Founding Fathers and Founding Women of Papua New Guinea

Founding Fathers and Founding Women of Papua New Guinea who were instrumental in the early years of Papua New Guinea Constitution and Independence. These individuals played crucial roles in shaping Papua New Guinea’s destiny during the Constitution planning stages, self-government and its transition to independence and early years of independence. 

Founding Fathers 

The independence of Papua New Guinea in 1975 was the culmination of decades of struggle and political activism. A number of key figures, often referred to as the "Founding Fathers," played pivotal roles in the nation's transition to self-governance. These individuals, representing diverse regions and backgrounds, contributed significantly to the drafting of the constitution, the establishment of democratic institutions, and the shaping of the nation's early policies. 

Here, we take a look at the most prominent Founding Fathers and Women Leaders who were at the forefront of Papua New Guinea’s Independence: 

• Sir Michael Thomas Somare: As the first Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, Somare led the nation to independence and played a dominant role in its early development. 
• Sir John Guise: As the first Governor-General, Guise served as a symbol of national unity and stability. 
•  Sir Albert Maori Kiki: A skilled diplomat and politician, Kiki contributed to the nation's international relations and domestic development. 
• Sir Julius Chan: A key figure in the early years of independence, now known as the last man standing, Chan held various ministerial positions and played a significant role in shaping government financial and monetary policies. 
• Sir Paulias Matane: A distinguished public servant and Governor-General from East New Britain Province, Matane symbolized public service and sovereignty. 
• Sir Barry Holloway: A representative of the House of Assembly, Holloway participated actively in constitutional discussions. 
• Sir Tore Lokoloko: From the Gulf Province, Lokoloko advocated for regional representation and the interests of his province. 
• Sir Sinake Giregire: From the highlands region, Giregire's contributions to the constitutional process were significant. 
• Sir Anthony Siaguru: As a lawyer and politician, Siaguru played a role in drafting the constitution. 
• Charles Lepani: Headed the National Planning Office. Contributed to mining industry development. Served as PNG’s ambassador to the European Union and high commissioner in Australia. 
• Mekere Morauta: Prime Minister (1999–2002). Restored economic stability. Led post-independence financial infrastructure development. 
• Rabbie Namaliu: Close ally of PNG’s first prime minister, Michael Somare. Served as PNG’s fourth prime minister (1988–1992). Previously foreign minister and head of the Public Service Commission. 
• Sir Ignatius Kilage: An advocate for indigenous rights, Kilage contributed significantly to the development of Papua New Guinea's legal framework. Sir John Kaputin: Kaputin's legal expertise influenced the nation's legal system. 
• Sir Paul Lapun: From the New Guinea Islands region, Lapun advocated for regional representation and cultural diversity. 
• Sir Tei Abal: A prominent politician from the Enga Province, Abal held ministerial positions and contributed to early governance. Sir 
• Matiabe Yuwi: From the Upper Highlands region of Papua New Guinea, Yuwi participated in constitutional discussions. 
• Sir Henry Chow: A philanthropists, businessman and politician, Chow contributed to local businesses, economic development and governance. 
• Sir Iambakey Okuk: From the Highlands region of Simbu Province, Okuk was a vocal advocate for local interests. 
• Sir Pita Lus: From the Sepik region, he was a key figure in the pre-independence period, Lus contributed to the nation's political landscape. 
• Sir John Momis: As deputy chairman of the Constitutional Planning Committee, Momis played a vital role in shaping the Constitution. He is one of the few surviving members of his era. 
• Sir Cecil Abel: Abel's role in the early political movement was crucial,. He was a prominent member of the Bully Beef Club and Pangu Pati, the brain behind Pangu’s economic & development policy – one nation, one country, unity in diversity. 
• Oala-Oala Rarua: Rarua was part of the collective effort that shaped Papua New Guinea's destiny during its transition to independence and was a prominent member of the infamous Bully Beef Club. 

 Women Leaders 

While the majority of the Founding Fathers were men, several women also played significant roles in the independence movement and the early years of self-government. These women, often facing significant challenges due to gender discrimination, paved the way for future generations of female leaders. 

Among the most notable women leaders were:

• Dame Josephine Abaijah: A trailblazer, Abaijah became the first woman elected to the House of Assembly in 1972. 
• Hon Nahau Rooney: Elected in 1977, Rooney contributed to women's representation in PNG's parliament. 
• Hon Waliyato Clowes: From the Western Province, she was elected to parliament in 1977, Clowes played a significant role in early post-independence politics. 
• Dame Carol Kidu: A prominent female leader and wife of Sir Buri Kidu, the first Governor-General after independence, Kidu served in parliament from 1997 to 2012. 

