ONE of the most frustrating habits in our country’s political discourse is hearing ministers stand in Parliament and tell the nation that “the government did not allocate funds” for a particular issue.
The statement may sound harmless, and with repeated usage it may seem normal, but it raises a fundamental question:
Who exactly is “the government”?
If a minister is not the government, then who is?
In our system of government, ministers are not spectators sitting on the sidelines watching decisions unfold. Nor are they commentators offering observations from a distance. Quite the contrary is true in fact.
They are the very people entrusted with executive authority to govern the country.
Ministers sit in Cabinet, participate in policy formulation, oversee departments, and submit funding priorities for consideration. Through the National Executive Council (NEC), they collectively make the decisions that become government policy.
Therefore, when a minister rises in Parliament and says, “The government did not allocate any money,” he — and we shall use he in this instance with respect to our female leaders — is effectively admitting that he and his colleagues failed to perform their responsibilities.
The recent remarks by the Minister for Disaster and Emergency Services, Dr Billy Joseph, regarding the absence of funding for El Niño preparedness was itself a disaster that served to highlight this problem.
The El Niño event was not an unforeseen event. Experts and weather agencies have been warning about its potential impacts for months. If sufficient funding was not allocated, then the question should not be directed at some mysterious entity called “the government”.
The question should be directed at the minister responsible for identifying the need, preparing submissions, advocating for resources, and securing NEC approval for it.
A minister’s role is not merely to announce problems after they occur. A minister’s role is to anticipate challenges and ensure that government machinery is prepared to respond. Complaining about the absence of funding is not leadership. Securing funding is.
The same principle applies across all areas of governance.
Too often, Members of Parliament publicly lament weak laws, outdated legislation, policy failures, or administrative shortcomings.
Yet Parliament alone possesses the exclusive authority to create, amend, or repeal laws. No other institution in PNG can perform that function.
If legislators believe a law is inadequate, they have the power to change it.
If they believe a law is obstructing development, they can repeal it. If new challenges require new legislation, they can introduce it.
Complaining about laws while possessing the sole authority to make laws is an exercise that demonstrates weak leadership that is ignorant of its own duty statements.
Similarly, ministers should not complain about policy failures, dysfunctional commissions, ineffective programmes, or poor budget allocations.
These matters fall squarely within the responsibilities of government.
Ministers have the authority to propose policies, revise policies, establish programmes, terminate ineffective programmes, and recommend funding priorities. They participate directly in the decision-making structures that determine national direction.
When ministers publicly distance themselves from government decisions, they create the false impression that governance is something happening to them rather than something they are actively responsible for.
Such statements blur accountability and confuse the public about who is answerable for outcomes.
Democracy functions best when responsibility and authority remain linked.
Those who possess the authority to make decisions must also accept responsibility for the consequences of those decisions. Ministers cannot claim credit when programmes succeed and then point fingers at “the government” when programs fail.
They are the beating heart of the entity called the government.
The people of Papua New Guinea deserve greater honesty from their leaders.
If funding was not allocated, ministers should explain why. If a proposal was not submitted, they should acknowledge it. If NEC rejected a recommendation, they should clarify the circumstances.
If mistakes were made, they should accept responsibility and outline corrective measures.
Leadership should not be about identifying problems that everyone can already see. Leadership should and ought to be about solving those problems.
The public expects ministers to lead, not to commentate from the grandstand.
The day our leaders stop speaking as though they are separate from government and start accepting ownership of government decisions will be the day accountability in PNG takes a meaningful step forward.
And meaningful development and progress normally follows.
