Proposed amendments are short sighted
AT the last sitting of Parliament, the government introduced two Constitutional amendments which propose to increase the number of ministers from the current 27 to 32.
The proposed changes have gone through first reading and require a further two readings in two consecutive sessions of Parliament to pass into law. They were published in the National Gazette on April 11.
With the kind of majority the Somare Government enjoys today, we can expect more ministers by the end of the year, if not sooner.
It is a proposal that warrants every Member of Parliament to vote on conscience and exercise extreme caution. That is, of course, not possible by the operation of the Organic Law on Integrity of Political Parties and Candidates.
The peculiar law requires all MPs who have voted for the Prime Minister to support all important Constitutional Laws, in any motion of no confidence and to support all budgets introduced to Parliament by the reigning Government.
I shall come to the matter of the Integrity of Political Parties and Candidates shortly, but first the proposed amendments.
The Constitution at Section 144 (Other Ministers) provides for there to be no more than one quarter of the Parliament (27.5 members) who shall be ministers at any one time.
The proposed amendment will repeal the words “more than one quarter of the number of Members of Parliament” and substitute it was the words “not exceeding 32”. A subsequent amendment will be made to the relevant Organic Law to give effect to this proposed law.
This is obviously a “job for the boys” ploy and politically expedient since the government currently enjoys the greatest majority in history with 87 out of the 109 MPs in its camp.
Quite apart from the fact that this will increase the cost of government at the expense of the long suffering public, the proposed change is simply short sighted.
A minister at present would cost in the vicinity of between K150,000 and K200,000 annually. Taking the lower figure, we are at present spending some K4 million looking after our State ministers. I expect the figure might be closer to K10 million when perks, privileges and overseas travel were to be taken into account.
With the new proposal we are looking at increasing the bill by close to K1 million. Each new minister is going to have to have something to look after so it is quite plausible that new departments or agencies will be added.
Those departments will need to be funded under the budget. The only positive thing out of this is that there is going to be some employment opportunities for our people in new departments and ministries.
It is equally plausible that commercial statutory authorities and those companies wholly owned by the State can be expected to be brought under the control of these new ministers. Sadly, this is going to put an abrupt end to all the efforts that successive administrations have made into removing political influence from business.
The privatisation and corporatisation process might as well be dead in the water.
We can conceive of an additional five vice-ministers and they will obviously need to be paid for additional responsibilities and they too will need to be in charge of something.
I mentioned earlier that the proposed amendments are short sighted. Here is why: The original wording of the law was such that it took into account the possibility of there being an increase in the number of MPs. Always, the number of ministers would be one quarter of Parliament should membership increase or decrease.
With the proposed changes, the law will lock the number of ministers at no more than 32 into perpetuity so that if Hela and Jiwaka provinces came into being and additional electorate were introduced, there would be no proportionate increase in the executive government.
Already the Electoral Boundaries Commission has before Parliament proposals for the membership of Parliament to be increased to 126 and this was before Hela and Jiwaka were proposed.
So at some future date, if the law is passed with its current wording, we can expect the legal eagles of Government to propose to Parliament again to unravel the whole game plan to cater for a bigger membership.
And this is the whole messy business with debates and passage of important laws by Parliament over the years.
The Organic Law on Provincial and Local Level Governments was passed into law with no less than 59 unresolved questions. I can neither remember what these questions were nor any subsequent discussions in Parliament in relation to them. I expect they will remain hidden until they are found to be defective in some future litigation through the court process.
The Value Added Tax introduced by Parliament in 1999 was declared by the Supreme Court to be “Unconstitutional”, “Oppressive” and “Harsh”.
The Enhanced Cooperation Programme Act was also found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. In my opinion, the Organic Law on Integrity of Political Parties and Candidates is defective and unconstitutional in certain parts and were it ever to be challenged in court, that law too might be thrown out.
The OLIPPC, which was passed by an overwhelming majority of Parliament in December 2001, completely removes all rights of MPs to independently vote on some of the most important issues of national interest such as Constitutional laws, the National Budget and the election of the PM. That alone is draconian, oppressive and removes a fundamental right of an individual to freedom of association and free speech.
Many of these laws are found in time to be defective because of the very simple reason that MPs are not doing their jobs.
They are first and foremost legislators. Law making is the primary function of all MPs on earth. They are policy makers next. Delivery of goods and services is the sole prerogative of the public service but in PNG, over the years, politicians have inadvertently usurped and taken over this third role as their primary task and forgotten their real role as law makers.
Here is how a typical law is passed. On the morning before a proposed law is introduced or voted on, there is a government caucus. The whip ensures that all members are present.
In caucus, they are reminded that their duty is to support the government and that they must vote in support of a certain piece of legislation. Sometimes copies of the legislation is circulated but often it is not.
Members are reminded that failure to support a bill might result in delays to their project funds or other “sweeteners”. And that is the sum total of concern and preparation by our law makers before laws are passed.
Nowadays, there is hardly any debate or in-committee due process in the chamber of the house.
And you wonder why laws are defective. Now you know.
Tampering with the Constitution for political expediency will in the long run completely weaken the very vital and elemental foundations of our country.
The United States, in its 200, has changed its Constitution less than 30 times or so.
PNG in 30 years, has amended its Constitution more than double that number of times.
Columns