AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Road to Home, an award-winning feature length documentary about British-based West Papuan human rights campaigner Benny Wenda will be screening on Australian television from this November.

An agreement has been reached with SBS’s NITV channel for the film to screen 80 times over the next 3 years, starting from November 1.

Produced and directed by British filmmaker Dominic Brown, the film includes footage from Wenda’s first official overseas tour to the US, Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea in 2013, and provides a rare insight into his campaigning work and family life.

Wenda was denied the opportunity to speak at New Zealand’s Parliament on that visit, but he is due back in New Zealand later this month.

He is expected to get a much warmer welcome this time as the West Papuan self-determination issue has had greater international exposure in the media in the past two years.

AsiaPacificReport.nz

Managing director Peter Botten said this when commenting on funding for the company’s humanitarian arm, Oil Search Foundation.

Oil Search Limited earlier this week announced the board decision to give K185 million (US$56 million) over five years, from 2016 to 2020.

“The foundation is now ready to carry out its work addressing health, leadership and education and women’s protection and empowerment programmes in PNG over the next five years,” Botten said.

“Supporting the foundation is a unique and powerful part of our business strategy at Oil Search. A key element is not just delivery values to shareholders but giving something back, contributing to the social development of the country we work and it is our home.”

The foundation was established in 2011 to manage and drive public programmes in the areas of HIV, malaria and maternal and child health with partnerships with international health organisations and Department of Health.

Charles Yapumi is a Loop PNG journalist.

AsiaPacificReport.nz

Juffa, when talking to Popondetta Secondary School students yesterday, urged students to become a “changer” in the province and become public servants and not “public serpents”.

He said public servants in Papua New Guinea’s Northern province were like fleas who always jumped two meters to another location when efforts were made captured them.

“Our public service machineries are really disorganised and cannot be trusted,” he said.

He added that the administration needed an overhaul and an input of new young energetic leaders was needed to get the public machinery in the province to another level.

Juffa said he could not sack public servants as they were protected by the Public Services Management Act. He called on relevant authorities to look into the matter.

He also said that among the “public serpents” were good public servants who should be commended for doing a good job.

Freddy Mou is a journalist with Loop PNG.

AsiaPacificReport.nz

Hunt for the Wilderpeople director Taika Waititi worked with Screen Australia’s Indigenous Department to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders were hired to work on his new film Thor: Ragnarok currently being filmed in Australia.

A Buzzfeed article stated eight indigenous crew members are currently involved in the film, including: cinematographer Cornel Ozies and award-winning actor Shari Sebbens are both working directly with Waititi, and Jaru producer and writer, Kodie Bedford, is working in the stunts department.

An indigenous water company has also been contracted to provide water to the production.

According to a Māori Television article Waititi said, “Being Māori, it’s extremely important to me to have native presence on any film. We’re bringing a huge Hollywood production to this country [Australia] and it’s only right that we make an effort to include indigenous film makers on the journey.”

Penny Smallacombe, Head of the Indigenous Department at Screen Australia said, “We are enormously proud of the talent and ambition of this cohort. From an attachment comes practical and hands-on experience, invaluable networking and the opportunity to forge a sustainable career in the industry.”

AsiaPacificReport.nz

New research shows more 15-34-year-olds in New Zealand are streaming online video than watching traditional television. As a result access to new media platforms have created a an increasing generation gap in the way kiwi’s are consuming television and music. 

In April 2016 Glasshouse Consulting, commissioned by NZ On Air, carried out a phone and online survey of 1,400 New Zealanders aged 15-years and older.

Some of the key findings stated that early adoption and increasing access to technology is enabling younger generations to consume more online media. While the majority of audiences 45-years and older rely more on traditional sources of media.

The survey asked respondents about what media they consumed “yesterday” and also if they had “ever used” particular media.

It is a follow-up to a survey first carried out in 2014, which provides the only independent, publicly available data across media types.

Other key findings are:

• New Zealanders continue to tune in to traditional media in the largest numbers, more frequently and for longer periods of time than any other media. However this dominance is under real pressure with the growing use of online video sites like YouTube and Facebook, and online subscription video on demand (SVOD) services in New Zealand.
• The biggest growth and driver of change since the 2014 survey has been the launch of SVOD services marketed directly to New Zealanders.
• One in four participants tune in to a local or international SVOD service like Netflix or Lightbox daily.
• But in SVOD homes, linear TV by a fine margin still attracts the biggest daily audience.

• Thirty-three percent of New Zealanders consume music each day by streaming. But radio remains dominant as the place to hear about new music.

Read the full report by NZ On Air.

AsiaPacificReport.nz

Australia is deliberately ignoring the inhumane treatment of refugees held on the South Pacific island of Nauru as a means of deterring others from attempting the journey to Australia, two human rights groups have said.

Al Jazeera reports that under Canberra’s immigration policy, people intercepted while trying to reach the country by boat are sent to a prison on Manus Island, in Papua New Guinea, or one in Nauru, both of which have been criticised for their harsh conditions and reports of abuse.

An estimated 1200 men, women and children who sought refuge in Australia were transferred instead to Nauru as “part of an Australian government policy since 2012”, Al Jazeera’s Jonah Hull reported.

The joint report of the “appalling abuse and neglect” – compiled by researchers from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch who were granted rare access to prisons on Nauru in July – is based on interviews with 84 refugees and asylum seekers from countries including Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan, in addition to service providers at the Australian-funded facility.

It alleges the Australian government could not be unaware of conditions at the centre.

“Failure to address serious abuses appears to be a deliberate policy to deter further asylum seekers from arriving in the country by boat,” said Hull.

Successive Australian governments have supported the policy, which they say is needed to stop people drowning at sea during dangerous boat journeys, which usually begin in Indonesia.

‘Cruel in the extreme’
“[The refugees] describe prison-like living conditions in baking heat with many, the report says, developing mental health problems including severe anxiety, inability to sleep, mood swings, prolonged depression, and short-term memory loss,” Amnesty researcher Anna Neistat told Al Jazeera.

“Adults and children spoke openly of having wanted to end their lives.”

Neistat, who conducted the investigation on the island, said Australia’s “policy of exiling asylum seekers” was “cruel in the extreme.