 These individuals, together with many others, contributed to the establishment of Papua New Guinea as an independent nation and laid the foundation for its future development.

Subsidiarity: The Other Flavour in Decentralisaon by Emmanuel Narokobi

Without a doubt, Decentralisation has a conflicting taste in our mouths today. Institutionally and legally we already have decentralisation, with examples like the District Development Authorities (DDA's). Yet we are anything but decentralised in decision making, and principally in how budgets and government finances are operated.

Within the flavours of Decentralisation I wanted to expand a little on the concept of 𝗦𝘂𝗯𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 which is touched on at 01:06:00 of the video.

Any large organisation needs control to make it run efficiently. In today's world, there is absolutely no reason why organisations cannot be decentralised because of the technologies we have today. The overwhelming majority of Papua New Guineans have a mobile phone now so there is no excuse. On a global scale the rise of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin exemplifies the spirit and practical application of decentralised systems where control of the whole is placed at the tips of the network. In other words, many individuals operate in their own interests but with a common belief in the value of the network that serves everyone.

But Decentralisation is still a human system and the discipline to practice it to extract value out of an organisation is still evident with or without modern ICT. How else did the British East India Company rule and operate in India for 300 years? How else did the Catholic Church become the world's first multi-national?

In fact, Subsidiarity is a management concept that was developed by the Catholic Church by Pope Pius XI in 1931. The concept, however, has broader philosophical roots in the idea that matters should be handled by the smallest, least centralised competent authority, like a Parish Priest. Meaning that higher levels of authority like the Arch Diocese should only intervene when issues cannot be effectively managed at a more local level.

Subsidiarity therefore promotes decentralisation by advocating that decisions be made as close to the affected individuals or communities as possible to empower lower levels of society—such as individuals, families, and local communities—by allowing them to address their own needs and problems, thereby fostering greater engagement, responsiveness, and efficiency in governance and organizational management.

As a concept in Government, Subsidiarity aims to strike a balance between autonomy and support, ensuring that local governing authorities can operate independently while receiving necessary assistance from higher authorities when required. This approach not only respects local capabilities and knowledge but also prevents unnecessary centralisation, encouraging a more participatory and effective governance structure. One particular aspect that I like personally about it is that it promotes local communities to do as much as they can themselves until they absolutely need assistance from higher authorities.

Now to be clear, Decentralisation involves the redistribution of authority and resources, including government budgets, from central to local levels to improve efficiency and governance through structural reforms. Subsidiarity, on the other hand, is a principle stating that decisions, including budgetary ones, should be made at the lowest competent level, with higher authorities intervening only when necessary. So while decentralisation focuses on the broader transfer of power and financial resources, subsidiarity emphasises the appropriateness of the decision-making level to enhance local autonomy and participation.

You may then ask, well what does it actually look like in practice? Well, let's take for example our beloved Con-Act PNG program spending billions for roadworks. How do we spend public funds in a way that builds local capacity at all levels of government, that maximises the use of our money and minimises corruption?

I'll explain in this way assuming that Allan Bird's "Block Grants" have been fairly and efficiently delivered to each Province already.

Local Level

A village community identifies that their local roads are deteriorating, affecting daily life and access to essential services. The local government, understanding the immediate and specific needs of the village, allocates part of its budget to repair and maintain these local roads. They employ local workers and use local resources, ensuring that the project is managed efficiently and in a way that suits the community's specific requirements.

District Level

For more substantial road projects, such as connecting multiple villages or improving major local routes, the district government steps in. Recognizing that such projects require more resources and technical expertise, the district government allocates funds and oversees the project. They coordinate with local governments to ensure the needs of each community are met and manage the logistics and technical aspects of the project.

National Level

When it comes to large-scale infrastructure projects, such as building highways that connect different regions of the country, the national government takes responsibility. These projects require significant funding, advanced technology, and comprehensive planning that goes beyond the capacity of local and district authorities. The national government ensures these projects align with broader economic and development goals, providing the necessary resources and expertise.

