scoping statement final

SCOPING STATEMENT
ACCESSIBLE ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK
Lukas Southorn: 13332547
Bachelor of Global Studies (Sustainability)

Table of Contents
Section 00 – Executive Summary...........................................................................................................................................................1
Section 01 – Project Brief..........................................................................................................................................................................3
Section 01_1 – Personal Bio....................................................................................................................................................3
Section 01_2 - Scope .................................................................................................................................................................3
Section 01_2_1 – Scope Inclusions.....................................................................................................................4
Section 01_2_2 – Scope Exclusions....................................................................................................................4
Section 01_3 – Project Relevant Stakeholders ...............................................................................................................5
Section 01_4 - Deliverables.....................................................................................................................................................6
Section01_5 – Project Assumptions and Constraints..................................................................................................7
Section 02 - Vision........................................................................................................................................................................................8
Section 02_1 – An extended Vision .....................................................................................................................................9
Section 02_2 – National Context Overview...................................................................................................................10
Section 02_2_1 – National Context (Geopolitics) ....................................................................................11
Section 02_2_2 – National Context (Corruption) .....................................................................................12
Section 02_3 – Regional Context (Corruption) ..........................................................................................................15
Section 03 - Justification.........................................................................................................................................................................18
Section 03_1 – Justification due to Current Climate .................................................................................................19
Section 03_2 – Challenges to the Corruption Climate..............................................................................................21
Section 03_3 – The Anti-Corruption Bill (2016) ..........................................................................................................22
Section 03_4 – The Whistleblowers Protection Bill (2016) ....................................................................................24
Section 04 – Influencing Designs........................................................................................................................................................25
Section 05 – Closing Statement ...........................................................................................................................................................26
Section 06 – References .........................................................................................................................................................................27

SECTION 00 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This scoping statement has been prepared in order to provide theoretical and factual backing to a
designed Accessible Anti-Corruption Framework, to be utilized and distributed throughout
regional areas, such as Kirakira, within the Solomon Islands. Following research and stakeholder
analysis conducted by a Bond University student, this Framework hopes to denote negative
stigma surrounding anti-corruption within the Solomon Islands and make anti-corruption
measures more accessible for average Solomon Islanders.
Following the criteria outlined in SSUD13-300_162: Capstone Project, documents of this nature
usually follow a built environment process, to which the final deliverable is a physical entity that
has immediate and long term benefits for the Kirakira community. Due to the nature of this
project, while the final deliverable has a physical form, its physical presence is less. As a result,
the scoping document has been altered from traditional models to include a more theoretical and
‘soft, liberal science’ foundation.
This document will feature a project brief, which will outline the traditional questions and modus
operandi underpinning the final deliverable as well as relevant project stakeholders, project
specific constraints, assumptions and a hypothesized vision statement. This document will also
highlight the physical and intangible project variables, underpinned by research and first-hand
findings as well as justification on the appropriateness of the project’s application. It will also
evaluate alternative designs and influences upon the final deliverable and provide comparative
case study analysis in similar political and social zones.
With the possibilities of wider implementation of study conducted by Bond University students
and the potential for expanded university connections with the Kirakira community, this project
makes a sound case for further enhancing the importance of not only a widening of accepted
research areas, but also the inclusion of the Faculty of Society and Design and the University as a
whole.

RECURRING DISCUSSIONS BY MANY
SOLOMON ISLANDERS ON THE TOPIC OF
CORRUPTION CALLS FOR MORE PUBLIC
CONVERSATIONS THAT SHOULD BE
AIMED AT PROVOKING LONG AND
LASTING SOLUTIONS ABLE TO CURTAIL
TO SCOURGE IT BRINGS UPON ALL OF
SOCIETY
Sgt. Agnes Ape – Makira/Ulawa Provincial
Corruption Commission

SECTION 01 – PROJECT BRIEF
The Accessible Anti-Corruption Framework Scoping Statement aims to provide legitimacy and
theory to the eventual deliverable of said Framework. In this section, the project author and
scope will be further analyzed, as well as the inclusion and exclusion variables of the
Framework. This section will also examine the relevant project stakeholders and will conclude
with further analysis of eventual project deliverables and potential constraints and assumptions.
SECTION 01_1 – PERSONAL BIO
Lukas Southorn is in his final semester at Bond University,
undertaking a Bachelor of Global Studies (Sustainability). During his
studies, Lukas has been active in a logistical and physical role,
assisting the Kununurra Project, working in remote Western
Australia with indigenous communities. Throughout his studies, he
has worked specifically on region building, conflict negotiation and
sustainable living practices, giving him the ability to critically assess
foreign regions in either a social, political or environmental lens.
SECTION 01_2 - SCOPE
While the purpose of the document as a whole is to act as a supporting scoping paper, the
dimensions of the scope needs to be clarified, as well as, the various aspects that are deemed
necessary and unnecessary. This preliminary scoping acts as a means to provide authenticity and
validity to the final deliverable, and potentially eliminate any queries in regards to the
deliverable.

