Comments

Thank you Ceridwen for your fantastic show of support in presenting at our Panel discussions and also allowing us to contribute to your research ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Maitoo - I'm an Australian radio producer making a documentary about life in the Solomons today for ABC RN and Daniel's article answered many questions I've had since visiting there earlier this year. I'm still in the research phase and hope to speak with Daniel but I would also like to speak with you, if possible. My email is nicolesteinke@hotmail.com Please get in touch and we can try to talk. https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/earshot/the-life-and-death-of-turbo-brown/10802726

Hi Rochelle. Have long been a supporter of the great work you have done in this SWP space (which I'm most familiar with) but I, as both a large, very long established labour hire AE and a board member of the A.E.A am disappointed in this blog. It is not in doubting that there have been and likely still are rip-offs that take place, that much has been focused on the RSE with the SWP having far stricter rules, and that these vile practices (wherever they are) must be stamped out, but it is the one-sided generalist and minimalist approach that once again paints a (by every measure) a highly reputable sector that does it right with the same brush as those very few who don't. What is the percentage of rip-offs that occur against a myriad of successful transport, etc stories? Is it 15%, 25% or more or, a very small fraction of 1%? Perspective please. Other than a few (literally a few) words acknowledging proprietary on-costs what efforts have been made to consult with employers to ascertain true costs.....and hidden costs? Surely nobody believes that a one size fits all approach is feasible? That is, a (or even some) grower(s) supply transport for free so possibly everybody can. What about those hidden costs. All of us who live this at the coalface day to day have examples (sometime sadly too numerous) of rip-offs that we (as AE's) must deal with but these do not rate a mention. From unauthorized long distance usage, lack of any care in simple maintenance and driving resulting in much higher repair/insurance costs. One AE recently told me that their numerous vehicles have to be replaced every 12-18 months. There are many more examples that we can provide. Ask us please. What about the various regulations governing vehicle supply for a fee? What mention is made of the changed status of a farmer/AE who supplies a vehicle and then seeks fair and reasonable recompense for this? That is, in the eyes of state authorities, they become a form of taxi service (on top of everything else) with different rules, regulations and further increased costs to contend with. Check it out please! What about those who choose to use (instead of supplying vehicles themselves) a reputable vehicle rental company to supply to their valued personnel up-to- date, very regularly maintained and properly registered and insured vehicles? Do we seriously expect them to make no profit on their risk? What all AE's would desperately wish to see is a willingness by others to consult with them at the same table, then together we can all present and push through with a unified and unilateral approach to understanding and dealing with ALL the issues governing supply whether it be transport, accommodation, health care, etc, etc. Until then...

An interesting and well written piece, looking at the issue from various angles. At the same time, I wonder how much thought had been given to such questions as: - what is people's motivation to chew, spit, litter in the first place? - what do chewers and non-chewers associate with the spit and litter in public places? - what is the true motivation behind banning buai? Beautification? Health? (TB transmission was often said to be linked to spitting, whereas to my knowledge there is no scientific evidence to substantiate this claim. Oral cancer is certainly an issue!) Do chewers see these points and can they buy into it? - is it really the most pressing issue for police and town authorities to enforce with a ban? - Can POM citizens take it seriously if authorities are asked to punish buai sellers and consumers while, e.g. violent crime, corruption, shortage of medical personnel and drug supplies are possibly seen as much bigger problems?

Betel nut used to be a coastal nut, used only by people on the coasts of PNG. Where I come from, you don’t find betel nut spittle much, because of the fear of being ‘poisoned.’ The belief that sorcerers would used either the spittle or the buai skin to inflict illness and death supernaturally. Interestingly this fear prevents spitting in public places, and the chewers keeping their betel-nut skins to dispose responsibly. Over generations, this has created a general restraint that people practice responsible chewing even in the absence of sorcerers or fear of sorcery. This is true for many coastal provinces. To my observation, generally people front the highlands are less responsible in their chewing habits. This is not to say others are more responsible, but it’s what I observe. And this may be because of this lack of traditional restraints associated with betel nut chewing. For those who don’t know, betel but only grows on the coast. And before the opening up of the highlands, betel nut chewing was restricted to coastal areas, with exceptions of those highlands regions that had trade relations with the coastal areas, or could access the coast easily. A greater awareness on the negative effects of betelnuts (eg mouth cancer) should accompany policing. A self restraint of some sort may be more effective that restraint imposed from state.

this is the clear evaluation of challenges being faced by most Papua New Guineans since the birth of this young nation to visualized who our fore father as a hunters and gatherers to our father and now, this is the error of change, lets hope that the slogan Take back PNG will eventuate in 2022

I have now read Stephen’s earlier blog and this summary of his 2018 report. First, I would argue that four years is a rather short time Fran in which to expect solid results from any innovation project, especially one with capacity building components. Nevertheless one would expect to see some clearly defined criteria against which progress would be measured. This would require a greater measure of transparency than is, from Stephen’s account, missing. Thirdly, I would like to see a plainly stated methodology for impact assessment. ACIAR has a well established system of independent ex post project evaluation. The evaluations are funded by ACIAR but conducted independently by acknowledged experts and usually subject to separate peer review. Perhaps DFAT could learn from ACIAR’s experience

Hi Olive, Please keep in touch. Freda Dim Pyanyo

Very good note.

Thanks Pes for this analysis. Your analysis is an interesting one to ponder among others the following misunderstanding; I would like to re-look at the term gender base violence in a PNG context. 1. Gender base violence is a term misconstrued by many commenters, policy makers and law enforcing bodies. 2. PNG has misconceived using this term (Gender base violence) brought in from our Western world, which fits them perfectly well but not in PNG. 3. There is no gender discrimination education for PNG schools; both male and female are known as students. 4. In real life, violence erupt anytime; victims are female and male in communities, schools or at workplace. 5. Violence occurs due to a reasonable cause of reason and not because of gendered perception. Using the term gender base violence against female victims raise a different connotation. In bracket, you would often see this (violence against women and girls). 6. When one is using the borrowed term gender base violence referring to girls and women, this reckoned women and girls as inferior beings. Putting them at the point of being victims every time. This is how Western world defined the term. The fact in PNG that do not commensurate with the term. 1. PNG has a society where females are highly valuable; high prize, assert for family and society, that brings next generation etc. Not seen as a gendered person in society. This can be confirmed with the cost of bride price in a marriage. 2. In Western world, you do not see this, females are mere being of gendered figure, what value could generate to the family and society-nothing. In a marriage, you could only see and exchange of finger rings. 3. When a female is educated in PNG society, the value increases and highly respected in society. 4. PNG family see more returns; love and care from female members than male born in the family. 5. For example, in Hela or Enga you touch a woman or girl you are in for real trouble, In Simbu, girls are asset to family and society, In Central, you spend your lifetime savings to marry one. In contrast, you cannot see any of these in the Western world. Therefore, the term gender base violence is misconstrued in PNG and its application here is of no effect, it is a miss norm that does not fit well in our society. Back to your point on violence in schools, it is really to do with discipline in the family and in the school. Using the Western term gender base violence to despise the value of our PNG women and girls is ill defined. I think the term gender base violence should not be used in PNG development aspects.

Thanks Bryant, That's very helpful to know. Terence

Latest report on real situation on the ground regarding marketplace trading and types of produce sold/purchased.