Example in Action

In the Highlands region, a local village council uses its budget to repair local roads damaged by seasonal rains, employing local labour and materials. For a larger project to pave and expand a road connecting several villages, the district government intervenes, providing additional funding and technical support. For the construction of a new highway connecting the Highlands to the coastal cities, the national government takes charge, coordinating efforts, securing funding, and employing advanced construction firms.

What we see here is that if the funding by Government isn't hoarded and controlled in Waigani and fair budget distributions as the proposed "Block Grants" are given to each Province, then the concept of Subsidiarity will ensure that roadworks are handled at the most appropriate level, promoting efficiency, local engagement, and effective use of resources.

PNG has all the money, laws and institutions to finally provide equal participation and benefits to everyone. It's obvious that our current centralised decision-making is glaringly flawed, yet we still love the taste of failure whilst a few in power continue to benefit from the sweetness of corruption.

________

Disclaimer: The article and accompanying video presented herein have been republished by PNG Insight for the benefit of our readership. The original article, authored by Immanuel Narokobi, and the video, produced by Ganjiki D Wayne for his Tokaut Tokstret Podcast, offer insights of such significance that we believe it is imperative for the current and future generations of this nation to be aware of them. Please note that all credit for the original content goes to the respective author and producer.

Papua New Guinea War: The Bougainville Crisis, Referendum and Independence

The Bougainville Crisis, also known as the Bougainville Conflict or Bougainville Rebellion, was a complex and protracted armed conflict that took place on the island of Bougainville in Papua New Guinea (PNG). 

It lasted from 1988 to 1998, resulting in the loss of thousands of lives and significant social and economic disruptions. The conflict was characterized by a struggle for autonomy and independence by Bougainvilleans, who sought greater control over their land and resources, particularly the Panguna copper mine, which was a major source of revenue for PNG.

Historical Background

Bougainville, an island province in Papua New Guinea, has a history of cultural distinctiveness from the rest of PNG. Bougainvilleans have their own languages, customs, and traditions that set them apart from the mainland. 

In the 1960s, mining activities, particularly the establishment of the Panguna copper mine by a foreign company, sparked tensions between Bougainvilleans and the PNG government. 

The mine brought environmental degradation, social disruption, and land disputes, leading to grievances among Bougainvilleans.

The Crisis Unfolds

In 1988, a violent conflict erupted on Bougainville, sparked by a dispute over royalties and the environmental damage caused by the Panguna mine. 

The conflict escalated into a full-scale civil war, with various groups taking up arms against the PNG government forces. 

The Bougainville Revolutionary Army (BRA), led by Francis Ona, fought for Bougainville's independence, while the PNG government responded with a military blockade, imposing a state of emergency and deploying armed forces to quell the rebellion.

Peace Process and Referendum

After a decade of violence, a peace process was initiated in the late 1990s, leading to the signing of the Bougainville Peace Agreement in 2001. 

The Agreement provided for a phased autonomy for Bougainville and a commitment to hold a referendum on independence. 

In 2019, the historic Bougainville Referendum was conducted, allowing Bougainvilleans to vote on their political future. 

An overwhelming majority of 98% voted in favour of independence, reflecting the strong desire for self-determination among Bougainvilleans.

Push for Independence

The result of the Bougainville Referendum has reignited the push for independence among Bougainvilleans. 

However, the path to independence is complex and faces challenges, including negotiations with the PNG government on key issues such as the:

• timing and process of independence,
• sharing of revenues from natural resources, and
• establishment of a viable and sustainable government structure in Bougainville.

Conclusion

The Bougainville Crisis has a complex history, rooted in cultural, environmental, and economic grievances. The conflict resulted in significant humanitarian impacts and loss of life. 

The Bougainville Referendum was a significant milestone in the peace process, reflecting the strong desire of Bougainvilleans for independence. 

All in all, many challenges remain on the path to independence, and sustained efforts are needed to ensure a peaceful, inclusive, and sustainable resolution to the Bougainville issue, taking into consideration the aspirations and interests of all stakeholders.

Revised Organic Law on the Integrity of Political Parties and Candidates Failed to Get MPs Support

Press Release 02/06/2016[Source: Legend FM News]

The Registry of Political Parties is gravely concern about the lack of interest by the Government to table the Revised Organic Law on the Integrity of Political Parties and Candidates (OLIPPAC) in Parliament. The Revised OLIPPAC was approved by the National Executive Council (NEC) in March 2014 but still waiting to be tabled in Parliament. The Registry of Political Parties Dr Alphonse Gelu is concerned about the lack of interest and foresight to pass this law.

