Comments

It is a cultural clash - the economy is reformed in a way to promote individualism, private possession, and "survival of the fittest"... Greed is rational (although we could say, it is not ethical). Cultures and social norms are not written on stones, we adapt to new changes (opportunities and/or threats) - our reactive cultures against the introduction of capitalism and neoliberalism have underpinned bribery, nepotism, corruption, poverty, and increased dependency rate. This type of reactive attitude and short-term views have, in many ways, kept our societies in the poverty trap. Our traditional social-safety system or "sharing culture" is not compatible with capitalism and neoliberalism. We do not have an economic problem, we have a cultural problem.

This would be a great thing for participating families. Still lots of discussions need to be held with participating governments. Good read! Malo lava.

These schemes, the RSE in New Zealand and the SWP/PLS in Australia, are highly beneficial for the countries of origin for those who participate, with much of the income being sent back to their families etc. One major issue, however, for the countries that participate in the schemes, is the loss of workforce within their country. A good example to look at would be Samoa. We have a lot of our people entering into these schemes and are helping their families with incomes being remitted back to the homeland. However, we are losing a lot of skilled labour to both schemes, with many resigning from their jobs and entering into the schemes for better money. We are losing qualified teachers, nurses, chefs, and the like to these schemes and as a matter of rights, governments from participating nations cannot stop their people from entering the schemes. It also places onus on those governments to look within, with respect to what they need to do to ensure that we have enough of a workforce to cater to our local markets/sectors while others are in the schemes. It would be great to see governments on both sides of the coin, formulate and implement feasible and cost-effective strategies to address this issue. Perhaps some research in this area would also be a good idea. Thank you for the article. It was a great read! Manuia

Good article. Current developments raise major doubts about the abilities of our Defence Minister and (possibly) his Department. I say possibly, because he has publicly stated that he doesn't always listen to his Department. The Government has been touting fear that China will build a naval base. But the latest revelations of the Chinese plan to develop Solomon Islands as an aviation hub. This points to another possibility: that they are going to project air power, not naval power. In which case, what use our nuclear submarines? You can't sink islands. Second, it points to our hypocrisy about the "rules based order". On the one hand, this order is what's used as the pretext for Australia participating in military shows of strengths in the China Sea, including sailing between Taiwan and the Chinese mainland—even though Australia does not recognise Taiwan. At the same time, when China might possibly develop a military presence 2000km from the Australian mainland, this news is met with a rhetoric of panic and war. So: what are the rules? Either both are okay, or neither. Thirdly, and most important, despite Keating's historical turn towards Asia, we continue to be governed by white Anglophones who see Australia as an outpost of the old British and American empires. We need to shed our colonial heritage. The alternative might be—as New Zealand puts it—to develop a "mature relationship" with China. The 21st c. as the "Asian Century" has been discussed for over 40 years, and history has shown this prophecy to be true. We've had plenty of time to adapt, politically—but we haven't. This to me points to two urgent needs: First is to reform our politics and our parties so that our political community more accurately reflects and represents Australian diversity, and the close ties we have to Asia. The second is to become a republic: not so we can have an Australian head of state, which seems a weak and rather jingoistic argument; but so we can let go our ties with the Anglophone powers of yesteryear, and become an Asian nation. Our prior experience with the UK and the US show us that we can have a productive and peaceful relationship with global and even imperial powers without economic loss, and without being invaded. But that option is at risk if we continue to position ourself as the local outpost of those distant and declining powers.

His exemplifications of ethical leadership can be summed up as following your inner conscience which is the ability to rethink your thoughts, actions, feelings, sensations, perceptions, and other mental processes before doing an action. Thank you Mr/Sir Ila Geno for been an inspiration to us the younger generations of Papua New Guinea.

I'm not sure I totally follow this comment - perhaps you meant to make it on another post? One point I will note, in fairness to Solomon Islands, is that Honiara is a much safer city than Port Moresby.