SECTION 01_2_1 – SCOPE INCLUSIONS
The scope for the Accessible Anti-Corruption Framework document includes the following
aspects:
 Detailed analysis of the past and current corruption status of the larger Solomon Islands
state.
 Detailed analysis of the past and current corruption issues plaguing the localized area of
Kirakia, Makira-Ulawa Province.
 Cross-examination of most relevant anti-corruption legislation yet to be passed by the
Provincial government.
 Pooling and use of most relevant primary and secondary sources obtained in Kirakira.
 Culturally appropriate designs and alternatives to be utilized for the final deliverable.
 Recommendations to be used in conjunction with the final deliverable which assists
policy makers in determining future actions and further co-dependence with the existing
Ombudsman infrastructure.
SECTION 01_2_2 – SCOPE EXCLUSIONS
The scope for the Accessible Anti-Corruption Framework document will exclude the following
aspects:
 Any official authorization by either the Solomon Islands Provincial Government, the
Australian Governments Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade nor the Australian
Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands (RAMSI).
 A method on how to universally stop corruption at its roots.
 A method on how to set up post-completion monitoring systems.
 Publication and distribution costs and benefits analysis including a rudimentary budget.

SECTION 01_3 – PROJECT RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS
Stakeholder Stakeholder
Area
Position Interests
Hon. Silas V. Tausinga Makira-Ulawa
Provincial
Government
Minister As Minister of
Provincial
Government and
Institutional
Strengthening,
Hon Tausinga has
a direct vested
interest in projects
concerning the
Province.
Stanley D. Pirione Makira-Ulawa
Provincial
Government
Permanent
Secretary
As the right hand
man of the
Provincial
Minister, Pirione
runs day-to-day
operations
concerning
Kirakira projects.
Sgt. Agnes Ape Makira-Ulawa
Provincial
Corruption
Commission
Investigator Sgt. Ape provided
useful evidence
and
recommendations
regarding
corruption at a
localized level.
Sgt. John
Doliarno
Makira-Ulawa
Provincial
Corruption
Commission
Investigator Sgt. Doliarno provided useful
evidence and recommendations
regarding corruption at a localized
level.
Mr. Jon Parapa Provincial
Ombudsman
Office
Ombudsman
representative
As the official Ombudsman
representative, Parapa by default
observes all things corrupt in the
Makira-Ulawa province.
Jon-Paul Hogan Bond University Supervisor Mr. Hogan acts as direct supervisor to
the project.
Lukas Southorn Bond University Project Head Mr. Southorn is the author and
project lead for the final deliverable.
Kirakira
Community
Makira-Ulawa
Province
Community
members
The intended target audience for the
deliverable.

SECTION 01_4 – DELIVERABLES
First Deliverable: Accessible Anti-Corruption Framework Scoping Statement – DUE Friday
24th
of June.
This initial deliverable acts as the theoretical backbone to the third deliverable and details the
project brief and variables, the justification, design and influences of the project and its potential
to be cross-referenced against other case studies.
Second Deliverable: Accessible Anti-Corruption Framework Scoping Statement Presentation –
DUE Wednesday 23rd
of June.
The second deliverable will be the Scoping Statement realigned in a presentation sense,
presented to colleagues also working on Capstone projects. The 15-20 minute presentation acts
as an informal draft of the Scoping Statement and serves as a platform for feedback from both
the project supervisor and Capstone colleagues.
Third Deliverable: Accessible Anti-Corruption Framework – DUE Monday 25TH
of July.
The third deliverable is considered the most vital part of the project and is the literal Accessible
Anti-Corruption Framework. It will be a culturally appropriate and accessible document that
compounds relevant information and legislation into a handbook designed to be handed out to all
socio-economic groups located in regional Makira-Ulawa zones.

Fourth Deliverable: Accessible Anti-Corruption Framework Presentation – DUE Monday 1st
of
August.
The twenty minute presentation will outline the design influences and specifications of the third
deliverable and will provide an in-depth analysis of the final product. It serves as a guide to the
purpose of the third deliverable and can be used as a platform to answer any queries regarding
the final product from the Project Supervisor and fellow Capstone colleagues.
SECTION 01_5 – PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS AND CONSTRAINTS
ASSUMPTIONS CONSTRAINTS
Due to the nature of the information gathered in
Kirakira and the lack of approved authority of the
project lead, researching a topic that usually
requires said authority, it is assumed that the
information provided to the project lead is true
and unbiased.
The major constraint to the project is its reference
to both the Anti-Corruption Bill 2016 and the
Whistleblowers Protection Bill 2016, as both
Bills have not yet been passed through
Parliament. As a result, it becomes a constraint as
a possibility exists that both Bills are denied.
It is assumed that in combatting corruption, the
Ombudsman office is in fact, clean of corruption.
As a result of this assumption, the third
deliverable of this project will be constructed to
assist existing Ombudsman infrastructure.
Another constraint is the inability to have first-
hand correspondence with the intended audience
post completion of the deliverable. It would
provide further information for continued
research.
It is assumed that the intended audience either
has a limited or working proficiency ability to
read English language, and if this is not the case,
has the ability to interpret graphs, images,
cartoons and infographics.
Due to the nature of the intended audience being
broad, and from a variety of socio-economic
groups, language becomes a constraint. Different
regional dialects, translation drawbacks from
Pijin to English, creates constraints to making the
Accessible Anti-Corruption Framework, truly
accessible.
It is assumed that the third deliverable of this
project will be embraced by its intended audience
and will not be neglected due to its production
from a Western perspective. It is also assumed
that should the deliverable be rotated throughout
the Solomon Islands, that it used appropriately
and in a positive, informative sense.
It is assumed that any information gathered for
the Accessible Anti-Corruption Framework and
its partner Scoping Statement has originated from
credible and valid sources.
It is assumed that any reference to information
gained in Kirakira used in these deliverables are
to be published with the consent of the authorities
and will not jeopardize any current
investigations.

