Comments

My brother, well said. The Slogan is a vision spelt out. It is a desire to see this country excel in physical riches and also spiritual richest in Christ. The impossible can be achieved if we believe. The vision is a guide, annual goals and milestones has to be set, and action-plans developed. Through prudency and hard work can the action plans be rolled out effectively to realized the vision. I see PMJM is setting the foundations of these strategic processes.

I commend this research done objectively. I also want PMJM to remain beyond 2022.

I am from one of the Treaty Villages and very interested in pursuing changes to the current Treaty. I believe the Treaty should be reviewed to include more benefits to the 13 Treaty villages in the South Fly District. I would be interested to engage in any discussions around this. How can I connect with the authors of this blog?

Many thanks for the article shared abit it very interesting to read allowing me to observe what the December meeting's will look like. Keep the news coming as this is a very crucial time for the PIFS SG position as well as the issues related to all the PIFS Memberships.

One correction : I had wrongly assumed the ICAC Bill had passed the PNG Parliament months ago -in fact it only passed last Tues.-Nov.17-unanimously, & in unusual circumstances. The revolt of Marape's party allies last Fri.Nov.13 was unexpected -is O'Neill behind this ? Is the Porgera-Barritt dispute a significant factor ? Months of political instability lie ahead -but The Young Turks : Kramer,Bird, Juffa are behind Marape -that is encouraging.

Great article Sadhana. Always enjoy reading your articles - informative, succinct, insightful. Keep up the great work

Luke, your calm assessment of Australia since Covid began simply reveals that we are indeed the lucky country. Our health system has been magnificent in its contribution to controlling the virus. Government leaders by and large have acted according to the wishes of the people. However, many state governments have not respected that Australia is a federation. (I have just read the latest biography of Alfred Deakin. I think he would be appalled at some comments by some state Premiers.) The most worrying aspect of your commentary is that Australia is annually slip sliding towards greater income inequality. A wealth tax, especially on land is one of reversing this trend but political parties are not brave enough to take such a step.

The PNG government has now reversed its position on Porgera and invited Barrick to enter into discussions with a view to Barrick re-opening the mine and resuming operations at Porgera. What caused this reversal? On 25 September Justice Makail in the Supreme Court dismissed an application for a stay of proceedings by Barrick NL. In response to submissions His Honour at para 21 found that the “Respondents [the State and its agencies] are unwilling to reverse the first decision taken by the NEC and the relationship between the parties at worst has become obnoxious and broken down to the point of no return and it would not be in the interests of justice that the unwilling party be ordered to maintain the relationship.” The judgment referred, inter alia, to the ICSID registrations by Barrick NL for conciliation and by Barrick PD for arbitration. An ICSID jurisdiction once consented to by a State is irrevocable. For a conciliation the parties must consent to a conciliation. The affected State must appoint an arbitrator/conciliator representative and when the tribunal convenes make an argument that the State does not agree to conciliate. A decision of a court is regarded as an act of State. PNG can point to Makail J’s decision in support of a refusal to conciliate. The Barrick PD application for ICSID arbitration is unaffected by the Supreme Court’s decision. Soon afterwards the balance struck by Makail J was disturbed by the revelation that there were serious anomalies associated with the Gazettal notice for the termination of the Porgera SML and the grant of a new coterminous Porgera SML to KMHL. On 1 October the Supreme Court (Kirriwom, Batari, Cannings JJ) ruled that Barrick NL were able to amend their appeal proceedings thereby making publicly visible direct references to the oddities and anomalies of the recent Gazette notices pertaining to the Porgera SML. On 6 October the Supreme Court (Kirriwom, Batari, Cannings JJ) ruled that the application by Barrick NL for a judicial review of the NEC/Prime Ministerial decision to deny Barrick an application for an extension of the Porgera SML may proceed. I think it likely that the PNG goverment began to re-consider its options. It is possible that the PNG judicial review process may have become protracted and resulted in politically embarrassing disclosures. Further PNG lawsuits may have followed. Including an action against the government for an unlawful (?) and uncompensated ‘taking’ of property by the State from Barrick NL. Barrick is now engaged in discussions with the PNG government. Barrick has made clear that what they are prepared to offer is little different from what they offered the government one, two, or three years ago. A commercially viable (i.e both bankable for debt financing and IRR) scheme that increases returns to PNG and enhances landowner participation. No doubt PNG will be requesting some titular changes so that they can argue that they have ‘taken back PNG’ and are no longer ‘giving away free’ PNG’s natural resources to foreigners. Vailala

Thank you for this thoughtful and thought-provoking blog post. It has sensitively and clearly raised some rather uncomfortable but useful insights. Amanda

There is much that can be said of Pariah states and actors that support them, however this article is about PIF's leadership. I understand merit based selection has been endorsed at communique level by leaders but hasn't been operationalized within the secretariat, and certainly not in the selection of the SG. That said, all candidates as a friend observed, are 'qualified' in their own ways or they wouldn't be endorsed by their respective Governments. As you say Mr Nair, and as observers we continue to hope the Pacific Way and all its wisdom, in this day and age prevails, in selecting the most meritorious candidate, able to fulfil the post COVID19 requirements of the position, with vision that brings tangible benefits to ALL the regions people. And of course that leaders live up their word of a more gender equitable Pacific leadership.

Great post Luke, I think the pandemic has also provided a sharp lens on persistent gender inequalities in Australia, particularly in relation to care, job insecurity and labour market participation -- again issues that women in developing countries are subjected to but at a more extreme scale. One of the great disappointments for me personally of the domestic pandemic response in Australia has been that we have not taken the opportunity for transformational changes in the economy that could improve some of these situations while providing stimulus (for example, reforming the messy childcare subsidy system and providing some level of free childcare nationally, or deeply examining the aged care system, or looking at longer-term and broader changes to work practices in light of the WFH options 'tested' during the crisis). I really hope we can transform our approach to the region and development assistance as well, and issues such as climate change which are impacting us all. Surely the pandemic goes to show that we are all vulnerable to 'global public goods' issues, albeit to varying degrees, and it is in our best interests to act globally on such issues. However I'm not so sure as there seems to be an unnerving rush to return to business as usual on so many fronts.

Hi John, the Speaker is responsible for ensuring that the parliament standing orders are adhered to. In this case, he should have notified Peter O'Neill that the nomination had already closed, and that he shouldn't withdraw himself as the candidate. Initially when Namah pursued the case (after Pruaitch switched to the government), Marape's lawyers argued that violation of standing orders is not a matter for the courts to decide, and they were right. Standing orders are non-judicable. However, because vote of no confidence is provided for in the constitution, the court ruled that it was not a violation of mere parliamentary standing orders, but a potential violation of the constitutional provisions on vote of no confidence. The matter will return to court soon. With the latest developments, it will be an interesting to watch. If Namah is replaced in December, the court will retrospectively rule on the case. But if Namah succeeds in overcoming a vote of no confidence in December, and the court later rules that his election was unconstitutional, the PM seat becomes vacant, and Marape has to defend it for the second time.