SIBC CEO warns of risks in single-Minister oversight proposed in SOE Bill

BY NED GAGAHE

The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Solomon Islands Broadcasting Corporation (SIBC) Johnson Honimae has voiced strong opposition to the first objective of the State-Owned Enterprises (Amendment) Bill, stating that consolidating power in the hands of a single minister poses significant risks.

The State-Owned Enterprises (Amendment) Bill 2024 aims to revise the State-Owned Enterprises Act 2007 in line with the Government’s SOE Ownership Policy 2018 and the National Gender Equality and Women’s Development Policy 2016-2020. The key objective of the bill include consolidating the ownership monitoring responsibility solely with the Minister of Finance.

The bill also aims to clarify the process for state-owned enterprises to provide Community Service Obligations, enhancing publication requirements for documents presented to Parliament, and establishing regulation-making powers concerning the evaluation of directors and the election of board chairpersons and deputy chairpersons.

Speaking during the Bills and Legislation Committee (BLC) hearing last week, Honimae emphasized the potential dangers of this monopoly of authority and called for careful consideration of its implications.

“The first objective of this State-owned Enterprise Amendment Bill, as far as the CEO of SIBC is concerned, I think this is very dangerous, putting the power into the hands of one minister. I’ll stop there.” CEO Honimae said.

The SIBC CEO said whilst he concurs with a lot of comments that have already been made by our other SOEs, he also made clarification that legally SIBC is no longer an SOE.

“In case you don’t know about that yet.” He said.

However, Leader of the Opposition Matthew Wale clarified that SIBC is still an SOE but was only removed from the schedule of the Act.

Mr Honimae also commented on why the government has removed SIBC from the schedule stating that they haven’t receive any clarification on that matter.

“There is a bit of confusion. We haven’t had any clarifications from the Office of the Prime Minister on that matter.

“The reason why we were omitted was that we were not making any profit for the government. There was a different reason for when the other SOE was omitted recently.

Regarding Community Service Obligations (CSO), CEO Honimae highlighted that SIBC actively engages in them, as every minute of its airtime contributes to fulfilling this role.

“All these free announcements that we make, which are not paid for, are considered Community Service Obligations.

“We don’t have to go on a tour of a certain area in the country to be considered as Community Service. When we announce the weather, what the weather is going to be like for us, that is considered Community Service Obligations.

“Nobody pays us for that one. So that is our short comment on that Objective B.

Regarding Objective C, the requirement of a State-owned Enterprise to publish whatever documents it has brought into Parliament a week after, CEO Honimae said they have no problem with that.

On the issue of appointment of Board Members, Honimae said this is one that must be considered very carefully, because in some cases at SIBC the issue of conflict of interest comes into play.

“Because under the State-owned Enterprise we’re looking for people who have experience or qualifications in the area that the SOE is operating in. But those Board Members may have a current business that is related to their qualifications, and there is clearly a conflict of interest in some of the Board decisions. So, what we at SIBC have done is we have a standing agenda item.

“Whenever the Board meets there is a standing agenda item which asks for anybody who has a conflict of interest in the matter that is before the Board. They have to declare their interest before the issue is discussed by the Board.

Honimae stated that when making board appointments, it is essential to consider the potential candidates, specifically looking into their current business dealings. He emphasized that these factors should be taken into account during the selection process.

BY NED GAGAHE

Chief Executive Officer (Acting) of the Solomon Islands Electricity Authority (SIEA), Delilah Homelo, highlighted concerns during the hearing on the State-Owned Enterprises (Amendment) Bill 2024.

Appearing before the Bills and Legislation Committee (BLC) last week, Acting CEO Homelo presented five comments during her appearance before the committee.

“The first one is on the consolidation of ownership and monitoring responsibility that will now sit with the Minister of Finance alone. Under this bill, the Minister of Finance may direct the Board regarding the statement of corporate objectives. The Board shall be accountable solely to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance shall exercise the powers available under the SOE Act. We do not anticipate that the amendment will have much impact on Solomon Power, as the Minister of Finance is expected to exercise these powers consistently with government and cabinet policy.”

Acting CEO Homelo stated that the SOE Act provides governance for state-owned enterprises. Given that the principal objective of a state-owned enterprise is to operate as a successful business and to be profitable and efficient it seems practical for the Minister of Finance to have this oversight role under the SOE Act.

