DECENTRALIZATION & O’NEIL’S 2013 NATIONAL BUDGET
Peter O’Neil’s government has handed down the K13 billion budget this year. This budget is little bit more than last year. By 2014/15, we could have our fiscal discipline at a brighter side and it could make a turnaround from all that we have been. The strenuous efforts of the previous government and this government will bolster the peoples’ believe that PNG is heading for the road to recovery.
And this budget has been described as “peoples’ budget” because Peter O’Neill government says money will reach most of our rural communities. More money means more development and high cash flow into the communities. Could this also be the austerity vote of confidence for this government to serve this term of parliament till the next election?
However that may be, I had a mix reaction to this budget considering the structures of the government systems and the delegation of powers at the national and provincial government levels.
The bureaucratic process and political meddling that have evolved over time is very chronic and systematized and for government to rectify such phenomenal operation could be seen as a road-map to the destabilization of bureaucratic tape.
There is now a complete call out war on corruption and all forms of dubious involvement of middlemen siphoning millions of kina so that the depreciating basic services in our rural communities are actually revitalized.
Whatever that could be and albeit I am not an expert on economic principles, I am taken aback during the periods of decentralization process. Prior to Independence, PNG was highly centralized and bureaucratized and Australian administrators enjoyed the luxury of making political and economic decisions of PNG.
The decentralization process was really an attempt to demonstrate equal participation of the decision making process by our early political leaders and bureaucrats. Hence, Decentralization was a process of transferring significant political, legislative, executive and financial powers.
In order for this to become a reality a constitutional change was to occur in reference to delegation of constitutional powers and responsibilities. The change was the introduction of the Organic Law on Provincial and Government with a series of subsequent changes to that law.
With the introduction, adoption and promulgation of the Organic Law on Provincial Government (OLPG), this established a renewed constitutional status and it was another way of overhauling the colonial apparatus of rule, promoting greater participation of people in government.
This meant that the provincial governments were guaranteed a specified share of the national revenue as unconditional grants and other forms of grants/royalties.
When significant powers were transferred to the provinces, some of these powers were shared with the national government or implemented in accordance with its policies.
At the Provincial seat, Premiers had the power to chair provincial executive meetings and district MPs were heavily involved in making decisions that were sometimes ‘independent’ or ‘influenced’ if such decisions involved quite a lot of public spending on key projects such as roads and bridges.
One thing for sure we have to understand is that a lot of our people felt that government was effective at the provincial centres than central government from 1976 - 1995.
People felt their needs were easily aired and Provincial members became very important representatives of the electoral voters and this directly influenced the decision making of those respective provincial members.
Although the provincial governments implemented the stringent financial policies they were also gaining public support as legitimate government because the voters easily related to them as they were all the time within reach either at the provincial headquarters or at districts and LLGs. Some national MPs were abhorrent to such recognitions given to the Provincial Members and the latter viewed this as demeaning their stature.
Even the bureaucrats holding key government positions at the national level played a very vindictive role by increasing central control systems which were obviously seen in the financial responsibility arrangements and the National Public Expenditure Plan. At various meetings also it was highlighted that the role of National Fiscal Commission was not that effective.
Further, there was a restriction on the jurisdiction of courts in inter-governmental disputes. The disputes that occurred in relation to the transfer of powers from the central government to the provincial governments were sometimes contradictory. The procedures to suspend provincial governments, conduct mediation or arbitration were sometimes viewed as a big brother watching over a small brother leading to conflicting assumptions.
What we have seen is the ambiguous concepts of ‘separation of powers’ and ‘transfer of powers’ and institutions that were established to make sure policy implementation and execution were given limited powers.
The decentralization process was an attempt to deliver services to the people at the districts and LLGs. In some places it worked and in other centres it did not and we cannot deny provinces like Bougainville (now Autonomous Region of Bougainville) wanting to secede from PNG during this time as Bougainville was the only island that was generating more revenue through BCL.
Having highlighted what had existed could we argue that Peter O’Neill Government is leaning towards Decentralization? And this government is embarking on distributing services right to the grassroots level, however, could this be possible?
Some political and economic theorists may laud this government’s effort while others may resort to old school of economics. The supply and demand equilibrium of effective government service mechanisms and the maximum satisfaction of the populace is something that this government needs to establish.
If funds are released at the provincial centres, do we have very prudent financial managers that will involve in the equitable redistribution exercise? Or if funds allocated for development into the districts are trapped into the web of bureaucratic tussle in Waigani, could it be said the 2013 National Budget is the ‘peoples’ budget’?
We can also relate this rationalization even at schools where funds have been deposited. How can the national central body (Education Dept, etc..) carry out an investigation of those funds and provide expenditure reports to relevant coordinating government agencies?
There is a mammoth task that lies ahead. If this government wants a popular participation and public accountability then the Organic Law on Provincial Government ought to be made clear and such clarity can be made possible if Provincial Governments through their Governors, National Fiscal Commission, and various government agencies review it and meet at regular intervals and supervise the whole distribution of peoples’ money into the districts, islands and villages.
I would suggest that the Department of National Planning and Finance should establish a key independent finance and planning office at each provincial centres and if there are such offices already there then they need to be strengthened and supervised. After that is done, project applications should be made through such offices by the people.
Even Open MPs should work together with their people to access funding through such offices. Meanwhile, actual project evaluation and appraisals should be carried out by an independent body to avoid corruption and nepotism.
The Prime Minister should make his prerogative to investigate all key individuals placed in those key government departments who are implementing the government policy. Like all presidents and Prime Ministers of all democratic countries, Peter O’Neill should fire the shot if key individuals are not doing their assigned tasks right without fear or favor. There should be zero tolerance on corruption, complacency, party affiliations, etc….
And such straight forward approachable policy is nothing other than translating the policy into equitable distribution of wealth and if this perception is held at a pivotal level we could have a government that draws the population believing in themselves. That is ‘self-reliance’ with a mindset to upholding our National Goals and Directive Principles.
End/.
Words: 1296
You can contact the author on 72111918, or email edwebconsultants@yahoo.com.au
Post a Comment