Comments

As a rural doctor for the last 15 years, I can only 'shut up' and accept these well outlined facts rather than pretending that everything is okay. We the rural majority are feeling the pinch of all these facts; while the few urban advantaged seem to be challenging the facts presented here. I wonder who they are representing.

Martha, it’s really a nice piece Your story line really denoted what was actually the sad situation in PNG health system. I am a village boy once in the 1980s, lived through with the changes in the basic service delivery in the 1990s in my youth, now am an educated father facing this reality. I have seen the reality on the ground; on the economic front, I lived to witness extremely gross and highly ignorant corruption in the country systems, basic service delivery is far than corruption. Not only in health but its right across the different sectors. Also PNG has a weak basic service delivery enforcement capacity including law enforcement body, so what in hell that we live in. Policies and programs are developed, but there is weak institutional capacity to enforce it. Now the country debts has gone up past the 35% fiscal limit so PNG is nowhere near to delivering a decent or nearly adequate basic services to its citizens. The country needs to service the debts first before funding basic services. Donor funds will not adequately address health problems in PNG. It’s the government that needs to take the lead.

I Have been working for oil, gas and mineral companies as senior medical officier for the past 6 years (western highlands, gulf, new Ireland). Some companies play the game and provide the same level of health care as their workers and families would find abroad (TB prevention, malaria, dengue, thyphoid , child and mother..). The budget put in was over 4 million US every month for health in these companies (for about 2 000 workers). We saved so many lives just thanks to early diagnostic and proper management. On another hand some companies don't play the game . I have been working for companies who don't play the game, one making over 9 billion dollars profit every year over the world and would save money over health: proud to purchase toys for paramedics and not providing proper management for TB in Gulf province. Proud to point out they had a budget of 400 000 dollars in a year when in their own country , the budget would have been around 10 million a year. Medical board is great in PNG, They should visit these sites and fine companies who don't have a proper health policy for their workers and families. A fine of 10 000 dollars for each worker not screened properly for TB (QFT minimum and Xray as needed), not vaccinated properly.....

Good article Evans thank you. Makes me sad though reading through the sad reality of our country's poor governance. Word needs to get out on how our government is letting outsiders and exploiting our natural resources leaving ordinary citizens to deal with the negative impacts during and after extraction.

I would love to take up your offer. It has been a while since I was in PNG, but I follow the health reports, newspapers and literature as much as possible. As an anthropologist who worked in PNG for forty years I feel deeply upset by the downward trend in rural areas.

Martha Spot on - except here in Western Highlands where we are making some progress as we have a great team who are committed to improving health. I invite you to come and see for yourself as being the CEO, I might be a touch biased. I cannot offer fares etc but can accommodate you in secure and friendly environs. And contrary to rumours we stopped eating babies a long time ago. So come and have a look at what can be achieved. Of course the pity is the Port Moresby narrative makes it difficult for donors to invest in the pointy end - where the action is - and many keep telling me why they can't invest here rather than how they could. I guess that has to do with career aspirations and sticking to the script.

A significant piece. Time is well overdue for available facts to be reported about health services and the treatment of women in PNG.

I was contemplating this since the AAC 2019. I guess Australia rivaling the growing influence of China in the Pacific with that Aid budget. A blessing for the Pacific but this is unfortunate for Asia.

That was a very precise comment on 'Women Political Representation at PNG National Parliament'. As a Papua New Guinean in terms of my understanding of political leadership, it must not be given but it has to be taken. The proposed bill for 22 reserved parliamentary seats for women was totally rubbish. I wish it could not have been proposed and I was happy that it was never passed by the parliament. This is because when it comes to political leadership and representation especially for women, it must not be given on a golden plate. If the Parliament had passed the bill, then PNG would obviously tell the world that women in PNG are not fit or capable of fighting for political leadership like men. Treating women in such a way would make them less effective to become political leaders. A fair political representation is something that both men and women must fight for it and that is Equal Participation. Giving leadership/decision making opportunities to women on a golden plate is totally unfair. If other countries including PNG neighboring countries can have female prime ministers and presidents, why not PNG? Thank you

From Peter D. Dwyer and Monica Minnegal Vailala. Once again, your emphasis is with the abstractions of the law while ours is with what people are actually doing on the ground. Now, however, you imply that you have access to special knowledge regarding the intentions of Total, Oil Search and ExxonMobil and the possibility that GoPNG will activate a draft regulation that has been languishing for fifteen years. If you want a response to your comment then you must either reference that knowledge so that we can access it and judge for ourselves or you must identify yourself so that we may assess your credentials. If you do not do at least one of these things then you are not engaging in open debate.

From Peter D. Dwyer and Monica Minnegal Thanks Trevor. Like Anura, you note that ‘the government does not have the capacity to perform [landowner identification] in a meaningful or timely manner’. At this juncture we do not want to abandon all hope in the PNG government. We do not want any international company to emerge as the de facto state. We are not asserting that senior politicians and bureaucrats fail with respect to competence. Some reports imply that they manage personal finances with great competence. We are asserting failures with respect to responsibility.

From Peter D. Dwyer and Monica Minnegal Thanks to Anura Widana for his comment on our article. Part of the reason that Anura’s view differs from ours concerns the title. The title we submitted was ‘Landowner identification in PNG: whose responsibility?’ In the editing process ‘Whose responsibility?’ transmogrified into ‘a job for Government’, and a subtlety we intended was lost. We wrote that ‘Only Papua New Guineans – the PNG government, courts, and the landowners themselves – can determine who owns the land in Papua New Guinea’ and, reflecting upon some recent statements by government ministers, we stated that ‘this responsibility should not be ceded to outsiders’. We did not, and would not, argue that developers should not contribute financially or practically to getting the job done. Anura asks ‘how does the government alone identify land owners when the impact zone is known only to the developer?’ With petroleum projects the impact zone is, in fact, determined by government. It is the land enclosed by the graticular blocks that are included within a state-awarded petroleum licence area and it the land enclosed by a buffer zone of fixed dimensions associated with any state-awarded pipeline right-of-way or other infrastructure essential to the project. Thus, in the PNG LNG project it is the government that establishes the impact area. Where, as often happens, beneficiary landowners are identified from outside this area the fault (if fault it is) is more often that of state agencies than it is that of the developer. If, in line with Anura’s question, there are other types of projects where the developer, but not the government, knows the impact zone then surely this points to incompetence on the part of those state agencies that authorized the project. Anura comments as well that the government ‘has capacity issues’ and ‘does not have incentives to start and work through the process’ so that ‘land owner identification becomes excessively delayed’ with deleterious effects ‘on the development work itself’. On these counts, it seems, he is arguing that government should not be ‘left with the responsibility to identify land owners’. The implication is that in Papua New Guinea, developers should assume the responsibilities of the state because the state is not up to the task. That is potentially dangerous, posing risks for the long term future of PNG. We think the capability exists and that it is time it was implemented by Papua New Guineans for Papua New Guineans. The Papua LNG gas agreement is scheduled to be finalised in early April and an agreement between the state and the P’nyang joint venture may be finalized soon after. There have been many promises from senior Papua New Guinea politicians and bureaucrats that, this time, they would get it right. That will be possible only if they assume, and act on, their responsibilities.