What should Australia do about Papua New Guinea?

By REG RENAGI

 

Papua New Guinea got her Independence in 1975.  In that time until today, Australia has for 35 years been propping up PNG's annual budget with free money.  This substantial grant is currently estimated at some A$ 13 billion.  This is free money that we don't have to pay back.  Or do we in perhaps other forms? 

 Anyway the free money from Australian taxpayers is meant to develop PNG and improve the quality of life for ordinary Papua New Guineans.  This has not happened and Papua New Guineans since then have in recent times asked: where has all this Australian money gone to? 

 A good question with many answers.  One tends to get different responses from politicians from both Waigani and Canberra, including academics, public servants, private citizens. However, one thing is clear and prompts this next question: why hasn't this huge grant from Australia raised PNG out of its current abject poverty?

 We hear in recent times the angry demands from many well-intentioned people both PNG and Australians calling on their respective prime minister and governments to fix the ongoing problem(s) with Australian aid.

 Many efforts have since been made to correct this.  From independent to joint government aid reviews by both countries, but still this nagging doubt: how do we improve the efficasy of AusAid to the mutual benefit of PNG and Australia?

 Australia is an incredibly charitable nation, as evidenced by the hundreds of millions of dollars it grants to PNG and other developing countries as foreign aid.  This may sound good to constituents but now it's time for Australia to stop.  Giving so much of its hardworking tax-payers dollars to PNG only props up bad governments our people perceive as corrupt since Independence.

 It's high time new Australian prime minister, Julia Gillard reviews her country's AusAid programme and makes a basic fundamental change that none of her Australian predecessors have done since PNG's Independence. 

 All recent AusAid reviews before and after any joint ministerial forum meetings are basically the same.  New changes made are mere cosmetics at best to give the impression to citizens of both countries that new positive benefits will automatically flow on to the PNG people. 

 This is a fallacy and has not happened. Because the basic root cause of why the AusAid programme has not been effective to date, has not really been addressed with real seriousness by our politicians and its over-bloated bureacracy. 

 The reality is when our government complains, Australia rewrites another AusAid policy agreement paper in Canberra for joint signatories at the next ministerial forum or some government to government sponsored special event in future.  The basic problem remains until the next time PNG raises another aid-related issue.  Than another policy redraft by Canberra just to make Waigani happy and quiet for a while until another foreign Ministry representation about "some oversight aspect from our last meeting ..." resurfaces later, and so on. 

 But Julia Gillard can change all this nonsense starting this year when she later visits Port Moresby.  So PNG might not expect it now but she needs ALP's endorsement to get tough with PNG.  Australia must do this because its aid money is wasted in PNG. 

 As 'charity begins at home’, Gillard now needs to also do more for her own poor people, especially the majority of Australian indigenous and the Torres Strait people, instead of sending it north of the 10th parrallel.

 While the whole AusAid programme has merits, the basic approach of just giving PNG its taxpayers' money to be only wasted by our government is fundamentally wrong. 

 Julia Gillard must totally cut the AusAid programme down to zero and in its place increase the trade activity volume between Australia and PNG by some 100%.  This in the long run will be more beneficial to the development of PNG and subsequent wellbeing of Papua New Guineans.   

 Why must we cut AusAid now? There are many reasons, but for a start; PNG's abject poverty is deeply rooted in government corruption, corruption that actually is fostered by Australia (including other external aid from so-called development partners).

 We should ask ourselves a simple question: Why is private capital so scarce in PNG? The obvious answer is that over the years our country has been ruled by not very clever men who pursue ineffective economic policies or try to run a country in a somewhat 'policy-vacuum', laxsidaisical 'bull-in-a-China shop' way.

 As a result, Australian aid simply enriches prime ministers and their cohorts, errant politicians, distorts national economies, and props up bad national (and provincial) governments. As a matter of fact, Australia could send PNG next year a warping $1 billion, and this country still would remain mired in abject poverty and supposedly very corrupt as it is now, and getting more worse by the day.

