MR. CHAIRMAN and Commissioners, various counsel, ladies and gentlemen – Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to make a short statement in conclusion of my evidence.

The Ashika tragedy represents one of the saddest losses to have befallen our beloved Kingdom, and one over which every Tongan with no exception has mourned or continue to mourn from His Majesty, the Royal Family, the nobility, church leaders, and all of us, and most of all those who lost loved ones. As a government, we have done all that we could within our power, our available resources, to assist all the families who lost loved ones and those who were affected. Our friends, our donors, promptly came to our assistance. Many Tongans overseas and others also promptly gave assistance. Despite this, as Counsel Foliaki had said, we all know fully well that the pains, the heartaches, will persist for many, and for them and the victims we will always pray.

May I again and on behalf of the government extend our deepest sympathies and
condolences to all who lost loved ones and those who suffered in this sad tragedy. We are truly sorry and I, as Prime Minister, apologise most sincerely for the failings which have happened at various levels of government and of the Shipping Corporation of Polynesia.

As has been said time and again, the tragedy should never have happened. I do believe that government did and do have clear laws, policies and procedures which, if faithfully complied with, would have resulted in the Ashika not having been bought and thus prevented the tragedy. Further, I do believe that everyone acted with the best of intentions and no one intended this tragedy to occur. But occur it did due to human failings.

Back in 2004 the then government led by His Royal Highness, the Crown Prince, had the foresight and sound judgment to begin the preliminary search for a replacement for the Olovaha, a plan which if allowed to have progressed without interference, would have delivered a modern vessel to serve the people of the Kingdom for many years to come. If human failings did not intervene, the Olovaha replacement would have been delivered from Japan before the end of 2008, thus avoiding the tragedy.

Immediately and within days of the disaster, the former Minister for Transport tendered his resignation in order to allow a smooth unimpeded and fair investigation into the sinking of the Ashika. Government moved very quickly to establish a relief fund to assist families of victims and those who were so affected including the survivors. Again, as we have heard, government moved very quickly to establish this Royal Commission of Inquiry in recognition of the concerns of the families of the victims and of the people of Tonga and most of all of His Majesty, in recognition of the need for an independent impartial non-political and transparent inquiry. This also demonstrates a commitment to honour the memory of those who were lost.

Government will - and I hereby undertake - give due consideration to the findings and recommendations of the Commission as well as to the findings and recommendations of the Transport Accident Investigation Commission. Government will also allow the course of justice to proceed according to law, and to take those additional measures recommended as necessary to prevent a recurrence of such a disaster.

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, it would be remiss of me as Prime Minister and head of the Constitutional Government of the Kingdom of Tonga, and a government which has one of the oldest written constitutions in the world, and a government that prides itself in its adherence to the rule of law, if I did not draw your attention very briefly to a couple of issues which have been raised in this Commission.

It has been suggested that the Prime Minister has been dictatorial in the time to attend this Commission. Mr. Chairman, far from the truth. This is a very busy time for a prime minister. As you know, Mr. Chairman, I have always made myself available, even like tonight, to sit into the middle of the night in order that I be given the opportunity to appear publicly and in front of those who want to attend to give evidence and be true to the government's commitment to an open, fair and impartial inquiry.

It has been suggested here, much to my dismay, Mr. Chairman, as Prime Minister, that perhaps Cabinet should think of recording its discussions, recording those who dissent in the interests of transparency. Mr. Chairman, Tonga is not alone in having the procedure whereby discussions in Cabinet are not recorded. Dissension is not recorded so that all members of Cabinet can truly have their say and their dissension and I understand, Mr. Chairman, that this is also a practice adopted initially in England over 100 years and similarly with other cabinets in many parts of the world, and there are good reasons for it. You want to speak frankly, have your views. Everybody should have that opportunity, but once a decision is made there is a collective responsibility that everyone is bound by that decision, whether they disagreed with it or not. That's the only way a cabinet will have cohesion, will have order and have frank, fair discussions.

Mr. Chairman, the last thing I want to raise, and I'm raising this in the interests of justice, of fairness, good governance and respect, to which I have no doubt, Mr Chairman, that this court, like all other proper constitutionally established courts world-wide, do subscribe. His Majesty's power to appoint his legal advisers or Law Lords has been called into question in this hearing as being unconstitutional, and a suggestion that the Law Lords are a law unto themselves, Mr. Chairman - this is a direct attack on His Majesty's constitutional authority, an attack which I find constitutes condescending arrogance and downright disrespect. And I'd like it for the record, Mr. Chairman, to say, to quote from Clause 50 of the Constitution which states: "The King shall appoint a Privy Council to assist him in the discharge of his important function. The Privy Council shall be composed of the Cabinet in accordance with the 51st Clause and the governors in accordance with the 54th Clause and any others whom the King shall see fit to call to his council." His Majesty clearly has the constitutional right to appoint whoever he wishes to his council or to advise him in the exercise or the discharge of his duties. They are his legal advisers and not a court as some have mistakenly interpreted. Finally, counsel assisting the Commission, you may be an excellent counsel in Australia, but when you are in the Kingdom of Tonga, please try to understand our constitution and show some respect for our monarch, for our government, our people and our culture.

Thank you very much. PMO, 23/02/10.