Ombudsman Commission of Papua New Guinea

	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback \| Help Ombudsman Commission of Papua New Guinea - Speech 5 November 2005

PAPUA NEW GUINEA’S POLITICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LANDSCAPE
AND THE INCREASING THREATS ON QUALITY LEADERSHIP -

a paper presented by Ombudsman Peter Masi,
during the National Alliance Political Party Highlands Regional Convention :
Wabag, 5/11/05

Distinguished hosts, ladies and gentlemen, in this paper I want to discuss two (2) important issues that is facing Papua New Guinea today. The first one is about our current political and administrative landscape where we are reaping what we have sown in the past. The second thing I want to talk about is on leadership and the looming threat being imposed on the quality of leaders both by the leaders themselves and from pressures and forces outside.

What shall be discussed is based on information that is processed in the offices of the Ombudsman Commission of Papua New Guinea. Some information will be familiar to some of you, because what we process becomes available to the public at some point in time.

I will make generalization in respect to some issues and I will not make any apologies for making them because I believe I am qualified to make them but importantly the statements are relevant today and it is my hope that critical issues stated here are assessed in its proper context and leaders, audience, media, and the general public in their own way understand the Ombudsman Commission’s efforts in assisting leaders in improving governance in Papua New Guinea.

Let me now begin with the discussions on the political and administrative landscape in Papua New Guinea.

Creating and maintaining a conducive political and administrative environment is a challenge and it has to be the desire for every government. In Papua New Guinea the tasks is enormous especially when we must consider the hundreds of tribes and societies and the varying phases of development in the provinces of this country whilst at the same time PNG must continue to establish and maintain ties with our friends in the region and beyond.

The number of political parties that we have today is a way of expressing our 832 different ways of thinking and doing things with variations beyond the communities that each of us originate from. PNG has adopted a democratic process of electing and conducting the affairs of the nation either complimenting with our traditional structures and/or alienating the use of the traditional structures. Our traditional structures and the conduct of communal affairs inhibited with the mixtures; of patrilineal and matrilineal genealogies; chieftains and big-man societies as heads of traditional structures whilst pay backs, compensations and sorcery as methods of resolutions and control. In not trusting others but having confidence in our own beliefs and our ways is seen as the better way of achieving developmental objectives. In so doing, we sub-consciously create the environment of self determination and that leads many aspiring politicians in Papua New Guinea into framing and legitimizing new political identities.

Leading up to the 2002 National Elections about 50 political parties registered and fielded their candidates. As commanded by the Organic Law on the Integrity of Political Parties every party had their policies. The question today is, does every knowledgeable person in PNG know the 50 x (X) policies? The common denominators are the same – i.e. the political, social and economical advancement of citizens. Political Parties and officials have an obligation to the people in educating them of their party platform.

Voter understanding of party policies is fundamental to political maturity and order in the society. Political Parties and Party Officials now must redeem their horizon and come out to say whether maintaining the many political parties is doing more harm than good in PNG.

There is every possibility of a higher gain for Papua New Guineans if Political Parties strive to integrate policies and patriotism. Promoting the feeling of patriotism, one country and one people is something our political parties as a vehicle must utilize in order to build a character for this nation.

The significance of vibrant legislature cannot be understated by anyone and more so the elected leaders who must make it his or her business to uphold the lawful processes, during their parliamentary term. Conduct of official businesses is such that Governments are being run by few Ministers in Cabinet thus making the NEC and Parliament irrelevant. Sadly, this is happening as I speak in some of our countries in the Commonwealth, and Papua New Guinea has gone aboard this trend.

A responsible government must exercise and encourage democratic processes, and we in PNG must be the experts on this because it is our Melanesian Way that we conduct all affairs through consensus. Every elected leader, chief or a man or woman of standing in any of the 832 communities in PNG must be given a fair hearing through their representatives in Parliament if it is about issues related to land and general improvement in the quality of life.

Businesses being brought before the NEC and Parliament must come under scrutiny. Laws we have enough but not too many laws are being re-visited and amended or repealed to suit today’s political, social and economical circumstances. Parliamentary days are occupied with less national and significant issues and where major issues that affect the lives of people are brought before parliament there do not seem to be much critical debate.

Parliamentary Committees in any democratic governments are important accountability mechanism that must keep track of the day to day performances of all domestic and international functional areas. The performance of the Parliamentary Accounts Committee, which has been outstanding so far is an example that other Committees do not have any excuses whatsoever not to put in their bit for country and people.

Huge number of positions in the Papua New Guinea public service spread across the national departments, statutory bodies and provincial administrations are filled with unqualified and undisciplined officers. Much of this scenario exists but it is fair to say that it is not all the making of the public servant.

