Speech
by Mr Thomas Abe
Managing Director of the Independent Public Business Corporation of Papua New Guinea
at the launch of the Asian Development Bank’s report
FINDING BALANCE: Benchmarking the Performance of State-Owned Enterprises in Papua New Guinea
Port Moresby, September 13, 2012
Managing Director of the Independent Public Business Corporation of Papua New Guinea
at the launch of the Asian Development Bank’s report
FINDING BALANCE: Benchmarking the Performance of State-Owned Enterprises in Papua New Guinea
Port Moresby, September 13, 2012
Ladies and gentlemen, let me thank the Asian Development Bank for producing this important benchmarking study, at IPBC’s request.
It
will be a helpful contribution to the work we do - I assure you that we will be
using it as one of our guides for the reform of Papua New Guinea’s Public
Enterprises.
I
would like to think that our extensive support for and participation in the
study has in turn helped ADB develop a better understanding of the
circumstances and issues that we are confronted with.
The
need for such benchmarking became clear to me in my previous role as the regulator and in particular my four
years’ chairmanship of the East Asia and Pacific Infrastructure Regulatory
Forum.
One
of the first things I did on being appointed Managing Director of IPBC in
August last year was to request that this independent review proceed.
So it gives me great satisfaction to
see it completed.
IPBC
is at the forefront of reform of state-owned enterprises here, reform that has
gathered momentum in the past 12 months and is just now starting to bear fruit.
One
of the critical elements of IPBC’s work is measuring our performance and the
performance of Public Enterprises against the highest standards possible.
I
personally am very strong on setting performance standards – and meeting them.
When
I was appointed Managing Director 12 months ago, IPBC lacked direction and its
systems and processes were in disarray.
Its
ability to assist and support Public Enterprises – and manage and protect the
interests of their owners, the people of Papua New Guinea ‑ was severely
limited.
One
of the first things I did was to insist on corporation-wide Key Result Areas
and Key Performance Indicators and the development of a formal Annual Plan and
Budget.
We
have also decided to produce half-year reports. Our first half-year report has
been completed and presented to the Minister, and we are close to finishing our
first five-year Corporate Plan.
In
addition, IPBC recently developed a set of Key Performance Indicators that we
apply to all our Public Enterprises.
The
fundamental aim of this is to instill commercial discipline in Public
Enterprises to ensure that they are operating efficiently and not wasting or
risking taxpayers’ funds.
IPBC
is focused on commercial efficiency through quarterly measurement of financial
and operating results such as sales growth versus nominal GDP, sales against
costs and capex program spending compared to profitability.
IPBC
does not require Public Enterprises to provide us with such data for the sake
of it: it shows basic weaknesses in Public Enterprise performance and provides
us with a guide to appropriate solutions.
The
requirement is nothing more than would be expected of public companies anywhere
else in the world.
The
owners of Public Enterprises – the people of Papua New Guinea – are entitled to
nothing less.
Other
requirements that Public Enterprises must meet include the determinants of
financial and operating performance under four broad categories:
- Compliance with statutory obligations,
such as with the IPBC Act, the Companies Act, the ICCC Act and Public
Enterprises’ own acts.
- Provision of timely, accurate and complete information to IPBC, including Annual Plans and Budgets and Quarterly Reports.
- Implementation of projects on time and on budget, and fulfillment of annual capital expenditure programs.
- Progress on structural reforms and the development of satisfactory management systems and processes.
So
how do we stack up according to the ADB Benchmarking Study?
In
some instances the study shows that our Public Enterprises perform as well as
or better than their counterparts in other Pacific Island nations. In many
other cases they do not.
For
example on three key corporate financial measures ‑ profitability, return on
assets and return on equity – our Public Enterprises ranked second.
The
cost of power supplied by PNG Power to residential customers was the
third-lowest. Eda Ranu had the most revenue per employee, followed by Water
PNG. PNG Ports had the lowest cost per unit of cargo processed.
But
these raw figures hide a multitude of sins.
The
cost of funds for Papua New Guinea’s Public Enterprises is artificially low at
4.5% compared with an average commercial rate of 11.4 % over the financial year
2002‑financial year 2009 used for the survey.
