Tutuvatu Forum

Andy · Joined: 08 Nov 2007 Posts: 302 Location: Qld, Australia

Wantoks,

Good to see the level of interest in this topic. Before we introduce a new system, we must ensure we get rid of unneccessay spending, institutions and bodies. For instance, I have long called for the axing of Honiara Town Council as an institution. I think Honiara should become a body (department) within the central/federal gov't. By doing so we get rid of councils pay, sitting allowance and privileges (transport, housing and so on), election expenses for those that run the election for HTC. We also get rid of corruption in HTC. The gains for axing HTC is so many. Revenue from Honiara goes directly into the Consolidated Funds. The national gov't appears to be in good position to collect revenue in such a place like Honiara. It already has a good system in place for such collection and record keeping than Honiara.

AK47, On the issue of s.168 of the DFC, I think the drafters had some concern about what you raised here, hence, brought up something to try and address it should it becomes necessay. As you and I will appreciate it, it's good to anticipate future issues by addressing it in the draft than wait for it to actually happen before trying to do something about it.

That section tries to address economic disparities between states by allowing the Federal Gov't with the endorsement of the NFC (made up of both State and federal personels) to make transfer payments ( I think this means federal payments). The important provisions, I think, are subsections 2 and 3.

The transfers are unconditional, so the feds will not try and push or bully the receiving states. There will be no strings attached. This is a big difference from the Australian experience whereby the federal gov't can impose conditions on its grants to the states under section 96. The australians states have no option but to accept those conditions if they want to receive federal grants. Because of this conditional grants, Canberra found it easy to indirectly influence state policies in so many areas, to the point of making a mockering of the australian federalism. I think the drafters were away of this problem.

Draft subsection 3 says that it is to be implemented by way of legislation. This is federal legislation (Act). This is good because Parliament has ownership and final say, not the federal gov't and the NFC. If leave it up to the gov't without Parliamentary approval, the federal gov't may play politics with the scheme. Parliamentary control is also important because it gives members in Parliament the chance to disect the scheme before it becomes law.

The NFC will be a constitutional body made up of federal and state personel. From the DFC, it appears that the NFC will be involved in the areas of Federal-State revenue-sharing, disputes in this area and so on.

Fanta,

As for NT, I think they have good reasons to remain as territorians. They get bucket loads of $$$ from the Commonwealth (Canberra). It seems to me that they would rather depend on Canberra (the positive part of the deal) at the expense of having Canberra overiding NT if it does not want what NT does (the negative aspect of the deal). A good example is the recent intervention into abroginal communities in NT. At least territorians were given a chance to vote for statehood in the past but was defeated.

Fanta, I have no problem with aiming "a big baseball bat at the knee caps of some of our leaders". However, given that most of them are rotten meat ready to be burried anyway, perhaps we don't need to put more strain on their families.

Pinmiz,

I am not all surpised by what you discribed concerning those meeting. Even if the premiers knew what was going on they would not want to upset the minister of provincial gov't who is their boss. Sometimes our over respect for our superiors is our down-fall or hold us back. Even if we know our member of parliament is corrupt or not telling the truth, we still let him of the hook.

I also concur with you on the issue of concurrent powers. My preference is only to have one list: a federal list and all other matters are "reserved for the states" without listing those other matters for the states. If any issue not under federal power is worthy of federal involvement then the states can surrender it to the federal parliament in part or whole like education. I guess the drafter were worried that we would spend our first few years fighting over states and concurrent matters so decided to list them clearly to put an doubt to rest.

On the issue of revenue, I like section 133 except the inclusion of "general sales tax". I think the drafters had in my mind the terrible history of a similiar provision in the australian constitution so decided to make it clear that general sales tax shall be exclusive to the feds. Section 132 still gives the states the right to impose their own tax, hence concurrent matter, but given section 133, it appears that states involvement in this area will be quite small to be effective. I, therefore, agree with Pinmiz on this.

However, I think when one looks at the whole scheme of things under chapter 15, together with sch 6, I think it is still workable and may help the states to gain what they may lose under sections 132-133.

