Comments

If Opposition wins the second or third cases, there may be a vote of no confidence before Christmas. If they lose, they can still institute a vote of no confidence when parliament meets on 21 April 2021. When 28 July 2021 comes around, there will be no more vote of no confidence. If a new PM is elected in any of these VONCs, they will have another 18-month grace period (including Marape if he is re-elected). Because there are 18 months left before the 2022 elections, the new PM will be protected all the way to the 2022 elections. He will be the safest PM ever.

Let the good government to our country, God bless this land. Look back and see this and a population of this country PNG.

Sir, thanks for your factual updates. What would most likely happen if there's no Vote of no confidence?

Very informative and to the point. no waffle. thanks...excellent article

Very resourceful information. How can we carry on from here as intelligence to workout the best in order to solve some unsolved issues from the social and political compliances regarding that subject. It has not been taken seriously which result in continuous clashes between our people and the developer and the government. We talk and talk about transparency, how can it be displayed when there is no such attempt to investigate and look into hidden truth about our daily issues. Thanks to the team for the initiative and courage for the research. Lets together do something about it for transparency to prevail and enhance mutual benefits.

I particularly note the reference made in your blog to the Agreement provisions creating certainty and transparency for the private sector. Whilst you have not overtly referred to foreign investment, it is implied in your blog, and also based on the concluding comments from the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands. PACER Plus will provide the first treaty framework for investor protection in the region including treatment based on customary international law, protection against arbitrary expropriation of assets and the ability to transfer funds for investments (including getting returns out). These commitments (when acted upon) will absolutely contribute to the easing of investor’s concerns related to the risk of investment expropriation by PIC governments (either directly or through retrospective taxes) and will increase the relative attractiveness of the PICs that have ratified PACER Plus. I note that all Pacific Island governments want and need more investment in their economies, and I think the Agreement will strongly facilitate this. From our own experiences and capabilities in delivering economic growth and development services in the Pacific @DT Global we note with interest the timely opportunities which PACER Plus presents for business and government to work together to drive economic recovery. With government budgets and revenues being severely shocked in 2020, success in delivering quick recovery will be dependent on catalysing investment from the private sector. There is considerable and important implementation work still to be done under an assistance package (which you have mentioned) to put the required protections in place through legislated and simplified regulations. This important support would, if correctly applied, help to ameliorate one of the points made by Adam Wolfenden in the ‘case against’ regarding the low capacities of PIC governments to be able to open up and regulate their economies to prioritise the needs of investors over other concerns. Clearly a balance is needed, and I would stress that PIC governments think carefully about the characteristics of the type of private investment that would appeal most to their communities in achieving their development and fiscal goals. Until the proposed harmonisation and standardisation of investment regulations is in place however, the legal and regulatory barriers are likely to remain high despite the emerging investor appetite for the region. Steven Baker Steven Baker is Practice Leader, Economic Growth at DT Global in Asia Pacific with a focus on trade and inclusive growth, enterprise development and innovative financing approaches.

Thanks for this excellent blog Charlotte. No arguments with what you have said, but I would add that the shortage of seasonal agricultural workers will show up as higher prices for fresh produce in shops and lower aggregate income (i.e. GDP). On the former, Aussie and Kiwi households may now realize the value they receive from seasonal workers. On income, farmers are already complaining of crops being left unharvested/unattended and soon this will show up in the form of reduced exports of fresh produce. The Pacific islands are generally free of Covid-19, and them being abundant in workers in need of work who are close-by is an opportunity to increase import of seasonal workers. It necessary, these workers may be quarantined on farms at minimal cost. NT is already experimenting with some of these ideas.

Thanks Michael for the updates. It seems that PNG politics is full of day-to-day survival of our MPs in the political field and it has nothing to do with the country's interest and development. Why do they all quarrel over who gets what and how much? when we should ask our self what can I as a leader do for this country. When I ask my self such question, the answers I give myself is directly link to huge amount of money involved in removing PMJM. Not to be politically biased, I strongly believed that some of the actions by James Marape like the closing down of Porgera Mining is one of the main cause of this political movement. It is of my opinion without evidence that Barrick Porgera Niugini limited is behind this. Marape did this for national interest and not for his personal gain.

Many if us who brought up from the poor families and from very remote places in the country appreciated for help program... Please tingim mipla ol grass root tu..mipla laikim education..

Hi Kharisma, Thank you, that is an excellent point. I agree with you. Lamentably, not all aid is given with the primary intent of helping recipient countries. Sometimes the motive is enlightened national interest (if we stop the disease from spreading in recipient A, it will not affect us in the donor country). This type of aid isn't so bad, as it still has to deliver benefits to the recipient to help the donor. But there's also aid given in near-sighted national interest. Aid given simply to advance a donor's commercial or geostrategic interests. Sometimes you hear politicians - and the government more generally - justify aid in terms of its benefits to the donor. In my experience, typically these arguments focus on the enlightened national interest. This makes sense as, although enlightened national interest seems to be quite popular with people in donor publics, near-sighted national interest is not (see page 7 <a href="https://devpolicy.org/publications/reports/Public-and-aid-community-comparing-views-about-aid.pdf">here</a>). As far as I'm concerned, aid given in the near-sighted national interest isn't aid. It's frustrating to know some "aid" is given with this motivation. I'm not defending it. I'd rather the money was spent domestically. Thanks again for a great, thought-provoking, comment. Terence

Hi Terence, thank you so much for your clear arguments. It strikes directly to the logic and their assumptions with very convincing data and arguments. What do you think about this argument: Such question like "we have so much need here in Australia, before we spend money overseas we should take care of Australians” contains a fundamental misconception that aid is for the interest of the beneficiaries at the expense of the donor/aid provider. This might be wrong, since under "foreign affairs and trade" platform, international aid sometimes benefits the provider more and at the expense of the benficiriaries instead.

Thank you for this very informative and important article. Well articulated and discussed with firm rebuttals.