First pictures of yesterday's plane crash in Papua New Guinea

Pictures by BUSTIN ANZU of the Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary

Papua New Guinea air crash kills six

Police, villagers and rescuers looking on as Morobe provincial police commander Insp Peter Guiness (left) takes a closer look at the tail section of the plane which crashed at the Bengun hillside yesterday morning after retrieving bodies of those who died as well as airlifting the injured pilot to Lae for further medical treatment.

Six people were tragically killed when a Cessna 185 fixed wing aircraft, owned by Kiunga Aviation, crashed early yesterday in the rugged Saruwaged mountain ranges of Morobe province, Papua New Guinea, The National reports.
All six passengers, including two children, died instantly on impact.
Amazingly the pilot Richard Leahy, who owns the third level airline, survived but was in critical condiction.
The plane departed Nadzab and was headed for Baidoang airstrip when it crashed.
The charred bodies of those killed are now at the Angau Memorial Hospital morgue in Lae while Mr Leahy was evacuated to Australia for medical attention.
The 63-year-old pilot was found by locals, screaming for help near the wreckage, shortly after the crash.
The bodies of the passengers were retrieved by a search and rescue team led by Lae police and medical personnel.
Information received from the ground pinpointed the Bengun hillside, located between Gumbun and Tanam villages as the crash site.
The rugged location is about a three-hour walk from Boana, the Nawaeb district station, and is 17 nautical miles northeast of Nadzab airport.
At this stage, there are no definite leads to the cause of the crash, but engine failure is highly suspected as the weather was fine and Mr Leahy has a wealth of flying experience in PNG.

Hitchiker

From PAUL OATES

We've just had some rain and I was about to attach the grader blade to the tractor to regrade the gravel on some of the roads when I noticed a hitchhiker had decided to get out of the rain.

A balanced Papua New Guinea budget for 2010?

By REG RENAGI

The PNG government claims it will have a balanced budget next year. The opposition party has further highlighted many key areas the government has missed out, or given low priority to in its 2010 Money Plan.

Many sectors are also complaining our next years' budget is far from being a balanced budget. What is a balanced budget anyway? Assessing any government budget will always been a subjective assessment.

Every government will always claim they have a balanced budget. There is no such thing as a balanced budget as many critics will always pick holes in any budget. They will always find many needy areas that the government has missed out on when drawing up its budget plan.

In future, the government must substantially do more other than say it has a balanced budget. Many priority areas are underfunded from previous years. There are important fundamental areas a budget must always cover are missed for a whole range of reasons. Successive governments have done this, even the opposition now picking holes in next year’s budget.

In addition, I suggest our government must do some required readjustments in 2010. It must complement any good budget by ensuring to put in place some effective mechanisms to achieve good financial management and accountability.

For many years, I see one great barrier that has prevented successive PNG Governments from addressing the real world issues of job creation, urban migration, health care and education, and that is our country's weak; and fragile fiscal position. In 2010, the government can increase PNG's revenue stream through developing new business opportunities in industry and other targeted government investment.

In addition, the government must do more than increased revenues. It should first of all put PNG's 'Fiscal House' in order that will always require sound fiscal management of government's current expenses. Its fiscal policies should be aimed to keep a tight rein on government spending, and refocus new spending to key priority areas that will boost sustainable economic growth.

The government must also provide real financial management, real transparency and real accountability. A new approach must now be found to stabilize the government's fiscal position.

I suggest next year, our government should try some future strategies like keeping real program expenditures constant by limiting the annual growth in spending to the anticipated growth in inflation. Any new needs that arise must be reasonably accommodated within this budget constraint.

The government must also ensure value for money by eliminating ineffective and inefficient programs. To do this, it should set objectives for program spending and tracking results. Another financial strategy is stopping the practice of year-end spending to use up unspent budgetary allocations, and assign any unanticipated budget surplus to debt reduction. So by reviewing financing arrangements to service the country's debt, the government can also immediately review all financing arrangements in all departments to cut the country’s debt; and reduce interest cost.

For many years now, governments spend up to some eighty per cent of its budget towards salaries and employee benefits. In the next five to ten years it must use this period to rationalize the workforce by reducing the size of its public sector workforce through rationalization strategies like: natural attrition, retraining for redeploying into the private sector.

Another good future strategy is to conduct a review of all government vehicle fleet and determine how many are necessary for government operations and downsize accordingly. Thus, by doing a further cost benefit study; it will be able to accurately determine whether these vehicles should be purchased or leased. All travel expenditures for elected and non-elected officials must also be reviewed and reduced.

