Revised Organic Law on the Integrity of Political Parties and Candidates Failed to Get MPs Support

Press Release 02/06/2016[Source: Legend FM News]

The Registry of Political Parties is gravely concern about the lack of interest by the Government to table the Revised Organic Law on the Integrity of Political Parties and Candidates (OLIPPAC) in Parliament. The Revised OLIPPAC was approved by the National Executive Council (NEC) in March 2014 but still waiting to be tabled in Parliament. The Registry of Political Parties Dr Alphonse Gelu is concerned about the lack of interest and foresight to pass this law.

The Revised OLIPPAC was gazetted and distributed amongst the MPs since 2014 but this had somewhat failed to get any support from any MPs on the floor of Parliament. In 2015, the Registrar developed a survey question on the Revised OLIPPAC which was distributed to 52 MPs to answer and return to the Registry, out of this only 3 MPs responded. However from the questionnaire not all the questions were answered. This lack of interest shown in this survey by the MPs clearly show the lack of interest by our MPs in any issue and laws that are generated to address certain situations in the country.

MPs must know their responsibilities as MPs and Leaders. They do not only represent their electorates in Parliament but are also required to take part in important policy processes such as that initiated by the Registry of Political Parties. As MPs and Leaders they should be smart and knowledgeable about issues facing the country. As Leaders they are obliged to participate in many other activities and as responsible leaders they must accept such invitations and give all they have to such initiatives and not to act as irresponsible individuals.

The Registry has been awaiting any response or indication from the NEC, Acting Clerk of Parliament, Leader of Government Business and the Prime Minister to inform the Registry where the Revised OLIPPAC is now. When can the Registry get any indications from these responsible offices and individuals? It is so disheartening for the Registry to put all its efforts into the Revised OLIPPAC, get it twice to NEC and then to wait this long.

As the Registry has explained many times, the Revised OLIPPAC is very much influenced by two factors, the first is the Supreme Court decision of 2010 that nullified certain provisions of the law to be unconstitutional and secondly, the experiences of the Registry since 2002 in implementing the OLIPPAC. In other words the Revised OLIPPAC is an improvement to the current law by strengthening provisions that were weak and at the same time to patch the law from those provisions that were declared unconstitutional.

The focus of the Revised OLIPPAC is the political party. This is in sharp contrast to the current OLIPPAC who focuses on the behaviour of MPs but was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The activities of the Registry are now based on strengthening political parties in the country.

The Revised OLIPPAC comes with 6 constitutional amendments. These amendments have genuine justifications in improving democracy and the operations of Parliament as well as the political parties. Some critics have suggested that certain amendments are unconstitutional however if they look at the bigger picture and what the Registry wants to achieve then they would come to realise and appreciate what has been suggested to these amendments.

The Registry has started work on strengthening political parties by looking ahead to the 2017 national election. The Registry has identified various activities build around the concept of strengthening political parties. One of these activities which is based around the strengthening of political parties is the theme for 2016 and 2017 which is “Know Your Party” “Vote Your Party”.

The Registry has published posters that have been printed in the daily newspapers in the months of March and April 2016. The Registry would do a follow up of this with posters of parties with their party leaders and four of their main policies for the 2017 national election. A TV advertisement will be launched soon on promoting political parties in the country.

In promoting political parties, the Registry has even suggested to change the voting system and adopt one that would give prominence to parties rather than candidates. The Papua New Guinea Electoral Commission has been progressive enough to have taken this suggestion on and will put it on its agenda after the 2017 national elections.

From these activities the Registry has already started the process of promoting political parties but need the Revised OLIPPAC to be passed in order to give legitimacy to what it has started by promoting political parties.

It is therefore in the interest of everyone including the Registry and the MPs to respond to this urgently as the Registry needed the Revised OLIPPAC to support its activities. The Revised OLIPPAC is for Papua New Guinea and not for only one group or person or party. To suggest otherwise is irresponsible.

The Registrar Dr Gelu therefore call on all the MPs whether in government or the opposition to support this proposed law and have it tabled in Parliament. The Registrar even called upon those sensible and good thinking MPs to raise this matter on the floor of Parliament. At the moment the Registry is kept away from knowing where the Revised OLIPPAC is now and the important questions on when it will be tabled on the floor of Parliament and why it has not been tabled in Parliament.

EDUCATION TUITION FEE FREE (TFF) POLICY - A Joint Statement by the Minister and Acting Secretary

Originally published on Department of Education Facebook page, 22 January 2016.

