Bougainville parliament wrapping up ahead of election process
Photo:
Autonomous Bougainville Government
Bougainville President Ishmael Toroama says he is "committed to building a government that is efficient, accountable, and fully capable of leading Bougainville into the future."
Speaking to the final session of parliament, ahead of the
September elections
, he said that independence remains the ultimate goal of Bougainville's political leadership.
Toroama has, for the past five-year term, relied on a five-pronged strategy to achieve this goal.
This strategy, he said, aimed to establish control and create a society where citizens can become responsible and law-abiding.
He said economic development is a key part of this, with the "Anchoring Bougainville Economy" programme, with revenue generation far below the level needed for self reliance.
This allows the establishment of a Bougainville-owned investment registry, a restructure the Bougainville Tax office and a new independent taxation system.
It also includes "the responsible reopening of the Panguna mine which is a vital economic asset that holds the potential to sustain a significant portion of Bougainville's budget."
With an eye to the future, Toroama said the government has also been consciously grooming young people to step into more roles in the region's burgeoning bureaucracy.
He said "we are now working to transfer key powers from the national government to Bougainville so that we can manage our own services, develop our own policies and build a public service that truly understands and serves our communities."
Toroama said it is about "real, practical control of our schools, our health services, our economy and our laws."
"Our journey towards self-determination must be built on solid, long-term planning," he said.
"Our government has moved beyond short-term responses to focus on where we want Bougainville to be not just tomorrow, but in the years and decades ahead."
Toroama also talked of the issues Bougainville still faces, including the financial dependence in the Papua New Guinea national government.
He said law and order issues, especially armed groups who remain outside the formal peace framework, remains a major problem.
"Bougainville still carries the scars of unresolved historical grievances, and pockets of social division linger in some communities."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
44 minutes ago
- RNZ News
What you need to know about Regulations Review Committee and the new law undermining it
Labour MP Arena Williams chairing Parliament's Regulations Review Committee. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Among Parliament's many committees there is a small cross-partisan powerhouse that receives scant attention. Unlike the 12 subject committees, it isn't a regular forum for critiques of government bills or finance. Unlike Privileges it isn't about scandal and politics, unlike Petitions it doesn't regularly bring human emotion into Parliament. The Regulations Review Committee is small, calm and cooperative. It is like Parliament's off-field referee; a committee for the legal nerd and the constitutional swot. It inspects the government's use of its delegated powers to weed out government overreach. But the Regulatory Standards Bill proposed by ACT leader David Seymour would duplicate and likely undermine its role, by giving a regulation oversight role to a government-appointed group . Recently on The House we reported a briefing to the Reg's Review Committee (as MPs describe it), about the proposed law. As a follow-up we wanted to discuss the committee itself with the MPs that run it, so we met with the leaders of the committee to discuss its purpose, powers, history and how it's responding to the new challenge. By convention, Reg's Review is chaired by an Opposition MP-currently Labour's Arena Williams. The Deputy Chair is National MP Nancy Lu. Rather than acting as political rivals, they operate as a team. "Most of the committee's power is… because it's cross-partisan," Williams said. "I mean, that's what's important here, that we are able-me and Nancy-to work together, to chair the committee in a way which gets buy-in from everyone around the table." Regulations Review manages this cross-partisan approach because its fundamental drive is not about policy, but good law. "Basically, we want good lawmaking," Nancy Lu said, "and we want ministers and departments who have the power to make regulations, to actually make good use of their power and make good regulations for New Zealanders… Sometimes things come to us because there may be inappropriate use of the power (in making regulations), or there are complaints from New Zealanders. And therefore it is our job to look at it bipartisan[ly] and with one common purpose-which is better good lawmaking." National Party MPs Joseph Mooney & Nancy Lu in Parliament's Regulations Review Committee. