Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1698081714856.pdf (Solomon Islands)
MONDAY 13TH AUGUST 2001 The Speaker, Mr Tovua took the Chair at 10.00 a.m. Prayers.

ATTENDANCE At prayers, all were present with the exception of the Members for West New Georgia/Vona Vona, Savo/Russels, Temotu/Nende, Gizo/Kolombangara, Temotu Vattu, West Honiara, West Makira and Central Makira.

PRESENTATION OF PAPERS QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 1.
Mr MANI to the Minister for Education: Would the Minister inform the Honourable House how much of the $150 million from the European Union for educational rehabilitation is still to be paid to the Government to pay for the following institutions: (a) (b) (c) (d) University of the South Pacific University of Papua New Guinea University of Technology (Lae) Solomon Islands College of Higher Education Hon GIGINI: Mr Speaker, I shall call upon the National Authorizing Officer of the European Union (EU) Funds, the Honourable Minister for Planning and Development to give clear answers to the question.
Hon MAINA: Mr Speaker, I wish to inform the honourable house that the FMO for Stabex Transfers in 1999 was signed by me in Port Moresby on 31st July 2001.

In accordance with this FMO, the European Commission has allocated just over $130 million for Solomon Islands.

Moreover 90% of this amount has been specifically allocated to the Education Sector.
In my earlier mission to Brussels, I have signed a memorandum of understanding with the European Commission, which foresees amongst other things the financing from Stabex 1999 resources of an education rehabilitation program.

In answer to the honourable member’s question under the same MOU, it is anticipated that the Solomon Islands College of Higher Education would receive $9 million.
Secondary school grants would receive another $9 million and other regional universities including the University of the South Pacific and other universities in Papua New Guinea would receive $4.5 million.

Mr Speaker, the European Commission has already been asked by me, a fortnight ago, to transfer the necessary funds to the Central Bank of Solomon Islands.
An expert from the European Commission delegation has arrived yesterday and is currently in the country to provide guidance on the procedures for disbursing these funds to institutions concerned.

The House should be further made aware that without a singed agreement from the European Commission, there can be no guarantee of either the nature of financing or the timing of disbursement.

It is my hope that satisfactory financing can be signed soon so that funds can be disbursed within this month.
This, however, Mr Speaker, will depend largely on the goodwill and the efficiency of the European Commission.

Mr Mani: Supplementary question to the Minister for Education.

What is the outstanding amount to the institutions concerned that the Government has to pay?

Hon Maina: Mr Speaker, as far as I understand there are other payments outstanding.
Unfortunately, donors have only agreed to service the current outstanding debts, and therefore, I am addressing the 2001 fees and allowances for all institutions in Papua New Guinea, including the University of Papua New Guinea, the University of Goroka, the Pacific Adventist University and other colleges in Papua New Guinea, plus the outstanding for year 2001 for the University of the South Pacific and the Solomon Islands College of Higher Education.
Mr Speaker, we are merely following advice given to us by donors’ concerned.

Mr FONO: Mr Speaker, based on the answer given by the Minister of Planning, what a step has the government taken to make sure that scholarships are awarded to our students in order to qualify them to take on new scholarships for next year?

Mr Speaker, this question goes to my good friend, the Minister for Education.
What step is the government taking since this big amount we have heard according to the Minister of Planning only caters for arrears of probably outstanding contributions or school fees that we have with those institutions?

What steps is the government taking to make sure that students who are qualified to get scholarships next year are not deprived as has happened this year.
A lot of form seven students do not have scholarships Mr Speaker, and if the government does not take any step to address this problem may be next year, it would be a big problem in our manpower planning.

What steps has the government through the Ministry of Education taken to address this problem?

Hon GIGINI: Mr Speaker, I think this question has been earlier asked by the Member for Fataleka regarding arrears is also asked by the MP for Central Kwara’ae.
Since the question does not focus on arrears, therefore I am sorry I did not have the information on the exact amount of arrears on those institutions abroad, but it exceeds more than $7 million.

