009 financial year.  Our work this year has seen an increase of $2.1 million into the budget to support economic infrastructure over the 07 and 08 financial years. 
On Forestry we have a program that has been running and this financial year we are talking about an allocation, an indicative allocation of $1.5 million, an equivalent program working within the area of lands. 
We have a significant program of scholarships.  We don’t work directly in the education sector.  We do have significant input to scholarships.  We are talking here $3 million on an annual basis, and that doesn’t even include the contributions that are made to the Australian Pacific Technical College, the new initiative and then the new Australian Leadership Awards. 
If I continue, we are talking for example about $12 million in this financial year, which runs from June to July next year to the Health Sector Support Program.  You can see that’s a very significant component of our health program.  We are talking about $60 million program over the next five year period. 
Of the $10 million additional and that’s where we are seeing these increases from last year to this year and we are seeing a million dollars directed towards a new design to implement access to clean water and effective sanitation. 
Through our Community Sector Program, we address rural livelihoods and it also supports community involvement and engagement and community empowerment.  That’s working right through the provinces and we’re talking there about across a number of programs about a quantum of $9 million plus in those terms. 
I am very happy to provide this budget dish out to you if you so wish.  It’s not insignificant, there’s over an additional $2 million going to support for the 2009 census which helps us to establish some performance benchmarks, particularly for the Solomon Islands Government in terms of its own commitment to the Millennium Development Goals. 
There’s the HIV Prevention Program work that’s taking place in the gender based violence programs and then the work that all donors are doing in support to the public expenditure framework assessment and improvement.  Thank you.

Hon. Wale:  I’d like to perhaps direct this question to the AusAID officer.  We heard from Paul Kelly, the Development Coordinator for RAMSI, said that RAMSI is shifting out, may be executing itself from road, for instance on Malaita because that’s a more mid to long term activity as opposed to an intervention program.  However, like you mentioned before, stabilizing the economy is part of the mandate that RAMSI has and some of the infrastructure work could happen under that mandate. 
What is Australia’s position with regards to whether infrastructure type economic development projects are run under the bilateral RAMSI platform?  Or is what Paul saying the Australian position in this?  Thank you.

Eileen Krugan:  I think one of the characteristics that separate between bilateral and RAMSI is that we are talking about ongoing sustained work in relation to development outcomes.  We see that work in infrastructure is not something that can be achieved in a short time frame.  We don’t know what the time frame for RAMSI will be.  We do have a commitment to working in areas where we are well placed to support your priorities through our bilateral programs that includes social services, infrastructure and the productive sectors.  Based on principles of mutual responsibility we could also consider measures to support improved governance and accountability and increased seek public investment in high impact and priority development areas.  We do think it sits within more effectively in the longer term aligned with our bilateral development program. 
That will all take place in consultation with the Solomon Islands Government and in cooperation with other donors and look to how we might most effectively work together to increase, if you like, the ‘bank for the buck’ in the work that we do.  This doesn’t therefore mean that money comes across and the resources and support aren’t there as well.  We recognize that those things all need to come together but we are committed with the Solomon Islands Government to increasingly strengthen your systems from within rather than see work occurring externally.  That’s one of the key components of our bilateral program.

Mr Chairman:  Just a question requiring a short answer, I assume.  When you have this donor coordination meeting, is the Solomon Islands Government represented in those meetings or do you have the dean of the International Community here actually representing that donor and relaying that information to the Solomon Islands Government. 

Eileen Krugan: The Solomon Islands Government convenes joint government-donor meetings on a quarterly basis.  That’s my understanding, and in fact I’m about to attend meeting two for this year tomorrow morning, along with my donor colleagues. 
We are also meet as donors out of session to share information about out programs and to ensure that we avoid putting undue pressure on t he Solomon Islands government systems, and that we can work in a coordinated manner and not be making five, six separate individual requests but do them in a combined manner to avoid duplication, and to avoid putting too much onerous work on to a system which is trying to work for the Solomon Islanders not for the donors. 

Hon. Kengava:  Your Excellency, I just want to ask that whilst RAMSI is highly appreciated regionally and internationally, as you mentioned, the provincial leaders of this country feel quite differently.  They feel that RAMSI is not doing enough in addressing the economic and infrastructural needs of the provinces, except for bringing back law and order to normalcy.  Why is this so?  Thank you.

Ms Duncan:  RAMSI’s mandate was based, when it came in 2003, on restoring civil order, stabilizing government finances, promoting longer term economic recovery and rebuilding the machinery of government.  At the moment, I think there isn’t a lot of scope for RAMSI to do tasks outside of that mandate. 
I’ve heard the criticisms that you raised that RAMSI sometimes does not do enough, but likewise I’ve also heard criticisms from other people who said that RAMSI does too much.  RAMSI’s in a little bit of a bind in that respect. 
From the Australian Government’s position we think it’s appropriate that RAMSI fulfils the mandate it has been given.  It shouldn’t do anymore and it shouldn’t do any less, because if it goes outside that mandate then it’s going against the wishes of the Solomon Islands Government. 
If the Solomon Islands Government wants to talk to the RAMSI contributing countries about changing that mandate then it should do that.  We think and the Pacific Islands Forum Leaders think that the mandate remains appropriate, but there’s certainly room for discussion if you don’t think that it does remain appropriate.  But as I said, until that mandate were to be changed, our position as the Australian Government is that RAMSI should stick to that mandate because we don’t want to breach the sovereignty of the Solomon Islands Government by trying to do more or less than what we have been asked to do. 

Hon Kengava:  Maybe in addition to that, with this proposed partnership agreement, is there an avenue to widen or broaden that mandate?

Ms Duncan:  I think perhaps we may have confused the proposed Pacific Partnership for Development, which is an Australian bilateral initiative with the Solomon Islands Government and the Partnership Framework; there’s far too many partnerships and frameworks going on here, but the partnership framework is RAMSI with the Solomon Islands Government. 
My understanding of the partnership framework between RAMSI and the Solomon Islands Government is that it is not based upon broadening RAMSI’s mandated.  It is based upon revaluating how RAMSI’s priorities are inline with the Solomon Islands Government’s priorities, how they are fulfilling the mandate they already have and putting in place indicators that will allow for RAMSI’s gradual drawdown as the situation in the Solomon Islands improves. 
In terms of our Pacific Partnership for Development, which is the Australian bilateral initiative with the Solomon Islands Government, there is certainly scope within that to increase what Australia is already doing.  And as Eileen said before, we will certainly look at any priorities the Solomon Islands Government brings to the table.  So we are working on your medium term development goals and we are going to sit at the table and discuss what you would like to see Australia doing as part of our bilateral assistance program.  And that’s open, you can bring anything you want to that table and will consider it.  Those are the two separates frameworks.

Hon Kengava:  Probably it would seem that only if we review the Facilitation of International Act and the other two agreements would we be able to change the mandate. 

Ms Duncan:  Sorry, can I just clarify.  So you are saying that in your review of the Facilitation of International Assistance Act you are looking to change the mandate or?

Hon Kengava:  What I am saying is that the only opportunity to broaden and expand the role of RAMSI would be when we change the legal Notices and the agreements and that sort of thing.

Ms Duncan:  That’s right, yes.

Hon Wale:  The commitment by Australia, and we know that the relationship with the Solomon Islands Government was not at its peak in recent times, and Australia remained committed both in its bilateral, may be at a low level but it remain committed to RAMSI and this country appreciates that very much. 
The mid term, and I suppose this is a question that AusAID will have been considering, the mid term fiscal prognosis is fairly clear that one doesn’t need to work for NASA to work it out.  Much of it, probably self inflicted, however, there is need for this country to begin exploring ways to manage what it has into the future, and it will look to perhaps RAMSI in terms of what it can do under its existing mandate, but certainly also through the bilateral.  If there was a mechanism to mange that because I think the impact in terms of sustaining RAMSI in its mandate and its RAMSI outcomes will, in a lot of ways be impacted by what comes out of this.  Would Australia consider participating in a local SIG established mechanism to manage the process of what we have seen already as a mid term fiscal prognosis.

Ms Duncan:  Some of that certainly does fall into RAMSI’s mandate.  We wouldn’t go into the specifics of RAMSI’s mandate, if you don’t mind here because that is really something that the pillar heads would be much better off answering.  But in terms of bilateral involvement in such programs, I’ll ask Eileen to speak in a moment, but as we have said throughout, our focus through the Pacific Partnership for Development is that we work through your priorities.  So if the Solomon Islands Government were to say we need help on our long term economic sustainability, we need help in the forestry sector, we need help with the lands sector then that certainly are areas that we would look at assisting with.  And I believe we have already had some projects in the forestry and the lands sectors, but I’ll ask Eileen to speak further on that.