She added that the Electricity Act, which establishes Solomon Power as a statutory corporation and provides for its statutory functions and duties, remains in force despite the amendment to the SOE Act.

Homelo also stated that under the Electricity Act, the Minister of Mines, Energy and Rural Electrification has certain powers, including the right to receive advice from Solomon Power on all matters related to generation, transmission, distribution, and use of electricity, as well as to receive statements of accounts, allow reports, determine appeals against the revocation of licenses, and make regulations based on recommendations from Solomon Power.

Regarding community service obligations, Homelo stated that under this Bill, the responsible Minister’s power to direct a SOE to provide a community service has been removed.

“Instead, a SOE must comply with prescribed procedures for proposing, costing, and authorizing the provision of community service obligations. Solomon Power’s comments on this amendment reference Section 24 C of the SOE Act. The Minister of Finance has the power to make regulations for directing a state-owned enterprise to provide community service obligations pursuant to Section 8 of the SOE Act.

“However, by Clause 12 of the Bill, Section 24 C will be omitted, and therefore it is unclear where the power to make regulations for the purpose of Section 8 will come from. This should be clarified. Furthermore, under the Bill as drafted, it appears that the provision of community service obligations is to be proposed by the state-owned enterprise rather than by the Minister. This should also be clarified.”

CEO Homelo explained that the community service obligations defined under the SOE Act include providing goods or services to customers or users on terms that are not expected to generate a normal return to the SOE.

“In essence, the provision of community service obligations may conflict with the principal objective of a state-owned enterprise, which is to operate as a successful business and to be profitable and efficient. Therefore, when providing community service obligations, it is critical to maintain the right balance to avoid risking the sustainability of the SOE. We would like to know what the prescribed procedures regarding community service obligations will be.”

Her third comment was on the evaluation and remuneration of directors and the election of the chairperson and deputy chairperson.

“Under the Bill, the Minister of Finance may make regulations for the selection, appointment, reappointment, evaluation, remuneration, removal, and disqualification of directors of a state-owned enterprise. The additions specifically relate to the evaluation and remuneration of directors. The Minister of Finance may also regulate the election of the chairperson and deputy chairperson of the Board of a state-owned enterprise. Solomon Power welcomes these amendments, as they appear to strengthen governance, and we are interested in knowing what the regulations, particularly regarding these amendments, will entail.”

CEO Homelo’s fourth comment addressed the publication requirements for documents tabled in Parliament.

“Under this Bill, the state-owned enterprise must publish the same document or information within one week after it is tabled in Parliament, by publishing a summary in a newspaper, on a website maintained by the state-owned enterprise, and making copies available free of charge at the offices of the state-owned enterprise. Solomon Power welcomes the removal of the requirement to publish in the Gazette, but we do not have direct control over publications in the Gazette, as this is a matter for the government.”

Lastly, Mrs. Homelo discussed the personal policy provisions, including those on discrimination.

She explained that under the Bill, a provision will be included in the personal policy of a state-owned enterprise to ensure there is no discrimination on the grounds of gender, race, place of origin, political opinion, color, or creed.

The Acting CEO said Solomon Power’s comments on this amendment highlight that the SOE Act requires state-owned enterprises to have personnel policies that ensure fair and proper treatment of all employees. Solomon Power does have policies that ensure there is no unjustified discrimination.

However, she noted that there may be instances where certain policies and practices might be perceived as discriminatory.

“For example, in recruitment, diversity in the hiring of employees in terms of gender, race, and place of origin may be encouraged. Additionally, as Solomon Power is an essential service, employees in certain fields may need to work late and on weekends. Therefore, clarification is needed on what types of discrimination are prohibited and which may be accepted and thus lawful.” She said.

BY LORETTA B MANELE

One of the biggest challenges in the Pacific are PPWs or Potentially Polluting Wrecks.

This was expressed by Dr Zullah Mohammed, the Pollution Advisor for SPREP (Secretariat for the Pacific Regional Environment Programme) who spoke on PPWs at the “Marine Pollution Incident Resilience in the Pacific Islands” workshop that was held at the Heritage Park Hotel last week.

Mohammed said SPREP developed a regional strategy that was more focused on the World War 2 wrecks and the current focus for them in the region or globally is the triple planetary crisis which include; climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution.

“What we are talking about here is one of our biggest challenges in the region, the potential polluting wrecks. We have international rules that covers the World War II wrecks, but in our region, I think we still come across those challenges of managing them”

Mohammed mentioned that not all countries in the region have World War 2 wrecks and every other member country of SPREP actually have fishing vessels, convention vessels and domestic vessels.