Hey Scott, Thanks for the comment and glad you asked. You can check out our 2020 paper which goes into more detail about these findings here –https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/app5.306. The paper highlights some of the historical and political factors that have shaped funding decisions. In terms of relevance to anti-corruption programs (DFATs and others), the findings show the importance of being able to respond to the boom and bust cycle In 2020 we wrote (note that much of this remains relevant today): "The findings suggest that if Marape continues to be prime minister beyond the 2022 national election, policymakers will need to respond to the tendency of the government to cut funding to anti-corruption organisations. Responses might include civic and diplomatic campaigns aimed at increasing government spending on these organisations. If PNG elects another prime minister, policymakers should work to ensure the government boosts resources to key anti-corruption organisations more than Marape and O'Neill did in their first terms. Either way, monitoring funding allocations and spending on anti-corruption organisations will be crucial, not least because if the new ICAC is established it will likely take much attention and resources away from existing anti-corruption organisations. Regardless of the political outcomes, governments, donors and others will need to continuously work towards reversing the boom and bust tendencies of anti-corruption funding. This could include advocating for legislation that requires anti-corruption organisations to be allocated a minimum percentage of the overall budget. Such legislation could be overseen by an independent body as suggested by the International Budget Partnership in relation to PNG's Auditor-General's office (International Budget Partnership, 2019). Legislation could also direct governments to provide anti-corruption organisations with a percentage of funds recovered from prosecutions. In the United States this approach to ‘civil asset forfeiture’ has helped law enforcement agencies fund their battle against illegal activity (although the US example suggests care needs to be taken not to allow agencies to become overly reliant on these proceeds and the need for quality oversight mechanisms). In PNG, the state has the power to recover and seize assets acquired through the proceeds of crime through the Proceeds of Crime Act 2005 and its 2015 amendment. Part of these recovered assets could be redeployed to anti-corruption organisations. Anti-corruption organisations would still require direct state funding; however, being able to access some of the funds they help recover could provide them with income when governments reduce their budgets." Best Grant

I would be very interested to see a political economy analysis of the factors behind these boom/bust cycles coupled with an assessment of the relevance of DFAT’s anti corruption programs.

Regarding wholesale and retail investments in PNG as mentioned above (Chinese selling Australian goods) it relates to risk profile and business costs (such as the Costs of Goods Sold and Gross and Net Profit as the most easy to grasp). I have been here in POM PNG for a week and am advised not to leave the hotel without the company of locals and a secure transport arrangement. I would like to go to a bank, buy coffee and fruit, eat outside the hotel without searching for days for a secure transport company with recognised service record. This indicates that there are retail management and operating costs post - wharf delivery of goods which make return on investment not interesting beyond bulk delivery. Frankly carping about brand name investment or lack thereof needs more thinking before publishing.

Thank you Terence Wood. This is by far one of the best assessments I've read on the Issue of the Solomon Islands China Security Pact. I am in Cambodia and the country has faced very similar situations after the Khmer Rouge were defeated. Now the US and AUS draw red lines but what about the current War in Ukraine. Russia drew a RED LINE but US Pres. Joe Biden called it a No-Brainer that Ukraine should NOT join NATO. Now Solomon Islands seem to fall in a different category altogether?? I'd call it Hypocrisy by the Elephant in the Room. And YES, it's us white superior people that now have our Gov. censor media like RT and CGTN and therefore blind their citizens on one eye. We're on the way to a more authoritarian regime than most of us like to admit. Germany for 77 years had a policy not to deliver weapons in conflict zones. Now they deliver anti aircraft and other heavy weapons to Ukraine. That policy shift came over night and I wonder how much arm twisting of by the Elephant was involved to get the entire, currently German led EU under the same hood. All past wars by the US, beginning with the Vietnam war, Iraq and Afghanistan left thousands dead and their countries destroyed but none of them ever got the attention Ukraine gets, today. WHY??

Thanks Tony, I agree: a more constructive course of action from Australia on Climate Change would be both the right thing to do for the planet, and good for Australia's soft power in the Pacific. Terence

And don't forget Australia's stand on climate change: increasing global warming by selling yet more coal in face of Pacific leaders' calls for stronger action to combat this existential threat (see: Boe Declaration).