Ms Eileen Krugan:  As I said we got a working forward, looking at a partnership with Solomon Islands in terms of our bilateral program.  There is also the framework partnership for RAMSI.  Certainly, for us, it’s important to see that these two things need to be adapted to neatly and to be closely aligned.  At the moment, the governance area is one of the strengths of the RAMSI program.  So we are not treading on its toes on the bilateral side, but as things change and devolve and according to outlined Solomon Islands Government priorities, there is nothing to negate a conversation and consideration of in a way we might strengthen support to improve those areas.

Hon Wale:  The Malaita Premier last week made some fairly apt statements; I was going to say as usual, he is pretty good and he said provincial governments are at the front end of development, they are closest to the people in terms of our governance structures.  Yet they are least equipped to do that and the capacity to be able to deliver on development is extremely constrained. 
Now obviously one of the mandates that RAMSI has is in this whole governance, machinery of government and provincial governments fit very nicely into that.  I don’t know what to date has happened, I know some provincial audits have been happening and perhaps assistance with accounting and so forth, but beyond that in the actual capacity of the machinery of provincial governments to actually become positive, proactive perhaps agents for development that to my mind and probably ignorant but hasn’t happened and whether this is an area that RAMSI is looking at or has looked at.  I’ll leave it to you though.

Ms Duncan:  I am sorry to be constantly deferring to RAMSI colleagues, but I think that really is one for the pillar head of the machinery of government program.  Certainly through the bilateral program, the Australian Government has a policy of trying to engage right down to the grassroots but at the same time we are conscious that we need to work through the national government.  And so a lot of consultation that needs to happen needs to be initiated, I think by the Solomon Islands Government itself.  I am sure your Prime Minister wouldn’t be too happy if he found out that he was being sidestepped by the Australian Government in taking its development programs directly to various provinces because you know better then we do who needs the assistance.  But I’ll pass over to Eileen again to see if she has any thing further to say on that.  Thank you.

Ms Eileen Krugan:  I guess what I’d like to reinforce is the forward program, which is very much a program with a strong rural development focus, and it is aimed at improving economic livelihoods and promoting income and employment generation.          When we talk about infrastructure, the infrastructure is rural infrastructure for high priority areas like roads, water, sanitation and electrification.  We recognize the forestry sector as a very challenging and critical sector and we are beginning the design of a new program to follow the current forestry management program, again with an emphasis on rural livelihoods. 
Our livelihood programs will be complimented by efforts to support community led development out of the local level through assistance to non government organizations and through what is known as the Community Sector Program. 
Again we really have strong engagement in health.  The focus there is towards supporting achievement of the key Millennium Development Goals in health, reducing maternal and child mortality, combating malaria and other diseases.  Again, they are things that take our reach out to the regions, the provinces and the people.

Hon Boyers:    Do you think by 2012, the Solomon Islands Government would have achieved the governance indicators to qualify us for the Millennium Development Fund?

Ms Duncan:  That’s a pretty difficult question.  I am not sure that the Australian Government could predict that.  What I can say is that we can look into the past and see that in the last five years the Solomon Islands Government has come a very long way and development in this country has come a long way.   But we can also say that there is a long way to go in achieving the Millennium Development Goals.  And that was one of the reasons that our Prime Minister has undertaken to enter into partnerships with all of the countries in the region that we have a donor relationship with to try and meet those goals.  2012 maybe a pretty optimistic goal but it’s a good one and we will do everything we can to help you meet that goal.  But in terms of predicting the future, I wouldn’t dare to make a prediction, I am afraid. 

Mr Chairman:  Was ever financial independence something that you have to take a look at when you have all the coordinating donors meeting?  Because to be financially independent, especially trying to achieve, and this is what my committee members said, to achieve those goals especially millennium development goals may take a long, long time.  Is financial independence ever discussed in some of your meetings? 

Ms Krugan: Economic development and strengthened economic governance are key underlining requirements in support of poverty eradication.  So is the world flat?

Hon Kengava:  Excellency, I just want further clarification. RAMSI is now coming up with this partnership framework and at the same time there are bilateral programs between donors and the Solomon Islands Government.  Will there be no compromises in situations like this?  Is it because of this that’s why other donors would like to come and join RAMSI? 
Ms Duncan:  Sorry, I might have to ask for clarification again.  Sorry I am not quite sure what you mean.

Hon Kengava:  I am just saying that there is this proposed RAMSI partnership framework with the Solomon Islands Government but at the same time there are other supports that, say Australia is giving to Solomon Islands through bilateral programs.  I am just wondering whether this is not going to cause any compromise to giving development support to Solomon Islands because it might confuse the way the Australian Government is going to give aid or concentrate its aid on.  Is it going to be within the partnership framework or through the bilateral aid program?  Is this the reason why some countries or some donors would now like to be part of RAMSI so that they can also be part of the partnership agreement?  Thank you.

Ms Duncan:   I think in the past there has certainly been some confusion between what Australia does bilaterally and what RAMSI does, and perhaps also between what New Zealand does bilaterally and what RAMSI does.  I think the partnership framework between the Solomon Islands Government and RAMSI is partly designed to cut down on the ambiguity and to make sure that RAMSI’s goals are well stated, that everyone understands what they are and that they are restricted within RAMSI’s mandate and everything else can be done by donors. 
There’s good reason for that, as we talked about before.  RAMSI is not here forever; RAMSI will eventually leave someday.  Therefore, the things that are longer term projects, such as rural infrastructure, road building and so on, such things need to be done by donors. 
With good communication between the Solomon Islands Government and RAMSI and with each of donor countries, I think it’s possible to make sure that all of those things complement each other nicely without having too much confusion.  There’s inevitably going to be some confusion.  Everywhere in the world where there are countries providing development assistance, there is always some small overlapping areas.  But I think with the donor coordination meetings that are happening and once this framework is negotiated between RAMSI and your government, I think that will provide a good framework so that donors understand how best they can align their priorities with RAMSI and make sure that what they are doing is complementary and gives further assistance to Solomon Islands to meet its development goals.  Thank you.

Mr Kengava: I am just wondering, and may be a bit an idealistic attitude, but why not RAMSI through the international recognition it is now gaining come up with something like the Marshall Plan that was used to recover and rebuild Europe.  Secure some bigger funding internationally and come and rebuild Solomon Islands rather than mixing it up with its own funding.  Thank you.

Ms Duncan:  I am not sure if your government would want us to do that.  I think that’s probably an issue that could be raised during the partnership framework discussions, and of course again that’s something that all 15 member countries of RAMSI would need to consider.  I don’t want to answer that on behalf of the Australian Government because it is only one of those 15.  But as we have said before RAMSI’s mandate is limited and it is not going to be here forever.  
I think our perspective would be that it’s better to have a very strongly coordinated donor positions that are all working together to your master plan as opposed to preparing a master plan of their own and handed it to you.  It’s the Solomon Islands Government that needs to decide what you want, it tells us and then we will hopefully do it. 

Hon Tosika:  Probably the last question.  Your Excellency, today you mentioned about $240million and $200million is for RAMSI and $40million is through bilateral arrangement.  When the Special Coordinator spoke today he talked about sustainability.  Would the Australian Government be able to sustain the $200million if RAMSI is to exit from Solomon Islands?

Ms Duncan:  That’s the $200million question, I think.  As I said earlier when I first spoke, I don’t think we can put a figure right now on what Australia would be able to provide the Solomon Islands Government in the future, but we certainly through the Pacific Partnership for Development are looking to expand our bilateral cooperation as RAMSI draws down.  That is a definite possibility.  I can’t say how much will be required because it would depend on the needs of the Solomon Islands Government but that would be negotiated and once we have the Pacific Partnership for Development hopefully by the end of this year, we’ll look at that on a yearly basis and we’ll re-examine what assistance the Solomon Islands Government would like to receive from Australia.  I’ll just ask my colleague if she has anything to add to that.

Ms Krugan:  We hope and we anticipate a progressive increase in our ODA, and I think it’s more than just a hope.  Over the next few years if the Australian Government’s commitment to increased development flosses a whole, it’s part of the broader Pacific strategy and the commitment to work much more closely with our Pacific Islands neighbors, work with the people closest to us first and foremost. 
Certainly, we will not see any reduction in the flow of ODA through the bilateral program and we expect a progressive increase.  A key question is about absorptive capacity, to what degree we can effectively direct and use that money.  That’s where we need to talk further.

Mr Chairman:  No more questions.  Thank you very much Acting High Commissioner for participating in the meeting.

Ms Duncan:  Thank you Honorable Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, it has been a pleasure and I think there was one question I needed to get back to you on and we’ll do that as soon as possible.  Thank you.

