In early 1997 then Provincial and Local Government Affairs Minister Peter Barter told the National Parliament that ‘it will definitely take time, maybe five years or more before the results of the system are realised’ (Draft Hansard 11 February 1997). Three months later he told a seminar in Port Moresby that ‘in the 22 months since the reforms commenced, little improvement has been achieved in the operations of provincial administrations and almost nothing in most of their sub-units, the districts’ (quoted in The Independent 30 May 1997).
Since 1995 there has been growing criticism of the new decentralization, and renewed calls for reforms — ranging from the revival of elected provincial governments, on the one hand, to a more comprehensive decentralization to local-level governments on the other (see below). There has been no systematic study of provincial and local level government performance under the 1995 arrangements, however a number of problems have been identified:[22]
To give effect to the new decentralization arrangements, a range of new legislation and amendments to existing legislation was required; much of this has not been done.
The division of government responsibilities between three levels of government has made for a very complex form of decentralization, in which functional responsibilities are not always clearly understood, contributing to poor service delivery.
In the context of deteriorating economic and fiscal circumstances, the financial provisions of the 1995 Organic Law have proved unworkable, resulting in the underfunding of provincial governments (that is, provincial governments have received less — by the early 2000s about 60 per cent less — than mandated by the funding formulae of the OLPGLLG), and consequent legal challenges. An additional problem is that provisions for some ‘equalization’, or redistribution of funds from the richer provinces to the poorer, provided for in both the 1977 and the 1995 arrangements, have never been put into effect.
Financial accountability is weak, with little scrutiny of provincial budgets by the national Treasury and weak oversight by DPLGA. As Barter (2004, 141) said, with specific reference to finance and audit of lower-level governments: ‘There are widespread double payments, misappropriation, unauthorized advance payments of salaries, illegal borrowing, and payment of sitting allowances when there are no meetings’ (Barter 2004, 141).
Underfunding, poor capacity and deteriorating infrastructure, mismanagement and corruption, lawlessness, and the politicization of provincial, district and local-level administration, have contributed to poor service delivery in many parts of the country, especially the more remote areas. At the district level, cash offices and post office and banking facilities had been withdrawn in most district headquarters by the 1990s, most were without power as generators became unserviceable or lacked fuel, and government housing was sold off or vandalized.
During the 1990s and early 2000s there also appears to have been a decline in the capacity of the DPLGA to support provincial and local-level governments and carry forward the changes introduced by the OLPGLLG. For example: in 2005 the DPLGA’s Local-level Government branch had a staff of only ten to oversee some 300 local-level governments, most of which were struggling to deliver services, and the funds available for travel to provinces to enforce proper oversight of spending was totally inadequate.
In 2004–5 a group from the Australian National University, the National Research Institute and the Divine Word University undertook a pilot study in five provinces[23] to gather information about district and local-level governance. Some of the findings of the study are summarized below.[24]
In some parts of the country there have been complaints that district administrators (DA) are frequently absent from their posts, that JDPBPCs (which are legally required to meet at least four times per year) seldom meet, and often meet outside the district, and that MPs dominate the JDPBPC process. Predictably, responses to the survey suggest that situations vary widely between provinces, and within the one province between different districts and local-level governments. In East New Britain, for example, in the two districts surveyed there was a high level of collaboration between the open member, the JDPBPC and the district administration; both open members were said to make regular electoral visits, to be on good terms with all local-level governments, and to meet regularly with the district administrator. The DAs also visited local-level governments and projects funded by the JDPBPCs on a regular basis. Civil society (churches, private businesses, NGOs and village communities) were said to play an instrumental role in the development of the district and the province. Relations between the district administrations and the provincial administration were generally good. In contrast, in Madang Province (where there was an ongoing dispute over the governorship) the Madang District JDPBPC had met only once in 2004 — in Port Moresby — and the DA was in Manus at the time. The open member was accused of ‘stacking’ the JDPBPC. In the conflict-ridden Southern Highlands, there were at one stage three provincial administrators, appointed by successive governors and all drawing salaries, and in most districts more than one DA. Not only public servants in the province, but also LLG presidents and councilors had been politically appointed. Mendi District was without an open MP (the local member having been removed from office after being found guilty of misappropriating funds); the DA was said to be often absent from the district, and the JDPBPC had seldom met, and then in Port Moresby or Goroka. In the absence of an open MP, the JDPBPC was said to be controlled by associates of the provincial governor. Many public servants had fled to escape the ongoing conflict and had not returned; those who remained were generally reluctant to travel around the district.
All districts are required to have rolling five-year plans as a basis for defining needs and setting priorities. Most do, though frequently, it seems, there is no clear matching of plans and budgetary resources. The Minister for Inter-government Relations has remarked that ‘Until recently, approval for provincial and local-level budgets was without consideration of the planning dimension….Overall inadequacy of funding has meant that district Development Plans remain a dream, with little relation to budgets or implementation….The history of District 5-year and 10-year strategic development plans — where they exist — is miserable’ (Barter 2004, 135, 142, 147). Until 2004 district plans were lodged with the Department of National Planning and Rural Development (DNPRD) without a copy going to DPLGA.
There are complaints about poor service delivery across the country, but this is particularly a problem in remote areas with poor transport networks and other infrastructure, and areas plagued by security problems. Confusion about the distribution of functions between levels of government, and politicization of service delivery were also identified as problems.
In the Southern Highlands Province, where most of the country’s petroleum resources are concentrated and some landowning groups have benefited from the Porgera mine in the adjoining Enga Province, there has been an almost complete breakdown of provincial government, district administration and local-level government, and demands for a new Hela Province in the west. Inter-group fighting, utilizing high-powered weapons, has not only resulted in the loss of many lives, it has destroyed infrastructure, impeded the movement of people and goods and services, and caused a number of businesses to withdraw from the province. Many teachers and public servants have also left their posts in the province, while leaders of landowner groups and politicians from the Southern Highlands spend much of their time in Port Moresby (see Haley and May 2007). An audit of the provincial government by private auditors contracted by the national government in 2003 recorded comprehensive fraud and financial mismanagement, but at the end of 2005 no prosecutions had resulted. In the 2002 national elections, polling in six of the province’s nine electorates was declared void and elections had to be conducted again. Attempts to address the problems of the Southern Highlands through the withdrawal of functions were frustrated by Governor Agiru’s successful challenge to the national government’s powers (see above). In 2006 a state of emergency was declared in the Southern Highlands (which was challenged by Governor Hami Yawari) and PNGDF troops deployed to assist police and help enforce a surrender of weapons. Under the state of emergency, some order was restored in the province and at the end of January 2007 twenty-four people had been charged with fraud (The National 31 January 2007).
The Southern Highlands is an extreme case, but nonetheless reflects some of the problems of governance in the provincial and local-level government system.
The shifting of provincial and local-level audit functions from DPLGA to Finance had done little to change what seemed to have become an entrenched culture in many provinces.
[22] This list is based largely on Sir Peter Barter’s critique of decentralization under the OLPGLLG, written soon after he became minister for Inter-Government Relations (see Barter 2004), discussions with colleagues in DPLGA and NEFC, and my own fieldwork in the East Sepik Province. See also PSRAG (2005) and Tuck (2006).
[23] East New Britain, Eastern Highlands, Southern Highlands Madang, and Central. In each province two districts were selected for study.
[24] The unpublished report of the study is available online at http://rspas.anu.edu.au/melanesia/conference_papers/0506_PNGDistrictGovernance_pilotstudy.pdf.