Comments

Thanks for a very interesting and persuasive piece. Sundry thoughts: The analysis highlights the gross underrepresentation of Melanesian people in immigration to Australia. How many ex-colonial countries have been so diligent in keeping their former subjects out? The Whitlam Institute's Pacific & PNG Perspectives reports made clear just how much the difficulty of access to Australia is resented by people living in the arc from PNG to Fiji. It is definitely good for this proposal to identify them as priority countries - data backing up natural justice. It would be an interesting exercise to go one step further to look at whether particular places within each country enjoy disproportionate access - and what if anything might be done about it. In the longer term it would seem to be logical for Australia & New Zealand to harmonise their Pacific immigration processes - as this shows the current patchwork of front door and back door access is not the most efficient way of doing things. Bring on a Pacific Schengen system!

And then there's Tokelau, where residents who have chosen not to be injected with Covid-19 "vaccines" are reportedly denied basic human rights, including the right to leave their residence.

Australia needs to do something fast or her ignorance will see China rise. Melanesian have been neglected for far too long so it will be tough play. Let’s roll the dice! Prioritise Melanesian visa’s and you will have the influence!

As we all know in politics there is no friend & no enemy; issues affecting peoples' life have to be fairly & squarely dealt with honesty, vision & mission, tactfully & intelligently for good of all. Scratching each other’s back is thing of past.

The opposition is part of government and should be invited to forum meetings. The opposition is there because a substantial number of voters put them there.

I am very interested in this aus aid to carry this opportunity.

Thank you Yauka, that's an insightful and interesting comment. Thanks again. Terence

Thanks for this, agree with some of your observations. The large number of candidates entering the race in certain electorates tends to be indicative of 'poor performance at electoral levels' by the incumbents (that's my reading). But also, despite serious allegations of corruption hanging over them, locally perceived strong performers at electoral levels tend to enjoy strong support at local/electorate levels although, at the national level, they may be unwanted. This scenario tends to feed into the MP's desire to keep the slush/DSIP funds as they have been using these funds extensively to shore up support than to trigger sustainable economic and social development in the districts. Indeed, DSIP funds have also created a patron-clientele environment in PNG and may also be responsible for the mayhem and violence triggered across the country (clients don't want to lose their 'feeding hand') . But I should also admit that DSIP has by-passed the inept public service with its red tape and delivered many services around the country so it's a mixed result but my worrying points are 1) the issue of DSIP funds primarily being used to shore up political patronage/support and 2) DSIP as the 'dark hand' that may be fueling the violent scenes around the country ie DSIP creating a patron-clientele culture/environment.

Hi Satish, Kiribati is rated by both the World Bank and the ADB as a fragile state -- this means by their assessment it one of the worst governed countries in the world. The TB and diabetes outcome was presented as a striking outcome measure. I can see that diabetes is more difficult to control, but, with better governance, Kiribati could definitely have much lower TB.

Thanks for this piece Sadhana and Stephen. I think that describing Kiribati as "one of the worst governed in the world" is harsh, and use of the prevalence of TB and diabetes as your measure of governance misplaced. Kiribati would outrank many of it's peers in terms of control of corruption, levels of transparency, and the application of the rule of law - the norms used to quantify levels of governance.

Very informative.

Politicians invariably consider political instability a major concern, at least while they're holding office. Clearly, if trying to retain or gain government costs major public funds, as may occur around votes of no confidence, that's certainly a matter of major public concern. However, what should be of more concern is policy stability than political stability, and the two don't necessarily coincide, as well, of course, whether policies are actually applied in practice, and the suitability of the policies.