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith When governments want to change the law in New Zealand they have to ask parliaments to do that. Parliament is sovereign, government is only a subset of Parliament. But primary legislation (the Acts that parliament agrees) can't possibly include all the necessary details for efficient government, so laws often delegate authority to ministers or their departments, to specify or update legislative details later. Those post-hoc details are regulations. "Most New Zealanders will come up against the law," Williams said, "but it'll actually be in regulations. "…So if you've ever tried to, say, install a toilet in your bathroom, you will have run up against what's in the building code. "It's not actually in the primary legislation, but that building code has a big impact on your life." The law that delegates that authority to make regulations is agreed by the House, but the regulations themselves are not approved by the House before coming into force. The Regulations Review Committee fills that gap. It tests existing regulations, and any proposed laws that give regulation-making power. Anyone can make a complaint to the committee about a regulation. The committee can investigate regulations and recommend that the House strike them down ("disallow" them). The committee was created in 1986 in the parliamentary reforms of Labour's Geoffrey Palmer. It was a Labour campaign promise, deemed necessary because Robert Muldoon's National Party government had been using vastly powerful regulations to achieve things that ought to have been approved by Parliament. Things like wage freezes, price fixing and carless days. "Regulation-making was getting to be seen by the public as an overreach in itself," Williams said. "The power of the Executive was seen as a bit out of control. Your fruit and your vegetables, your trip in your car. It was all heavily regulated." The solution was to bring Parliament back into the equation. Williams described the response in 1985 to "out of control" regulation as: "a power for elected officials (who get chosen every three years by their communities), to actually strike that [bad regulation] down. "And so that's what the disallowance power is about. …It was enabling this …pressure valve… to turn off some of that overregulation." In fact very few regulations have been disallowed over the years. This is because the committee - being bi-partisan - tends to opt for soft-power, getting ministers to change poor regulations without resorting to the House by spotting the potential for regulatory over-reach within bills under debate. Williams agreed that soft-power was opted for by the committee. "Ding, ding, bingo! …That's 100 percent true. Most of the committee's power is soft power because it's cross-partisan. "I mean, that's the importance here, is that we are able, me and Nancy, to work together, to chair the committee in a way, which gets buy-in from everyone around the table." Asked whether it might be bad for a new National MP's career-prospects to point out the missteps of senior colleagues who were Ministers, both Lu and Williams laughed. "Great question," Williams said. "Most of the feedback that we have received from our ministers and ministries have been actually quite positive," Lu said. "You know, mostly 'hey, thanks for letting us know. We didn't realise that, but now we know', and… 'we'll make it better next time'. "I think that's what makes the… committee powerful and very unique in its way," Lu said. "And I think it's needed, because we want to make sure that we are using our powers within the appropriate realms and to make sure that we're setting good laws. "So maybe hopefully by calling them out, or by investigation, we can make it better in that way." Green MP Lawrence Xu-Nan in Parliament's Regulations Review Committee. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Reg's Review is, on paper, one of Parliament's smallest committees, with just five MPs. Three from National and two from Labour. Despite the official membership, recent changes to parliament's rules allow MPs to attend and participate in select committees they are not official members of. A recent Reg's Review meeting included Labour's Vanushi Walters, and apparently Green MP Lawrence Xu-Nan attended often. Williams, as Chair, had a more-the-better philosophy. "It's getting harder in an MMP environment, when we have minor parties that have more sway in any executive government agenda, or indeed, in opposition politics. "It is really great that we have Dr Xu-Nan from the Greens coming along to every meeting and participating in that. "We don't have an ACT member who comes to the committee. And we need more of this ability as parliamentarians to come together and go, 'hang on, does this regulation make sense? Let's do something about it if it doesn't.' " ACT's absence is notable. ACT's brand includes being the natural enemy of bad regulation, but they neither have representation on, nor attend the one parliamentary committee tasked and equipped to fight against it. ACT have instead chosen a different approach, one which may threaten Reg's Review. Their coalition agreement with National includes the passing of a Regulatory Standards Bill, something previous ACT parties have tried and failed to achieve. The bill would, among other things, create an external Regulatory Standards Board, appointed by the Minister for Regulation (currently David Seymour). At first glance, the Board's task appears similar to the current Reg's Review Committee, but it is not. The Board does not have the same powers - it cannot refer regulation to the House to be disallowed. It is a creature of the Executive, not Parliament, and so is on the government side of the governance relationship. It also has a very different idea of what bad law looks like. The new Board would evaluate legislation and regulation against a set of principles embedded in its enabling legislation. The principles consider the effect of legislation on: "existing interests and liberties, including the rule of law, liberties, taking of property, taxes, fees and levies, and the role of courts; and good law-making processes, including consultation, options analysis and cost-benefit analysis." The bill contains a much more detailed list of these principles. While the Board's inquiries could be self-determined, they would also be "in response to stakeholder concerns" and ministerial "direction". The Regs Review Committee also has a list of principles to judge good law-making against. The grounds for