PARLIAMENT OF FIJI

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

DAILY HANSARD

THURSDAY, 30 SEPTEMBER, 2004

            The House met at 9.40 a.m. pursuant to adjournment.

            MR. SPEAKER took the Chair and read the Prayer.

PRESENT

            All Members were present except the honourable Member for Magodro Open (G. Singh), the honourable Member for Lautoka City Open (D.U. Manufolau), the honourable Member for Nadi Rural Communal (Dr. G. Gounder), the honourable Member for Lautoka City Communal (Dr. G. Chand), the honourable Member for Samabula/Tamavua Open (M. Dobui), the honourable Member for Cakaudrove West Provincial Communal (Ratu R.S. Vakalalabure) and the honourable Assistant Minister for Health.

MINUTES

            HON. LEADER OF THE HOUSE.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move:

                        That the Minutes of the sitting of the House of Representatives held on Wednesday, 29th September, 2004 as previously circulated, be taken as read and be confirmed.

            HON. COL. P.I. WONG.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to second the motion.

            Question put.

            Motion agreed to.

COMMUNICATION FROM THE CHAIR

            MR. SPEAKER.- Honourable Members, I would like to acknowledge the presence in the House of visitors and in particular, I would like to welcome the students of Forms 3 to 5, teachers and parents of Nakauvadra High School from Ra. 

            Also, the students, teachers and parents of Lautoka Arya Sangam School.  To all you visitors this morning, I welcome you mostly on behalf of all the Members of the House who are here and those who are not here today.  I trust that your visit to Parliament would be educational and enjoyable.  I trust that you will see some Members of your own constituency in action today.  We always welcome visitors to the House, particularly those from schools. 

            Ni mata vinaka mai, e ka ni marau saka vei au, meu vakaraitaka yani vei kemuni na neimami marautaka vakalevu na nomuni yaco mai, mo ni mai sikovi keimami.  Keimami taleitaka sara vakalevu, au nuitaka ni na yaga vakalevu vei kemuni, vinaka vakalevu na yaco mai.  (This august House extends its greetings to you all.  I am indeed honoured to welcome you most warmly this morning on your visit.  We hope that your visit will be of great value to you both educationally and personally.  Thank you for your visit.)

QUESTIONS AND REPLIES

Citizenship

(Question No. 93/04)

            HON. S. SINGH asked the Government, upon notice:

                        Would the honourable Minister for Home Affairs, Immigration and National Disaster inform the House on the following:-

            (a)       What is the total number of foreigners (by nationality) who have taken up citizenship in the country; and

            (b)       How many of these (by nationality) have been charged or convicted and deported for crimes committed?

            HON. J.W. COKANASIGA (Minister for Home Affairs, Immigration and National Disaster).- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I have some problems with the framing of this question.  However, because this is a very wide ranging question, I have provided the consolidated figures for the last six years. 

            If I may respond to the question on that basis, Sir, as follows:

            (a)       Citizenship is granted under section 12 of the Constitution, that is citizenship by registration or under section 13 of the Constitution, citizenship by naturalisation.  For the first part, citizenship granted under section 12 of the Constitution, that is citizenship by registration, I beg to read out the consolidated figures for the years 1998 to 2003.

                        The second category - grant of citizenship by naturalisation, comes under section 13 of the Constitution.

                        The figures are:

                        The two categories are people who have been granted citizenship, either by naturalisation or registration.

            (b)      This is difficult because once a person renounces his previous citizenship and adopts Fiji citizenship, he is no longer classified under his previous nationality, but is classified as a Fiji citizen.  If he is charged or convicted, he is charged as a Fiji citizen.  They cannot be deported because they have adopted Fiji citizenship and they must remain in Fiji.  For that matter, it is difficult and not possible to provide the figures for convictions by nationality because they do not exist.

            HON. A. ALI.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, a supplementary question.  Would the honourable Minister inform this House whether those who were implicated in the manufacture of Methamphetamine, which is commonly known as "Ice", were on work contract or were they naturalised citizens of this country?

            HON. J.W. COKANASIGA.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, except for two people who were implicated, no proof has been able to be established, but they were the two implicated in the cocaine bust earlier on, during the South Pacific Games.  They were not able to pin them down to the allegations, but they were arrested over the recent drug bust.  They are Fiji citizens and are under trial at the moment.  The others are here either as visitors or in transit and they will be dealt with according to the law.

            HON. S. SINGH.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, a supplementary question.  In view of reports that the Immigration Department in the country do not have ample security devices to check on criminal or fake passport holders entering the country; can the honourable Minister inform the House what corrective measures does Government intend to take, to ensure that hardened criminals from other countries do not enter our country?

            HON. J.W. COKANASIGA.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, let me assure the House that our immigration officers are trained to detect fraudulent travel documents when they arrive at the Nadi Airport, they have been trained to do that.  Also, for the information of the House, passports have security features in them that can be detected by the immigration officers on arrival at the first point of check-in.  If the passports do not have those security features, automatically they will be taken aside for investigation.

            HON. G. NAND.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, a supplementary question emanating from the response that the honourable Minister has just given.  With this research, I wonder if the honourable Minister will be able to give us the figures of overstayers in the country.  Is it possible to give a breakdown and total of how many overstayers are in the country at present?

            MR. SPEAKER.- Honourable Member, that is a new question.  It is related, but overstayers and those foreigners by nationality who have taken up citizenship are entirely two different things.  You can ask that on another occasion.

            HON. O. SWANN.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, the honourable Minister referred to 37 others that received citizenship under section 12 of the Constitution.  Were these other people born here in Fiji, already Fijians, left the country, returned and reclaimed their citizenship because they did not have a country?  I just wondered who the others related to?

            HON. J.W. COKANASIGA.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, in certain circumstances, children of Fiji born citizens (in particular offsprings of British Army soldiers serving overseas), come back and ask for their children who are born either in Germany, Falkland Islands or Britain to be registered.  They come under this category.

            HON. S. SINGH.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, in view of the answers provided by the honourable Minister, that more than 300 nationals from China and more than 200 from India came to this country, in view of the high unemployment and poverty rate in the country; what policies does the Government adopt before granting citizenship to people residing overseas?

            HON. J.W. COKANASIGA.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, the criteria to grant citizenship are laid down in sections 12 and 13 of the Constitution.  If they comply with those conditions, we will consider their applications for citizenship.

Agriculture Scam - 2001

(Question No. 107/04)

            HON. P.W. BUNE asked the Government, upon notice:

                        Would the honourable Minister for Agriculture, Sugar and Land Resettlement inform the House on the following:-

            (a)       Are there people in business and/or companies who are still owed money, through the issuing of Local Purchase Orders (LPO) from the agriculture scam of 2001?

            (b)       If the answer is in the affirmative, then give details of the number of people and/or business awaiting payment.

            (c)        What is the total amount of money involved?

            (d)       Have the unpaid accounts still being held by Police for investigating and is it the real reason why payments cannot be processed?

            (e)        Has any of the money misused been recovered?

            HON. J.K. GALUINADI (Minister for Agriculture, Sugar & Land Resettlement).- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise to answer the questions raised by the honourable Member.  As all honourable Members of this august House know, the investigation into this matter is not yet completed, therefore I will not be able to provide an answer at this stage.

Maintenance work at Penang Mill

(Question No. 108/04)

            HON. S.C. MAHARAJ asked the Government, upon notice:

                        Would the honourable Minister for Agriculture, Sugar and Land Resettlement inform the House on the following:

            (a)        What was the maintenance work plan for the Penang Mill during the last slack season;

            (b)       How many hours of overtime work was carried out at the Penang Mill during this period; and

            (c)        What was the total cost of this overtime work?

            HON. J.K. GALUINADI.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise to reply to the question, as follows:

            (a)        The maintenance work plan was to rectify the problem faced during the 2003 season.  This also included the maintenance of other plants and equipments whose conditions have deteriorated over the years due to old age and mental fatigue.  Some of the major jobs apart from the routine slack maintenance work included the following:

                        * replacing of cane carrier chain;

                        * replacing No. 1 mill drive and gearing;

                        * replacing all voiding pumps;

                        * fixing gantry travel and alignments of the travelling cranes;

                        * replacing molasses pumps;

                        * replacing ID/FD Fan ductings; and

                        * overhauling the main 3 megawatt generator, alternator and turbine.

                        Approximately 70 percent of the completed maintenance work had to be re-done due to the damage caused by the flood that hit Rakiraki district during the 2003 and 2004 maintenance period.  This also resulted in the three weeks delay in the commencement of crushing.

                       A lot of capital projects were also undertaken during the maintenance period.

            (b)       Approximately 21,700 hours of overtime done by 225 non-staff employees in the sugar industry included tradesmen, clerks, supervisors, apprentices and general employees, which worked out to 96.4 hours each on average;

                        The areas of work were mainly in the repairs of tramlines, cleaning and maintenance of the factory;

            (c)        The total cost of this overtime work amounted to $116,400 and the breakdown is as follows:

                         (i) $86,700 - capital works; and

                        (ii) $29,700 - other maintenance works.

            HON. S.C. MAHARAJ.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank the honourable Minister for his reply.  I had actually written this letter to the General Manager but he has not responded, so I had to file these questions.  I also wish to inform the honourable Minister that the Penang Mill is running very well.

            A supplementary question, Sir.  What is the position of a foreigner in the Penang Mill and why he is staying in Tavua and travelling to Penang Mill at the expense of the Fiji Sugar Corporation?

            HON. J.K. GALUINADI.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I do not quite see the relationship between the overtime work and a foreigner staying in Tavua and travelling to work at the Penang Mill.  All I could say Sir, perhaps, it is a bit more convenient for him because of the availability of accommodation in Tavua, which is not there at the Penang area. I thank the honourable Member for thanking the employees of Penang Mill for their hard work as a result of which, Penang Mill is running very well.

            MR. SPEAKER.- Honourable Minister, I did not think there was a connection either, but since you are very happy about answering the first part, I thought you might be just as happy to answer the second part as well.  That is why I offered it to you.

Tavakubu Reservoir, Vuda and Saru Back Road

(Question No. 110/04)

            HON. V.D. SHARMA asked the Government, upon notice:

                        Would the Minister for Works and Energy inform the House

            on the following:-

            (a)      Which company (local/overseas) was awarded the tender to complete pipe laying and construction of the water reservoir in Tavakubu, and was the pipe laying and construction of the water reservoir tendered separately for both the projects;

            (b)       Did the contractor sign an agreement to give the road back to Public Works Department (PWD) with portions of tarsealing, gravelling and proper drainage of Vuda Back Road, Saru and Saru Back Road; and

            (c)       If the answer to (b) is in the affirmative, could the honourable Minister explain why this has not been done?

            HON. COL. RATU S.U. DRAUNIDALO (Minister for Works and Energy).- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise to answer the question, as follows:

            (a)       The reservoir project to which the honourable Member referred to, is the Kashmir Reservoir Project and the project was constructed under two separate contracts.

                       The first one was the construction of the 20 million litre Kashmir Reservoir and the second one was the laying of inlet and outlet pipes to the Reservoir. 

                       The contract for the construction of the Kashmir Reservoir was awarded to Downer Construction Limited, an international company operating throughout the Asia and Pacific Region.  It is owned by a parent company based in Hong Kong.  Downer Construction Limited is registered in Fiji and is currently constructing a number of projects in the country.

                        The construction of the Kashmir Reservoir is on schedule - no delays have been encountered.  Currently, the Reservoir is undergoing commissioning tests and the final cost to construct the Kashmir Reservoir is estimated at this time to be $5.3 million.

                        The contract for construction of the inlet and the outlet mains to the Kashmir Reservoir was awarded to China International Water and Electric Corporation, a company owned by the Government of the People's Republic of China.  It is a registered company in Fiji.

                       The construction of the inlet and outlet mains to the Kashmir Reservoir was completed in March this year, approximately two months later than originally programmed, at a cost of $1.7 million.  The delay in the completion of the pipe laying contract resulted from the extension of time due to wet weather, and from difficulties experienced during hydrostatic testing of the pipes after construction.

                        For (b) and (c), the contract for a pipeline included the sealing of approximately 300 metres of road extending a sealed section of the Saru Back Road to the Mosque, and the balance of the route where the pipeline was laid required the contractor to reinstate all surfaces and drains to their original conditions.  This work has been completed and certified by the consulting engineer, who is supervising the construction work. 

                        A further review of the condition of the contract will be undertaken before the end of the defects liability period around March 2005.

            HON. V. SINGH.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise to ask a supplementary question.  While I appreciate the good work done in that area, could the honourable Minister inform this House whether both tenders were awarded to a foreign investor?  If so, do we not have a local company that could do the same work and probably be much cheaper than that foreign investor?  The taxpayers' money would have been circulated within the country rather than outside.  Why could we not contract a local company to do that?

            HON. COL. RATU S.U. DRAUNIDALO.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, the tendering and award of both the Reservoir Construction Contract and the Pipe-laying Contracts was undertaken through the Public Works Tender Board, which was open to both local and international companies possessing the capacity to successfully complete the work.  The capacity of companies to successfully undertake the work was assessed through a Contractor Pre-qualification Process in which companies have to provide evidence that the company had adequate technical and financial resources to complete the project.  This, Sir, was undertaken and awarded to Downer Construction Limited and China International Water and Electric Corporation.

            HON. A. ALI.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise to ask a supplementary question.  In fact, I drove through that road last week and it is in a very pathetic condition.  Would the honourable Minister please check with the engineers or drive himself and see the condition of the road and whether the road is properly fixed to its original status?