Possible Constitutional impasse in Papua New Guinea

From PAUL OATES

Is there a possible weakness in the Papua New Guinea Parliamentary accountability process?
The Ombudsman has been tasked with investigating (among others), the current Speaker of the House. How can the Ombudsman report to either the PM or the Speaker on his findings and not raise doubts about the investigation's result being released and acted upon? How can the PM or Speaker act on his own case? Where is the separation of powers?
(excerpts from the PNG Constitution in red)

22. Enforcement of the Constitution
22.
The provisions of this Constitution that recognize rights of individuals (including corporations and associations) as well as those that confer powers or impose duties on public authorities, shall not be left without effect because of the lack of supporting, machinery or procedural laws, but the lack shall, as far as practicable, be supplied by the National Court in the light of the National Goals and Directive Principles, and by way of analogy from other laws, general principles of justice and generally-accepted doctrine.

           23.        SANCTIONS.

(1) Where any provision of a Constitutional Law prohibits or restricts an act, or imposes a duty, then unless a Constitutional Law or an Act of the Parliament provides for the enforcement of that provision the National Court may-

(a) impose a sentence of imprisonment for a period not exceeding 10 years or a fine not exceeding K10 000.00; or
(b) in the absence of any other equally effective remedy under the laws of Papua New Guinea, order the making of compensation by a person (including a governmental body) who is in default,

or both, for a breach of the prohibition, restriction or duty, and may make such further order in the circumstances as it thinks proper.

(2) Where a provision of a Constitutional Law prohibits or restricts an act or imposes a duty, the National Court may, if it thinks it proper to do so, make any order that it thinks proper for preventing or remedying a breach of the prohibition, restriction or duty, and Subsection (1) applies to a failure to comply with the order as if it were a breach of a provision of this Constitution.

(3) Where the National Court considers it proper to do so, it may include in an order under Subsection (2) an anticipatory order under Subsection (1).


           27. RESPONSIBILITIES OF OFFICE.

(1) A person to whom this Division applies has a duty to conduct himself in such a way, both in his public or official life and his private life, and in his associations with other persons, as not-

(a) to place himself in a position in which he has or could have a conflict of interests or might be compromised when discharging his public or official duties; or
(b) to demean his office or position; or
(c) to allow his public or official integrity, or his personal integrity, to be called into question; or
(d) to endanger or diminish respect for and confidence in the integrity of government in Papua New Guinea.

(2) In particular, a person to whom this Division applies shall not use his office for personal gain or enter into any transaction or engage in any enterprise or activity that might be expected to give rise to doubt in the public mind as to whether he is carrying out or has carried out the duty imposed by Subsection (1).

(3) It is the further duty of a person to whom this Division applies-

(a) to ensure, as far as is within his lawful power, that his spouse and children and any other persons for whom he is responsible (whether morally, legally or by usage), including nominees, trustees and agents, do not conduct themselves in a way that might be expected to give rise to doubt in the public mind as to his complying with his duties under this section; and
(b) if necessary, to publicly disassociate himself from any activity or enterprise of any of his associates, or of a person referred to in paragraph (a), that might be expected to give rise to such a doubt.

(4) The Ombudsman Commission or other authority prescribed for the purpose under Section 28 (further provisions) may, subject to this Division and to any Organic Law made for the purposes of this Division, give directions, either generally or in a particular case, to ensure the attainment of the objects of this section.

(5) A person to whom this Division applies who-

(a) is convicted of an offence in respect of his office or position or in relation to the performance of his functions or duties; or
(b) fails to comply with a direction under Subsection (4) or otherwise fails to carry out the obligations imposed by Subsections (1), (2) and (3),

is guilty of misconduct in office.

28. Further Provisions

(1) For the purposes of this Division, an Organic Law-

(a) may give to the Ombudsman Commission or some other authority any powers that are necessary or convenient for attaining the objects of this Division and of the Organic Law; and
(b) shall make provision for the disclosure to the Ombudsman Commission or some other authority of the personal and business incomes and financial affairs of persons to whom this Division applies, and of their families and associates, and in particular of interests in contracts with governmental bodies and of directorships and similar offices held by them (including powers to nominate directors, trustees or agents, or similar officers); and
(c) shall empower the Ombudsman Commission or some other authority to require a person to whom this Division applies to dispose of, or place under the control of the public trustee, any assets or income where this seems to be desirable for attaining the objects of this Division; and
(d) may prescribe specific acts that constitute misconduct in office; and
(e) may create offences (including offences by persons to whom this Division applies and offences by other persons); and
(f) shall provide for the investigation by the Ombudsman Commission or some other authority of cases of alleged or suspected misconduct in office, and confer on the Commission or authority any powers that are necessary or convenient for that purpose; and
(g) shall establish independent tribunals that-