THE ACCESSIBLE ANTI-
CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK
ACTS AS MODEL TO
EDUCATE SOLOMON
ISLANDERS, IN A
SUSTAINABLE MANNER,
WHO ARE SEEKING
INFORMATION ON HOW TO
COMBAT THE ISSUE OF
CORRUPTION.
IT PROVIDES A MEANS TO
BREAK DOWN BARRIERS
AND NEGATIVE
CONNOTATIONS
SURROUNDING THE ANTI-
CORRUPTION DEBATE,
WHILE AT ITS CORE,
INFLUENCING THINKERS TO
ACTIVELY INVESTIGATE THE
ISSUE.
VISION

SECTION 02_1 – AN EXTENDED VISION
The Accessible Anti-Corruption Framework is a response to stakeholder engagement within the
regional area of Kirakira. After discussions around the potential for a built-environment
Capstone Project hit practicality walls, focusing on the area of sustainable water catchment
techniques, it was inevitably deemed counter-productive due to a lack of basic tier one
infrastructure, a lack of demand from the target audience and an over-supply of existing research,
a different stance was taken in order to overcome these issues.
Due to the nature of the primary researcher’s discipline, it was deemed that his knowledge could
be put to a better use by investigating the run-off effects of systemic corruption, as it was
suggested through consultation with local business owners. As a result, it became the purpose of
the primary researcher to collaborate on a local level, while simultaneously researching at a
national level to create an accessible, yet factually grounded anti-corruption framework that
yielded educational benefits to the intended audience.
The Accessible Anti-Corruption Framework acts as model to educate Solomon Islanders, in a
sustainable manner, who are seeking information on how to combat the issue of corruption. It
provides a means to break down barriers and negative connotations surrounding the anti-
corruption debate, while at its core, influencing thinkers to actively investigate the issue.
At a national level, it is widely reported that corruption touches almost all aspects of society.
From governments and financial institutions, trade union disputes and border control,
transnational crime and more personal, domestic issues. Designing a framework that can assist
the average Solomon Islander in what constitutes a corrupt practice through a study of
legislation, and can inform Solomon Islanders on the variety of issues that corruption can bring
upon them, has the potential to either directly assist rural communities, or existing Ombudsman
infrastructures.
In doing this, the proposed deliverable will provide the means to not enforce Western ideals of
anti-corruption practices, but instead, educate local peoples on their own individual power and
the power of a collective.

SECTION 02_2 – NATIONAL CONTEXT OVERVIEW
Former British protectorate, the Solomon Islands is an archipelago that has struggled to
effectively self-govern since its independence in 1978. “Ethnic violence, government
malfeasance, endemic crime, and a narrow economic base have undermined stability and civil
society” (the world factbook, 2010). As a response to the issues plaguing the Solomon Islands,
the then Prime Minister, Sir Allan Kemakeza, signaled for regional assistance, answered by the
then Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, in the formation of the Regional Assistance
Mission to the Solomon Islands (RAMSI) which largely assisted in restoring civil order and the
formation of sustainable governing bodies.
The bulk of economic activity revolves around subsistence agriculture, fishing and export of
forested goods and basic commodities. The islands, while aesthetic in their appeal, hold minimal
natural and rare resources and populations are localized to coastal zones with minimal access
available to rural and mountainous areas. In the height of ethnic conflict and violence, “through
the closure of many key businesses and an empty government treasury, [the Solomon Islands
minimal existing economic infrastructure] culminated in an economic collapse” (the world
factbook, 2010). As of today, due to the moderate success of RAMSI, economic systems are
largely restored and the Solomon Islands is no longer considered a region where economic
growth was considered impossible.
Currently, the RAMSI mission to the Solomon Islands is largely logistical, with few remaining
officers stationed in the archipelago.
Historically, Australia and the Solomon Islands have had a strong relationship, fostered largely
by its involvement as a ‘hot zone’ in the Second World War, where decisive battles were fought
against a scouting Japanese army. Today, the Solomon Islands maintains trade relations with
Southeast Asian nations and has high investment portfolios originating from mainland China. It
also is a strong voice in its localized region, regularly participating in discussion forums
concerning Pacific island nations.
The majority of Solomon Islanders are ethnically Melanesian with Polynesian and Micronesian
ethnic groups rounding out the demographic. While English is the official language, the majority
of the population speaks a form of Solomons Pijin.

