Comments

PNG’s development would be much faster if Australia were to allow Papua New Guineans to live in Australia, just like NZ nationals.

We find that people are discouraged to report cases if agencies fail to take action, but this did not deter those presented with the local scenario. I agree with your concern about anti-corruption agencies reporting their actions/results to the public. That's, in part, why myself and Husnia Hushang have been documenting allocations and spending for PNG's anti-corruption agencies: https://devpolicy.org/anti-corruption-and-the-2019-png-budget-20181219/

Thanks JK. We do limit our study to Port Moresby but, as we outline in the report, we made great efforts to get the views of different socio-demographic groups. I agree with your concern about reporting in PNG, as we note "reporting also relies on the state providing accessible, safe and reliable reporting mechanisms".

Thanks for the questions Oliver. We did ask respondents if they agreed/disagreed reporting corruption was not worthwhile because little would be done about it. Briefly, those presented with the local scenario were significantly less likely to agree with this statement. There's more said about this in the report. In another paper - drawing on survey data from PNG - we examine what impact poor punishment has on reporting different types of corruption. In brief, lack of faith that someone will be punished for corruption reduces people's willingness to report some corruption. We also discuss what impact de-funding PNG's Taskforce Sweep might have on reporting. See: Walton and Peiffer, 2017 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10361146.2017.1374346 Email me if you can't download the paper.

Danilo, I will send you the official report. I have just noticed that Bulletin 8 (November 2018) has been published. This more recent bulletin has remittances data on pages 10-11. It can be found at this address: http://www.laohamutuk.org/DVD/2018/LMONov2018en.pdf I will read and analyse the new data on remittances and make comment. Richard

The authors provide figures for projected OUT-migration from these three central island states as they link Them to outsiders’ concerns about Climate Change. But whose concerns are they citing? Are 'opportunities for skilled migrants’ the concern of these populations? Surely the figures/graphs indicate the answer. Home is best. Have the authors considered the historical background to the Tables of percentages of the populations’ out migrations. the early histories of these three nations indicate a strong adherence to their lands in the face of outsider interests. In the case of Nauru during the 20th century their population has been decimated several times by forced out- Migrations, particularly 1941-1945 when one third of their population died during forced exile to Truk/Chuuk by Japanese; later Australian suggestions to relocate Nauruans on islands off Australia were soundly rejected by Hammer de Roburt and his team ( See Pollock 2016 for a History of the effects of Mining Phosphate on Nauru - The Mining Curse, JSO). Nauruans, as well as IKiribati and Tuvaluans are strongly attached to their Lands — and, as in the case of many other Pacific Island studies, see no need to leave their Homelands. Out migration Is not an attractive proposition. In Nauru’s case their small land area, 21 sq km., was drastically reduced by 80 percent by Australian and New Zealand phosphate mining activities during 20th century; Nauruans have been reduced to living on the small perimeter of their island. Why leave their island home? And Australia’s Pacific Solution (2002-2017) has contributed significantly to increased population density adding increasing the 9000 strong population Nauru by some 4000 Asians held in Australian Detention Camps.Sharing their Island makes Nauruans treasure their island even more highly. No emigrant skills are needed. A study of the concerns about climate change by I Kiribati living in New Zealand will reveal reasons for that aspect of their ‘Diaspora’ (Petra Autio 2018).

Did the researchers ask about the perceptions of the consequences of corruption on the offender? If people see that the big shots can get away with corruption won't they be tempted to try it themselves or turn a blind eye? Also when corruption task forces are getting close to the source the initiative may be closed down. How does this impact the reality of reporting corruption?

Thanks Caryn and Grant for this piece of article on corruption. I agree with you that corruption is contextual and context specific to socio political, cultural and economic trends in a society and more specifically to personal needs and wants and position in society or a system I agree that what you noted in your Jakarta survey is not applicable to other society in PNG or elsewhere. The corruption and anti-corruption understanding you have on PNG is an interesting case. The cultural context in which corruption is brewed is an interesting one unlike other corruption or anti-corruption cases elsewhere in the region or the world. Your survey in Port Moresby on corruption and anti-corruption messaging seems to be social specific-meaning targeting one particular group. Just like you going into a classroom and asking students, what they see in the real world and how they prefer to face it. You could rather target persons of mix social standing in the society or in the system, (I understand it is not that easy to do). A survey that can include views and opinions of people in different social standing-that is people at the community and those in the position of authority in the system will give us a balance understanding on corruption and anti-corruption messaging in PNG. One question in PNG context that makes corruption and anti-corruption unique is. Reporting corruption to people in authority or system who have access to corruption and in a position of influencing anti-corruption is a nightmare. That is why a well-known statesman and current MP once coined the term “corruption is systemic and systematic in PNG”.

Thanks Philippa and Tricia. Your articles have been useful for us working in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research as well. I referred it onto an Indigenous NGO today, to help them navigate the ethics of some work they are doing.

Hi Richard, great read and interesting findings. Would I be able to get a copy of the report above please also and wondering where the BNU and Western Union data came from and if they have been published? Many thanks, Danilo danilohenr@gmail.com

On the other hand, people will be discouraged to report cases if the agencies they are reporting to fails to take any actions. However, the agencies that are taking actions must also report the results back to the citizens to increase citizen participation and trust.

The arguments in this blog make excellent sense, but the subject can be approached from a different angle. Is it legitimate for the Government to be able to direct Efic to finance specific infrastructure or resource projects which it sees as being in the national interest? If so, is this an acceptable enlargement of that power, and preferable to having the aid program finance such projects? From this angle, if the “Efic reform” and the AIFFP both endure under the next Government, it will be important whether they remain distinct, in the sense that use of AIFFP begins with assessing what infrastructure projects, done in what way, will be in the interests of the people of Pacific countries.