Peer reviewed analysis from world leading experts

Book cooking and the PNG election

Reading Time: 4 mins
Papua New Guinea's Prime Minister Peter O'Neill pauses before making an address to the Lowy Institute in Sydney, 29 November 2012. (Photo: Reuters/Tim Wimborne).

In Brief

On 9 July, Papua New Guinea’s Election Advisory Committee resigned in a devastating blow to the credibility of the country’s 2017 election. The failure of the O’Neill government to provide this high level constitutional committee with factual electoral information suggests deliberate efforts to obstruct the truth.

Share

  • A
  • A
  • A

Share

  • A
  • A
  • A

The three-member Election Advisory Committee is appointed by the Governor General and is comprised of the Chief Ombudsman Commissioner (or his nominee) and two other persons — a nominee from the Transparency International board and a retired judge or lawyer.

In its resignation letter, the committee indicated it was ‘prevented from performing its constitutional duties and roles’ because it has not been provided with baseline data and information nor been party to regular reporting. Such detailed information is required to unpack fully possible ‘cooking the books’ within the general chaos and mismanagement of PNG’s 2017 election.

However, even at an aggregate level, statistical analysis suggests there are very clear patterns of electoral manipulation. There are nearly 300,000 ‘ghost electors’ in government-controlled electorates — excess names on the electoral roll relative to the latest population census. In the 49 electorates with government members, there are an average of 6000 ‘ghost electors’, more than 10 times the level of non-government electorates. Statistical analysis indicates there is less than one chance in 20 that this bias to the O’Neill government is just accidental.

But the devil is in the detail. The analysis needs to be done at a lower level to unambiguously confirm this systematic bias. This type of information appears to be hidden from the Electoral Assistance Commission and the people of PNG more broadly. Without such information, it is difficult to understand how international observers to the election can form a view on whether it was free and fair.

Looking at the 2012 election results, there were many close races where only a few hundred votes would have made a difference. If PNC was deliberately aiming to skew the election (among all the noise), one would target key marginal electorates. Targeted actions, such as not providing enough ballot papers to even one key ward where the main opponent’s support was located, could easily swing the outcome for the election.

Examples of such ‘marginal’ electorates include close wins for PNC in Port Moresby North West, South Fly, Nawae, Madang Open, Okapa Open and Kokopo. Likewise, the ruling party lost a close contest in electorates including Gazelle Open, Gumine Open and in Manus, where PNC won the first ballot but lost by 257.

The next steps in this saga are very uncertain. Concerns appear much more widespread in this election despite it being more peaceful than some earlier ones. The resignation of the Election Advisory Committee removes yet another important check on the fairness of the election.

Maybe it is not too late to save this election. But actions by returning officers, scrutineers, police and Electoral Commission officers can still have important impacts in helping protect the remaining integrity of this poll.

Going forward, the Electoral Commissioner should resign. The influential role of recommending the outcome of the writs to the Governor General should be moved to someone seen as more independent of the O’Neill government and the mismanagement of the election. The independent Election Advisory Committee itself should possibly be asked to perform these key high level roles with the administrative functions going to the Deputy Electoral Commissioner. Alternatives, such as a year of chaos preparing for yet another election or actions by the armed forces, are not at all appealing.

Australia must also take some responsibility for this mess. Protecting a democracy so close to our shores should have been a much higher priority. No specific figures have been provided on the level of Australian support for this election. Certainly, the figure is much less than the planned support for the 2018 APEC meeting, which is expected to exceed AU$100 million (approximately US$80 million). It is difficult to explain this choice of priorities in supporting democracy in our closest neighbour, especially given concerns about growing Chinese influence.

Of course, final responsibility for the election and how it is conducted rests with PNG as the sovereign country. But as a close partner, with historic responsibilities and key national interests, Australia should have done better.

Paul Flanagan is the Director of PNG Economics.

This article first appeared here on PNG Economics.

One response to “Book cooking and the PNG election”

  1. Australia lost a lot of goodwill after PNG found out most of the aid went to salaries of “advisors” in the government. The refugee camp, while agreed to by the PNG government didn’t help either. Resentment has also built up over the unequal treatment to PNG citizens travelling to Australia vs Australians travelling to PNG. As a result, PNG citizens are now finding that they might be more welcome in South East Asia. Better watch out as PNG soon discovers China, if they haven’t already, with Huawei, against the objections of Australia, built their PNG Government Network.

Support Quality Analysis

Donate
The East Asia Forum office is based in Australia and EAF acknowledges the First Peoples of this land — in Canberra the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people — and recognises their continuous connection to culture, community and Country.

Article printed from East Asia Forum (https://www.eastasiaforum.org)

Copyright ©2024 East Asia Forum. All rights reserved.