(i) shall investigate and determine any cases of alleged or suspected misconduct in office referred to them in accordance with the Organic Law; and
(ii) are required subject to Subsection (1A), to recommend to the appropriate authority that a person found guilty of misconduct in office be dismissed from office or position; and

(h) may make any other provision that is necessary or convenient for attaining the objects of this Division

(1A) An Organic Law may provide that where the independent tribunal referred to in Subsection (1)(g) finds that-

(a) there was no serious culpability on the part of a person found guilty of misconduct in office; and
(b) public policy and the public good do not require dismissal,

it may recommend to the appropriate authority that some other penalty provided for by law be imposed.

(2) Where an independent tribunal referred to in Subsection (1)(g) makes a recommendation to the appropriate authority in accordance with that paragraph or with Subsection (1A), the appropriate authority shall act in accordance with the recommendation.

(3) For the purposes of Subsections (1)(g), (1A) and (2), "the appropriate authority"-

(a) in relation to-

(i) a person holding an office referred to in Section 26(1)(a), (b), (c) or (d) (application of Division 2); or
(ii) a person holding an elective office that is declared under Section 26(3) to be an office to and in relation to which this Division applies,

means the Head of State; and

(b) in relation to a person holding any other office to which this Division applies-means the appropriate appointing authority.

(4) An Organic Law may provide for the suspension from office of a person to whom this Division applies pending the investigation of any case of alleged or suspected misconduct in office by him.

(5) Proceedings under Subsection (1)(g) are not judicial proceedings but are subject to the principles of natural justice, and-

(a) no such proceedings are a bar to any other proceedings provided for by law; and
(b) no other proceedings provided for by law are a bar to proceedings under that paragraph.



29. PROSECUTION OF MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE.



(1) Where the Ombudsman Commission or other authority referred to in Section 28(1)(f) (further provisions) is satisfied that there is a prima facie case that a person has been guilty of misconduct in office, it shall refer the matter to the Public Prosecutor for prosecution before a tribunal established under Section 28(1)(g) (further provisions).

(2) If the Public Prosecutor fails to prosecute the matter within a reasonable period, the Commission may prosecute it in his stead.



3           0. OTHER AUTHORITY.

Where another authority is prescribed under Section 28 (further provisions) that authority-

(a) shall be composed of a person or persons who are declared under Section 221(1) (definitions) to be a constitutional office-holder; and
(b) is not subject to direction or control by any person or authority.



3          1. DISQUALIFICATIONS ON DISMISSAL.

(1) A person who has been dismissed from office under this Division for misconduct in office is not eligible-

(a) to election to any elective public office; or
(b) for appointment as Head of State or as a nominated member of the Parliament; or
(c) for appointment to a provincial legislature or provincial executive (including the office of head of a provincial executive), or to a local-level government body, for a period of three years after the date of his dismissal.

(2) In the event of doubt as to whether an office or position is an office or position to which Subsection (1) (a), (b) or (c) applies, the decision of the Ombudsman Commission is final.

Under the principle of 'Separation of Powers', the Chief Justice can only hear cases that are put to his Office, not determine what those cases are. The Ombudsman could establish an 'independent tribunal' (28. g.i., ii. above), be set up under these exceptional circumstances, to resolve the apparent impasse and to provide a process that is clearly transparent to the people of PNG.
For example: Why not have the Ombudsman hand his report about the PM, Deputy PM and the Speaker to a bipartisan Parliamentary Committee, possibly chaired by the Governor General? That would provide probity and maintain transparency and conform to Sec 29. (b) above. The Parliamentary Committee could then refer any matter arising from the Ombudsman's report to the National Court, thus maintaining a separation of powers in these exceptional circumstances. If the Public Prosecutor refuses to act, the Commission may act in his stead. (29. (2.) above).
Is there a Constitutional lawyer available who might be able to throw some light on this situation?

So what do we call this decade?

I just realised that the decade has almost ended and there is still not really a name for it. You have the 80s and the 90s. What in the world do you call the years between 2000 – 2010? 00s sounds silly. Or I guess you could also call it the “double-Os,” still ridiculous.

I read that some people are calling it “the aughts” or the “aughties.” Ummm…nice try, but that sounds worse than 00s. Your attempt to be cutesy with it is actually more of a failure than anything else.