“Few other countries go to such lengths to deliberately inflict suffering on people seeking safety and freedom,” she said.

A spokeswoman for Australia’s Department of Immigration and Border Protection said it had not been consulted by Amnesty regarding the report. She could not confirm if Human Rights Watch had attempted to contact the department.

“The department therefore has had no opportunity to inform itself of these claims and would strongly encourage Amnesty International to contact the department before airing allegations of this kind,” she told the Reuters news agency on Tuesday.

David Manne, of the Australia-based Refugee and Immigration Legal Centre, described the Australian government’s reaction to the report as “both extraordinary and disingenuous.

“It stands to reason that as part of the attempts to enforce secrecy on the details of the arrangements that there have been severe restrictions on the ability of journalists to get into Nauru to report on these matters.”

Nauru, which charges foreign journalists nearly $6,000 for a visa application and restricts access to social networking sites such as Facebook, this year experienced a series of suicides and incidents of detainees hurting themselves in protests over their treatment.

Health workers who reveal information regarding abuse in island’s camps “face up to two years’ imprisonment”, Manne told Al Jazeera.

Broadspectrum, an Australian corporation that runs the facility, and International Health and Medical Services, the facility’s main medical service provider, rejected the allegations when asked for comment, the rights groups said.

The joint report at Amnesty International

AsiaPacificReport.nz

Dr Shailendra Singh reviews a new edition of Don’t Spoil My Beautiful Face.

Above all, David Robie’s Don’t Spoil My Beautiful Face: Media, Mayhem  and Human Rights in the Pacific is a damning indictment of the parlous state of affairs in parts of this region.

The book is also a telling account of the continuous failure of leadership on a fairly grand scale, with ordinary people bearing the brunt of it.

Dr Robie, professor of journalism at the Auckland University of Technology and director of the Pacific Media Centre, deals with the vital issues of environmental degradation, media censorship, social chaos and human suffering (largely caused by bad governance), various types of violent and nonviolent conflicts, and colonialism and neocolonialism.

Allegedly apathetic international and local media also attract some flak. Robie, who has a long record of service in the Pacific Islands, laments that a region with so much promise due to its relative tranquility, natural beauty, and richness of culture has been in such a prolonged state of decline, despite the postindependence optimisms.

That tranquility has been shattered by coups, civil uprisings, and corruption; the region’s pristine environments damaged by nuclear testing, wanton resource exploitation, and the spectre of climate change; and indigenous cultures threatened by the twin forces of neocolonialism and neoliberal economics.

These adversities are superimposed on growing incidences of human rights abuses and draconian  media legislation in some countries.

The looming threats of global warming and sea-level rise only complicate matters.

Robie has been reporting these trends in the Asia-Pacific region since the 1980s, both as a journalist and as a media educator, covering self-determination for indigenous minorities in New Caledonia, the struggles in Timor-Leste and West Papua, the Bougainville rebellion, nuclear testing in French Polynesia and the Marshall  Islands, and the ethnically motivated coups in Fiji.

Documented conflicts
Some of these conflicts are documented in his earlier books: Blood on the Banner (1980) highlighted indigenous Pacific Islanders’ struggle against the remnants of colonialism, while Tu Galala: Social Change in the Pacific (1992) depicted a continuing battle against environmental catastrophe, communal unrest, growing militarisation,  ongoing  poverty, colonialism, and neocolonialism.

In Don’t Spoil My Beautiful Face, Robie reproduces some of his previous writings as a yardstick and a backdrop for deeper insights into the Pacific’s seemingly intractable problems. Reflecting on his two-and-a-half decades of Asia-Pacific coverage, Robie intones, “Sadly, not a lot has changed” (page 6).

He adds, “Political independence has not necessarily rid the Pacific of the problems that it faces, and in many cases, Pacific political leaders are themselves part of the problem” (27). One of the more startling statistics, at least for the uninitiated, is the deaths of an estimated 120,000 Pacific Islanders in various disputes over the past quarter-century, plus another 200,000 when Timor-Leste is included (311).

If the narrative sounds depressing, it is regrettably all  too predictable: long-term ethnic and political tensions coupled with low growth rates and underdevelopment are usually fodder for violent conflict in fragile states (see Securing a Peaceful Pacific, by John Henderson and Greg Watson  [2005]).

Robie is forthright in putting the blame for these serious issues squarely on various corrupt Pacific Island leaders, whom he views as having been part of the problem for far too long. But it is not only rogue Pacific Island leaders who are causing problems.

Robie also faults leaders from developed countries for their inaction in the face of what he describes as a litany of tortures, murders, exploitation, rapes, military raids, and arbitrary arrests. Most affected is West Papua, where the brutal repression of the native Melanesians by the Indonesian security services is well documented.

The book reminds us why the Pacific is still struggling despite copious amounts of bilateral aid over the decades. It is in the interest of nuclear powers France and the United States to keep their territories in a dependent state in order to further their own military, economic, and geopolitical ambitions.

Exploitation ‘normalised’?
The question is whether the exploitation of Island countries by economically and militarily powerful nations has become normalised. Recently, Australia and New Zealand remained unmoved in the face of Pacific Islander anger over the two countries’ apparent intransigence regarding a joint proposal by Pacific Island nations for a tougher global target on greenhouse gas emissions. Is the world resigned to the bullying and maltreatment of Pacific Island nations by the bigger powers?

Robie does not hide his disappointment with what he sees as the media’s failure to tackle these crucial issues.

He feels that the international media ignore or underreport major issues, such as Indonesian repression of West Papua and the assassination of journalists in the Philippines. In his eyes, Australian media failed to sufficiently probe their country’s 2006 security treaty with Indonesia. Robie insists that the treaty led to Australia’s overt repression of pro-independence Papuan activists.

To be fair to the media, the Indonesian government has banned foreign journalists from West Papua for years. However, Robie argues that the problem goes deeper. He links it to the media’s commercially driven priorities, which he feels supersede social, humanitarian, and public-interest obligations.

Under this journalistic framework, West Papua would be deemed too costly an assignment for sustained coverage, financially and politically.