We are pleased to announce that we now have a single integrated Tuition Fee Free policy that will provide further clarity and direction in the implementation of tuition fee free.

Education is a right for all children, both boys and girls, in Papua New Guinea and we are very thankful that this Government had made one of the boldest decisions ever made by any government when it introduced the Tuition Fee Free (TFF) policy in 2011.

This landmark policy is benefiting all children irrespective of background across our country. We have had challenges in implementing and monitoring this massive agenda as we remit over K2billion to over 10,000 schools each year and aim to ensure accountability.

We would like to commend our officers and stakeholders for their continuous work to ensure that the TFF policy is rolled out and implemented in all schools throughout the country. 

We are now making this policy available to all our schools and institutions and also our stakeholders including the general public so that they understand it and help us to implement it successfully. We believe that this policy will give opportunity to many more children to have complete education from Prep to Grade 12 and thus contributing to the human resources that will develop our great country.

1. POLICY STATEMENT 

The Government of Papua New Guinea will provide tuition fee free funding to schools registered under the National Education System to enable all school aged children to access universal quality education from Preparatory grade to Grade 12, including students in Technical Vocational Education and Training (TVET), Flexible Open and Distance Education (FODE) and inclusive education.

2. POLICY INTENT 

The TFF Policy means that: 

1. All school aged children will have access to free tuition in elementary, primary and secondary - 13 years of complete education.

2. Students will not be discriminated against on the grounds of economic circumstance – with equal opportunity for all. 

3. All people in PNG will be educated. 

4. Parents, guardians and stakeholders are engaged and take shared responsibility for education in PNG

3. POLICY: INTENDED OUTCOMES 

1. All children and youth have access to elementary, primary and secondary - 13 years of complete education – leading to compulsory education. 

2. All people in PNG will be educated and be able to contribute to the country’s development and future growth. 

3. Equity is enhanced. Education is available to all children in all communities across PNG irrespective of gender, economic or geographic background. 

4. Parents are relieved from the burden of fees. Hence savings are invested to improve the quality of life of Papua New Guineans, towards achieving Vision 2050.

4. SCHOOL FEES & COMPONENTS

4.1. Scope of TFF

1. A grant covering the maximum fee limits set by the National Education Board is paid by the National Government for the learning needs of students attending registered Elementary, Primary, Secondary and Vocational Schools and Inclusive Education Resource Centres and FODE and also approved and registered Permitted schools. All employees of the Department of Education must comply with this policy and the accompanying TFF Implementation Guide.

4.2. TFF Components

TFF has three (3) components. 

I. Cash Administration 40%

II. Infrastructure 30%

III. Teaching and Learning 30%

I. Cash Administration Component (40%) 

Cash grants are paid directly to school accounts registered with the DoE.

II. Infrastructure Component (30%) 

Grant to schools for the provision of infrastructure – both for routine works and new capital works. This component will be held in Trust by District Treasuries and released to schools (with a corresponding District Service Improvement Program component where provided) based on scope of works and quotes.

III. Teaching and Learning Component (30%)

Government will assist in the provision of teaching and learning materials. This includes consumables and capital assets, equipment and curriculum materials. This component will be centrally managed through the regions.

4.3. Project Fees

Additional fees may be imposed by schools for special purposes as approved by the National Education Board and Provincial Education Board. Students will not be denied an education for non-payment of this fee.

Maximum Project Fee limits may change from year to year. Project Fee Limits for 2016 are as follows:

Level - Maximum Fee

Elementary - K50

Primary - K100

High Schools/Vocational K200

Secondary Schools K250

4.4. Church Agency Fees

Additional fees may be imposed by Church Agencies through their schools for special purposes as approved by National Education Board and Provincial Education Board. Students will not be denied to education for non-payment of this fee. Public notices will put out to advice on the fee limits.

5. POLICY DIRECTIONS 

5.1. Responsibilities

1. The TFF policy and funding will remain a national function, whilst implementation, monitoring and reporting will be provincial and district administrative functions. 

2. The National Government will provide 100% of Tuition Fees for school aged students enrolled in schools registered within the National Education System.

3. The National Government will pay a proportionate subsidy of the total Tuition Fees for school aged students enrolled in permitted and approved and registered schools with the Department of Education.

4. Parents, guardians and other stakeholders will have the responsibility to provide additional basic requirements such as, but not limited to, school uniforms, sports equipment, lunch, transportation, toiletries, and additional stationery.

