Ministers turn the grievance debate into a praise and worship session

by MICHAEL J. PASSINGAN

The grievance debate is the part of the parliamentary week that belongs to backbenchers. It exists so members can raise the problems of their electorates and press a Government that controls almost every other minute of the House's time. On 16 October, ministers spent a large share of it praising themselves.

The first speaker, a minister, used his time to celebrate Connect PNG as the first time in 50 years the country had been linked. The Opposition Leader rose on a point of order. This is a grievance debate, he said, not a platform for promoting the Government's flagship programme. If the minister had no grievance, he should stop wasting parliamentary time and let members raise theirs.

A second member made the same point more bluntly. The grievance debate is for ordinary members, he said, not for ministers making ministerial statements, and not for a "praise and worship team". The Assistant Speaker ruled that any member, including a minister, may make a statement in the grievance debate. The minister carried on.

He was not the last. Another minister later rose to defend Connect PNG at length. The Minister for Justice used his turn to celebrate a law that shields the Prime Minister from no-confidence motions. By the end, a debate meant for grievances had carried three ministerial advertisements.

The ruling may be technically correct under the standing orders. That does not make the practice right. Ministers have question-time answers, ministerial statements, second-reading speeches and the full machinery of government communications. Backbenchers have the grievance debate. Every minute a minister spends praising a programme is a minute taken from a member trying to raise drought, youth unemployment or sorcery violence.

The minister who opened the debate gave the game away. With the election six months off, he said, he wanted to speak before the campaign began. It was a campaign speech, delivered in the time set aside for grievances, with Parliament's live broadcast as its audience.

What the backbench did raise shows what was crowded out. The Member for Abau described a youth "time bomb" and asked for a state of emergency. The Central Governor described the security risk Connect PNG has brought into her province. Peter O'Neill asked why an investigation report into billions of kina of road contracts has not been tabled. Those were grievances, and they needed the time ministers spent on applause.

The debate ended with the Deputy Opposition Leader pointing at the empty Government benches. Ministers who had time to praise Connect PNG did not have time to stay and hear the grievances. Taking the floor to talk and leaving when others speak is the clearest statement of what the Government thinks the grievance debate is for.

The Speaker could fix this with a practice ruling that ministers yield to private members during grievances. The Government could fix it faster by telling its own ministers to sit down. Neither will happen unless voters notice. Six months from an election, they should.