Comments

I wonder how new tax threshold will benefit low income earners as claimed by two economist. I believe that it will only benefit those earning above $16000 which includes policy makers, politicians and cabinet ministers. I don't think that a person earning 16000 or less will benefit anything from the new threshold. May be the two economist would like to provide more explanation on this.

Bob, I'm with Ash on this one. That Bloomburg Data for Health initiative was one of the Innovation Exchange's first, and was announced more than two years ago. I challenge anyone to find any progress report in relation to it. Even though we've just decided to give them another $4 million! There is nothing on actual progress on the Innovation Exchange website, and the <a href="https://www.bloomberg.org/program/public-health/data-health/" rel="nofollow">Bloomburg website</a> is written entirely in the future tense. What little there is about the project in the public domain certainly sets my alarm bells ringing. $100 million sounds like a lot, but over 4 years and 20 countries, that's about 1 million per year per country. That's enough for a couple of workshops, a few pilots and some study tours, and I fear that there is little more to the Bloomberg initiative than that. I really wonder what sustainable impact this project will have, especially in a country like PNG, one of the 20. One of the problems with the Innovation Exchange is that it seems to be authorized to fund projects but not required to report on their progress. Its website is heavy on photos and light on reports. It's all very well to ask questions, but there comes a point when you have to report the answer you've found.

The idea of New Zealand increasing foreign aid spending under the existing frame work is insane! Throwing away tax payer dollars at a ill-defined goal (economic development) without better measurements of success is not a good idea. Merging aspects of the defence and foreign aid budgets would provide a way forward. Putting the infrastructure in place to put the PPP on a more sustainable/active basis would be a achievable/measurable goal.

Blind Freddy could have predicted the mess the results of the recent PNG, General Election has apparently descended into. In fact, many who have some inkling of PNG politics already did. In the age old PNG fashion of attacking the result and ignoring the person or people responsible, everyone appears to now be casting around for someone, anyone really, to blame. If someone wanted to blame anything or anyone it’s easy to find the real answer. You don’t even need the eyeglasses and hearing aids being offered by former PM Sir Mekere Morauta. The current system of PNG of government and a democratic election of a Westminster Parliament is basically foreign to the vast majority of PNG people. The system was thrust upon them by well-meaning but hopelessly out of touch people in the past and was gratefully accepted by those at the time who saw their opportunity for personal gain. Those like Mr Koim who are educated and experienced have been outmaneuvered by those who are able to manage the PNG politics at the village and clan level. In other words, the educated elite are in reality disconnected from the majority of the rural population. Those who live in the various regional areas are in turn totally disconnected from other regions who are seen at best, as competitors for the benefits promised by would be leaders. In the past, people from other areas were seen as the enemy. There is no national, holistic PNG spirit. It only begins to start to show its head when someone from the outside points out what’s wrong or in a sporting match when PNG is playing against another nation. It reminds me of a slogan on a 'T' shirt seen in NZ where the wearer claimed 'I support New Zealand and any team playing against Australia'. Half the PNG nation is under 20 and many don’t have any expectation of getting viable employment except subsistence farming irrespective of what education they receive. PNG election rallies are just a time to enjoy letting off steam. No one really believes what is being said anymore. Kinda reminds you of political statements in the rest of the world doesn't it? So what’s the answer? Clearly no one in any vague sort of position of power that might help correct the situation has any real idea. The obvious lessons of history are just too tough to chew on. Both Canberra and Waigani prefer a softer, more electoral nourishing ‘kaikai’. In the meantime, the corrupt will continue to rule, exactly like those so called ‘Robber Barons’ did hundreds of years ago in Europe.

A good over view of the 2017/2018 Budget. Non sale of assets and poor estimation has been exposed which raises serious questions on the realisation and fullfillment of the budget.

I did survey work at MELAMAU Plantation where Maclay lived and have seen the plaque in his honour .. abut early 1970

Have you compared ODA as a % of central government spending across OECD countries? Would be interesting to see.

Thank you Jerry, I really appreciate the comment. Terence

Terry you're a legend for this program. You are actually doing this program for png's general populations as well as research purposes. Thank you so much historian.

Appreciate this piece too..Thanks Sam.