With regards to steps taken by the Ministry of Education in regards to scholarships for next year, the normal selection procedure is there to identify who should take up courses.

In terms of administration and management in regards to selection of scholarships, that has been done.
Our biggest problem now is that even if steps are taken in identifying and administering the scholarships, money is the biggest problem that the country is experiencing at the moment.

If all this funding earmarked for education comes through, whether it be from European Union funding or other sources, it is most likely that by next year we still should have our students earmarked for further scholarships taking up studies abroad or within SICHE.
I do not have any other further answers to that but I think that is the best I can offer.

Thank you.

Mr SASAKO: I would also like to ask a supplementary question.
In view of the fact, if I heard it correct, a representative from the European Union is here in Honiara, is it possible for appropriate ministries to take it up with him so that arrangements could be made quickly and make payments directly to institutions like University of the South Pacific, University of Papua New Guinea, University of Technology (Lae) and payments paid rather than transferring the money here?
As we have heard from various media reports, some of our students are on the verge of being thrown out of campuses and all that because of this non-payment of outstanding fees.

Hon Maina: Mr Speaker, as far as the MOU that I signed in Brussels is concerned, funds will be paid direct.

However, it must come through the Central Bank of Solomon Islands by the Ministry of Education with input on the exact amounts to be paid and the funds should then be made to the colleges and universities concerned.
Mr Speaker, in relation to the concern expressed by the Member for Central Kwara’ae, that is a very valid concern, however, as I have said earlier on, 90% of the resources made available in the 1999 Stabex Transfers are all allocated to the Ministry of Education under the education sector.
Therefore, it is now being discussed within the Ministry of Education and my Ministry and the Solomon Islands College of Higher Education, we should be now planning for the next five to six months on how we should look at the scholarships and how much it will cost for us to be able to access funds from the Stabex transfers.

I believe we still have the time available to discuss these issues properly.
Unlike the outstanding amounts previously incurred, up until now we did not really have the time to discuss the issues properly and of course the FMO was only signed last month.

Mr Speaker, I also wish to inform Parliament for its information that the system with the European Commission is quite complex.
I am sure the Member for Central Kwara’ae being the former national authorizing officer would concur with me that it is well and good saying that there are funds but there are procedures that have to be properly accomplished before funds could be made available.

The reason why the $22.5 million is now forthcoming is because it was treated as post conflict support to us.
Therefore, as I have said earlier on, we still have time on our side and I have already held discussions with the Ministry of Education and the Solomon Islands College of Higher Education to look at planning for the next academic year, which should begin early next year.

Mr Speaker, I hope that a new government that will come to office immediately after the General Election should focus amongst other things the scholarships for our students in all the institutions overseas.
There are funds now available under the FMO 1999 and it is only for the Ministry of Education and other institutions to plan properly.

The education expert who is currently in the country is only here to look at tracking the disbursement of the emergency funds to our institutions in Fiji and in Papua New Guinea.

Mr Speaker, the statement made by the Member for East Kwaio is very valid in that, yes, there are moves by those institutions to evict our students.
I think Parliament should acknowledge the goodwill given to us by the management of those institutions.

They have taken on the problem in Solomon Islands as a real problem and therefore, despite the non-payment of fees to those institutions, they have kept our students in their campuses.
Therefore, I wish to thank on behalf of the people of this country those institutions that have allowed our students to remain in those universities despite the late payment of school fees and allowances for 2001 academic year.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Mr AUMANU: Mr Speaker, I have a supplementary question to ask.

Mr Speaker, in the light of the $9 million we have been told by the good Minister that goes to secondary school branch, I suspect that is secondary schools within Solomon Islands.
In the light of that, Mr Speaker, can the Minister of Education guarantee not only to Parliament but to the parents of students in secondary schools in the country and of course notably King George VI, which is run and funded by the Government, can the Minister guarantee that they will not close those schools due to lack of grants as $9 million is available Mr Speaker?

