Is It All Chaos? Marape’s Seven-Year Report and the Accountability Mirage

by PAUL L. KEBAIJA

Prime Minister James Marape’s presentation of the Marape-Rosso Government’s Seven-Year Performance Report on 5 June 2026 was framed as an unprecedented act of transparency. He told Parliament the document offered an honest overview of investments, achievements, challenges and unfinished work across infrastructure, education, health, law and order, and the economy. He admitted many programmes remain half-complete or just started, urged sector ministers, governors and MPs to produce their own detailed reports, and invited citizens and stakeholders to interrogate the numbers. “Such a Report has not been presented in Parliament since 2007,” he said.⁠

The rhetoric is appealing. After seven years, a government voluntarily tabling its record and calling for scrutiny looks like maturity. Yet the exercise raises more questions than it settles. PNG’s own data and independent assessments suggest the gap between allocated funds and lived outcomes remains wide.

Official claims highlight macroeconomic expansion GDP reportedly rising from around K79 billion to K130 billion alongside billions in infrastructure (K11.93 billion), social services (K20.2 billion) and provincial programmes. Connect PNG roads, school fee subsidies, hospital upgrades and new tertiary places are cited as tangible progress. These are not fictions; some physical assets have been delivered and access metrics have moved in places.

However, the broader indicators tell a more sobering story. Multidimensional poverty affects roughly three-quarters of the population according to World Bank measures, with limited improvement over the past decade. Life expectancy sits at 66 years. Literacy and learning outcomes remain weak in many regions; recent assessments show large shares of primary students unable to read at grade level. Electricity reaches only about one in five citizens, and safe water access is similarly constrained. Large inter-provincial roads under Connect PNG have advanced, yet maintenance is poor and many rural communities still lack reliable all-weather access to services.⁠Bti-project

The timing adds irony. In February 2026, just months before the report, the FATF placed PNG on its grey list for strategic deficiencies in anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing — low prosecution rates, weak supervision and enforcement gaps. A government touting transparency and accountability while the country faces international censure for inadequate action against financial crime invites scepticism about the depth of reform.⁠Fatf-gafi

Marape’s call for ministers, governors and MPs to report their own performance is formally correct; sub-national delivery matters. Yet after seven years of central leadership, the delegation of responsibility can read as either belated recognition of weak oversight or political positioning ahead of 2027. Establishing a National Monitoring and Coordinating Authority is a positive step, but PNG’s history shows that new bodies often struggle without sustained political will, independent teeth and consequences for failure.

Opposition voices, including East Sepik Governor Allan Bird, have already questioned whether budget allocations translate into results on the ground infrastructure quality, job creation, provincial funding effectiveness and service delivery. These are legitimate lines of inquiry the report itself invites.

Papua New Guinea is not in total chaos. Some macro stability has been maintained through COVID, global shocks and domestic pressures. Infrastructure spending has increased and certain access indicators have improved. The country retains significant resource wealth and human potential.

But the performance report also documents persistent shortfalls in medicines, roads, education quality and corruption prosecutions problems that predate this government yet have not been decisively reversed despite substantial expenditure. When citizens in many provinces still experience unreliable services, high living costs and insecurity, claims of steady nation-building risk sounding detached.

The report can serve as a useful baseline if it triggers genuine, independent scrutiny rather than ritualistic self-assessment. Real accountability requires not only more reports but consequences, better procurement discipline, stronger institutions and a willingness to confront elite capture and implementation failures. Without those, the cycle of high spending, modest outcomes and recurring governance crises will continue and the question “Is it all chaos?” will keep answering itself on the ground long after the parliamentary statements fade.