Commissioner and Chairman, Papua New Guinea Public Service Commission
A Public Service Commission (PSC) Commissioner's perspective on the importance of good public recordkeeping and how archivists and public service commissioners can work together to achieve improvement in this area.
Before I proceed with my presentation, I would like to thank in particular the Australian National Archives Director-General, Mr Ross Gibbs, for inviting me to speak at this conference. I first met Mr Gibbs in the 5th South Pacific Commissioners Conference in Apia, Western Samoa last year, where he made a presentation on recordkeeping for good governance and invited commissioners to attend the PARBICA conference and the toolkit workshop in Noumea last year. I was fortunate to attend that conference, and since returning from that workshop I’ve been working my way through to get proper recordkeeping and management as one of the national issues for my country’s immediate priorities and attention.
I was asked to speak at this conference on the theme: 'A PSC Commissioner's perspective on the importance of good public recordkeeping and how archivists and public service commissioners can work together to achieve improvements in this area'. Therefore what I have presented herein addresses the theme in three main parts; firstly, my perspectives on the importance of good public recordkeeping; secondly, the issues affecting recordkeeping and management; and thirdly, on how archivists and PSC can work together to achieve improvements.
It should be borne in mind that what has been presented herein are mainly drawn from my personal experiences as a Commissioner of the Papua New Guinea Public Service Commission and they concern the public administration of my country.
One of the roles I am entrusted to undertake as a Public Service Commissioner of Papua New Guinea is to conduct personnel reviews in the public service. This involves reviewing administrative decisions, made by departmental heads, the provincial administrators and those empowered by law to do so, which affect a public servant. Thus when an aggrieved public servant applies for review, the first and the most important evidence I often seek is the decision in question. If it’s a disciplinary matter resulting in dismissal or some other penalty, I call for proof of such a decision, for without such a proof a review cannot proceed.
In normal circumstances it would appear that proof of the decision would not be a difficult one, as this can be easily ascertained from either the aggrieved officer or from the administration. This is because they are the only parties legally responsible to account for each of their actions. On the part of the administration it accounts for the kind of decision it has made; and for the aggrieved it is the basis upon which he can be heard and for the review to advance to a substantive level.
It is sad to state that on numerous occasions I had to abandon reviews and allow status quo to prevail, simply because both parties cannot prove the decision in question. In this instance the common argument often advanced by the aggrieved is that he should not be penalized or held accountable for non-production of the decision because he is not responsible for making it in the first place. He contends that recordkeeping is the responsibility of the administration. As such, it should be held accountable and penalized for failing to do so and or for denying same.
The arguments of the aggrieved are sound and valid. Therefore to do justice I have no choice but to uphold the doctrine of status quo by ordering for his reinstatement and reimbursement of lost salaries and entitlements if he has been terminated.
From the perspective of the aggrieved, the decision to apply the doctrine of status quo is a fair one for reasons alluded to earlier. And no one could dispute it if it’s proven that the aggrieved has an unblemished track record. But what if he is a bad person; that his performance is pathetic and his disciplinary record stinks? Is he worthy to be retained? No right-minded person, and certainly the administration, would be the first one to jump up and say this kind of person is not needed in the public service. Therefore from the perspective of the administration, the application of the doctrine of status quo would not apply to this kind of person.
I would agree with the administration’s contention only if it admits that it was the culprit that made the decision in question, the subject of the review, and provided it adduces evidence to sustain or prove that the aggrieved is a bad person having a very bad track record. I cannot allow the administration to escape from its primary and traditional roles of good public administration, governance, transparency and accountability. If I do, it would be self-defeating and compromising my role as a Commissioner for not holding the administration accountable for its actions.
I’ve decided to commence my presentation in the above way to portray how important recordkeeping is in public administration. It promotes good governance and administration, transparency and accountability.
Proper recordkeeping enables the decision maker – a departmental head, a provincial administrator, a chief executive officer or any person empowered to do so – to make an informed decision in a timely manner and without delay. An informed decision is a good one, as it is based upon recorded facts and evidence which will always withstand time and challenges and will speak for itself even in the absence of its maker. But improper recordkeeping brings disaster, creates doubts and fears and promotes bad governance and administration. Its transparency becomes suspect and its accountability compromised. It breeds corruption.