New Zealand High Commissioner

Mr Chairman:  Honorable Members of the Foreign Relations Committee, Your Excellency Ms Deborah Pankhurst, New Zealand High Commissioner, stakeholders and members of the Public, firstly on behalf of the Committee I would like to thank you, your Excellency for availing yourself to this very import inquiry into and review of matters relating to the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands.  The Foreign Relations Committee acknowledges the important contribution that the New Zealand Government has made to the peace and welfare of Solomon Islands, and thus your attendance here today is greatly appreciated. 
I remind you at this point that what you say in this hearing is protected by parliamentary privilege and cannot be later used against you in any legal proceedings whatsoever.  Because of the strength of this privilege, this Committee expects all witnesses to ensure that their answers are truthful and confined to matters relevant to the terms of reference and questions asked by members. 
I wish to restate that all public hearings of this Committee during the inquiry today’s hearings included, will be recorded by One News and televised within Honiara and other urban centres, with television coverage each evening after a particular hearing.  The SIBC will also broadcast all our hearings live for all those in the provinces listening in. 
We will proceed now with the hearing.  We will first hear a 15 to 20 minutes presentation from the witness and after that this Committee will ask questions of the witness. 
I now ask the witness to please state your name for the record and please proceed with your opening statement?

Ms Deborah Pankhurst:  Yes, my name is Deborah Pankhurst, and I am the New Zealand High Commissioner in Solomon Islands.  I would like to thank the Chairman and the Committee for this opportunity to appear before you.  Thank you very much and thank you for the invitation to make a formal submission into the parliamentary inquiry and to the Facilitation of International Assistance Notice.  We appreciate the Solomon Islands Government’s commitment to consult RAMSI participating countries on the inquiry.  The terms of reference for the inquiry are broad.  As we are not sure which areas of RAMSI’s work the inquiry is likely to focus on, we have limited our comments to a few key points of importance to New Zealand and its participation in RAMSI.  We would welcome the opportunity to remain engaged in the inquiry as its focus is further defined.
Solomon Islands is an important bilateral and regional partner for New Zealand and New Zealand’s relationship with Solomon Islands has developed over many years of close association.  The relationship has been enhanced in recent years by New Zealand’s support and participation in the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands (RAMSI) and its increased bilateral aid program with Solomon Islands.  New Zealand is committed to continuing its support to Solomon Islands bilaterally and through RAMSI. 
Solomon Islands is an active participant in New Zealand’s recognized Seasonal Employers Scheme and sent 238 workers to New Zealand in the first year of the Scheme.  The New Zealand Cabinet recently decided to designate Solomon Islands a kick start state under the Scheme, which will provide for further facilitative measures to enable Solomon Islands’ workers to come to New Zealand in the future. 
New Zealand’s Development Cooperation Relationship with Solomon Islands is New Zealand’s largest bilateral program and has undergone significant growth since RAMSI’s arrival.  The New Zealand Agency for International Development (NZAID), the bilateral allocation for Solomon Islands has increased from approximately SI$182million in 2007/2008 to SI$194million in 2008/2009.  The total forecast bilateral allocation for 2009/2010 is $241million.  Further potential for scaling up in the longer term is expected.  This allocation includes New Zealand’s development and policing contributions to RAMSI. 
NZAID is currently developing a new 10 year development strategy for the period 2009-2018 for its Solomon Islands development assistance program.  This will set the strategic direction and focused areas for NZAID support to Solomon Islands for the next 10 years for both its bilateral programs and contributions to RAMSI.  The new strategy will ensure close alignment with the Solomon Islands Government’s national priorities as set out in the Medium Term Development Strategy and will determine how New Zealand can respond to Solomon Islands Government priorities, including rural economic growth. 
Consultations on the strategy have been held in Honiara with strong endorsement from the Solomon Islands Government of the New Zealand aid program and approach and constructive feedback on the government expectations of NZAID support.  These ideas are currently being further developed and final consultation is expected in October. 
The current Solomon Islands strategy focuses on improving education, quality primary education for all, broad based economic growth, improved infrastructure, sustainable fisheries management and rural income generation and strengthening governance, civil society and RAMSI. 
The New Zealand Police has sent three senior staffs seconded to the Solomon Islands Police Force, as part of a bilateral capacity building arrangement.  The New Zealand Police Assistant Commissioner, Peter Marshall is seconded to the role of Deputy Commissioner for Operations and is currently the Acting Commissioner of the Solomon Islands Police Force.  This position is supported by an Operations Advisor and a Corporate Services and Logistics Advisor. 
RAMSI plays an important role in supporting stability in Solomon Islands and the security it provides has enable donors to re-engage in support to Solomon Islands for social and economic development activities.  New Zealand’s total funding support to Solomon Islands for the year 2007/2008 is estimated at SI$221million actual expenditure, of which $101million of this was provided in support of RAMSI activities. 
New Zealand has been engaged in RAMSI since its inception in 2003, and is the second largest contributor to RAMSI after Australia in terms of personnel and funding assistance.  82 New Zealanders from a range of New Zealander agencies are currently working in RAMSI, including 43 New Zealand Defense Force personnel and 35 New Zealand Police personnel.  New Zealand also supplies the Deputy Special Coordinator, two advisors to the Solomon Islands Inland Revenue Department and one advisor in the Economic Reform Unit. 
NZAID funds the provision of two high court judges to the Solomon Islands High Court to complete tension trials.  The New Zealand Cabinet recently approved a further two year mandate for New Zealand’s hold of government contributions to RAMSI to 30 September 2010, building on existing commitments and the security and development sectors. 
New Zealand plays an active role on RAMSI’s policy development working closely with RAMSI in Solomon Islands Government, Australia, the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat and other Forum Members.  Respect for the sovereignty of the Solomon Islands Government and a partnership approach are essential to RAMS’s success and sustainability. 
The Solomon Islands RAMSI partnership framework will be an important mechanism for agreeing future priorities and ensuring shared ownership and mutual responsibility for RAMSI’s programs.  The framework should also help to set clear targets for the gradual phase down and transition of RAMSI’s programs. 
New Zealand welcomes the positive approach the Solomon Islands Government has taken in its relationship with RAMSI, and hopes that the partnership framework will help to provide a strong foundation for continuing partnership. 
New Zealand considers that RAMSI’s existing mandate of law and justice, economic governance and machinery of government activities, remains appropriate and that longer term growth and development activities should continue to be undertaken by bilateral and multilateral donors. 
RAMSI is making good progress towards its existing goals and we would not want to see its focus diversion to other areas, which could be better supported by other donors.  For example, New Zealand is already providing support under its bilateral program in the economic growth sector to transport infrastructure and fisheries reform and has been discussing with the Solomon Islands Government how this support can be improved and expanded over the coming years. 
The development of the Solomon Islands Medium Term Development Strategy is also an important step in enabling long term development partners to align more closely with Solomon Islands priorities.  It will be an essential tool and facilitating further discussion on the roles of RAMSI and multilateral and bilateral donors. 
RAMSI’s regional nature continues to be one of its key strengths and New Zealand has been encouraged by the Forum’s ongoing support for RAMSI.  Forum engagement in RAMSI’s policy formulation and representation by Forum member countries in RAMSI are essential components of RAMSI’s regional nature. 
The recent RAMSI Pacific Islands Forums Task Force review of RAMSI provided a useful external assessment of RAMSI’s work and New Zealand welcomes the report and its recommendations.  New mechanisms for consultation and coordination on RAMSI arising from the review, for instance, the Enhanced Consultative Mechanism and the Forum Ministerial Standing Committee are working well and provide important opportunities for Forum engagement in RAMSI. 
New Zealand sees the assessment of the Forum Review Task Force that changes to RAMSI’s legislative framework are not needed at this time.  Immunities granted to RAMSI personnel under the FIAA reflect fairly standard provisions for status of forces agreements and a number of state safeguards are in place to ensure these are not abused. 
The Facilitation of International Assistance Act provides the legal underpinning for RAMSI’s operations, and as such is of significant importance to RAMSI contributing countries.  Should the Solomon Islands Government wish to consider any changes to the Act, we would encourage the Government to consult closely with all RAMSI contributing countries.  The FIAA also provide the domestic framework for the RAMSI Treaty so any changes to the FIAA could require changes to the RAMSI Treaty. 
Thank you again for the opportunity to contribute a submission to the Committee’s inquiry.  We would welcome the opportunity to remain engaged in the inquiry as the focus of the review is further defined.  Thank you.

Mr Chairman:  Thank you very much your Excellency.  Let me start something off.  Have you been to the GBR, do you ever go there?

Ms Pankhurst:  I have been.