Don’t Spoil My Beautiful Face tries to prod the media’s conscience by highlighting the suffering in the region. Robie advocates a new, more thorough, considered, and inclusive reporting approach, which he describes as “critical development journalism.”

This proposed framework sources grassroots rather than just elite views, emphasises conflict resolution,  promotes  human rights, and supports development (325–330).

Empowered media
Robie’s views are consistent with a growing recognition among some policy makers that an empowered media could play an important role in regional development, especially in politically fragile Island societies. However, new ideas often face resistance.

As a result of challenging the orthodoxy, Robie has attracted criticism from some traditionalists, who believe that concepts such as “peace journalism” contravene media objectivity, what with Bainimarama’s military-backed government in Fiji touting its version of “journalism of hope,” fueling suspicions about government control of the media under the guises of stability and development.

Robie is adamant that critical development journalism is not soft journalism, and neither would it pander to political slogans such as “cultural sensitivity,” which he sees as  a cover-up for abuse of power.

To the contrary, Robie envisions an approach based on a greater level of intensive journalism focused on exposing the truth, reporting on alternatives, and offering solutions. Robie’s central thesis is that the Pacific is caught in a vicious cycle of conflicts and underdevelopment.

Traditional subsistence lifestyles have been under sustained pressure from globalisation and other forces. The media are duty-bound to keep track of these trends and draw attention to them, but their response has largely been inadequate.

Robie is calling for a new media strategy, based on greater journalistic effort, commitment, and foresight. Some may question whether such a new direction is even possible, given media’s entrenched, deadline-driven, profit-focused economic model.

These ideological arguments aside, the post–Cold War trend  of mayhem in the Pacific demands investigation into the media-politics-conflict nexus in the Pacific context. Don’t Spoil My Beautiful Face seeks to fill this gap.

Dr Shailendra Singh is head of journalism at the University of the South Pacific. This review was commissioned by The Contemporary Pacific journal and has been republished with permission.

AsiaPacificReport.nz

Benny Wenda, spokesperson for the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) and a traditional tribal leader, will visit New Zealand between August 23 and September 1.

He is seeking support for the campaign for justice and self-determination for the people of West Papua.

Wenda will be welcomed to Orakei Marae on arrival and invited to address Ngati Whatua Orakei whanau and the public before travelling to other main centres around the country to meet parliamentarians, iwi representatives, human rights groups, church groups, students, and youth.

Benny Wenda’s last visit to New Zealand in 2013 was notable for a rebuff by the Speaker of Parliament, David Carter, who refused to allow him the chance to speak at Parliament.

However, this time with an expanded group of parliamentarians supporting West Papua we hope that he will receive a more encouraging reception from Government representatives.

Also in 2013, Benny Wenda visited the Pacific Media Centre and was interviewed by Papua New Guinean journalist Henry Yamo.

Occupied by Indonesia since 1963, West Papuans are victims of ongoing human rights abuses, killings, torture, beatings, military and police intimidation, and gross neglect of basic services.

Severe penalties
When Papuans resist occupation non-violently they are labelled “separatists” and risk severe penalties under Indonesia’s treason and incitement laws.

Benny Wenda was arrested in 2002 by Indonesian authorities for allegedly leading an independence rally.

He was tortured, held in solitary confinement, and was facing a 25-year prison sentence.

Rumours were circulating that he might even by killed, but Wenda escaped and was granted political asylum in the United Kingdom.

Now he is tirelessly advocating for his people, travelling throughout the Pacific, Africa, and Europe where support for West Papua is growing steadily.

Wenda is looking forward to meeting with the new wave of Maori and Pasifika activists in Aotearoa and meeting with New Zealand members of the International Parliamentarians for West Papua.

The International Parliamentarians for West Papua met in May 2016 and resolved to call for an internationally supervised vote on independence in West Papua.

The meeting, held in the Houses of Parliament, Westminster, was attended by MPs from the Pacific region and the UK including Jeremy Corban and Samuela ‘Akilisi Pohiva, Prime Minister of Tonga.

• Benny Wenda will be welcomed onto Orakei Marae and invited to address Ngati Whatua Orakei whanau. 6.30pm, Tuesday, August 23, Orakei Marae, Auckland. The public are warmly invited.  Oceania Interrupted is supporting this event.
• Wenda stunned by NZ parliament ‘bar’

AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Quintina Naime in Port Moresby

Governors and members of parliament are urged to assist university students by way of sending them back to their respective tertiary institutions as and when required to.

Minister for Higher Education, Research, Science and Technology, Francis Marus, announced this week that the University of Papua New Guinea (UPNG), University of Goroka (UOG) and PNG University of Technology (Unitech) would resume the 2016 academic year in the coming months.

UOG will commence semester two later this month, Unitech will resume on August 29 and UPNG will begin the 2017 academic year early in September.

Marus called for all the governors and MPs to support the sector by helping their students to travel back to their respective institutions.

He said budget has been an obstacle for all institutions as the situation has forced them beyond their respective budgets.

“I am calling on the governors and MPs to assist the universities, students and parents,” Marus stated.

“I am happy that the managements from the respective schools have agreed to save the 2016 academic year.

“The government will support the management in terms of the reconciliation process.”

Police presence will be maintained on ground at all three universities to guarantee the safety of students and teachers and determine a safe learning environment until normalcy is restored.

Marus added that it will take a long term plan for the sector to rebuild the infrastructure that was lost, but those responsibilities are up to the respective intuitions to manage and find alternative short term solutions.

UPNG students still confused in wake of academic closure

AsiaPacificReport.nz

The dominance of ‘econobabble’ and market approaches have hurt climate action. That’s why renewable energy is vital to the future of the climate and the economy, write Dan Cass and Andrew Bray of New Matilda.

The world seems particularly chaotic this winter. The climate news is diabolical, with fears about melting of the Arctic permafrost and the ancient ice stores of the Himalayas. There is a Royal Commission into the brutal treatment of children in prison in the Northern Territory.

And that is before we get to ISIL terrorism and other mass shootings in Europe and America.

There is Britain’s brain-snap exit from Europe and the punchline that Boris Johnston and the other Tory geniuses have no clear plan for it. And there is The Donald – the Republican Party’s candidate for President of the United States of America, Donald Trump.

