02-06-2013, 10:23 AM
Parliament has voted to extend the grace period to 30 months. This is important for many reasons, but a big one is that investors can be more confident of stability in PNG. The approval was by a very wide margin.
Grace period extended
Source:
The National,Wednesday 06th of February, 2013
By JEFFREY ELAPA
A MEMBER of the opposition boosted the government’s move to extend its “trial” term in office by voting for the bill to provide the Prime Minister Peter O’Neill confidence to run the country.
The extended 30-month grace (from 18 months) period started yesterday after the bill was passed with an overwhelming majority, 90-14 on votes.
Opposition leader Belden Namah was powerless to stop the bill despite his loud noises earlier, but it still planned to seek a Supreme Court interpretation, perhaps today, to prevent the extension.
A power blackout for almost 45 minutes in parliament, alleged to have been plotted to sabotage the passing of the bill, came to no avail.
The blackout is now believed to be a subject of investigation.
Namah said the opposition would file a Supreme Court reference today to declare the amendment unconstitutional and that there were also inconsistencies in the gazettal notices.
The only member of the opposition who voted in support of the extension was Lufa MP Jeffrey Kauve, a first-time politician.
Kauve said he did what he thought was right for the country.
The three founding politicians and former prime ministers Sir Michael Somare, Sir Julius Chan and Paias Wingti voted for the bill.
However the manner in which parliament conducted the vote confused observers and Sir Julius and Sir Michael were also confused as the earpieces malfunctioned.
Dr Allan Marat from the opposition was the only MP to debate the bill before the final reading was taken and passed.
Marat said there was no need for an amendment because stability was found through governance and the actions of people through democratic accountability and not through extensions of grace periods.
Opposition MPs claimed the amendment was unconstitutional as the prime minister could become so powerful to manipulate the government and there would be no check and balances.
O’Neill said that the amendment was in the best interest of the nation on the long run.
“These challenges (for economic growth and investment confidence) need stability,” he said.
Add new comment | Tags: National, Main Stories