Mr Chairman:  I am just talking about, I assume the unity thing where the participating forces of all the countries, I assume are united.  Is there no problem there, they live together, they shower there, they eat together, and everything is fine there?

Ms Pankhurst:  That’s my understanding.  The last time I was there was for a medal presentation to our New Zealand Police officer who was injured recently.

Mr Chairman:  I am just asking that question.  What happens when Australia plays New Zealand in the Bledisloe Cup?

Ms Pankhurst:  Then there could be some division.  However, at the moment I think ………..

Mr Chairman:  Could you explain to the Committee the reasons why New Zealand joined RAMSI or decided to join RAMSI in the subsequent intervention that came from that?

Ms Pankhurst:  Thank you Mr Chairman.  It was because it’s a regional endeavor for a very important regional partner for us and we saw it as a very good way to move forward.

Mr Chairman:  Doesn’t anyone have any thing further to add on to that?

Hon Boyers:  As the second largest contributor and a participating country in RAMSI, what is New Zealand’s position on the request by countries from outside the region to join RAMSI?
Ms Pankhurst:  I haven’t yet heard my government’s formal position, but intuitively I would say that we would want to keep RAMSI’s regional nature, the fact that it works with the Forum as Forum member country, however, we would also be very keen to work with others.  I think I’d have to say that I’ll wait and get my government’s formal position.  But I am quite sure that we will want to work alongside others.

Mr Chairman:  You are talking about financial in nature.  If some countries say they don’t really want to put their forces in or their manpower in but they’ll contribute financially to RAMSI, is that okay with New Zealand?

Ms Pankhurst :  I think it would be surprising if any funding were turned away but I’d say that we want to work with people.

Hon Kengava: Your Excellency, there have been suggestions that the mandate of RAMSI should be broadened to cover areas that are currently dealt with through traditional bilateral arrangements.  What are your views on this?

Ms Pankhurst:  My government is keen to see RAMSI’s mandate stay concentrated as it is and to see RAMSI move towards natural conclusion having achieved its goals in agreement with the Solomon Islands Government.

Hon Tosika:  Your Excellency, after five years of RAMSI operating in the country, has RAMSI addressed the issues affecting Solomon Islands and the root causes of the ethnic tension, in your view, as a New Zealander.

Ms Pankhurst:  I think that’s a very wide question.  RAMSI wasn’t brought in to address root causes.  It was brought in to help stabilize the country in partnership with the government.

Mr Chairman:  To add on to that, does RAMSI provide the environment for peace process to take place?  Is that what you are saying?

Ms Pankhurst:  That’s what I am saying.  That’s right Mr Chairman.  It did provide the stability, which then allows Solomon Islanders to work through the necessary processes as, as you are.

Hon Wale:  Solomon Islands and Solomon Islanders have always appreciated the relationship with New Zealand and have always, I think, felt a special kind of affinity towards Kiwis.  I think if you take a census on the All Blacks, you would soon find out and certainly the commitment that New Zealand has made to Solomon Islands given the size of its aid budget and its participation in the education sector is evidence of that commitment. 
In terms of the conflict and post conflict work and the focus that RAMSI has had in stabilizing the country and moving it further and further away from conflict situation, especially in dealing with the ingredients for conflict, I am still coming to my question, and then we look at the logging sector and the gradual for now but there will be a sharp decline in foreign earnings and so forth that come out from this sector, we would have a problem in the mid term, four to five years in terms of the resources that will be available not only to the government but also to the economy. 
Obviously, because part of the conflict was the economics of the place, with a sudden downturn that the midterm fiscal prognosis is telling us will occur, the ingredients for violence and for conflict will become projected again.  And so it now leads me to my question, would New Zealand consider participating in a Solomon Islands Government mechanism that would help to span the gap and manage through that dip in its fiscal situation in the mid term?

Ms Pankhurst:  I think that’s a very big question, Mr Wale and it’s a good one and it is certainly one that we are all starting to turn our minds to.  New Zealand aid will certainly be a solid partner with Solomon Islands for the foreseeable future and we are very willing to talk with Solomon Islands about what priorities are.  I can’t really go further than that at the moment.

Hon Boyers:  Your Excellency, it’s common knowledge that Australian and New Zealand are the two major participants in RAMSI.  Are there any differences between the approach that New Zealand is taking in respect to RAMSI and the approach taken by Australia?  That’s besides doing the harka.

Ms Pankhurst:  Besides doing the harka, and on Bledisloe Cup matches.  There is no difference in approach, except that our size is so much smaller, and that gives a different attitude because our resources are so much less and the personnel we can contribute are so much fewer than Australia does.  There’s no difference in approach.

Mr Chairman:  You said in the statement, and I think we have submissions on that as well that New Zealand has budgeted for RAMSI for the next 2 years.  Is it 2 years or 20 years?

Ms Pankhurst:  We have government mandate for another two years.

Mr Chairman:  Two years, that’s right.  That sort of coincides really with, I assume the 2010 elections, our 2010 elections.  Was that consideration though?

Ms Pankhurst:  No, that one was a coincidence, we just took it from our last rollover.  We normally only have one year rollovers for deployment of personnel because the government looks at it very closely every year to see whether the deployment is still useful.  And on this case we have a two year rollover for that deployment.  So it’s just a routine.

Hon Wale:  In terms of an exit strategy for RAMSI, there are differing views.  Last week we heard from the Provincial Premiers that some of them said five to eight, ten to fifteen years, others said open ended, others said tied to achievable goals and so they are not time tied. 

What is New Zealand’s position on what would be key reference points for an exit strategy whether it should be tied to a timeframe or not? 

Ms Pankhurst:  Yes, we are keen to see achievable goals agreed with by the Solomon Islands Government that will allow RAMSI to depart with those goals.  I think I heard the Special Coordinator today in the early morning session said that some sectors of RAMSI might reach those goals before others.  That’s going to be part of the partnership framework that the government and RAMSI are working on at the moment, and there will be different timelines throughout and once that partnership framework is agree, that’s what we’ll support.

Hon Wale:  In terms of the partnership framework, it goes into the detail but in terms of broad key reference points, from New Zealand’s perspective what would those be?

Ms Pankhurst:  I am afraid you caught me on the hot air.  I think that’s a question really for RAMSI.  I can’t give you an answer right at the moment on that.  We think that is still to be agreed in the partnership framework.  Whatever the Solomon Islands Government sees are the points but they want RAMSI to withdraw from those, those we’ll support.

Mr Chairman:  This partnership framework which is presently being discussed, I assume with RAMSI and SIG, basically looking at capacity building and the institutional strengthening part, during the negotiations would the quality of capacity building be discussed, the quality of institutional strengthening be discussed, and I assume there would be budgetary constraints as well from New Zealand’s point of view.

Ms Pankhurst:  I am true there would be but the High Commission doesn’t involve in any of the discussions on the partnership framework itself.  So I’ll have to hand that back to my RAMSI colleagues when they came back.  I gather the pillar heads are coming in tomorrow.

Mr Chairman:  So it’s very difficult to talk to you.  You are one of the few who give their answers in a couple of sentences.  Do we have anything else? 
You touched briefly on this but there have been suggestions that the mandate of RAMSI should be broadened to cover areas that are currently dealt with through traditional bilateral arrangements?  What are your views on this?

Ms Pankhurst:  Our view is that the mandate shouldn’t be broadened.  RAMSI should do what it came to do, what is agreed with by the Solomon Islands Government it should do and should then come to a natural end with the goals achieved leaving traditional multilateral and bilateral donors to carry its programs forward.

Mr Chairman:  Your Excellency, these are long term programs for RAMSI and as well as your bilateral programs.  I don’t know your government, the administration part of the New Zealand Government. Will that stay unchanged?

Ms Pankhurst:  Yes.

Mr Chairman:  I notice there is a election coming up in New Zealand and ….

Ms Pankhurst:  There’s an election coming up but whatever government comes in, in New Zealand it won’t change its commitment to Solomon Islands.  We know that.

Mr Chairman:  Look, we’ve got nothing left.

(Laughter)

Hon. Ghiro:  What is New Zealand’s view on the rearmament of the Solomon Islands Police Force?

Ms Pankhurst:  My view is that, that’s a decision for the Solomon Islands Government with the Solomon Islands people. 

Hon. Kengava:  Your Excellency, when RAMSI’s mandate has been met and RAMSI gradually exits from Solomon Islands, what is your opinion, would you like to see another body set up in Solomon Islands to make sure RAMSI’s programs and what RAMSI has achieved in past years is maintained and continued when RAMSI exit?  If you think that another body should not be set up to replace RAMSI then what ways can you make sure that what regional governments have done for Solomon Islands is sustained and maintained?