All these problems require sane collective action, which means democratic use of the power of the state. The good news – and don’t we need some – is that after three decades, our handcuffs are coming off.

Since the 1980s (or even the mid-1970s, according to Michael Pusey) the West has slowly strangled itself and the rest of the world with a political obsession that goes under the name of “neoliberalism” (or “the Washington Consensus”, the Australian version of which Pusey called “economic rationalism”).

During the recent Federal election, Australia took a step away from the naïve adoration of markets and lower taxes. The Coalition had to accept that generous superannuation tax breaks for the super wealthy are not good policy.

Both sides of the aisle heard the message that wealthy property investors are less deserving of tax breaks than first home buyers.

The Coalition may be set on giving a $51 billion hand out to corporate Australia but it is unpopular and may be resisted in the Senate.

It is against this background that we want to put forward a new idea, framed in response to a recently published essay titled Balancing Act, by George Megalogenis, the Australian author and economics graduate. Our idea is that renewable energy provides the perfect act of renewal for the democratic state at this time.

Balancing act
In Balancing Act, an issue of the Quarterly Essay series, Megalogenis pinpoints the driver of much of the malaise in Australian policy making; neoliberalism, or the “open model” as he calls it. He says that it is time to accept that the open model which both sides of politics have implemented over the last 30 years gives us no path to future prosperity and the voters, yearning for long-term vision, want “a return to some form of government intervention in the economy”.

In our response to his Quarterly Essay, we want to briefly explore how Megalogenis’s arguments about the need for state intervention could be used to;

• slash greenhouse gas emissions
• build a reliable consensus in climate politics
• help fix the economic model.

Our argument is that the new conversation about government intervention in the economy provides a way to solve the climate riddle, by moving beyond the “market fetish”.

Megalogenis writes:

The Coalition can’t lay claim to the future until it adjusts to the two big shocks of our age. The first shock is that the version of capitalism favoured by the conservatives is broken… The second shock is that the international community may finally be ready to tackle climate change.

Policy solutions that match the global warming threat require transformation, not tinkering. As Megalogenis rightly points out, these processes of restructuring require governments to stop simply devolving agency to the invisible hand of the market.

The return to regulation in the economy could revitalise the environmental agenda, cutting through the impasse of carbon politics with a healthy dose of nation building in the area of renewable energy. It would replace fifteen years of neoliberal environmental orthodoxy with a new agenda that is both more rigorous and more popular.

Neoliberal environmentalism
Environmentalism from the 1960s until the 1980s was a diverse movement. There were public transport and urban design activists calling for more rational, convivial cities. Conservationists campaigned to protect biodiverse forests from destruction. Greenpeace put its ships in the way of nuclear testing and toxic waste dumping. Deep greens proposed new cultural paradigms to replace consumerism and economic growth.

Then, at some point in the late 1990s, the climate threat became so great that it rightly dominated the environmental agenda in Australia and around the world. This occurred at the same time in history that free market ideology was ascendant. The timing was tragic.

Until this point, environmentalists responded to global warming with tools that had already worked in achieving environmental and other policy progress. These were forms of government regulation: bans on some chemicals and practices, standards on imported and locally manufactured products, incentives for clean production, plans for rational design of cities around mass transit.

Unfortunately, however, greens became convinced that the best and perhaps only way to save the climate was to monetise it. (Or more accurately, to monetise tradeable rights to pollute the climate.) We reduced the complexity of a global system out of control into the mere absence of a price signal.

Rather than build a social movement for transformation, we operated like technocrats. We learned to speak in what the Australia Institute’s Richard Denniss calls “econobabble”. Too tentative to pick winners – solar and wind over coal and gas – we hid behind economic talk of carbon prices and market architectures. It is no wonder the public cooled to global warming.

The emerging criticism of the open economy doctrine now allows us to return to a more rational and constructive conversation. Megalogenis says, “The debate we have to have is on the role of government in the economy”. The practical program he prescribes starts with public investment in infrastructure.

Our view is that the first candidate for this infrastructure development should be the switch to clean energy for electricity and transport. Australia’s economic opportunity here is vast as we have prodigious renewable energy resources which are tragically underdeveloped. We also have the opportunity to create goods for export.

Green industries
Recent announcements in electric vehicles indicate just how rapidly the world will move towards green industries. The Netherlands and Norway are looking to have only electric vehicles sold by 2025 and India has an astonishing goal to replace all of its petrol and diesel cars with electric vehicles by 2030.

If the Paris climate agreement COP21 succeeds, this would require wealthy countries such as ours to decarbonise our energy sector by about mid-century. For long-term assets such as energy infrastructure, achieving a complete rebuild before 2050 means starting immediately with a concerted program of investment.

This is a massive economic undertaking and requires strong government intervention. According to the International Energy Agency, rebuilding a clean energy system by 2050 would cost US$44 trillion globally. (Crucially, it would save US$115 trillion, because fuels such as the sun and the wind are free as well as renewable.)

Giles Parkinson, the editor of RenewEconomy, estimates that Australia will end up spending $130 billion on electricity networks over 20 years from 2000 to 2020. He calls this “pure folly”, propping up last century’s old, dirty, one-way electricity model, when our competitors are investing in renewable energy, battery storage and smart grids that will deliver cheaper, cleaner, more secure energy.

Our mal-investment will be of little use when energy companies like AGL eventually retire their coal-burning plants. Australia cannot afford waste on this scale. Nor can our climate bear the consequences of further delay.

What is needed to transform the energy system is for government to set a clear goal to decarbonise by mid-century and take firm hold of economic levers to make it happen. The National Energy Objective – the foundation of all energy policy in the country – needs to be modernised to include decarbonisation as a goal, alongside secure and efficient delivery of energy.

This greening of the energy and transport sectors would create real investment in long-term, productive assets. It will generate jobs and new industries. It is a perfect example of the kind of government action that Megalogenis recommends.

Upbeat about renewables
The reason that we are both so upbeat about the renewables boom is that it offers everything that carbon politics failed to deliver. Where carbon markets are abstract, renewables are tangible; solar panels and wind turbines you can touch.