AK47 · Joined: 08 Nov 2007 Posts: 359

pinmiz · Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 94 Location: Honiara

Andy
The assumption made in regards to the premiers non response to the attitude of the Minister is quite an irony since during the same meeting whilst the Minister was there the Premier of WP raised a rather peculiar question from someone of his calibre. Questioning the Minister’s power as provided for in section 46 of the Provincial Assembly Act – Power to suspend Provincial Assembly. The question he asked was basically why is it that the Minister an elected person would have the power to dissolve a provincial assembly comprises of also elected persons. Of course we all know that the Provincial Assembly is just a creature of Parliament. I honestly do not think the premiers would be scared of their master as you would like to imply...however you’re entitled to your views.
I personally feel that the whole scheme under chapter 15 is cumbersome and needs proper investigation. The devil is in the details of how the mechanics of this scheme will be laid out. s168 the “equalisation formula “ is definitely will annoy Western and Guadalcanal provinces and s169 will put Honiara City up against Guadalcanal State and with another inevitable set of financial disputes.
As for Chapter 18, please no more courts! Believe me we have enough layers of courts in this country already which we cannot afford to maintain properly. Another court, a constitutional court, is totally unnecessary and will lead to expensive and time consuming disputes over jurisdiction. The drafters of this Chapter have no idea what fund those lawyers will have in working out what is or is not a constitutional issue!

hem fastem

pinmiz · Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 94 Location: Honiara

ops.....the last sentance ....the word fund should be fun...cheers

pinmiz

fanta · Joined: 09 Nov 2007 Posts: 197

Wantoks,

I have a strange idea I would like to share. I think Solomon Islands does not necessarilty have to be one country. Any Island group who want to be independent can do so at their own free will. We would then rid our system pf any central authority . The entity which appears to be consuming every thing and nothing else.

I believe that the only essential thing we need is development and promotion of good friendly relationships between peoples from the independent groups that was or used to be Solomon Islands enabling them to trade, play soccer and netball and do business with each other.

After all that is the way it used to be for us. (Of course minus the friendly relationships).

Andy · Joined: 08 Nov 2007 Posts: 302 Location: Qld, Australia

Wantoks,

AK47, I think the NFC will only meet when and where necessary. I do agree with you that having such body consumer important,yet, limited resources we have. However, if put into good use, it may play an important role. There will have to be a body of such a nature if we a going to move into a federated syste,, in my opionion. One of my fears, though, will be the quality and competence of the delegates representing the states. The DFC 2004 said the states would be represented by the head of the Executive gov't or a person appointed by each states. At least if the head of the executive (eg, premier) is incapable, then, HOPEFULLY, the states will opt to appoint some one instead. I just hope that it won't have to be the executive head of state gov't that has to represent the states. The actual transfer or ET will be implemented by federal legislation under the DFC 2004.

If given a chance, my approach to this DFC 2004 as far as the people in the village is concerned is to outline both systems first and point out the key differences and similiarities. Second is to go over the main parts of the DFC 2004 especially the heads of power (Lists ia for instance) and the financial sharing provisions. The provisions relating to a State Constitution and Structure is also very important because the rural people in its province will have to be involved in this soon afterwards when a federal constitution is in place. I suggest that each province should be free to choose what states consitution (model) it wants without the federal constitution trying to dictate what should be included and what not.

The current problem I have is that some people who are involved in this project have no clue what they are doing. Some appear not to know their job discription as well. I was surprised to see an outline distributed by the head of the MUP constitutional review committee (don't know if the title is the correct one though) to the MPA to take it back for discusion in their wards mid last year 2008. I was fortunate to be home at that time and my MPA came to me for a chat about a proposed state constitution. Wantoks, the Makira head of this review relisted the list under the DFC 2004 and actually added some of his own headings which contracted the federal draft as far as the heads of powers are concerned. Not only that, he went on to list some matters under State when they are clearly matters under the federal list such as customs and quarrantine.

I mentioned the above because if we have confused "captains" manning the boat, then we will end up confusing the rest of the country, including a very confused "crew" and confused "passengers" on board. AK47 already mentioned what statehood may mean to some when he listed international airports, hospitals and so on. Personally it is important that our people have some understanding of what the system is and where we are heading. I can't even hide my frustration at our MPA and MPs. They pretend to know all these stuff. AK47 wantok, try and hook up a conversation with some of our MPs and gage their understanding of the proposed system. We maybe surprised to hear what they got to say. But they have staka wantok lawyers, political scientists and economists to help them out if they need some help to understand all these important stuff. Fear of asking questions is a big problem for us.

If I am the one running the project, I will require all people involved in the project especially those in the provinces be tested to gage their level of understanding of the current and proposed system. We don't need people who have no understanding of the system to lead us in our discussion of the proposed system.