Ms Pankhurst:  I think that that will continued to be part of the discussions between the Solomon Islands Government and RAMSI.  It’s really a decision for the Solomon Islands Government and Solomon Islanders.  It doesn’t matter what New Zealand thinks about that. 

Hon. Kengava:  Thank you very much.  What I’m trying to drive at is whether your government has in mind something else to replace RAMSI or should our bilateral relationship be strengthened so that even if RAMSI program ends, we should strengthen what RAMSI has built for the country through strengthening of bilateral relations. 

Ms Pankhurst:  Yes, we’d certainly hope that the bilateral programs will continue to strengthen what RAMSI and the Solomon Islands had done between them.  

Mr Chairman:  We don’t really having anything else.  I think your submission told the story already and we are grateful for that.  Thank you for that, and High Commissioner of New Zealand thank you for participating in our Committee Meeting.

Ms Pankhurst:  Thank you very much if you think of anything else later then please contact me.

Dr Transform Aqorau – Deputy Director - FFA

Mr Chairman:  Honorable members of the Foreign Relations Committee, Dr. Transform Aqorau, stakeholders and members of the public, firstly on behalf of the Committee I would like to thank you for availing yourself to this very important inquiry into and review of matters relating to the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands.  The Committee understands that you are here today as an ordinary Solomon Islander and not in your official capacity as Deputy Director of the Forum Fisheries Agency.  Is that correct?

Dr. Transform Aqorau:  That’s correct, Sir.

Mr Chairman:  As an active commentator on the operations of RAMSI in this country, the Foreign Relations Committee is pleased with this opportunity to hear from you.  I remind you at this point that what you say in this hearing is protected by Parliamentary privilege and cannot be later used against you in any legal proceedings whatsoever.  Because of the strength of this privilege this Committee expects all witnesses to ensure that their answers are truthful and confined to matters relevant to the Terms of Reference and the questions asked by members. 
I wish to restate yet again that all public hearings of this Committee during the inquiry, today’s hearings included, will be recorded by One News and televised within Honiara and other urban centres with television coverage each evening after a particular hearing.  The SIBC will also broadcast all our hearings live for those in the provinces listening in. 
We will proceed now with the hearing.  We will first hear a 15 – 20 minutes presentation from the witness if he so wishes and after that this Committee will ask questions of the witness.  May I now ask the witness to please state your name for the record and to please proceed with your opening statement if you so wish. 

Transform Aqorau:  Thank you Mr Chairman and honorable members of the Committee, my name is Transform Aqorau and as you stated Mr. Chair I’m here in my personal capacity as a citizen of Solomon Islands.  I don’t have a formal statement Mr Chairman, but if you may allow me I just want to make some brief comments. 
First of all, I would like to say how privileged I am to appear before you and before honourable members of this Committee.  I wish to preface my remarks on RAMSI by simply pointing out that, like many of you around this table, we were all here during the height of the tension from 1998 to 2003, and we were all witnesses to the impact that the ethnic tension had on the lives of ordinary Solomon Islanders.  We were witnesses to the, effectively the controls that militants were able to exert against the government and we were all witnesses, I guess to the gradual and slow decline in the effectiveness of state institutions in Solomon Islands.  And for me, Mr Chairman, it’s a special privilege for me to appear before you, because as a legal advisor to the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, I had the unique honor of sitting in at that meeting in which you were present, in which you presented the case for Solomon Islands request for the Regional Assistance to Solomon Islands.  And therefore it is in this context that I just wish to make some very brief remarks about RAMSI and about its future. 
My understanding of the parameters of RAMSI’s roles and responsibilities are very much informed by the comments that you made on June the 30th 2003 in Sydney, and also very much by the comments that were made by your colleague Ministers from around the region including Foreign Minister Goff and former Foreign Minister Alexander Downer of Australia. 
I’ve always viewed RAMSI as a result of those comments and sentiments from the June 30th meeting, as a conduit through which we, Solomon Islands can stand on our feet again.  And there’s nothing in my mind and what I have seen that changes my view of RAMSI that it’s an instrument through which the region has put together to try and help Solomon Islands. 
For those of us who bore witness to the decline in state institutions, in law and order, in effective governance, RAMSI was here to allow the government to be able to govern again, so that we Solomon Islanders can get on with our lives.  I think from that perspective, I don’t think anything has changed. 
What has changed in my view, Mr Chairman, is perhaps the mis-opportunity that we in Solomon Islands have had as a result of our inability to actually take advantage of the hope, and that window of hope that RAMSI and the sentiments that were presented on the floor of the Season Hotel in Sydney on 30th June to the people of Solomon Islands.  And so here we are five years after that glorious day in Sydney still struggling with the question of the relevance of RAMSI to Solomon Islands and Solomon Islanders. 
My simple response, Mr Chairman, is yes, RAMSI is still relevant, but RAMSI does not hold all the answers to Solomon Islands problems.  RAMSI cannot and will never be able to resolve all of Solomon Islands problems.  RAMSI is not a custodian of the resources of Solomon Islands.  RAMSI is not the custodian of power in Solomon Islands that would allow it to resolve our problems.  Only Solomon Islanders and only those who occupy this sacred institution, this building that we appear before, can solve Solomon Islands problems.  But RAMSI has a fundamental and important role to play in that process, in that it provides the basis for us to make things happen but it cannot make the economic decisions, and it cannot make the political decisions for change to actually take place.  What it can do is provide the basis that allows our state institutions that are established under the Constitution to discharge their functions and responsibilities.  That Mr. Chairman, is my very simple view of RAMSI, and as I’ve said I premised my views on the sentiments that I heard around the table in Sydney on June 30th, 2003 and I still do believe in the relevance of RAMSI, but I don’t believe that RAMSI is an institution that can actually resolve all our problems. 
Having said that, there’s also another danger as well in situations where we have an intervention force that comes in and attempts to address some of the governance and fundamental governance issues and institutions in different countries around the world.  There’s a danger that if we do not manage the processes carefully, these forces could behave like neo-colonialists.  And we have seen that in a number of conflict situations in which there have been multilateral institutions that have come in to try and rebuild countries.  In that regard, I will say that the onus of rebuilding Solomon Islands rest with us Solomon Islanders.  I think that is an important, very important message that we should take away. 
I feel that there’s been a lot of unfair expectations placed on RAMSI, and just listening to some of the statements and commentaries over the last few years, over the last few days of the desire for RAMSI to actually go in and promote development assistance in the provinces.  That raises, in my view, an unrealistic expectation because that responsibility belongs to us, it belongs to the government, it belongs to Solomon Islanders and it belongs to our resource owners.  We are the only ones who can actually really promote the development of this country through the harnessing of our natural resources.  Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman:  Thank you very much Transform, Dr. Transform and thank you for being there on that June meeting.  Just to start the questions rolling, what do you think about RAMSI as once in a lifetime thing?  It’s very difficult, was very difficult to get everyone together and everyone to agree.  It is sort of a one of a lifetime intervention or assistance.  We may not see it again if we lose this opportunity, we may not get it again in our lifetimes.  What were those mis-opportunities from RAMSI as well as from Solomon Islands?

Dr. Transform Aqorau:  I think if you look at the timeframe between the moment when RAMSI came to Solomon Islands in July 2003 and the elections of 2006, the primary preoccupation of RAMSI when it first came, of course, was to ensure law and order.  But the rebuilding of institutions, the strengthening of our institutions, the enactment of legislation so that we can actually do things differently in terms of our development, empowerment of people, taking a right based approach towards the development of natural resources.  Obviously, I don’t think Parliament had the time because it was only a window of two years to do that.  In terms of the development of policies that would take advantage of the presence of RAMSI, I actually saw this Parliament as probably having the best opportunity and having strengthened the law and order situation in the country, the next phase of the operation would be strengthen the institutions.  But, of course, the primary institution that should spearhead that was preoccupied with other things in life, of course, the important things in the way in which Parliament and parliamentarians do business, so I think in that regard there was, in my view, some missed opportunities. 
I’ll just give members of the Committee what I consider are vastly missed opportunities.  If we take, for example, the land as being a central issue and resource allocation or the benefits from the distribution of wealth arising from the utilization of our resources, as the primary drivers behind the ethnic tension, I think we have missed an opportunity because what have we done about the land situation.  I know there was a committee that was set up to try and look at land, but in terms of the legal framework and looking at the Lands & Titles Act and all that, there’s nothing being done.  What we are seeing is a proliferation of people.  I think we also have to recognize there are probably diasporas in Solomon Islands; people can’t actually go back to their land for various reasons.  I mean there are physical constraints. 
The other missed opportunity, I think, is in terms of natural resources, forestry, being able to ensure that Solomon Islanders and resource owners actually reap a significant proportion of the economic benefits that flow on from their trees, for instance.  That to me is a missed opportunity to ensure that we do things differently from pre 2003 and pre 1998. 
In terms of RAMSI, I think as I said, what has RAMSI missed as an opportunity, I have a fixated view of RAMSI because I only see RAMSI as a conduit through which we as Solomon Islanders and our institutions can move things, and I don’t see RAMSI as an institution, although there are people who want to do things, it doesn’t have the constitutional mandate to actually do those things and that mandate actually rests with Solomon Islands exercised through Parliament. 

