Comments

HI Paul, Great post. As you've noted many, including Poyle, are suggesting that UBS deal is clearly illegal as it didn't get referred to parliament. Of course O'Neill argues otherwise. What do you think? In your view is there any way that the deal could be constituted as legal. Are there similar deals that have gone ahead without the approval of parliament? Cheers, Grant

The discussion here is stimulating. Two brief notes I may add. First, the recent experience of the Nauru rule of law crisis has important bearing in this discussion. The Nauru crisis saw the sacking and suspension of Australian born Chief Magistrate and Chief Justice respectively. It was an assault on constitutional democracy. Yet, Australia was relatively silent, dismissing it as an ‘internal issue,’ of what was a serious constitutional upheaval. It was described as ‘extraordinary’ by the then Chief Justice. It clearly demonstrated the extent to which the asylum seeker issue can compromise Australia’s objectivity and leverage on issues of democratic governance in the region. It supports the view here that the potential for PNG is no different with the Manus deal in sight. I have projected that in my article late last month on the Nauru case on ANU Pacific Institute: http://pacificinstitute.anu.edu.au/outrigger/2014/03/21/australias-blind-eye-while-rule-of-law-under-siege-in-the-pacific/ Second, and pointing to Michelle’s brief but clear assessment on PNG’s political maneuverings, O’Neill may or may not be around to see the Manus deal through till 2017. PNG political landscape is unpredictable as its cliché - the land of the unexpected. A genuine threat to the Manus deal would be the Opposition Leader Belden Namah should he form a new government. One would assume Australia is very much aware of that. But with its extensive connections and historical ties, it would be difficult for PNG, under a new leadership, to completely throw out the Manus deal. Instead drastic changes could be made to the terms of the agreement such as the resettlement arrangements and the right for asylum seekers to seek redress in PNG courts. In any case, one may argue that Australia’s leverage would continue to be undermined. The recent public plea by both O’Neill and Abbott for a Pacific wide asylum seeker resettlement scheme may only have the effect of escalating this dilemma. I think the last thing the people of Pacific would like to see is for Australia, an establish democracy and an emblem of good governance, to back down and be 'silent' when their institutions of justice and democracy are tampered with by their political elites.

I think this is relatively less studied and interesting area of study. The reasons for development cooperation are not always explicit and development cooperation policies or the foreign policies of the donors and recipient countries may not tell the complicated and whole story about it. I think, in addition to the ideological, business, economic and political factors, historical and socio-cultural factors might be equally important. Similarly, when we talk about the interest or motives of the emerging development partners (or donors), we need to consider the fact that there has occurred sea changes in the interests, motives and tendency of the so called traditional development partners. The question of reciprocity/non-reciprocity is also important in development cooperation. Moreover, the motives, interest or incentives for development cooperation varies over time and among different governments or regimes.

Serena, what an inspiration. A very positive story for PNG and a powerful testimony of the potential that lies within our young people to change PNG for the better. God bless you and the VOICE.

Thanks Karl, Stephen and all. A very interesting conversation. If I may add my two toeas worth. A member of parliament Paul Tienstein was sentenced to prison this week for misappropriation of public funds. Other prominent PNGians who colluded with him are also likely to face the same fate. These outcomes are occurring over five years since the allegations were first uncovered. O'Neill himself has a shadow in the past and a more recent allegation related to the Paraka lawyers payment scandal. He is currently facing a fair bit of scrutiny on the domestic front in relation to the issues that Stephen highlights but also in reference to the Paraka issue. Yet he is emboldened enough to sack several senior members of his cabinet - and while on the surface the reasons relate to the UBS loan I am sure many are asking what else is happening behind the scenes. Recently he reaffirmed his partnership with the National Alliance party - the very actors that he fought so hard to remove in 2011 and 2012. What is behind ONeill's stronghold on PNG politics today? And how long can he hold on to this power before PNG's political chess game catches up? What's the binding factor with all these relationships of same players and teams with different names and uniforms? - money? Policy? Friendship? Whatever is really happening beneath the tables where the megaphones on bilateral relations blare, Australia's asylum seeker policy is certainly dependent on O'Neill's support. If this means O'Neill and others in power have one less but very important scrutinising actor to contend with then the better for them. If Teinstein's sentence and if the national task force on corruption headed by Sam Koim (although many question Koim's independence from O'Neill) remain as adamant about their cause as they have shown, then ONeill's time will come to reckon with his voters - even as marginal, remote, poor as most of them are. When this happens a big question will be whether Australia will take a stance beside the voiceless majority of Papua New Guineans on corruption and bad policy even if it means upsetting O'Neill. Unfortunately a key partner to the many silent and voiceless people of Papua New Guinea and one who they (used to) look to for support to critique bad decisions, bad policies and corruption - Australia - has compromised it's ability to do so. What then of the millions of Australian dollars spent on well intended development? Just like its treatment of this issue on the domestic front, Australia's international policy and strategy on the PNG front is narrow and shortsighted. Like Stephen and others I believe that the ultimate price will be high for Australia.