5.2. Right to Education 

No child can be refused enrolment or restricted in her/his place in a school or learning program if unable to contribute project fees, church fees, or any other form of fees including tuition fee free grants.

5.3. Project and Church Agency Fees Rules

Schools may collect project fees within the national fee limits set by the NEB, but must follow the following rules: 

1. Schools may propose projects fees to the PEB for specific school infrastructure projects or a project that will contribute to students’ education. The Parents and Citizens of the school must approve such projects through formal Meetings, recorded in Minutes.

2. The NEB will set annual maximum limits for project fees and church fees, with PEBs authorizing local limits within the nationally established maximums.

3. PEBs will only approve projects fees where they are demonstrated to be educationally sound and viable projects, approved by minuted meetings of Parent & Citizens and School Boards. Such fees must be at or below the national NEB approved limit.

4. PEBs will only approve church agency fees, which are education related and will contribute to the spiritual growth of students. Such fees must be at or below the national NEB approved limit. 

5. No student will denied access to schools or classes for non payment of project or church agency fees.

5.4. Finance 

1. TFF will be paid to qualifying schools on an annual basis, according to the TFF Implementation Guide that will accompany this policy. 

2. TFF grants will be paid into one specific Cheque Account opened with a Commercial bank approved by the School Board and endorsed by the Provincial Education Board. This bank account must never change. This bank account must hold a minimum balance of K100.00 and remain open at all times. Closure of accounts will stop banks from sending funds into school accounts. 

3. TFF funds must be spent according to the Public Finance Management Act and Financial Instructions issued by the Department of Finance and other authorities.

4. District and Provincial Treasurers will sign and approve expenditures of all schools as stipulated in Financial Instructions. Thresholds of expenditure approval limits for each level of school are prescribed in the Implementation Guide and must be complied with by all head teachers of institutions. 

5. TFF funds must be spent according to the approved procedures for planning, expenditure and acquittal attached to this policy. 

6. School management must maintain and submit quarterly transparent financial reports for acquittal and audit purposes.

5.5. Schools Register and Enrolment Data 

1. TFF will be paid to qualifying schools on an annual basis, according to the Implementation Guide. Accurate Real time data is critical. 

2. The Head teacher of each school will be responsible for submitting accurate real time data and required information, twice a year, to be eligible for annual TFF payments as prescribed in the Implementation Guide. 

3. Head teachers will submit enrolment data to the District Education Implementation Committee (DEIC) twice a year. 

(a) Complete a school census form and submit by June 30 each year. 

(b) Complete ONLY part one of the school census form and submit by November 30 of each year. 

4. The District Education Implementation Committee will provide real time verified data to the Department of Education Corporate Data Branch with copies to the Provincial Education Planning Office. 

5. Provincial Education Offices will submit verified data according to procedures as set out in the Implementation Guide. 

6. The data submitted by schools to the DEIC must be signed off and stamped only by the authorised school inspectors. The Inspector or Standard Officer will be accountable for any inaccurate data he or she endorses. 

7. DEIC will complete a new District School Register Form and submit to the Department of Education – Corporate Data Branch twice a year.

5.6. TFF Implementation Guide

The TFF Implementation Guide that accompanies this Policy is equally important and therefore it must be read, implemented and complied with concurrently.

6. GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT

6.1. The Minister

The Minister for Education is responsible to the government for setting the policy guidelines and ensuring the implementation of the TFF policy by the Department of Education and other education authorities under the Education Act 1983.

6.2. Inter Departmental TFF Steering Committee

Provides oversight and advice to the Minister and Secretary on the TFF policy implementation and monitoring of this policy. This Committee includes Secretaries of the Departments or delegates at the Deputy Secretary level:

i) Secretary of Department of Education; (Chairman)

ii) Secretary or Delegate at Deputy Level - Department of Finance;

iii) Secretary or Delegate at Deputy Level - Department of National Planning;

iv) Secretary or Delegate at Deputy Level - Department of Treasury

v) Secretary or Delegate at Deputy Level - Department of PM; and

vi) Deputy Secretary for Education – Policy & Corporate Services

6.3. The Secretary 

The Secretary for the National Department of Education is responsible for the implementation of the TFF Policy. Monitoring and evaluation of the policy is the responsibility of the Deputy Secretary, Policy and Corporate Services.

6.4. TFF Secretariat 

A TFF Secretariat within the DoE will be created with additional capacity to provide administrative support to the Secretary for Education and will assist the work of the Inter Departmental TFF Steering Committee. Provincial Coordinators will be appointed to assist the Secretariat to implement the policy. The Inter-Departmental TFF Steering Committee will report to the Minister for Education. All other stakeholders’ responsibilities are covered in the TFF Implementation Guide.