SECTION 02_2_1 – NATIONAL CONTEXT (GEOPOLITICS)
The Solomon Islands lies geopolitically in what is a turbulent and complex shatter belt. It finds
itself between “a densely populated and economically unstable Asia, where religious difference
have resurfaced in political terms, and a highly developed, urbanized and thinly populated
Australian continent” (Connell, 2006). Tensions in this ‘arc of instability’, have their ties to
colonial legacy and post-independence, often contributing to underperforming economies,
uneven development, corruption and ethnic disputes.
On the mainland islands of the Solomon Island belt, issues with management of government
systems, unsustainable building practices, land disputes and an increasingly high disconnected
rural population has left the archipelago in a state of geopolitical malnutrition. Findings from
1997 attributed “the colonial legacy, external resource exploitation and intrinsic geographical and
cultural fragmentation of multi-island States have meant that development has been difficult to
achieve and manage” (Bonnemaison and Waddell, 1997).
Figure 1: Map of the Solomon Islands
Through what has been a tumultuous recent history, critical issues do remain in the Solomon
Islands, to which existing foreign aid and RAMSI assistance can do little. The country’s small
size and separated population make it difficult to enact overarching policies and change, and
social issues are apparent in all provinces. However, it is crucial to understand that much of what
is valued in Melanesian life is fundamentally different to what is valued in a Western life, for
instance, “a sense of community in association with a particular tract of land… a rough equality
of material conditions, reciprocity and some degree of control over the means of production.
Such values and virtues that have enabled localized autonomy and self-reliance are not readily

transferable into a more globalized world” (McDougall, 2005). In short, what may seem like a
straightforward issue/solution scenario to Western policymakers, has more weight and unseen
variables in the context of the Solomon Islands.
SECTION 02_2_2 – NATIONAL CONTEXT (CORRUPTION)
Corruption is not a new threat that needs to be counteracted in the Solomon Islands, it is inherent
and systemic, and is on the rise. For like most developing countries, corruption is often left
unmonitored due to a lack of accountability and transparency at national and provincial
government levels, within businesses and foreign investment, and also between local groups.
Joses Tuhanku, former Opposition Spokesman for Forests, Environment and Conservation in
Solomon Islands describes it as so:
“when there is corruption in the public service, and someone is promoted not on merit but
for other reasons, it means the country is not being served by the best possible person.
When a license is issued to a logging company or a fishing concern, not on merit but for
other reasons, the country loses the revenue to which it is legally entitled. When ministers
and officials who are charged with the responsibility of protecting the nation’s economic
interests make decisions which are in their personal interest and not that of the country’s,
we lose control over our own resources. When a member of parliament crosses the floor,
not on a point of principle but because they have been bought, our sovereignty is
compromised, our nation is diminished and our system of government made a mockery
of” (Tuhanku, 1995).
The current corruption climate within the Solomon Islands as a whole extends across most
financially driven models and destabilizes the standing economic infrastructure. Natural resource
management is considered to be particularly vulnerable, with problems of corruption particularly
identified in the forestry sector.
For the Solomon Islands, existing anti-corruption efforts are hampered by weak government
capacity and limited opportunities for public interaction.
In fact, the issue of corruption can be framed in a wider, regional context. Statistics from
specialized anti-corruption agencies and public opinion surveys provide evidence of corruption
in many countries of the region, including PNG, Fiji and Vanuatu. “But limited to the Solomon
Islands chain, a pilot survey carried out in 2006 found that 62 % of respondents in rural areas and
46 % in urban areas believed that their government was corrupt” (Barcham, 2007).

Sectors most affected by corruption in the Solomon Islands
SECTOR DETAILS
Natural Resources Management Risks associated with extractive services and
the forestry sector. As well as this, as foreign
fishing access agreements accounts for large
parts of the Solomon Island’s economic
activity, corruption in this area is also
becoming an issue.
Public Services As diverse as health, education, retirement
funds, police, port and customs
administration.
Public Financial Management Issues with ‘ghost funds’, and a lack of fiscal
transparency. Issues surrounding spending
controls, reporting and external audits.
Corruption in Aid The Solomon Islands is semi-dependent on
foreign aid and due to the scale and free-flow
nature of said aid, corruption becomes an
issue. Aid modalities can also contribute to
undermining public accountability. For
instance, Taiwan has provided large sums of
money to the Solomon Islands, yet to directly
to members of Parliament with hardly any
adequate accountability mechanism in place.
Transnational crimes While drug production is believed to remain
limited, the presence of illicit drugs is
facilitated through weak security systems
exploited by transnational criminal networks.
Currently the main non-governmental organization working in anti-corruption efforts is the
Solomon Islands Transparency International chapter, which acts as an advocacy, education and
monitoring body working in conjunction with both national and provincial governments.

Edmund Burke
Nobody made a greater mistake than
he who did nothing because he could
only do a little.
The official tagline for the Striving for
a corruption-free Solomon Islands
Facebook group.