Hon Gigini: I think the intention of securing the $9 million is to ensure these schools do open until the end of the year.
Mr Mani: Mr Speaker, I wish to thank the Minister for Education for answering my question.

BILLS Bills – First Reading The National Parliament Electoral Provisions (Amendment) Bill 2001 Bills – Second Reading The National Parliament Electoral Provisions (Amendment) Bill 2001 Hon MESEPITU: Mr Speaker, the National Parliament Electoral Provisions (Amendment) Bill 2001 seeks to increase the election fees record for deposit by candidates on nomination from $2000 to $5000.
Mr Speaker, election fees are meant to recoup from intending candidates expenses related to running the general elections.

Election fees are also important in regulating the desire of intending candidates by giving them the opportunity to choose.

If for instance we do not charge fees for intending candidates, then we can expect the number of candidates to be increased and flooded by people who may not have serious desire to serve in Parliament.
Mr Speaker, by changing fees only those who are serious about running for Parliament will complete.

It goes therefore that this principle must necessary guide our minds for increasing the fee from $2000 to $5000.

Mr Speaker, it may also be argued that increasing the fee may jeopardize the right of citizens to stand for the elections.

This argument can only be stretched far enough, if in practice everyone does stand as a candidate for elections.

This is not so in practice.


IN fact, the choice to run for election is sometimes triggered by a mandate from one’s own community at choice, which strictly does not necessarily correlate with one’s right under the Constitution to stand for election.
Hence, whilst we in this House or anyone else can pay lip service to the fact that we are denying the right of citizens, in practice only a handful of candidates will eventually context, as they will run for election is not driven by money but by choice of an individual and his voters.

What this means is that if a candidate is so desirous of representing his people that will make him to ensure he pays the fee to qualify him to be a candidate.
Mr Speaker, I further wish to add the most of us here and even those who represent the civil society would agree that it is leadership that we want to improve.

Everybody is saying they want good leaders who are accountable and transparent.

If this is the choice of our people, this increase is a challenge for those genuine leaders who aspire to represent their constituencies.

That is, a true and honest leader would be willing to sacrifice his time for purposes of fulfilling an obligation required of him.
Having said that, while some of us may think this is not right, I wish to clarify here that the idea to increase the fees was done initially when aid donors were not forthcoming with the package to fund the coming general elections.

We are very fortunate that the Solomon Islands Government does not have to spend anything for the coming election.

But this does not mean we do not have to charge any fees.
The current funding by aid donors will not go on forever, and the Electoral Office must have funds available in future to cater for other electoral matters.

Mr Speaker, things like registration should be annual activities of the office, and therefore, it is very necessary that fees are increased to assist the electoral office in future.
If aid donors are willing to finance our election, we must in turn show our responsibility by helping ourselves, and in this case, financing the Electoral Commission or its office.

This increase in fees will at least establish our financial basis for which future activities of the Commission may be made local.

Finally, but not the least in terms of the returns from fees, the last election expense was $5 million.

There were 332 candidates who each paid $2,000 as election fees.
The total amount recovered through fees was only $664,000, which is not even one third of the $5 million expended.

Mr Speaker, assuming that the level of candidates will be similar to that of the last election, the total fees would be 332 candidates multiplied by$5,000 comes to $1,660,000, which is at least almost one third of $5 million.

Mr Speaker, increasing the fees as a means of self-sustaining the Electoral Office is not a bad idea, hence the nature of this Bill.
Mr Speaker, with the above remarks, I beg to move.

(The Bill is open for debate) (applause) Mr HILLY: Mr Speaker, I rise to contribute to the debate of the National Parliament Electoral Provisions (Amendment) Bill 2001.

The Parliament is required or asked to increase the electoral fees from $2,000 to $5,000.