A cancellation of a writ under section 96A(2) of the Organic Law might be incorrectly read together with section 97. Section 96A(2) provides that in circumstances “where the Electoral Commission, acting only on the recommendation of the Electoral Advisory Committee, and between the issue of a writ and the declaration of result, if the circumstances prevailing in an electorate are such that a proper conduct of elections in that electorate is not practicable, the Electoral Commission may advise the Head of State to withdraw the writ.” The cancellation of a writ in the circumstance would have the same effect of not having a candidate elected from that particular electorate but that is not the same as a failed election. If the Electoral Commissioner, with the advise of the Advisory Committee, is of the view that it is not predictable to have a fair and just outcome of an election in a particular electorate due to the process being subverted etc, he can cancel the writ using section 96A(2) prior to the declaration of results. The grounds for cancelling may vary and the Electoral Commission and the Advisory Committee are not restricted to a particular set of circumstances. On the other hand, a failed election under section 97(2) is one where the election is successfully held and writs are returned without having someone elected. The Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the Electoral Commissioner inappropriately invoked section 97 (failure of elections). The Electoral Commissioner did not cancel the writs of LLGs that he considered to have been rigged or corrupted etc. He instead declared all (blanket) elections as failed when there were candidates including councillors and LLG presidents duly elected. That resulted in many parts of the affected areas having two councillors and two presidents as of this date. The electoral commission had created this mess in the LLG elections. In the Western Highlands for instance, you go to a community and call for the councillor and the former councillor and the elected councillor would compete to be recognised. The appropriate measure would have been for the electoral commissioner to cancel the writs of individual wards or LLGs prior to the declaration of results if it warranted such a measure. After the results were out, the Commissioner could not have used section 197 which he inappropriately did so in that case. And the Supreme Court proceeded on that wrong premise as well. That is why I hold the view that the Supreme Court erred by reading too much into the law itself. (The full text of the Supreme Court judgement is however not available so this view is based on the excerpts used in a National Court judgement hyperlinked in this article.) In the present scenario, if the evidence warrants it, and based on the advice of the Electoral Advisory Committee, the Electoral Commissioner may cancel some of the writs of certain electorates before the declaration of results. That would prompt by-elections which is a very costly exercise and hence such a decision must be justified and made sparingly.

Hi Paul, Instinctively, the Electoral Commissioner will not fail the election for EC's own failure. He will attribute the failure to someone else. Section 97(2) of the OLNLLGE states that “An election shall be deemed to have failed if no candidate is nominated or returned as elected.” If no candidate is nominated, failing an election is a straightforward result. In the case of no candidate returned as elected, one instance that comes to mind is in circumstances where there is tier of total votes –two last candidates getting equal number of votes which would make it impossible for one to be returned. From my limited reading of the Organic Law, I have not found the grounds such as those outlined by the Supreme Court, where the Electoral Commissioner could use to determine that a candidate has not been returned as elected, which would in turn be the ground to fail the elections pursuant to section 97(2). If my reading of the Organic Law is correct, I am of the view that the Supreme Court had delved into judicial legislating. Now that is dangerous for two reasons. Firstly, it offends the principles of separation of powers; and secondly, it opens the floodgates for abuse. In a country like PNG where electoral corruption is rife, the powers of the Electoral Commissioner must be clearly constrained and defined by law which is the case here. The Supreme Court decision however attempts to somewhat acknowledge an unfettered power vested in the Electoral Commissioner by the Organic Law and that can be used conveniently to fail elections arbitrarily and cover up with some lame reasons. It is my considered view that the Supreme Court was correct in holding that section 97 can be invoked on electorate-by-electorate basis, but overstepped its bounds by adding grounds that were not provisioned by the law itself. The balance of the election discrepancies or ill practises can be taken up in the National Court of Disputed Returns. I understand it is an expensive exercise for many Papua New Guineans but that is how the legislation is designed. In the last elections (2012), 106 out of 111 results of the entire election was disputed in court. That number might increase this time The people who will be left without any form of redress are the candidates who have not been registered in an electorate before but contested on the understanding that they were born there or lived there for more than 5 years. Even if the Electoral Officials allow him/her to vote, that is still invalid. The Court cannot assist also because the law prevents the court from questioning the correctness of the roll. Imagine those who may have spent their resources and time campaigning the last 8 weeks only to discover on polling day that their names were not on the roll.