AK47 · Joined: 08 Nov 2007 Posts: 359

The most powerful nation in the world is on the verge of collapse. Its federal system is unsustainable and now the decentralization of power is slowly fading as States now looking to the Federal government for survival. The Feds now controlling almost every major companies. California right now is one step to declaring bankruptcy, and bigger states may now follow suit. State taxes in major States now rising at an alarming rate while employment steadily rising since the new government took office. The unemployment rate now doubles at a space of four months and is expected to increase with the collapse of major companies.
The supposedly powerful corporations across America are now looking to the Federal government for survival and the billions of dollars given to these major companies under the "bail-out bill" didn't even help. US government has increased its borrowing from foreign governments, especially China to keep the country alive. But with Obama's administration stubborness, the US deficit is set to $3 Thrillion dollars.

Hao mas moa long Solomon Islands! is this the right time to set up federalism? And how on earth would SI survive a decentralized system such as this? Mi barava no clever na! even the Super-power is struggling to survive. What the heck are we doing?
_________________
For of all sad words of tongue or pen,
The saddest are these:
It might have been.
............
John Greenleaf Whittier

Honiala · Joined: 26 Mar 2009 Posts: 29 Location: Honiara

In addition to AK47, Australia's states hospitals are at stake, and the federal has warn of possibly come under their care. In our case, currently, our doctors are complaining about inadequate supply of medical items and chemicals for the surgical ward and this is a long overdue problem as mentioned by doctors. They warned that they will cut back on patients esp, those coming from provinces. To me this is a serious matter for the national government to redress, however, if this is the case where even our national ministry of health cannot take heed or sustain its obligation, then as AK47 warns, how much moa for states.

Andy · Joined: 08 Nov 2007 Posts: 302 Location: Qld, Australia

Wantoks,

AK47, It is better to put things into perspective. The US firmly believe in capitalism and the free enterprise/skills of its people. Part of that believe is that gov'ts, I mean any level of gov't, must not get involved in the economy. Gov't involvement in business or economy, to the Americans, amounts to comunism or socialism. It's hand-off approach now cost them dearly.

So for me, what is happening there in the US it is not an issue of decentralisation or centralisation but whether there should be active gov't participation in its national economy: that is the issue. Have to remember that when this all happened, Russia, China and even uncle Hugo Chavez lectured the US about its capitalism credentials. They even predicted the death of capitalism, not federalism, because federalism is not an issue in their current problem. I am sure comunist and socialist countries are smiling and saying: "I told you so Americans".

The US current problems is a result of an ideological believe in capitalism. The GOP is the most active supporter of this idealogy. Part of this believe is that the economy will sort out its self, hence, gov'tsmust not get involved. The current problem now puts all that into the rubbish bin. If the US gov't had taken active control and participation in its economy, for instance, by enacting laws to ban speculative investments and regulating banking lending practices, they may not have this problem they have now.

So wantoks, it is better to put all this into perspective. One really can't compare the US economy to the one in SI. The differences are obvious to even the non-economist to see.

In SI part of our problem is management. Bad management will be there even in a federal system. No one suggests that under federalism it will go away or gets worse off under the current system. Good attitudes and proper regulations are some measures to tackle this problem.

The federal system we come up with will be the one that fits SI. If people think that the States will not have the resources to manage Hospitals, then let the federal gov't in Honiara manage them and only clicnics and aid post come under state responsibility. It seems that some of the contributors here think that since health care is a state matter in other federal system, it will automatically become the same in SI. As I said above wantoks, try and put some perspective into this discussion rather than reading some issues in the paper and then use it as a case against federalism.

AK47 · Joined: 08 Nov 2007 Posts: 359

You are partially right Andy, however, the problems facing US today is more than just "capitalism", it has alot to do with the "decentralization of power". I stated in my previous postings that one of the major reasons why I don't want to see Federalism established in Solomon Islands is because a highly decentralized means higher taxes. Now, we can go on debating a draft constitution that might may not be the same as the final draft, but the underlying argument is- whether a Federal system established in a poor country like Solomon Islands will survive or not. I am sure you are quite optimistic about the proposed Federalism in SI as you've always portrayed in your writings, but the truth of the matter is; a federal system in SI will be a big mess. I maybe unable to prove to you it wouldn't work but you know very well it may never worked!

