No-confidence vote is a vital safety 'valve' for PNG - political scientist

Earlier this month, the Papua New Guinea government amended the country's constitution to make it more difficult to bring votes of no confidence in the government.

With other grace periods - times when such votes cannot be brought - it means a PNG government could face just a 12-month window for no confidence votes in a five-year term.

Critics say it undermines the nation's democracy, that the votes are a pressure valve that releases tension in the country.

RNZ Pacific spoke with political scientist Michael Kabuni, who is affiliated with both the Australian National University and the University of PNG, about the potential impacts of the changes.

(The transcript has been edited for brevity and clarity.)

Don Wiseman: Twenty or thirty years ago in Papua New Guinea, governments didn't last very long. There were constant votes of no-confidence, and administrations very rarely actually lasted thier term. In fact, I think there was a period of about 30 years with no government going the full term, but with the votes of no-confidence, a convoluted process introduced about 20 years ago that seemed to change, and now the current governments made it even tighter.

Michael Kabuni: When you look at a pattern where politics became a bit stable - when we say stable politics, we mean the Prime Minister is able to complete his term in parliament, even though there is so much movement between the coalitions, between political parties, and from government to opposition. and opposition to government, that hasn't changed, except that the Prime Minister's tenure has become longer and is able to complete this term in parliament there are several explanations for that. But the most important one is increasing constituency development funding.

When you look at the length of time the Prime Minister serves in parliament, it correlates with the amount of funds that are given out to members of parliament in the form of constituency development funds, which is basically spent at their discretion. So, that's the main explanation for stability.

Then there are others that has to do with amendments to the constitutions. There was a amendment in the 1990s to extend the grace period from original six months to 12 months, and then from 12 to 18 months. This grace period prevents a prime minister from being removed through a vote of no confidence for 18 months after he is elected. And that can be election following an appointment of the Prime Minister following a general election or after a vote of no confidence. If there is a successful vote of no confidence, it replaces the incumbent, then that triggers 18 month grace periods.

What the current government has done is to insert another 18 months, if the incumbent defeats a vote of no confidence. So, you had 18 months after the election of the prime minister, and now you have another 18 months if the prime minister successfully overcomes a vote of no confidence.

You have about 60 months in the five year parliamentary term. So, you take the first 18 months out of the 60 months, and then you take another 18 months if the prime minister successfully overcomes a vote of no confidence, the window of vote of no confidence diminishes drastically...

DW: To 12 months, effectively, because if there is a voter no-confidence in the final 12 months, it is automatically an election.

MK: Yeah, so you can add another 12 months to the 36 months, and you are left with almost just a few months.

[The] vote of no confidence is there to hold the government accountable. They are basically reducing the accountability window, if you like, and it is becoming at this stage James Marape is almost secure. He might become the third prime minister to complete his term, apart from Michael Somare and Peter O'Neill - not because he is a effective prime minister, but because he controls the funding, enough to buy political support to amend the constitution and insulate himself from vote of no confidence.

The opposition has one chance to challenge the prime minister in a vote of no confidence, and if they are unsuccessful, it will automatically trigger a grace period of 18 months. If you count 18 months from now, it basically runs into the last 12 months leading up to the election.

This last 12 months, members of parliament do not initiate a vote of no confidence in PNG because it automatically leads to dissolution of parliament. That isthe kind of situation we have right now.

DW: We were saying that it was all about bringing stability and so on, which I guess it is done, but you might also argue that it has made the government moribund, that it is too stable in a lot of ways.

MK: Yes, and that has a lot of implications. Papua New Guinea has about 800 languages and 1000 tribes. I spoke to some of the founding fathers, some have passed on, and even the expatriates who were here as a young kid and officers when PNG gained independence. One of them said to me he was walking out of this big oval when Australian flag was being lowered and Papua New Guinea flag was being raised, and he said he didn't think Papua New Guinea would survive.

Papua New Guinea had all the features that other African countries had that had led to military coups and military taking over the government. When you read the early writings, no one gave Papua New Guinea a chance. It is surprising how it survived for 50 years. One of the explanations for that is that whenever there is a frustration building up, vote of no confidence happens, and the prime minister is removed, and it becomes this kind of a release valve for frustration.

I observed this in the last decade or so, when I became a student of political science. I was part of student protests from the University of Papua New Guinea, and whenever we would protest, and there is a frustration building up, and then there is a vote of no confidence, or the prime minister steps aside, whichever it is, there os a change in behaviour.

There is this sense of release and it is not necessarily because the guy that replaced the incumbent is a good prime minister. It is just that they have gotten rid of this guy that they did not like. Apart from accountability, vote of no confidence has provided this release in Papua New Guinea, and I think it is one of the main reasons why Papua New Guinea actually remained a democracy, and now the government is doing everything it can to shut that valve.