            HON. COL. RATU S.U. DRAUNIDALO.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, the last time I was there was about six weeks ago, but not necessarily would I want to go there everyday or on a weekly basis.  We have our staff (technical people) on the ground to assess this kind of work.  Like I have said, because the project was completed in March this year, the completion certificate had been issued that the work is completed.  That is the only condition of their contract.  But like I have said in the House yesterday, Mr. Speaker, when funds are available, we are obliged to conduct both periodic and roading maintenance on all roads in Fiji.

            HON. V.D. SHARMA.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, two weeks ago, I wrote a letter to the honourable Minister, inviting him to visit the Vuda Back Road.  I hope that he will inform us when he receives the letter.

            Sir, the road is in a very pathetic condition and every time a grader comes, it just gets the mud from the drain and dump it on the road, as if you are trying to polish a woman and when the woman sweats, she becomes slippery.

            (Laughter)

The same thing happens at the Vuda Back Road and I hope the honourable Minister will visit it one day.

            HON. COL. RATU S.U. DRAUNIDALO.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I think the way to approach that question is to repeat what I keep saying in this House; "When funds are available".  We look after the four divisions in Fiji and we are not confined to the Vuda Back Road or Saru Back Road, as often raised in this House.  There are other areas and priorities to attend to rather than this specific sector of the road (Saru Back Road).  It has received more attention than most other roads in the country.

Inspector Nasir Ali - Removal of

(Question No. 106/04)

            HON. G. NAND.- Sir, with a great deal of public concern surrounding this subject, I had filed this urgent question but I believe with your good judgement and under your guidance, this would appear as a normal question.

                        Would the honourable Minister for Home Affairs and Immigration and National Disaster Management inform the House on the following:-

            (a)      What was the reason behind the sudden removal by the Commissioner of Police of Inspector Nasir Ali and the rest of the police team who were investigating the multi-million dollar agriculture scam; and

            (b)       As Inspector Ali has made certain allegations against a number of senior police officers, what steps are being taken, or have been taken, to look into these allegations?

            HON. J.W. COKANASIGA (Minister for Home Affairs and Immigration and National Disaster).- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to acknowledge the request made by the honourable Member for Suva City Communal (G. Nand) for an urgent question, but this question required me to do more investigations and to produce a reply appropriate for the House.  The answer is as follows:

            (a)       There has been mounting concern about the length of time (over three years now) taken to complete the MAFF investigation, the so-called "agricultural scam", taking into account three extensions since December 2003 and extra resources being committed to the investigation team since January 2004.

                        The investigators from the New Zealand Serious Fraud Office who came in to review the investigations raised some concerns regarding the method of investigation.  The Director of Public Prosecutions was concerned that Inspector Ali was denying his office consultation to assist him to prepare for the prosecution.

                        Furthermore, an allegation from credible source has been received that a senior member of the team has been compromised by a key suspect in the case.  The Commissioner of Police therefore, felt that it is appropriate to change the leadership of the team and to introduce fresh investigators.  This is not unusual, Sir.  Many transfers occur every week right across the Fiji Police Force.  Inspector Ali chose to make a media case of his transfer.  He will face disciplinary charges for his unprofessional and inappropriate conduct.  Aside from Inspector Ali, only three members of the team elected to transfer to other formations and seven members remained with the team.

            (b)       The allegations against senior officers have been investigated and found to be without basis.  The Commissioner of Police, however, is taking measures to ensure that the New Zealand Fraud Office and the DPP have full and independent access to the files, the exhibits and other materials to expose any wrongdoing by police officers.  If in fact such wrongdoing exists, they will be dealt with accordingly.

            HON. G. NAND.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I thank the honourable Minister for his response.  I have a supplementary question with regard to part (b).  Sir, can the honourable Minister enlighten us as to who has made this investigation on the senior officers?

            HON. J.W. COKANASIGA.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, the investigation has, as normal, begun by the professional standards officers of the Police Force.

            HON. V. SINGH.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, Inspector Ali was the same inspector that dealt with the Housing Authority scam very successfully.

            Sir, there are implications that Inspector Ali made on the senior officers while dealing with this multi-million dollar scam.  It is a long process, I understand it has taken too long.  It is not a $20,000 scam but a $30 million worth of transactions and it takes time.

            Sir, Inspector Ali was going to uncover that, and prior to that, he was removed.  Sir, before his removal, did Inspector Ali hand-over all the documents and files for the new team to take over?  Also, whether the hand-over documents are on record?

            MR. SPEAKER.- Honourable Member, can you ask your supplementary question?  You know that you do not have to make a statement when you are asking a supplementary question.

            HON. V. SINGH.- Sir, has Inspector Ali handed all the documents and files for the new team to take over and also whether all the hand-over documents are on record, to assure this House that none will be missing?

            HON. J.W. COKANASIGA.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I can only say this that when the leader of the team is changed, appropriate action is taken by the Commissioner of Police and his Deputy to ensure that the documents, exhibits and the files are intact and handed over to the next successor or the team leader.

            HON. O. SWANN.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I feel I need to raise this.  I was not sure when the honourable Minister said that there will be some disciplinary action taken against this gentleman.  I am not making a statement here so I just ask for your indulgence, Sir.  Too often, we have people to undertake these roles, where terms and conditions, regulations and rules guide them when the recruitment process has taken place.  Sir, people go public when certain things happen and it leaves a bad taste where people become totally unprofessional.  Sir, I am asking why is this gentleman allowed to go out into the media, shoot his mouth off and totally disregarding the rules and regulations laid down in the disciplinary procedure?

            Sir, I am just wondering whether they will be suspended rather than moving them around.  We see that happen too much in our society, where people behave badly and they are not suspended.  They are put into another role and they continue to behave badly.  I think we should now put a stop to it and I ask the honourable Minister that he must be severely punished for his action in undermining the Police Commissioner.  He should stop and must desist from doing that.

            HON. J.W. COKANASIGA.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, the Commissioner of Police will take disciplinary action against the unprofessional and inappropriate conduct of Inspector Ali.  What we have to avoid, Sir, is to introduce any emotion into this investigation.  The investigation must be dealt with appropriately and based on the facts of the case.

RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON THE FIJIANS TRUST FUND BILL, 2004

            HON. P.K. NACUVA.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise to contribute to the debate on this very important and I would regard a very significant Bill, the Fijians Trust Fund Bill, (Bill No. 21 of 2004).

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, before I contribute to the debate very briefly, I would like to take this opportunity, to register in this House my appreciation and sense of congratulation to one of our citizens who have made a great impact in the sporting world, Vijay Singh.

            HON. K.V. ZINCK.- Not that one!

            (Laughter)

            HON. P.K. NACUVA.- Mr. Speaker, I respect the honourable Member for Vuda Open (V. Singh). I do know that he also plays golf and we would never know, maybe in another several years time, he might probably exceed to that level, as the saying goes; "Where there is a will, there is a way."

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, I cannot help but recall meeting and supporting Vijay Singh in the First Inaugural President Cup that was played in the Trent Jones Golf Course in Meansses , in Virginia in 1996.  We all commend him, but one thing that I would like to share in this august House, Mr. Speaker, Sir, is that of Vijay Singh's sense of commitment, perseverance and humility.  This came out very strongly in this Inaugural game when he played against his American opponent.  They ended up at the 18th hole, where there was a draw and they had to replay, beginning from the 11th hole.  I could just sense his sense of commitment and perseverance, but there is one thing that I would like to share, Mr. Speaker, Sir.  Now, I realise why he is so humble and strong, he took wise advise from his dear wife and that is really the secret of the success of Vijay Singh.

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, I stand here to contribute to the debate on this Bill and I regard myself as very fortunate to be given this opportunity, which I think, in years to come, those that will follow us will reflect back and say that it was a milestone legislation. 

            Sir, I am also standing here because I am probably one of the 500,000 or so native of this country living currently in this world and as I look across, I see the honourable Assistant Minister in the Prime Minister's Office (M. Rigamoto), one of the thousands of Rotumans, so when we are reflecting on the purpose of this Fund, as clearly stated by the honourable Speaker, to fund the BLV so that it can be independent financially.  When one reflects back to 1874 when this institution became known and have prevailed ever since, it has never been funded properly. 

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, I think we need to dwell on the important significance of this highest Fijian institution on the land.  I cannot help, but in looking at the Constitution, section 116(1) says and I quote:   "The Bose Levu Vakaturaga, established under the Fijian Affairs Act continues in existence..." When one reflects back to 1874 to today, this institution still exists and as I have heard yesterday from my fellow colleagues who have contributed, they hold with respect this institution.  It has played a very important role during our histories and very much so in 1987 and 2000.  But, it has never been funded properly.  I do respect what the previous governments have done, the Colonial Government by giving grants yearly, but has never been given a proper funding so that it can discharge its responsibilities properly.

            Sir, I cannot help but reflect also on the Constitution because one of the important functions of the BLV is in clause 90, which says and I quote:

                        "The President and Vice-President are appointed by the Bose Levu Vakaturaga..."

Sir, the executive authority of the State is vested in the President.  The President is the Head of State, symbolising the unity of the State.  The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the Fiji Military Forces.  When one reflects on that, one can understand the importance of the Bose Levu Vakaturaga. 

            Sir, I am very pleased indeed and I am happy that this Government and the Fijian Affairs Board has proposed this Bill to enable the Bose Levu Vakaturaga to be funded properly.

            Sir, I just want to reflect very quickly on the purposes of the Bill.  Clause 4(a) of the Bill reads and I quote:

                        "to provide financial independence and autonomy in relation to the operations and administration of the BLV;"

The other initiative in this clause that I would like to highlight very briefly is as follows:

            "(b)      to provide funding for the undertaking, promotion and sponsoring of the programmes on Fijian language, culture and the study of ethno-geography and ethno-history;"

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, while being a civil servant, I have worked in quite a few departments and institutions that are very much concerned about the protection and the preservation of some of our archeological sites, historical sites, and even dwelling on matters dealing with culture and languages.  When one reflects on the purpose of this Bill, to be able to fund some of these programmes properly, I think we need to really express our appreciation and support for the Bill. 

            Sir, clause 4(d), says and I quote:

                        "to sponsor research into languages, art and culture of indigenous Fijians and Rotumans and the better understanding and preservation of their heritage;"

            These are some of the initiatives that have never been funded properly through the years so, it is through this initiative that we can be assured that some of these programmes and functions of the BLV can be attended to properly.

            Sir, I would like to express my appreciation to the Joint Sector Standing Committee for supporting this Bill and I do note some of their comments and I think these needs to be taken seriously.  At page 6 of the Report, it reads and I quote:

                        "Since investment is a risky business in any scenario, the success of the implementation of the objectives stipulated in the Bill depends on prudent investment in safe and lucrative investment both locally and offshore without which the Bill's objectives will not be met."

            I think the point that has been expressed by the Committee is well noted.  Similarly, they have expressed this view, and I quote:

                        "As the fund will be a significant financial institution on behalf of a significant portion of the population, it is important that the financial transactions are always transparent and acceptable.  It is therefore imperative that the Fund should come under proper oversight and supervision...."

I think those views are accepted and well taken by the Government.

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, some Members have made implications yesterday about the use of this Fund.  I am pleased to note that in the draft Bill, the functions of the Board is very clear on what it should do.  The functions of the Board are to invest the Fund, as the Board determines in any investment approved by the honourable Minister for Finance.  I think having that provision is quite significant because we do know in the new Bill that will be tabled in the House by the honourable Minister for Finance, this concern that was expressed by some of the Members yesterday, will be taken care of.

            Also, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would like to highlight the membership of the Board, which I think has been well thought out; not only the membership of the members of the Bose Levu Vakaturaga (BLV), I also appreciate the membership of the three others, which is very specific - one member must be a legal practitioner registered under the Legal Practitioners Act; one member must be a chartered accountant in public practice and the other must be a person with suitable qualification and work experience as an economist, professional manager, sociologist, historian or similar expertise.  When one reflects on this composition, those who prepared this Bill have taken into consideration the concerns that were raised in this House by some honourable Members yesterday.

            One of the significant items that also appeared in the Bill that we need to appreciate is clause 7(4), and I quote:

                        "Nominations made under subsection (3)(a) are not limited to members of the BLV and appointments made under paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of subsection (3) are not limited to indigenous Fijians and Rotumans."

This is a recognition that others, not necessarily indigenous Fijians and Rotumans, can serve in this Board.  So it seems to reflect the intention that whoever is appointed to this Board discharges his responsibility properly.

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, again, I would like to express my appreciation to the honourable Prime Minister, Minister for Fijian Affairs and the Fijian Affairs Board for producing this piece of legislation to be tabled in the House.

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill before the House.

            MR. SPEAKER.- Honourable Members, we will now take an adjournment until 11.10 a.m.

            The House adjourned at 10.45 a.m.

            The House resumed at 11.25 p.m.

            MR. SPEAKER.- Honourable Members, before we continue with the debate, I would like to acknowledge the return of the honourable Prime Minister from New York.  I trust that you have had a good trip and an enjoyable time in the Big Apple.

            HON. P.W. BUNE.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise to contribute to the Fijians Trust Fund Bill.  I would like to join you, Sir, in also welcoming the honourable Prime Minister on his return from New York and San Francisco.

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, first of all, let me commend the Members of the Joint Sector Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Social Services for the Report they have submitted with respect to their examination of this Bill.

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, I wish to remind the House that the Joint Committee was mandated by the House to inquire into and make recommendations relating to any aspect of the Fijians Trust Fund Bill, 2004.  In their report, Sir, we are told that the Committee was unable to undertake any public hearings in view of the limited time it had for scrutinising the present Bill and the Environment Management Bill.