SECTION 02_3 – REGIONAL CONTEXT (CORRUPTION)
While the scope of this study is designed to be applied across the Solomon Islands, the majority
of research conducted was specialized within the town of Kirakira, located in the Makira –
Ulawa province. Here, things are systemically ‘simpler’ than in the capital of the Solomon
Islands, Honiara. Kirakira has limited built infrastructure in comparison to Honiara, and
naturally, a lower direct population. However, it is a good case example to the far-reaching
effects of corruption within the Solomon Islands, as corrupt practices and anti-corruption
sentiment is present.
Figure 2: Posters in the Ombudsman Office
Images like the one in Figure 2, can be found within local administrative buildings, such as the
Post Office, where this photo was taken. Here, in comparison to Honiara, there is a larger, and
more informal anti-corruption movement. The image portrays laborers and family members
dismayed by their provincial government, withholding communal funds to their own financial
benefit.
Other images adorn the walls, such as the one below, which highlights the disparity between
socio-economic groups. Mr. John Parapa, the local Ombudsman representative and sole

employee of the Kirakira post office commented on his makeshift posters in an interview with
the Project Head, scripted below.
Project Head: John, what can you tell me about the pictures around your desk?
Parapa: (laughs) Oh I made these myself. This one shows the difference between a politicians
child, and say, a fisherman’s child..
Project Head: That the child of the politician has more money?
Parapa: Not just more money, but more opportunities and a better life. And it is not because they
work harder, or they got this money for being better people. They stole this money. They stole
this money from the people who need it most… the people who have not enough money for
food!
Project Head: And this is the case for all politicians in the Solomon Islands?
Parapa: Maybe not all of them, but this is what we all think.
Figure 3: Further images found in the Ombudsman Office
Sentiments expressed by Mr. Parapa are not uncommon in rural areas of the Solomon Islands. It
extends to an angry majority, but legitimacy to corruption claims are often overshadowed by
personal gain. The current taboo surrounding the word corruption, heavily influenced by local
papers, has led to Solomon Islanders claiming corruption for instances in which they feel
personally wronged. As a result of this, ‘cry wolf’ phenomenon, the Office of the Ombudsman is

set up to deal with corruption allegations. In Figures 4 and 5, there are examples of the existing
formal process one would follow should they wish to make a claim against a corrupt official.
Figures 4 and 5: Official Ombudsman inquiry forms.
The existing Ombudsman structure acts as a means to highlight corruption allegations and
provides a method to identify potentially corrupt officials. However, the major drawback to this
process is that it lacks any regulatory enforcing power – meaning that should the Ombudsman
confirm that a corruption allegation is true, no legislative power exists for the Office of the
Ombudsman to carry out corruption charges. As a result of this void, particularly in a rural
context, corruption matters sent to the Office of the Ombudsman, very rarely, if ever reach a
stage that requires further investigation. As a result, private mediation is often used as a means to
seek compensation from corruption but can often lead to instances of localized violence and
exacerbates the issue.

SECTION 03 - JUSTIFICATION
In order to achieve the most sustainable and intended outcome for the deliverable, a deliverable
that could be accessible and informative across all islands within the Solomon Island chain, a
detailed justification of the current corruption climate and potential anti-corruption legislation
needs to be established. In providing this analysis, the Project Head has consulted with both local
stakeholders, including members of the police force, public servants, businessman, and laborers
while also conducting a large amount of analytical research regarding the issue of corruption
within the Solomon Islands.
The factors in this justification not only consider the direct causes and examples for an
Accessible Anti-Corruption Framework, but also the potential for evolution and change through
amendments in the enforcing legislative bodies, which could positively influence the final
deliverable of the project.
The justification, in conjunction with the context sections, essentially becomes the underlying
theory, or ‘how to’, that leads to the formation of the final deliverables.

SECTION 03_1 – JUSTIFICATION DUE TO CURRENT CLIMATE
It is the hope of this Scoping Statement, that it provides relevant and substantial justification of
the current corruption climate within the Solomon Islands, which requires the need for an
Accessible Anti- Corruption Framework.
Recurring discussions by many Solomon Islanders on the topic of corruption calls for more
public conversations that should be aimed at provoking long and lasting solutions able to curtail
the negative economical and societal effects that it brings. “Officially, corruption within the
Solomon Islands is referred to as defined by stipulations of the Penal Code, Part X, sections 91-
101” (Larmour, 2009). But in current times, the term has been extensively used to describe acts
of bribery and self-gain especially by politicians, yet what is really being insinuated falls under
‘political corruption’. Unfortunately, for the Solomon Islands, there are many forms of
corruption not necessarily only of political nature. It seems unfortunate the terms become
distorted in street-speech for lack of understanding of legal and technical interpretations, to the
effect that it is now often being loosely used to generalize all politicians in the same
metaphorical boat. In these settings, there is usually subjective display of insensitivity without
knowing who has exactly committed corrupt acts and whether they have been found guilty under
the Penal Code.
As it is defined by media outlets, political corruption in the current Solomon Islands climate,
through lay-man’s terms is, “the use of legislated powers by government officials for illegitimate
personal and private gain” (Santos-Paulino et al, 2010). However, the corrupt tendrils have a
much more complex reach. Examples include:
The misuse of imprest – unplanned and unbudgeted expenses (mostly incurred during overseas
trips) leading to the inability to retire imprest, or, to falsify expenditures and receipts, or
manipulate accounts to inflate expenses.
Nepotism and cronyism – the flipside of wantokism, generally practiced by recruitment panel
members who vacate the interview room when a relative is being interviewed notwithstanding,
the remaining panel members have been bribed, coerced or obliged nonetheless to conduct the
interview giving some sort of ‘legitimacy’ to the process.
In-sourcing contracts – this usually means, work contracts are prearranged and allotted to
family or friends with a mutual promissory obligation attached stating proceeds will be shared
between the contractors and contracted.
Out-sourcing contracts – this refers to the alleged ‘Putin conspiracy’ which connotes a scheme
that involves granting bank loans to friends or family businesses with a promissory side payout
to other players.