 The answer is simply because so many of PNG politicians reject the idea of empowering its citizens from being wealthy, sharing our country's rich resources equally among citizens, being responsive and responsible, accountable, free markets and the rule of law.

 Australian aid money enables prime ministers and governments to gain and hold power without the support of the people who today are totally fed up with political corruption since independence. PNG politicians have learnt to manipulate foreign governments and obtain an independent source of income (especially AusAid), which makes them far richer and more powerful than any of their political rivals and ordinary Papua New Guineans.

 Once comfortably in power and much to the horror of Australian and other foreign governments that funded them, PNG politicians subjugate their own people to a miserable life of helplessness and being dependent on political 'hand-outs'. It is not a good thing to say here, but in reality, AusAid gives PNG politicians the power to impoverise Papua New Guineans.

 It's time to stop this crime. The bottom line is that despite years of Australian aid, the great bulk of Papua New Guineans than ever are living in abject poverty, which will only get worse in future. AusAid and simply foreign aid does not work, but only fuels more increased levels of corruption, dependency syndrome and misery for PNG; and its people. 

 Despite this reality, Australian governments (and other foreign countries) offer to increase aid are always praised for their compassionate and progressive policies.

 But what about Papua New Guineans who are suffering here at home, whether from hunger, illness, or poverty? Are their lives and well being less important? Every Australian must now ask themselves this question: Where is the constitutional provision allowing Australian tax dollars to be sent to PNG only to be fretted away by that country's politicians?

 Australians should be free to do everything in their power to help Papua New Guineans from suffering, whether by donating money or working directly in our country. But its government foreign aid to PNG do not work, it never has and must now be stopped.

 PM Julia Gillard must now direct her DFAT speech writers that she needs a fresh new speech for this year's revised Port Moresby Declaration to be perhaps titled: 'The New Order of Australian-PNG Partnership'.  This must be enduring and clearly spell out: 'What Australia should do about PNG?'

 Julia, it's time to cut aid and increase trade between our two countries. When this happens then watch what happens.  PNG will comfortably pay her way and become less-dependent and more-prosperous in future.  Future PNG administration will long remember an Australia PM for her toughness to assist our country become more independent, overcome poverty and fight corruption through good governance; and of having a more responsible and accountable government in office.

 So the short answer to the title of this article is simple.  Australia should now make PNG truly independent in every sense of the word without aid, but more trade.  Australia should now let this country be more of being herself without any strings attached (money or otherwise).

 I hereby invite the public to an open discussion of what Australia should do now about PNG.  The response here should be interesting.  It will undoubtedly allow the Australian High Commission in PNG to better advise Canberra before Gillard pays us a historical courtesy call as Australia's first woman prime minister.  When she does, we will welcome her with open arms as we did, Kevin Rudd. 

 

 

 

National Alliance holding crucial talks

THE ruling National Alliance party will meet today over the leadership issue as political parties went into camp over the weekend, The National reports.

The meeting, according to party officials, was crucial as horse-trading begins in a move to oust Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare.

NA is mobilising its parliamentary members for this afternoon’s talks at the PNG Institute of Public Administration hall.

Party officials said the meeting would decide on an agenda for the party caucus to be held in Minj on Aug 12, including proposed amendments to the party constitution and a proposed alteration to the party policy and rules.

The NA went into camp at the Airways Hotel while the opposition, led by Sir Mekere Morauta, is at the Bluff Inn Motel outside Port Moresby.

The opposition, meantime, has denied that South-Bougainville MP Steven Kama has broken ranks to join the United Resource Party (URP).

URP leader William Duma said last Friday that Kama had joined with two other MPs, boosting its number to 10.

Sir Mekere claimed in a statement stories were circulating that core members of the Somare “kitchen cabinet” had been buying MPs.