            In the circumstances, their examination of the Bill was only confined to the briefings by the institutional stakeholders, including the CEO of the Ministry of Fijian Affairs and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel.  Sir, in my view, this is not just good enough.  If the Committee had done its homework, it would have realised much earlier that it was not in a position to submit a final report on the Environment Management Bill.  In the circumstance, the Committee should have devoted more time to public discussions of this Bill, particularly in conducting public hearings around the country.

            In my view, Sir, this is a very important Bill, which has already been acknowledged by the honourable Members on the side of the House.  A genuine and concerted effort should have been made to obtain the views of the Fijian institutions like the Provincial and Tikina Councils, as well as individuals from Fijians, Rotumans and other communities.  The views of each provincial councils are particularly critical because they hold Class "B" shares in Fijians Holdings Limited and it is being proposed that $10 million of these Class "B" shares be transferred to the Fijians Trust Fund.

            Sir, I would like to remind the House that nearly all the Fijian men and women in every province were required to contribute financially in an effort by their provinces to purchase Class "B" shares from the Fijian Holdings Limited.  Many tokatokas, mataqalis, villages and tikinas were levied huge sums of money for this purpose and these were collected through fund raising carnivals such as the Adi Babasiga from Macuata, Adi Salusalu, Adi Tagimoucia, Adi Lomai and the famous Bulou ni Ceva.  Many of the individual Fijians who contributed their family savings towards this effort, Sir, are still waiting and wondering whether they will ever receive any dividends from their investments in the Fijian Holdings through their provincial councils.  They are still waiting, Sir, with bated breath, although it is now over 10 or nearly 15 years since investing their hard‑earned dollars in Fijian Holdings.

            I am therefore very surprised and disappointed that the Committee did not see it fit to conduct public hearings in the provinces, islands and villages because I am certain that many would have liked to find out where the money they had invested in the Fijian Holdings, through their provincial councils had disappeared to.  There must be some explanation as to where the money has gone to and the public hearings would have provided an opportunity to enlighten them.  Now, these same Fijians are being told that their $10 million of Class "B" shares will be transferred to the Fijians Trust Fund.  Does this mean, Sir, that these poor Fijians (including me) who were compelled to make these investments some 15 years ago, will now have a better change of getting a return for their investments?

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, the public hearings would have also provided an opportunity for many Fijians to find out why individual Fijian Class "A" shareholders have a far better deal than the overwhelming majority of Fijians who hold Class "B" shares through their provincial councils.  Mr. Speaker, Sir, it defies explanation as to why Class "A" shareholders, most of whom are Cabinet Ministers, CEOs and top bureaucrats, were not required to put up any money upfront before purchasing their Class "A" shares, whilst the overwhelming majority of Fijians were obliged to contribute upfront the one‑third of the Class "B" shares which their provincial councils purchased.

            Are we not creating two classes of Fijians here, Sir?  The elitist Fijians with Class "A" shares and the "have‑nots" Fijians with Class "B" shares?  Is this the kind of Fijian society that the SDL‑CAMV Coalition Government wants to promote in our beloved Fiji?  I have often, Sir, been accused by the Government side, none other than the honourable Prime Minister, of trying to split up the Fijian people.  Does anyone else need any further evidence, Sir, as to who is really causing divisions within our non‑Fijian community?

            What is disgusting about all this, Sir, is the fact that in terms of dividend payments, Class "A" shareholders get about $20 per 100 units of their shares whilst Class "B" shareholders receive only $5.00.

            Sir, what is even more distasteful is the fact that Class "A" shareholders have their annual dividends paid straight into their personal accounts, whilst Class "B" shareholders have their dividends paid into their provincial council accounts, where the money is used to pay for the running expenses of their councils.  Not a penny trickles down into the sweaty palms of our grassroots Fijians.  For the last 15 years, the ordinary Fijians, both in the villages and urban areas who bought the Class "B" shares have been asking that $64,000 question; "Where is the money?"  Those who have seen that Tom Cruise movie will probably come up with the right answer to that question.

            Sir, there are pertinent questions that ordinary Fijians would have liked to raise with the Committee, but unfortunately, the Committee, in failing to conduct public hearings, have denied them a forum to participate actively in the discussions of the very important Bill, which will have a huge impact on their daily lives.  Thus, I am not satisfied that the Committee has sufficiently carried out their mandate given by the House, that is, and I quote: "To inquire into any aspect of the Fijians Trust Fund Bill, 2004."

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, perhaps, the greatest act of injustice dished out to the Fijian people in the acquisition of these shares from Fijian Holdings was the fact that there was no publicity or public announcements made regarding the availability or sales of the Class "A" shares.  This would have given an opportunity for every Fijian who wished to buy Class "A" shares to put in their applications.  Instead, the administrators of the Scheme at the Fiji Development Bank (FDB) and Fijian Holdings, in their own wisdom, decided to do it by word of mouth and telephones to their cohorts around the country and abroad, until Class "A" shares were fully subscribed by a chosen few from among the Fijian elites.

            Sir, what is even more painful (it is painful because it is all our money we contribute as taxpayers) is the fact that some of these lucky individuals bought themselves 200,000 Class "A" shares, while their own provinces could only afford to buy 50,000 or even less Class "B" shares, but only after they had come up with their one‑third contributions.

            Sir, it might be of interest to the House and certainly to the grassroots Fijians that for those lucky few who bought 200,000 Class "A" shares some 15 years ago, judging by the sinful profits Fijian Holdings is generating from its investments, they would have now made at least $800,000 profit on their initial investments.

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, let me turn to the purposes of the Fund, as set out in clause 4 of the Bill.  

            Here we are told, Sir, that the Fund is intended to provide financial independence and autonomy in relation to the operations and administration of the BLV. This is a laudable aim, but if we are to be guided by recent developments in the BLV, there is already clear evidence that this Government is not at all serious about giving independence and autonomy to the BLV.

            The arbitrary removal by Government of Ratu Epeli Ganilau as Chairman of the BLV, is a case in point.  It clearly demonstrates that the Government wants the BLV to be a puppet Council, dancing to its every whim.  No wonder more and more Fijians are losing confidence in the BLV because of Government's pervasive influence over its affairs.

            Sir, it is quite obvious that this Government wants to make the BLV its political mouthpiece, in a vain attempt to compel more Fijians to support the SDL Party at election time.  I have said it already in this House, that it is not the role of Government to unite the Fijians - this is a misconception.

            Na Matanitu ena sega saka ni rawa ni na umani keda na kawa i Taukei.  Na Prime Minister kei na Attorney-General erau na sega ni umani keda na kawa i Taukei, o ira ga na noda turaga, baleta o ira na noda turaga bale era vakatamata.  Na Prime Minister kei na Attorney-General e sega na nodrau tamata.

            E bibi kina na Bose Levu Vakaturaga baleta ni ra lewena tiko na noda turaga bale, era vakatamata.  O ira ga oqo era na semati keda vata na kawa i Taukei.  Oya na ka au via vakabibitaka. 

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, we all know the Fijian people, in the long‑term, will be the losers, in terms of their traditions and culture, if the Government fails to give the BLV genuine independence and autonomy, in carrying out their traditional chiefly roles. The BLV itself had recognised this need for independence and autonomy when it decided to sever its ties with the SVT Government. 

            Sir, I recall vividly what the late Roko Tui Dreketi said at that time.  She told the BLV that not even all the members of the BLV sitting at that meeting could claim that they all voted for the SVT at the last General Elections.  She reminded the BLV that chiefs should place themselves in a position where they were accessible to all of their people, irrespective of their ethnicity, religion and political beliefs.  Thus, if there were ethnic, religious and political differences among their people, chiefs would be better placed to resolve their differences in an impartial and chiefly manner and in the wider interests of all the people under their care.  Sir, these are wise words and I would urge the Government to take heed of the late Roko Tui Dreketi's exhortations.

            It is in light of this advice by the late Roko Tui Dreketi to the BLV, that I strongly believe that it would be foolhardy and counter-productive, in the long-term, for the SDL Government to try to relax or amend the current interpretation of public office in the Constitution, to enable Cabinet Ministers to be members of the BLV.  An exercise which undoubtedly would bring undue political interference in the affairs and independence of the BLV.

            HON. S. NAIVALU.- Sa rui levu na nomu viavia turaga.

            HON. P.W.BUNE.- Au sa na viavia turaga mada ena noqu vosa vei iko nikua Ratu Solomone Naivalu.

            Sir, another clear evidence of this Government's covert interference in the independence and autonomy of the BLV is the role played by the honourable and learned Attorney‑General in tendering legal advice to the BLV at its most recent meeting, to discuss the position of the former Vice‑President.

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, the question I wish to ask is, if the Government genuinely wants the BLV to be independent and autonomous, why has it not allowed the BLV to set up its own separate and independent legal unit, so that the BLV can have recourse to independent legal act advice?

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, because the present situation is not only absurd, but a mockery of our legal system.  Here, we have an Attorney‑General who is not only the legal adviser to the Government and Cabinet, but also the legal adviser to His Excellency, the President.  If that is not enough, he is also legal adviser to the BLV.  He is everywhere.

            Sir, it reminds me of that infamous character in "King Solomons Mines" the witch Gagool (or kakuli).  Everywhere you turn, he is there and Gagool is always obnoxious.  Even if he is not physically present, you can sense his presence in every Bill.

            (Laughter)

Every which way you go, Sir.  No wonder Government Members of the Sector Committees are always apprehensive of his influence, yet, Sir, he claims to be a non-politician. 

            Sir, in any case, one thing is clear.  If the BLV is to be truly and genuinely independent and autonomous, it must have an independent legal adviser.  Otherwise, we are only indulging in an exercise of self‑delusion.

            It is now history, Sir, that because of the politically tainted legal advice given by the honourable and learned Attorney-General to the BLV, we now have a most ridiculous situation where the former Vice President, who has been convicted and gaoled for offences more serious than murder, has been allowed to continue to be paid his salaries and enjoy the perks of the office of the Vice President.

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, can the honourable and learned Attorney-General explain why the former Vice President is being treated differently from the ordinary Tom, Dick and Mary who are languishing in gaol for very minor offences such as stealing in order to feed their families and are appealing their cases?  Will the Government instruct their employers to pay them their wages until their appeals are decided?  What about the soldier who is in gaol for the takeover of the Labasa barracks and who cannot afford a lawyer to appeal his case? 

            This situation has become so ridiculous, Sir, and laughable that our country has become the laughing stock of the international community.  Do we really want our chiefs to be subjected to such humiliation simply because of the kind of legal advice given by the honourable and learned Attorney-Attorney?  The situation is even more ridiculous when we consider the unthinkable, if something amiss should happen to render the incumbent President incapable of carrying out his duties.  Is it Government's plan to recall the Vice President from Korovou to act as President in that scenario?  That, of course, would be grossly unthinkable and absurd.  The fact of the matter, Sir, this Government is creating a very dangerous precedent by trying to make the BLV believe that until the former Vice President's appeal has been heard and decided, he should continue to be reckoned as carrying out the duties of the post albeit from Korovou, what nonsense.

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, as one who served as secretary of the Public Service for a good six years, I was shocked and disturbed to learn of the content of the honourable and learned Attorney-General's legal advice to the BLV regarding the fate of the former Vice President.  Indeed, Mr. Speaker, Sir, that advice flies in the face of current Public Service practice that I am familiar with.  I wonder if Government had tried to seek the advice of our overseas friends abroad with similar Public Service culture like the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia or even Singapore or Malaysia but I doubt it, Mr. Speaker, Sir.

            HON. K. TAVOLA.- Sir, I rise on a point of order; could I just remind the honourable Member that he has to be relevant, we are talking about a motion which is specific and under Standing Order 41, he is covering irrelevant issues, not related to the motion.  I would ask that he should stay within the motion because he is breaching the provisions of Standing Order 41.

            MR. SPEAKER.- He is straying in areas but in essence, he is sticking to the central theme of the debate.

            HON. P.W. BUNE.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, the honourable and learned Attorney-General chose not to consult and instead proceeded to give the kind of advice he gave the BLV to suit his own political agenda.  In my humble view, Sir, that advice is not only unhelpful but most harmful to the integrity of the BLV and will only help undermine its dignity and prestige, both locally and internationally.

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, if I were the Secretary of the Public Service or Cabinet Secretary at the time the DPP laid charges on the former Vice President, my advice to the Prime Minister and to the Office of the President, consistent with current practice, would have been to immediately relieve the Vice President from the performance of his official duties.  Of course, the endorsement of the BLV in respect of his action would have been sought because of the serious nature of the offences or charges, no salaries or perks would have been paid to him during the period he was relieved of his official function and pending his court trial.  In the mean time, an Acting Vice President would have been appointed following a nomination by the President with the subsequent endorsement of the BLV.  These actions are necessary, Sir, for two principal reasons which appear to have been overlooked by the honourable and learned Attorney-General and the Government.  One is to safeguard public funds and two, is to maintain the integrity of the Office of the Vice President.

            Once the Court had delivered its judgement that the Vice President should be convicted in gaol, the Vice President would then formally be removed from his Office.  The continued payment of his salaries would thus be a non-issue and public funds would have been safeguarded.

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, had this well-tried and tested procedures been faithfully and diligently observed by this Government, the BLV and this country would have been spared the mess we have found ourselves in and the many negative comments that this sad state of affairs has generated from the international community and our regional friends.

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, the obvious question in the public's mind is, why is the Government deliberately dragging its feet, hiding behind the skirt of the BLV from recommending to the President to nominate a Vice President in terms of sections 92(1) and 93(1) of the Constitution?  The public also wants to know what will happen if something seriously untoward happens to the President tomorrow? Will the country have to wait until the Vice President's appeal is heard in November and possibly adjourned to a later date before the BLV is summoned again to appoint a new President who will then perform the functions of the President in the interim?

