Best to empower AG instead of conducting inquiries
THE reported termination of the Commission of Inquiry into the Finance Department last Friday comes as a surprise.
Whether the reports are true or not, why was a Commission of Inquiry instigated at all and why wait until so many millions have been spent before terminating it?
If the truth must be told, there is no need for any Commission of Inquiry into a lot of the issues which have come under investigations by Royal Commissions of Inquiry such as the one into the sale of the PNGBC, the Pacific Balance Fund and the Finance Department inquiry.
The Moti inquiry was different and necessitated a Commission of Inquiry as we shall see.
By their nature Commissions of Inquiry are authorised only when it is felt that the normal systems and processes mandated under the constitution are unable for one reason or other to undertake a particular investigation or that the matter which needs investigation falls outside the jurisdiction of one or more of the Constitution’s protective umbrella institutions.
These Constitutional umbrella institutions are the Police, the Attorney-General, the Auditor-General, the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee and the Ombudsman Commission.
It is these institutions which are specifically mandated to look after the systems and processes of Government, of safeguarding the laws and the public finances and the safety and welfare of Papua New Guinea people and institutions.
These institutions are funded out of the public purse each year to perform these tasks and their duties and responsibilities are spelt out very clearly in law and regulations.
The inquiry discussed here does not fall outside the ambit of the Auditor-General or the Public Accounts Committee so it was really unnecessary.
The Moti inquiry, on the other hand, involved so many different institutions, laws and another country so a Commission of Inquiry with broad ranging powers could be authorised to undertake that investigation.
Still time and again we have seen governments rush off to form Commissions of Inquiry at tremendous cost to the taxpayer only to end up with absolutely nothing to show for the trouble.
The Commission of Inquiry into the Department of Finance was initiated on Aug 11, 2006.
It was meant to inquire into reports of excessive out of court settlements and reports that some of those payments were fraudulent payments.
The inquiry was meant to run for three months and return report on Nov 30 of that year.
An amount of K3 million was appropriated for the inquiry.
When the time was up in November that year, the inquiry had not got off the ground and the K3 million had been spent renovating an office for the inquiry, in paying for transcription equipment, on security firms and on exorbitant daily fees for Commission of Inquiry staff.
By the end of three months, the money was gone, the inquiry had not commenced and the Commission chairman retired Justice Warwick Andrews had been replaced by retired Justice Maurice Sheehan.
Upon request, the time was extended by the Prime Minister.
The commission commenced inquiries on Feb 20, 2007, and was to have concluded its business by May 20 last year.
That deadline lapsed too without a public report and come December 2007, the Prime Minister had decided he would reconstitute the Commission, which he did.
Now we get reports that in a dramatic day of changing locks and tension last Friday, the inquiry has been brought to a halt.
Or has it?
Whatever the facts, this and so many other inquiries need not have occurred at all.
There have been so many other inquiries which have not seen light of day.
There is no need for Commissions of Inquiry in this country.
The Constitution has mandated enough organisations in this country to take care of the systems, processes, procedures, the laws, the public finances and the welfare of the State of Papua New Guinea and its citizens.
The Auditor-General’s office was allocated K11.226 million in the 2008 budget.
The previous year, it received K11 million and the year before, it had to make do with K8.9 million.
The Commission of Inquiry into the Finance Department which was terminated by its appointing authority,
Prime Minister Grand Chief Sir Michael Somare on Friday had at last count spent or requested amounts in excess of K10 million.
The amount might be closer to K15 million.
The Auditor-General’s reports into the accounts of the Finance Department for the years 2000 to 2005 are voluminous and have been tabled in Parliament.
They are also required to inquire into the affairs of other government departments, agencies, statutory bodies, and provincial and local level governments.
We are yet to see one public report from the Commission of Inquiry since its commencement on Feb 20, 2007.
Anomalies, missing files and funds, and downright abuse of processes and procedures, and downright theft where they have been discovered by the Auditor-General have been reported to the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee which has taken the Department of Finance to task and will complete its inquiries on April 30 when it resumes its investigations.
The Commission of Inquiry, were it allowed to complete its work, would report its findings along with recommendations to the appointing authority.
If there is sufficient evidence uncovered by both the inquiry and the PAC of gross abuse and corruption the matter will end up with the Fraud Squad of the Police Force.
This is the crux of the matter – the sheer waste of money in establishing a Commission of Inquiry when everything it has been asked to do can be better done by Constitutional offices which are already established and which are mandated to do that very thing.
The question is: Are these offices given the resources and the latitude to perform their constitutional functions?
Why establish an expensive Commission of Inquiry to inquire into matters that have already been cited in many reports by the Auditor-General?
Why not give the Auditor-General prosecution powers apart from its inquiry powers?
Is the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee sufficiently staffed and funded to investigate the accounts of all the public bodies in PNG?
I think not.
Then there is the matter of double jeopardy.
Some of the matters that were meant to be inquired into had been competently and exhaustively dealt with in court including the Supreme Court.
To reopen such cases for inquiry would be double jeopardy and I am told that is not allowed under our legal practice.
As a final point, PNG has performed exceptionally well in the last few years so that it is posting economic growth figures at over 6 per cent for the first time in the life of the country.
Global credit rating agencies such as Standards and Poors have upgraded the country’s credit rating.
Structural reforms and other house keeping measures undertaken in many line departments is beginning to yield results.
The department under the spotlight, Finance, has instituted internal audit divisions and audit committees also for various departments and agencies of government including itself.
These audit units are just gearing up.
The department’s audit committee is chaired by former auditor-general Sir Makena Geno and whose members include the Auditor-General and prominent people from within business, government and non-governmental organisations.
The committee will assist the department to enforce compliance of the public finance management act.
An inquiry into the department would suggest that despite all the positive gains, the country still does not have strong institutions such as police, auditor-general and public accounts committee to safeguard the finances and systems in place.
And that is not a good story to tell the rest of the world.
Columns