He explained while some vessels are sunk intentionally others are sunk unintentionally.

Mohammed said it was in 2014 that SPREP member countries agreed to identify and characterize wrecks.

“MDF actually has got an exhaustive list of those 3,800 wrecks that we have in the region and they have mapped with the historical data in terms of the volume of different type of fuel it holds”

Mohammed said that apart from this, there are some risks assessment carried out with some of those wrecks, but still there is a lot of work that needs to be done.

He added that following the development of their regional strategy and the reporting back to our members, the next step basically was for them to agree on intervention of different risk level.

Mohammed stressed that before moving further, one of the important questions they need to ask SPREP member countries is what they will do about the wrecks they have in their backyards.

“How do we agree on a regional level the interventions that a regional agency such as us can actually take with the development partners and donors?”

“How do we actually plan up a short-term, medium and a long-term strategy to manage these wrecks?”

Mohammed said in the last executive board meeting following the recent triple planetary crisis, they got the approval to revise their regional strategy.

BY JOHN HOUANIHAU

Government authorities do not take legal action in response to human rights violation contained in media reports in the country.

This was highlighted during a panel discussion at a Human Rights Defenders workshop last week, which also saw the establishment of a working group to set up Solomon Islands’ first Human Rights Defender Network.

Irwin Angiki, Island Sun Newspaper’s sub-editor and one of the panelists, shared that the Newspaper on average produces nearly 11,000 local stories every year – almost half of which directly report human rights violations or imply them.

When asked by a participant whether their stories containing elements of human rights violation receive action by government authorities, Mr Angiki said “the sad answer or fact to your question is no”.

He shares that government authorities have been flaunting their own channels of receiving complaints, which they adamantly stick to despite reading and being aware of human rights violation issues from the media.

Government authorities prioritise their reporting procedures above the incidents, which results in many human rights violation incidents in Solomon Islands ending up only being a media report – nothing else.

Renowned local women’s and environmental rights activist Afu Lia Billy also shared the same sentiment as one of the key panelists at the event. 

“We work a lot against violence against women but the authorities like the police are not very supportive,” said Ms Afu.

Afu said that while there is already legislation in place like the Family Protection Act, work cannot happen without support and resources from the government.

“Legislation should have resources attached to it so work can be implemented and in addition, the government didn’t see Human rights as a priority,” she said.

She said there are some major challenges working in this space.

“When you ring the police to attend to a case, all they are saying is there is no transport.

“There should be an educated unit within the Police Unit regarding Human rights defenders and just for violence against women and also a vehicle to run and respond.

“Without resources, nothing will happen. I want the donors to step in where these shortfalls have come in,” she said.

The three-day workshop was run by the Pacific Human Rights Defenders Network in partnership with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and Swiss embassy in Canberra, which was held at the Heritage Park Hotel.

JOHN HOUANIHAU

Studies have found that 78 percent of child abuse perpetrators were immediate family members.

Dr Natasha Khan a Human rights defender in Fiji, and also the current Chair of the Pacific Human Rights Defenders’ Network said at the recently concluded human rights defender (HRD) workshop in Honiara.

Natasha said the findings were made possible through research they conducted in 2019 for the Department of Women and Children in Fiji regarding the causes relating to child abuse and violence.

She highlighted the matter when she responded to a question raised by one of the USP-SI students on the rise and the cause of increased rape cases in the country.

According to Khan, she said that they found two major reasons for child abuse or sexual violence across the board.

“One is the opportunity- the perpetrator had the opportunity and accessibility to the child and Two is the security, perpetrators knew that they would get away with it or they did not know what abuse is,’’ she said. 

Khan said that there is a common assumption that the stepfathers or strangers are bad.

“The assumption in our minds that stepfathers and strangers are bad yet it’s the ones inside our home, the homes,’’ she said.

“78% of the perpetrators were immediate family members, grandfathers, fathers. The majority of them are brothers, fathers, grandfathers. Stepfathers only make up 7.5%,’’ said Khan.

She said that it is something the Solomon Islands could also look at in terms of conducting research and providing data on the ground to find out the root cause of increased child abuse, especially rape in the country.

“So, this is something the Solomon Islands can look at, like collecting data and doing some research, something similar to find out what causes child abuse in the community,’’ she said.