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, this clearly shows how ridiculous and impractical the advice which the Government has hoisted upon the BLV.  I strongly believe, Sir, that there is a more sinister explanation to all this and will prove once more that this Government will not hesitate to exert its political influence in the deliberations of the BLV with little or scant regard to its independence and authority.  You will recall, Mr. Speaker, Sir, that when speaking on His Excellency's Address at the last sitting of the House, I warned that the Government after removing Ratu Epeli Ganilau from the BLV would have the Commander RFMF as its next target.  I believe that is the main reason why the Government will not allow the President to make a nomination of a new Vice President as he rightly should because they are scared, Sir, that the nominee of the President might be influenced by the Military and which of course, would make the prospects of removing the Commander difficult, if not impossible.

            HON. GOVT. MEMBER.- O cei e vola na nomu i vola?

            HON. P.W. BUNE.- That is why the Government would rather wait until the President is incapacitated or disabled from holding office in which scenario the BLV will then have to nominate a new President which will no doubt be heavily influenced by the Government.

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, it is time the Government come up clean on this issue, this is a most untenable situation.  Instead of taking the country forward, we are stagnating and going backwards.  They should leave the BLV alone to enjoy its independence and sovereignty and to run its own affairs.  The Government has a lot on its plate judging by the recent revelations of the Auditor-General than to worry about who will be the next President or Vice President.

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill before the House.

            MR. SPEAKER.- Honourable Members, I will be very grateful when you take the floor that you refrain from making comments as I will think that you are making your comments to me.  Those are the rules of the game here. 

            Now, this is a very important Bill we are debating and as I ruled on the point of order, that whilst some of the comments that the honourable Member for Labasa Open (P.W. Bune) might be speculative, the theme that he followed was strictly about the Bill.  We have had variations over the debate regarding this Bill in the last couple of days. 

            HON. T. YOUNG.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, before I go on to the Bill proper, I would like to congratulate our own Vijay Singh for his triumph in golf.

            HON. V. SINGH.- Vinaka!

            HON. T. YOUNG.- Not you honourable Member.  Sir, for those of us who have been fortunate to be abroad at the time when he ascended to the number one spot in the world, we also enjoyed his sporting fete. 

            Sir, when we are abroad then we know the impact of Vijay Singh in the sporting world, especially in golf.  I am sure, Sir, that Government will consider some of the suggestions to honour the sporting achievements of one of our great sons.

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, on that same token, allow me to congratulate you, not on your golfing prowess but in ascending to the high position of President of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA).

            (Applause)

Sir, I know we have already done the informal congratulation back in Canada but I think it is important that we put on record that you are now the current President of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.  I am sure, Mr. Speaker, Sir, that since you will be hosting the next General Assembly, you will do Fiji proud in the helm of the CPA.

            Sir, coming to the Bill proper, I fully support the Bill and its intentions.  I would just like to confine my contribution to the clauses in the Bill but before that, Sir, I must say that I am not surprised by the contributions of our fellow colleagues from the Fiji Labour Party (FLP), culminating from the childish outburst by the honourable Member for Labasa Open (P.W. Bune). 

            If one reads through their contributions starting from the honourable Member for Laucala Communal (K.K. Arya), the honourable Member for Yasawa/Nawaka Open (P. Mupnar), the honourable Member for Vuda Open (V. Singh) and the honourable Member for Labasa Open (P.W. Bune), they have one thing in common, Mr. Speaker, Sir, they ridicule about the noble intentions of this Bill.  Their childish assumptions that the members of the highest Fijian body on this land do not have the capability to look after their own affairs, to think for themselves and to make their own decisions.

            Sir, just to give a clear example of what I am saying about the FLP's contribution, on one hand they say that they support the Bill because politically, it will look nice but from down within their hearts, they do not support it.  This is what they say and I quote what the honourable Member for Vuda Open (V. Singh) said as recorded on page 3686 of the Hansard.  It says and I quote:

                        "There is a serious lack of leadership role, it is sly, tricky, dishonest and disregard to the supremacy of the Constitution."

            He went further to say;  "It divides the two major races."

This is what hurts me, Sir, we are talking about setting up the Fijians Trust Fund for independence autonomy or the financial independence of the Bose Levu Vakaturaga (BLV) and he says of how the individual's hard earned money is wisely spent by another individual, it sums up that way.

            Sir, I beg the honourable Members from the other side of the House and those who are also listening that we should pay proper respect to this august body, not only by words but by tangible deeds coming from the heart.

            Sir, too often the BLV has been taken for granted because it has been there for Fiji all this time.  Sir, without the BLV, quite a lot of us who are talking in this House, would not be here.

            Sir, I am talking about what our chiefs did, one of them was your great-grandfather, in their wisdom, they collectively ceded our country in 1874 to Queen Victoria.  They gave away the sovereignty and leadership of their country for the betterment of their people.  They put their country and their people first in their collective wisdom. 

            Sir, they supported the Colonial Government until independence.  They were always there in the background, supportive of the Government of the day. 

            Sir, whenever the country is in problem, we do not look back to the Government, Police or the Military, we look to the Great Council of Chiefs.  This was demonstrated during World War II, in the events of 1987 and again in 2000.

            Sir, I am sure that our chiefs will always be there when our country needs them and it is only right and proper that the country recognises this.  I am extremely grateful to the SDL Coalition Government, especially the honourable Prime Minister for spear heading the establishment of the Fijians Trust Fund to cater for the financial independence of the Bose Levu Vakaturaga.  Ever since it came into existence,the Bose Levu Vakaturaga (BLV) depended entirely on the goodwill of the Government of the day but with this Government and what it promised during its campaign, endowment funds are being given for the sake of the BLV. Sir, in the not too distant future, the meeting house will be built.

            Sir, I was wondering as to who will a stop to the demeaning task of having to find an available meeting place for our high chiefs.  I thank the Government for that and very soon, they will have their own meeting house.

            The Bill is long overdue and perhaps, the Fiji Labour Party can tell us why they did not bring it up when they were in power. Is it because they do not support it?

            I wish to touch on the purposes of the Fund. Clause 4(c) says and I quote:

                      "to provide funding to help develop the management, leadership and entrepreneurial skills of indigenous Fijians and Rotumans;

            Sir, we often demand a lot from our chiefs without really empowering them with the necessary tools of leadership.  It is always taken for granted that the elders are the ones that provide them with guidance and counselling on leadership skills.  In this changing world, our chiefs need to be trained to lead.

            Sir, with this kind of endowment by Government, part of the fund will be used to train our chiefs at all different levels of leadership in our Fijian community, beginning at the village level, district level, provincial level and national level. That training should begin now, so that our chiefs are prepared to lead their own people.

            Sir, so much has been said about the endowment, I feel that Government should consider increasing the endowment from its current level, by having an annual allocation in the national Budget.  Further to that, since the Bill will only allow the spending of interests earned, I would like to add that consideration should be given, so that only a portion of the interest is spent and the 50 per cent to be ploughed back into the Fund to accumulate.

            Sir, on the requirements of the Fund to be audited, I fully support this clause on the grounds of transparency and accountability, especially (as already mentioned by some honourable Members) on the use of public funds.  While the Bill gives the leeway for the Board of Directors to pick that up, I personally feel that the Auditor-General should be involved. It will not be a direct audit but the audit papers are to be made available to the Auditor-General because a large sum of money is involved. 

            We know from experience, when we get the Reports from our various statutory organisations, the audited Report in the Annual Report is not detailed and does not reflect the scrutiny, as compared to the Report of the Auditor-General that we normally receive.  That is the type of Report the taxpayers want as far as their funds are concerned and not the holistic balance sheet and the financial statement.  I am sure, Sir, the current Board of Directors will take that into consideration when they are formulating their policies and regulations in regards to the administration of the Fijians Trust Fund.

            Finally, I wish to thank the Chairman and the Members of the Joint Sector Standing Committee for a job well done and please do not be disheartened by the treacherous back-stabbing words of a fellow Member of your Committee, the honourable Member for Labasa Open (P.W. Bune) when he praised and back-stabbed the whole Committee in the work that it did.  You did the work to the best of your ability, given the time constraints.

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, with those few words, I fully support the Bill before the House.

            HON. V. SINGH.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise under Standing Order 52 on Misrepresentation.

            The honourable Member said in his deliberation that I was against the highest autonomy the BLV, and I wish to correct that.

            Sir, I spoke about the leadership role of the Government, which has nothing to do with the BLV. I respect that institution with the highest respect to the vanua and it has nothing to do with the BLV.  It is the SDL leadership role.  It does not mean the honourable Prime Minister but the entire Ministers and the Members involved.  That is what I want to correct.

            HON. T.YOUNG.- Read your Hansard!  It is written in plain English!

            HON. V. SINGH.- You have a background of a school teacher, I thought you will understand my English.

            HON. M.M. BEDDOES.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I wish to make a very brief contribution to the Bill before the House.

            Firstly, I do support the Bill but I would like to focus my attention or my contribution to clause 5 - Beneficiaries of the Fund. It states and I quote:

                        "The beneficiaries of the Fund are indigenous Fijians and Rotumans and their institutions, including the BLV, selected under guidelines determined by the BLV, and registered and issued with certificates as prescribed by regulation."

            Sir, I support the establishment of this type of Trust as a mechanism to create and generate income to enable the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC) to become autonomous and self-sufficient from this funding.  I gather from this, Sir, that the reference to the indigenous Fijians, Rotumans and their institutions does suggest that there may be opportunity for individual to have equity participation in some shape or form in this Trust.

            Sir, I feel that one of the biggest problems we have with respect to our indigenous people is the fact that they, as an individual household anywhere in Fiji, do not directly benefit from any of these initiatives.  The provincial councils will benefit and utilise those funds for their projects and so as other institutions, but individual Taukei members of our community (every single household) who puts forward funding in support of the various initiatives such as this, do not receive a share certificate to enable them to directly benefit from the investment rewards from these institutions.

            This Trust Fund presents a wonderful opportunity and I would like to suggest to the honourable Minister that perhaps, there is some merit in considering that every household in every province in Fiji, could register as a shareholder of this Trust, not through the provincial councils or any other mechanism.  The honourable Minister should allocate a portion of this Fund to enable them to register as direct shareholders, whichever way he derives it, so long as every single Fijian household in Fiji has an opportunity to own shares in such a Trust so that the income generated will go directly to every single household in Fiji.

            Sir, I realise that the proposed structure is to allow funds to be generated to enable the operations of the Bose Levu Vakaturaga and that is fair enough.  However, I think there is also scope to consider the suggestion that I am making which I believe, would eliminate the current situation we have, where through traditional requirements, customary obligations and all sorts of demands on economic basis are placed on every single Taukei household in this country and they can get some form of relief by being directly involved in the shareholding structure of such a trust fund. 

            We all know and past experience has shown that once these establishments are in place, there is a tendency for the cost of operating it to escalate to the point where the actual objective of trying to generate some income to be dispensed among its shareholders is affected.  In this regard, I will come back to the point that I want to make and that is, we need to derive a mechanism that will allow individual households to have share certificates that will give them an entitlement to the benefits of such an institution and the investment that it makes.  This is very, very important because we do continually hear the case that the problem we have in Fiji is the economic disadvantage that the members of the Taukei community have with respect to the population of Fiji.  This economic disadvantage that they face is created by a whole host of demands that are placed on them from their customary, traditional and vanua obligations and the provincial councils, et cetera.

            I have said on previous occasions that in an exercise that I conducted, 60 per cent of the disposable income of a member of the Taukei community is spent on these obligations.  This creates the economic disadvantage that they face, so if there is to be any change in this situation, we must look at this type of institution and try to view it in a way that every single household in every province has an opportunity to hold a share certificate, so that the benefits derived by the institution come back and accrue directly to them. 

            With those few words, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill before the House.

            HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise to contribute to the debate on this Bill.  In doing so, Sir, may I explain that because we were not certain on this side of the House whether the mover of the Bill, the honourable Prime Minister would be back in time, I was actually preparing to reply to the debate.  But happily, he is here, Sir, and he can provide his own reply to the Bill. 

            Sir, to be fair to the honourable Prime Minister, I will mix up my contribution, so that I can also answer most of the issues that were raised during the debate when he was absent.  That is what it is all about in terms of my contribution.

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, before I respond to the debate proper, I take this opportunity to thank the Joint Sector Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Social Services for the scrutinising the Bill, as well as their Report and recommendations.  I intend to cover some of the aspects of their Report, particularly their recommendations later on.

            HON. M.P. CHAUDHRY.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I am not sure whether the honourable and learned Attorney-General is replying to the debate or he is just making a contribution and the Government side will reply after the debate has exhausted?  I am not very sure whether he is replying to the debate or whether the honourable Prime Minister would reply officially to the debate?

            MR. SPEAKER.- Honourable Member, what the honourable and learned Attorney-General is giving now is the reply to the debate that has taken place.  I have given him that opportunity.  Originally, he was going to give the full Right of Reply, but since the honourable Prime Minister has returned and has asked to be part of the debate as well, the honourable and learned Attorney-General is going to answer the questions that have been raised by other Members of the House on both sides, and then the honourable Prime Minister, when he takes the floor, will give the Right of Reply.

            HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL & MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.- As always, you have interpreted my intention correctly, Mr. Speaker, Sir.

            MR. SPEAKER.- With difficulty this time.

            HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL & MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, the debate has revealed that some honourable Members have not understood clearly the purpose, as well as some of the basic features of the Bill, and may I clarify some of them.

            Firstly, contrary to the thinking of some honourable Members who contributed to the debate, it is not the purpose of this legislation to simply provide a source of direct funding assistance to indigenous Fijians and Rotumans in their struggle for economic equality in this country.  As pointed out by some of them, Mr. Speaker, Sir, this objective is addressed in other legislative initiatives such as the Social Justice Act. 

