COMMUNICATION FROM THE CHAIR

MR. PRESIDENT.- Honourable Senators, Proverbs 16:10 says:

"The lips of a King speak as an oracle and his mouth should not betray justice."

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

HON. SENATOR ADI K. NAILATIKAU.- Mr. President, Sir, I must thank you this morning for giving me the privilege under Standing Order 59 to explain matters of a personal nature in response to the insensitive remarks by honourable Senator Bulanauca on Tuesday, 18th October, which was also published on page 13 of yesterday's (Thursday, 21st October) Fiji Times, and I am very disturbed to read also in today's uncorrected Hansard that honourable Senator Ratu George Cakobau on page 5856 also expressed similar remarks. Sir, honourable Senator Bulanauca said and I quote:

"Sir, reconciliation is part and parcel of our culture here in Fiji, for us Christians and part of the Fijian society as well. If people do not wish to be part of it, then I think, that Fiji is not their place, they must leave."

This was reiterated yesterday by honourable Senator Ratu Cakobau, which reads and I quote:

"... If they do not accept it, they can get out of this country; as simple as that. We, the Fijians have had enough. The simple thing is accept our apology and if they cannot take it, get out of the country. They will not have it another time..."

Sir, 14 Senators here are all nominees of the Great Council of Chiefs. I do not think any of us in this august House has the right to chase anyone out of this country. I, for that matter am related to the chiefly households of Kubuna, Tovata and Burebasaga. I still do not have the right to tell anyone, whether he be a Fijian, Indian, Chinese or any other race to get out of Fiji. I am really deeply disturbed by this.

Mr. President, Sir, I do not chastise the authorities concerned or the Government in their attempts at reconciliation. However, the total insensitive remarks made by honourable Senator Bulanauca and now reiterated by honourable Senator Ratu Cakobau prompts me to respond to this.

It is ironic that even the honourable Prime Minister himself speaking at the Fiji Day Prayer Breakfast said, "some who had refused to take part in the National Reconciliation were victims of the coups of 1987 and 2000. We have to sympathise with them because they were threatened, hurt and traumatised. It is understandable that they might not yet find it possible to forgive." And here, we have a Senator nominated by Government in opposition to what the honourable Prime Minister had just said at the Reconciliation Prayer Breakfast.

Mr. President, Sir, 26 weeks have passed since the passing of the late Turaga Bale na Tui Nayau on Sunday, 18th April, 2004 and 13 weeks since the early demise of the late Marama Bale na Roko Tui Dreketi on Wednesday, 21st July, 2004. This has truly been the most painful and most difficult period that my brothers and sisters have and will ever face. It is indeed a cruel and double blow to lose both parents in a short time. These insensitive remarks have conjured these painful memories.

At the outset, the question arises as follows: Why has it taken the authorities exactly four years to instigate the concept of reconciliation, in their endeavor to heal the wounds of May, 2000? Why was not the concept of reconciliation ever done to the late Turaga Bale na Tui Nayau or for that matter, the late Marama Bale na Roko Tui Dreketi? Was all this conjured over-night immediately following their demise? Was proper consultation carried out? Was Government aware that investigations into the events of May, 2000 were not yet completed, as one can clearly depict in the court proceedings concerning the Turaga na Qaranivalu and the mutiny trial currently taking place at the Fiji Military Forces' Officer Training School in Vatuwaqa, and that some of the guilty partners have yet to be tried?

Sir, reconciliation arises after the necessary procedures have been followed. It does not come easily to an individual or to me who was held hostage here. I experienced hurt, suffering and wrongdoing. We have been emotionally damaged, and in the most painful and cruelest of experiences, I have lost both my parents.

How do you equate forgiveness in order to reconcile? How can others who have not had a loss or suffered the effects of the May, 2000 coup even begin to feel or to understand what the whole process of reconciliation is about? As the late Turaga Bale na Tui Nayau said at the Lau Provincial Council in Ono in October, 2000, and I quote:

"The reconciliation that has been undertaken today will be worthless if investigations into the coup do not reveal the truth behind the staging."

