By JIM KAS
THE Somare-Temu Go­vernment is giving priority to “rural development” as have other governments in the past.
The difference between those previous regimes and this Government is that the latter has set aside a huge allocation from the budget to ensure its success.
Many have welcomed the move while others are sceptical.
These opposing views will always persist. In order for the rural majo­rity to appreciate the shift in Government policy towards rural development, it is important that the processes are adhered to so that the anticipated flow of Government ser­vices would follow.
Firstly, rural development is a very popular “catch cry” for politicians, academics, policy implementers, rural development tourists and so forth.
The slogan is used frequently by politicians to maintain a following or to win votes.
The Somare-Temu Go­vernment is in a comfort zone so it has boldly made known to the people a mechanism to address the problem of rural development but with a major difference.
The Government is actually funding the policy with a massive K890 million (or K10 million for each electorate).
This budgetary allocation surpasses the pre­vious K250,000 to K1.5 million a year for district development.
In the past 20 years, between K2 million and K8 million has been spent per electorate and the results have been pathetic.
The direct or indirect effects has resulted in political appointments, ne­potism, misappropriation and the complete disregard for legal systems and processes.
One authority which continually stands between good and bad is the Ombudsman Commission which is duty-bound to remind the Government of its lawful obligations.
It is one thing to make available money for pro­jects but, a nightmare ensuring that tangible results are achieved to fulfil the people’s expectations from such allocations.
The commission is not in favour of the decision to allocate K4 million or K10 million to each electorate as it fears that most of the districts lack the capacity to achieve the anticipated expectations.
This fear is derived from the experience of allocating K1.5 million in district support grants (DSG) each year by the previous governments.
The commission is all too familiar with the associated problems stemming from non-acquittal of funds, the lack of expert manpower in the districts, the problem of nepotism or cronyism related with contractors and misappropriation.
As a matter of public policy, it is the taxpayer who is paying for this Government policy.
The commission or Transparency International is doing justice to the people of PNG by expressing their concern because of the dismal record of DSG usage in the electorate.
The allocation of K10 million per electorate is similarly cause for concern.
The amount of money intended for the districts/LLGs equally increases opportunities for more corrupt practices.
Papua New Guineans know of the problems associated with the misuse, misappropriation, nepotism and the like stemming from the DSG.
Rural development is achievable and there are two or three laws that can greatly assist us to do so.
Section 33A, 3 (a-e) of the Organic Law on Provincial and Local Level Government refers to the establishment of the Joint District Planning & Budget Priorities Committee (JDP & BPC) and the composition of the membership.
The functions of the committee are clearly spelt out, which includes overseeing the service and infrastructure deve­lopment in the electorate.
While the committee wields so much power to circumvent change, it can also become the obstacle towards change or development.
The chairpersons of this powerful committee are the MPs.
Rural development cannot be achieved without following the pro­cesses.
The concept of “bottom-up” planning and designed by the appropriate forum would assist this policy.
Rural development will never achieve the desired results if policy-makers­ and MPs continue to ignore the very precepts which cement the legal foundations for realising the Somare-Temu policy.
These explicit, easy-to-heed instructions are found in Local Level Government Administration Act 1997.
Section 26 and Section 34 1 (a & b), 2 and 3 of the LLG Administrative Act 1997 establish the Ward Development Committee and spell out the committee’s functions.
These functions set out the basis from which the concept of “bottom-up planning” can be conceived to nurture solid foundations for the rural development policy to achieve the desired result.
The Ward Development Committees and LLG deliberations contain the desires of very specific population needs.
All these needs have been documented for every LLG Ward but unfortunately the continuous political, legislative and administrative changes or budget shortfalls have affected the serious implementation of these plans.
Furthermore, the Somare-Temu “rural deve­lopment” policy initiative should urge members of the JDP & BPC to determine if LLG plans are existent.
In the absence of such plans, we may end up rushing into ad hoc programmes and projects.
MPs fall into this trap all the time and we see the creation of white ele­phants around the country.
The desired outcome will be achieved if the plans or views of the Ward Development Committees are seriously taken into consideration.
Thirdly, the intended objectives of the District Development Authorities’ (DDA) could conflict with the LLG Administration Act 1997.
Both Acts should complement each other as well as the Organic Law on Provincial Government and Local Level Government (OLPG&LLG).
If sections of the Acts are conflicting, they must be resolved to assist the Government’s rural development policy.
Those who will be in the thick of the action to implement or to achieve the Government’s rural development policy should be reminded that without manpower and proper planning, the huge budget allocation will be a waste.
It is imperative for the policy to be implemented with plans which are already with the LLGs.
It is wise not to depend on the JDP & BPC.
The plans drawn up by the JDP & BPC do not usually reflect the aspirations of the people.
With MPs heading the powerful committee, political survival tends to overrides common sense.
The Government’s rural development policy can be achieved but the lessons of the past are worth noting and should be avoided.

Note: The author was the Governor of Madang from 1997 to 2001. Prior to that, he was a research officer and marketing officer with the provincial government. He will pursue a Masters degree at the University of PNG next year, focusing on corruption.