Page 756 of 822
From Paul Oates on Reflections on the PNG Budget Forum: Can devolved funding be effectively utilised
G'day Tony,
the essence of the problem is that corruption is like a viral disease. Either you stop it in its tracks or it spreads and destroys the whole system.
Until and unless everyone stops beating around the bush and swallows the unpalatable medicine, nothing will change.
Responsibility and accountability is either in place and working correctly or it doesn't exist. Those who are being paid to operate public accounting programs must be investigated and sacked if they cannot or will not do what they are being paid to do.
There is not easy way out. If the PNG government cannot accept that the so called 'Melanesian Way' is not working and change their way of operating, everyone must accept they are no better than the last lot of spivs and charlatans.
Isn't anyone except those like Tony here, listening? Hullo.......
From Tess Newton Cain on Would an Independent Service Delivery Authority accelerate service delivery in Solomon Islands?
Thanks Marcus for these posts, both of which I have enjoyed and this one particularly is thought provoking. I think the ISDA idea you put forward here is very interesting and bears more thinking and discussion. A reality for a modality of this type needs to be acknowledged from the outset I feel - you have referenced it subtly and I am going to be more blunt: this is a political activity. No amount of saying it's not is going to change that so anyone who wants to be involved (including - and possibly particularly - donors) needs to be aware of that and prepared to enter into the endeavour with that knowledge very much front and centre. There is more to implementing an initiative of this type than this but trying to avoid that reality means that it is destined to wither rather than flourish.
From Tony Flynn on Reflections on the PNG Budget Forum: Can devolved funding be effectively utilised
No matter what the leaders say, this is a Country that is incompetent to control its finances. The implementation of projects is at the mercy of incompetent providers. There was a report by the Provincial Audit Dept relating to Wau Bulolo town council in the form of a book about 30/40mm thick. In 2002 about K600,00 was undocumented; Cheque books, deposit books, Bank statements and supporting documents were missing. No one was held accountable; not one of the co signatories was investigated, no action was taken regarding the authorities releasing money with no acquittals. The present Manager of several months does not wish to spend any of the large amount of cash in the bank until the previous management is audited. This is not happening, we are in limbo; two major culverts in Wau are creek crossings; roads are graded with no respect for the drains and most roads are eroded by drainage water.
I believe that I can safely state that from the NCD to the smallest LLG the story of Wau can be taken as a useful analogy. I suppose that I may be being paternalistic. Maybe we should give the smaller sharks an opportunity to take a piece out of PNG and that they also should be able to enjoy a better class of rest and recreation.
Should the Government decide to start to tighten up on local expenditures a simple start would be to audit all Provincial Governors and Council Presidents. If that were done the rest would be easy.
Tony Flynn
From Bob Cogger on There’s smoke, but is there fire?—Pondering public-private partnerships for development
Did you approach Barrick Gold in PNG?
From E. John Blunt on What do big miners contribute to Papua New Guinea’s development?
An interesting article and one that is welcome. I note the important impact procurement has in providing opportunities to PNG nationals. PNG companies and PNG companies in joint ventures. Procurement is an important but often forgotten element of economic and social policy.
It is extremely important for procurement to be undertaken properly - both procuring and then managing resulting contracts!
From M Woodard on Manus island detention centre in PNG
Shame on Australia, and most especially shame on the politicians who knowingly use the most defenseless people in the world to pander to the lowest instincts of the Australian population.
They step on the heads of drowning children to raise themselves to political power. Shameful liars.
Our international reputation has changed from the perception of us as an open hearted and generous people to contempt at our unwillingness to do our fair share. Bye, bye Crocodile Dundee.
We have been tricked and manipulated by the outright lies of those we pay to serve us. In comparison to other nations, we are, quite frankly, fat whinging bludgers.
For example:
Tanzania hosts one refugee for every 76 Tanzanian people (1:76)
Britain hosts one refugee for every 530 British people. (1:530)
Australia hosts one refugee for every 1583 Australian people. (1:1583)
Time to wake up to the realities of the world. Time to step up to the plate and take our place as a true member of the international community.
From Marianne Jago-Bassingthwaighte on What do big miners contribute to Papua New Guinea’s development?
Margaret - thanks for blazing these trails. Tracking mines' development efforts all the way to expenditures at the family level is very telling. Am keen to know more as the research progresses.
From Paul Oates on Leadership for the next generation: Deakin University’s Symposium on PNG
Those PNG ladies who have been elected under the current electoral system have made it clear they do not favour dedicated seats for women. That’s a gutsy stand that should be given more support and media attention than it appears to have been reported at the moment.
So will the problem of equal rights for women in PNG society be reflected in dedicated parliamentary seats for women? Male parliamentarians will still hold the vast majority of seats and any artificial constraint on eligibility is always open to abuse. PNG’s culture is indeed evolving but any amount of social engineering in Parliament will not automatically be reflected in the culture.
Thinking laterally, perhaps dedicated seats for women might also then lead to a push for all other parts of the greater PNG society who feel they are underrepresented. Maybe they will claim they should also have dedicated parliamentary seats based on their percentage in society?
Experience in other organisations, where those who belonged to a declared disadvantaged target group led in fact to creating policies of unequal employment, some achieved promotion faster with less experience and proven ability, simply because the organisation needed more numbers of each target group at each senior level.