Carbon markets created a small number of direct jobs within the banking sector – which is hardly the world’s most loved profession – but building renewables and a smart grid will generate millions of mostly blue collar jobs around the world, according to a recent report from the intergovernmental International Renewable Energy Agency.

Where carbon price schemes are ultimately just another globalised market – like currencies or commodity futures – renewables can be owned and operated by local communities. For example, most of the wind farms in Denmark are local co-operatives. Shareholding or direct ownership of clean energy – especially rooftop solar – gives it an unassailable social license, with electoral support across the political spectrum.

With the rise of smart grid technologies, even urban communities can own their own ‘virtual’ power stations; roof-top solar and household battery power, traded and optimised in real time, providing reliable energy to replace baseload coal.

Energy as innovation
Prime Minister Turnbull has called for innovation. Smart energy is innovation on steroids. Australia already has start-ups making hardware and software that we should export to a world hungry for clean energy. Reposit is building solar and battery storage systems that sell their aggregated energy into the grid, like a virtual power plant. Redflow is developing consumer and utility-scale batteries on the ‘flow’ design, which can provide very high durability energy storage and safety and sustainability improvements over conventional lithium-ion batteries.

A combination of ‘push’ policies that stimulate innovation and ‘pull’ policies that provide stable demand for renewables (and storage and smart grids) would liberate a wave of entrepreneurship for the Prime Minister. These products, services and new business models are more responsible exports than coal and they are becoming more competitive. Even if no top-down mandate for clean energy emerges from the Paris climate agreements, the natural growth of unsubsidised renewables will be worth US$7,800 billion by 2040 according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

The most important reason to rebuild climate politics around renewables (as distinct from carbon markets) is the politics itself. Renewable energy has a super-majority of support (70 per cent plus of the electorate), in major markets all around the world. Polling commissioned by the Australia Institute found that three quarters of Australians would support a party that boosted solar and battery storage and 63 per cent are prepared to endorse a national switch from fossil fuels to renewables by 2030.

Even in Australian wind districts, where a vocal minority of opportunistic politicians have whipped up anti-wind farm panic, an amazing majority prefer wind and solar to coal or gas. Detailed polling in ten wind districts in 2011 found 83 per cent of people support wind power. Carbon markets are nowhere near as popular.

Tony Abbott’s ‘great big new tax’ scare campaign killed carbon markets in the popular imagination (assuming they were ever truly popular to start with). Similarly, toxic misinformation makes it impossible to conceive of a bipartisan national carbon market policy in the US. Strange, extreme ideas are also percolating up in the Tory party in England, including paranoid notions that wind turbines cause ‘infrasound’ sickness and death.

Prime Minister Turnbull’s post-election cabinet reshuffle has created a perfect political setup to take a renewable energy leap forwards. Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg has taken on the Environment portfolio. It is a high risk situation for Frydenberg, because the ‘jobs versus environment’ frame through which these issues are seen means he appears to have to choose either energy or the climate. Encouragingly, he recently told a clean energy conference that his job was to “move energy into the environment [portfolio]”.

Conflict or harmony?
As one of us has written in The Guardian:

It depends entirely on whether the two sides of the portfolio – energy and the environment – are set in conflict or in harmony with each other.

… If Frydenberg does not move quickly to capitalise on this innovation, then he is caught between coal and a hard place. He either fails one half of his portfolio or fails the other half.

… Unleashing the renewables revolution is the only way that the new minister can do something significant for the environment and at the same time, build Australia’s energy resources and energy security. This is an opportunity that Greg Hunt never had when he was environment minister.

Renewables are the best and perhaps the only way to save the debate about saving the climate. If Megalogenis is right, then Australia has a narrow window of opportunity to use government intervention to reinvent our economy and rebuild crumbling infrastructure.

The stakes are cultural as well as economic. Dark forces and racist politicians are on the march around the world. Restoring public faith in a collective, democratic space is a protection against the demagoguery that Trump is bringing to the gates of the White House, if not to the Oval Office itself. Clean energy infrastructure is the first and best candidate for a new approach to nation building on a planet in peril.

This article is republished with permission from New Matilda.

AsiaPacificReport.nz

Timor-Leste’s National Alliance for an International Tribunal (ANTI) has condemned the Joko Widodo government in Indonesia for appointing retired general Wiranto as a minister in the new cabinet and called on the international community to use its influence in preventing the “nomination of criminals” to cabinet.

The statement reminded the world of the human rights allegations against Wiranto over his attempts to block independence in the country after 14 years of illegal Indonesian rule.

“We have been monitoring a real life political phenomenon happening in Indonesia, namely the decision of President Jokowi to include former General Wiranto as the Coordinating Ministry for Political, Legal and Security Affairs in his new cabinet,” said the ANTI statement.

“This decision has unsettled us a great deal.  We recall what happened in 1999, before, during, and after the referendum in Timor-Leste which resulted in more than 200,000 civilians suffering torture, rape, forceful removal, enforced disappearance and murder.

“These acts violate the fundamental human rights principles and values set out in international humanitarian law. For this reason, these acts are deemed crimes against humanity.”

ANTI said that for more than a decade, victims and the families of victims in Timor-Leste had consistently insisted on truth and justice for Timor-Leste from Indonesia and the international community, especially from the members of the UN Security Council.

“In 1999 Wiranto was the Supreme Commander of the Indonesian Armed Forces who had the competence and power to ensure security and stability for the process during and after the Referendum as set out on May 5, 1999, in agreement from the Minister for Foreign Affairs from Indonesia, the Minister for Foreign Affairs from Portugal, and the United Nations Secretary-General.

‘Systematic violence’
“Former General Wiranto was the Supreme Commander of the Indonesian military and is a responsible member for the large scale and systematic violence, removal and persecution that resulted in 280 deaths and forced 200,000 people to flee to Nusa Tenggara Timur (NTT) in Indonesia, as well as the mass destruction inflicted on the personal possessions and assets of the Timorese people.

“In March 2003 the Serious Crimes Unit (SCU) issued an indictment against former general Wiranto and others.