Reconciliation, Sir, cannot eventuate or materialise until the proper legal proceedings have been followed, that is without interference from external forces. Further, if any Government was serious about reconciliation, Sir, they would allow the courts to proceed and encourage the upholding of the rule of law.

Mr. President, Sir, how do you think I feel when certain individuals, who were very instrumental in the illegal ousting of the late Turaga Bale na Tui Nayau, were elevated and appointed to prominent positions - Cabinet positions? I was here as a hostage where I saw the current Minister for Information, absolutely speaking out against him. Another Cabinet Minister was alleged to have given orders to the burning down of the late Turaga na Tui Nayau's farm at Seaqaqa. So, how does honourable Senator Bulanauca think I am going to reconcile?

Sir, there have been Senate seats that have also been given and there are honourable Senators here who I saw on these grounds during my five and a half weeks of hostage. Why did they not try to come and get me out of this place? Why did they not go up to the late Turaga Bale na Tui Nayau and the late Marama Bale na Roko Tui Dreketi and explain what was going on in here? That is why I find it so hard that this Government is trying to reconcile when they appointed the very people who were perpetrators of the coup to sit in this august House and in the Lower House.

I am sorry I have to speak this strongly, but I have kept this for the last four years. Sir, if it was not for the coup, my parents would still be alive today.

Mr. President, Sir, it is absolutely absurd that the Bose Levu Vakaturaga (BLV) (of which I am a nominee) could be sued due to the imprisonment of Ratu Jope Seniloli, simply because they were not responsible for bringing Ratu Jope Seniloli into Parliament, as he came in on his own accord on Saturday 20th May, 2000, when Timoci Silatolu (who also happens to be my cousin) called me to the front of this House to see him get into the PM001 to go to Nadave to pick up Ratu Jope Seniloli to come and take his oath to be illegally sworn in by Rakuita Vakalalabure, as the illegal President. This same Rakuita Vakalalabure, Sir, around the week beginning on 22nd May, 2000 presented a kamunaga on behalf of Speight at the BLV Meeting, which was held at the Army Barracks, Nabua. This was after much lobbying was carried around the House by a certain Senator here and Epeli Kanaimawi, to remove the late Turaga Bale na Tui Nayau as President of the Republic of Fiji. So, I beg to ask the question; Why was the matanigasau not done to the late Turaga Bale na Tui Nayau?

Though these two (Ratu Jope Seniloli and Rakuita Vakalalabure) have been imprisoned, they are still receiving their salaries. What has this Government done about reconciliation? What about the victims of the coup? Is there no compensation for those who have lost family members, homes and farms? A genuine case is the widow of Corporal Seavula, who was shot to death by coup supporters close by at Nasese. Was any invitation extended to her to attend any day of the Reconciliation Week or to the late Corporal Kumar and Private Joela Weleilakeba's families? How can Government Senators or Ministers sit there and try to reconcile?

How do you expect me, Sir, to forgive and reconcile now, when some of those who were responsible for the hurt, pain, suffering and wrongdoings (that my family went through and most of all, how my dear parents were emotionally and physically affected) are still lurking around in the shadows, and discreetly misleading the chiefs and community leaders, and cannot even admit their wrong or apologise as confirmed by the headman of the Mataqali Nasekavu in Naivicula in the Fiji Times of 4th October, 2004 and I quote:

"They are proud of their son George Speight for carrying the burden of those hidden faces who instigated the Coup... and neither did he name the people behind him but instead he dared to carry the burden of it all."

So, Mr. President, Sir, George Speight, Timoci Silatolu and Jo Nata are just the frontmen. Who are the shadows? Who are they that are still lurking around?

