Comments

Allow me to offer some practical observations, having supported various local and overseas charities for the past 40 years. Now retired, I have to choose where to offer my donations. This is especially as, as many continue to request donations only some weeks after I have already made one. Seemingly on some sort of automated "request" system, I had to decline - more frequently. One alternative has been to narrow my donation priorities - now mainly for refugees. Especially those Afghans fortunate enough to make it to Australia. My firm priority - always - is MSF: so often the only medical and health facilities in those locations producing refugees.

Thank you all for your comments and interest in this piece of our blog series. With due respect to the sensitivity of the topic, this is just one of the topic amongst others of which we thought are of concern and wanted to gauge students opinions on in this annual survey. We acknowledge not much context about the topic was given to the students, apart from the referendum voting results. Majority of the student group were also born after the civil war ended and may have little knowledge of the severity of the civil war. Again, it is merely a students opinion survey covering several topics or issues and therefore we did not have enough time to cover any single topic such as Bougainville independence extensively. The findings of the survey were first presented on the 2025 PNG Update which can be found at the link under this blog if you wish to see the results of other topics covered in the survey. Regards, Anna.

This is an excellent article that merits serious consideration by the Pacific Islands Forum. The analysis aligns closely with Fiji's National Security Strategy, which advocates for rebalancing priorities toward national and regional security threats that directly affect Pacific island nations. The recent Vatia cocaine seizure on January 15, 2026—where Fijian authorities intercepted 2.64 tons of cocaine worth FJD $1.2 billion—starkly illustrates the scale of transnational organized crime now operating through the Pacific. This seizure, combined with French Polynesia's simultaneous interception of 4.87 tons on the same day, confirms that the Pacific Ocean has become a major cocaine corridor from South America to Australia and New Zealand. These illicit narcotics are destined for Australian and New Zealand markets, making this fundamentally a shared security challenge. Australia and New Zealand have both a vested interest and a moral obligation to support Pacific island nations in developing the maritime security capabilities needed to address this threat effectively. The Vatia operation succeeded through excellent cooperation between Fijian agencies and international partners including the US DEA and Australian Federal Police. However, it also revealed capability gaps—the semi-submersible vessel was not detected by Fijian systems but rather through partner intelligence. If Pacific island nations are to protect their waters effectively and contribute meaningfully to regional security, they require indigenous surveillance and detection capabilities, not just enforcement assets. Australia and New Zealand's support for implementing comprehensive maritime security strategies across the Pacific region would serve their own security interests while strengthening Pacific sovereignty and regional stability. Any investment in shared security through a regional compact, as argued by Ro Mataitini here, warrants serious consideration.

Agree with you. Furthermore it questions the qualifications of these two people.

Thanks for the direction, Patrick. Just downloaded a copy of your book and found the graph. Very useful indeed. You used data from the ACFID annual reports, which I understand to be a consolidation of data submitted to ACFID annual. The patchiness I refer to relates to the original reports of member organisations. I have sought to access these for early years and understandably these are often absent from archive or other data repositories. I am also interested in the picture including Non-ACFID member, which obviously would be missing from ACFID's annual reports.

