Why move a motion of no confidence

The National Editorial

LAST Friday, the legislative time bar on a motion of no-confidence was automatically lifted at the expiry of the 18-month grace period and the way is open for any such motion to be entertained from thence forth.
It is open season for PNG’s second most favourite game after rugby league – politics.
Favourite it might be, but it has singularly been responsible for political instability. As political stability ranks highly in a country’s assessment as a safe place for direct foreign investment, the fluid state of politics in this country has also been responsible for PNG’s poor credit ratings in the books of international organisations such as Standards & Poor.
People wonder at why this provision at section 145 of the Constitution has plagued the political history of this country for so long.
Tracing history, the Constitutional Planning Committee (CPC) at chapter 7 (The Executive), provides the following explanation for making the recommendation which finally ended in the final draft of the Constitution as section 145 (Motions of No-Confidence). The CPC said: “We have found that it is widely held opinion among our people that Parliament should have the power to require the removal of an individual minister.
“We agree with this view, but to avoid undermining the principle of collective responsibility – that is, that the Ministers accept joint responsibilities for matters of policy – we recommend that an individual Minister may be removed on two grounds only:

  1. INABILITY to perform his duties, “arising from infirmity of body or mind”; and
  2.  “MISBEHAVIOUR”, which should be interpreted as meaning gross personal misbehaviour regarded as unfitting to his office.

Certain safeguards were included in the proposal. No motion for the removal of a Minister may be moved unless:

  • IT is signed by at least one-tenth of the Members of Parliament;
  •  IT is supported by a majority of the First Parliamentary Committee in a report to the Parliament; and
  •  ONE week’s notice of the motion is given.

In addition, to be successful, the motion must be passed by an absolute majority – that is, by more than half of the total membership of Parliament.
This was the CPC recommendation and, by and large, almost all of it was retained in the Constitution at section 145.
Amendments have been made twice to this section, particularly with reference to the length of time before a motion could be moved. Realizing that the original six months was too short for any government to do anything constructive, it was moved to 18 months and further to 30 months but a successful Supreme Court challenge found Parliament to have been in breach of the Constitution and directed it back to 18 months.
In practice, a third and most often used ground has emerged across the years. Lack of performance and delivery of services has now become the biggest reason for motions of no-confidence.
The original two reasons for a MoNC – inability to perform duties arising from infirmity of mind and body; and misbehaviour – could be clearly calculated by the decisions of three physicians or the police and the Ombudsman Commission.
The third ground is far more difficult to proof conclusively and that is where all the trouble has been as politics split into two factions and face off, each accusing and counter-accusing the other.
It is advisable at this juncture for the citizen to judge by looking at the conditions in life.
The questions to ask are these: What are the conditions besetting me at home? What are the prices of goods and services like? Can I afford them? Have I got access to reliable electricity, water, health services and schools for my children?
And, it is these answers which will determine whether or not the time has come to move a motion of no-confidence.