            Rather, apart from providing financial independence and autonomy to the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC), the purpose of this Bill is essentially to provide funding assistance to indigenous Fijians and Rotumans through deliberately selected training and upskilling programmes and sponsorship to help equip them with the skills and competence to be able to utilise more meaningfully and usefully the various forms and sources of assistance available to them.  That is really what the Bill is about.  It is important, in my respectful view, Sir, to understand and appreciate that distinction for a better and fuller understanding of the Bill before the House.

            Secondly, Sir, and probably consequentially, the beneficiaries of the funds of the Fijians Trust Fund are not intended to be for individual Fijians and Rotumans.  Rather, by the very nature of these programmes, the beneficiaries of the funds of the Trust will be classes, categories and groups of indigenous Fijians and Rotumans, whose applications for such benefits will be carefully screened and assessed under certain criteria settled with the agreement of the Bose Levu Vakaturaga before applications are approved.  Let me point to an example, Sir.

            A programme, for instance, may be made to focus on the training of hotel managements or hotel managers.  Individuals, of course, may be selected for that training programme but the beneficiaries are not the individuals, they are a category of individuals in relation to the general term "the beneficiaries of the fund".  So, in that regard, Sir, may I take the opportunity of addressing the views expressed by the honourable Leader of the Opposition who spoke before me.  He was addressing an idea that is outside the ambit of this Bill for the reasons I have explained.

            This Bill is not about shareholding that will go down the line to individual households and families.  It is not about that; it is not about uplifting their economic advancement; it is more about the type of training progammes and upskilling arrangements that will enable classes and categories of indigenous Fijians and Rotumans to be better able to use the various resources available under other initiatives.

            Thirdly, the tax exemption proposed in this legislation which was criticised by some is based on the widely accepted principle of taxation law that income derived for purely charitable purposes is exempt from tax.  The Fijians Trust Fund will, of course, invest its capital and endowment funds prudentially for the purpose of maximising commercial returns on that investment, but the income it derives from such commercial investments is not for commercial purposes, it is for charitable purposes only.  That is the legal justification for the tax exemption proposed in this Bill and there is nothing either illegal or unsound about that logic.

            Fourthly, Mr. Speaker, Sir, for those like the honourable Member for Vuda Open (V. Singh), the honourable Member for Yasawa/Nawaka Open (P. Mupnar) and maybe others who I have not mentioned but who suspect that there are hidden and bad motives behind the enactment of this legislation by this Government, let me assure them, Sir, that this Government does not hide its fundamental policies.  This initiative was already legally established under a Trust duly registered under the Trustee Act.  In fact, the Fijians Trust Fund has been in operation since 2001.  This Government decided nevertheless that it is more in accord with the rules of good governance, transparency and accountability that this funding initiative should be brought to Parliament, to allow its objectives and scheme to be scrutinised, tested and debated by the Parliament as the country's supreme law making authority.  Now, therefore, there is nothing sinister about the objective of the Bill.

            Sir, moreover as a non-politician, I am given to understand by my political masters that this Government does not intend to apologise for or conceal its deliberate pro-Fijian policies.  We bring all these to Parliament for open, public and transparent scrutiny.  What we are always mindful about is that in advocating these policies, we do not unfairly compromise, neglect or ignore the interests of all those who have made Fiji their home.  So, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I ask honourable Members on the other side to refrain from insinuating that this Government has hidden agendas in relation to this type of legislation.  No, Sir, this Government is not ashamed and will not be ashamed of introducing legislative initiatives, aimed at enabling indigenous Fijians and Rotumans to attain economic equality with other communities who share this nation with us.  In fact, they should challenge themselves to find reasons in their minds and hearts to justify their veiled opposition to this kind of pro-Fijian legislative initiatives.

            Indigenous Fijians need this type of initiative and they know it, and you know it.  Maybe, those who know it and still do not support it are racists.

            Let me now provide some brief responses to the various issues raised to those who contributed to the debate and I do this, Sir, mainly to help the honourable Prime Minister in his reply because he was absent when they were raised, and he has not had the opportunity to peruse the Daily Hansard.

            Firstly, Sir, the suggestion by the honourable Member for Laucala Communal (K.K. Arya), supported by other speakers on the other side that the Trust Fund should be for everyone and not confined to Fijians and Rotumans need no response because we believe you only talk about and describe economic inequality and hardship.  We, the indigenous Fijians and Rotumans live with these and we need this initiative more than you do and you know that.

            Secondly, Sir, there was criticism that the title of the Bill does not include Rotumans.  Sir, the objective of this Bill is in the body and not the title of the Bill.  Rotumans are beneficiaries of the Trust Fund and that is clearly expressed in the body of the Bill. 

            Sir, I have already addressed the criticisms against the tax exemption proposed for the Trust in the Bill.  I only need to add, Sir, that this taxation principle is not limited to Fijians and Rotumans.  It is, in fact, available to all initiatives established like this one for all people in Fiji for charitable purposes.

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, contrary to the comments made against the wisdom in including the type of protection provided in clause 18 of the Bill, this is a well recognised protection mechanism, commonly used to protect from personal liability those who are charged with the administration of funds in public and other institutions of this kind.  Of course, as provided in the clause itself, this protection is not absolute and not without qualification.  It is not available to those whose actions are motivated by fraud, corruption or bad faith.  That is already expressed in the clause itself.

            Sir, to the comments made by the honourable Member for North/Eastern Communal (D. Christopher), I wish to assure him that I have personally been involved in the formulation of the policy features of this Bill.  The lessons learnt from the problems which troubled the operation of the Banaban Trust Fund have been carefully noted and every effort has been made in this Bill to avoid that type of problem in the administration of this legislation or the Trust Fund established under it.

            The honourable Member knows that I am very familiar with those problems, which plagued the Banaban Trust Fund and the proper solutions to that, because I was their Counsel in court when the Rabi Council with the honourable Member, as its Secretary, tried to correct all those difficulties.  May I just add, Sir, that in my view, the Banaban Trust Fund is not a bad piece of legislation.  Rather, the Rabi Council of Leaders had some members who deliberately flouted its provisions. 

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, to the honourable Member for Yasawa/Nawaka Open (P. Mupnar) and the honourable Member for Vuda Open (V. Singh), most of their comments were either pedantic or misconceived in the context of the objectives of this Bill.  They had a lot to say, but little that warrant useful response, Sir.  I give them credit for continuing to play their roles as misguided missiles.  For instance, Sir, the honourable Member for Yasawa/Nawaka Open (P. Mupnar) continuously complained about the honourable Minister for Finance being the Minister responsible for the Bill and the appointment of the members of the Board of Trustees of the Fund.  The honourable Member has obviously not read the Bill properly because the Minister responsible for this Bill is not the Minister for Finance, but the Minister for Fijian Affairs, who at present is also the honourable Prime Minister.

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, some reservations have also been stressed about the intent of clause 8 in relation to the types of investments that the Trust and its Board may invest in.  Sir, the Minister responsible for Finance is given some role in clause 8(1)(a), in approving some investment proposals.  That is because this is a Fund established from public funds and he is the Minister that holds the public purse.

            Sir, clause 8(1)(a) states, and I quote:

                        "to invest the Fund, as the Board determines, in any investment approved by the Minister for Finance or of a kind authorised under the Trustee Act"

This clause is intended to reflect the fact that this will now be a statutory Trust and no longer registered by deed under the Trustee Act, which is the case at present, until the Bill becomes law.  So, there will be a transformation from a registered Trust deed to a statutory Trust.  Sir, investments of the kind authorised under the Trustee Act are therefore preferred in this clause, because under Trusts established under the Trustee Act of this character, the normal thing to do would be to authorise its operations under investments, which are authorised investments within the ambit of the Trustee Act.  However, as some Members have already pointed out, this Act specifically excludes the application of the Trustee Act to this Bill.  So, when you refer to the kinds of investments authorised under the Trustee Act, we can only use this kind of terminology, we liken it to that kind of investment in order to give it that kind of link. 

            Some comments were also made about clause 17 of the Bill which relates to the annual reports.  The clause states, and with your permission I quote:

                        "The Board must in each year prepare a report on its activities and on the Fund, including its financial report, and submit the report to the Minister (and that is the Minister for Fijian Affairs) within six months from the end of the year to which the report relates."

Sir, most financial years end at 31st December, so within six months from that, the report must be submitted to the Minister. 

            As published, clause 17(2) states, and I quote:

                        "The Minister must cause a copy of the annual report to be laid before each House of Parliament."

            Sir, this side of the House has accepted this as proposed by the Sector Committee that there should also be a limit or time frame put to the submission of the report after it is received by the Minister.  That is why we have agreed to the recommendation by the Sector Committee, but in a slightly different form to amend clause 17 of the Bill.

            Sir, the issue on consultations was referred to by some honourable Members, notably the honourable Member for Nasinu Communal (P. Chand) and this morning to a certain extent by the honourable Member for Labasa Open (P.W. Bune).  Sir, I guess they do not understand or know that beneficiaries or potential beneficiaries of the Trust Fund have been widely consulted.

            As we have said, and the honourable Prime Minister had also alluded to that when he introduced the Bill, an initiative that had been discussed throughout the whole spectrum of the Fijian community; from the Provincial Councils to the Fijian Affairs Board then up to the Great Council of Chiefs, before they came to Cabinet.  Contrary to what the honourable Member for Nasinu Communal (P. Chand) claimed yesterday, in order to be understood down the line, they had to be translated and the essential features of the Trust Fund were translated and understood.  It was only after they were understood that they were approved by those Fijian institutions.

            Sir, the Bill is before this House, after they had been clearly understood by the potential beneficiaries of this Trust Fund.  Sir, I believe, I have answered the comments made by the honourable Leader of the Opposition who has now taken off, but my only comment to that is obviously he misunderstood the purpose of the Bill and he obviously misread the clause that he was referring to, which is clause 5.  I think he misunderstood this because he was referring to beneficiaries in the context of individual household and, in particular, the benefits should flow down to them in a tangible meaning way.  If we were to do that, Sir, then it would amount to just a simple commercial transaction which will affect the other provisions of the Bill that exempt tax because if the purpose of the Fund is simply to do that, then I do not believe that the income of the Trust will be entitled to tax exemption.

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, now that the honourable Member for Labasa Open (P.W. Bune) is about to leave, may I just say, while he is leaving, that when he made his comments, he has this habit of focusing on some of us, notably the honourable Prime Minister and myself and he will listen to what I am saying from outside.

            (Laughter)

He invited me to give some explanation on the legal advice that I gave to the GCC. 

            Sir, first of all, may I put on record that I am not the legal adviser to the GCC in my capacity as Attorney-General.  I was the legal adviser to the GCC before I became Attorney-General.  I had invited them to find another legal adviser, but for the moment, they have not found one and it is just by coincidence that while I continue to be their legal adviser, I am also the Attorney-General.  If he has any problems about that, it is tough luck.

            Sir, the other issue which I wanted him to hear, as he had invited me to explain to him my legal advice, is that I would really counsel him not to worry about that because it is quite complex, it is quite difficult and it will be particularly difficult for his simple mind to understand.  If the honourable Member wants an explanation on that, on a one-to-one basis, he can meet me outside. 

            (Laughter)

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, I believe, I have contributed to the debate on the Bill to help explain some of the features of this Bill, as well as by way of assistance to the honourable Prime Minister to make his right of reply a little easier than would otherwise be the case, touched upon some of the issues raised by some honourable Members.

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill although I do not have a vote on it.

            MR. SPEAKER.- Honourable Members, we will now adjourn for lunch. 

            The House adjourned at 12.47 p.m.

            The House resumed at 2.40 p.m.

            HON. M.P. CHAUDHRY.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I have two points in the Bill that I wish to make and they are largely concerned with the composition of the Bose Levu Vakaturaga. Before I go on to that, I would like to respond to two comments by the honourable and learned Attorney-General. 

            The first is that Fijians need this type of legislation to achieve economic parity.  Mr. Speaker, Sir, I think that is a misfounded notion.  They need much more than just a legislation at this time, because that has been expressed from this side of the House.  We are very dubious about the benefits of this trickling down to the ordinary Fijian masses. 

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, what they need to achieve economic parity, is assistance with developing the resources that they already own -this has not been happening.  Their vast land resources lie grossly under-utilised.  Sir, the same can be said for the resources such as forestry and fisheries.  I think a much more focussed and concerted effort is required to look into how the ordinary Fijian masses can be assisted, to achieve economic parity.

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, when we talk about economic parity, we must also be mindful of the fact that there are people from other communities who are also struggling just as hard as the ordinary Fijians.  We have a very depressing record of the instance of poverty in this nation and across all communities, which of course, we must try to address.  I think there is a relationship between the different communities living here, so that when you uplift one community, you are also assisting perhaps, in the uplifting of other communities, so long as the objectives remain identical.

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, we feel that whilst $33 million, which is at the disposal of this Trust Fund is to be invested in future and spent on the purposes specified in the Bill itself, quite honestly, we do not think that it will go far enough, to uplift the Fijians, in respect of many of their needs.  These are daily and socio-economic needs and this relates to the day to day living.   Until such time there is a sustainable programme to develop the resources that they own, I am afraid all our efforts will be in the wrong direction.

            Mr. Speaking Sir, speaking of the BLV itself, I will concentrate on its existing composition.  I think it is time that this is revisited and a close look taken at whether there should be changes to the existing composition of the BLV. 

