THE Democratic Coalition for Change (DCC) plans to repeal the Political Parties Integrity (PPI) Act passed by the Lilo-led government last year.
This came after the PPI Act could not bring about political stability during the formation of the government.
According to PPI Act, the scheme is to create a registration regime for political parties with the power to audit, suspend and to de-register them. Political party funding will be rendered transparent, so that citizens can identify the sources of party fund and the influence they wield on elected representatives.
It meant to ensure stability and integrity in parliamentary government, by discouraging opportunistic and frequent floor crossing and by bringing more predictability to the voting pattern in Parliament.
Legal counsel, Gabriel Suri said, the new government will review the Act and bring about a Constitutional Amendment.
Suri said, the new Act will bring order to the election of the Prime Minister, because the current PPI Act addresses registration of parties, but not the movement of members of Parliament.
He said the election of Prime Minister is still done according to Schedule 2 of the Constitution, which gives right to all MPs to be eligible as candidate for PM.
Therefore, he said the MPs can walk away with their ballot papers because party political power is ineffective.
“We have to bring a constitutional amendment to remove this provision in the constitution,” he said.
Suri said the only penalty under the PPI Act is discipline, but that does not take away the ballot paper.
“There needs to be a proper matching and harmonising of the law,” he said.
Suri said the new government also plans to closely look at the Independent Group Parliament, as well as some of the fundamental freedoms.
However, he said they will be very careful not to end up in restricting the freedom of association, freedom of movement and freedom of speech as experienced in the Papua New Guinea.
In 2010, the Supreme Court in PNG declared 10 provisions of the current Organic Law unconstitutional, because they tried to restrict the rights of MPs to vote or to decide on any issues (in Parliament).
By EDDIE OSIFELO