PPL must deal with internal woes

 THE financially troubled electricity provider, PNG Power Ltd, has some glaring in-house matters to sort out from within just as much as it needs to recover the millions of kina owed it by errant consumers.

Apart from what chief executive officer John Tangit has pointed to as legacy issues in a detailed media statement some time last year, such as aging infrastructure and equipment, wor­kers entitlements remains an outstanding unresolved matter their union have time and again raised for the attention of management, board and the government as shareholder of the state-owned enterprise.

For many years PNG Power Ltd operations have been affected somehow or threatened by workers resorting to industrial action against management and board decisions or inaction.

A week after the declaration of the state of emergency on the provision of electricity services, the Energy Workers Union has jumped in with an interesting but old twist to the on-going debate on the matter.

Union general secretary San­tee Margis has called for a quick settlement of outstanding claims for PPL workers, which he said dated back to 2003. If his allegations have any truth, it would appear that PPL has allowed its disgruntled employees to have aided and abetted the theft of power over the years. It could be the workers way of expressing their grievances and making a few extra kina, however corruptly, when their employer has refused to or was convinced it was under no obligation to pay. 

Margis said workers had continually stopped work since 2003 to protest the un­paid claims because the management has been stubborn. “If the workers do illegal connections for users under corrupt deals then it clearly shows that workers have had enough of the type of corrupt management practices and tactics used.”

While politicians like for­mer attorney general Kerenga Kua and Opposition leader Don Polye have been critical of the SOE based on legal questions and rationale for a state of emergency, the energy workers union has raised an in-house matter that is just as critical.  It is something the state of emergency powers exercised by the minister for public enterprises might not address.

We fear a recurrence of some of the very issues the current state of emergency is meant to address such as illegal connections and theft of electricity if key technical PPL staff remain dissatisfied with their remuneration packages and unpaid claims.

The emergency powers vested in the public enterprises minister are targeting consumers of electricity with little or no direct implications on how the management and board would, on their part, get their house in order as well as part the debt recovery exercise.

Joining the debate is former judge Nemo Yalo, who has been categorical in his arguments against the imposition of the SOE to save the electricity supply from financial ruin.

Yalo argued the Government’s proclamation of state of emergency in relation to electricity service is based on misinterpretation and misapplication of the Essential Services Act 2002. “The purpose of this Act is to protect ‘community interests’ and not an essential service provider’s commercial interests. The Act and the proclamation of a state of emergency under it are not intended to be used to respond to issues relating to management incompetence, he said.

Under the Constitution Sec­tion 228 the head of state may, acting with and in accordance with advice from the NEC, publicly declare existence of a national emergency in relation to the whole or part of the country. 

“The recent proclamation of state of emergency is made under the Act and not the Constitution. However under both laws the ar­gument is the same. No circumstances pre­scribed by law exist to warrant the proclamation.

“While the Government is entitled to proclaim a state of emergency in relation to an essential service the recent proclamation in relation to electricity service has no footing in law. Given this fact and that it is not for the purposes of serving ‘community interests’ as provided for by the Act the public is entitled to ask whose interest is the proclamation intended to serve.”

It appears PPL workers are not in agreement with the government’s thinking that a state of emergency is the best way forward for the company.