Comments

Thanks Stephen, This is a related dilemma facing ACFID in its work to contribute to the review of DFAT’s Country Aid Investment Plans. With dozens of these country plans up for review (nearly all ended in 2018/19) the strategic focus with which to approach this task is blurry. Most of these plans were developed in 2015/16, prior to the Foreign Policy White Paper, and using benchmarks from the Making Performance Count Framework of 2014. A lot of water under the bridge since then. So, yes, I agree with the above posts that generous replenishment of the global health funds is important. But, without an updated policy framework and greater budget predictability for the aid program, it is increasingly challenging to look across the portfolio to inform these case by case assessments and budget decisions.

Thank you Stephen for the timely analysis. A very good article as usual. There are some small clarifications that might be made with respect to the contribution to the GFATM. The contribution by Australia in 2011-2013 was AUD 199.88m, in 2014-2016 it was AUD 195m (Australia pledged AUD 200m but actually contributed AUD 195m), and for 2017-2019 the pledge is AUD 220m however to date the contribution is AUD 104.6m leaving AUD 115.4m outstanding. Hopefully the outstanding amount will be forwarded by Australia over the next 3 months to honor our pledge! However, while this may look like Australia has maintained the level of contribution reasonably level over this 9 year period, when one looks at what it has meant in USD terms so that we can compare how we stand against other donors, the contributions have fallen from USD 198,712,176 in 2011-13, USD 177,611,811 in 2014-16 to USD 168,221,440 for 2017-19 assuming that Australia honors its pledge. That is, because of the fall in the AUD against the USD, our contribution in international terms has fallen. This data is freely available on the GFATM website. With the GFATM replenishment meeting next month, it will be interesting what is announced when other major donors have already announced increased commitments.

Hi, Thanks for sharing this information. There are some conferences happening in which medical specialty would be Hospice and Palliative Medicine and here is one of those conferences the conference details are given below. The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Organizing Hospice and Palliative Medicine and Intensive Physician Board Review Course 2019 for 24.00 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™ held from Sep 24 - 26, 2019 at Houston, Texas, USA For more information please follow the below link: https://www.emedevents.com/c/medical-conferences-2019/updates-in-hospice-and-palliative-medicine-intensive-physician-board-review-2019

Thank you Michael for an great blog and excellent insights. I really enjoyed reading it. It was very interesting to read how you connected the ministries to the coalitions. Clearly, the carving up ministerial portfolios is a very important part of the political economy of political coalitions and settlements in PNG. Things seem to be moving very fast. On a lighter note, this week I had a dream that Marape and O'Neill got back together again! I am already trying to interpret this dream... We have an interesting two years ahead. tenkiu tru.

Problems exist with electoral boundaries, other than population distributions. Electorates are also Districts and so are administrative units. Ambunti-Dreikikir District comprises the foothills around Drekikir and the Sepik River valley at Ambunti. To travel from Dreikikir to Ambunti, for example to obtain a trade store licence, or to carry out some other adminisrative task, one must get a PMV to Maprik, then a PMV to Pagwi on the river, then a canoe to Ambunti. As some administrative functions are located in Ambunti and others in Dreikikir, the people of Ambunti must do the opposite to get to Dreikikir. On arrival at Dreikikir or Ambunti, the likelihood is great that the required office will be closed or the needed public servant will not at work, on the day you arrive. For the last few years, the MP for this electorate has apppointed his own District Administrator resident at Ambunti, while the government appointed administrator has been resident at Dreikikir. The outcome has been almost complete inertia in this District. Some years ago while visiting the National Mapping Office, I was shown how the laws of PNG that define the PNG Districts (they describe in words, in latitudes and longitudes, where the boundaries are located on the ground), contain typographical errors, such that when an attempt is made to plot the boundaries on a map, using the legal definitions, some District boundaries do not form a closed polygon. One outcome is that some isolated voters have voted in the wrong electorate, if they voted at all.

Thank you very much JK Domyal for providing these insights. I really like the alternative title you have proposed: "will Marape stand the test of coalition politics and individual MPs politics in PNG?”. Thinking in terms of coalition politics and individual MPs politics, it seems we have: 1. a contest between O'Neill and Marape for PNC; 2. a contest between PNC and PANGU with Marape the glue between PNC and PANGU; 3. a mobile and important NA that seems to be moving between; 4. Individual influential MPs moving also. It seems that Marape is both the glue pulling everyone together while at the same time not quite the leader of either PNC or PANGU. I am curious about the implications of this the arguments for the introduction of OLIPPAC and how things will unfold leading into the 2022 elections. For me, important questions are: Will Marape need to be leader of a political party if he is to sustain the PM position? Convention in PNG politics suggests that one needs to have some alliances with a political party (although not necessarily one with majority numbers) to be invited to form government. Does he want to be the leader of a political party? I agree with you that, how Marape can keep everyone intact and happy is a holy grail. Interesting times ahead.