Trading in influence – mainly occurs when official title holders sell their influence, vote,
decision making rights to a third party, person or institution.
Patronage – is seen in different facets of government and the private sector. It describes the
hiring or employment of incompetent persons as payment for supporting the current political
regime, as opposed to those who are more able.
Through consultation with two officials of the Provincial Anti-Corruption Commission, Sgt. Ape
maintains that “it is obvious that the entire nation has benefitted one way or another, directly or
indirectly, from official corruption.” Sgt. Doliarno concluded that, “the challenge now is to make
official corruption more beneficial to all, or, to completely eliminate [it] hence, in the hope to
create less suffering for the nation. I believe in doing the latter for reason that corruption is deep
rooted in society and a good number appear to have lost all sense of Christian and moral
principles.
Headway has been made into the national issue, mainly from leaders of the opposing political
party. Opposition Leader, Jeremiah Manele has urged the Government to carry out an audit in
each of the government ministries, following the use of the buzz term, ‘ghost companies’, being
used in State funded media outlets. “It is assumed that ‘ghost companies’ have reportedly
embezzled million of dollars from Government funds over the years. Ghost companies over the
years have been acting as middle-men that charge exuberant amounts for supplies and services
compared to more genuine service providers” (Vaadre, 2009).
As the Project Head for the document was leaving the research zone of Kirakira, Jeremiah
Manele released the following statement in regards to ghost companies.
“We must encourage genuine, true and honest hard-working Solomon Islanders that are
keen to help develop our country and our economy and on that note, I must acknowledge
our hard working local businessmen and women who have helped shape this country’s
economy over the years”
And more than any other sector of Solomon Island life, corruption has detrimental effects to a
stable economy, either through local businesses or international investment. For, genuine
investors will need a conducive business environment to invest in, they will need stable
infrastructures. “Foreign investors need to be assured of a healthy government enforcing a
financial and taxation system. They will need laborers inspired to work and effective legislation
to protect their business investment” (Larmour, 2006). Unfortunately for the Solomon Islands, a
lack or negligent enforcement of the before-mentioned variables leads to a lack of productive
investment.

Enforcement is definitely a pressing issue for anti-corruption efforts in the Solomon Islands as
their police force, which acts as the only legitimate authority, is plagued with its own corruption
allegations.
Local police officers have recently been challenged to take a strong stand in fighting corruption
within their force and their workplace. This was highlighted by the Assistant Police
Commissioner to the National Capital and Crime Prevention, Mostyn Mangau. He maintains that
corruption has no room in the police force, so as any other work places and offices within the
government or private sector. APC Mangau makes direct reference to the recent corruption
practices within the senior officers of Guadalcanal police. He said that there is no other way than
being honest to your work and committing to serving your country with dedication. Mangau
closes with, “corruption can be of any degree and you must note that in mind, to be cautious and
on the look for such rare intruding opportunists”.
SECTION 03_2 – CHALLENGES TO THE CORRUPTION CLIMATE
It is established by the Project Head through stakeholder engagement and empirical analysis that
a corruption climate exists in the Solomon Islands, yet naturally questions arise to reasons why a
corruption climate cannot be mitigated against – and if attempts have been made, as to why they
have been unsuccessful.
The challenges to effectively curtailing corruption come in many forms. The first being the
ambivalent role of cultural and historical heritage. Throughout the Solomon Islands rural
communities are characterised by a strong tribal tradition and populations who have lived with
minimal isolation to ‘Western ideals’ and established state structure. “This cultural heritage is
believed by many researches to play a critical role in shaping peoples understanding and attitudes
of corruption. In countries like the Solomon Islands, gifts are not only perceived as socially
acceptable behaviors, but in provincial rural areas, can be expected as legitimate dimensions of
electoral processes” (McDougall, 2005).
Cultural tradition is also believed to influence people’s stance on corruption, as in rural areas
citizens feel more connection to their fellow neighbors, as opposed to the State. This has its ties
to the colonial era to which the most relevant level of decision making is the village, with limited
citizen’s involvement in a broader political process.
Another limiting factor to anti-corruption efforts is the existing political and administrative
framework within the Solomon Islands. The multiple separate islands of the archipelago are
characterised by diverse levels of state penetration. This has implications in terms of the
provision of public services such as health and education, as well as the level of control and

oversight that the government is able to exercise over the entire country. Closely limited to the
problem of limited state penetration, the capacity deficit of the public sector remains a common
feature of the Solomon Islands. Typical bureaucratic checks and authority is not properly
established and the states capacity to enforce its legislative process is hampered by this weak
legitimate authority.
As well as this, limited political participation and accountability is hampered by the strong
connection to cultural ties and a general lack of interest and knowledge about basic democratic
processes hinders anti-corruption efforts.
SECTION 03_3 – THE ANTI-CORRUPTION BILL (2016)
The Solomon Island’s national government is currently in the process of legislative discussions
concerning the Anti-Corruption Bill 2016, which is a direct variable to the deliverance of the

