Comments

Our fear is for another civil unrest, because this mark is history that will not be let gone. So, Bougainvilleans will not easily accept higher autonomy. Every new nation begins with a struggle, so give our people a chance to break away. How will the PNG Government serve Bougainville if it's operating on huge deficit? Let Bougainville to have Independence and we sort out ourselfs.

Thank-you Fiona and Miranda. Can you give a name, identity and recognition (credit where credit is due) to the local peacebuilding (and EVAW) NGO which has worked doggedly and consistently training and networking Human Rights Defenders and sending local police and other key actors to Fiji (FWCC) for training in a gender responsive and rights-based response - as part of their successful rapid response initiative. I assume you are talking about Voice for Change (mentioned in the photo caption) and the heroic and hardworking women who founded that organisation and have progressively built their program and empowered local actors, since 2003. Their story is an important one for us to learn from, as are the stories of KWP and Kafe Women. Training and holding local police and magistrates accountable is an important element of these stories.

Hi JK Domyal, Thanks for your comments. Always an interesting read. Looking forward to insightful updates. Cheers.

Nice blog Raphael. Personally, I'd very much like to see betel nut consumption, together with lime and mustard, completely eradicated. I agree with Michael above, policies have focused on addressing the supply side of either betel nut, or it's dubbish, and not too much addressing the demand of betel nut. My observation of the decrease in smoking in Australia among generations Y and Z, tell us decreasing demand for betel nut is possible. Knowledge of the adverse health effects, coupled with the view it is a revolting habit, seems to have shifted tastes of Australia's younger demographic. Maybe it's a question of when education and incomes reach higher levels, that tastes change in the direction of more hygienic, healthier choices.

Thanks Michelle for the discussion. Thanks again for raising these 4 points above as it will be the business for this Marabe Davis government. Being a politician is not the same as being a leader of a political party. If Marabe becomes the leader of Pangu (he assumed the leadership now), my take is that he would not live beyond 2022 (I will explain the reason later). If Marabe becomes the leader of PNC, he would have a stiff challenge trying to keep PNC dominance in PNG (I will explain the reason later). As a young aspiring politician, though PNG is big and diverse, there is just one or two things that Marabe could do to develop himself as the next generation of a great leader and no one would remove him for the next 15-20 years as PM, mark my word. I will not explain it here, but leave it open for an intellectual discussion in this forum, I would do it in another time not now.

In my commentary above (second paragraph), I made a mention of Pangu leadership, today's news paper has confirmed my assertion that PM Marabe assumed the Pangu leadership. This could create more movement to the balance of power or the emergence of political risks as I alluded to in my subsequent paragraphs above. Stay tune and I will continue to provide the updates.

An update immediately post the replenishment: It looks like the Global Fund was successful in hitting its $US14 billion target. Actually they fell $US80 million short, but Macron, Gates and Bono have promised the fundraise the difference. Australia contributed $A242, an increase of exactly 10%. Apparently, Marcon called Morrison and got him to up Australia's increase from 7% to 10%. In terms of making a proportional contribution, a 10% increase is better than a 7% one which is better than no increase at all. But 10% is still below the 16% average increase secured by the Fund. And there is also the question of where Australia's extra funding for the Global Fund will come from given forward estimates showing no increases in aid in the aggregate. Will total aid be increased, or will country programs such as Pakistan be further cut?

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.