Dismissed Member of Madang Bryan Kramer says the dismissal notice by Papua New Guinea’s Governor-General Sir Bob Dadae does not affect his appeal.

“What I can confirm is that on the morning the notice was issued, I had filed my appeal before the National Court,” he said.

“My appeal is requesting the court to firstly review the decision of the Ombudsman Commission in refusing my request to be given the evidence in my right to be heard notice.

“Secondly, to review decisions of the Leadership Tribunal in finding me guilty of misconduct in office and its recommendation to the GG for my dismissal from office.”

Being dismissed from office did not stop him from inquiring into “unfinished matters concerning high-level corruption”, he added.

“Unlike in the past, I’m a lot more informed on the system and those behind it. It also doesn’t stop me from reporting to relevant authorities on those involved in corruption.”

Being a Member of Parliament and Minister of State imposed limitations on what could be done and now with those limitations set aside much could be achieved, he said.

”As far as I’m concerned, being dismissed from office as a Member of Parliament is by no means the end of the matter but just the beginning of things to come.”

Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Papua New Guinea’s Governor-General, Sir Bob Dadae, has formally dismissed former cabinet minister Brian Kramer as a Member of Parliament representing the people of Madang.

On Wednesday, the Governor-General, who was out on duty travel when the Leadership Tribunal made its recommendation of dismissal and fines, penned the final instrument officially signaling his dismissal as a leader covered under the leadership code.

Kramer, a former police and justice minister, was contacted but as of 6pm there was no response. He was reported to be seeking options.

Kramer had said after the Leadership Tribunal’s ruling in April that he would be seeking a judicial review on the tribunal’s decision.

The Post-Courier is aware that he has filed an originating summons in the judicial review track to challenge the decision of the tribunal.

The Judicial Review track deals with the review of decisions made by public authorities, the lower courts or quasi-judicial bodies. It is started by way of originating summons but it is treated differently to other civil proceedings due to its special nature with a need for speedy disposal.

It also differs in that leave for judicial review must first be granted prior to any other orders sought in the originating summons by the plaintiff.

Failure in obtaining the leave by meeting the strict requirements renders the proceedings dismissed.

The Leadership Tribunal comprising, Justice Lawrence Kangwia and senior Magistrates Edward Komia and Josephine Nidue, found Kramer guilty on seven allegations of misconduct in office.

In their decision on penalty they recommended to the Governor-General for Kramer to be dismissed from office for “scandalising the judiciary” and to pay a fine of K2000 each for five allegations for a total of K10,000 (NZ$4700) to be paid within one week.

Meanwhile, when asked by reporters yesterday, Prime Minister James Marape said his office had not officially received formal advice on Kramer’s dismissal.

Marape said he could not comment.

Todagia Kelola is a PNG Post-Courier reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Deputy Prime Minister Davis Steven has been tasked to set boundaries on the terms of reference and set a timeframe to complete Papua New Guinea’s proposed Commission of Inquiry into the UBS Loan Report. Video: EMTV News

By Miriam Zarriga in Port Moresby

Papua New Guinea Prime Minister James Marape says he will resign from office if found guilty of improper conduct in securing the controversial K4 billion (NZ$1.8 billion) UBS – Union Bank of Switzerland – loan five years ago.

He said during question time in Parliament yesterday that he was open to total scrutiny but insisted all other players, including private lawyers, accountants, Oil Search, Kumul Petroleum Holdings Limited, and all members named in the report, including former prime minister Peter O’Neill, would be open to the commission of inquiry.

Marape said the Australian Security Commission would be asked to provide information on the loan while the UBS commission of inquiry would act as a precursor to what the Independent Commission against Corruption (ICAC), would eventually be and would continue as a buffer for corruption into the future.

READ MORE: PNG leadership rivals O’Neill, Marape both implicated in UBS loan saga

The then government of Peter O’Neill had borrowed A$1.239 billion (K4bn) from the Australian branch of UBS to buy 149,390,244 Oil Search Limited shares in 2014.

“The UBS report that was furnished in this House and emanates from the Ombudsman Commission was more geared towards establishing the culpability of leadership breaches in the context of those of us who held offices in relation to our subscription to the Leadership Code of conduct,” he said.

“When I made the announcement in response to the tabling of this report, it was my humble opinion that a greater cry was out there. While the focus was on those of us that hold leadership the offices pertaining to the subscription of Leadership Code, the UBS saga extends beyond leadership breach and culpability that relates to the leadership, a greater step back and a dive into the entire UBS saga in the first instance.

