Comments

This is a good summary and echoes what I have been saying for a few years now. I recruit for both Australia and NZ and there are several noticeable differences between how the respective governments have handled the situation. 1. NZ Government takes a very hands-on approach with community groups and RSEs. It is quite common for government reps to speak directly to workers. This is virtually unknown in Australia. 2. The various sending country governments have constant dialogue with their NZ counterparts, and the feeling is one of diplomacy and cooperation. One gets the impression that they are all on the same page – unlike what happens in Australia which for some countries tends to be more antagonistic. On a personal worker level, just ask the workers! When I ask the RSE workers why they don't abscond like the SWP/PLS workers, they will unanimously say that they have no need to because (a) they are treated like family and feel welcome. (There is strong rapport between employers and their workers) (b) they earn good money, despite a lower hourly rate, the end-of-week earnings are typically and regularly higher than their SWP counterparts, because (c) the employment conditions and regulations encourages and rewards those who want to make money – there is none of this nonsense 38 hour rule for example, and finally (d) NZ workers do not face a barrage of negativity from media, community do-gooders, a growing expatriate community, diplomats, unions that constantly tell them they are exploited. This latter factor is a key reason and those making these spurious claims of exploitation comes from ulterior motives – and the workers believe it! In a nutshell, RSE workers know they are onto a good thing and see the advantages of remaining in the program far exceeding any advantage in absconding. But at the end of the day, the NZ Government is proactive about things, while the Australian Government has a largely "unimportant" approach to the situation.

Very well stated on the importance of the NGDP Thank you

Important reflection to be shared widely

I find this interesting in the approach being undertaken, with particular focus at the local level. This is an area that require more attention, hopefully such steps as these paves the way forward in giving shape to development thought and practice. The concept of "participation" needs to be rethought, a theme that remains at the heart of any development discourse. I have a lot to share but would keep it short. This is an area I am passionate to learn and contribute, hopefully in the near future towards the development of our beautiful PNG. I will leave with few questions here: It is widely acknowledged that development encompass a growing set of interrelated themes such as technological choice, the environment, basic needs, human development, and participatory research and action, etc ... what really is the purpose and direction of development? Will a new direction ever be set if the generality of PNG citizens be considered mere beneficiaries of projects rather than the real protagonists of development? And can this change come about in the institutional vacuum that characterises the life of such a vast number of human beings? Why the enhancement of institutional capacity among rural populations and the inhabitants of poor urban neighbourhoods has been neglected by so many development plans in PNG is a question for which I have never had an adequate answer. I would be happy to learn from these kind of development efforts, the nature of the development thought and practice and what possible next steps can be taken in our country.

Hi Emmanuel, For this piece of writing and perhaps my other two blogs on this site, I do not delve into cultural underpinnings and their influence on western/formal institutions. However, my PhD thesis (yet to be available on ANU open access) has two chapters that discuss how Melanesian cultures have influenced how democracy (voting, campaigning) is practiced on the ground as well as how it contends with PNG women’s effective political participation. My view on cultural norms in relation to it being a stumbling block for women, I agree with Zetlin’s critique in this article https://www-tandfonline-com.virtual.anu.edu.au/doi/full/10.1080/10361146.2014.895796 Basically, culture is in transition. It may not change to accommodate the progress we may want to see but it is not stagnant, nor should it be the primary reason to explain our contemporary challenges.

If cultural norms are not set in stone, how long does it take to undo a practice or thinking that is resisting Western Influence and Democracy in PNG? Do you have a fix that can immediately change a practice that is deeply embedded in PNG and Melanesia over time? Cultural Norms do change, but like many others, you assume that it should automatically change to suite (Western) democracy. That line of thinking is in itself defeating, because cultural norms take a long time to change/evolve, whether to agree or disagree with ideologies. I say ideologies because not only politics is resisted, but others as well. You also fail to see that I mentioned Collective Culture, that in itself is the biggest resistance of many Western Influence in our democracy and politics. Do you have a formula to speed the process of changing cultural norms? Modern theories as I have mentioned have concluded, democracy is hardest in societies with a collective culture like ours. For now, in my time, I would like to say that our cultural norms are set in stone. You find an intervention that can get more women into parliament. I am not against the idea of getting women into parliament, I am pointing out a fact that has been silent in the author's writing. And to persons like you that assume you can wave the magic wand and automatically change our society.

Hi Manu, You make an interesting point when you say: <em>"Papua New Guinea’s cultural norms will always play an important role in its politics, democracy, governance and institutions. You should also look at evolutionary psychology, especially competition amongst females, although recent studies have questioned this, primal instincts remain an important aspect of survival."</em> The first point here seems true to me, but the crucially important fact is that cultural norms change: everywhere and all the time. And in many countries, norms with regards to women in politics have changed a lot in a short space of time. A crucial question in PNG is what might bring a similar change about? More women coming in via "dynasties", TSMs? political activism from women at the grassroots? All of the above? Main point: to my mind it seems mistaken to talk of cultural norms as if they're set in stone.

I recently saw first hand low English levels in Samoan schools on the AVI Program working in Inclusive Education. Have just shipped 4,000 levelled reading books and Teaching Guides from my self-published literacy program to assist Samoa. In the process of emailing support materials. Would like to do more work in the Pacific in this area.

Well explained Anna

Thank you Theresa for your reply. It will be interesting. Of every female candidate in PNG, Dulciana Somare Brash is highly qualified, greater experience in the political space given her up bringing as well as exposure. The end of the tunnel is to win and be on the floor of parliamemt. Like you say let's see what happens. I am for a female parliamentarian and Dulciana it is.

__"Culture, Politics and Democracy."__ I have been following your write-ups on women in politics/parliament and must honestly say you have been very silent on how cultural norms have bearings on our politics, democracy, governance and institutions. Cultural norms have negative and positive effects on politics. (Gorodnichenko and Roland, 2015) PNG is no exception, having a collective cultural setting. This has heavily constrained/impaired our efforts to bring about change into our politics, democracy, governance and institutions, more so its democratisation process. Papua New Guineans have a very diverse view of their politics, democracy, governance and institutions provoked by their diverse cultural settings. Papua New Guinea’s cultural norms will always play an important role in its politics, democracy, governance and institutions. You should also look at evolutionary psychology, especially competition amongst females, although recent studies have questioned this, primal instincts remain an important aspect of survival.

Hi Ine'e, Thank you for reading and your comment. I understand what you mean with NCD having educated voters and whether that can help women candidates in general (regardless of legacy) - during the Pom NW by election, I think someone wrote a blog or maybe it was a commentary in the news (I'll try find it) about Anna Bais' performance. Anyway, this time around we'll have four women (endorsed last week by People's party) contesting for the 4 seats in NCD. Perhaps it can be an opportunity to test the idea (perhaps through survey) of educated voters voting for women/policy/not cultural gravitation. For Dulciana, if she contested for NCD Gov seat, in terms of the technicality of campaigning, it would be more or less starting from scratch even if she has in-laws and or with GCSMS legacy. At least in Sepik, she already came fourth for the provincial in 2017 so there is an existing support base for her. I note your point on 'Sepik's mental mode is a male leads' but if highlanders can vote for Julie Soso for EHP provincial seat, then anything is possible or at least one can hope. Let's see what happens. Cheers, Theresa