Evisceration of reserve powers causes chaos on PNG

Another constitutional provision compounded the problem. Instead of leaving the appointment of a Prime Minister to the Governor-General acting in accordance with established conventions, the Constitution states that the Parliament - there is only one chamber - elects the prime minister. They did this and they chose Peter O'Neill. The Governor-General, Sir Michael Ogio, had no discretion to refuse to swear him in.

The motion declaring the Prime Minister's office vacant was quite correctly found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on 12 December – four months later. The court said Sir Michael was still the Prime Minister.

The delay in coming to this decision demonstrates how unwise it is to remove the reserve powers from the Crown. With appropriate legal advice the Governor-General, would no doubt have almost immediately decided not to call Mr. O'Neill and to leave Sir Michael in office.

In any event the Governor-General accepted the court's ruling and duly swore in Sir Michael and his ministry. Parliament reacted by ordering the Governor-General to reinstate Peter O'Neill. It also passed legislation purporting to validate its action against Sir Michael.

When the Governor- General understandably refused to reinstate O'Neill, Parliament resorted to yet another section unwisely inserted into the Constitution. This gives Parliament the power to suspend the Governor-General. This they purported to do.

Then we come to yet another unfortunate provision. On such a suspension the acting Governor- General is none other than the very man who allowed the original unconstitutional motion removing the Governor –General, the Speaker, Jeffery Nape.

This mess is the direct result of hastily drawn up Constitution which attempts to codify too much but which takes away one of the most important checks and balances on the politicians, the reserve powers. .

The danger of abuse is exacerbated in Papua New Guinea through the fact that Parliament has only one chamber - there is no Senate.

The problem in this instance is not the result of tribalism which hinders the development of a true party system. That is another issue. It is the Constitution.

The Westminster system has proved to be one of the most successful constitutional systems in the history of the world. It was achieved not by wise men designing a Constitution in advance. It is the result of the evolution of the constitutional system in the United Kingdom over a long period of historical development. It is the result of the adoption of practices which were found to work - and work well - and which in the course of time became conventions of the Constitution.

The Australian Constitution, the product of our very wise founding fathers, is based on the Westminster system, incorporating specific provisions only when these were deemed necessary. The core of the necessary provisions relate to the adoption of federalism. But you still hear complaints that, for example, the prime minister is not mentioned in the Constitution. He does not need to be, and if he were this could lead to the sort of unintended consequences we are seeing in Moresby. As the no case declared in the 1999 referendum: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it..."

The Westminster system requires that there be in place significant checks and balances on the political arm, through for example, a bicameral parliament, an independent judiciary and that central institution which is beyond political power, the Crown.