            Sir, we all know it was altered after the 1987 political events, by an amendment to the Fijian Affairs Act and the BLV that we knew after Independence, until 1987, was drastically altered. A new arrangement came in, whereby it is largely a nominated body by His Excellency the President, the Minister for Fijian Affairs and of course, the provincial representatives. 

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, this matter did exercise the minds of the members of the Constitution Review Committee in 1995 and 1996, when they were consulting with the people, as to the new constitutional framework for Fiji. 

            Sir, I would seek your indulgence to read from that Report, because I think that is something that has been forgotten and put away, which needs to be resuscitated, discussed and then acted upon, depending on the feelings of the BLV itself.             

            The recommendations in the Report were not considered suitable for implementation by the Rabuka Government at that time. This was a matter dealing with Fijian interest largely, so it was left for the Government at that time to advise the Joint Select Committee on the Constitution Review on this particular matter.

            Sir, much has been said lately from this side of the House about the independence of the BLV and statements have been made that this august body should be divorced from political influence outside.  I think that is a very valid concern and the Report of the Fiji Constitution Review Commission deals with that at some length.  

            May, I seek your permission to read the relevant recommendations from the Report as at pages 256, 257, 258 259 and 260.  It says, and I quote:

            "Need for greater recognition in the Constitution.

            9.12     Submissions from members of all communities expressed their respect for the Bose Levu Vakaturaga and its pre-eminent role in Fijian affairs.  They recognised its beneficial influence in promoting not only the well-being of indigenous Fijians, but also that of the nation as a whole.  There was wide support for the idea that the Constitution should not merely "recognise" the Bose Levu Vakaturaga as it does now, but also specify its composition, functions and powers.

            9.13     The Commission endorses this view.  The constitutions of a number of other Pacific Island countries embody aspects of their traditional chiefly systems and combine them successfully with democratically elected legislatures and governments.  The Constitution should therefore provide that the chiefly council, known as the Bose Levu Vakaturaga, shall continue to exist, and have the composition, functions and powers for in the Constitution.

            The report then goes on to deal with its membership, Mr. Speaker, and it says:

            "9.14 The submissions expressed a variety of views about the desirable composition of the Bose Levu Vakaturaga.  Members of other communities recognised that this was largely a matter for Fijians.  Among Fijians, there was emphasis on recognising the position of the paramount chiefs, but also on the need to include persons with the education and experience to contribute to the discussion of important issues.  Some favoured a mixture of hereditary and elected members.

            9.15     Interest was expressed in recognising the special place of the recognised successors to those chiefs who signed the Deed of Cession.  The Commission's researches revealed, however, that the composition of the group who actually signed the Deed of Cession on 10 October 1874 was partly a matter of chance.  It did not include some chiefs who were senior in rank or who had been involved in earlier negotiations about cession.  It also included more than one member of some families.  Nor does the composition of the signatory group at that time reflect arrangements that have since become well-accepted.  For these reasons, the Commission considers that the Deed of Cession should not be used as a reference point for determining the present-day composition of the Bose Levu Vakaturaga.

            9.16     The composition of the BLV should take account of its contemporary role.  We consider that it should continue to be essentially an advisory body, though with the important functions of nominating candidates for the office of President and exercising a veto power over amendments of the entrenched legislation relating to Fijians, Rotumans and the Rabi Island community.  As we explain below, it should be more independent of government than it is now.

            9.17     The Commission considers that the Bose Levu Vakaturaga should consist of 46 members, and be made up as follows:

            Ex officio members: The President;

            The heads of the traditionally recognised confederacies of Kubuna, Burebasaga and Tovata;

            The minister responsible for Fijian Affairs;

                       Appointed members: Twenty members selected by the heads of the three confederacies jointly;

                                                           Five members, being persons of wide knowledge and experience in business, the professions, or other fields, nominated by the Chairperson of the BLV and confirmed by the BLV as a whole;

                          Elected members: Fourteen members elected by the Provincial Councils, one by each;

                                                           One member elected by the Council of Rotuma;

                                                           A person elected by the Rabi Island Council should be invited to attend when matters relating to the Banaban Land Act or the Banaban Settlement Act are under discussion. 

            9.18     Under this proposal, the BLV will be slightly smaller than its present size of 56. The Commission envisages that provincial interests will be reflected not only through the members elected by the Provincial Councils, but also through those appointed by the heads of the confederacies.  We see this mechanism as taking into account traditional territorial subdivisions and chiefly responsibilities in a more flexible way than is permitted by the direct representation of the provinces themselves. 

            9.19     There will no longer be any political input into the process of selecting members.  However, the Minister responsible for Fijian Affairs will remain the main link between the BLV and Government.  The Prime Minister will no longer be a member in that capacity, but can be invited to attend meetings.  Members of Parliament who are not Ministers or Deputy Ministers should be eligible for appointment or election as members of the BLV, but their seats should become vacant if they accept appointment as a Minister or Deputy Minister.

            9.20     The term of appointed and elected members should be three years.  There should be no formal qualifications for membership, apart from those of the members to be nominated by the Chairperson.  The concept of a "chiefly council" does not preclude the membership of persons who are not chiefs, but appointments by the heads of the three confederacies and elections by the Provincial Councils are likely to ensure adequate representation of persons of chiefly descent.

            9.21     On the death of a head of a confederacy, the successor to that office will become a member of the BLV.  If a head of a confederacy should be elected as President, or to any other political office, he or she should be entitled to designate a person to sit in the Bose Levu Vakaturaga for the time being as the representative of that confederacy.  Other casual vacancies in the BLV's membership should be filled by appointment or election, as applicable to the member whose seat has become vacant.  New members appointed or elected should serve for the balance of the term of their predecessors but should be eligible for re-appointment or re-election."

Then it goes on to deal with the procedures, Sir, for electing the Chairperson of the BLV and then about the meetings of the BLV.  It says and I quote:

            "9.23 Consistently with our proposals for the Bose Levu Vakaturaga to be more independent in the exercise of its functions, it should be free to convene at times of its own choosing, as well as at the request of the Minister.  It should meet not less frequently than once a year.  It may need to convene at short notice if the office of President should become vacant, or there is a need to consider a Bill over of which it has a veto power."

On the functions, Mr. Speaker, and it says:

            "9.24 The Constitution should provide that the functions of the Bose Levu Vakaturaga are to advise the Government of the Republic of the Fiji Islands principally on any matter relating to the well-being of the Fijian people, but also on matters affecting the nation as a whole, whether referred to it by the Minister or the Fijian Affairs Board, or taken up by the Bose Levu Vakaturaga on its own initiative.  Such a provision would reproduce the substance of section 3(2) of the Fijian Affairs Act, but go beyond it in giving the Bose Levu Vakaturaga a mandate to consider any matter of national concern, whether or not it particularly affects the well-being of the Fijian people.  The Government can be expected to give due weight to the Bose Levu Vakaturaga's views.

            9.25     The Bose Levu Vakaturaga should also have the functions concerning the nomination of candidates for the office of President proposed later in this chapter, and the responsibility of approving Bills altering the entrenched legislation relating to Fijians, Rotumans and the Banaban community settled on Rabi Island, or any other Bill certified by the Attorney-General as affecting Fijian land or customary rights.  That responsibility is fully discussed in Chapter 20.

                        The Bose Levu Vakaturaga will thus take direct responsibility for approving Bills in the circumstances where section 78 of the 1990 Constitution now requires the approval of not less than eighteen of the twenty-four nominees of the Bose Levu Vakaturaga in the Senate.  This change is proposed for two reasons.

            9.27     First, many submissions urged that alterations to the entrenched legislation and other matters affecting Fijian land or other customary rights should be taken out of the hands of Parliament, so that they no longer appear to be at the mercy of the political process.  The Commission agrees with this approach.  Parliament will still need to be involved in any proposals to change the existing law, but, as proposed in Chapter 20, the Bose Levu Vakaturaga will have a veto power.  This should reassure indigenous Fijians that the proposed changes in the composition of Parliament and the encouragement of multi-ethnic governments will not put their land or other customary rights at risk."

I think this is a very relevant recommendation, Mr. Speaker, and a change which should be seriously considered by the Government in terms of moving the responsibility for matters affecting Fijian land or other customary rights out of the hands of Parliament into the BLV.  Sir, it further states:

            "9.28 Secondly, the proposed arrangements for the membership of the Bose e Cake provide for a largely elected body.  For the reasons explained below, Fijian members are likely to predominate.  We therefore propose that the only power to appoint members of the Bose e Cake should reside in the President, for the purpose of taking account of ethnic or gender imbalances in the composition of Parliament as a whole.  For these reasons, there will no longer be a need for the Bose Levu Vakaturaga to nominate members of the Bose e Cake.

            9.29     The Constitution should authorise Parliament to confer additional functions on the BLV by Act.  Any such functions should be required to be compatible with the duty to act independently." 

Then it devotes three paragraphs, Mr. Speaker, on duty to act independently. 

            "9.30 In view of the important functions of the Bose Levu Vakaturaga just described, specially those concerning the nomination of candidates for the office of President and the approval of changes to the entrenched legislation, the Constitution should protect its independence from the Government.  As in the case of the constitutional officers and Commissions whose independence is already recognised, it should provide that the Bose Levu Vakaturaga shall not be subject to the direction of or control of any other person or authority in the exercise of its functions.

            9.31     This implies an independence not only from Government, but also from any political party.  Submissions from some Fijians expressed concern about the identification of the Bose Levu Vakaturaga with party politics.  That development was a product of its time.  The conferment of additional constitutional responsibilities on the Bose Levu Vakaturaga and explicit recognition of its duty to act independently will give it the opportunity to distance itself from party politics, through the BLV will continue to be involved in politics in the broader sense.

            9.32     The Commission considers that, as a facet of its independence from Government, arrangements should be made for the Bose Levu Vakaturaga to have reasonable autonomy in matters relating to its secretariat and its funding.  Because the BLV meets only at intervals, it might be necessary for both to continue to be provided through the Ministry of Fijian Affairs or the Fijian Affairs Board.  However, the BLV should have delegated authority to approve expenditure within the limits of the amount appropriated for its use by Parliament, and the members of the secretariat should be answerable to the BLV and its Chairperson in the exercise to their duties.

            Not a substitute for the Senate

            9.33     Some submissions favoured giving greater powers to the Bose Levu Vakaturaga so that it could replace the Senate.  The Commission believes that the Bose e Cake, as we suggest that body be called, can continue to serve a useful purpose as a House of review.  That purpose can be enhanced by the new arrangements governing its membership, as proposed below.  Accordingly, our proposals about the Bose Levu Vakaturaga should be considered in the light of our later recommendation for the retention of an Upper House."

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, I see that this Bill goes somewhere in providing financial autonomy to the BLV but then it does not go the distance in granting them total autonomy, as suggested in the Report.

            I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that these recommendations be revisited and the Fijian people consulted on this, although the Fiji Constitution Review Commission did consult widely on these issues and their recommendations here were formulated after due consultations with all stakeholders.

            I say this, Mr. Speaker, because the need to guarantee political independence to the BLV is of paramount concerns to the nation.  It can win great influence over its people and over the nation generally, if it is seen to be apolitical in nature.  What has happened recently to the immediate past Chairperson of the BLV, has angered and disappointed many because of the unceremonious style in which it was done, Mr. Speaker.  I think so long as we allow the Fijian politicians to meddle with the GCC, it will not be able to shed off that image of being apolitical animal.

            HON. S. NAIVALU.- You leave it to the Fijians!

            HON. M.P. CHAUDHRY.- It is time others also speak for the Fijians.  We all live here together, you can speak for the Indians, I can speak for the Fijians.  Why should we speak only for our own races?  Are you afraid of the recommendations here?

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, as I was saying that we need to revisit these recommendations.  I think they are very, very meritorious and we need reforms in the Fijian society.  I am afraid that the leaders have not shown the courage and the initiative to subject the existing arrangements within the Fijian hierarchy for the Fijian people to a critical review whether it is pertinent and relevant in today's scenario.  Some of these institutions are very old and the objectives of these were cast at that time.  Whether these objectives still remain valid and if so, whether any changes or additions need to be made?  Whether we should have a look at it in order to make it more relevant to the present day need of the Fijian society? 

            I have not seen any initiative coming from the other side.  I have been shouting from this side of the House for the last 14 years since I have been in politics, about doing something to develop the land resources of the Fijian people and nothing has happened.  You have the Native Land Trust Board (NLTB), which I think is a liability, it is not an asset of any kind to the landowners.  It has done nothing.  It is always constantly in financial trouble and deeply distressed financially.  What can it do for the owners of these vast resources?  These are changes which are necessary, otherwise it is just empty talk to say that we are doing this for the Fijian people.

            In the last 34 years of Independence, we have seen successive Fijian governments in place, they will not let any other rule, but the state of the Fijian people and their livelihood has been steadily deteriorating.  This is a fact which cannot be disputed.  Government statistics show us the huge number of Fijians who have now entered the poverty track.

            HON. E. QOVU.- Not really, I do not agree!

            HON. M.P. CHAUDHRY.- You are alright, I am taking about the others.  You come here with your coat and tie and do nothing after you go from here.

            (Laughter)

            HON. M.P. CHAUDHRY.- The last thing the Fijian people need are leaders like you.

            MR. SPEAKER.- Order!

            HON. M.P. CHAUDHRY.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I wanted to make this point because I think, it is something which needs to be, put back to the GCC. 

            There is also a move at this point in time that Members of Parliament be allowed to be members of the BLV.  I thought this is an appropriate time to raise this because of the contrary recommendations to that kind of proposal in the Constitution Review Report.

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, other points with regard to the Bill have been made quite adequately by Members on this side of the House, as well as the other side of the House. 

