| Business |
Growing ministries
THERE are two houses of Parliament in
Australia. One is the House of Representatives and the other,
the Senate.
The full membership of the Representatives is 150, while the
Senate, the house of review, numbers 76.
While total federal, or in Papua New Guinean terms, national
parliamentary membership in Australia is therefore 226, it
should be noted that the Senators are divided into 12 from each
of the six states and two from the mainland territories.
Members of the House of Representatives are elected by their
constituents in a similar manner to Members of Open electorate
in PNG.
There is another level of parliamentary representation at State
level, just as PNG has members at provincial level.
The latest official estimate of the Australian population showed
21 million people on June 29, 2007, at 9.42pm.
This means that current estimated Australian federal
parliamentary representation is one member to approximately
81,000 people, including children.
Available growth figures for PNG suggest that the current
population total has probably exceeded the six million mark. So
currently in PNG, representation is approximately one member for
54,000 people.
The Prime Minister has announced his intention to increase the
number of ministers from 27 to 35.
High profile Opposition member Bart Philemon is sharply critical
of this projected move, claiming that the costs to the State of
eight more ministries could approach half a billion kina.
Given such considerations it seems vital that the Prime Minister
should explain to the membership of Parliament and to the public
how such an increase may be justified.
Many members of the public believe that the 27 ministers in
previous governments failed to live up to expectations, despite
substantial salaries, perks and a high level of allowances.
The prospect of a further eight ministers, presumably with
departments and a substantial increase in the number of public
servants that would be required is likely to lead to a budgetary
blowout.
It is natural that any responsible prime minister will wish to
ensure the people of his nation are fairly represented on the
floor of the House.
Large numbers of constituents represented by only one Member can
be a recipe for a poor delivery of goods and services to the
people, and to growing levels of disaffection with the standard
of political representation.
But to have an ever growing number of ministers suggests less a
concern for the people and more a weather-eye on the need to
give ministries to a bewildering range of tiny parties and
individuals.
The new government is a coalition, like all of its predecessors,
but with some 17 groups represented, any prime minister will be
required to perform a juggling act par excellence to keep all
interests in the air. The loss of only one can lead to the
collapse of the government; it has happened before and
theoretically at least, can happen again.
The maintenance of “stability” within government has become
something of a catch phrase in recent times.
Certainly political stability is an important ingredient in a
developing country.
Constant changes in political direction are obviously
destructive, because they can lead to other forms of
instability, affecting economic and social aspects of governance
and society.
Stability for stability’s sake would seem to be every bit as
dangerous as rampant instability. It is very easy to justify the
prolongation of political hegemony on the grounds of stability,
but it can and has often led to the establishment of dynasties
that have become notorious for their stranglehold on personal
and public freedoms.
Some observers see the proposal to inflate PNG ministries in
just such a light.
If eight extra ministries – and one should add the assistant
positions that have been devised to attach to many ministries –
can be clearly shown to facilitate the work of government, and
more importantly open clogged channels so that goods and
services can more smoothly reach our people, then so be it.
Let the additional ministries be created.
But if they are simply a way of keeping a coalition government
remarkable for the diversity of its membership in power, then
serious thought indeed should be given to the implementation.
 
|