The Revised OLIPPAC was gazetted and distributed amongst the MPs since 2014 but this had somewhat failed to get any support from any MPs on the floor of Parliament. In 2015, the Registrar developed a survey question on the Revised OLIPPAC which was distributed to 52 MPs to answer and return to the Registry, out of this only 3 MPs responded. However from the questionnaire not all the questions were answered. This lack of interest shown in this survey by the MPs clearly show the lack of interest by our MPs in any issue and laws that are generated to address certain situations in the country.

MPs must know their responsibilities as MPs and Leaders. They do not only represent their electorates in Parliament but are also required to take part in important policy processes such as that initiated by the Registry of Political Parties. As MPs and Leaders they should be smart and knowledgeable about issues facing the country. As Leaders they are obliged to participate in many other activities and as responsible leaders they must accept such invitations and give all they have to such initiatives and not to act as irresponsible individuals.

The Registry has been awaiting any response or indication from the NEC, Acting Clerk of Parliament, Leader of Government Business and the Prime Minister to inform the Registry where the Revised OLIPPAC is now. When can the Registry get any indications from these responsible offices and individuals? It is so disheartening for the Registry to put all its efforts into the Revised OLIPPAC, get it twice to NEC and then to wait this long.

As the Registry has explained many times, the Revised OLIPPAC is very much influenced by two factors, the first is the Supreme Court decision of 2010 that nullified certain provisions of the law to be unconstitutional and secondly, the experiences of the Registry since 2002 in implementing the OLIPPAC. In other words the Revised OLIPPAC is an improvement to the current law by strengthening provisions that were weak and at the same time to patch the law from those provisions that were declared unconstitutional.

The focus of the Revised OLIPPAC is the political party. This is in sharp contrast to the current OLIPPAC who focuses on the behaviour of MPs but was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The activities of the Registry are now based on strengthening political parties in the country.

The Revised OLIPPAC comes with 6 constitutional amendments. These amendments have genuine justifications in improving democracy and the operations of Parliament as well as the political parties. Some critics have suggested that certain amendments are unconstitutional however if they look at the bigger picture and what the Registry wants to achieve then they would come to realise and appreciate what has been suggested to these amendments.

The Registry has started work on strengthening political parties by looking ahead to the 2017 national election. The Registry has identified various activities build around the concept of strengthening political parties. One of these activities which is based around the strengthening of political parties is the theme for 2016 and 2017 which is “Know Your Party” “Vote Your Party”.

The Registry has published posters that have been printed in the daily newspapers in the months of March and April 2016. The Registry would do a follow up of this with posters of parties with their party leaders and four of their main policies for the 2017 national election. A TV advertisement will be launched soon on promoting political parties in the country.

In promoting political parties, the Registry has even suggested to change the voting system and adopt one that would give prominence to parties rather than candidates. The Papua New Guinea Electoral Commission has been progressive enough to have taken this suggestion on and will put it on its agenda after the 2017 national elections.

From these activities the Registry has already started the process of promoting political parties but need the Revised OLIPPAC to be passed in order to give legitimacy to what it has started by promoting political parties.

It is therefore in the interest of everyone including the Registry and the MPs to respond to this urgently as the Registry needed the Revised OLIPPAC to support its activities. The Revised OLIPPAC is for Papua New Guinea and not for only one group or person or party. To suggest otherwise is irresponsible.

The Registrar Dr Gelu therefore call on all the MPs whether in government or the opposition to support this proposed law and have it tabled in Parliament. The Registrar even called upon those sensible and good thinking MPs to raise this matter on the floor of Parliament. At the moment the Registry is kept away from knowing where the Revised OLIPPAC is now and the important questions on when it will be tabled on the floor of Parliament and why it has not been tabled in Parliament.

2016 Budget Department Allocation | Top 10 Winners and Losers, IPBC Receiving an Increase of 67%

The National Government Departments got an increased budget of K24, 059.1 million in the 2016 National Budget compared to K23, 454.4 million in the 2015 budget - an increase of 3%. 

Some departments received increased budget allocations while others had cuts to their allocations. Office of Culture and Tourism, and National Housing Corporation came out the winners at 96% increase in funding for the year 2016. Whereas, the biggest loser is PNG National Fisheries Authority who received a funding of K20 million in 2015 down to just K1 million in 2016. 