Mr Speaker, at the outset I would like to inform Parliament of my opposition to this increase.
I am still not convinced by the Minister in his explanation as to why the fee must increase from $2,000 to $5,000.
Mr Speaker, as rightly pointed out by the Minister that the intention is to give seriousness to the minds of people who intend to be elected to Parliament, and increasing the fees will cut down the number of candidates who may want to cheat, but the important part of this Bill is that under our Constitution, all of us in this country, the 400,000 people are all eligible to contest as Members of Parliament.

If we go by the Westminster system, it does not have candidates.
I think very recently after independence that we introduce fees.

And I think it is supposed to be a very minimal sum of money to help out with out budgetary provision.

When you come to look at the fee part of it, it is prohibiting quite a lot of people who would be good candidates for this House but are unable to find the $5,000 to contest.
Initially, Mr Speaker, when one wants to run for election, they have to pay what is called ‘deposit’ and that deposit can be recouped if you poll more than 10% of the votes.

If you fail to poll more than 10% than you are going to lose your deposit.

That is the system we inherited.

It is only after independence that we put in this fee.

And this fee should be as small as possible to be able to allow any citizen of this country to be candidate in elections.
But with this increase, I think we will certainly discourage a lot of our people to contest.

Mr Speaker, on the question of whether it is a fee or a deposit, I think it is our electoral system that needs to be overhauled, how we are elected into Parliament.

And it should be at the end of the day if we think that fees must be included, then so be it.

But if we look very carefully at our electoral system and see that fees is not a good idea, we should do away with fees and introduce deposit back again.
The electoral system is what we need to overhaul.

This first-passed the-post is undemocratic if there are many candidates.

If there are only two candidates then certainly it is undemocratic.

But if there are many winning candidates, I think they won in number.

If you count the votes of those who lose, they won the votes of the person who wins.

The whole electoral process must be overhauled before we should come and consider it whether it be a deposit or fee.

Mr Speaker, thank you.


Mr SASAKO: Mr Speaker, I too would like to contribute very briefly to this bill and from the outset I too would want to state my objection to this increase for a number of reasons.

Firstly, in my view, timing is one factor I consider as not appropriate to bring in anything more like this to cause unnecessary burden on people who would want to represent their people.
Secondly, like my honourable colleague has mentioned, the intention of the Bill looks as though it is bound to discriminate against people, good people who do not have the ability to pay or who do not have the money to pay such fees to run for the election.

Perhaps some of us might say, ‘well, that is their own business, if they want to stand let them borrow money’.
In my view, we should create an environment where everybody, every Solomon Islander has equal opportunity if they think they can represent their people fairly and well, people who are able and willing to do that, they should be given that opportunity to stand in the election so the people at home can decide on that.

This increase in fees, when talking about costs, I do not believe the $5 million that was spent in the last election is big money.
If we look at that cost in its totality, it is representing this nation.

We are paying the cost of this nation, for people who are leading us in this Chamber and also the direction of our nation.

So when it comes to cost, whilst it is good that we take some responsibility in sharing the cost, the way I see it means that this is just one aspect of the whole system that we need to look at.
In my view, Mr Speaker, we should look at ways on how we can strengthen ways where even registered parties could apply for funding like what is done in many other democratic countries, public funding for election.

If the membership of your party has certain numbers then you are qualified to apply for public funding to contest the election.
At the moment the cost of election is borne by individuals who want to stand and if we are to increase the level of fees that are current at the moment, you are actually imposing an even greater burden on them.

Many of us in this Chamber, like myself who have already indicated our intention that we maybe members for life tampers into the question of affordability.

So contesting the next election is out of the question for some of us.
Why do we want to rush with this when there are so many other issues that are really pertinent into looking at this system in totality rather than isolating one of it?

Why should we bring it now when we have so many problems on our hands to deal with?

This sort of amendment should form the terms of reference of this committee that is going to be set up to look into our electoral system with the view to overhauling the whole system rather than isolating one piece of it and bring it to Parliament.
It is like what Jesus had talked about in the Bible when He said ‘you cannot bring in an old piece of calico and sew it on to a new one because it will always be torn’.