            Before I conclude, I would like to have a dig at the honourable and learned Attorney-General, Sir.  He had said that he is not the legal adviser to the GCC in his capacity as the Attorney-General and that he had been the legal adviser to the GCC even before he became the Attorney-General.  That is fine, I take the point.  I do not think there is so much concern about who is the legal adviser, we are more concerned about the quality of legal advise that is given, that is more important.

            HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.- Give me something correct.

            HON. M.P. CHAUDHRY.- Well, I will give you something.

            In the honourable and learned Attorney-General's legal advise, he has, Mr. Speaker, Sir, kind of frame his advise around a particular decision.  By that, I mean to arrive at a particular recommendation, which was preconceived.  Legality had nothing to do with it but to make it legal.

            The rules in the Public Service are very clear and cogent in such matters.  What applies to a civil servant should apply to the holder of any political office or public office, particularly, most of them who are holders of high public office.  There should be no distinction.  We are not talking about the Employment Act, that is the red herring.  The Employment Act has got nothing to do with it. It is the provisions in the Public Service Act, which must be the guiding principle in determining the issue in which the honourable and learned Attorney-General rendered advice to the GCC.  I have not seen any reference to that.  These are some of the issues,which when it is put to the members of the GCC, they take it as if that is the only solution and the only way.  There is no other alternative. 

            If we want to make the GCC apolitical, politically independent from the influence of Government, then there is every reason why the honourable and learned Attorney-General should not be its legal adviser.  I think they should be given that autonomy too to engage their own legal adviser and I hope that they are going to do this now for they have the necessary financial resources.  They are entitled to have independent legal advice, independent from the Government.  I think the suggestion here to remove the GCC from the influence of the Government, whatever Government it may be, is a very visionary suggestion which should now be adopted by the Government or at least the recommendation put through by the Ministry of Fijian Affairs to the Bose Levu Vakaturaga to see what their views are, on this. 

            That is all I have to say on this Bill.  I thought I have to introduce a new angle to it and leave it to the Government of the day to look at it and see what it can do about this Bill.

            MR. SPEAKER.- Honourable Members, before I give the floor to the honourable Prime Minister for his right of reply, it is my pleasant task on behalf of all the Members of the House to welcome the honourable Douglas Kidd and Mrs. Kidd who are here on a visit from New Zealand.  The honourable Douglas Kidd was the former Speaker of the New Zealand House of Parliament. 

            Sir, Mrs. Kidd, on behalf of all the Members of the House, I trust that your visit to the House this afternoon, in particular to Fiji, would be an enjoyable one.  This House and indeed Fiji has had very good relation with your House of Parliament and with your country over many years. 

            This Parliament, in particular former Parliaments, has benefitted greatly from the attachments and visits of our Members of Parliament to your Parliament.  I would like to acknowledge that fact whilst you are here.  Also, I would ask that you take back to the Speaker and to the Parliament of your country the best wishes of the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives.  You are most welcome!

            (Acclamation)

            HON. L. QARASE.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise to exercise my right of reply to the debate on the Bill before the House.

            I regret that I was not here at the beginning of the debate so I missed out on most of the contributions to the debate from both sides of the House.  I will confine my remarks to some of the points raised by previous speakers which I had listened to from both sides of the House. 

            The honourable and learned Attorney-General has responded to some of the points raised by earlier speakers because I was not here and I thank him for doing that on my behalf.

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, the point I wish to comment on concerns the issue raised by the honourable Member for Labasa Open (P.W.Bune) which had no relevance to the debate.  However, I will comment on it anyway because he keeps repeating this particular issue time and again.  I hope that my comment today will put that particular problem to rest once and for all because it is wasting our time, which can be utilised more effectively in contributing to debates on issues tabled before the House. 

            Sir, that issue is in relation to the shareholding in the Fijian Holdings Limited (FHL). It appears that the honourable Member for Labasa Open (P.W. Bune) is quite confused and also he has been misinformed by whoever is advising him on this particular subject matter.  The honourable Member claimed that the Class "B" shares in the Fijian Holdings Limited have not received any dividend and he assumed that individual Fijians are holders of Class "B" shares.  Class "B" shares have been paid five percent on equity that they hold, whereas the Class "A" shares with 20 percent.  He also made the point that in the purchase of Class "A" shares, none of the Ministers who are supposed to be shareholders in the FHL made any contribution to the purchase of those shares.  In other words, they bought those shares from funds borrowed from the Fiji Development Bank (FDB) or other finance institutions.

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, let me put the record straight.  Class B shares were funded by the Government of Fiji by way of interest free loan.  Sometime back, this side of the House brought the motion before this House to convert that loan into a grant, and that motion was passed by this august House. 

            The Fijian Affairs Board, who held the shares ($20 million in total), decided with the approval of the Great Council of Chiefs to transfer $10 million Class "B" shares to the Fijians Trust Fund, which is the subject of the Bill before the House.  The Fijian Affairs Board, with the support of the Great Council of Chiefs also decided to transfer the other $10 million to the provincial councils and that amount is to be shared equally amongst the 14 provincial councils.

            Now, those two transactions have taken place - $10 million of Class "B" shares are now held by the Fijians Trust Fund, on the basis of that decision and the other $10 million has been transferred to the provincial councils (14 of them).  The amount allocated is the same for each of the councils.  There has never been an individual holder of Class "B" shares since the establishment of Fijian Holdings Limited.  Shares have been held by the institutions that I have mentioned and that is the position today.

            In relation to Class "A" shares, Mr. Speaker, Sir, these shares have been bought by individual Fijians, institutions owned entirely by Fijians, companies, co-operatives and village trust entirely owned by Fijians.  They either bought these shares out of their own free cash or some of them bought shares by way of equity contribution, topped up by further borrowings from the Fiji Development Bank.

            The honourable Member for Labasa Open (P.W. Bune) says that some of us on this side of the House are holders of those shares. I do not think there is any truth in that, but I stand to be corrected.  I am not aware of any Cabinet Minister who has a shareholding in Fijian Holdings Limited.  There may be some who hold shares in a community company or in a co-operative owned by a village, tikina or province.

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, I hope the honourable Member will not raise this issue again, because what I am explaining to this august House now is based on facts.  What he has been saying has been based on incorrect information and it is important that he knows how to separate the truth from the untruth.

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, the honourable Member for Lomaivuna/Namosi/Kadavu Open (T. Young) raised a very important point.  He suggested that out of the interest income of the Fund, the total amount should not be spent on expenditure, as set out in the Bill.  He suggested that a portion of it should be left to accumulate within the Fund, so that the Fund can grow and earn more income in the future.

            This particular suggestion is not included or written into the Bill as a requirement of the law.  I think this is a good idea because once you legislate it, it becomes fairly inflexible and in any case, decisions on expenditure of the income of the Fund is really a matter for the Board of Trustees to decide from time to time, as they administer the Fund.

            On the basis of past performance since the Fund was established, that is exactly what they have been doing.  They have been saving a very significant proportion of the income and this is accumulating in the Fund, which in effect is expanding the Fund and then ultimately bringing in further income.  So, I thank the honourable Member for that suggestion.  It certainly is a very good one, however, I can assure him that the Board is conscious of the need not to spend the entire income that comes into the Fund, but to save a portion of it then accumulate it so that the Fund can grow.     

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would like to comment on the issue raised by the honourable Leader of the Opposition.  Again, like the honourable Member for Labasa Open, he was confused between a fund that is divided into shares and one that is indivisible.  The fund is owned by a community and I would like to explain this because he has raised the same issue at least twice and I am surprised that he is raising it again.  He is an astute businessman and I would have thought he would have been able to tell the difference between shareholding in a company for example, where the share capital is divided into shares and owned by individuals and institutions and a Trust Fund that is owned by the community and indivisible.  There is no individual ownership of that Fund.  There is no shareholding in that Fund, it is not even divided into units like a Unit Trust.  It is not that type of Trust and the honourable Leader of the Opposition was suggesting that if individual Fijians became shareholders of the Trust Fund, then they would reap the benefits of income coming in and then paid out as dividends.

            Now, on the basis of what I have just explained, that now is irrelevant because there is no shareholding in the Trust Fund.  It is a community fund owned by the entire Fijian population.

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would like to inform this august House, in particular, the honourable Leader of the Opposition that there are many opportunities for investments by individual Fijians now open to them.  They can buy shares in Fijian Holdings Limited in the Stock Exchange.  We see this on television every evening, the shares coming on to the market for sale.  There are shares in Fiji Television Limited that is open to every citizen in this country and even foreigners.  One can purchase shareholding in ATH Limited, which is a public company and is also available on the stock market.  The Unit Trust of Fiji is available to everyone and there is also the FHL Unit Trust, which again is open for investments by Fijians who might like to invest in that particular unit trust.  All these institutions are earning very good profits.  They are paying good dividends and I would strongly suggest to the Fijian people that if you have any spare cash to invest, seek a little bit of advice from a financial adviser and choose the right investment in which you want to invest your funds.

            I explained that, Mr. Speaker, Sir, because as I mentioned, this is about the second or third time that the honourable Leader of the Opposition has brought this point up and it seems that he is confused and not sure of the difference between ownership of shares in a company and being a beneficiary of a Trust Fund that is owned by the community and indivisible.

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, with your permission, if I can say a few words in the Fijian language.

            Ni tiko saka na Turaga nai Liuliu ni Bose, au vinakata me'u vosa ena vica na vakasama e vakaraitaka mai na Mata mai na Ba Open (M.P. Chaudhry).  Au na via vosa tiko ena vica na tikina bibi a vakaraitaka.  Na kenai matai na lewe ni Bose Levu Vakaturaga ka wilika vei keda na vakatutu mai na Matabose eratou a vakadikeva se vaqaqa vei keda na lewenivanua na veisau e vinakati ena dua na noda Yavu ni Vakavulewa vou, kada kila levu tiko ena yaca na Reeves Commission.

            E dua na tikina au via vakaraitaka taumada ni Matabose saka oqo eratou lewe tolu na lewena.  E rua erau sega ni Taukei, o au esa dua na ka esa dredre me'u ciqoma e dua na Matabose era lewe levu kina na vulagi, lailai nai Taukei mera via vakasala mai ena ka e baleta nai Taukei, vakabibi ena veika e baleta na Bose Levu Vakaturaga.

            E rawa ni da vakatoka ni sa rui siosio na vakarau oya, me ra mai via lewa o cei me lewe ni Bose Levu Vakaturaga, e caka vakacava na veidigitaki mera lewe ni Matabose oya.  O au edua nai Taukei, au sega saraga ni ciqoma na vakatutu mai na dua na matabose ka vaka tu oya na kena roka, me lewe levu era vulagi, ka lewe lailai nai Taukei era lewena, baleta ni levu na ka eratou vakatura e veicoqacoqa kei na vakasama ni Taukei, kei na ka keimami vinakata ka veicoqacoqa vata kei nai vakarau ni bula vaka i Taukei.

            Esa dua na ka bibi qo, na noda taqomaka nai Taukei ena veika me baleti keda, ena veisau lelevu e lako tiko mai ena gauna oqo.  Meda kakua ni vakalaivi ira, eso era sega ni Taukei mera mai via lewa na ka e baleti keda.

            A vakaraitaka talega na Turaga Mata mai na Ba Open (M.P. Chaudhry) ni dina ni uma i lavo qo esa na bau veivuke toka ni vueti cake ni Taukei, ka vakalewa kina na ka e tukuna na Vunilawa ni noda vanua ni na rawa ni laveta cake nai vakatagedegede ni rawa ka ni Taukei, ena bula vakailavo.  E dua na tikina au vinakata me'u vakaraitaka, oya e dau talaucaka wasoma tiko okoya na ka edau tukuna tiko ena veitabagauna sa oti, me vukei nai Taukei ena vakayagataki ni yaubula.  Ia, ni da raica na veika ea yaco ena nodratou a veiliutaki kina na People's Coalition, a sega saraga ni ratou yavalata e dua na ka me vakayagataki kina nai yaubula ni Taukei me vukei kina nai Taukei.  Na ka walega eda kila deivaki tu ena gauna qo, na nodratou a via tauyavutaka na Lands Use Commission.  Eda kila vinaka ni dua bulu ga nai naki ni Lands Use Commission, me vakamalumalumutaka na kaukauwa vakalawa ka sa bau vo toka qo ena Matabose ni Qele Maroroi, me vaka eda kila ni kaukauwa ni qele maroroi esa kauta tani tu ena gauna qo na Agricultural Landlord and Tenants Act (ALTA). Oya na ka e matata tu vakasigalevu vei keda kece e Viti, ni sa lawa tu ena gauna oqo e dua na lawa e taqomaki, vaka ga na taqomaki ni noda Yavu ni Vakavulewa.  E kaukauwa na taqomaki ni ALTA ka malumalumu na lawa taucoko e baleti keda nai Taukei; Fijian Affairs Act, sega, Native Land Trust Board Act, sega, Native Lands Act, sega, era malumalumu kece ka kaukauwa na taqomaki ni ALTA ena nodai Vola ni Lawa kece e Viti.  Okoya gona ni nodratou cau ga ena yabaki 1999 ki na yabaki 2000, au raica rawa, na kena tauyavutaki se suguraki mai na Lands Use Commission ka dua bulu na kena i naki me vakamalumalumutaka tale na kaukauwa vakalawa e toka ena Matabose ni Qele Maroroi ka sa malumalumu oti tu madaga ena gauna oqo ena vuku ni nona sa kauta tani na kaukauwa qo vakalawa na ALTA.