 

Ramu NiCo fails to lift interim injunction on DSTP

RAMU NiCo, developers of the giant Ramu nickel project in Madang, have failed in the Supreme Court to quash an interim injunction to proceed with the construction of a deep sea tailings placement (DSTP) system and get the mine off the ground, The National reports.

A three-judge Supreme Court last Friday dismissed the appeal by Ramu NiCo and its state partners against the lower court’s granting of the interim injunction which had effectively stopped work on the last stage of the construction at Basamuk Bay.

The ruling means that a trial date will be set, probably next month, for the substantive matter to be argued in court.

Four landowner leaders – Eddie Tarsie, Farina Siga, Peter Sel and Sama Melambo – and the Pommern Incorporated Land Group had sought the interim orders in the National Court in Madang in March and April that the DSTP system off-shore of the Basamuk and Astrolabe bays would be detrimental to all landowners along the Madang coastal areas and their entire livelihood.

They also claimed that it was not the best practice of environmental management activity. 

Justices Catherine Davani, Derek Hartshorn and Don Sawong ruled that while they noted the submissions made by Ramu NiCo and its partners, they were also mindful that if the DSTP was allowed to proceed, “the potential environment harm far outweighs the lifting of the injunction”.

“The balance of convenience lies in maintaining the status quo at least until after the trial of the substantive matter,” they ruled, adding that “it is better to take a precautionary approach than to proceed in haste”.

Ramu NiCo and its partners had, in essence, submitted in their appeal that it was lawful for them to proceed with the construction of the DSTP system as agreed to in their joint venture agreement and also based on the mining development contract signed between the parties concerned, including the PNG government and MCC to start mining nickel in the Kurumbukari area of the Bismarck Ranges before the end of this year.

The partners had argued in court that the landowner leaders, in their ILG in this proceeding, only represented their own interests and not that of the bulk of the Basamuk Bay people.

 

Duma and United Resource Party want more ministries

PETROLEUM Minister William Duma will be pushing for more ministries from the prime minister for his United Resource Party (URP), The National reports.

Duma said the distribution of ministerial portfolio was at the discretion of Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare, but “our concern has been raised with him”.

“The prime minister is fully aware and it is now his call,” he said in response to questions on the distribution of ministries which is concentrated in one region.

He also denied media speculations that Sir Michael had offered him the deputy prime minister’s post among four other senior MPs.

“At no stage did he offer the deputy prime minister to me. Right now, we have Deputy Prime Minister Sir Puka Temu,” he added.

Duma made the remarks in a media conference last Friday where he welcomed three new MPs who had shifted camp to join URP.

The three MPs have boosted the party’s numbers to 10.

Duma, with Environment and Conservation Minister Benny Allan and Kerowagi MP Guma Wau, welcomed on board Dei MP Puri Ruing, South Bougainville MP Steven Kama and Kagua-Erave MP James Lagea to the party.

Ruing abandoned Sir Mekere Morauta’s PNG Party while Kama had moved from the opposition and Lagea is a one-man PNG Conservative Party who moved after sections of the Organic Law on the Integrity of Political Parties and Candidates were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Duma also denied reports that URP had been talking with the opposition to oust Sir Michael.

“There is no offer for us to consider and we remain with the government.

“Politics is built on speculation and hype and, once the dust settles, everything will be fine.

“In politics, political parties will seek maximum benefit for its members and the prime minister has been approached by URP for additional ministries for the party,” he said.

Duma said the URP did not offer the three MPs any special deals but promised them comradeship and good party policies.

On the no-confidence motion mooted by the opposition, Duma said there was a general feeling that it would take place tomorrow when parliament resumed, but “no motion has been lodged”.

 

 

Agiru says sorry to Prime Minister and Papua New Guinea

SOUTHERN Highlands Governor Anderson Agiru has apologised to Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare and the people of Papua New Guinea for the stone-throwing incident at Tari last Thursday, The National reports.

The incident happened when the prime minister was in Tari for the swearing-in ceremony of Hela Transitional Authority (HTA) members.