Dear Editors and Authors - Anna Kapil and Stephen Howes, I am writing in response to your recent article, “Most UPNG students oppose Bougainville independence,” and to raise serious concerns about both the framing of the survey and the manner in which it has been conducted and publicised. First, the title itself is misleading and politically loaded. A limited survey of students from a single school at UPNG cannot credibly be presented as representing “UPNG students” as a whole, let alone broader PNG sentiment. When such findings are amplified nationally and internationally, particularly by an Australian institution, they risk distorting public understanding of a highly sensitive and legally grounded political process. Second, it is deeply troubling that an Australian university (ANU) has taken such a prominent role in surveying and interpreting PNG student opinion on Bougainville’s political future. This inevitably raises questions: Why is ANU involving itself in PNG’s internal political discourse on an unresolved self-determination process? Is UPNG not sufficiently equipped with qualified academics and researchers to design, run, and interpret its own surveys? Given our shared colonial history, this involvement understandably revives concerns about external influence, agenda-setting, and extractive research practices—particularly on an issue as sensitive as Bougainville independence. Third, if this survey is to be published and cited nationally, then full transparency is essential. What were the exact questions asked? How were they framed? What legal, historical, or constitutional context was provided to respondents? Without this information being made public, it is impossible to assess whether the results reflect informed opinion or surface-level reactions to a complex issue. By contrast, I would draw your attention to recent UPNG coursework and bipartisan public forums, including assignments undertaken by international law students, where students were required to conduct proper legal and historical research into Bougainville’s case—examining international law, decolonisation precedents, the Bougainville Peace Agreement, and comparative independence movements globally. When students engage with the full factual and legal record, their views have often shifted markedly, in many cases toward recognising Bougainville’s right to independence under both domestic and international law. This raises a fundamental question: What exactly was your survey measuring—uninformed opinion, or informed analysis? Finally, Bougainville’s future is not an abstract academic exercise. It is a matter grounded in decades of conflict, negotiated peace, constitutional law, and an internationally observed referendum. Research on this topic must be conducted within appropriate ethical, legal, and political parameters, and with a level of care that reflects the gravity of the issue. I strongly urge you to reflect on the role external institutions play in shaping narratives around Bougainville, and to ensure that any future research prioritises transparency, local leadership, and contextual integrity. Sincerely, Charleen Morris

Well put Graham, as always. I've been thinking about what constitutes 'voice' in political processes (having been inspired by you, Tom, and the great Dermot Shields). In part, it's about having legitimate representation in the process itself. But it's also that our representatives have the power, motivation, capacity, resources, and information to effectively engage and negotiate. We see a lot of consultation across the development sector (well-intentioned, but sometimes more about ticking the 'stakeholder engagement' box). And yet, even in our own day-to-day lives, we know that people are more willing to accept the outcome of a decision - even one that doesn't go their way - if they feel their voice has been heard. It's a very human experience.

The BPA as it was and as it is stands, no dubdt about it. Part of it or all part of it is being fullfilled. The peoples aspiration to Independence was a resounding YES. However, the simple things have not been adhered to. I see you pointed out in your rebutal that it was ANU/DFAT sponsored survey. Yes it was. Australian National University and the Department of Foreign Affairs have a big say in the giving of Independence. The local administrations challenges are too much. The little things like mismanagement of funds and resources given to the region has seen alot of misuse, and other things like the existence of Factions in Bougainville does not give the assurance that the Independence once given will be received smootly and lived with. The nation building elements and instutions of good governance are still not matured. The fact that there are still high powered riffles and guns in the hands of so called factions (still in existence). The Independence will be given once everything outlined above is addressed. The Australian Government, the New Zealand Government and those others including the GoPNG will not agree easily on giving Independence. It will come but things have to be set right. AUSTAID/ NZAID and other funds and resources pumped into ABG needs to be properlu accounted for , the high powered guns in the hands of people need to be returned and destroyed and the so called factions need to be desolved to make one Bougainville- True Bougainville and things will go right. If not adequately addressed- The Australian Government and the New Zealand Government will tell you that " We dont want to see a zone of instability in the region" (no hutsis and tutsis type civil war to break out)). Such will create conditions for external elements to get in and create more havoc... just my view.

Stephen Howes and Anna Kapil, you both seem to be avoiding replying to my Comment below. Is there a reason for

You are an inspiration, Graham.

Graham, thank you for this thoughtful piece. You have raised a particularly pertinent issue for not only governance in the international development context but also for us as Australia following the failure to achieve a voice for our First Nations people through the 2023 referendum. Your article highlights the need for us to not simply accept the outcome of the referendum as a fait accomplishes - but rather as a first attempt at what should be a longer effort to ensure our governance systems match our ideal of ourselves as the ‘fair go’ country.

It's nice to hear from you again Graham and thanks for this insight into a quieter year. And it's heartening to hear about the real world application of DFAT's disability equity policy!