“The aforementioned unit also requested for the Dili District Court to issue a warrant of his arrest. on March 19, 2004. The Deputy Prosecutor General for Serious Crimes issued a letter to support the issuance of a warrant of arrest against General Wiranto, with irrefutable evidence against him proving that General Wiranto committed human rights violations and crimes against humanity in Timor-Leste.

“Despite these gross charges, former general Wiranto lives as a free man holding positions of influence and power in Indonesia today.  He has never gone under any formal justice procedures where he could be prosecuted for his crimes and rather lives with an ambiguous status of ‘accused’, and trusted within the Widodo administration.

ANTI’s demands
“Based on these facts, the Timor-Leste National Alliance for an International Tribunal (ANTI) demands the following:

1. For the international community to influence the Jokowi Government to take seriously the  prevention of nominating criminals within the government structure in order to further strengthen the process of democracy and to uphold human rights in Indonesia and elsewhere around the world;

2. For the UN Security Council to consistently uphold its decision to combat impunity, based on the indictment issued by the Special Panel for Serious Crimes in 2003. We ask that an effective mechanism be sought to ensure that criminals are held accountable in a credible fashion, in particular the former General Wiranto;

3. Indonesia and Timor-Leste need to strengthen and foster democracy to break the chain of impunity and establish societies that respect human rights values and strengthen the democratic rule of law. Therefore, we urge and stand by Indonesia to immediately remove Wiranto from the Joko Widodo Government structure.

4. We Call on the international community members state has a moral responsibility to arrest the accuse former General Wiranto.

The statement was signed by the following non-government and human rights groups – all members of ANTI: JSMP, HAK, La’o Hamutuk, ACbit, Asosiasaun Vitima, KSI, Front Mahasiswa Timor-Leste, MDI, Sek. Fongtil, Fokupers, AJAR-TL and Verupupuk.

AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Fiji Times has defended itself against comments that were made by a Fijian politician who told members of the public not to read the long-established newspaper.

According to an article published on Monday, the Attorney-General, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, told famers in Seaqaqa not to read The Fiji Times because it “politicised issues and spread rumours”.

The Fiji Times editor-in-chief, Fred Wesley, spoke out in an article published by the newspaper yesterday. He said the newspaper had always dealt with an “unwanted tag” of being seen as a “pain in the back of the State”.

No side
The newspaper was not anti-government or pro-government, the article stated.

“We would rather be seen as a newspaper that takes no side; simply a newspaper of integrity.

“We are not a newspaper hell-bent on hurting a government.”

Wesley said the Fiji Times wanted to ensure that readers knew it had a sense of fairness about itself.

“Our charter is to strive for accuracy and balance with the intention to do justice to every story we print and picture we use,” the newspaper reported.

Freedom of choice
In the same article comments from the newly elected Fijian Media Association president Nemani Delaibatiki was published.

Delaibatiki said a part of democracy was the freedom of expression and choice and that it was up to the farmers which newspaper they chose to read.

“The Attorney-General and Minister for Economy is entitled to his views.

“The farmers are free to make their own choice.”

AsiaPacificReport.nz

Weightlifter David Katoatau at the 2015 Pacific Games and Oceania Championships. His victory dances have resulted in his videos becoming viral on the internet. YouTube video: Australia Weightlifting Federation

The Kiribati National Olympic Committee (KNOC) has confirmed the country will be represented in athletics and weightlifting at the Rio Olympic Games this month.

Chief-executive-officer of KNOC, Rota Onorio, told Radio Kiribati News that athletes Karitaake Tewaaki and John Ruka would compete in the 100m athletics event.

Commonwealth Games gold medallist David Katoatau will be competing in the weightlifting 105kg category.

The Minister of Sports David Collins and other sports officials will accompany the team in Rio.

This will be the island nations fourth appearance at a Summer Olympic Games. Kiribati first competed in 2004 when it was held in Athens.

The Olympic Games will be officially open in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil on August 5 and close on August 21, 2016.

AsiaPacificReport.nz By Amélie David in Pape’ete An admission by Alain Juppé, a former French prime minister at the time of the last nuclear tests in the Pacific, during his visit to French Polynesia last week that nuclear tests did have an impact on health has left anti-nuclear activists here puzzled. He also appealed to the nuclear-free groups to play down the decolonisation overture to the United Nations, saying: “We will look for the path to reconciliation. We need to trust each other again.” Juppé was prime minister for President Jacques Chirac in 1995 when France embarked on the final series of Pacific nuclear tests – the last test was triggered on January 27, 1996. He left Tahiti at the weekend after a week in the French Pacific territory. Juppé, mayor of Bordeaux, was on a mission for Les Republicains (former President Nicolas Sarkozy’s political party) primaries to be held in November. He hopes to be become candidate to run for the presidential election next year. Juppé came to French Polynesia to measure his popularity – he met officials of the territory and several mayors. ‘The truth’ A day before leaving Tahiti, Juppé went to a meeting with antinuclear organisations. After two hours of talking (journalists were not invited), Juppé declared: “Considering nuclear tests as safe isn’t right. It is not the truth – nuclear tests had, and still have, an impact on the environment which is worrying. They also had an impact on people’s health.”

AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Bea Cupin in Manila

A ceasefire between Philippines government forces and communist rebels could be in place by the end of the month, if the Duterte administration responds favourably to a new statement from the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP).

“To further support peace negotiations, the CPP is willing to issue a unilateral ceasefire declaration separately but simultaneously with the Duterte government on August 20. The time-frame can be determined through negotiations,” the CPP’s Central Committee said in a statement yesterday.

The statement comes a day after Duterte took back a “unilateral ceasefire” against communist rebels barely a week after it was announced during his first State of the Nation Address.

“As earlier planned, the negotiating panels of the NDFP [National Democratic Front of the Philippines] and GRP [Government of the Republic of the Philippines] can thereafter exchange these declarations in order to discuss points for cooperation and coordination and determine ways of preventing armed skirmishes, misunderstandings, and miscommunications during the course of the peace talks,” added the CPP, referring to the planned talks between the two sides beginning August 20 in Oslo, Norway.

On July 25, while addressing Congress in his first State of the Nation Address, Duterte announced the ceasefire “to immediately stop violence on the ground, restore peace in the communities, and provide enabling environment conducive to the resumption of the peace talks.”

