How James Marape was re-elected prime minister of PNG without opposition and how Australia might turn that to advantage

You can be excused for not knowing it, as there has been almost zero coverage in the Australian media, but Papua New Guinea Prime Minister, James Marape, has been re-elected unanimously.

That is the only way his 97-0 victory on the first day of the newly elected Parliament can be interpreted. His predecessor Peter O'Neill abstained, but it seems that all members of the Opposition including the Opposition Leader Belden Namath, voted for James Marape!

There is really only one reason for this. And it reflects a worrying trend in the politics and democracy of Papua New Guinea.

I have observed every PNG election since 1982. In the early years members who were elected were happy to serve in Opposition if their party, or alliance of parties, did not have the "numbers" to form the government. I know some members who spent their whole career as MPs did so in opposition.

The change that has occurred has happened only in the last year or so.

What yesterday's vote showed beyond any question is that getting elected to "serve" the local community is now secondary to being in government!

Once James Marape was able to demonstrate he had a clear majority - about 60 of the 80 or so declared seats - he was assured of re-election unless Peter O'Neill could bring about a major split in the multi-party Marape coalition.

O'Neill tried to do just that by offering to support the United Resources Party Leader, William Duma, for Prime Minister.

There was one big problem with that - even without the URP Marape would have been hard to beat. Given the flaws in the election process, and especially the slowness in vote counting in many seats, Marape rightly sensed that when parliament met this week between 20 and 30 seats would still not be "declared".

That would mean just under 50 votes would be enough to win - in a parliament that will end up with 119 members!

Marape was able to very skilfully capitalise on that. Once he got to 60 plus, he was just about unbeatable.

And now to the possible "benefit" for Australia from the fundamental change of attitude held by elected MPs.

Australia usually sends to PNG as High Commissioner a long-term diplomat heading towards retirement. It's not a bad post, with a nice residence with harbour views and a very amply resourced high commission with something like 100 staff.

Our best ever "representative" to Papua New Guinea was appointed almost 70 years ago!

Long before independence Prime Minister Robert Menzies and External Territories Minister, Paul Hasluck, terminated the appointment of Colonel J K Murray as Administrator. He had been appointed by Dr H V Evatt in the terms of the Curtin and Chifley Givernments.

The appointment they made was controversial. Prior to his appointment as Administrator, Brigadier Donald M Cleland was Federal Director of the Liberal Party. It was a political appointment even though Brigadier Cleland had served in PNG in the Australian Army during World War Two.

He went on to serve as Administrator for 13 years until he retired in 1966. On his retirement he and Dame Rachael Cleland continued to live in PNG.

He died in 1975 just weeks before Independence. He was accorded a state funeral by the government of Chief Minister, Michael Somare.

I recall asking the veteran PNG politician and first Governor General Sir John Guise about the impact Don Cleland had during his record term. He was unstinting in his praise of the Cleland administration.

Dr Guise held the view that Don Cleland used his political skills, and his contacts in the Australian Government, to lay the successful foundations for self-government in 1973 and Independence just over two years later.

Fast forward 70 years. As I have often commented, the biggest business in PNG is politics. The events leading up to the re-election of Prime Minister Marape just confirm "politics" is as important as ever, if not more important than ever.

Australia should acknowledge that. It follows that the appointment of High Commissioner should consider the possibility of appointing a former federal or state politician, preferably a former minister, to the position.

The Australian Representatives in Washington, Delhi and New York are former politicians. When the London High Commissioner post is filled it is likely to be a former politician.

I would argue that Port Moresby is an even more "political" post than these, with the exception of Washington.

I hope the new foreign minister uses that reality to make a political appointment in PNG.

It will give Australia a significant political advantage - one China cannot match.