            Ia, e dina na ka e tukuna, ni noda bera vakalevu nai Taukei baleta ni sega ni vakayagataki vakalevu na nodai yaubula nai Taukei.  Na ka eda raica tiko, yaco tiko mai na veiyabaki me yacova mai oqo, na nodra vakatikitikitaki nai Taukei mai na vakaitavi ena nodra i yaubula.  Era vakatikitikitaki ena poidi vakabisinisi, ena i naki tale eso ka da kila vinaka tu; Tabana ni Qoli, Tabana ni noda Veikau, vatu talei mai na loma ni qele, ni da raica na veika e yaco tiko ekea, sa tubu ga na noda loloma ki nai taukei ni vanua oqo, na nodra vakatikitikitaki ena nodra vakaitavi kei na nodra votai ena veika e vure mai na nodra i yau bula.

            Na Matanitu oqo e seqai matai ni Matanitu me yavalata na tikina oqo.  Me sa kakua mada ni vakatikitikitaki nai Taukei ena nona vakaitavi kei na nona vakaivotavota ena veika e rawa mai na nona yaubula.  Au vakabauta ni kevaka eratou raica na nodatou i tokani mai yasana ka dua na veika esa cakava na Matanitu oqo ena Tabana ni Qoli, eratou na vakadinadinataka na veivuke levu ka sa tekivutaka na Matanitu oqo me ra vueti kina na i taukei ni qoliqoli.

             A sega ni dua na i Taukei e taukena e dua na bisinisi ni qoli tuna, mai na veitabayabaki sa oti, me yacova mai na gauna e tekivu veiliutaki kina na Matanitu oqo.  Ena gauna oqo, esa vica na gone i Taukei, era vukei mai na Matanitu mai na Baqe ni Veivakatorocaketaki (FDB) era sa taukena na bisinisi ni qoli tuna, era taukena na waqa ni qoli, era laki qoli, kena i rairai ni ra toso vinaka tiko, tu na dredre, ia ena tovolei me wali.

            Ena cakacaka ni tuna ena vanua mamaca, ena kena vale me mai caka kina na cakacaka ni qoli me vakau kina na ika ki vanua tani, sa ra vakaitavi tale tikoga ekea nai Taukei.

            Ia, e berabera, ka keitou vinakata me na vakatotolotaki.  Oya na vuna keitou sa wasea tani kina e dua nai wiliwili ni laiseni ni qoli tuna me baleta vakatabakidua nai Taukei, ka yavutaki oya mai na Affirmative Action Programme se nai tuvatuva ni Matanitu me baleta nai Taukei kei na Rotuma.  Nai tuvatuva ka coqai tiko vakalevu mai na yasa ni Vale kadua, mai na kenai tekivu me yacova tiko mai qo, eratou na coqa tiko ka tawa mudu.  Sega ni sega, me da na qarauni keda vakavinaka.

            Eda raica na vakayagataki ni noda veikau.  Na matanitu cava e solia vei ira nai taukei ni qele na yaga ni kena teivaki ni noda qele ena noda veikau?  E matai ni Matanitu oqo me kacivaka raraba eke na veika e tuvalaka mera vukei kina na i taukei ni mahogany.  Era sa tekivu oqo mera taura na kena yaga na i taukei ni qele.  Esa rui lailai ka keitou didivaka, ia keitou na dikeva tiko ena veigauna me keitou na raica na kena wasei vakavinaka ki vei ira na yaga ni kena teivaki na nodra qele ena mahogany. 

            Keitou na dikeva na veika e yaco tiko ena i voli na pine.  Kevaka eda raica na veika e yaco tiko ekea, e da lomani ira na i taukei ni qele ena nodra sega ni vukei mai na taba yabaki sa oti me yacova na gauna keitou mai veiqaravi kina na Matanitu Cokovata ni SDL kei na Conservative Alliance ena gauna oqo.

            E na tabana ni wai tawa ena tavaya, ena dua na gauna mai oqo, keitou na kauta mai eke e dua na lawa vakaturi mera taqomaki na i taukei ni qele ka wasei vei ira e dua na ka e rawa mai ena loma ni nodra qele, me rawa ni ra vakaivotavota ka vakaitavi talega kina.  Keitou na cakava tiko oqo ena veivanua kece ni veivakatorocaketaki. 

            Ena tabana ni saravanua, esa vinaka tiko mai na ka era tara na i taukei ni qele, ena vakatutu kei na vakatulewa ni Matanitu ka veiqaravi tiko ena gauna oqo.  Au vakabauta ni oti e lima se 10 na yabaki ena neitou veiqaravi ena Matanitu, eda na raica e dua na veisau levu ena noda vanua, ena rawa ka ni i Taukei, ena Affirmative Action Programme kei na i tuvatuva ni veivakatorocaketaki ka keitou vakayacora tiko. 

            Ena gauna oqo, kevaka o dou vakatitiqataki au tiko na i lawalawa mai na Fiji Labour Party, dou lai raica mada na vanua e dau register kina o ira era via vakabani se via vakabisinisi.

            HON. P. MUPNAR.- I rise on a point of order under Standing Order 39(2), Sir. The honourable Prime Minister is addressing me and not you, Sir.

            (Laughter)

            MR. SPEAKER.- Honourable Member, that is because you are better looking than I am.

            (Laughter)

            HON. L. QARASE.- Turaga na i Liuliu ni Bose, au vakabauta esa via yaco tiko e kea na veika eso au vinakata meu vosa kina.  Au rawa ni'u vosa tiko me tolu se va na siga ena veika e lako mai ena yasana kadua.  Ia, sa toboki keda tiko na gauna, ka'u vakabauta ni sa rauti keda na i vakamacala oya me baleta na vakasama eso ka basika mai vei iratou na noda i tokani ena yasana ni Vale kadua.

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all honourable Members from both sides of the House who have contributed to the debate on this Bill.  As I mentioned  before, I regret that I was not able to return on time before the start of the debate, but I gather that it has been a very good debate and there have been some very good contributions from all the Members who spoke.  I once again thank the honourable and learned Attorney-General for taking my place in the debate before I arrived this morning.  As I mentioned, he has clarified and responded to most of the points that were raised, particularly from the other side of the House. 

            With those few words, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I commend the Bill to the House.

            Question put.

            Motion agreed to.

            Bill read a second time.

            MR. SPEAKER.- Honourable Members, I am scheduled this afternoon with the pleasant task to entertain the honourable former Speaker of the House of Parliament of New Zealand and Mrs Kidd to afternoon tea, so we will break now for afternoon tea, and when we return, we will go into committee stage.  The House is now adjourned.

         The House adjourned at 3.45 p.m.

            The House resumed 4.30 p.m.

            In committee:

            Clause 1 agreed to.

            Clause 2:

            HON. L. QARASE.- Mr. Chairman, I beg to move that clause 2 be amended by deleting the definition of "beneficiary" and substituting the following definition: " `beneficiaries' means persons or institutions that are beneficiaries of the Fund under section 5."

            Question on amendment put.

            Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

            Clause 3:

            HON. P. CHAND.- Mr. Chairman, Sir, I would like to raise a question with regards to what the honourable Prime Minister has said.  Sir, when the honourable Prime Minister spoke in Fijian, he referred to the members who prepared the Reeves Commission Report as vulagis.  If you can recall, that Report was done by Sir Paul Reeves, Dr. Brij Lal and a former Minister and Member of this House, Mr. Tomasi Vakatora.

            My question to the honourable Prime Minister is whether it is now the SDL policy that any reports, recommendations and any aspect of advice and suggestion given by what the SDL Coalition Government regards a person as a "vulagi", would not be considered?  I raise this question because it saddens a number of people, because within the Fijians Trust Fund Board, there are non-indigenous persons.  Some of us have served on committees, which caters exclusively for the interests of the Fijians.  We feel privileged and honoured to contribute to the interest of the Fijian community.  It does make one feel as if here is a Government, which says something else to the people, but in a very subtle and hidden way, they really picture something different.

            HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.- A point of order.  Mr. Chairman, Sir, we do not quite follow what is happening.  We are in committee stage and we have just passed clauses 1 and 2, and we are now on clause 3.  There has been no motion for any amendment yet.  I am not sure what the honourable Member for Nasinu Communal (P. Chand) is addressing now.  Is it part of any debate on any amendment proposed?  I am seeking clarification, Sir.

            MR. CHAIRMAN.- Honourable Attorney-General, you are right to raise that point of order. 

            Honourable Member, we are on clause 3 at the moment. Is that the one you are referring to?

            HON. P. CHAND.- Yes, Sir, I can explain.  Clause 3 talks of the establishment of the Fund and it makes reference to the Great Council of Chiefs; that is the whole purpose.  I am raising a question and I think in the committee stage, I am notably entitled.  Naturally, this is not a classroom situation where I just ask a specific question and stop.  I have to provide some background to that question and that is what I am doing.  I can see the honourable and learned Attorney-General has some problems with that.

            MR. CHAIRMAN.- Honourable Member, can I clarify that.  At this stage of the Committee, any Member can raise any points, make observations or amend any clause and not only the clause that is going to be amended.  That is the normal rule of debate on this part.  There is nothing new.

            HON. P. CHAND.- I cannot understand why the Government is in such a mess on legal matters.

            (Laughter)

            Sir, the point raised by the honourable Prime Minister with the comments made is also very hypocritical.  It is hypocritical because here is a Government which is talking of a reconciliation and prayer week, et cetera.  I must say that (I think the honourable Prime Minister was not here) all of us from this side had given our support to the Bill, in spite of numerous reservations in good spirit to demonstrate our ongoing concerns and support for the BLV and the economic progress for the indigenous Fijian community, as explained by the leader of the Fiji Labour Party and by many other Members.  Soon after that, when we hear the honourable Prime Minister saying that, I think, it adds to the hypocrisy in the statement.

            Clause 4:

            HON. L. QARASE.- Mr. Chairman, Sir, I beg to move that clause 4 be amended by deleting the word "language" in paragraph (b) and substituting it with the words "and Rotuman languages".

            Question on amendment put.

            Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

            Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.

            Clause 7:

            HON. L. QARASE.- Mr. Chairman, Sir, I beg to move that clause 7 be amended by inserting the words "or for absence from three consecutive meetings of the Board without reasonable excuse," after the word "misbehaviour" in subclause (7).

            HON. M.P. CHAUDHRY.- Mr. Chairman, Sir, I am going to speak on the on the amendments proposed by the honourable Prime Minister.  I welcome clause 7(4), Sir, which says, and I quote:

                        "Nominations  made under subsection 3(a) are not limited to members of the BLV and appointments made under paragraphs (b),(c) and (d) of subsection (3) are not limited to indigenous Fijians and Rotumans."

Sir, it seems that the intention here is to possibly invite members of the other communities and the indigenous communities to take up membership under subclause 3(b)(c) and (d) in professional areas such as legal advisers, accountants, economists, personal managers, et cetera. I think this is a welcome move.

            Mr. Chairman, Sir, I believe more Fijian institutions should be opened to members of other communities to be able to serve on it.  We all know that inbreeding is a bad thing.  Too much inbreeding will result in the genes being weakened.  This has been a problem with many Fijian institutions that it has kept the other communities from participating in their activities and this has also hindered the progress of the Fijian community.  In that, they have not assimilated in the mainstream of national life by being continually protected, preserve, as if to know they are the extinct of the endangered species. 

            Mr. Chairman, Sir, I welcome this and judging from some very hard line Members from the other side, I would have expected them to move an amendment to exclude the other communities.  We hope to see more of this in the future.

            Question on amendment put.

            Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

            Clauses 8 agreed to.

            Clause 9:

            HON. L. QARASE.- Mr. Chairman, Sir, I beg to move that clause 9 be amended by deleting the words "Members of" in the first line in subclause 5

            Question on amendment put.

            Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

            Clauses 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 agreed to.

            Clause 16:

            HON. L. QARASE.- Mr. Chairman, Sir, I beg to move that clause 16 be amended by deleting the word and figure "(Cap 214)" and substituting the words and figure "(Cap 259) holds a certificate of public practice as required under section 36 of that Act" in subclause 2.

            Mr. Chairman, Sir, like the previous amendment, this is editorial in nature.

            Question put.

            Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.

            Clause 17:

            HON. L. QARASE.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that clause 17 be amended by inserting the words "at the meeting of Parliament after the Minister receives the report".

            The amendment differs from the wording, as set out in the notice from the Secretary-General.  In other words, we will delete the word "a" and the words "during the next sitting period".  I will read it once more, Mr. Speaker, Sir:

                        "... by inserting the words "at the meeting of Parliament after the Minister receives the report."

The reason is that, it reads much better and has a much more clear meaning. 

            HON. P. CHAND.- Sir, on this clause, we had a very lengthy debate and discussion in the Joint Sector Committee.  I note that there has been some improvements from what was originally in the Bill, which did not set up any time line for the Minister responsible to table before the House, after the annual and financial reports of the Fund were received by the Minister.

            I note now the provision is that the Minister should table the report once it is submitted at the next meeting of the House.  However, Sir, there will be some possibilities of a very long delay.  If the House prorogues, we are bound to have six or eight weeks of delay.  At the end of the year, we could have a very lengthy delay.  Unfortunately, there have been occasions here when we do not have a Parliament and this might pose a lot of problems.  We raised this because of the experience we learnt from the Banaban Fund, which has been quite eloquently highlighted by the honourable Member for North/Eastern Communal (D. Christopher), who was the former Secretary.  Sir, because of the very hard line that he took (we were told), in controlling the board when the board went overseas, he was left behind.

            (Laughter)

            MR. SPEAKER.- For good reasons.

            (Laughter)

            HON. P. CHAND.- For good reasons, Sir, yes.  It just shows the dangers that the minimum level of laxity can result into ongoing mismanagement of funds.  That has been a very big concern and apparently so, the Bill has come at a time when this country is overshadowed by the Auditor-General's Report and gives more than enough instances of huge libel of mismanagement and pilfering that has been taking