Comments

Thank you for your honest comments re the seasonal workers. I think that the labor companies be cut out of the process altogether. So many deductions, it really kills them.

Thank you for the very clear analysis, Mercy. You mention the principle of gender equality and note that SDG 4.1 refers to ensuring that all girls and boys complete primary and secondary education. However, your theme is to reprioritise girls education and note some of the gendered impacts of COVID on girls, but not boys. Can you clarify how you can assert the principle of gender equality and then argue for prioritising the education of girls? In an earlier blog you argue for focusing on the needs of all children which I agree is the only moral way to proceed.

Thank you Prof. Van Donge for taking time to comment on this blog piece. This is also my last post on the matter. The original blog is about New Ireland politics, the main character here being Sir Julius Chan. Because you assumed that the Solwara One project in 2013 instigated the autonomy agenda for New Ireland, the point of clarification was made. Provincial autonomy is one of several policy levers used by Sir Julius Chan in pursuit of his natural resource policy positions. Now to aspects of your rebuttal. Sir Julius’ positions on natural resource policies are definite, and he has advocated that consistently. When he was Member for Namatanai and Prime Minister from 1994 to 1997, he had a hand in the negotiations that resulted in the 1995 Lihir MOA (MOA Re. Lihir Project between State and New Ireland Provincial Government MOA Re. Lihir Project between State and LMALA). He pursued the renegotiation of this MOA since coming back into politics in 2007. As Party Leader of PPP, his party has been part of coalition governments since 2007. PPP has consistently lobbied during government formation for the Mining Ministry. Three consecutive terms of Parliament the Mining Ministry has been held by a PPP MP. The autonomy agenda he pursues is linked to mining in his province. His party is going into the 2022 elections with the agenda of reforming the resources laws of PNG. These are definite policy positions and a track record of advocacy to show for these positions on natural resources. A random statement from Charles Abel can hardly qualify as definite positions on natural resource policy. You said it yourself: “the policy positions of Charles Abel are not known”. Maybe this is because he may not have any to begin with. Therein also lies the problem with PNG politics: politicians say many good things that people will no doubt want to hear. But with no meaningful track record of voting on legislation and using their positions as legislators to consistently advocate a policy, identifying their actual positions is unrealistic. Natural resource policies are what you perceive as the key driver of PNG politics (for mine, it is one of many drivers and factors). If that is your premise in studying PNG politics, it interests me that you came back full circle to conceding that personality politics (and might I add, the perks and privileges of remaining with O’Neil) was the likely explanation for O’Neil commanding the loyalty of Polye’s party members during the split (Your own quote: “The ability to keep together a fractious lot of people is a necessary skill in PNG politics”). If a commonly shared position on natural resources was the factor that allowed Peter O’Neil to command the loyalty of other MPs that would have made sense, by your line of reasoning. Finally, patron client relations and personality politics are two specific themes to explaining the New Ireland situation. If positions on natural resource policies was the basis for the behavior of voters and MPs alike in the New Ireland province I would have noticed it and written about it in the original blog post.

A last comment on my part: Whether there are connections between local and national politics is a researchable question. It is according to me likely. For example iPNC parliamentarians may leave PNC and join Pangu Party. That has implications for the camp/coalition they will join after the election. Whether they follow O’Neill or Marape has consequences for supporting particular natural resource policies I want to raise attention for matters that are overlooked in the study of PNG politics, That is evident when the policy positions of Charles Abel are not known. Abel argues consistently against taking equity/shareholding in natural resource companies. In Paul Flanagan and Luke Fletcher’s Double or Nothing: the broken economic promises of LNG/PNG you can read on p.32:”There are some in PNG who are aware that mistakes have been made. Once again, (the then vD) current Treasurer Charles Abel made these comments in 2017:We need to develop a mineral and petroleum regime where we take a smaller equity for free and a higher royalty rate, introduce domestic market obligation and local con-tent. We need to understand why a large current account surplus (from mineral and petroleum exports) still leaves us with a foreign exchange shortage.” That is a policy agenda. A stress on patron client relations overlooks a crucial aspect of PNG politics. Patron client relations suggest a stable structure It is clear from parliamentary practice that followers in PNG are quite fickle. When Don Polye left the government, his party did not follow him.The PNC disintegrated under O’Neill when Marape succeeded.. Pruaitch’s party split beween his followers and government supporters when he joined the call for a vote of no confidence, The ability to keep together a fractious lot of people is a necessary skill in PNG politics. O’Neill was good at it but may have found his master in Marape. It is not a topic for study in PNG politics I regret that Patrick did not notice my sympathy with his contributions.

Well stated brother, I hope this will help and change our country in such ways as that.

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