The top 10 winners and losers in 2016 compared to 2015.

Health, Agriculture, Tourism Departments and State Own Enterprises (SOEs/IPBC) have been given prominence.

Of the 10 losers, it is interesting to note that the Electoral Commission received 61% less with the 2017 election just 18 months away.

Table below shows the total allocations for each national government department. [ Source: Post Courier, 06.11.2015 , adapted]

Sector	Appropriations		Appropriations		Difference	(+/-) in %
	2015 (in Million K)		2016 (in Milion K)			(-) indicates CUT
TOTAL EXPENDITURE	23,454.40		24,059.10		604.70	3%
Economic sector	497.8		603.4		105.60	18%
Conservation and Environment Protection Authority	34.9		64.8		29.90	46%
Department of Agriculture and Livestock	38.7		43.3		4.60	11%
Department of Lands and Physical Planning	38.9		39.6		0.70	2%
Department of Mineral Policy and Geohazards Management	9.7		11.7		2.00	17%
Department of Petroleum and Energy	21.9		47.5		25.60	54%
Department of Commerce and Industry	69.1		62.4		-6.70	-11%
Office of Tourism Arts and Culture	2.1		51.8		49.70	96%
Konebada Petroleum Park Authority	5.4		6.4		1.00	16%
Office of Climate Change and Development	9.2		15.1		5.90	39%
Investment Promotion Authority	4		3		-1.00	-33%
Small & Medium Enterprises Corporation	3.4		4.6		1.20	26%
Nat Institute of Standards and Industrial Technology	4.1		3.5		-0.60	-17%
Industrial Centres Development Corporation	3.4		2.6		-0.80	-31%
Mineral Resource Authority	54.3		26.4		-27.90	-106%
Kokonas Industry Kopration	1.2		6.5		5.30	82%
National Development Bank	50		61.5		11.50	19%
Office of Coastal Fisheries Development Agency	27.9		25.6		-2.30	-9%
Cocoa Coconut Institute	8.3		6.7		-1.60	-24%
PNG National Fisheries Authority	20		1		-19.00	-1900%
Fresh Produce Development Company	11.7		11.4		-0.30	-3%
PNG Coffee Industry Corporation	3.4		10		6.60	66%
PNG National Forest Authority	31.6		37.6		6.00	16%
Tourism Promotion Authority	11.6		9.8		-1.80	-18%
PNG Oil Palm Industry Corporation					0.00	0%
National Agriculture Research Institute	11.3		13.5		2.20	16%
National Agriculture Quarantine & Inspection Authority	5.1		10.4		5.30	51%
PNG Cocoa Board	4.7		16.8		12.10	72%
Independent Consumer & Competition Commission	11.8		9.8		-2.00	-20%
Infrastructure	1,944.30		1,639.30		-305.00	-19%
Department of Public Enterprises	8.3		7.8		-0.50	-6%
Department of Information and Communication	17.3		16.7		-0.60	-4%
Department of Transport	28.7		46.1		17.40	38%
Department of Works & Implementation	1,443.20		1,064.40		-378.80	-36%
Papua New Guinea Accidents InvestigationCommission	7.4		5.6		-1.80	-32%
Independent Public Business Corporation	58.6		178.7		120.10	67%
National Broadcasting Commission	43.4		25.2		-18.20	-72%
National Maritime Safety Authority	35.1		40.8		5.70	14%
National Airports Corporation	151		70.8		-80.20	-113%
National Housing Corporation	0.3		7.2		6.90	96%
Rural Airstrip Authority	5.9		4.5		-1.40	-31%
PNG Power Limited	115.9		149.5		33.60	22%
Civil Aviation Safety Authority	14.3		12.3		-2.00	-16%
National Road Authority	15		9.5		-5.50	-58%
Social Services	2,983.10		3,034.80		51.70	2%
Office of Censorship	3.7		3.7		0.00	0%
Department of Education	1,087.20		953.4		-133.80	-14%
Department of Higher Education	220		137.2		-82.80	-60%
PNG National Commission for UNESCO	4.4		3.1		-1.30	-42%
Milne  Bay Provincial Health Authority	28.5		29.8		1.30	4%
Western Highlands Provincial Health Authority	33.8		32.7		-1.10	-3%
Department of Health	597.9		620.8		22.90	4%
Hospital Management Services	670.1		715.8		45.70	6%
