Comments

The SWP `a tightly regulated alternative' patrolled by the Australian Border Force (The Australian 10/11/2021 "Australia's 'Slave Trade' Disgrace"). `Less exploitative than' even in your own terms still means exploitative. Minister Littleproud defending farmers and labour hire firms is to be expected: some critical analysis of the conditions faced by SWP and other casual short-term contract workers might be expected from what purports to `provide a platform for the best in aid and development analysis and commentary'. For example, why does the ABF, the local equivalent of the most obnoxious repressive apparatuses found world-wide, become involved in what purports to be a market in labour? Might this have something to do with SP workers being forbidden from self-organising to reduce their exploitation in wages and working conditions? Might walking off the job and taking up better pay and conditions, including in urban areas suggest something about whom the SWP's tight regulations favour? Simple answer of course: the SWP and similar labour-hire schemes are not in any sense `free' but involve taking workers from countries where living conditions have been attacked for years and transporting them to another form of unfreedom, underpinned by the ABF.

There is a lot of optimism in Prof Negin's argument but one which would fall on deaf ears in Canberra and amongst bureaucrats generally. It is the realm of political decision-making rather than scientific based advice that is currently driving global politics of Vaccine Nationalism and protectionism in terms of sharing R&D in this domain. From my limited understanding of mRNA technology development, whilst revolutionary in its potential to cure many modern-day diseases, it has been highly unstable in the production zone. The only country which could potentially partner up on an equal playing field from the region's democracies would be Japan. India, which has its own well-developed pharmaceutical industry, has been quite protectionist during earlier stages of the pandemic and has entered into its own agreements with the global pharmaceutical giants. Indonesia, whilst in dire need of additional Western-made vaccines (it already has access to Russian and Chineses vaccines) would have a limited value of mRNA vaccines. Being an archipelago country it simply does not have the deep storage facilities required for such vaccines. Only "mainland" areas surrounding Jakarta would be benefiting from those vaccines. For Indonesia, it makes absolute sense to have a much greater access to Australian-made AZ vaccines. Perhaps that technology could be shared in an agreement its CSL but in reality, this would be highly unlikely. As for Vietnam, it would make more sense for them to cooperate with Cuba (as they have already started on the vaccine front with Cuba having been a leader in biotech from the developing states in the Americas due to their cooperative model of biotech development). Our other options would be Thailand, with its perpetually unstable leadership which would make any private investment more unlikely, then Malaysia and Japan. My bets would go to the latter, and it would really require bold leadership from within the university sector as well as their govt partners to embark on such a proposal. What do you think Prof Negin, would Japan be a likely partner in this regard?

This seems to me to be an excellent proposal Joel. I think it is also a good model for our development assistance more generally where we share our strengths in scientific research and technology to help other countries to develop answers to their needs. Let's face it Australia is good at science but not so good at helping other countries with their politics and economic and social development.

Absolutely pragmatic, realistic and BOLD!!

Great article Mere and Nicollette - so wonderful to hear these perspectives.

Great piece! So well articulated. Such an important positive space that has emerged with the pandemic, thank you for shining a light on the wealth of local expertise in the Pacific region.

Sorry Greg, these Pacific countries are sovereign states, and your patronising assessment of 'their biggest problem' is quite wrong. Their biggest problem is in fact climate change, something visited on them by the rest of the world. I suggest you learn something about US behaviour in the Marshall Islands before railing about Chinese aggression in the Pacific. China is a totalitarian state and ruthless to minorities within its borders, but it does not seek to export its ideology in the manner of the Soviet Union. It seeks economic supremacy rather than territorial expansion. The US is protecting its own interests in reacting against the economic rise of China, and Pacific nations are right to avoid being drawn into that conflict. We are the dupes, not they.

I think this research you've carried out supports the fact that the country's MFI's and Banks are experiencing low LTD due to factors such as accessibility and imposing of huge collateral requirements on borrowers. Hence, the MFI's inflict the issue of low LTD upon themselves. Therefore, they should take the initiative of addressing it first hand before seeking government intervention.

"Friends to all" vis-a-vis China? This is just a garden variety of appeasement that recklessly ignores China's aggressive strategy and tactics. Pacific countries choose to ignore their biggest problem, population growth, and try to ride the Chinese dragon to boost their always short budgets, their second biggest problem. Such a naive approach will inevitably come a cropper, and then it will be up to Australia again to pick up the pieces. No thanks.

Rice is a relatively new crop in Timor Leste. A couple of generations ago maize was the staple grain crop. There is still a wonderful diversity of maize grown & observable in village markets. Yields are very low, but nutrition is not bad. It is no coincidence that in the highlands, it is not uncommon for some elders to live past 100 years old. These people were raised on maize, not rice. Will the life expectancy of the younger generations be as high? Obviously there are a log of factors involved, but a switch to higher-yielding rice may have a detrimental effect.

IF Digicel PNG monopoly represents a significant component of the US$1.6 billion purchase of Digicel Pacific by the Australian Government and Telstra, then the PNG Government must stop the sale and ask Digicel and Telstra to come to a round table talk to consider PNG's issues and how will this change benefit the PNG Government and the common people. I'm sure Digicel will be too happy to leave very quickly because they have already recovered and ripped the benefits and not wanting to remain and face China. Mr Stephen Howes said the Australian Government must not promote monopoly in the Pacific but to put an end to it by promoting good business relationships through fair competition. This is just what is needed in PNG. Some issues still on the PNG Government agenda are lower internet rates, control over pornography via internet, lower call rates, high interest on call credits, free access to TV broadcast, etc. Now is the time to talk.

Good morning, I would like to get in touch with Anton Lutz to present him our new study book "Kamap fri long Posin na Sanguma". Can I get an email address of Mr Lutz, please?