SO rather than doing that, it is more appropriate o look at the entire system and look at the weaknesses, the shortfalls, the strength and where we need to put in such issues.

At the moment, Mr Speaker, when we are talking about cost, you look at even other public services the government should rightly be providing to our people.
We do not have money for it.

In fact when you look at the rural areas, which I know that many candidates would like to stand, their fate is even worse as to how they would afford such a fee.

As I said, Mr Speaker, I for one oppose this amendment on the basis that first the timing is not right.

Secondly, we have far too many problems on our hands to deal with and this can wait.
Thirdly, if we are to pass this amendment, we are creating again a class system where those who can afford to pay will be able to run for the election, and I do not think our constitution, if we still uphold the spirit of our Constitution, then it is wrong because it is against our Constitution.
That is why I am against this Bill and I oppose this fee on the question of affordability, timing, and priorities of issues and on the question that it discriminates against the people who would like to stand for election but could not afford the fee.

The Honourable Minister mentioned the question of leadership when he tabled the Bill.

Sir, leadership is a tricky question.


If the question of leadership is one of the reasons of increasing the fee, to me that is a very shallow reasoning because not every leader who has money acts in the way that is of interest to the nation.

In fact the opposite is true.

When we look at the world politics and in every country you see people build up empires through the public purse, they are not good leaders.
In fact they did the opposite and many of them are still doing it today in many parts of the world.

You only have to look at countries in Africa, South America to have evidence of that.

So the question of leadership that this fee ties into does not count and does not make any shred of evidence to suggest that by raising the fee only good leaders contest the election.

No, no, I do not believe that is true.

It is wrong to assume and to premise on that basis because a lot of evidence is against that.
That is not true.

With those few remarks, Mr Speaker, I oppose this amendment.

Hon WAENA: Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing the MP for Ulawa/Ugi and Minister in charge of responsibilities in the Ministry of Provincial Government.

In so doing, I wish at the outset to pay tribute to your good self as the Chairman of the Electoral Commission and your Commission, the Secretariat of that important Commission for paving the way in preparing the Nation to go to the elections this year.
It is not an important matter to be able to take the bull by the horns and to address a very sensitive issue, that of ensuring that the electorate is given constitutional opportunity to give fresh mandate to new leadership of this nation.

Leadership that will take us into the threshold on the 21st Century and this important new millennium, leadership that will have vision to lead the people of this country into the harbors of prosperity.
Sir, we have been entangled with a very serious problem, a problem that THE leadership of this present House is directly responsible for a problem that has caused our people to flee for their lives to be so taken aback because of carelessness of leadership.

It is a problem that all of us, the 50 of us are responsible for.
Therefore, when we talk about electioneering, it begins with the registration of eligible citizens to take part in the process of giving their mandate to leaders who will be accountable and transparent in the course of discharging their constitutional responsibilities and duties.

Therefore, we should not see anything to do with election as something unworthy of giving it supportive gesture.
Sir, it is only this year with the generosity and the sympathetic consideration of our Aid Donor community that this country is seeing a very tidy way of approaching the elections on very sound footing.

Sir, you are instrumental Mr Speaker, in your other capacity as Chairman of the Electoral Commission to ensure that our people of this nation are given their right to grant fresh mandate to leaders of their choice.

And so I see this important amendment as setting things on right footing.
I know that we are counting on the generosity of aid donors.

It is undeniable, it is a fact and it will remain a historic entry in our history books that they have helped us with very sizable sums of money so as to bring us back on track because it is ourselves, leaders who first made a wrong move.

It is of our own making that we do not have money.

What are we saying to ourselves?

We should blame ourselves on equal footing.


You started it, we are perpetuating it or addressing it, I do not know but we are all accountable for this very sizable mess.

Mr Speaker, as you know, your Commission does not have money.

The Commission will start to have money with this law.

Come 1st of January 2002, the Commission will carry out another revision of voters’ list.

This is a legal requirement that those who are responsible for ensuring the legal requirement adhered to.
This was not done in 1998, 1999, 2002 and we are now doing it in 2001.