final product that this scoping statement is designed to implement. The main concerning division
of the Bill is the proposed establishment of an Independent Commission Against Corruption.
This Commission has the potential to work in conjunction with the Office of the Ombudsman
(a) To determine the appropriate action to take on conclusion of corruption
investigations;
(b) To prosecute corruption offences with the consent of the Director of Public
Prosecutions;
(c) To prevent corruption through its primary functions;
(d) To direct the Director-General in the operation of the Commission;
(e) Any other powers and functions conferred on it by this or any other Act.
The establishment of the Bill has the potential to make large steps in a cleaner and corruption
free Solomon Islands state. Through this Bill the government has renewed legislative powers to
ensure the prevention of corruption and ties the Government to cooperation with international
organizations seeking to prevent corruption in any way that is consistent with Solomon Islands
law.
The underlying objectives of the Bill meets with the United Nations Convention Against
Corruption (UNCAC) to which the Solomon Islands acceded to in January 2012 and is
internationally obligated to have laws in place to implement the Convention. In 2014, the UN
Office on Drugs and Crime conducted a review of Solomon Island’s compliance with the
UNCAC. Investigations showed deficiencies in several areas of law and administration, in
particular as regards to the scope of existing laws and their effectiveness in preventing
corruption.
In a statement by Prime Minister Sogavare,
“there are existing corruption offences in the Penal Code, but they do not cover the range
of conduct that constitutes corruption adequately, and they are not well expressed or well
understood. The Bill creates new offences of bribery and abuse of office. These offences
apply both to the actions of public officers and actions of individuals and private sector
organizations in their interaction with public officers. The UN review also recommended
that Solomon Islands should have an institution dedicated to the prevention, investigation
and prosecution of corruption. This will be achieved by the establishment of the Solomon
Islands Independent Commission Against Corruption (SIICAC) by the Bill. The
Commission will be independent, with its own finances and staff, and will have extensive
powers of investigation of corruption offences. It will also have the power to instigate
prosecutions with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Bill seeks to
ensure that the new Commission liaises with existing bodies that deal with public
maladministration (The Ombudsman) and amends the Penal Code to require various

agencies to liaise with one another and share information for the purpose of investigating
and prosecuting corruption offences” (Larmour, 2005).
SECTION 03_4 – WHISTLEBLOWERS PROTECTION BILL 2016
Designed to complement the Anti-Corruption Bill 2016, the Whistleblowers Protection Bill 2016,
is another potential step in anti-corruption progress for the Solomon Islands. The object of the
Bill is to protect persons making disclosures about conduct that may constitute corruption,
maladministration or misconduct in public office from liability and victimization.
Prosecutions for corruption are rare because evidence is difficult to obtain. This is because,
particularly in the Solomon Islands, people do not understand what corruption is, or they are
reluctant to come forward. This legislation has the legislative powers to protect people who come
forward with information about conduct that may constitute corruption, and people who
cooperate with investigators into corruption.
The Bill is intended to provide such protection, not only in the context of corruption, but also
maladministration and misconduct in public office. The Bill achieves its objectives by providing
protections from civil and criminal liability, as well as protection from victimization.
Perhaps more than the Anti-
Corruption Bill 2016, the
Whistleblowers Protection Bill 2016
confers more relevance as a variable
on the production of the end
deliverable outlined by this Scoping
Statement. It becomes the
responsibility of the final
deliverable to educate its intended
audience on the new legislative
powers that can protect them should
they feel that a disclosure of corrupt
practices would be necessary.

SECTION 04 – INFLUENCING DESIGNS
The final deliverable, the Accessible Anti-Corruption Framework needs to be able to convey all
the relevant and updated information without being too cumbersome. It needs to be culturally
appropriate and manage effectively the potential constraints to the deliverable highlighted in
Section 01_5. As a result, it has become the responsibility of the Project Head to identify
potential designs that could help influence the final deliverable.
While the South African anti-
corruption pamphlet is limited to one
page, it highlights a similar
perspective to the potential deliverable
in combining provoking images and
help lines directed at a specific
audience. The pamphlet originates
from the Department of Rural
Development and Land Reforms and
supports a culture of zero tolerance
towards fraud and corruption and is
committed to the highest possible
standards of openness, transparency,
integrity, accountability, anti-bribery
and professional ethics.
Potential influences from this example
come in the form of a consistent color
scheme, varied text formats and
symbiosis of image and text.

SECTION 05 – CLOSING STATEMENT
The Accessible Anti-Corruption Framework Scoping Statement is intended to inform the
relevant stakeholders about the potential impact of the final deliverable. This Scoping
Statement is legitimately providing substance to what can potentially be a deliverable with
positive impacts into rural and regional areas within the Solomon Islands.
In summary, the key outcomes of this document were:
 A project brief, which outlined the traditional questions and modus operandi
underpinning the final deliverable, as well as the relevant project stakeholders, project
specific constraints, assumptions and a hypothesized vision statement.
 The physical and intangible project variables, underpinned by research and first-hand
findings as well as justification on the appropriateness of the project’s application.
 Alternative designs and influences upon the final deliverable and the provision of a
comparative case study analysis in similar political and social zones.
The next step in the process to delivering the final deliverable is to produce the physical
Accessible Anti-Corruption Framework. The research and information assembled by the Project
Head will be used to guide and implement the final Framework. The final deliverable will act
as model to educate Solomon Islanders, in a sustainable manner, who are seeking information
on how to combat the issue of corruption. It will provides a means to break down barriers and
negative connotations surrounding the anti-corruption debate, while at its core, influencing
thinkers to actively investigate the issue.
The Accessible Anti-Corruption Framework and the accompanying presentation will be
delivered prior to Monday the 25th
of July.