Mr Chairman:  You mentioned land and resource distribution, perhaps the inequity of it and forestry.  These are quite sensitive issues and are basically sovereign issues.  Is it because they are sovereign issues that everyone becomes sensitive? 

Dr. Transform Aqorau:  They are sensitive issues but in my mind fundamental issues.  If we are to actually avoid the kind of tensions that gave rise to the ethnic tension, they have to be addressed.  We can’t afford to push them aside because they are sensitive issues.  We need to be able to tackle the problem head-on otherwise we are going to get a repetition of what has happened, and that is my fear.  In that if we don’t address these issues then we are giving an excuse for these things to happen again in the future. 

Mr Chairman:  What about approaching it from a human rights perspective?  What’s your opinion on that? 

Dr. Transform Aqorau:  Oh yeah, I do.  I think all Solomon Islanders have the right to a decent living, a right to a healthy environment.  I think all Solomon Islanders have a right to benefit to the equitable benefits that flow on from the utilization of natural resources.  I think development is a human right.  In fact it’s a new branch of human rights.  I think all Solomon Islanders have a right to decent life, access to school, waters and all that.  I don’t think Solomon Islands is asking for anymore than the simple and basic things that they need to survive, plus the opportunity to actually have a bit more money in their pockets so that they can feed their children and give them a reasonable meal.  That to me is a human right.  And so we need to establish and develop the conditions that would allow every Solomon Islander or everyone who lives in Solomon Islands to enjoy those rights that they have.  And at the moment I think those rights are enjoyed fairly inequitably.  There are some who enjoyed more than others.  But that is why I said with the opportunity that RAMSI is providing we should be able to put in place all the mechanisms, the policies, the regulations that at the end of that day would improve the social and economic conditions of all Solomon Islanders so that we don’t have these tensions and struggles.

Hon. Wale:  Doctor, I would like to ask you about the comments of Mr Chairman when you two were in the hotel in Sydney.  You only commented on it but you did not tell us your actual comments.  The rest of what you said, in your preface are just on the comments.  To make sense to me, I would like to know about the comments he made that you preface so much on.

Dr. Transform Aqorau:  Thank you honorable Matthew.  It has been a while, June 2003, and so there was a written statement made by the Minister.  But basically the Minister was alluding to the problems of governing, the inability of effective government to be able to operate in the way in which government should be able to operate.  That is fundamental, in my view, to any society that you have a functioning government.  And so the statement of the honorable Minister at that time alluded to the inability to govern, the controls that militants had and the influence that they have and, of course the law and order problems, and then our weak state institutions, our inability. 
The problem of a functioning government has other consequences.  It flows on from economic development and provision of social services like health and education, teachers and nurses and public servants not being able to be paid.  That is the gist of what the Minister said at that time.  Just the number of guns that were out there in the community poses a big threat to civil society and so there was a lot of sympathy for them.  But I think every one of us, I don’t need to actually go through, you yourself Hon. Matthew were a victim of some of the violence that took place during that time.  And so the sympathy of the region was geared towards making sure that Solomon Islands can govern itself again and that is important for any society. 

Mr Chairman:  Before, Matthew asks the next question, I want to say that it was about four five pages long.  But the whole gist of the thing was, we invited RAMSI to come because we wanted to keep our people safe.  The word ‘safe’ was very important.  We can do everything we want but we just keep our people safe.

Hon. Wale:  No, I asked that question because it’s important.  The Chairman is such a modest guy, and he needs to be praised for his role in this.  And the Aristotle in him, in terms of philosopher he deserves to be patted on the back for that. 
There is some debate in terms of the RAMSI mandate, and that mandate I suppose covers three or four broad areas.  The context of RAMSI coming in, in 2003, you’ve fairly accurately painted.  Now, of course, in 2008 the argument goes that the context has changed and therefore there is a need to revisit the mandate.  What is your view on that, whether the changes in the context warrant changes to the mandate and presumably the underlying Act and Treaty? 

Dr. Transform Aqorau:  I think the change in the context has come about as a result of the effectiveness of some of the work that RAMSI has done in terms of law and order, which has allowed the economy to flourish and investors and all that coming in, and so you see businesses like Hon. Boyers has moved his business from Burns Creek to a very nice place down at Ranadi which, of course, is a reflection of the new business environment that is being experienced.  This place is booming.  And so that context is obviously a reflection of law and order which is fundamental to investor confidence and economic development. 
The question that needs to be asked is, if RAMSI were to leave, have we forgiven each other, have we reconciled enough to the point where some of the resentments, the inherent resentments that exist within parts of our society would not resurface.  I think that is an important point because if it were then all the good work that we see now, the economic boom we are experiencing now would fall flat on its face again because of law and order.  The question also is whether or not the institutions with regards to enforcement are strong enough now and confident enough now to be able to carry out effective enforcement.  I don’t have a particular view on that, but I think I have confidence in the Police Force, I have confidence in our Customs and in the institutions that have been developed and we can definitely see improvements. 
Just coming to the point about the context itself, and some of the struggles you are going through now with RAMSI arises because the legal framework under which RAMSI was brought in was a very military oriented providing an enabling framework that allows for law and order, a force to come in.  But if you look at the agreement itself and the Facilitation of International Assistance Act, it is actually silent on other forms of assistance that RAMSI has gone into, although at the Sydney Meeting there were discussions about ensuring that economic activity is generated again as a result of law and order.  Although RAMSI had some broad objectives about strengthening the public sector, strengthening the economic sector, the actual legal framework that has allowed them to operate here is really restricted to the implementation of the multilateral agreement was designed so that you allow a force to come in and operate.  The context hasn’t changed; it is just that you probably have a legal framework that underpins a particular aspect of RAMSI’s operation, which is silent on the other things.  
I think where you are moving into now is that you are seeing RAMSI as a partnership and probably that’s where you would as a matter of process, incorporate some of these things that RAMSI is doing in the economy, strengthening of the public sector and all that.  If people ask the question whether or not it’s part of the Facilitation Act, you can do that as a matter of process through the partnership that you are now developing with RAMSI. 

Hon Wale:  So you don’t see changes to the Act as necessary.

Dr Aqorau:  The Act is very specific because it provides for the visiting contingent to come in, the use of arms, the carrying of arms; the Act is actually very specific to law and order operation.  But for the other aspects I think you can develop that through a partnership agreement between the visiting missions, which I understand is being done anyway through the new term that is being used now called the ‘partnership’.

Hon. Wale:  The other issue I want to raise with you to get your views on is sovereignty.  As you know some people have been jumping up and down about the Solomon Islands sovereignty being undermined by RAMSI and whether or not there are specific instances where this has happened whether it has been deliberate or by default, we don’t know but your views, please.

Dr Aqorau:  Sovereignty, I think in a traditional international law sense, in a legal sense, sovereignty means having all the powers vested in you within a defined boundary.  But the idea of total and full sovereignty in the world today is changing.  We live in an increasingly mobile world.  We live in a world that is increasingly interdependent, and so the traditional notion of sovereignty where ‘this is mine’ and ‘that is yours’ is actually breaking down.  For example, we are trading with a lot of countries, we’ve got planes coming in, and all that, if we were to strictly apply the notion of sovereignty that no one else can do anything, we are conducting a lot of our business through multilateral and regional forums, we accept treaties, obligations that actually restricts some of the sovereignty that we have.  What I am trying to say is that sovereignty is a notion, it’s not sacrosanct anymore. 
            I think there is a difference, in my view, between Solomon Islands national state institutions acting within their sovereign powers and the purported perception of RAMSI acting in usurpation of Solomon Islands sovereign powers.  I actually can’t see that.  
Where people talk about sovereignty is where you might have an individual from Australia or New Zealand occupying a line position and there is resentment because ‘that is mine’.  I don’t know how people have actually characterized the usurpation of Solomon Islands sovereignty. 
What I can say is this.  Under the Constitution of Solomon Islands the National Parliament is omnipotent.  It is the embodiment of Solomon Islands sovereignty, and I don’t think anyone has taken that power and that responsibility away from the Solomon Islands Parliament under our Constitution. 
I don’t actually subscribe to the view that RAMSI has undermined in anyway because ultimately at the end of the day only Parliament can actually make laws.  That is how I view it.

