Comments

Mark, thanks for the question Let’s distinguish between the behaviours of PNG buyers and sellers when they cross the border to transact in Indonesian Papua. Buyers will be carrying Kina, a currency they are familiar with and would find it confusing to have to convert this to rupiah in order to buy goods priced in the unfamiliar currency of rupiah. Indonesian traders are willing to accommodate them by pricing their goods in kina. The Indonesian authorities also accommodate the trade by setting up currency exchange facilities which enable Indonesians to buy and sell Kina, so that they can trade with PNG’ns. PNG sellers cross the border to sell goods which Indonesian buyers are keen to buy. They demand to be paid in Kina and Indonesian buyers must obtain PNG currency (Kina) by purchasing it through the local currency exchange. But the border closure over the past year or so has prevented PNG buyers going to Pasar Skouw so that Kina are no longer flowing into Indonesia. This means that Indonesian buyers are finding it hard to find Kina to buy goods (such as vanilla) which have been crossing the border from PNG in the the illicit cross border trade.

Dear Rohan, Many thanks for reaching out. Your feedback is much appreciated. You are doing important research on financial inclusion of PNG women which I am sure will inform our own activities. As we know it is normal to have differences of opinion here and there but by and large there is broad agreement in most areas. Your points are well noted. We agree that it is important to have an open discussion about such topics. We look forward to your continued research and articles. Best wishes.

These guys come from the primitive part of PNG and bring in their Caveman mentality. Not all Papua New Guineans are like these primitives. Sometimes we wanted to Break away from the rest of the country be ourselves as peace-loving people.

Update: I checked again. I did actually reference some Papua New Guinean female authors in my blog. This one: https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/143397

To the authors of the blog, thank you for your interest in my research, and for your critique. There are many points I would like to respond to, which I may need a full blog to do. But my main one is that I think my points may have been misinterpreted. Communication can be a difficult endeavour, especially to a wide range of audiences. The research I conducted relates to economic autonomy. Which is an important component of empowerment, but not the only component. One example you highlight is safety. I agree, and I mention this in my blog when I say in paragraph 6 "Of course, economic autonomy is not the only factor that should be taken in to consideration". I also agree that bank accounts can and do help women in PNG. My research does not suggest that bank accounts have no positive impact. Decision-makers should use all information available to them to make the best decision. This may lead to business as usual, a small change, or a bigger one. There are a number of other things, but as I said, I think I need a full blog to respond. I will be interested in your thoughts once I do. Thanks again for the interest and critique. I am sure it will lead to improved clarity and understanding for all.

I would add, sadly, that in the blogs and comments we also do not yet have a Papua New Guinean woman writing or quoted. For my part, the research article I wrote, if not the blog, does quote Papua New Guinean women authors, and of 35 references, the majority of main-authors and co-authors I quote are women. This blog by Chanel and Dahiya does quote Papua New Guinean organisations, and their main reference PFIP has many quotes from Papua New Guinean women, if not as authors. But your point is still valid and as a general comment, there is very much room for improvement in the quoting of and collaboration with Papua New Guinean women authors/researchers.

Thank you for this interesting post. I appreciate the point that a qualitative study building upon Mr Rohan Fox's quantitative data analysis could be useful. In-depth interviews with individuals or groups of people could utilise open-ended questions to unpack some of these issues. This would help to find out about women's experiences, from their perspectives. I have one question. In Mr Fox's piece, he wrote that 'mobile phone-based banking offerings' could be worth considering. I know that there have been considerable discussions on this issue in Papua New Guinea and other Pacific nations. In PNG, a range of digital financial services are offered, including mobile banking and mobile money. What is the view of the authors of this piece? Are these types of offerings relevant for and/or useful for women in PNG? Thanks again for the thought-provoking piece. Amanda

It struck me reading this article (and the one referred to) that we have 3 men discussing about the economic empowerment of women in PNG, and not a single woman is even quoted. C'mon, development sector, we need to do better than this.

Yvonne, Thanks for your response. Yes acknowledging that seasonal work programs are complex systems with a range of active players means that regular feedback loops between these players are needed to make these systems work. These loops are needed whether the focus is day-to-day operational matters or larger, more settled issues. Without established feedback loops, problems escalate leading to ad hoc reactive responses by the players that often do not address the conditions that created the problem.

Well said in every way - great coverage. A true summary of Samoa 's political history over 40 years.

Very good to see this on-going debate on seasonal labour mobility in the Pacific - especially as it throws into stark relief an unscrutinised liberal approach and a complex systems approach. More research is needed from critical mobility studies that draws on new narrative empirics. These have the potential to better capture the nature of the complex negotiations that men and women, in all their diversities, engage in as part of the seasonal labour mobility-agricultural industrial complex, where overlapping interests create policy tensions.

Agreed, Richard, and our discussion of impacts in the substantive New Zealand and Pacific reports makes that clear. As we will explain in a more detailed response to your specific criticisms of the synthesis report (which is the primary focus of your comments) the impact study was considered by the commissioning agencies (MBIE and MFAT) to be an important input into a review of RSE policy that Immigration New Zealand is undertaking. We should have made this clearer in the Synthesis Report. We have realised that we did not include a summary statement about the scope of the impact study or its contribution to the on-going RSE policy review in that report. We will comment further on this in our more detailed response to your second and third blogs.