SECTION 06 - REFERENCES
ABC Radio Australia, (2012). Solomon Islands Ombudsman faces challenges.
[podcast] Available at:
http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/radio/onairhighlights/solomon-
islands-ombudsman-faces-challenges.
ADB and OECD, 2001, Anti-Corruption Plan for the Asia and the Pacific,
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/38/24/35021642.pdf
Alasia, S. (2007). Rainbows across the Mountains. The Journal of Pacific
History, 42(2), pp.165-186.
AusAID, 2008, Tracking development and governance in the Pacific,
http://www.ausaid.gov.au/publications/pdf/track_devgov/pdf
Barcham, M. (2003). South-south policy transfer: the case of the Vanuatu
Ombudsman Commission,. Pacific Economic Bulletin, 18(2), pp.79-87.
Barcham, M., 2007, Corruption in Pacific Island countries, UNDP Pacific
Centre, http://www.undppc.org.fj/_resources/article/files/Corruption_in_PICS.pdf
Barcham, M., 2009, Cleaning up the Pacific: anti-corruption initiatives,
Australian Journal of International Affairs, 63:2, 249-267.
Barcham, M. and Lambrides, S. (2013). Feasibility Study for the Creation of a
Solomon Island Anti-Corruption Agency. [online] Canberra: Department of
Foreign Affairs and Trade. Available at: https://dfat.gov.au/about-
us/corporate/freedom-of-information/Documents/draft-feasibilty-study-sol-island-
anti-corruption-agency.pdf.
Bonnemaison, J. and Waddell, É. (1997). L'Extrême-Occident dans l'œil du
cyclone. Tiers-Monde, 38(149), pp.13-34.

Comfort, M. (2016). Corrupt-free environment attracts genuine investors. The
Island Sun, p.6.
Connell J. (2006). 'Saving the Solomons': a New Geopolitics in the 'Arc of
Instability'?. Geographical Research, 44(2), pp.111-122.
Dinnen, S. (2002). Winners and Losers: Politics and Disorder in the Solomon
Islands 2000-2002. The Journal of Pacific History, 37(3), pp.285-298.
John, A. (2016). The official "corruption" word. Solomon Star, p.7.
Kusapa, J. (2016). Manele raises concerns of 'guns free' when RAMSI leaves. The
Island Sun, p.2.
Larmour, P. and Barcham, M., 2005, National Integrity Systems in Small Pacific
Island States, Asia Pacific School of Economics and Government, ANU.
Larmour, P., 2005, Corruption and accountability in the Pacific Islands,
Discussion Paper 05-10, Asia Pacific School of Economics and Government.
Larmour, P., 2009, How much corruption is there in the Pacific Islands? A review
of different approaches to measurement, Pacific Economic Bulletin, Volume 24,
Number 1, The Australian National University.
Larmour, P., 2006, Culture and corruption in the pacific Island: some conceptual
issues and findings from studies of National Integrity Systems, Asia Pacific
School of Economics and Government, ANU.
Larmour, P. (2007). International Action against Corruption in the Pacific Islands:
Policy Transfer, Coercion and Effectiveness. Asian Journal of Political Science,
15(1), pp.1-16.
McCusker, R., 2008, Transnational crime in Pacific Islands: real or apparent
danger?, Trends and issues in crime and criminal justice, Australian
Government/Australian Institute of Criminology.

McDougall, D. (2005). The Unintended Consequences of Clarification:
Development, Disputing, and the Dynamics of Community in Ranongga,
Solomon Islands. Ethnohistory, 52(1), pp.81-109.
Mpgis.gov.sb. (2016). Ministry of Provincial Government. [online] Available at:
http://www.mpgis.gov.sb/.
OECD, 2009, OECD Grey List progress report,
http://www.financialtaskforce.org/2009/09/020/oecd-grey-list-progress-report/
Osifelo, E. (2016). Audit Call. Solomon Star, pp.1-2.
Santos-Paulino, A.U., McGillivray M. and Naude W, 2010, Special Issue:
Fragility and Development in Small Island Developing States, Journal of
Development Studies, May 2010, volume 46, number 5.
The world factbook 2010. (2010). Washington, D.C.: Potomac Books, Inc.
Theonomi, B. (2016). Another top cop suspended. Solomon Star, p.3.
Toito'ona, R. (2016). Probe Officers. Solomon Star, pp.1-2.
Tsamenyi, M. and Hanich, H., nd, Addressing corruption in Pacific Island
fisheries, draft, The Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security,
University of Wollongong.
Tuhanku, J. (1995). The reality of governance in the Solomon Islands today.
Pacific Economic Bulletin, 10(2).
U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre, (2010). Corruption challenges in small
island developing states in the Pacific region. Transparency International, pp.255-
262.
Vaadre, M., 2009, Corruption in Small Pacific Island States: a case study of
Vanuatu, Jonkoping International Business School

scoping statement final

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to scoping statement final

Similar to scoping statement final (20)

scoping statement final