Mr Chairman:  We live in, as you said an interdependent world where nothing is really hidden.  Everyone knows what we are doing and we know what everyone else is doing.  What is sacrosanct?

Dr Aqorau:  Sacrosanct means holy, unfettered, something that you can’t break.  The idea of sovereignty in international relations in the traditional sense is that state sovereignty is fundamental.  But in today’s world where there is greater interdependency on trade, on aid, the idea that you are somehow sovereign and all these power, that to me is no longer a tenable argument that you can make.  I always say what is the use of saying, if we are so aid dependent, if you depend a lot on aid for all your developments, for every single classroom that is being built, for every single water supply that is being built, for every single roads that are ever being built, then what good does sovereignty have if all those things are actually being paid for by someone else.  We need to be careful about how we talk about sovereignty because sovereignty means having the power to do things.  If we are sovereign then let us show and reflect that sovereignty by building our own schools, paying for our own clinics, having our own transportation system and building our own airfields because that is the hallmark of true independence and of a true sovereign state. 

Mr Chairman:  I was going to allude to human rights and you’ve just said it. 

Hon. Tosika:  Dr Aqorau, you mentioned earlier on that the mainstay of the Facilitation Act is security and law and order during the time of the breakdown of law and order in Solomon Islands and so we need people to come in to support us so that we can once again live in peaceful co-existence or people will have to trust and go about their daily business and lives.  
Transform, my question is RAMSI has been here for five years now and when it came in it destroyed all the armories of the Solomon Islands Police Force.  My point is, do you think it is necessary for the Solomon Islands Government to reinstate the armory so that we get back more or less the dignity of the Solomon Islands Police to stand against illegal activities or to train them so that when RAMSI leaves the country, they are capable of looking after us in terms of security and law and order in the country.

Dr Aqorau:  One other hallmark of sovereignty and law enforcement, of course, is the ability to be able to carry out enforcement.  And one of the hallmarks of a state is the ability to protect its citizens, protect your borders.  I would fully support the idea that the Solomon Islands Police Force should be given all the resources necessary to protect the lives of Solomon Islanders.  And if that includes arms, as part of the obligation and the duty to protect Solomon Islands’ citizens and people who live in Solomon Islands then that is part of the resources that the Police should have. 

Hon. Boyers:   Dr Aqorau, I was very interested in your assessment of missed opportunities.  I suppose that the people of Solomon Islands have great expectations on their leaders to make sure they carry the interests of the people at heart.
Recently, we were privileged to read the Biography of Sir Peter Kenilorea, our Speaker, and one of the things highlighted in the biography was when he mentioned that the enemy we have is actually ourselves and it goes back, probably to the wisdom of the Scripture which says that “The Kingdom of Heaven is within”.  So we have the ability to make the most or not to make the most or lose those opportunities. 
It would seem to me that the missed opportunities are us not making most of our opportunities as leaders in governing the country, reflecting the right to make sure we look after our people and do the right things by them.  
This obviously comes back to the position has politics destabilize a process of opportunities that should have moved our country forward.  In saying that do you think that the integrity bill that is going to be tabled will create a much more stable environment and less accusational but engaging more in partnership with the international communities and regional communities to avoid the missed opportunities. 

Dr Aqorau:  Mr Chairman, if the integrity bill is going to contribute to stability in the sense that it allows our national and provincial politicians to get on with the job they are elected to do, which is primarily to enact laws to make our lives better then of course the integrity bill would do that.  But I think we have to be realistic that our politicians do in fact face a lot of pressure from all sorts of sources.  There is a high expectation and I think an unfair expectation on the part of Solomon Islanders about the role of politicians.  And I’ve met many, many good politicians over the years who have actually suffered by the fact that their houses are always full, people are coming to them and asking for a lot of money and all.  Now that actually puts a lot of pressure on politicians.  If only the Integrity Bill will change the expectation that people have and allow Members of Parliament to just simply do their job then I think it might change.  But I am not convinced necessarily by the impact that an Integrity Bill would have because I think there are many, many other factors that impact on the effectiveness of the workings of our leaders.  Having an integrity bill on its own will not resolve governance problems in Solomon Islands because you’ve got the public sector, the public servants, you’ve got the governance issues, you’ve got institutional issues within which help to support the work of Parliament.  Parliament is only one arm of the three arms of the state. 
If the Integrity Bill is also intended to provide stability, it could actually cut both ways as well.  You might create stability in the sense that you are not allowed to move from one side to the other but that doesn’t necessarily mean that you will be able to provide the kind of policies and legislations that the country actually needs but it does give you the stability to do that and probably does give you without having to worry whether or not you have the number. 
My view and my experience from talking to some of the politicians in PNG about the impact that the Integrity Bill has had, all it has done in PNG, and I am sure from what I understand we are just trying to adopt the PNG system, what it has done is simply preventing people from moving from one side to the other but it hasn’t actually change the cost to individual people, the cost in the elections. A friend of mine, a former Minister of PNG just spent about K$800,000 on the election.  
The whole idea of the Integrity Bill and the reform, the changes in the electoral system to have a limited preferential voting was to create some form of stability and allow people to vote for parties instead of individuals, but they had to spend a lot of their money.  I think those are some of the issues that affect the way in which governance and government operates.  So to me the integrity bill on its own will not solve the problems we want to solve.  I think the whole government approach, systems and processes need to be improved as well within the public sector and also outside.  Governance at the rural level, some of the worst culprits you might find down in the villages.  I say this when talking about logging.  It’s across the whole society.  I think to me, just coming back to your question on the expectations that people have on leaders, I think the expectation should be on ourselves as Solomon Islanders, that all of us should try and act responsibly and not just people in Parliament.

Mr Chairman:  Just a quick question. You’ve just said something at the end of your statement.  Do we lack confidence?  Do we have a lot of negative energy that breeds basically underestimation, that breeds exaggeration and it builds.  How can we transfer that negative energy into a positive energy so that we don’t start criticizing but we actually help each other?  Is that what’s lacking? 

Dr Aqorau:  I think Solomon Islanders, to be honest with you, are very intelligent and smart people and you will be amazed at the amount of energy our young people have to want to go to school, to want to learn; there is an enormous desire.  Our USP Centre here has more students than the Emalus and Alafua Campuses, and yet it is only a centre.  In that respect, I have a lot of hope because I know that there are young very smart Solomon Islanders, very desirous and hungry, really hungry for opportunities to improve their lifestyle.
What has broken down, of course, I guess is respect for people, discipline, and that’s very much reflected in the way, which you see people dress, our hairstyle, see our young people going to school chewing betel nut.  That reflects a breakdown in discipline, but I don’t it reflects a lack of energy.
I really do believe that Solomon Islanders are very intelligent and you can only see that in the type of letters to the editor and commentaries, and I am amazed by the ideas that are out there.  So it is not a shortage of ideas, it’s the ability to be able to act on those ideas and getting things done. 

Hon. Kengava:  Doctor, one of the concerns raised by some of our leaders and also by some people in Solomon Islands is the immunity given to the visiting contingent under the Facilitation of International Assistance Act.  What is your view on the appropriateness of the immunity provided to RAMSI?

Dr Aqorau:  Mr Chairman, the idea of immunity is not new to Solomon Islands.  There’s provision for immunity in the Diplomatic Act of 1978.  There is also the idea of immunities given to visiting Forces.  I think there is a visiting Forces Acts.  I do recall as a public servant clearing an agreement between the USA and the Solomon Islands Government giving immunity to USA Forces when they were here.  The idea of immunity for visiting forces and the idea of immunity generally is not new. 
If I can just explain that immunity does not mean immunity from behaving in accordance with the laws of Solomon Islands.  What it means is immunity from the civil and criminal jurisdiction of Solomon Islands.  In other words, it does not mean that these people because they have immunity can do anything they want.  They are subject to our laws and to our regulations and they must act in accordance.
The moment when immunity is claimed is when you appear before the court and your defense is, ‘I have immunity from the jurisdiction of this court’.  That’s what immunity means.  If the country or the mission waives that immunity, it doesn’t actually stop you from prosecuting.  
As a general notion, as a practice, the idea of immunity is not new but in the case of RAMSI it is a necessary mechanism to have, because you have visiting forces in place, and the only way in which they are able to carryout their functions effectively and independently is through the granting of immunity, which is not an unusual practice internationally.  That’s what everyone does when you have visiting forces in your territory. 
I think also on that point, I don’t know if the Police Act has been changed but there is provision in the current Police Act that allows foreign police when they come here to be given the powers of the Solomon Islands Police Force.  This is pre-RAMSI legislation.