Agiru made the apology during the swearing-in of local level government (LLG) presidents as provincial assemblymen in Mendi last Friday.

“I apologise to Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare and the people of PNG for what happened in Tari yesterday (Thursday). Please forgive us.

“The incident was disrespectful, disgraceful, regrettable and stupid act and has also given us bad media publicity.”

Agiru said PNG was moving forward and he challenged his Hela people “to grow-up, change and move with the rest of the country”.

 He also apologised to ExxonMobil, developers of the multi-billion kina PNG LNG project, saying that “with or without these little thugs in the stone-throwing incident”, he welcomed the LNG project and would still push for it.

Agiru also took the time to apologise to the people generally “for any wrongdoings the Hela people had committed against them either in the plantations or in the streets of the main towns over the years”.

“The people of Hela want to build their own province but Helas would need the support of their brothers and sisters throughout the country.

“Therefore, it is important to reconcile with them for any wrongdoings and work together in peace and harmony to move Hela and PNG forward.

“HTA does not belong to one electorate but to the Hela people from the far-flung areas of Komo-Margarima and Koroba-Lake Kopiago who were never given a fair representation at the ceremony in Tari.

“I think the timing, with poor planning and coordination saw many Helas not turning up for the occasion in Tari,” he said.

Agiru also challenged the university students from Hela, whose protest over Hela missing out on LNG benefits during the ceremony in Tari, “to

show some maturity and leadership”.

“They (students) must start showing leadership at family, community, tribe and village level before they can take on bigger responsibilities at district, province and national level.

“We have no time for people who want to intimidate and cause problems.”

 

Good Sheperd Lutheran Church gets a new lease of life

By MALUM NALU

Port Moresby is undergoing a massive building boom at the moment, especially in light of the liquefied natural gas project, with new buildings and renovation being carried out just about everywhere in the city.

Koki, site of the famous Koki Market, is no exception.

Entrance to Good Sheperd Lutheran Church.Note the church does not have a door and the windows are broken.

However, one building that stands out like a sore thumb amidst the building boom is the iconic Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, which was first built in the early 1960s.

A view of the rundown Good Sheperd Lutheran Church at Koki

Bell tower at Good Sheperd Lutheran Church

While other Lutheran churches around the country have progressed over the year, the church building at Koki has become derelict, with the all-too-conspicuous hands of Father Time.

Not to be outdone, the English and Tok Pisin congregations at Good Shepherd are now embarking on a major fundraising drive to renovate the church, at an estimated cost of K500-K600, 000.

Fundraising committee members including English chairman Kingston Alu, Tok Pisin chairman Perry Gene, maintenance committee chairman Awan Sete and pastor Jerry Mack are appealing to congregation members – both past and present – to give generously towards this cause.

Sete is assistant commissioner of police and divisional commander of national capital district (NCD) and Central provinces.

Already, one business house, Namba Wan Trophy Ltd (NWTL), has chipped in K50, 000 and has set up collection boxes in all its stores throughout Port Moresby to assist the Good Shepherd cause.

NWTL’s range of stores include Kwik Shop, Paradise Palms, Fone Haus, fone2fone, Sea View Restaurant and NWTL supermarkets.

“Nambawan Trophy is proud and happy to assist,” says general manager Gui.

The history of Good Sheperd Lutheran Church goes back to after World War 11 when a increasing population of expatriate Lutherans decided to set up a place of worship.

“The building itself was built in the 1960s,” Mack says.

“All material was brought in from Australian and these have gone through a lot of wear and tear over the years.

“In the 1960s, New Guineans, especially Morobeans and Highlanders, came to Port Moresby as labourers and a Tok Pisin congregation was established alongside the English congregation.

“To date, these two congregations run side by side, operating independently, but reporting to the Papua district council.

‘Now, there are talks of merging the two congregations into one congregation, with two separate church services, and hopefully, that will be done at the opening of the renovated church.