The experience I’ve gained through personnel reviews as explained earlier and through other functional areas of responsibility compels me to state that recordkeeping and management in Papua New Guinea needs urgent serious scrutiny and improvement.
I must add that the above view is equally shared by the Auditor-General, the Ombudsman Commission, the Public Accounts Committee and by other Commissions of Inquiry. One only needs to read their reports to find out and confirm this. Even ordinary members of the public express similar concerns over departments and organisations such as Lands, Community Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Personnel Management and National Housing Corporation. These are departments and organisations which are accountable to the public on their respective functional duties and responsibilities. When asked to account for specific areas of responsibility they fail, which implies that they are very poor in recordkeeping and management.
Records have always been kept but the problem lies with poor management. As time evolves circumstances and situations change. When a new government takes over, names, structures, functions and manpower of departments and organisations likewise change. These changes affect the way records are managed. And when management doesn’t play its proactive role to review and upgrade its recording systems, the door is opened to allow information to end up in a wrong file, thereby making easy accessibility a problem, which may eventually lead to loss of information.
Lack of a legally-mandated body to coordinate and oversee proper records management is yet another factor which contributes towards the compounding recordkeeping problem. While there is the National Archives Office of Papua New Guinea it plays a different role and not one of coordination. Therefore urgent steps should be taken to constitute a body with powers to initiate and coordinate policies, programs and procedures for recordkeeping and management.
When management doesn’t recognise that recordkeeping and managing are both important, the chances are that all the officers within the department or the organisation will likewise give a very low profile to it.
This could be one of the reasons why a manager gives a very low profile to recordkeeping and management. If he or she and his officers are not adequately trained, they won’t acquire the knowledge and skills needed to improve. Therefore training is a must.
There is currently training offered by various institutions and consultants in the country on an ad hoc basis. Thus there is a need for proper coordination to maintain quality and uniformity on current trends, systems, knowledge and skills applicable for recordkeeping and management.
There is no need to institute and establish a new and separate body to take control and responsibility over the issues expressed above, in particular, to initiate and coordinate policies, programs and procedures in this area. There is already in existence the National Archives of Papua New Guinea. What is required is for it to be given the proper legal recognition and mandate to take the lead role in recordkeeping and management.
I appreciate the dual roles of the National Archives of Papua New Guinea – which is no different from those of Australia, especially as an enabler of good public administration and accountability. After participating in the toolkit workshop in Noumea, I am convinced that the right way forward for Papua New Guinea is to give institutional strengthening to the National Archives of PNG. This body is the rightful and the most qualified, having a wealth of knowledge and skills to take command of the issues relating to records.
The recognition it should have should be by way of the following:
The Public Services Commission in PNG unfortunately does not become involved in policy initiation and implementation. That role is played by the Department of Personnel Management. PSC is a quasi-judicial body responsible for reviews of personnel matters and organisations, especially, the State Services and Institutions. As to how the Commission can help, the only way possible is through a conduct of the review of the office of the National Archives. And with powers to inform and offer advice to Cabinet on such reviews, I see that there is merit and chances of success in achieving above improvements.
What is required on the part of the National Archives, to kick start the process, is to write and request the Commission to exercise its powers under the Constitution of PNG and conduct an organisational review of the office within a time frame.
I began my presentation by exposing the role of a Commissioner concerning personnel matters. That was purposely to portray and expose in a practical context the need for proper recordkeeping and management. The administration cannot escape from its traditional role of proper accountability. And there are bodies like the Public Services Commission, the Ombudsman and the Auditor-General, who are mandated to expose the administration’s failure and demand for it to be accountable. But demanding for it to be accountable won’t do any good if the records are lost and non-existent. The best option and way forward to avoid this would be to allow expert enablers of recordkeeping, the archivists, to take the lead role and showcase how proper recordkeeping and managing it should be done professionally.