6.5. District Education Implementation Committee

The DEIC will be established in each district to approve School Learning Improvement Plans, ensure proper use of TFF funds by each school and will verify school and enrolment data collected through every School Census. The membership will consist of a church representative, CEO of District Development Authority, community representative and the District Education Administrator and District Standard Officer/Inspectors.

7. MONITORING AND REPORTING

The Policy is implemented, monitored and reported on a regular basis. The mandatory reports are as follows; 

Report Recipient/ Report by/Type of Report/Frequency/ Deadlines

- Parliament/ Minister/Parliament Statement/Annual/March 30.

- NEC/Minister/NEC Information paper/Bi Annual /June 31, Dec 31

- Inter – Departmental TFF SC/ Secretary for Education. Administration and Financial Report/ Every Quarter/ March, June, September, December.

- NEB/ Deputy Sec PCS/ Administration and Financial Report Every Quarter March, June, September, December.

- TMT/ TFF Secretariat/Administration and Financial Report/Every two months/ Feb, Apr, June, Aug, Oct, Dec. 

- Heads of Schools School Boards and PEBs/ Administration and Financial Report/ Each term/ March, June, September, December.

UNI STRIKE & SUSPENSION: CONSEQUENCES STAKEHOLDERS NEEDED TO KNOW, SETBACK IN EDUCATION

May was a sad month for many parents, sponsors and students. Normal classes would not resume anytime sooner as the prime minister didn’t respond to students petitions favorably. It appeared universities in Port Moresby, Lae, Goroka and Rabaul were still on strike, no classes for over three weeks.

Whilst the other universities have allowed students to remain on campus, UPNG’s senate (a group of senior management & lecturers) resolved to suspend semester one, indefinitely.  Appearing on the PNG Tonight Current Affairs program, UPNG acting Chancellor, Dr. Mann, told John Iggins that the suspension was to diffuse tension and give the senate time to adjust 2016 academic calendar. To effect their decision, the senate gave students 48 hours to vacate the campus. Senior leaders at UPNG have seen it fit to suspend semester, but is it the right decision? This post is my opinion on students strike and the likely consequences. 

There were several questions we should ponder in the light of any further action: if UPNG SRC successfully stayed the 48-hours eviction notice and remain on campus, what would the senate do to bring an amicable solution?; if UPNG SRC failed to stop the senate, students would return when the academic calendar was adjusted –  but when?; Can the senate guarantee that students would not go on strike again on return?; the worst case scenario was going to be suspension of 2016 academic year at UPNG, UNITECH, UoG and UoNRE.

I don’t think the government would allow for the later to happen because its impacts are unthinkable. If the strike continued to a point where academic year was cancelled, not only would the students be sent home but serious consequences may follow. We are likely to see non-certification of final year degree courses, cancelling of HECAS/AES or any government scholarship for the current students, forfeiting transport and accommodation privileges and other privileges provided to current students by the government. This means one thing: most students must return as self-sponsored students.

Not only would the students feel the pinch if the academic year ended prematurely, but the government would also have created a generational setback. Subsequently there was going to be a 4-year gap as far as each stage at university level was concerned. By this I mean, we would see competition between repeating students from years 1 – 4 (those that are currently on strike) and transitioning students (those who are moving into the system). This competition would leave many eligible students without a university place, thus creating a gap that could possibly have been avoided. Again, no one in their right mind would want to envision such setback.

The government’s efforts to improve education standard would fall back too. For example, current students at universities have transited through the Tuition Fee Free policy. It is the policy of the PNC government when it came to power. I don’t think the prime minister would happily let any university senate or council suspend 2016 academic year. He would not want to see the students who have gone through the TFF policy failed because they have not collected the required/recommended GPA.

Dr Kavanamur, on FM100 news (26.05.2016 @2pm), said that students degree would be invalid if they missed classes for up to five weeks. Students have been missing classes for over three weeks. The education secretary is right. For a uni student to be eligible for government scholarship, you’d have to score a GPA above 2.00, in UNITECH’s case it is 2.25. With continued non-attendance of classes, and obviously missed assessments, you’d have realized all students may fail their course work. So, it seemed adjusting the academic calendar could be an appropriate action to take to validate awards for each student wherever they were studying this year. But was it right to ask UPNG students to vacate the campus? Unfortunately, UPNG senate had brought upon itself more headache. The senate would be contemplating how to send everyone home, deal with sponsors, adjust academic calendar, recall them to resume classes and put-up with disgruntled students and stakeholders. It would do better if it only suspended the semester and adjusted the calendar whilst students were on-campus. It simply showed the senate was incapable of handling students’ issues within its precincts.