Police and military units on the ground were ordered to stop all offensive operations against the communist rebels.

But things went awry when NPA fighters supposedly attacked government militia in Davao del Norte.

Duterte gave the communist groups until July 28 to explain the clash. The next day, he called on the NDF to issue is own unilateral ceasefire and gave a deadline: July 30, 5 pm. By July 30 in the evening, Duterte revoked the truce, and military and police units returned to status quo.

Government attack?
The CPP, however, contested the government’s narration of events.

“In its report, the NPA unit pointed to how they were provoked to carry out the ambush as part of its active defence in the face of an imminent armed encounter with the operating armed troops and auxilliary forces of the 72nd IB of the AFP,” it said.

The NPA unit merely “carried out counter-maneouvers” in response to movements by the AFP and government militia.

“NPA Red fighters immediately disengaged after disabling the enemy unit from carrying out further offensive action,” the CPP said of the operation, which claimed the life of at least one government militiaman.

The CPP also noted that a truce with the government was “non-existent” because a “mutually signed ceasefire agreement” had yet to be inked.

Still, the CPP said it “has long expressed willingness to engage in a ceasefire for as long as there are peace negotiations.” It noted that since June, it has been preparing a “draft for a unilateral ceasefire” ahead of peace talks with the Duterte administration.

“It was a different situation, however, when GRP President Duterte unilaterally declared a ceasefire even before it could fulfill its promises to release NDFP consultants and political prisoners,” said the CPP, referring to one of the key points it wants to discuss during negotiations.

The CPP also insisted that despite pronouncements from the President, the military showed no signs of “letting up in their search-and-destroy operations and frenzied offensives that terrorise civilian communities.”

Bea Cupin is a journalist with Rappler Philippines.

AsiaPacificReport.nz

Laura Lyons is a 48-year-old Wiradjuri woman living in Sydney. Three of her children as well as four of her grandchildren have been stolen from her by the Australian government. Laura is a member of Grandmothers Against Removal (GMAR), a group of grandmothers who are fighting to get their stolen children and grandchildren back. This is Laura’s story in her own words as told to Camille Nakhid.

In March 2014, my daughter got on drugs and she had to have a meeting with the Department [Department of Children Services – DoCS] because she was at risk of losing her children. And I totally understood that because our priority is to keep our children safe.

Anyway, I went into the meeting to support my daughter and the case worker was using language that my daughter couldn’t understand. So I kept on pulling her up [the case worker] and said: “Listen, could you please use language or words that my daughter would be familiar with so that she could understand?”

And this case worker took offence to what I was doing. I said: “How can my daughter answer you honestly and openly if she doesn’t understand what she’s being asked or what you’re saying to her?”

So she got offended, looked at me and said: “What’s happening with your case?” And I said “My case file is closed allegations about me and she looked at me and said: “We’ll see about that!”

So next minute I had DoCS on my door and my case file was opened back up! So this case worker put in her affidavit at the court that I had an open case file! She was the one that got my case opened back up so that I couldn’t go for my grandchildren.

And in the process I ended up losing my own children. This was March 24 and I eventually did lose my children on 4 December 2015. I clearly became a target because I supported my daughter.

I only get to see my children once every three weeks for an hour and a half, maybe two hours.

My children are supposed to go with family members, there was no consultation process. They took my children from school, they placed them into what is known as a residential care facility. It’s similar to an institution. The residential care facility was getting paid $11,000 + a month to have my kids there. That’s been confirmed.

[Laura’s children that were stolen from her are aged 11, 10 and eight years old — two girls and a boy respectively.]

The abuse in care
My 8-year-old boy was getting put in a corner. Being isolated as a form of punishment. My 10-year-old daughter was apparently getting dragged along the ground by the hair of the head by an 18-year-old worker. This was a high cost placement with high qualified and skilled staff to support my children to ensure that my children will be kept safe.

They[the case workers] are 18 years old! How could they be qualified? They would have just finished school! (My children) were getting locked in their room. My daughter would be threatened when she was to leave the property, “If you run away, if you misbehave, when you get back you will have no dinner. You will go straight to your room. You’ll be separated from your siblings!”

My children were being forced fed because they didn’t like the food, and were only allowed water and cordial to drink. The manager is also the owner of this residential care facility. So initially it’s her own privatised enterprise, it’s her business. They make large amounts of money by taking our children.

The manager’s 17-year-old son was speaking rude to my daughters in Spanish. I said to my daughter, “How do you know that it’s rude because you don’t speak Spanish?” And my two daughters replied, “Because he always tells us in English afterwards”.

My children eventually ran away from this facility because of how they were being treated.  I found my children and took them to the police station and my little 10-year-old daughter screamed and begged and cried to the police officers from Kogarah police station not to send them back there.

They did not listen! They did not believe my children and what they were telling them. They left us sitting in the police station for four hours. Eventually they sent my three children back there.

And then it escalated, the manager’s 17-year-old son was making sexual advances towards my 10-year-old daughter. He was having free access to my children. He didn’t have a criminal record check! Or a “working with children” check! He was on the property with them, unsupervised.

So when further allegations were disclosed to me I didn’t tell the Department. I couldn’t trust them because they didn’t believe my children the first time. They didn’t believe me. So I called the Hotline. And I contacted the Ombudsman. And as a result of my actions to keep my children safe, that facility is no longer an out-of-home care provider and are under investigation, and my children were removed from that facility.

My children were supposed to be kept safe. My children were supposed to be supervised 24 hours a day, seven days a week

My children were then placed with another non-Aboriginal placement called Interactive Community Care service. They are a little bit different because they don’t have a live in facility. My children were then being dragged from motel to motel.

We [taxpayers] would have been paying for that. I pay taxes, I work. Here I was at home with a three-bedroom loving home and they wouldn’t let my kids come home. And they were saying that (the motel) was suitable! That it was safe for them! That was in their best interest, and that they had routine and structure.

So while they were in the motel, with the new workers that were supposed to be supervising them 24 a day, seven days a week, my daughters locked themselves into a bathroom. They had iPods and they were taking nude photos of themselves and sending the photos to some unknown paedophile online.

