
The Bougainville issue was debated on the floor of parliament today. Here is a summary of what I think are the points of contention.
- Referendum results were meant to be no-binding
This is the most controversial of all: that the referendum results were intended to be non-binding.
This provision is captured in both the Bougainville Peace Agreement and the PNG Constitution. Former Minister for Bougainville Affairs Puka Temu said in parliament today that when he and his Bougainville counterpart visited Bougainville multiple times leading up to the referendum, he told the people of Bougainville that the referendum result would be non-binding.
Many at the time didn’t pay much attention to this provision. And now it’s come back to be the most contentious issue. The question that should have been raised back then, during the peace agreement negotiations, and even before the 2019 referendum, is:
Why conduct a referendum if the results would be non-binding?
This question is so obvious that I’m pretty sure the leaders of the time thought about it. But there is no clear answer why they’d go ahead with the provision on a non-binging referendum.
A possible answer is that this was a compromise between two parties. That there is a referendum, but it’s non-binding. The goal at the time was peace. This question was possibly left for the future generation of leaders to deal with.
- PNG parliament has the last say
Despite Bougainvilleans voting 97.7% for independence, the PNG parliament will vote on whether Bougainville becomes independent or not.
The term “ratification” or “ratify” doesn’t appear under Part 14 of PNG Constitution – the Part that deals with Bougainville. It’s only in the Bougainville Peace Agreement. In place of ratify, the PNG Constitution instead says “consult.” The Peace Agreement was signed before the Constitution was amended, so the dilution of the words seems intentional.
So the word “ratify” in the Peace Agreement gives the impression that PNG parliament would, for a lack of better term, ‘approve’ the results.
But as Richard Maru argued, parliament actually intends to “vote” on the results. And the vote can go either way. Governor Powi then asked: what happens the next day after the vote?
There will be a result when there is a vote. How does PNG and Bougainville move on the next day?
- Absolute or simple majority?
When it eventually comes before the parliament: many votes does take to decide Bougainville’s political future?
The Bougainville side thinks it should be a simple majority. Simple majority is 50% + 1. That is, of the 118 MPs, 60 MPs.
PNG side thinks it should be absolute majority, that is 76%, which is 89 votes.
The number of MPs on the parliament floor at any time varies, depending on how many MPs are present. For instance, if 100 MPs are present, simple majority is 51 and absolute majority is 75.
- Supreme Court interpretation
The disagreements over a constitutional question will always go before the Supreme Court for interpretation. All points raised above are possible constitutional questions, and therefore, has the potential to go before the Supreme Court.
The question is: will either party abide by the ruling of the Supreme Court when the Court?
- An uninformed parliament
In my view, Puka Temu’s most important point during the debate is the fact that PNG MPs are not as involved as they should be in the consultation process. The very MPs who are going to vote for the political status of Bougainville are not involved in the process.
Apart from few leaders like Julias Chan, all the MPs in parliament now came into parliament after the signing of the Bougainville Peace Agreement. There is no institutional knowledge of the history and process of the very issue which they are now entrusted with to vote on.



