News and Public Notices

Honourable Members, my statement from the Chair is in reference to a ministerial statement in the PNG National Parliament on Tuesday this week on the sessional order.  

Under the Melanesian Agreement, the two Speakers, the Speaker of the PNG National Parliament and, myself, as the Speaker of the House of Representatives, were required to engage, craft and agree on the Sessional Order. The Joint Supervisory Body of December 2025 asked us to work in coordination with the National Minister of Bougainville Affairs and the ABG Minister for Independence and to report back to the JSB.  

On this mandate, the two Speakers and the Clerks, including parliamentary officers, travelled to Fiji on Tuesday, 21st April 2026, to work on the draft sessional orders. In Fiji, the National Parliament team tabled the draft sessional order for deliberation.

We had a lengthy discussion on the draft sessional order. We were unanimous in agreeing to on the procedures relating to tabling of the referendum result, tabling of the post-referendum consultation report; and to the procedure for debate once the statement is made by the Minister for Bougainville Affairs. However we did not reach agreement on the voting majority on the motion to be put to the Parliament. Our views differed and it is around this that most of our discussions revolved. First; the motion or the question to be put to the National Parliament, second; the voting threshold.

With regard to the motion to be put; my team and I argued that the question to the National Parliament should reflect what the two governments are pursuing through the Melanesian Agreement and the Melanesian Framework. I will also point out that the question or the motion now adopted by the National Parliament in the Sessional Order, was not the question that was in the draft Sessional Order, tabled in Fiji for discussion. It is totally a different question. It is a direct question on the referendum result. The motion adopted states, ‘That the National Parliament accepts the Referendum Results.’ This is not what was discussed or agreed.

In regards to the voting threshold, in our previous parliamentary engagements between the two Parliaments, starting in Lae and in Port Moresby, both sides were in agreement on a simple majority.

The ¾ absolute majority is always going to be a point of contention. If it is advanced as a legal argument this ignores what has really been a political negotiation throughout the consultation by both governments on the results of the Bougainville Referendum.

When the draft sessional order was tabled in Fiji, 3/4 absolute majority was put on the table. My officers and I did not agree on the voting threshold of 3/4 absolute majority. The National Parliament team also had their arguments why it should be a ¾ absolute majority. Our team advanced the discussions that the voting majority should be a simple majority because there is no prescribed majority in section 342 (2) or anywhere in Part XIV of National Constitution or even the Bougainville Peace Agreement. This is also a conventional parliamentary practice, when there is no prescribed majority, the parliament should always apply a simple majority in any matter before the House. In this case, our position was that this motion will trigger the constitutional amendments which have prescribed majority in law. In amending the constitution, there are prescribed majorities required to amend the constitution; for these reasons we did not agree on the ¾ absolute majority in Fiji.

When we could not agree on the motion and the voting majority in Fiji, both Speakers agreed to have another meeting in Port Moresby with the two Ministers, the Minister for Bougainville Affairs and the Vice President who is the Minister for Bougainville Independence Mission Implementation. We agreed for the continued meeting to take place in Port Moresby on the 6th of May 2026. This meeting did not eventuate and we are surprised that the sessional order has found its way into the National Parliament. It is disappointing to be misrepresented in the manner in which the crafting of the sessional order has been handled. It is also disappointing because we have not formally completed the work required of the Speakers pursuant to the Melanesian Agreement and the JSB.

It is not in order for me as Speaker, presiding in this House to criticize proceedings in another House over which I have no say or control. And this statement is not a criticism; However, when I am mentioned as Speaker and I am misrepresented in a statement in another Parliament, it is in order for me to correct this. I believe the consultations at the formal and informal level were carried out in good faith, with honesty and integrity at our leadership level. This should also have been how the matter of the sessional order was managed.

As Speaker my hope is that the ongoing consultations will still continue in good faith.  

 

Hon. Simon G. Pentanu
Speaker
Bougainville House of Representatives

[ Back to News ]