“The OC report is one that has come out for the benefit of the public and Parliament and for the benefit in the instance for the OC to pick on and expand beyond just a report, and see those of us implicated and breach of the leadership code and for them to initiate individual proceedings in this manner,” Marape said.

Terms of reference
“The COI (commission of inquiry) must be established to fully ascertain whether there are other corruptions involved in the entire saga, an inquiry will be set up on the earliest I have asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General to bring into Cabinet at the earliest a paper that will entail the inquiry start, when it will terminate and what the boundaries of the Terms of Reference of the inquiry.

“The investigations will not stop at the leadership level and that involves some of us including the former prime minister, in the process of UBS our country lost money and lost in the billions and we need to know exactly how much we lost.

“Oil Search will be asked to answer several questions including what happened to the 10.01 per cent of shares the country should have a share in, with KPHL asked on their involvement in the UBS loan as well.

“The former PM made a suggestion that the UBS saga predates even as to when UBS took place, it might be correct it may not be correct, the question of corruption the question of the possibility of corruption doesn’t only entail leadership breaches, but goes beyond this one to fully ascertain what has transpired.

“And in the name of giving honest sincere answers to the public who demand accurate information on what has taken place.”

Marape said the commission “must be established to fully ascertain whether there are other corruptions involved in the entire saga because the question is whether there is corruption in the UBS transaction”.

He added the inquiry “must establish who are the middlemen, the nation talks about corruption.

Leadership breach?
”We need to establish not only Leadership Code breach but entire criminality in it if there was any criminal offence conducted by anyone”.

“Money flowed from UBS to purchase of Oil Search shares, what happened beyond the Oil Search share, did PNG government spend any money it? The nation deserves greater scrutiny instead of just leadership scrutiny, how much did we lose in the process and revenue that was meant to support the budget of 2014-2016 if we did lose it, the inquiry must ascertain and establish exactly how much we lost,” Marape said.

“We want this to be concluded at the earliest and questions must be framed to make up the terms of reference when it is established.”

Miriam Zarriga is a reporter with the PNG Post-Courier.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

This week New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern concluded her first bilateral with China’s two top leaders President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Keqiang and ended with clear signals the two countries are poised to build on the $30billion two-way trade relationship.

But there was more to this bilateral meeting than simply New Zealand – a comparatively small South Pacific economy – solidifying a progressive trade relationship with a global economic superpower. There were significant signals given by both state leaders involving multilateralism and a vision for a non-fossil-fuel future.

For more on this, listen to Radio New Zealand’s The Panel where Selwyn Manning joined Verity Johnson and Wallace Chapman to discuss the NZ-PRC bilateral (On fossil fuels + NZ-PRC’s Relationship )

***

As Ardern said: “We also discussed our shared interest in strengthening the international rules-based order and on climate change, as an issue of global importance.” As such, both New Zealand and the People’s Republic of China indicated significant stances in foreign policy terms.

Firstly, the reference to “international rules-based order” appears a signal that New Zealand Government would support China in principle should it seek recourse through World Trade Organisation rules when countering any escalation of the United States/China trade war. The WTO, and other multilateral bodies such as the United Nations and the International Criminal Court, are central to New Zealand’s independent foreign policy. There’s consistency here. New Zealand simply cannot support the alternative, unilateralism, even when disestablishment threats against multilateral bodies are being pitched by New Zealand’s most significant security partner, the United States.

This is a diplomatic delicacy, a courageous statement, that Ardern was willing to deliver.

On numerous occasions this year United States’ President Donald Trump warned that his administration would abandon the WTO should it not reform and emerge with a trade-rules framework that embraces US trade interests. Trump’s threats also signalled how his Administration would track further toward isolationist-unilateralism should China object to any abuses to WTO rules and international trade law.

You can expect that the US Embassy was busy overnight filing its briefing to Washington DC.

Secondly, China included a gutsy clause in the NZ-China Joint Climate Change Statement that was issued by both Premier Li and Prime Minister Ardern after their meeting.

The PRC and NZ stated: “Both sides recognise the importance of the reform of fossil fuel subsidies, which will bring both economic and environmental benefits, thereby supporting their shared global commitment to sustainable development.”

The idea of abandoning fossil fuel subsidies was first advanced by Jacinda Ardern at her first APEC leaders’ summit shortly after becoming prime minister. There, at APEC, she argued on a panel consisting of herself and the vice chair of Exxon Mobil that fossil fuel subsidies ought to be abandoned – that governments should cease subsidising fossil fuel industries and channel their economies toward developing a future free of fossil fuel carbon emissions.