What's in a name. One person's cash transfer is another person's dole payment. The question is whether it is unsustainable welfare (a bit like one-off bed nets), or is it like Chris Blattman says a first step to longer term interventions. I have nothing against welfare payments but recipient governments are probably best placed to assess run and manage such schemes, otherwise they are ripe for 'rent seeking'. I have seen quite few local NGOs in places like India target the 'poorest of the poor', but ignore the state collected data and criteria, only to find themselves providing hand outs to the 'not quite so poor', or even the 'mildly rich'.

We must applaud the NRI for standing up to the government in highlighting the economic implications of this deal. The situation here demonstrates not only the tendency of PNG governments to advance economically irrational decisions that could have adverse effect on the people and efficacy of service delivery, but also the tendency to operate beyond the perimeters of the PNG Constitution. Section 209 of the Constitution explicitly states that the raising of loan, 'notwithstanding' any clause in the Constitution, is 'subject to the authorisation and control by the Parliament.' Bypassing this constitutional requirement is a serious breach that questions the commitment of the Government to notions of constitutional governance. If the deal is to go ahead, concern parties may raise the matter with the Supreme Court. It is a worry when government decisions undermine basic economic prudentials and appear to breach constitutional oversight mechanisms.

Now Jeffrey Sachs has also weighed in on econtalk with his own interview, available <a href="http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/03/jeffrey_sachs_o.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. I've yet to listen to it but hear that it gets both quite scrappy and controversial.

I agree that to the pessimism in the report. The saga will continue. A large weak point in the AusAID supported program will continue to be program development, implementation and management. Human behavior across global populations are the same, but traditional, cultural and religious influences on that human behavior is the challenging aspect of implementing the HIV-AIDS programs, condom usage, program development-implementation and management. Part of the AusAID funding could be used to offer specific HIV Program Development-Implementation-Management Diplomas and Masters at participating Universities in PNG to provide training to people from PNG and all other countries with similar backgrounds. That should be the starting point.

Yes, not only has Australia lost its limited leverage, but it’s lost it for such a toxic cause!

Thanks for this very helpful discussion. I think it's worth noting that within the humanitarian and emergencies context the cash transfer debate takes on different dimensions. Until livelihoods recover, affected communities often don't have income to take care of their own critical needs, and cash transfers into an at least semi-functioning local economy are often faster and certainly more empowering for those affected - who can then make their own decisions in real time about what their priorities are. In the 18 months or so after a disaster, even if cash is at best a temporary reprieve, as Starr and Hattendorf suspect, that's an important window while livelihoods recover.

I really applaud the comments by NRI and hope that this comment should shed some light to the long waiting PNG LNG project landowners from Juha PDL 9 to Napa Napa project site. The loan borrowed simply leveraged the future of the PNG LNG revenue inflow and fore-spent on what might be good investment for the people of PNG as a whole collectively but how about the real indigenous people on whose ancestoral grounds those resources are found and the long overdue commitment from the state to the landowners in Kokopo during the UBSA and LBSA in the pretext of pursuing and signing the PNG LNG MOA agreement. Can the landowners raise up now and let your position known on this issue the Government and the former Treasurer is having impasse on money for-spent leveraging the revenue from our resources. Pls lets share BS