Me? I usually call it the 2000s. Simple, truthful, and people can understand what I years I am referring to. However, when you get to the year 2011 and beyond, and you are calling 2000 – 2010 the 2000s, then what do you call the rest of the years?

It is a debate that is not going to alter anyone’s life, but it’s still an interesting one to think about. What do you think we should call this decade?

 

Papua New Guinea Public Service Commission overpayments

From PAUL OATES

"Quis custodiet ipsos! Custodes? (Who is to guard the guards themselves?) Juvenal (63 -130)
I refer to the article below in The National on Tue 29Dec09
If the PNG Public Service Commission is currently under investigation, then all those who have been identified by the Public Accounts Committee should be required to take paid leave until after their investigation is complete. How can the PNG public service have any faith in their Service's leadership if the rot apparently starts from the top?
If there is prima facie evidence that the PS Commissioners may have breached the law, the recipients should not be allowed to continue to act in their role as Commissioners until the matter is resolved. No wonder that there are constant disputes over 'missing' millions of Kina.
Where overpayments are detected there must be immediate action. There are only two possible alternatives:
1. There has been an unintentional mistake by both those paying the out the public monies and those receiving the funds, or
2. There has been intentional theft.
In the first instance, those who have received funds they were not entitled to must demonstrate they didn't know they were being overpaid. They must then pay these public monies back immediately. If necessary, recipients of overpayments must either negotiate with their employer (the PNG government) for pay the overpayment back by instalments on their salary within a very limited time or they go out and get a bank loan like everyone else has to.
The longer they take to pay bank the overpayment, the more they should be charged compound interest on the overpaid funds. Recipients MUST not come to believe they actually own the overpaid money as these funds have virtually been an interest free loan (from the public taxpayers). These actions are essential otherwise it sets a benchmark that others could expect to follow.
In the second instance, it is a matter for the police, public prosecutor and courts. While no one should be declared guilty until proven so in a court,
there might be some possible leniency offered by the court if the recipients paid all overpaid money back immediately as an act of good faith.
Any departure from the above alternatives will give an entirely wrong message to the rest of the PNG public service.

Paul Oates
_________________________________________________

Tue, 29/12/2009
'PSC bosses overpaid by millions'
Source:
By BARNABAS ORERE PONDROS
THE Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has established that commissioners of the Public Service Commission (PSC) and several staff received significant "extra" payments of salary and entitlements running into "millions of kina" and there is sufficient evidence for investigations into the commission.
Government insiders said the figures actually run into "millions of kina", and according to a PAC document ""there is prima facie evidence of possible
breaches of law by Commissioners, officers and staff of the commission sufficient to warrant referral for further investigations".
At this stage, no figures were disclosed because "there is evident confusion as to the true entitlements of Constitutional office holders".
But according to the document, an executive summary of PAC findings, obtained by The National, the PSC "admits the fact of all of the payments,
but challenges the amount of those over payments".
Despite the challenge and confusion the PAC "finds that commissioners of the Public Service Commission accepted large overpayments with no query or demur".
The PAC also found that there were significant failures of management, command control, accountability and record keeping within the PSC.
The PAC considered this a reckless indifference and said commissioners "should be relieved of their positions" and the matters be urgently
addressed by the Government.
PAC investigations into the PSC stem from a report from the Auditor-General dating back to Dec 28, 2004, and several amended reports.
Although the PAC criticised the quality of the Auditor-General's original report, it endorsed its findings and related amendments.
On that, the PAC resolved that its findings be presented to Parliament as per the Public Finances (Management) Act and Permanent Committees Act.
For a start, the PAC advocates for an urgent review into the receipts of salary and allowances of all commissioners and other Constitutional office
holders.
It also resolved that it would approve and direct the findings of the Auditor-General's office report to the Ombudsman, the Public Prosecutor, the
Solicitor General, the Police and the Department of Personnel Management.
Furthermore, that the salaries and remuneration commission urgently consider the content of the Auditor-General's report and clarify the true
entitlements of Constitutional office holders in order that overpayments and other abuses may be identified and stopped.
The Government source said such issues of overpayment of salaries and entitlements are a protracted issue and a chronic problem in the public
service that needs to addressed.
"And this is uncalled for, especially from the premiere public service body in Papua New Guinea," the source said, adding "for how long can we allow
such abuse of funds to continue when the majority of people in rural areas, and taxpayers are deprived of essential services".
PAC member Sam Basil, when commenting on these findings, stressed that the Government must provide relevant support to ensure recommendations presented are implemented and achieve results.