referring regulations back to the House are outlined in Standing Order 327. The grounds are that the secondary legislation: While there are concepts that appear in some form in both sets of principles, one set of principles appears focused on good legislative form within constitutional boundaries while the other includes more political philosophy. Regulations Review Committee Chair, Arena Williams said the committee had been "thinking deeply" about the proposed law's impact on the committee's powers, place and processes. She said the prospect of another competing entity was "pretty challenging". Arena said the two bodies appeared similar, but her committee "has this special constitutional place, and traditions that have been built up over many years around the way that we consider whether regulations are doing what they say they will do 'on the tin'." She said MPs had an advantage over appointed board officials, as they represented the affected community. "They get to put us back into Parliament (or not) every three years. …and it makes us all quite focused on… things like, 'how does this really affect someone's life?' "It will ultimately be this committee and the Standing Orders Committee (which proposes changes to Parliament's rules) which have to make some decisions and probably some accommodations …about how to work alongside [each other]. "But ultimately I would say that in our constitutional framework as it is now, that [Reg's Review] has a sort of system of constitutional preference about how it should engage in those issues." That constitutional preference comes from the fact that Regs Review is an instrument of Parliament (which is sovereign). The Regulatory Standards Board would be an instrument of the Executive, which is subservient to Parliament. "I really want to see the Regulations Review Committee as [something that] we can agree as parliamentarians, including ACT members, …is a special part of our constitutional framework. "I think New Zealand is on the good stuff here, when we've got parliamentarians …earnestly and diligently work[ing] through secondary legislation from the perspective of how it's affecting our communities. That's really special. "If [David Seymour] is [saying] there is too much regulation and that there's not a strong enough mechanism to disallow regulations, then this [committee] is the place where I think we should be focussing our attention. "[He should be putting that energy into improving the current] mechanism, so that it is parliamentarians-who are accountable to the people-who are ultimately making the decisions." RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ.
RNZ News
20 hours ago
- RNZ News
New Tesla owners get refund after Bosplus salesman Bojia Liu misleads them about self-driving capability
By Jeremy Wilkinson, Open Justice reporter of Tesla Model 3. Photo: AFP / Xinhua News Agency A couple has won a refund after their new Tesla failed to "drive like a robot" as the salesman promised it would when he sold it to them. Jiahui Wang and Yuxuan Li purchased the 2020 Tesla Model 3 for $44,000 earlier this year from Bosplus Ltd in Auckland on the assurance that it had Full Self Driving (FSD) capability. This feature, contrary to its name, does not allow the car to drive itself but identifies stop signs and traffic lights and automatically slows the vehicle. Regardless, Wang and Li's Tesla didn't have this program installed, despite the salesman, Bojia Liu, assuring them it did. Liu assured them that during a trip he did from Auckland to Tauranga in a similar car, it could "drive like a robot" and he barely had needed to touch the steering wheel at all. "In other words, by spending an extra $6000, you get an additional 100km of range, 100 more horsepower, all-wheel drive, and the Full Self-Driving feature," he told them by text message when they asked why the model they were looking at was more expensive than other Tesla vehicles. When Wang and Li discovered that the car they'd purchased didn't have this function, and couldn't be charged at many charging stations in New Zealand, they took Bosplus to the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal to get a full refund. At a hearing held earlier this year Bosplus, represented by Liu, admitted he'd copied the information about FSD capability from Tesla's official website onto the advertisement for the vehicle and wasn't aware it didn't have it. Instead, the Tesla had autopilot, which matches speed to surrounding traffic and assists with lane steering, and advanced autopilot, which helps with parallel parking, lane changes and navigating interchanges. Tesla confirmed with the couple that their model could not be fitted with FSD. Tesla also confirmed that the car was a Japanese import and had a different charging port, which could be changed but would result in slower charging of its battery. Tribunal adjudicator Crystal Euden said in a recently released ruling that Bosplus had been misleading in selling the vehicle. "Bosplus clearly represented that the vehicle had FSD capabilities, specifically Tesla's Traffic Light and Stop Sign Control functions," she said. "Although a third party may be able to configure the vehicle to enable those features, they are not currently available on the vehicle." Euden said she was confident the buyers wouldn't have purchased the vehicle if they'd known it didn't have the advertised features. "Liu specifically told the purchasers that the vehicle was more expensive because it had these features, but that was not the case," she said. Euden ordered that Bosplus refund the couple entirely. - This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald
RNZ News
a day ago
- RNZ News
What happens if my partner dies without a will?