I know you understand the Law well than anyone in this forum, but all legal arguments aside, is there any tiny country with a small population like ours with a successful Federal system to be used as an example for both sides of the argument or are we just talking about "trial and error"? my answer is NO. Micronesian governments do have similar government type to Federalism, but with Free Association with America they are able to sustain their own governments. I am not so sure if we have the capability and ability to sustain a federal system, but don't get me wrong... we may make it work, but at what cost and how long?" Politic system is not something that you believe it would work; it takes refinement, amendments, and sacrifices to make a system works. But how far that sacrifice should go is something I am not prepared to live through for a simple reason; why should I bleed to pay for a system was said to be the solution to my problems? it doesn't make sense.

Now there are few reasons why I raised the case of US. It is true that many countries in the Communist/Socialistic realm attacked Capitalism, but they have their own reasons-they don't like Capitalism. To them, it is repressive, class discrimination etc, etc. They called US economic woes, the results of "extreme capitalism" but that is not my point of contention. The problem with US is more than the "credit crunch" that hits US in the passed few months. The US economy had already shown serious downturn long before there was a credit crunch or sub-prime mortgage crisis. In the past decades, States in US had shown serious crisis, especially the bigger states. California, for instance, had taxed the heck out of major companies and their workers. That State also pushed these companies by legislation to pay higher benefits (esp. Medical) for their employees. Result: Companies have left California (to other states and to foreign countries where tax rates are low with cheap labour eg. Indian and China). Another case is New York: NY had increased its taxes on citizens and businesses and now 24% of New Yorkers have left the States to other States such as Florida, NC, SC, and Georgia; others to Texas and Utah. But off course Politicians screwed up the private sector and betrayed investors and the rest of the country for years.

I do agree with you Andy that we should not compare US to our country, but I personally believe that we can compare the nature of a highly decentralized system such as in the US to us. We can create one that suits us but that is easier say than done. When a government is decentralized, we are talking about States moving out and run their own affairs free from a bossy government that you and others have portrayed in this thread. But that idea seemed contrary to your argument bellow:

Andy · Joined: 08 Nov 2007 Posts: 302 Location: Qld, Australia

Wantok,

AK47, better to follow the argument advanced wantok.

Quote:
"If the US gov't had taken active control and participation in its economy, for instance, by enacting laws to ban speculative investments and regulating banking lending practices, they may not have this problem they have now".

The above comments were made in relation to ur argument about US going broke. It is not about gov't's having a hand-offs approach to economic regulation. Again, the US philisophy for a long time has been non-interference in economic matters. The federal gov't in Washington can pass laws to regulate economic activites but their belief, especially if ur have a GOP gov't and Congress, will be to leave the markets sort itself out. And the GOP especially believe in small gov'ts.

I said that people like yourself need to put things into prespective. Interestingly enough, another federal system, the Australian one, appears to be quite ok with this round of economic melt-down in comparision to the US and other countries. Japan, a very centralised gov't system, also felt the impact of the current system. The UK is one as well.

The point to make is that it is not a political structure that is the problem with economic crisis at hand. So to advance the argument that because the US is a decentralised system which caused this mess is a no-pointer in my opinion. The US probably would still get into this mess if it is a centralised system with their strong belief in free economic enterprise with less gov't interference. Again they could regulate the markets but they chose not to. As you AK47 stated, the US problem was hovering their nose for a while, but they chose no to make the changes needed because of the above identified ideology as one of the causes amongst others.

In any system the power to regulate the markets will have to be given to one or both gov'ts. It depends on the view taken by the drafters. It is, therefore, less of an argument that if we go federalism, the markets/economy will not be regulated. Some one will have to regulate the markets. Hence, I don't see a contradiction in my above comments at all. It should be viewed in the context where the comments was made. In the Australian context, the regulation of inter-state trade, commerce, customs and excise as well as trade with other countries is a matter for the federal gov't and parliament. The Australian drafters did not believe that, because they wanted a federalism, their economy would be decentralised or non-regulated. In fact they gave that power to the federal gov't in Canberra.

In any case no one is suggesting here that ALL things must be decentralised if this is what AK47 is trying to drive home. Only people who have a very unrealistic view of what constitute a federal system will come up with that opinion. There are things that can be decentralised and others that won't. It is as simple as that. I am therefore at a loss as to what would make my above comments as contradictory.

AK47 stated:

"It means that the Feds participation is minimal in certain areas.
Having realized this, the new administration now breaking all the rules and taking control of almost all major companies-from automobile industry to Banks and Mortgage companies".