Clearly, the PRC heard her message and was ready to signal support for it as an ideal. This is a win for Ardern. It is also a respectful acknowledgement that the Asia Pacific’s economic superpower rates her as a significant leader on the global stage.

Additionally, the clause also indicates China – in a week where reliable PMI figures showed it in a very favourable space – that it is confident that its future lies less with the old technologies that assisted the development of today’s western economies and more with the new-tech solutions to global economic development.

The USA will be aware that this move signals that China sees itself as more advanced in the area of AI, machine learning, alternative energy transportation and development than its European and United States counterparts.

Ardern has demonstrated how important it is to meet with significant powers face to face. At such bilaterals, she can offer respect and determination while her counterparts observe her honest, trustworthy, progressive no-nonsense leadership in action.

New Zealand will be the beneficiary of this approach: Ardern said: “I also raised with President Xi the importance New Zealand places on upgrading and modernising our Free Trade Agreement with China – an ambition that he shared.”

Both states have agreed to progress our trade relationship well beyond the current record levels of two-way trade (currently at $30b per annum).

With Premier Li, Ardern said: “We discussed the FTA upgrade, and agreed to hold the next round of negotiations soon and to make joint efforts towards reaching an agreement as soon as possible.

“We also discussed China’s Belt and Road Initiative, noting that the Minister for Trade and Export Growth, David Parker, would lead a business delegation to the Belt and Road Forum in Beijing in April. This will help identify opportunities for mutually beneficial and transparent cooperation so we can complete a work plan as soon as possible.

“I reiterated to Premier Li that New Zealand welcomes all high quality foreign investment that will bring productive economic growth to our country.”

This latter point deserves some caution. China has expressed interest in furthering infrastructure investment within New Zealand – including investments that could be argued are contrary to New Zealand’s strategic interests, into the dairy and primary diversification sectors. While any New Zealand Government ought to proceed with caution here, if our diplomatic trade-negotiation team is buoyed by the country’s new leadership style, then perhaps mutual beneficial ventures can advance beyond a Joint Climate Change Statement.

PS: While in Beijing, the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern also invited President Xi for a State visit to New Zealand as part of New Zealand’s hosting of APEC in 2021.

by Dr Bryce Edwards

As a political commentator, I’ve never experienced anything like it – the phone calls and email requests for interviews from international media have been constant. Broadcasters and journalists all want to discuss the Christchurch terrorist attack and the aftermath. But mostly they want to discuss Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern.

There is a huge fascination with who she is, what she is about, and how she has managed the events following the attacks on Muslims in Christchurch two weeks ago. For example, yesterday, I spent two hours talking to a German journalist who had flown over here specifically to write a major profile on Ardern for readers in that country.

The strong consensus – both here and abroad – is that Ardern has demonstrated extraordinarily impressive leadership since the terrorist atrocities. Numerous commentaries have celebrated her emotional and empathetic response, combined with her strength and “steeliness” in taking decisive action on matters such as gun control and victim support, her correctness in labelling the murders as “terrorism”, and her ability to project and foster unity (when there is a tendency towards division, even from many of her own supporters).

Below are some of the more interesting articles published in response to Ardern’s handling of the terrorist attacks.

One of the first important international articles praising Ardern’s performance was by academic and Washington Post foreign affairs writer, Ishaan Tharoor – see: The world is watching New Zealand’s Jacinda Ardern. In this, he outlined the Prime Minister’s previous progressive credentials, which had “burnished her image as a global feminist icon”, and painted her handling of the Christchurch situation as a continuation of this trend.

Also in the Washington Post, Anna Fifield has written a good overall account of the global reaction – see: New Zealand’s prime minister receives worldwide praise for her response to the mosque shootings.

Writing in India, Ahamad Fuwad puts together a list of seven reasons Ardern’s leadership since the atrocity has been a success – see: How to deal with tragedy: New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern sets an example for world leaders, emerges as liberal mascot.

Writing for the Sydney Morning Herald, Nick O’Malley and Deborah Snow labelled Ardern’s leadership as: A masterclass from New Zealand in responding to terror. They asserted Ardern’s achievements: “If there had been quiet criticism in some circles that she was an inexperienced leader with as much stardust as substance, that has now been put to rest. Ardern has been a commanding figure of poise, compassion and strength, a textbook example to other world leaders about how to respond in the face of mass casualty terrorist attacks.”

