A RECENT research report revealed the District Support Improvement Program (DSIP) are mere cashcows and not service delivery oriented across all 89 districts.
The report published by the Australian National University on the 6th of September has recommend making DSIP a constitutional grant as a basic means of improve funding of service delivery across all 89 districts in the country.
The authors of the report, Maholopa Laveil and Michael Kabuni, both are Lecturers at the University of Papua New Guinea highlighted this in their report presentation in Port Moresby on Friday (September 17).
The report identified that the DSIP funding given to 89 MPs representing open seats, is often talked as a tool used to maintain government coalitions and increase an MP’s chances of being re-elected rather than be seen and used as a means of service delivery.
“Constitutional grants are provided by law and not policy.
“The DSIP and PSIP fund that we have, the closest we can come to is the administrative guidelines.
“Administrative guidelines have a lot of loop holes, the sitting Prime Minister under his government can manipulate this law to their advantage,” Mr. Kabuni said.
The report also highlighted the political timeline, the use of DSIP and how it has influenced each Prime Minister’s term and political stability.
“When there is an increased spending in DSIP, there is an increasing chance of PMs maintaining political stability.
The report also highlighted the Auditor General’s Report of 2019. The report has identified that despite the lack of poor acquittals, government continues to release DSIP and PSIP funds.
Recently in Parliament, there have been concerns raised by MPs in the Opposition calling on the Government for a fair distribution of DSIP to every electorate regardless of where their MPs sit.
Mr. Kabuni, a Political Science Lecturer at the UPNG in the report recommended the need to enact a Constituency Development Fund Act.
He said the Act will clearly specify acquittal requirements; specify amount and timing of dispersion of DSIPs/PSIPs.
“The act specifies how much the 4% of the fixed expenditure is. If the revenue increases, the MPs get more, if the revenue decreases, they get less of the 4% of the expenditure budget.
“The percentage recommends the sitting Government does not underpay the Opposition PMs. If that happens, it has to go before the Courts,” he said.
Other recommendations made to the report include; abolishing the DSIP, giving DSIP to political parties; removing large project spending from under DSIP and improving oversight through the DIRD.
And the the agency responsible for reporting for compliance sake in this case, the DIRD should also published the reports annually for all stakeholders viewing and not as currently practice 2hich can be subject to manipulation by the open members. The constituents have the right to do social audit as part of the reporting process to verify and compare the DDA resolutions verses the physical implementation for budget year. Suggestions for improvement
Another recommendation is for DSIP funds to be lawfully allocated proportionally in percentage to respective constituencies in an electorate to ensure having equal access to funding from the National Government. It is becoming a culture for sitting MPs and his/her constituencies are benefiting more or entirely all of that which is allocated for the entire electorate while other parts suffer from basic services. The common perception is that the MP thinks that it is better to serve the people of his constituency for a block vote to maintain his seat in the next election where as other constituencies are seen as waster of resources to people who have possible contenders ….
Open members should never be a chairman of the DDA board.Options must be open for a collaboration of signatures from the Ward councilors,Presidents,Church run NGOs and the community leaders of each constituents that make up the district.One man becoming open member and chairman and thats when all the DSIPs run dry through many undetected holes.
If the DSIP and PSIP funds are not service delivery ,then, why cancan’t government strengthen its decentralization policy as a toe to divert all Service Improvement Program Funds to churches so they can managed the funds under the Public Private Partnership Program!!
If the DSIP and PSIP funds are not service delivery ,then, why can’t government strengthen its decentralization as a toe policy to divert all Service Improvement Program Funds to churches under the guiding policy of Public Private Partnership Program. Church can managed the funds in compliance to its financial guidelines which spelt out in PFMA!!
Another recommendation is for the Government to revised the DDA Act so that Monitoring and Evaluation of DSIP can be reliable. Districts with special development needs should be given priorities for fairness and effective service delivery. Imagine how much a K10 million can be effectively used in Moresby South compared to Telefomin. GoPNG needs to quickly review this disparity.
I agree with thoughts on a Constituency Development Fund Act. Such an Act should also determine the percentage of expenditure from the DSIPs/PSIPs per sector in the electorate. This is to ensure that MPs do not overspend or underspend in one or few sectors leaving the others high and dry.
Its time to evaluate and review the DSIP – new outcome out of the review should be seen to change the current DSIP arrangements.
Well articulated report;
My suggestion:
It is very important that the national government strengthen and improve its institutional capacities. It must ensure that the responsible government departments establish relevant monitoring and evaluation frameworks as a means to coordinate and control the utilization of funds at the national and subnational levels of governance. In this case, gov’t agencies like the Department of National Planning and Monitoring (DNPM), Department of Provincial and Local Government Affairs (DPGLA), Department of Finance (DOF) and other relevant institutions and stakeholders must ensure to establish appropriate structures, processes and procedures in order to ensure that DDA boards in our 89 districts are utilizing the DSIP and PSIP funds effectively and efficiently. The bureaucrats working in these responsible agencies must wake up from their sleep and start performing their roles and responsibilities diligently to monitor and evaluate the utilization of these funds. They must ensure that the funds achieve its developmental targets at the subnational national level. Any misappropriation of public funds must be referred to Ombudsman Commission for further enquiry.