As a country we are now reaping what we have sown ourselves after 1975. National and Provincial Politicians then and through the time gave less attention to the manpower development of both the national and provincial public servants. Budgetary allocations during those times were about building something new and it was not about maintaining the old physical structures like roads and bridges or about advancing and skilling the new and up and coming PNG workforce. The key department in charge of public service through policy failure and monitoring gave in to forces that allowed disproportionate training of public servants and allowed the disciplinary mechanism of the Public Service to deteriorate across the country. It was a tough situation when many new politicians aspiring to contribute toward the development of our independent state wanted to leave a legacy of fame in their electorates and constituencies.

Today governments are recycling the old hands and still looking for the right man or woman for a job. When the Public Service Commission writes to the Ombudsman Commission to make a character check on candidates to Chief Executives positions in the country the list of shinning stars to lead our public institutions is really up to scratch.

We receive and investigate types of complaints. Politicians and Public Servants alike are informed that not all of their decisions are embraced with open arms. Allegations we receive have elements that borders on conduct and questions arise whether public officials have made decisions lawfully, reasonably, justly, friendlily and not oppressively, and whether the decisions made had proper motives, relevant considerations, not discriminatory and some public officials are alleged to just make wrong decisions even with their eyes open.

Some of these allegations do have substance whilst others do not and they are dealt with appropriately.

Politicians and Public Servants continue to keep alive some characteristics which defeat PNG’s cry for good governance, accountability, transparency and efficient service delivery. Some examples of these are: - the remoteness to and from the community; abuse of powers and authority; pursuing self-serving interests; showing excessive self-importance; coordination among disciplines towards achieving national goals; misleading and half-baked NEC and PEC Submissions; ill researched legislations; arrogance in dealing with the public; non-meritorious engagements; business delays; wastage of labour and the level of commitment toward real decentralization.

Young politicians and public servants, inadequately prepared for service to the nation are subject to these negative work place ethics and influences like it is a cult being passed on from generation.

Aggrieved party/ies come to the Ombudsman Commission for assistance to find out the truth or whatever of the matter in dispute. What I shall do now is to present to this forum some RAW FIGURES that show the Government Bodies with the most complaints since 2002 to September 30^th,2005. This is categorized as such

Provincial Administrations complaint figures is led by WH, ENB, Morobe, Simbu, Central and Southern Highlands. Provincial Government complaints are led by Morobe, Central, ENB, Western, Gulf and Southern Highlands. Then we have the Educational institutions with the most complaints from Others, UPNG, Community Schools, Provincial High Schools, Teachers Colleges and last the National High Schools. The last list of Government Bodies with our figures are the Ministries of Government beginning with the Prime Minister, followed by Agriculture, Trade/Industry, Justice, Mining and Education.

The above raw figures are nailed up there for national scrutiny and invitation is made to all public officials to take stock of their daily decisions for government and people or to serve other interests.

I have been greatly refreshed when a Knight told me and Chief Ombudsman about a vision of one of the key founders of our Constitution. That particular Statesman – who still lives today wanted to see develop in PNG a society with a STANDARD. That the leaders will set the pace and the societies were to follow.

And how many in the current crop of leaders understand the vision or have their own version of an advanced society that they are striving to assist and create where there is understanding on how modern government and economies work and why they, his/her people and society should participate in order to benefit. How many leaders go the extra mile to talk about the ethical and moral standards, practicing first by themselves, knowing that their actions will speak louder than words and help to influence the behavioural patterns of our communities?

When you build a house, you will make sure that every single posts must have equal endurance and strength to hold up the house during all forms of calamities and weather. This analogy IS A PERFECT FIT and it applies to all our 109 Elected Members in Parliament right now. The Ombudsman Commission is here in Papua New Guinea to assist and supervise the actions and conduct of government bodies and public officials including leaders who by their actions and within their power and capability after a honest days work know that they have contributed appropriately in building a strong leadership and a society with standards.

The rural communities, disadvantaged urban communities and lawless behaviours are taking a toll on the quality of our leaders. Political mandates is being misunderstood, misconstrued and abused by both the leader and constituents. One party uses the voting power to threaten and gain for self consumption or break laws to attract attention whilst the other party uses the assumed power to compromise, compete and gain also for self consumption. The gains assumed by both parties are short term and in no way establishes long term economical and social benefits for the whole electorate.

Such use of the political mandate is a threat on the quality of leadership. Leaders have become clients and active members within the negative behavioural patterns of communities and you cannot tell who is leading the other.

Higher up the societal spectrum is another boardroom where some of our elected leaders and public servants and businessmen and women hold hands, pat each others backs and abuse the trust given them by capitalizing individually or jointly on the political mandate as the vehicle for self-aggrandizements.

It is like an event during the dark ages where monks and clergy (some of Martin Luther's colleagues) sold to people’ certificates of pardon ‘for the full remission of their sins of the past, present and future and the people were told that their sins were forgiven and that it was claimed that the doctrine of indulgences as it was known then was the most precious gift from God!. All that the people were to do was to punish and exterminate Christians.

God who has the only power to forgive sins was made obscured and irrelevant. Likewise I say in this forum today that the political mandate given to some of our elected leaders by God and people is being traded without any regard of present and future ramifications. The scared and worth of a political mandate is made valueless in modern boardrooms and in our communities.

