Comments

Thanks for the insights Grant. I think that you are right to shift the focus of debate from denigrating PNG to better understanding opportunities and challenges that refugees are likely to face in the country (both in detention and when released into the wider community) and all other Papua New Guineans face on a daily basis. We all know that the corner stone of the PNG Solution is its deterrent factor to potential asylum seekers arriving by boat to Australia. If income and living conditions are important to asylum seekers then it is helpful to know that GDP per capita in Australia is more than 30 times that of PNG (although only 15 times on a PPP adjusted basis; however there are question marks over this PPP adjustment for the case of PNG). So clearly ending up in PNG is much worse relative to Australia if these average income levels are a reasonable reflection of the potential income of refuges in each country. In terms of living conditions and access to services, we know that they are much worse for the average Papua New Guinean relative to that in Australia but refugees settled in PNG are not necessarily going to live lives like the average Papua New Guinean - they could be better off (eg through special privileges paid for by the Australian government) or worse off (eg subject to discrimination, landlessness, and lack of community support). There is also the question of the standard of living in PNG that refugees might achieve relative to the conditions in their home country. Understanding these incentives should play an important role in informing the debate on PNG Solution. I'd like to see more objective analysis and less name-calling.

Yes you are right David, PNG is very ethnically divided and tribal affiliation is often the most prominent ‘nationality’ for many. However, as Robbins and others (like Robert Foster ) argue, people also identify as Papua New Guinean, this is reflected in national celebrations, advertising and even Christianity. This is particularly the case when comparisons of PNG to other nations arise. While someone might hold a very strong local/tribal identity, they can still say that PNG is good/bad/etc. compared to Australia, the US, or other nations. It’s a bit like when people from Melbourne go overseas and interact with people of other nationalities. They forget their rivalries with Sydney, and present themselves as ‘Australian’. I’m not saying that a sense of Papua New Guinean nationalism is as strong Australian nationalism. But PNG nationalism does exist. Thanks a lot for your comment.

Thanks for the Comment Matt. Yes, colonialism has likely played a big role in how the people in different countries of the region understand themselves, and possibly how their leaders engage with other countries. For example, cargo cults were a direct response to colonial rule in Melanesia but not so much in Polynesia. There are still many in PNG who romanticise about the colonial past. In 2008, I met a few members of Papua Besena - the Papuan separatist movement – who were still arguing that the southern part of the country should be a part of Australia. Colonial ties run deep in PNG, although they may be weakening in the wake of the PNG Solution – at least according to <a href="http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2013/07/24/Asylum-deal-a-nightmare-for-PNG-and-Australia.aspx" rel="nofollow">this blog</a>.

What is so bad about PNG? Ask the Asians who are here and doing very well thank you. They appear to find life here a lot better than life in Guangdong, Bangladesh or Sri Lanka. Has anyone asked the refugees as to their opinion of PNG. There is little doubt that with their background of suffering and deprivation that they will rise to the occasion and succeed in their new country as do cuckoos in the nest of their foster mothers. This a great country for hardworking naturalized entrepreneurs. Maybe not so for the original inhabitants. It may all even out in a few generations if PNG forbids the importation of wives and husbands as happened in other countries. PNG can do without enclaves of other races; it may not be an entirely bad situation for the mixing pot to have a few more ingredients. Any lumps should be beaten out. Tony Flynn

I personally think the issues more to do with ethnic divide that we have. Though political idealism for nationalism is lacking due to the fact that people identify themselves with their culture and ethnicity. When it comes to social and economic condition of the country, we see a great divide. One area that needs more attention is the rise of ethnic clashes or what is known as Tribal terrorism. My fear is that lack of governance reaching the people will force more diversity, fueling ethnic nationalism. Though people under the concept of democracy they hardly understand the benefits of democracy. We blame corruption but it's hardly corruption its lack of political will to correct wrongs. Your article clearly demonstrates the lack of people's confidence in our political governance. Thank you