Hon. Wale:  Dr. Aqorau, earlier your answer to the question if RAMSI should leave tomorrow, have we forgiven enough, have we got over the hatred between the different ethnicities and islands and so forth.  In some ways you are pointing to what in your mind would be some key reference points that would be qualitatively in terms of objective, as a nation and society, we need to get over, we see some achievements, real achievements as pointers to an exit strategy for RAMSI.  
I also want to say, I’m not sure whether you’ve been following this, but we had hearings with the premiers last week, and on the question of an exit strategy, we had views differing on whether there should be a timeline attached, whether it should be conditions or goals based or whether it should just be a strict five to eight years and that’s it.  I want your views on that.  But perhaps looking at what in your mind are the key reference points that would signal whether or not we are ready for a RAMSI exit.  Thank you.

Dr. Aqorau:  Mr Chairman, any response to that question will always be a subjective one, because of people’s personal views and perceptions and perhaps fears and misapprehensions and worries, and so on.  What you don’t have is actually a framework plus milestones that you need to work towards so that you know exactly the time that RAMSI needs to go.  If we are going to use sentiment as the basis for an exit strategy, then we are going to have all sorts of debate and subjective judgments about whether or not RAMSI should leave.
For me, I think and what is not happening is if we can actually see our concerted effort to ensure that there’s more rural development that allows our people the ability to enjoy the same kind of economic or income disposable incomes that we earn in the capital so that you don’t have this flow of people into Honiara.  But that’s not necessary a milestone.  What the government needs to do is to actually set up some milestones, and that’s what’s not there. 
In terms of law and order we know all the guns.  Those are some milestones that were brought in but at what point should we have a local police commissioner, personally I think we are more than ready to have a local police commissioner.  So is that a milestone?  I don’t have the answer for you as to when RAMSI should leave, but I think we can’t for one thing actually depend on RAMSI forever.  I mean there has to be an exit point at some stage.  But if I was a taxpayer from Australia I would be interested to know that question.

Hon. Boyers:  Dr. what are your observations on the relationship between RAMSI and the local population of Solomon Islands?

Dr. Aqorau:  I think the law enforcement component of RAMSI is fairly insulated.  I mean they are not allowed to socialize.  I know that they have purchase for their meals and bananas from Queensland.  And so in that respect if you’re not allowed to purchase, and this is the military component, I think we need to be careful about the level of socialization because there are RAMSI personnel who are not working and therefore mingle with the rest of society.  But there’s an important component of RAMSI that doesn’t mingle and therefore are insulated from the rest of the society.  Why eat bananas from Queensland when you can get some fresh bananas from the market?  Or why have Nile perch when you can have beautiful fish from Solomon Islands; some of the best fish in the world is from Solomon Islands. 
If you’re talking about mingling, there is a disconnection there.  I don’t know the extent to which other people from RAMSI mingle within our society.  I don’t think we should have an expectation but we are all human beings and we have our own way of relating to each other but I don’t think there should be an expectation that there should be a high level of mingling and let’s go out to the clubs together and let’s go our for social drinks and so on.  But what they should be is a good understanding of our society, of our customs, of our people and above all a good understanding of what our aspirations are as a people; the way we want to go so that they know exactly how they can help us. 

Hon. Boyers:  We’ve asked a lot of questions about RAMSI broadening its activities or scope, and infrastructure has been an issue for our country for quite sometime.  Of course, there is the AusAID, the ADB, NZAID and CSP who are involved in infrastructure projects in the provinces. 
In relation to social engagement, the military component of RAMSI is basically here to ensure that law and order is maintained, protecting the SIPF, may be participating forces and showing their presence here. 
In the past we experienced, like in Cyclone Namu, we had the Sea Bees coming, in 2001 we had the New Zealand Military engineers on Operation Twilight, and I think they built schools in my constituency, in East Honiara and a few other places. 
Do you think RAMSI should be showing that its military component also has many facets and therefore should be engaged in the social arena to show that the military component of RAMSI is also a constructive rebuilding and repairing force and not just an armed military force?

Dr. Aqorau:  I don’t think that should be done just so that they can be seen to be doing that, they are seen to be socializing with the community because that’s not their primary task and responsibility.  I think we need to move away and take more responsibility for development as a people and as a government.  Because if we are going to do that, in my view that would only perpetuates the dependency that we have and perpetuate the expectations that we have on RAMSI as an institution to then start going into building bridges and all that.  
As a country we should ensure that we develop economically to the extent that we are in a position to be able to do those things for ourselves, particularly our infrastructure, roads and bridges and rely less on development partners and foreigners to do that.  When after all that’s what independence is all about.  I would be loathed to see RAMSI military personnel doing that simply because we want them to have a more visible presence in our communities.  I think that should be a function of development, and our function.  That’s the function of the Ministry of Transport and its engineers.  That’s why we sent our students overseas to do engineering. 

Hon. Tosika:  Doctor, one of the definitions in the Notice is ‘general purpose’.  What is your opinion on the ‘general purpose’ since RAMSI has been here for 5 years now? Do you think some of the activities described under the general purpose should be relinquished to the Solomon Islands Police Force and others?   
I’m referring to this because maybe the general purpose is useful at the earlier stage of RAMSI coming into Solomon Islands.  What is your opinion as a legal person on this?

Dr. Aqorau:  I think RAMSI has been very successful in carrying out its responsibilities in terms of the way in which public purpose is characterized or described in the Facilitation for International Assistance Act.  They have been able to ensure the security and safety of persons and property.  They’ve maintained supplies and services essential to the life of the community through restoration of law and order and the prevention and suppression of violence.  We’ve seen a remarkable improvement.  We are no longer intimidated and subject to the kind of crimes that we experienced, and there’s a better maintenance of law and order. 
This enormous assistance has been given now to the administration of justice and the establishment of prisons, which is a noble thing.  The biggest question for the government is how it is going to maintain the very nice prison buildings in the provinces.
When we look at restorative justice, if I can just make a point, restorative justice in many traditional communities, people are taken to be part of the community so that they help to be rehabilitated. 
Prison is an important institution in rehabilitation, but it also imposes a number of obligations on the state and society particularly the upkeep of this lovely but quite sophisticated, nice looking prisons you are seeing being built right throughout the provinces. 
RAMSI has also been very, very successful in supporting development through a number of its projects and programs.  But I come back to my point I made right at the beginning that we cannot rely or continue to depend on RAMSI to do all these things for us.  We as a government and as a people must take responsibility for a lot of these things, in particularly the development, the direction of development, the direction in which we want this country to go, where we want to end up in 10, 20, 30 years time; that rests on our shoulders.
RAMSI, as I said in my opening statement is a conduit through which these things can be achieved but it is not the answer.  It is only part of the process that allows Solomon Islanders to provide the answer and it is our responsibility as Solomon Islanders to develop this country and solve our problems.  Thank you.

Hon. Boyers:  One last question.  In the spirit of regionalism and RAMSI’s primary focus on law and order, one of the big issue here is maintaining our borders with the influence of people smuggling, arms, drugs or whatever.  But it’s also to protect our natural resources from whether its infection or poaching. 
Do you believe that we have the necessary capacity at present to have proper surveillance of our borders to protect our resources and our people, and whether this is an area that RAMSI should concentrate more assistance in?

Dr. Aqorau:  I think the surveillance tools are there.  In terms of monitoring, in terms of surveillance, in terms of the communication and the technology that’s available for you to carry out surveillance, we live in a world in which all we can do is just sit in an office and press the button, and you can actually have a very good picture, not only of Solomon Islands but a very good picture of the region. 
I think RAMSI’s assistance can be directed at helping Solomon Islands develop those tools, but ultimately border protection is a function of the state, and that to me is one of the hallmarks of sovereignty, being able to protect your own border and protect your citizens. 
My view is that probably technologies are out there anyway that you can access, you can utilize, you can explore and they are not technology that’s contingent upon RAMSI’s assistance for you to be able to have better monitoring of your borders, better monitoring of bio-safety, bio-security concerns.  I mean, look at Foxwood, in today’s Paper we have someone showing a big picture of a giant African snail. 
What I’m saying is that we don’t necessarily look to RAMSI to provide that kind of security.  I think that would be unfair, but those are ordinary functions and normal functions of government.  The quarantine, the customs, and the immigration functions are normal responsibilities that the government must pursue.  With all the training, I’ve been very impressed with the young customs officers at the airport and they’ve been trained well at protecting our borders.  There are a lot of surveillance tools that can be now used.  Our fisheries people have access to the vessel monitoring system, and so all they do is just press the button and they can see all the licensed boats that are fishing in Solomon Islands.

Mr Chairman:  Thank you, very much Dr. Aqorau for participating in this meeting.  You’ve been very enlightening.

 

End of the session