Thanks Michael for these insights. Thank you also for your latest blog giving great perspectives and insights into the overall dynamics. I think it will be very interesting, leading into the 2022 elections to track how this dynamics between political leaders and parties develops. Clearly, and not surprisingly, any aspirant for the PM post needs either have a very strong charisma to draw supporters around him and/or needs to own or take leadership of a political party. It's interesting to note that the moves between opposition and government also seem to be about hopping and sidestepping where certain people are. For example, there seems to be a lot of focus on where O'Neill is placed in shaping how MPs move. I wonder how long term relationships between MPs, feuds, political settlements and so on are influencing MPs decisions? I would love to be a fly on the wall.

Michael thanks for this discussion. You look closely at the events that unfold and realise that Marape did not remove PNC-majority of the PNC members are still with the government-it could be hard for Marape to do that. Former Minister for National Planning was removed not because of PNC, it was due to the EU Agricultural loan approval delay caused by Maru but spearheaded by ES Governor Bird and Maru’s continued communication with former PM O’Neill while under Marape-Davis government. One point that is intellectually critical is this: Marape is yet to assume leadership of the Pangu Parti. Without this, he cannot entirely dismiss PNC, of which he was a core member. Once O’Neill is implicated in allegations, the PNC leadership is going to be vacant, non-other than Marape is the likely successor. The PNC party has a strong hold in the Highlands, especially Hela, SHP, Enga. Marape knows this fact, and he cannot dismiss PNC. This understanding is confirmed by what Marape said when he gave opportunity for the eight PNC ministers to decide for themselves, either to leave government or to stay with them. Your discussion on assorted MPs hanging under Marape-Davis government, it goes back to the fluidity of the political party system we have and the prevailing status quo of today’s politics. The particular section of the “integrity law on political parties and candidates” that restricts movement of MPs in government and opposition and from one political party to another has been rendered null and void so now you see the results. Marape sits in three situations: 1. He will take over the leadership of PNC once O’Neill is implicated and resign, PNC has a strong hold in the Highlands. 2. At the moment he is yet to be given the Pangu Parti leadership, which Pangu executives would not want to do but leave it to a later time. 3. Whilst this, Marape wants to deliver on some national agendas and he needs the likes of competent MPs in the former government and the opposition. That’s why you see exodus of likeminded MPs moving to one side. However, one immediate number game that Marape needs to get it right is the balance of convenience to govern; in the event of PNC move to the opposition with 22 or so MPs, he needs to pull in NA party to balance it. That is why we have witnessed the recent move by Pruaitch and the NA team. More update to come.

Thank you Ellen, although DSIP per head is disparate across electorates, each province still receives an overall budget proportionate to its size, which means the largest electorates do get larger funding for specific services. Although population isn't the only factor in determining political boundaries, from a services and management perspective, it is still be very important. Simply redrawing and/or splitting electorates reduces population per electorate, means smaller populations are easier to reach and manage, higher DSIP per head, and each voter casts an equal vote (at present a vote in Rabaul is worth 6 in Laigap-Porgera). This will occur regardless of geography.

While I agree with your recommendation for the reviewing and redrawing of the district boundaries since PNG's population is constantly growing every year, to define the size of the districts solely on population and redrawing boundaries based on that criterion could also lead to inequality as well. Since the land mass, especially in the highlands region where it is highly populated, won't get any bigger, what are other options aside from redrawing boundaries and what options are there for the sparsely populated but geographically larger districts? Equality should be based on access to services not just on the DSIP kina per head factor.

Thank you Michael -- that's a very interesting point. My thinking is that -- ideally -- the issue of geography's impact on service delivery should not prevent PNG from aiming for more equal district sizes. The issue of geographical challenges is real. But (again ideally) I think geography would be best dealt with by including geography as a factor when the amount of funding to different provinces and districts is calculated. I admit, my approach, which seems ideal to me, might not be practically possible: political settlements are always complicated. If my approach isn't realistic, then the issue you identified stands, and needs to be included in considerations. Thank you for a thought-provoking comment. Terence

Thank you Billy