Hi Jason, Thanks for taking the time to fill out the survey. We made the decision to hold back the survey results for two reasons. The first being that there simply wouldn't be enough time to process the results before the election (which, at the time of designing the survey, we expected to be September 14). And second we wanted to limit participants from self-censoring their responses for fear that the results could be politicised. We are interested in frank and constructive discussion that will benefit the Australian aid program regardless of who wins the federal election. On your second point, that is something we will have to think about going forward if we decide to run the survey again. Regards, Jonathan

Thanks for this fresh perspective, Grant. I wonder to what extent 'negative nationalism' is a legacy of how countries were treated prior to independence? Looking at Pacific regionalism for example, I'd argue that one reason Polynesian leaders (and Fiji) have historically been more assertive than Melanesian leaders is their different treatment by colonial powers (incl. Australia), which must have had an impact on how the population views itself. (Fortunately, this is now changing with the increased prominence of MSG etc).

Thanks to Jonathan & Robin for this post which highlights an aspect of donor support that is relatively under-examined. I think there are a couple of other issues that arise in this regard. One is that in the Pacific we have seen a marked increase in the presence and activity of these large INGOs - not necessarily new country offices but certainly an increase in resourcing. This certainly brings an added level of capacity in their areas of activity but as with those much-maligned 'consultants' we also see a lot of 'cookie-cutter' approaches to program design and delivery with nowhere near enough attention paid to loca,l social and political contexts (as with everything there are exceptions). Another issue is that the availability of increased AusAID funding seems to have led to a homogenisation of these organisations - it is increasingly hard to tell them apart as they all work in the increasingly crowded spaces of disaster reduction, climate change adaptation and other areas framed by the funding mechanisms determined by AusAID. And finally, what of the role of civil society in holding governments, including the Australian government to account for decisions and (in)actions? How assertive can we expect these organisations to be if they are increasingly beholden to AusAID for funding?

... I have just taken the survey. I note that the survey results will not be made available until after federal elections. Why is this? Surely the time for development policy to be aired is before an election, not after. This smacks of self-censorship, a counterpart to notions of the "chilling effects of aid." Also, the survey lacks an option for those who are happy to stand by their opinions and be counted. I would have been happy to have had my name published.

Hi Tess I was in the audience and my recollection is that the depth of Q&A may not have yielded all that you may be hoping. The event was very positive, as were the contributions by both Senator Wong and Julie Bishop, amongst others. My sense is that this is all part of the beginnings of broader and ongoing conversation, thinking and debate - and in line with Stephen's comment about Julie Bishop's speech deserving more coverage, so too do I think this aid/trade/private sector etc debate deserves (and in fact benefit from) more voice, and voices. Mel

Tess, I think that is unfair and unduly negative. What could be more important to the Pacific than an endorsement of labour mobility and a commitment to improve the SWP? Perhaps a commitment to re-think PACER Plus and move from a regional to a bilateral approach. It's a very important speech in my view, and it deserves a lot more coverage than it has got, and certainly a warm reception. Stephen.

On first reading, I found this summary extremely unsatisfactory because of the numerous gaps so I read the transcript of Julie Bishop's speech to discover that the reason there are gaps in the summary is because there were huge gaps in what Ms Bishop said recently in Adelaide. On a positive note, it is good to see that the Pacific actually rated a mention in this 'thinking about our thinking' which is an improvement on the 'thinking' we got <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/02/foreign-policy-julie-bishop-coalition" rel="nofollow">last month</a>. It would be good to know if there was an opportunity for people to put questions to Ms Bishop following her speech in Adelaide. If there was, I hope someone asked her what the 'external constraints' to trade the coalition was planning to abolish might be bearing in mind that among the most significant are distance from major markets and vulnerability to natural disasters. I also note that no reference was made to issues such as amendments to the ROO and phytosanitary regulations that have long been acknowledged to be significant barriers to PICs wishing to export to Australia.