I’m quoted in this article, on the strategic nature of Ardern’s careful leadership: “Firstly, she seeks to ensure that the division the gunman sought to sow between New Zealand Muslims and the greater community does not take hold. Secondly, she wants to head off the potential for a culture war inside her country, with elements of the left seeking to identify racism in New Zealand society as the cause of the attack and sections of the right using it to impugn immigration or the Islamic community itself. Thirdly Ardern – no doubt on the advice of police and intelligence agencies – has security implications in mind… By positioning New Zealand itself as the victim of the attack as well as its Muslim community, and by demonstrating unity with that community, Ardern is intent on reducing the potential for revenge attacks.”

Writing on this last point, the Guardian’s Jonathan Powell praises Ardern, saying she has “almost single-handedly managed to avoid the attacks becoming a cause of further tit-for-tat violence around the world” – see: If Jacinda Ardern was in No 10, imagine how different Brexit would be.

Powell’s column compares Ardern and Theresa May, saying both are having “to lead as their countries confront one of the greatest man-made crises they have ever faced.” He imagines a scenario in which the countries have swapped leaders: “If the United Kingdom had been led by Ardern we might still have had Brexit, but we would not have ended up with this national humiliation, a divided society and an imperilled economy. If May had been prime minister of New Zealand at her robotic worst, God knows what would have happened after the massacres.”

Ardern’s very high level of emotional intelligence is cited by Powell as the key strength that has allowed her to triumph. And he explains the importance of this quality for leaders dealing with national tragedies: “That is the sort of intelligence a leader needs. They must be able to understand what people feel and channel it, as Blair did at the time of Princess Diana’s death. Ardern managed that brilliantly in the way she expressed the grief of the people of New Zealand about the mass-murder in the mosques.”

Jamila Rizvi, the editor of Future Women magazine discusses whether Ardern’s “typically feminine behaviour” has served her and New Zealand so well – see: Jacinda Ardern just proved typically ‘feminine’ behaviour is powerful.

Rizvi suggests that Ardern is leading in a very different way to her counterparts, throwing away the “traditional script for a world leader reacting to a terrorist attack on home soil”, which is normally about “power and retribution”. As well as pointing out that Ardern has focused on the victims instead of the perpetrator, and put her energy into fostering unity rather than division, she says Ardern is outwardly-focused, rather than trying to get people to concentrate on her: “Instead, she listens. She comforts not by instruction but by making space for the thoughts and feelings of others.”

And politicians everywhere, male and female, could learn from this: “Authenticity and compassion go beyond gender, or race, or religion, or next week’s polling numbers. Authenticity is an atheist leader donning hijab without thinking about the ‘optics’, but simply because it’s the right and respectful thing to do.”

This leads onto perhaps one of the best international pieces about Ardern’s leadership – Rosa Silverman’s Ardern shows the leadership the world has been missing.

First, Silverman outlines how she sees Ardern’s leadership over this period: “infused with emotional intelligence and warmth, she has thrown her arms around a grieving nation and is visibly striving, with every fibre of her being, to heal its still open wounds. This is what leadership looks like. Sometimes you have to see it up close to understand what it is you have been missing. Ardern has walked hand-in-hand with those affected by the horror – literally, but also figuratively. She has pressed her face against theirs, presenting to the world the most powerful image of unity we could hope a politician might give.”

Silverman also contrasts the New Zealand Prime Minister with Theresa May: “When Britain’s Prime Minister, Theresa May, was confronted with a moment like this – the death of 72 people in the Grenfell Tower fire of June 2017 – her response was precisely the opposite: cold, stilted, detached. She projected none of Ardern’s conviction. She did not even meet with survivors the first time she visited the site. Here was a situation crying out for leadership, which our leader was ill-equipped to offer.”

Other world leaders are also being unfavourably compared to Ardern. The Guardian’s Suzanne Moore said “We have seen the qualities that define leadership in such a way that it is clear she is a lioness and that to call so many of our current leaders donkeys is a disservice to hardworking donkeys the world over” – see: Jacinda Ardern is showing the world what real leadership is: sympathy, love and integrity.

As with many such international pieces, this article seized on Ardern’s smackdown of US President Donald Trump: “Asked directly whether she agreed with Donald Trump that rightwing terrorism was not growing, she answered clearly: ‘No.’ How could the US help? ‘Sympathy and love for all Muslim communities.’ Sympathy and love, what kind of leader talks like that in a world where to be tough is to build walls and imprison children or, on our own shores, elevate intransigence and prevarication to new heights?”