I reiterate, Sir, that as long as those responsible are still lurking in the shadows and this culture of silence remains, then certain sections of the community will remain insecure, intimidated and live in fear. Today, our society is as fragmented as ever, fuelled by uncertainties over many issues, land and Constitution and a general identity for people calling Fiji their home. Yet, here we have two honourable Senators telling them to get out of Fiji. Furthermore, my children will be subjected to a culture of coups. Tomasi Turaga from Naivicula further said, and I quote:

"They wanted to be part of the Reconciliation ceremony where the people of Fiji were represented by the Tui Cakau Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu asking for forgiveness from the President Ratu Josefa Iloilo and the Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase."

Mr. President, Sir, what baffles me is that the matanigasau was done to the two main beneficiaries of the coup and that is the current President and the current Prime Minister, because if it was not for the coup, they would not be in those positions, as the late Turaga Bale na Tui Nayau would still be the President and honourable Chaudhry, the Prime Minister. More so, if it was not for the coup, my parents (as I reiterate) would still be here today. So, I ask again, Sir, was proper consultation done for reconciliation? Therefore, who were the financiers of the coup? Who paid for the food for the supporters, which was their breakfast, lunch and dinner for the 56 days, the grog, transport and telephone? Who provided these? Only when we, the hostages, know who were behind the coup, will real forgiveness be considered with the necessary legal procedures and the rule of law to be applied. We would need to believe that these coup perpetrators are remorseful and honestly want to change, be forgiven and repent of their sins and wrongdoings.

How do you reconcile with those who made defamatory remarks against your parents? I would like to know why was the late Turaga Bale na Tui Nayau removed? What wrong had he done? Who gave the directions and advice for the large scale defamation of character concerning the late Turaga Bale na Tui Nayau by stating the following:

(a) that he had stolen $300 million of the ACP-EU funding for the ACP countries; and

(b) that the Marama Bale na Roko Tui Dreketi had stolen $26 million from the coffers of the Fijian Hotel, Yanuca.

This information, Sir, was faxed throughout the Government Ministries by no other than gullible indigenous Fijians of whom the coup was carried out for by Speight and his cronies.

Who gave the instructions to circulate photocopies of all land sales in Fiji with the cut and paste signature of the late Turaga Bale na Tui Nayau, from his days as the District Officer Navua and Ba. These fraudulent defamatory papers were taken by a group of rebels who attempted to takeover Wakaya Island in the Lomaiviti Group, but were advised otherwise by the Manager.

These propaganda papers also reached the Fijian soldiers who served in the British Army. Who gave the orders for the late Turaga Bale na Tui Nayau's Seaqaqa Sugar cane farms to be burnt to the ground? How ironic, as he had been the leader who encouraged, not the indigenous but all races to take up sugar cane farming in Seaqaqa, to help the economy in Vanua Levu.

What is reconciliation, Sir? I come back to my question. Traditionally, forgiveness has tended to be associated with forgetting. As one may recall the familiar adage - forgive and forget.

Who is calling for reconciliation and why? Some people may be well-meaning, but may be naive, since they might be associating themselves with the perpetrators of violence. Further, reconciliation should not be carried out by those who would profit from it for their own, self-serving ends. The process of reconciliation must be well thought out; who will be involved, how will it take place and how best can it be achieved?

Is it to appease the international community so that they will be assured that the promotion of national reconciliation is a matter of priority and an urgency for this Government? Is it in view of the November 2nd Appeals Court hearing? What a coincidence that arrangements were made that the coup perpetrators should choose to reconcile at this particular time. I am not denying that the coup perpetrators do not owe an apology to the hostages or to those affected by their actions in the 2000 coup. Is the reconciliation process the best means to deal with the situation, or are there other means of adjudication, for example, the courts - the legal systems, that could be used?