AK47, how do know the new administration is breaking all the rules? I know for a fact that Americans are the worst litigants in the world. They go to court even for trivial things. I am sure if the new administration is breaking "all the rules" there are, we should be hearing some Supreme Court challenges by now. I am not that familiar with the US Constitution, but I am sure the new administration had thought about their legal rights and obligation before puring lots of tax payers money into all these "bail out" scheme we hear about. I don't think they are cracy enough to spend their tax payers money if they know they are "now breaking all the rules".

No, in this area AK47 the feds do have powers to step in but they took a hand-off approach, partly because of the above identified ideology of non-interference. It has nothing to do with federalism, however, their federal system gives them the power to get involved but the feds refused to be proactive. Even if they don't, why didn't the states regulate their own internal economy? Well, the ideology applies whether in federal gov't or under state gov't especially if its a GOP gov't/legislature in place.

But perhaps we need to clearify ur comments above. The US gov't was so worried that many of this iconic US companies were going busted so the feds step in for the following reasons in my view:

(1) stop US companies from going busted;
(2) from the above, hopefully US workers don't get to lose their jobs, thus, help to keep the US unemployment rate down ( no gov't wants to see high unemployment under their watch);
(3) it would be a sad day for US national pride if iconic US companies going busted and taken up by foreign companies (their pride also could be their down-fall).

Because the US gov't pured in so much money, it insisted on having a say on the BOD and the right to appoint Directors. One way to view this is that the US gov't becoming the biggest share-holders in these companies. Again, Americans are against this but the situation left them with no option.

Rather than discouraging ambitions and optimism, we should encourage it AK47. SI needs lots of ambitions and optimisms if we are going to succeed. As I mentioned early, we need a can-do attitude, not what you and others call "trial and error". I now realise that lack of ambition and optimism is a norm is SI. Perhaps it explains alot of things we see in our beloved nation today: a country that lacks ambition and optimism for the future.

AK47 · Joined: 08 Nov 2007 Posts: 359

And wrote;

fanta · Joined: 09 Nov 2007 Posts: 197

Andy and AK47,

It is the US that States go to Washington to get bail out money. Comparing Washington to Honiara is like adding apples and oranges.

Can someone on this Forum answer this question for me, please. Is there a real need for a Central Government at all in Solomon Islands? What are the real benefits of having a Central Government apart from redistribution of aid and tax money.

If we start to think "outside the box" the arguement about whether Solomon Islands adopt a Federal System of Government or Hugo Chavezs'form of socialism becomes a non-issue.

AK47 · Joined: 08 Nov 2007 Posts: 359

Fanta,

We aren't comparing how rich and big America is to SI, rather the political model. We are going to set up a Federal government which may either bring blessings to Solomon Islands or becomes a serious burden to our people.

Also, I don't think that our current system is like Chavez's in anyway. It is just ridiculous to compare our current system to Chavez style of government. Last time I checked, SIG didn't seize private properties, imprisoned opposition members for mere intimidation, or locked up journalists that highly critical of the government. So that is just a bad comparison!

There is a need for a government whether we accept it or not. The question is what type of government suits us? We all have our own preferences but it takes 30 years to develop our current system to what is today. There are numerous pitfalls with our current system, but is a system that have sustained us for three daces. Our current Constitution stated that the Constitution ought to be amended whenever there is a need to modify our government to suit our current situation.

In fact, those who raised Federalism did so in an attempt to sway opinions away from the true cause(s) of the ethnic tension in my opinion. Instead of addressing the political and social issues that brought about the ethnic crisis, they called Federalism. And sure enough our country has completely overlooked the demands of Guale and Malaita and now embarking on a mission to introduced a new political system hoping that it will please everyone! that is absolutely ridiculous! By the time the Federal government established, settlements in Honiara will remain as they are today, Honiara will still be where it is. And the demands of both side will sink to the bottom, a good recipe for future insurrection!

On services provided by this current government; it is debatable. The real problem may be with the leaders, not the system. These elected leaders are the ones that need to be screened and regulated so that development funds and services reached their intended target (the rural people). I made an analogy of this move (Federal proposal) in one my posting; it is like trying to change the rule of Soccer simply because the players are extremely bad! You remove the players and replace them!

Yu moa
_________________
For of all sad words of tongue or pen,
The saddest are these:
It might have been.
............
John Greenleaf Whittier

browser · Joined: 07 Nov 2007 Posts: 48