Going back to the analogy of the post of the house alluded to in that the politicians must hold the house up. Separation of Powers (the legislature, the executive and the judiciary) is a principle of democracy. But it is the politician who must provide the support to run the house in an orderly manner. He or she has the mandate to make the appointments to key positions in the executive and the judiciary, as well to boards, commissions and authorities etc...in Papua New Guinea.

Power and authority is with the politicians to make laws to administer the country’s affairs. Power and authority is with the politicians to provide a healthy atmosphere for revenue generation and funding of the affairs of the nation. Power and authority is with politicians to make every public official accountable for the implementation of the constitutional and governmental objectives, starting first with the vibrant performance of the Parliamentary Committees.

Since 1975 about ninety percent of the Leaders that have been referred to the Public Prosecutor by the Ombudsman Commission have been the National MP’s. About ninety percent of the allegations of misconduct charges have been on misappropriation of public monies. The Commission’s Annual Reports to 2002 are there for public consumption per se.

The perception from our Honourable MP’s are; but why, there are other Leaders in the PS, Boards, and Constitutional Offices that are hardly investigated and referred. Is this selective justice?

To answer those questions – there is no selective justice at all. One will be surprised to be informed that the allegations of misconduct on PS Leaders, Board Members Constitutional Office Holders that come into the offices of the Ombudsman Commission are on par with the allegations on the National MP’s.

The outcome maybe is seen as unfair, and we need to note the reasons for these occurrences. Various PS Heads, Board Chairman and board members etc... are on short term contracts and they are replaced so quickly that our office looses jurisdiction and any investigations on their alleged misconduct charges are discontinued. Another factor is that PNG do not have a legislation that would provide the protection on our whistleblowers in the public service and in fear of ‘officially coated employment reprisals’ many public servants disclaim allegations on their superiors when the Commission goes in to enquire.

The Ombudsman Commission is not a threat to the development of quality leaders for Papua New Guinea. Some Leaders in the past and present and their associates through unintended and intentional misunderstanding of the Organic Law on the Ombudsman Commission and the Organic Law on the Duties and Responsibilities of Leaders (the Leadership Code) are the threats.

Earlier on I did say that the use of political mandate is becoming a threat. I consolidate that position here again. Understanding of the roles of the Ombudsman must begin with Leaders. Their ignorance or purported ignorance can be misleading and damaging to the spirit of the Leadership Code.

Dialogue between the Ombudsman and individual Leaders, associates and aspiring politicians must take place all the time so that any misunderstanding is thrashed out and removed from the minds of all. The Constitution clearly commands the Commission to supervise the enforcement of the Leadership Code. And we cannot do our supervision without the cooperation of all the Leaders specified under Section 26. The Commission is struggling to keep its side of the bargain whilst the Leaders avoid any contact with us. The Commission has been running outreach activities with the public, learning institutions, provincial administrations and Government Bodies and Leaders since 2000 and the least cooperation has been from our National MP’s. One request for example which is pending for almost 3 years now is the Commission’s request to have a workshop with the spouses of Leaders.

Pocket size editions of the Leadership Code are provided to Leaders when they become Leaders. Yet there still is the misunderstanding. They cannot sit for a moment to find out who they are, where they come from, what they fundamental responsibilities are and where they are going! Not all the busy schedules of Leaders are beneficial to the development of the Leaders own quality and for the electorate and nation.

Again it is the misunderstanding of the Laws by Leaders and the day to day constraints we face in the Commission that has prompted a few Leaders recently to say that the Ombudsman Commission does selective justice and abuse discretion. In law we do not have any discretion after we complete investigations and form an opinion that there is a case for the Leader to answer. Selective justice is only but a notion and impossible to entertain in the Commission.

The international perception on the performance of the Papua New Guinea Ombudsman Commission is a positive one. Increase assistance and new approaches for help to the Commission is coming from our donor friends. Improving our current work processes and investigator skill development is high on the list where the assistance will be applied to.

What is required now is for GoPNG to commit and sustain our efforts here in the Commission through resource support concurrently with the external aid support.

The controversial and proposed bills come at a time when PNG is allegedly called a failed state; alleged violator of human rights; believed to have one of the highest corruption ratings behind 2/3rds of the nations of the world; increased big-brother profile to the smaller Pacific Island nations and the possibility that there will be an increase in the number of open electorates before the 2007 National Elections. We all including responsible leaders should be aware of the combine impact of these on our national economy in the short, medium and long term.

The positive external perception of the Ombudsman Commission must be applauded and supported as the strength of the nation to counteract the allegations of a failed state. I believe that there is room to paint a new political and administrative landscape ourselves through improved qualities in leadership in Papua New Guinea. The starting point is to restore the scared use of the political mandate both by the elected leaders as well as the constituents. It has to be a combined belief, determination and effort for change that will bring Papua New Guinea forward.

Ombudsman Commission of Papua New Guinea - Speech 5 November 2005

Ombudsman Commission of Papua New Guinea - Speech 5 November 2005