Unfortunately, the important pre-requisites steps of any reconciliation body are absent. That is getting to tell the truth about the May and November 2000 uprisings and violence. It is about honesty and contritely confessing, seeking forgiveness from all those who have been physically hurt, strengthening the rule of law, the redress and repatriation for the victims. The coup perpetrators must still serve their sentence, because that is their penalty for doing something wrong and it has nothing to do with reconciliation. They must try to get to the truth of what really happened during the violence of May 2000.

Genuine forgiveness cannot be given when questions about who were involved and who funded the coup remain unanswered. An individual will forgive when he or she is ready. There must be truth telling as to why they participated. Who gave the orders? Who are those lurking behind the shadows? The main question is; Why was the late Turaga Bale na Tui Nayau removed?

I conclude, Sir, therefore, if anything, the process of reconciliation must lead again to the strengthening of the rule of law, strengthen our confidence in the Judiciary and the administration of justice, and that the harm done in 2000 is being seriously addressed. The rule of law, Sir, enables the maintenance of order and sustains our sense of public morality of what is right and wrong, and what we should and should not do. Reconciliation therefore, requires humility, compassion and true remorse. You cannot incorporate the concepts of practices of our indigenous Fijian cultures as the honourable Senator Dr. Ratu Nailatikau said, and I quote:

"... such as the i bulubulu, where often times only forgiveness is expected and justice foregone."

True reconciliation must incorporate the righteous elements of forgiveness and justice. Therefore, real meaningful forgiveness will only arise when firstly, we have to identify the aggrieved party and the wrongdoer must then ask for forgiveness for a specific wrong done. Once forgiveness is achieved, then the process of justice must take place and punishment given according to law. Only then, will true reconciliation begin.

Further, if succumb to pardoning these men, then we are sabotaging and undermining our own ability to act without fear or favour. We reap what we sow. We will sow a culture of coups for our children. We must therefore, uphold the Rule of Law and Justice.

RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON THE FIJIANS TRUST FUND BILL, 2004

HON. SENATOR DR. A. ALI.- Mr. President, Sir, I thank my colleagues for enabling me to reply this morning, without adding more speakers.

The Senate is unanimous in supporting this Bill, to make the Bose Levu Vakaturaga (BLV) financially independent. Several honourable Senators emphasised that this was not done previously by either the Colonial regime between 1874 and 1970 or governments, after Independence.

All honourable Senators who spoke saw this as a positive step and thanked the Government, especially the honourable Prime Minister for the initiative. All agreed that this Bill is timely, historic and will bring benefit, not just merely to Fijians and Rotumans, but also to other communities in this country.

Sir, while there has been support, some honourable Senators have advised that care needs to be taken in managing these funds and utilising them equitably. Government has no difficulty with that advice. It has already noted that by putting on the Board a practicing lawyer and a chartered accountant in public practise. Such persons will not allow their reputations to be compromised through mismanagement.

Indeed, the emphasis on this membership of the Board is on competence, expertise and integrity. These qualities are to be drawn from the best talents, without restrictions of ethnicity. In fact, at least three members can be non-Fijians with professional efficiency, qualifications and experience. Given that there is already evidence that this Fund has earned some $3 million in revenue, there is reason to approach this with optimism. Government is taking a positive approach with faith in the managers of the Fund and in the surveillance of the BLV and the recognition that the funds will be annually audited. Furthermore, reporting will also be to Parliament so there are several levels where checks and balances can and will occur.

Sir, the honourable Senator Tora raised the question of "good faith" being a risky device for safeguarding sums of the magnitude in this Trust Fund. We were adviced by the Second Parliamentary Counsel that there is now an accepted terminology in legal circles or this is accepted terminology in legal circles - the concept of "good faith". Hopefully, honourable Senator Tora will find this acceptance, but we cannot ignore his concern. I have already explained that there are checks and balances.

I would add that in case of mismanagement, a claim of good faith is not sufficient to escape with impunity. A person considered culpable can be taken to court and tried. So, good faith is not license for indulgence in financial impropriety. I hope that this satisfies honourable Senator Tora, that there is no intended laxity and there is no scope for such laxity being given.