RNZ money correspondent Susan Edmunds answers your questions. Photo: RNZ Got questions? RNZ is launching a new podcast, No Stupid Questions with Susan Edmunds, next month. We'd love to hear more of your questions about money and the economy. You can send through written questions, like these ones, but - even better - you can drop us a voice memo to our email questions@ What is the situation with joint property and joint bank accounts, when someone dies without a will? I have been living with my partner since the late 1980s. Our house, main bank accounts and one car are in both names. Our latest car - bought last year from joint bank accounts - could only be registered in his name, due to changes in NZTA rules. I have a separate bank account in my name, which has a small amount of inherited money. He also has a separate bank account with some money from his family and a few shares in his name, which were acquired through his work. Many years ago, I was told that if either of us died, then any assets in joint names would go to the surviving partner. We have not made wills, have no children, my parents have both died and his father has died, but recently, I saw that if someone has a spouse or partner, and parents, but no children, the spouse received the personal effects, $155,000 and two-thirds of what is left. The deceased person's parents get the remaining third. That means, if I die first, all I have goes to him, which is what I want, but if my partner dies before me, does his remaining parent inherit a third of our house (meaning I will need to sell it, as I do not have funds to buy her out in my 60s), plus a third of our two cars, a third of our joint bank account money, and a third of his KiwiSaver, private superannuation, bank accounts, insurance payouts and shares in his name? His mother is in residential care with dementia and already has enough funds to cover her care for decades. I am worried I may become homeless. What is the situation with joint property and joint bank accounts, when someone dies? As a starting point, it might be re-assuring to note that assets that you hold in a joint name would pass to you, so if you own your house jointly, it would be yours, if your partner died. I went to Public Trust principal trustee Michelle Pope for more detail to answer the rest of your question. She said, when someone died, their estate would be distributed according to the Administration Act. "In the writer's case, if they die first without a will, their entire estate would pass to their partner, as they have no children or surviving parents," she said. "Assets held in joint names, listed by the writer as the house, main bank accounts and a car, will automatically pass to the surviving partner. However, it's important to confirm whether the property is legally owned jointly or in equal/unequal shares. "If it's jointly owned, it will pass by survivorship. If not, the deceased's share will need to be administered as part of their estate, which can add complexity. "If the writer's partner dies first without a will and has a surviving parent, Section 77(3) of the Administration Act 1969 applies. In this scenario, the writer would receive all personal chattels (including the car solely owned by the partner), a prescribed amount of $155,000 plus interest and two-thirds of the remaining estate. "The surviving parent would receive the remaining one-third of the estate. For clarity, the assets owned solely by the partner would appear to be a bank account, some shares, KiwiSaver, private superannuation and insurance. "Given the house is owned jointly, the writer can expect that the house will pass to them by what's called 'survivorship' in legal language and will not form part of their partner's estate. "It goes without saying that I'd encourage the writer and their partner to create wills. A will that clearly outlines their wishes can help remove any uncertainty when a person dies and can make the estate administration process a lot easier for loved ones." Having separated earlier this year, I chose to move out of the family home where my ex still resides. She is paying the mortgage, refuses to pay the house insurance or rates etc. the roof is leaking and she refuses to agree to making repairs, the ceiling is now ruined and mouldy. Though she has indicated she wishes to buy me out, she has not shared any form of offer or plan. She now refuses to engage in any form of correspondence at all. My questions - how do I go about necessary repairs to the house and how do I get her to move out, so that the house can be sold? Online research seems to point to tenancy/landlord situations which don't apply in this case. Is it actually just time for a lawyer to sort this out? Yes, I think the best - and really only - way to deal with this is to go to a lawyer as soon as possible. Can you please answer some questions about the way supermarkets operate. If I deliberately deceive customers, it's called deception. If I deliberately load, unload prices to make you think you are getting a better deal when you are not, this is manipulation to enhance your profit. Surely both of the above are profiteering and fraudulent. Supermarkets - and all retailers - have rules they have to comply with, when it comes to discounting, and it is illegal for businesses to mislead shoppers about prices. You can complain to the Commerce Commission, if you think someone has got it wrong. There is a lot of focus on supermarket pricing at the moment and Consumer NZ has been vocal about the current regime not being effective enough. It is calling for tougher penalties and infringement notice powers. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