“Since the establishment of the Lutheran church in the country, it has produced many educated elite who are holding top jobs in the country.

“As such, we are appealing to them to give something back to the church.”

Alu says Koki is the first established Lutheran congregation in the Papua district.

“From there,” he adds, “it branched out into Kerema, Alotau, Popondetta, Daru and Kiunga.

“Even in NCD itself, there are now about 10 different Lutheran congregations around the city.

“”This (Koki) is the pioneer congregation.

“At one stage, all the people at Marimari (Gordon), Gerehu and all the others worshipped only at Koki.

“We are appealing to all those who have worshipped here at one time or another to help the Good Sheperd congregation with the project it is undertaking.”

It is envisaged that work will begin next month and be completed by the end of this year.

Renovation work will include complete maintenance, replacement of all rotten timber and roofing, new electrical wiring, state-of-the-art public announcement system and quality tiling.

“This is to make it conducive to worshippers,” Alu explains.

“We hope to have everything completed by the end of this year.

“This is a major project for our congregation.

“Congregation members must remember that they are not only there to worship, but they must also contribute to the wellbeing of the church.”

Mack says amidst the gloom, doom and despair of social problems in the city, churches such as Good Shepherd offer a ray of sunshine.

“In the city, we have a lot of social problems, law and order problems, alcohol and drug abuse, and the churches have a role to play in addressing these issues.

“My appeal is that all corporate organisations, foreign missions and government must realise the importance of the work of the churches, especially in Port Moresby, if we are to curtail these problems.

“They must work hand-in-hand with churches to combat these problems.

“The congregation has appointed the divisional commander of NCD and Central, assistant commissioner Awan Sete, as the chairman of the maintenance committee.”

Every Sunday, Lutheran faithful flock to Koki for service at Good Sheperd, in both English and Tok Pisin congregations.

“We have more than 1,000 people each Sunday, 500-plus in each congregation,” Mack says.

“If they, or anybody out there is willing to assist in cash or kind, that would be very good.”

Should anybody wish to assist the Good Sheperd cause, they can contact Sete on mobile 72182373, Mack on 72768997 or Alu on 76881932.

Australian federal election called for August 21

From JOHN FOWKE
NEITHER party is inspiring much confidence as we head to an election.
THE stage for the election campaign has been set, even if the date isn't yet known. But for voters the choice between the major parties won't be an easy one. Neither side inspires confidence to become custodians of the national interest for the three years ahead.

On the one hand people don't think Tony Abbott is ready to become prime minister, and his team isn't ready to sit confidently around a cabinet table. Even some Liberals think a return to government this year would be too soon.
But after a full term of bungled policy implementation by the Labor government, voters know the incumbents aren't worthy of holding on to office either.
Labor had hoped its first-term problems would fade into the background once Julia Gillard assumed the prime ministership. But her early mistake of signposting East Timor as a solution to Australia's refugee "problem", without even discussing the idea with the fledgling nation, has highlighted that a change of leader doesn't always bring with it a change of culture.

The Kevin Rudd culture of autocratic leadership might have been brought to an end, internally giving Labor MPs the sense that they are once again being listened to. But from a voter's perspective the culture of government incompetence hasn't changed. That leaves the public with the kind of electoral choice that makes you wish voting wasn't compulsory.