This Bill establishes the need for good governance,for sound financial management and there will be regular scrutiny. We too as Parliamentarians can play a role in this scrutiny when the Report comes here. Our colleagues in the BLV will also have a role of overseeing the operations and management of the Trust Fund.

Let me assure the honourable Senator Tora that there are constraints and controls. Nevertheless, Government notes the advice of the need for care and caution, not only from the honourable Senator Tora, but from others as well.

Sir, the suggestion of honourable Senator Gavoka that as public funds are involved, the overview of the Auditor-General should be utilised. This suggestion should be more borne in mind. The Board and the BLV can resort to this route when they deem it necessary, the door is not closed.

Sir, the honourable Senator Tora made a suggestion of insuring funds. That is a good suggestion worthy of consideration, but I know that he realises, as do all the other honourable Senators, that insurance is not without conditions. There is no free reimbursement. If there is mismanagement and there is insurance, the insurance company will certainly investigate and not just merely pay out. We know that from our experience with little things as well.

Sir, on the funding, I thought the honourable Senator Ratu Rayawa, the Tui Noco, in his usual charming Rewa way, made an excellent point about the BLV and its contribution. He reminded us that in 1987 and 2000, the BLV restored stability when no one else could or would help, adding that not all the businesses with all their wealth could achieve this objective of bringing back peace and stability. The money is well-placed in this instance.

Mr. President, Sir, the honourable Senator Tora raised a second query for which he specifically sought a reply. He contended that Fijians were already governed by a central administration, as well as Fijian administration, they were with us already subject to two governments and that in this context, the Fijian administration was a State within a State. He continued that now with the Bill to establish a Fijians Trust Board, they would have a third government over them, making Fijians an over- governed community.

Sir, the honourable Senator Tora's argument is based on an old view, which has lost much currency recently. His thesis emerges from the previously insistent principle that the sovereignty of the State was indivisible and that the State was a unified and centralised paramount power. Indeed, Sir, in this country, with the creation of separate Fijian administration in 1944, that doctrine was diluted, if not discarded.

In fact, Sir, as I stated in my Introduction yesterday, our British Colonial lords, from the beginning, for their own pragmatic advantage, shared the governance of Fiji or the sovereignty of Fiji with the Fijian chiefs, through the Council of Chiefs, which existed in parallel to the Legislative Council. The British, as I pointed out, realised that they will not be able to maintain law and order without the corporation of the chiefs and as I pointed out the direct impositions, as elsewhere in other colonials, often brought uprising.

Today, Sir, sovereignty is perceived as layered, cooperative and circumscribed, to use the words of a New Zealand legal academic Dr. Paul McHugh. Sir, in today's democracy, the Central Government Acts governs in partnership with other institutions, cherished as essential by groups of citizens. Sir, this could be ethnic groups and today ethnicity is a form of cultural distinctness as recognised in international and local laws.

Sir, aboriginality or indigenousness which is the subject of this Bill indeed is the protection and enhancement is the essence of this Bill, that aboriginality and indigenousness reflecting that cultural distinctness is accepted in international law and indeed the utilisation of its institution for conflict resolution are made mandatory in Section 186 of our Constitution. Besides, Sir, there is a legislation affecting our indigenous communities made part of the entrenched clauses of our Constitution. Sir, what is more obvious regarding our legal acceptance of indigenousness than the presence in this Senate of 14 Fijian representatives from the 14 provinces nominated by the Great Council of Chiefs and one from the Council of Rotuma? They are partners in policy making, they even hold veto powers for some legislation. So, Sir, the Bill is not only harnessing the skills of that established partnership but saying this is a logical and proper means for developing our nation and thereby strengthening our nation state, that is the Republic of Fiji.