Department of Community Development	73.7		60		-13.70	-23%
National Volunteer Services	2.8		1.9		-0.90	-47%
Eastern Highlands Provincial Health Authority	31.6		35		3.40	10%
Office of Urbanization	2		1.8		-0.20	-11%
PNG Science & Technology Secretariat	4.2		4.2		0.00	0%
West New Britain Provincial Health Authority			36.2		36.20	100%
Manus Provincial Health Authority			17.7		17.70	100%
Enga Provincial Health Authority			29.7		29.70	100%
Sandaun Provincial Health Authority			27		27.00	100%
National Research Institute	5.4		7.2		1.80	25%
University of Papua New Guinea	52.9		77.5		24.60	32%
University of Technology	47		65.2		18.20	28%
University of Goroka	21.2		34.4		13.20	38%
University of Environment & Natural Resources	19			28.6	9.70	34%
PNG Sports Foundation	23			54.4	31.80	58%
PNG Maritime College	4.5		4.8		0.30	6%
National AIDS Council Secretariat	8.8		8.9		0.10	1%
Institute of Medical Research	10			12.4	2.30	19%
National Youth Development Authority	5			4.1	-0.90	-22%
National Museum & Art Gallery	22			22.9	1.20	5%
National Cultural Commission	5.1		4.7		-0.40	-9%
Law and Order	1,383.20		1,240.80		-142.40	-11%
Office of the Public Prosecutor	8.6		7.4		-1.20	-16%
Office of the Public Solicitor	14			12.6	-1.60	-13%
Judiciary Services	330		227.3		-102.70	-45%
Magisterial Services	40.3		38.3		-2.00	-5%
Department of Attorney-General	172.5		159.4		-13.10	-8%
Department of Corrective Institutional Services	139.2		139.7		0.50	0%
Department of Police	367.2		361.3		-5.90	-2%
National Intelligence Organisation	5.9		4.7		-1.20	-26%
Department of Defence	261.2		256.5		-4.70	-2%
Ombudsman Commission	22.2		20.4		-1.80	-9%
Legal Training Institute	13.6		4.9		-8.70	-178%
National Narcotics Bureau	4.6		4.4		-0.20	-5%
Constitutional & Law Reform Commission	3.7		4.1		0.40	10%
Administrative	13,022.20		13,878.60		856.40	6%
National Parliament	165.7		147.5		-18.20	-12%
Office of Governor-General	7.2		5.2		-2.00	-38%
Department of Prime Minister & NEC	125.9		165.6		39.70	24%
National Statistical Office	9.5		10.4		0.90	9%
Office of Bougainville Affairs	5		3.4		-1.60	-47%
Department of Finance	84.3		66		-18.30	-28%
Treasury & Finance Miscellaneous	1,196.00		1,051.60		-144.40	-14%
Department of Treasury	208.9		155.7		-53.20	-34%
Office of the Registrar for Political Parties	9.2		7.8		-1.40	-18%
PNG Customs Service	52.2		59.6		7.40	12%
Information Technology Division	20.5		18.3		-2.20	-12%
Fire Services	24.8		29		4.20	14%
PNG Immigration and Citizenship Services	12.9		10		-2.90	-29%
Internal Revenue Commission	76.6		75		-1.60	-2%
Department of Foreign Affairs	75.8		60.8		-15.00	-25%
PNG Institute of Public Administration	8.9		10.2		1.30	13%
Department of Personnel Management	184.5		146.6		-37.90	-26%
Public Service Commission	8.4		6.4		-2.00	-31%
Provincial Treasuries	48.3		45.2		-3.10	-7%
Department of National Planning and Monitoring	440.3		192.8		-247.50	-128%
Electoral Commission	36.2		22.5		-13.70	-61%
Department of Provincial and Local Government Affairs	124		81.7		-42.30	-52%
Department of Industrial Relations	33.9		33.4		-0.50	-1%
National Tripartite Consultative Council	1		0.9		-0.10	-11%
Department of Implementation & Rural Development	68		65.6		-2.40	-4%
Central Supply & Tenders Board	2.8		2.7		-0.10	-4%
Treasury and Finance - Public Debt Charges	9,924.60		11,330.00		1,405.40	12%
Office of the Auditor General	29		23.9		-5.10	-21%
National Training Council	16.7		40.1		23.40	58%
National Economic & Fiscal Commission	4.2		3.5		-0.70	-20%
Border Development Authority	16.9		7.1		-9.80	-138%