Perhaps the best thing to do now was for the senates to adjust the academic year and negotiated for students at the 4 main universities in the country to resume classes. The sooner the better. Many parents and other stakeholders would agree on this. Two parties were involved in this debacle. The senates was the middle men. So, what was the best thing the prime minister could do to ensure resumption of classes? How could each university senate/council facilitate an amicable solution, a win-win solution? 

This strike action was, in fact, a litmus test for show of strong leadership at both political and educational levels. If the students continued boycotting classes, it would only suggest that something wasn't right with leaders at both levels.

Double Pricing: How One Supermarket Cheats Its Customers With Devious Tactics, Port Moresby

Clarity in pricing is, perhaps, the most important factor in the retail industry. Absence of this factor results in supermarkets cheating customers – this is a question of morality, it is worth highlighting. Why would pricing be done to confuse and extort money from unsuspecting customers? If you are someone who often do family shopping at this supermarket in Port Moresby you should be vigilant, especially if you are buying good on specials.

FOODWORLD Gordons, an example of double pricing.

Selling price on both products, K8.05; 

Discount price K5.90 on Window Cleaner

I have been near victim of double pricing on several occasions. What happened was that two similar products were placed together – one on reduced price and the other isn’t, with the reduced price made to be indicative of both items. I am a maths teacher, I am good with numbers. By principle, I always check prices before I make payment if I am going to buy something – a personal trait I developed over time. I think, that was possibly why I was able to identify this irregularity and share my blue experience.

So, here were the incidents that prompted me to write about this conniving act by the major supermarket at Gordons. The first incident happened when a 5 toea change was not given back to me. I had to ask for it to be given. How many of you may have just walked away? Think about it. Though it was not much, it was a matter of personal principle – the shop has an obligation (it is duty bound) to give me the right change. The fact that I asked for it does not make me a lesser person, but challenges this devious norm that 5 toea doesn’t matter – it does matter!

On another occasion I went to the same shop to buy some cleaning products. On first sight, two similar products were put together in one shelf with the same price label on either sides, encompassing both products. Knowing the normal prices, I realized the products were reduced by nearly K2.00. I pick up 2 Spray and Wipe and 2 Window Cleaner refillers – a saving of nearly K8.00. From the picture shown above, not only the cleaning products were very much alike but both selling and reduced prices were indicative of both products. So, you would have easily worked out the special applied to both items. I found out, at home, when looking through the receipt that the 4 cleaning products were not all the same price. I went back to the shop, to the same cashier and asked why. I was told the products were different. Though I knew they were different I was upset that I had been cheated by double pricing. I wouldn’t have bought 2 of the expensive products if the pricing was clear. The fact that pricing was unclear was upsetting.

Devious pricing:

- Pricing was done to conceal the expensive one. 

- Both products were placed together in the same shelf, devious 

The third incident at the same shop happened today (5^th May, 2016). Unsuspectingly, I pick 2 Aerogard Roll On (50mls). They were taken from the same shelf with the same discount price of K9.95. I have had difficulty identifying Tropical Aerogard (K10.05) from Odourless Aerogard Roll On (K9.95) both 50mls when they were placed together. 

Again these were different products, but the same tactic was used to conceal the price not reduced.  I questioned why similar products were placed together, side by side on the same shelf with the discount price visible. I do admit that I should have gone further and looked closely at the fine prints. Should I blame myself? I don’t think so because I knew what I was buying. I also knew there was a saving of 10 toea. It was obvious the pricing was deliberately done to deceive customers, me being one.

In fact, these tactics (double pricing and putting similar products together) wasn’t the first time this supermarket used as it has happened on several occasions. Customers need clarity in pricing. If there is a discount offered, as in the case of Spray and Wipe and Window Clearner refillables (or the Aerogards 50mls or any products on sale), there must be clear separation and pricing to avoid mix-ups. 

The images and receipt were of the original products from the Gordons Foodworld supermarket. At no point did anyone apologise for these incidents. Nor did the supervisors show any indication to improve the way they did pricing. To date, I am still a customer at that supermarket, but a meticulous one. Next time you shop, shop smart.