Where was the staff when my children were doing that? They said that my children were going to be supervised again. That they were going to be kept safe. That’s obviously proven that they failed again!

Their system

The system that they’ve got set up here in Australia is what we call flawed, very flawed.

The system that they’ve got set up here in Australia is what we call flawed, very flawed. Anyone can ring up and make false allegations. Once you do that, they will act on that information. You will not get an opportunity to fight those allegations until after the removal of your children. Then it will take you a lengthy period of time to go through the white society’s court system – to try and prove that these allegations are not true.

When any Aboriginal child is placed into care with the Department, they’re supposed to place Aboriginal children with families, extended families or remain in their communities. It’s in their own policies and procedures.

But they don’t that. The majority of Aboriginal children are placed with non-Aboriginal white carers or placed in residential care facilities just like my children were.

It is important that they follow their own policies and procedures. That then guarantees that our children remain connected to their families, their culture and their communities

Laura fighting to get her children and grandchildren back
I’m fighting. I love my children and grandchildren more than life itself. I miss my children and my grandchildren. The department had me doing alcohol testing, drug testing. I’ve been sober for 26 years. I spent two and a half years in a rehabilitation centre back in 1990.

Even though I was having ongoing drug testing, and ongoing alcohol testing, people were still ringing up anonymously and saying that I’m drinking alcohol in front of my kids. So I was just basically discriminated against, labelled and stereotyped.

They fabricate evidence and they will manipulate and twist your words to suit them. They are corrupt. They went from me to my mother. I wanted my mother to care for my children and they said the same thing about my mother. She’s 69 and they said that she abuses alcohol and that she’s a gambler!

They stated that they received an allegation about my mother in 2013 that she was abusing alcohol. People who know my mother know she is a non-drinker. This clearly displays the level of discrimination and corruption.

Laura is very clear about why this is happening
Because of the power and control. Because they can take our children and keep them! And it’s all about the money they get. For every child that goes into out of home care, they get an income stream.

I went to a forum about the escalating numbers of Aboriginal children. The forum was held at Little Bay, at old Prince Henry Hospital on the May 27 this year. That was organised by the Minister for DoCS Brad Hazzard. He is even aware that there are too many Aboriginal children in care.

Why are all those Aboriginal children in care! We make up a minority of the population in our country. We’re only like two percent of the country but thirty percent of our children are in care. Our children can stay in care until they turn 18.

DoCS believes that my kids shouldn’t be with me. DoCS have discriminated against me. DoCS have no understanding or acknowledge our model of raising our children. It’s like the saying, it takes a village to raise a child. That’s how we are and we’ve raised our kids for thousands of years before colonisation.

Grandmothers Against Removal is a New South Wales body set up now locally state-wide and also nationally. We’ve got GMAR set up all over Australia. I am part of the Sydney, branch. Other branches are Moree, Campbelltown, and Ballina with the intention of growing.

Our own individual GMAR set up in our own communities is to fight issues at the local level. There’s probably only about 30 to 40 members [in GMAR Sydney]. We’re not a very big group but we’re a very powerful group.

Anybody can join. There are Aboriginal grandmothers like myself. GMAR New South Wales was formed back in 2014 and was formed by Aunty Hazel, Suellyn Tighe, Aunty Deb Swann and Jennifer Swann. All these strong black deadly women provided me with hope and inspired me at a time when I needed it most. Our Sydney branch was formed on December 7, 2015.

We’ve been going for about six months. Everything we do is as volunteers. We try and function on donations, at times can be quite difficult. And then there is Werribee, the self help support group that me and my daughter Bianca are the founders of. Werribee is a Wiradjuri word that means backbone in Wiradjuri language. That’s my culture, that’s my tribe.

When me and Bianca lost our children we had nowhere to go. No one to talk to. Nobody to tell how we were feeling, that we were angry, that we were hurting. We were very emotional. Every time they [Bianca’s children] see me and Bianca, they say they wanna come home.

We’re fighting! Bianca’s been fighting for two years. Her children have been in care for two and a half years and she’s still fighting to get them back. She’s lost her children because of drugs, you know? We accept that.

However, she’s not on drugs anymore. She hasn’t been on drugs for 17, 18 months. Give her children back! They don’t want to give her, her children back. We will fight and continue to fight not only for our children but for all Aboriginal children that are in care.

GMAR wants people to know about their cause
We gather every Sunday (at a market in Marrickville) just to make people aware of what’s going on. We say, “Have you heard about Grandmothers Against Removal?” No? And I say, “Well do you remember when Kevin Rudd said sorry for the Stolen Generations?”

They say “Yes”. “Well, the Stolen Generations haven’t stopped!”

There are actually more kids in care now than there ever was! And Kevin Rudd said sorry on the 11 February 2008. And when you say sorry, it means that you don’t do it again.

And all these people in Australia are oblivious to the fact that there’s more kids in care than there ever was! Around about 20,000, and that the stolen generations have never stopped. It’s just been covered up by their policies.

More about Grandmothers Against Removal

If you wish to donate to GMAR, click on this link:

Contact | Donate

If you want to sign the petition, click here

AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Nadia Marai in Port Moresby

About 10ha of land has been allocated to West Papuan refugees to resettle at Red Hills in the Papua New Guinean capital Port Moresby suburb of Gerehu.

The land was secured through consultations between the traditional land owners, the West Papua Relief Association and the National Capital District Commission with the assistance of NCD Governor Powes Parkop.

Governor Parkop, long a supporter of West Papuan issues stretching back to when he was a lecturer at the University of Papua New Guinea, said NCDC was implementing a government decision made in 2010 to resettle the refugees.

The West Papua Relief Association has been working to resettle all West Papuan communities living around Port Moresby and to later consider ways to settle other refugees living outside capital and in other provinces.

The association won approval from NCD Commission on 20 December 2013 for the resettlement.

Most West Papuans have been living in Port Moresby for decades but without land rights.

They have previously faced eviction from their places of residence.

More than 200 West Papuan families who have lived in various locations are Port Moresby will now live in these allocated land.

They now have a proper and permanent place to settle but with the little they have, they have appealed to the government and NGOs to step in and help them buy building materials to construct homes.

They also plan to build a school and a church which will help build and strengthen the community.