The
reason for the low cost of funds is the high proportion of advances from the
Government and the use of concessional loans from multilateral and bilateral
development partners. If real-world interest rates had been used, our Return on
equity, for example, would have been halved.
Continuous
financial support from the Government comes at its own cost, of course – as
they say, there is no such thing as a free lunch.
The
most important thing to say about these handouts is that in no case did they
result in better services or a faster rate of provision of services to rural
areas.
That
is an extraordinary fact. We as taxpayers have tipped hundreds of millions of
kina into Public Enterprises for no net benefit.
In
fact service delivery standards have declined and the extension of services
into rural areas has proceeded at the usual snail’s pace.
The
ADB estimates that in the period covered by the survey, the Government has made
cash infusions across all Public Enterprises totaling about K700 million yet
ths money has not brought any substantial improvement – in fact things have
gone from bad to worse
At
the start of the period, 2002, Post PNG had only just been rescued from
insolvency. It is still reliant on IPBC for life support.
bemobile
is also being kept alive by cash injections from its shareholders, including
the Government through IPBC.
PNG
Power has been using its borrowings not to generate revenue but simply to keep
operating.
Telikom
has been borrowing illegally.
MVIL
has invested funds illegally and its investment portfolio is under-performing.
Each
and every Public Enterprise requires capital injections once again.
Ladies
and gentlemen, every kina that we provide to non-performing Public Enterprises
is a kina that brings negligible benefit.
The
ADB survey estimates that every kina invested in our Public Enterprises
produced seven times less output than the same kina invested in the rest of the
economy.
Furthermore,
every kina that we provide to non-performing Public Enterprises is a kina that
does not go to where it is needed most – to hospitals, aid posts and clinics,
to schools and universities, to crime prevention, to agricultural extension,
and so on.
And
because the impact of funds spent on Public Enterprises is low compared to, say
the education or health sectors, Public Enterprises are actually a drag on
economic growth and national development.
The
survey shows that Papua New Guinea’s Public Enterprises contributed 1.9 percent
to Gross Domestic Product compared to 6.2 percent in Samoa, 5.5 percent in
Tonga, 3.3 percent in Fiji and 2.1 percent in the Republic of Marshall Islands.
Only the Solomons’ Public Enterprises contributed less than us.
These
statistics are the reason that the current reform of IPBC and Public
Enterprises MUST be fully
implemented and MUST be
followed through with political decisions on the future of reformed and
recapitalised Public Enterprises.
The
ADB’s Benchmarking Study has provided some signposts for the way forward.
For
example it states:
“In
PNG as in the other countries, the poor performance of the SOEs is due to weak
governance arrangements, conflicting mandates, the absence of hard budget
constraints, and lack of accountability.
“SOEs
do not operate with the same efficiency incentives as private sector firms;
there are few consequences for poor financial and operating performance and few
rewards for achieving profitability targets.
“It
is therefore not surprising that the best performing SOEs are those that
operate in an environment that demands a full commercial orientation; and with
strong governance arrangements, high levels of transparency, performance
incentives, and hard budget constraints.”
I believe that the initiatives IPBC
has undertaken in the past 12 months as part of the Government’s reforms are
robust first steps.
But clearly there is a long way to go,
with many hurdles to overcome.
The first hurdle is deciding what we
want to achieve – where we hope to be when we reach our destination.
I want IPBC to be a world-class
organisation, operating commercially to world standards and thereby providing
world-class services and infrastructure to the people of Papua New Guinea.
In that context I note that the
Benchmarking Study confines itself to PNG and five other Pacific Island
nations.
As a first step, that is fine.
But we cannot just stop once we have
hit a target that is good enough for Papua New Guinea, or good enough for a
Pacific Island nation.
That has been part of our problem over
many years. My view is that we must aim for the centre of the target – the
bullseye.
Next time this exercise is undertaken,
I would like to see some South-East Asian enterprises – for example in Indonesia, the Philippines,
Malaysia, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam ‑
included in the comparisons, or an even broader benchmarking base covering
other developing economies.
Regular benchmarking will help improve
our performance, and create tangible benefits for the nation.
Once again I wish to commend the ADB
team for this timely and important report.
Thank you.