I have heard Sir Julius Chan speak, and he said, vote of no confidence was put there as a release valve.

It is amazing how this mechanism was building, not only as an accountability mechanism to remove the prime minister, but understanding the society. So many perspectives, so many tribes and languages, and interests, that there to be a mechanism where this frustration is taken out, but not through forceful means.

That is the other side of the thing - when you have political stability in a highly corrupt environment. There is a sense that the government will become more corrupt because they are not subject to change. They are not subject to accountability. No one is holding them accountable. And again, this has happened in the past. We had so many constitutional amendments that a parliament could not stop because the government had all the numbers, and these amendments were only reversed by the Supreme Court.

So for the government in Papua New Guinea, with stability becomes more reckless and irresponsible. In that sense, political stability in Papua New Guinea really does not help whichever metrics you look at.

DW: Can we look at a couple of aspects that have come up in what you have been saying? Now, just to clarify, the prime minister uses these discretionary funds, but he is only giving those to some of the MPs, the ones who will back him, not to every MP. Is that right?

MK: That's been the argument from the opposition MPs, that they are not getting their share of the constituency development funding.

It is used like a carrot and stick: reward those members of parliament that are supporting the prime minister, but withhold the funding of the members of parliament in the opposition and the critical of the government and not supporting the government.

That is how the prime ministers buy political support to amend constitutions to extend the grace period, for instance. This extension of grace period, a normal person you would expect them to vote against it, but it went 84 voted for it, four against. A few of them were absent, or the seats are empty because the members of parliament have passed away.

It is a really huge difference. Now the prime minister argues that political stability is necessary for economic development, and he points to Michael Somare's period, when he became the first prime minister to complete his term from 2002 to 2007. It coincided with the economy growing higher than before, and he uses that as evidence for the argument that political stability is needed to grow the economy, therefore amending the constitution to extend grace periods.

DW: If you look at his time, and he been prime minister for a fair while now, that hasn't been happening, has it?

MK: It has not happened because there are no resource projects that have taken off under his time, and commodity prices have not increased as much as they did under Michael Somare's time.

The economic growth under Michael Somare that he uses as an evidence to argue for amendments to increase the grace period happened because of LNG, so liquidified natural gas, the gas project that's led by ExxonMobil, so that came in around the time Michael Somare was prime minister.

DW: So coincidental?

MK: Yes, Michael Somare was prime minister up until 2011. Straight after that, you had this economic boom, and that is because of the commodity prices picking up, as well as new projects coming on. It was not really about political stability. There was a survey that came out in January this year, a survey of businessmen, business leaders, CEO of businesses, operating in Papua New Guinea, or have got subsidiaries in Papua New Guinea. Their concern is really not political stability. Their concern is foreign currency. There's a shortage of foreign currency. Their concern is law and order. Their concern is every other thing, like utilities, consistent power supply, water supply. These are the top concerns. They do not even consider political stability as a main concern.

If you need economy to grow, you will have to listen to what the business community say. And business community is not saying political stability is needed. It is favourable, but that is not a big concern they have. Marape is alone, using a flawed logic, making an argument that is really not backed by evidence.

DW: Alright, you would say to the government now then that this constitutional change they made few weeks ago, they have got to reverse it, because it is not good for the country?

MK: Two things first, I do not think they will voluntarily vote to reverse it. But if the opposition can take that matter to the Supreme Court and ask the Supreme Court to interpret whether that amendment was constitutional, and the opposition tried to stop that amendment from going through parliament and the Supreme Court, and I think rightly so, said, 'we cannot interfere in the proceedings of the parliament because of separation of powers.'

But now that it has been amended, the opposition can take the matter to the Supreme Court and ask the Supreme Court to interpret whether the amendment was constitutional or not. I am hoping that they say it was unconstitutional, and there are precedents for that. Under Peter O'Neill, the government he led, amended the constitution to extend the grace period from 18 months to 30 months that was taken to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court said there is already a grace period that is too long, and it insulates the government, and the government cannot avoid being accountable to the parliament through constitutional amendments.

The vote of no confidence process is there and it is very critical provision in the constitution to hold the government accountable. They ruled that unconstitutional, and I am hoping that is the same result we get. But it comes down to members of parliament, such as the opposition leader or members of the opposition, to actually take it to the courts.

DW: Now the opposition actually still has a vote of no confidence in the system, don't they, because it was laid prior to this legislative change. So is that something they have still got an eye on? Are they going to go ahead with that? Because they can still, legitimately, even under the new law, can't they?

MK: Yes, they can. Or they can institute a new one because this law does not apply retrospectively.

It cannot prevent one that has already laid and there is still - even if they want to change, withdraw that and put in a new one, they can, but the point is, they have only got one shot. If they are successful, they can change the prime minister. If they are not, it triggers another 18 months.