Do we back a government to win a second term despite its record, and in spite of Gillard's early stumbles? Or should we support an opposition carrying too much dead wood that also hasn't learned the lessons of its own defeat just three years ago?
This kind of dilemma usually favours incumbents, by virtue of voters deciding to stick with the devil they know rather than gamble on change. But 2010 is less certain because the devil we knew was Rudd, and he was ousted in a bloody coup a few weeks ago.
While the injection of Gillard had the potential to give Labor a fresh start in the wake of Rudd's growing unpopularity, the danger after her poor start is that the hard choice of deposing a first-term PM which would have been put on voters has already been taken by the parliamentary Labor Party.
Gillard risks not getting the benefit of the doubt if she doesn't lift her game.
Abbott has started spruiking the idea that he is a ready-made alternative PM with cabinet experience, and his team is a ready made alternative government because a number of shadow ministers served as ministers under John Howard's leadership.
The message is you can go back to the essence of the Howard government if you think the Rudd experiment didn't work. It is designed to lull voters into a sense of security if they vote for the Coalition. But Abbott's construct is highly misleading.
The big names from the Howard era have all gone, and those left who do have ministerial experience were very much the 2nd XI from the last Coalition government.
Howard centralised power at the top, and relied on a small number of senior ministers for key decision making. The Howard government was run out of the Prime Minister's Office and only his press secretary from that time is now employed in Abbott's office.
The PMO functioned with the assistance of a small group of ministers: Peter Costello, Alexander Downer, John Anderson, Nick Minchin, Mark Vaile and Abbott. With the exception of Abbott these names are going or gone, and Abbott was widely identified as the loose cannon of the group, only part of it because he was ideologically close to Howard.
In earlier incarnations of Howard's regime there were other senior figures on the inner sanctum such as Peter Reith, but they had already retired before the Coalition's final term in power.
I can't tell you the number of times senior Liberals interviewed for John Howard's biography told me stories from cabinet about instances when the former PM had to put an end to a discussion initiated by Abbott because he thought it was too impractical to even contemplate.
Those instances were relayed to me for the biography in a context where an Abbott ascension to the leadership was unlikely.
But with Abbott now leader, it will be much harder for remaining Liberals on the front bench (and remember few of them carried authority from the Howard years) to scoff at his ideas.
If Abbott wins the next election he would have unparalleled authority even for a Liberal leader. Defeating a one-term government, including forcing Labor to replace a previously popular PM, would set Abbott up as the ultimate political messiah.
If Liberals thought Howard was a dominant PM, an Abbott prime ministership so soon after being forced into the political wilderness would dwarf Howard's one-time authority.
How much more strident he might become with that kind of authority concerns some Liberals, moderates in particular. We have already caught a glimpse of it with Abbott's rhetoric on boatpeople: the armada coming our way, the peaceful invasion threatening our national security. More important than internal Liberal concerns is the fact Labor has identified some voters are concerned what an Abbott prime ministership might bring.
There is no doubt that Labor is trying to exploit the potential of the characterisation of Abbott as a risky PM with voters still making up their minds. That's why every time Labor backbenchers are wheeled out for television and radio interviews they diligently run the lines the central office has given them; lines tested in qualitative focus groups with swing voters, distributed each morning.
"Abbott is a risk", "Abbott is a danger", "Abbott is a threat". The lines are all about putting enough doubt in voters' minds such that they stick with the devil they know and vote Labor. "He'll bring back Work Choices" (as if Abbott's that politically stupid), "he's too religiously extremist" (this point is usually implied lest Labor upset religiously conservative voters), "he's Mark Latham in waiting" (they tried this line on Malcolm Turnbull too).
What must worry Labor MPs is that if you don't like Abbott, and don't like his hard Right views on issues (as I often don't), the worst thing you can do is meet him. He is hard not to like. An election campaign has the potential to widen that view to the general public, so long as Abbott doesn't blow up like he did on the 2007 election trail.
The constant attacks are designed to ensure this doesn't happen.
When Abbott was elected Liberal leader by just one vote in his showdown with Turnbull, staffers in Rudd's office literally started high fiveing each other in the corridors. They brandished around research which showed Abbott couldn't have started with a worse set of negatives. It was literally off the charts.
But in the end it counted for little. Rudd is gone and Abbott has a genuine chance at the election. Whether the election ends up being close or a blowout, one thing is certain: it is going to be a good contest. But for those of us who would have liked a campaign where the deciding issue in people's minds when they walked into polling booths was more than choosing the lesser of evils, this won't be a campaign to enjoy.