Sir, the honourable Senator Tora can be at peace, the State is not creating a rival. It is utilising the services of an indispensable partner whose permanence and manna is paramount in our midst and provides security. The Great Council of Chiefs has the scope for positive developmental purposes that is already evident. Sir, the honourable Senator Tora may wish to explore this issue further as it is pertinent to the motion he has already moved on the Constitution and it could help him realise his lifelong objective. I hope Sir, I have satisfied the honourable Senator Tora.

Sir, let me remain in the West. I will now respond to honourable Senator Lesavua, who is missing from the House today. I wish to answer to the honourable Senator Lesavua's shallow and unfounded allegations concerning Fijian Holdings and Classes "A" and "B" shares. Sir, he alluded to comments from the House of Representatives.

Sir, with your permission, I wish to quote from the uncorrected Hansard of 30th September, 2004 to the last line on pages 3752 and 3753 on the comments made by the honourable Prime Minister in the House of Representatives. It says and I quote:

"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 the 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 from 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.

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."

Sir, the honourable Prime Minister went on (and since the honourable Senator made much of this) to explain that the Trust Fund is the community Fund indivisibly owned by the entire Fijian population. The honourable Prime Minister also went on to point out what opportunities they were for Fijians. If I may have your permission, I will continue with what he said on page 3754 again from the uncorrected Hansard of the same day, which says and I quote:

"The individual Fijians can buy shares in Fijian Holdings Limited in the Stock Exchange. We see this on television every morning, 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 to 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 think that is a good advise to our fellow colleague and it is unfortunate that he is not here to listen to the correction. I am sure the honourable Senator Lesavua will read the Hansard.

Sir, the honourable Senator from Rotuma (Gagaj M. Solomone) was anxious about the absence of Rotuma in certain clauses or the word "Rotuman". Sir, clause 4(b) was amended and the word "Rotuman" inserted before "language" so that the clause now reads "Fijian and Rotuman languages". Further, Sir, it is understood in the spirit and meaning of the Bill that where Fijian stands on its own, Rotuman is also meant to be there. All the benefits offered and the objects intended apply to the Rotumans as well as beneficiaries. The Bill is intended for both Fijians and Rotumans. I assure the honourable Senator that he can have a happy Christmas after this Bill.

Sir, a number of honourable Senators have expressed their appreciation on the prospect offered in this Bill for training so that there is no misunderstanding. Let me clarify what is intended. This was very precisely explained by the honourable and learned Attorney-General in the Lower House.

Sir, with your permission, may I again quote from page 3737 of the uncorrected Daily Hansard of 30th September, 2004. At least the honourable and learned Attorney-General, even if he is on the plane this morning or in London will realise that we have not forgotten him. I see honourable Senator Koroi smiling, she usually reminds him with certain things so I will quote what he told us about the purpose of this Bill in terms of training:

"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 really is what the Bill is about. It is important, in my respectful view, Sir, to understand and appreciate the distinction for a better and fuller understanding of this Bill before the House.

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 programmes and upskilling arrangements that will enable classes and categories of indigenous Fijians and Rotumans to be able to use the various resources available under other initiatives."

Sir, we know that there are a number of policies and programmes which help Fijians through scholarships as well as other citizens of this country, and they could be utilised for those purposes. Sir, everyone who supported this Bill have commended the Government for enabling BLV their financial independence in order to help the Fijian and Rotuman communities. They have pointed out that this is the fact and this is the first time in our history that a Government has given funds to the BLV to develop and execute programmes for indigenous communities. I thank all of them for enabling an easy passage of this Bill and for supporting what is really a landmark legislation.

Clauses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, schedules and title and enacting clause agreed to.

Bill reported without amendments, read a third time and passed. (Act No. of 2004)

MR. PRESIDENT.- Honourable Senators, before I call for adjournment, I wish to remind honourable Senators to make use of the tea that is being prepared for us. I wish you a safe journey home.

PRESENT

MINUTES

COMMUNICATION FROM THE CHAIR

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON THE FIJIANS TRUST FUND BILL, 2004