Constant requirements for statistical proof that unequal employment policies were being followed caused those in charge to adhere to this policy whether those who were from the target group wanted it or not. This policy also blindly accepts that all members of the target group also want what only some more vocal members and their followers are agitating to achieve.
Surely those women who want to achieve advancement based on their own merit and without artificial assistance should be more actively supported? It also begs the question: are those who demanding unequal rights actually after equal rights or something more personally self enhancing?
PNG has suffered from decades of difficulty when some ‘well meaning’ but misinformed rushed Independence through without there being a suitable number of local leaders who were fully equipped and ready to take over. Many PNG people are now recognising this problem for what it was. To be realistic and practical, social changes have to happen gradually and from the bottom up, not the top down.
From Stephen on What do big miners contribute to Papua New Guinea’s development?
Mining contributes alot to PNG and funds many developments and most landowners and citizens of PNG recognize this. But the figures regarding renumeration of 92.7% (Nationals) against those of 7.3% (expatriates) is totally one sided and there is major room for improvement.
From Mike Pepperday on Against public objections, Solomons MPs give themselves bigger slush funds
Is this what RAMSI is teaching? Is this the progress that courses in "governance" brings? What do the donors who funded this think of it?
Unless a PR electoral system is introduced there is no prospect of the country being able to stand on its own feet. The unicameral majoritarian structure has failed everywhere it has been tried. In voting for these slush funds we have an illustration of why. Formalised corruption. A single chamber needs structural curbs.
This has nothing to do with culture. The most upright individuals could be elected but with single-member electorates they will not survive unless they behave in this sort of fashion.
My prediction has always been that the Solomons would collapse after RAMSI departed but here we see it failing while RAMSI is still there.
From Marianne Jago-Bassingthwaighte on The future of aid: not all about the money?
This is a wonderful and rich discussion that I think really seeks to bridge the elusive gap between good policy and practice.
There is one piece here that has been turning for me in the couple of years since I became an independent consultant (having worked at AusAID for a number of years). This is about the need for a promotion across the sector of the kinds of values that Joel describes: in my experience it is really hard to offer useful knowledge unless there is the kind of "humility, honesty and a skill-set of facilitation rather than just technical smarts" that Joel is talking about. Lots of development practitioners I think know this and it is here that many find meaning in their work - when they actually facilitate a process of transformation that leads to better, sustainable, locally appropriate development outcomes. In this dynamic it is often the bringing out and valuing of existing knowledge that catalyses sustainable change and frankly, local empowerment. That means, for example, building coalitions of local change agents who are steeped in local culture and politics (perhaps advised by an expert), rather than setting up a technical advisory panel for hire.
At the same time, in engaging this topic, ie the need to aim for mutuality in interactions with counterparts, I also run up against a deep ambivalence among practitioners. I have had most to do with managing contractors and academics, but it goes something like this: "the Government" (AusAID, DfiD, USAID) has all the power, and won't give it up - this is why project designs aren't truly locally appropriate, nor locally driven.
The next bit is more slippery. This is the exhale of the practitioner/managing contractor who fears jeopardising their livelihood in the longer term, and takes the safe route of not challenging "the government" to do a bit better. I have seen in myself an investment in being the one that knows, and in the (undue) deference I can be afforded because I represent the donor's purse strings. And as a consultant focussed on development effectiveness, I wonder if I am in danger of catching the contractors' malaise that can see an unimaginative approach to contract implementation (usually with an over-focus on TA), and no space made or allowed for innovation and dare I say it, mutuality.
To put it bluntly, managing contractors tendering for work are the first to say they are slapped (ie they don't win bids) if they try to be innovative, even if innovation is what AusAID asks for in later performance reviews. Perhaps there is some degree of defeatism or even laziness here, but I see a sectoral resistance to staying at the edge of good practice on the grounds that it isn't what AusAID rewards in the arenas that matter to implementing organisations. For every horror story I heard in AusAID about frustratingly dumb managing contractors, I've heard others about AusAID asking specifically for "a dumb contractor who doesn't think, just implements". This kind of arrogance and paternalism are exactly what is wrong with aid more broadly. Perhaps not surprisingly, contractors seem not take opportunities to hold AusAID accountable (this is also called not biting the hand that feeds you), which means a sea of lost opportunities to promote changes within AusAID that might lead to a true partnership approach to promoting good practice.
In fact, there is enough in the development good practice literature and in donor policies (yes, donor policies!) and evaluations, to back the kind of humility and mutuality that I think Joel is getting at. It takes a certain kind of courage to be able to show up not as the expert but as the one who needs to listen and learn (and then contribute where possible). And to have done the background research and preparation necessary to facilitate an empowering development processes. It isn't surprising that so-called south-south cooperation is appealing to developing countries because Brazil, India, China, South Africa and other emerging donors who have experienced first hand the subtle (and sometimes blatant) power plays that can occur in a development "partnership", and so know how to promise to behave with greater respect. (OECD research says its a bit early to tell if they are walking the talk).
In short, if we are to share knowledge and facilitate transformation processes with developing countries, we have some work to do within our own organisations to ensure that there is mutuality and an encouragement to good practice among all players.
From Margaret Callan on There’s smoke, but is there fire?—Pondering public-private partnerships for development