This is a fact, it is undeniable, it is on record, and it is direct violation of the law of this country, which my Ministry is responsible for.

We carry out registration under the Local Government Election Regulations to register voters.

The National Electoral Provisions Act also has some provisions in there.

So every administration had failed, all of us sitting down in here have failed.
We have failed miserably with our mandate to ensure that citizens of this country have power to cast their votes and now we are still complaining that they should not do it.

This is the problem with us leaders.

I want to say this with all due respect, as all of us become failures in ensuring that legal provisions are adhered to, we just say ‘it is okay we pass it so that we pay $5,000 to start fund for the Commission because it does not have money’.
The Commission does not have money now and there will also be no money ready for January 2002 for the Commission to do its work.

This is the money that is going to be available because it is not money coming from outside, it has to be our own money and so we have to pay so that in 2002 when a new Parliament comes into power, it is their business to change this law so that we do not have to pay fees.
When a new Parliament comes in, change the law, revise it including how people go to vote because we are now saying that those who win now do win with only one vote or 10 or 20 votes, and those who lose if you add all their votes is more than the person who wins.

If that is a very serious constitutional and political anomaly then we correct it.

That is what the Parliament is established to do, to erase unfair anomalies.

Let me ask this, why is the Parliament not doing this now?
Why are we crying for it at this eleventh hour?

Where have we been for the last four years?

Have we forgotten about our duty to the voters and now we are complaining about it at the eleventh hour?

Sir, it grieves me to hear all these high sounding words that do not hold meaning to the simple person of this country.

Not at all.

May I thank you, sir, for your understanding and for your hard work as Chairman of the Commission and I thank the Honourable Prime Minister.
Because what he said last Friday is about not having election he only mentioned debate on the Sine Die Motion.

That was what I heard from him.

By that time all of us would die on the 22nd August 2001.

Because we are just casual workers working only for four years and then we sit the exam again.

It is a big exam to test us because everyone is saying we all have failed by causing a big problem for the country.

It will be a very serious examination.

Is it true?
Is it true?

Yes, it is very true and so we would have to try and find out how we are going to answer the question.

With that, I beg to support the Bill.

Hon Mesepitu: Mr Speaker, I would like to thank Honouable Members of the other side who opposed this amendment bill and also the Minister of Provincial Government for his supportive statements given to this Honorable House.
I would like to say that this increase to $5,000 is not in the interest of this Government but it is because we have gone through hard times throughout the country because of the tension.

It is a fact all of us have proven that there is no money in this nation.

The Minister for Provincial Government had rightly stated that we need money for the year 2001 so that we can overhaul the whole Electoral Act, and that is the time when we can be able to seriously address the fees or whatever things we can do.
Time is running out, and I would like to also thank the two Honorable Members for their strong opposition to the Bill.

I would like to thank them for what they said which are valid, especially on leadership where it is true that not everybody who has money has good leadership quality.

Leadership is not imbedded within us but it is being taught and we need to catch it.

And leadership whether it is in the best interest of the community or society of this nation.
Those of us who want to run for this coming election need to be tested at this coming election at the end of this year and we believe that most of us who are sitting down here, I hope, must work hard because we have failed miserably throughout our term but I believe that we all must have faith to come back again so that we can address the mess that we have gone through and it is us who are going to settle this problem.

We cannot settle this problem with our own power.


We need the guidance and the provision of our Almighty God and He will help us and lead us throughout this year and also in the coming year.

The increase to $5,000 is not just an issue but is a provision in the Electoral Act that we need to change, so that we have money to carry out other important things.

With these few remarks, I beg to move.

The Bill was voted on voice vote and carried.

Mr Sasako: I wonder if we can go for a division.


A division is called for Ayes Noes Abstention Total The Bill is passed MOTION 27 12 10 49 votes Hon Sogavare: Mr Speaker, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn.

The House adjourned at 11.00 a.m.