Papua New Guinea push for more grace periods to avoid no confidence vote

The Papua New Guinea parliament is to consider legislation that would ensure a grace period after an unsuccessful vote of no confidence.

There are concerns in PNG at the distracting impact of endless votes of no confidence, or the threats of them, and the James Marape Government wants to do something about it.

Marape easily withstood a vote of no confidence last week, garnering 75 to 32 in the PNG parliament - but he has been assailed by the threat of such votes since February, when an 18-month grace period since the 2022 election ended.

He wants to ensure that, in future, a failed vote would stymie future such attempts.

Don Wiseman spoke with PNG political scientist and [PhD scholar at the Australian National University], Michael Kabuni.

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

Don Wiseman: We had yet another vote of no confidence last week. It was a very brief affair, it seems. What happens next?

Michael Kabuni: Well, there are different scenarios that play out. The first one is straight after the unsuccessful vote of no confidence the opposition had a press conference, and they indicated that this was round one, there will be round two. That's basically the indication that there will be a further vote of no confidence attempt, possibly in the November sitting, as parliament was adjourned to November.

The opposition have made their intentions clear that there will be a vote of no confidence. The other thing that the opposition said they would think about is whether to take the Speaker of Parliament to court and invoke provisions of the Constitution that would basically discipline the Speaker of Parliament, potentially a jail term as well.

That's because of different interpretations on whether there should be a debate before the vote of no confidence vote was taken. The Speaker thinks they just go straight into the vote. The opposition wanted a debate before the vote was taken. They were not given that opportunity. So, that's second, but that wouldn't reverse the result of the vote of no confidence. It's a challenge on the conduct of the Speaker.

DW: And it's not likely to succeed is it?

MK: We really don't know. Supreme Court rulings in various cases before, where they said the Speaker of Parliament or employees, like the clerk and those who constitute the committee, if they violate or frustrate a constitutional process, they can be prosecuted. It comes to a question of whether that actual ruling by the Speaker was violating a constitutional right of the members of parliament to conduct a debate. If it's a violation of constitutional right, then it becomes an issue.

But the recent court rulings were that the proceedings of the parliament as it pertains to vote of no confidence is outside of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and therefore they wouldn't even hear the case. If they take that position, then this case would not go anywhere.

I think the next big thing is there is a proposed amendment to the Constitution that's before the parliament. It will go through various readings, but the end goal is to add another 18 months grace period after an unsuccessful vote of no confidence against the Prime Minister.

It will not apply to this vote of no confidence that was unsuccessful, but if the opposition move another vote of no confidence in November, and they're unsuccessful, and if this law, this amendment takes place before that vote of no confidence, then what that would mean is, after an unsuccessful vote of no confidence, there is an automatic 18 months grace period.

If that happens, let's say in 2024,18 months takes you right into 2026, basically into election. So, if this constitutional amendment is successful, then Marape is secure. There's going to be no vote of no confidence.

DW: Meanwhile, of course, potentially four sittings this year, all of them effectively given over largely to concerns about a vote of no confidence at a time when the country is facing so many issues that are largely being ignored, there must be a lot of concern among the general populace about the way in which MPs are behaving.

MK: Yes, I mean the limited parliament sittings. There is a prescribed number of days that the parliament should meet. They run the risk of not meeting the constitutionally mandated minimum number of sitting. I think it's 63 [days] so that's the first one. But a real concern is, as you said, there are so many issues that a country needs to deal and debate.

The Prime Minister accused the opposition for moving so many votes of no confidence attempts that it's diverting parliament, and the government, from executing their policies and plans. But this could have been settled in the first vote of no confidence attempt straight after the grace period expired in February, but the government dominated Parliamentary Business Committee and the Speaker, basically frustrated the whole process, and that's why you had six attempts.

But, to his point, is partly true that there's government is almost crippled, especially if the government is in session, there is always the threat of vote of no confidence, and the government has been camping out in the last times they were camping out in an island resort, not operating in Waigani. They're basically away from the central government agencies.

It affects the performance of the executive government in implementing policies, but it also affects parliament. The parliament should be debating serious national issues, but it's been dominated by vote of no confidence consents since February this year.

DW: Now the opposition were talking in these very noble terms about keeping the government honest and concerns about corruption and so on and mismanagement. But is that what motivated the vote no confidence?

MK: The evidence does not support the opposition's claims, mostly because half the opposition members were members of the current regime, Marape's cabinet, and they have voted on almost every legislation that the government put forward in the last five years. They've voted and supported a budget last year.

If you have questions around debt that's basically coming out from budget, whatever that borrowing, debt to GDP ratio is, they voted for that, and the government is borrowing within the debt to GDP ratio that these members of parliament have passed in the November budget in 2023. It's difficult to know whether this opposition MPs are genuine in their claims because they've supported every one of these budgets and policies and legislations that are put forward, apart from a few exceptions, like Alan Bird, who moved in February of 2024 and always been critical of the government, even though he was within the government caucus and supporting government in some of the policies - he voted against some - he was open about some of the decisions that the government were making.

Apart from Alan Bird, there is almost no current opposition member who used to be with a government that was actually critical of the government, and they were not raising the issues that they are raising now in the opposition. I mean, that's understandable, because they were with a government, but they didn't move when these budgets were passed, and these policy proposals were put forward.

I think majority of Papua New Guineans are not convinced with the opposition, but they would like to see Marape replaced, because there is no question about the law and order issue in Papua New Guinea getting worse. Service delivery, every indicator is regressing. The budget has been blown out of proportion. So, they would like to see Marape replaced. At least a good number of Papua New Guineans would like to see Marape replaced.

But it's come to a point where, you know, replace Marape at all cost, and doesn't matter who replaces Marape. That seems to be the strategy of the opposition. But that was the same strategy in 2019 when they said, replace O'Neill at all cost, and they got Marape, and now they're saying change Marape at all cost, even if the nominee is someone who voted for every proposal that Marape put forward and defended Marape on the floor of Parliament. They are repeating the same problem.