In the international media, Ardern is once again being positioned as the “anti-Trump”, and the Financial Times’ Jamie Smyth elaborates on this saying her recent leadership has “cemented her reputation globally as a standard bearer for progressive politics” – see: Jacinda Ardern’s ‘solace and steel’ seen uniting New Zealand.

This article also emphasises that she “confounded domestic critics by displaying a toughness that some doubted she had, publicly criticising Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan for attempting to exploit the attacks ahead of the country’s upcoming election.”

All of these actions and words have led to many suggestions that Ardern should receive the Nobel Peace Prize. For the best discussion of this, see Stephanie Mitchell’s International petition pushes for Jacinda Ardern to get the Nobel Peace Prize.

There’s no doubt that Ardern’s moral mandate and authority has been enhanced in the last two weeks. Even critics and opponents have been full of praise for her. See, for example, 1News’ Judith Collins praises Jacinda Ardern’s handling of Christchurch attack, showing respect by wearing headscarf.

Rightwing political commentator Matthew Hooton has expressed his huge admiration for Ardern’s performance and has even compared her to his own political heroes: “For the Prime Minister, it is as if all her past life has been but a preparation for this hour and for this trial. In the last week Jacinda Ardern has demonstrated the empathy of Ronald Reagan after the Challenger disaster and the steely resolve of Margaret Thatcher after the Brighton hotel bombing. Consequently, New Zealand will heal faster than it may have otherwise” – see: After Christchurch, Ardern’s moment has come.

As a result, he says, “the political context has changed. The Prime Minister has an opportunity to use her new-found ascendancy to act decisively across a range of issues. If she really believes in a CGT, for example, she can now be more assertive in demanding Winston Peters fall into line. Similarly, she need no longer defend failing programmes like KiwiBuild but has more freedom to replace them.”

This doesn’t mean that there are no criticisms of Ardern at all, and some are now starting to emerge, as reported by Tracy Watkins in her column, Will Jacinda Ardern keep her ‘halo’ once domestic realities resume?

This mainly covers a column this week in The Australian newspaper, in which economist Judith Sloan criticises the “deification” of the New Zealand prime minister while “selectively” ignoring failures of leadership – such as allowing only a relatively small increase in refugees, and very little progress on the flagship KiwiBuild housing programme. You can see Sloan’s critique of Ardern here: Remove the halo and Ardern is ordinary.

Watkins herself notes that such questions “will only get louder” and politics will return to usual for Ardern: “Once the realities of domestic politics intrude – and they have already, after a week-long political truce – those expectations may run far ahead of what Ardern can realistically deliver.”

Finally, there has been one particular photograph of Jacinda Ardern that has stood out in the aftermath of the Christchurch atrocities – a poignant image of a sorrowful leader in mourning behind coloured-glass. The story behind the image is also very interesting – see Glen McConnell’s Face of empathy: Jacinda Ardern photo resonates with the world after terror attack.

OPINION: By Peter S. Kinjap in Port Moresby

Many current Papua New Guinean parliamentarians are highly respected individuals in their own areas – successful in business, education or public service.

With such backgrounds, they routinely attract great respect. This drives their popularity and ability to attract votes when they make known their political aspirations. Voters put their trust in these people.

But when politicians attain public office, their pronouncements, decisions and actions at times may attract criticism and opposition. Politicians must be able to face such scrutiny when they decide to come out of their private life and become public figures.

Many parts of Papua New Guineas have misconceived perceptions of leadership. We mix Melanesian leadership style with Western leadership.

In Melanesia, a leader is one who owns many pigs, marries many wives and contributes greatly to society in terms of wealth-sharing and problem-solving.

With the introduction of the Westminster government system, the perception of leadership was different. PNG’s democratic system provides that any politician or public office holder who is not performing should be able to be questioned by any member of the public.

Recently, many local youths have been led to believe the tribal system or Melanesian perspective should prevail and many lives have been lost in related violence. Injuries have been sustained and homes and families have been destroyed.

Personal attack
This mostly happens when the information on the Western perspective is not disseminated. When we want to raise issues in social media forums (the only medium left for us to openly discuss and express ourselves) some people turn to personal attack or seem to oppose every idea put forward.

To post a question about government services and start debating and creating discussion is not wrong. But in PNG, it seems to be.

Some people think we should respect politicians and not criticise them on social media. Well, I hold the opinion that you can respect them as an individual but as politicians they are answerable to questions by any member of the community.

Holding onto the Melanesian ways of respecting even non-performing public office holders or politicians is totally unacceptable.

Let’s demand what is rightfully ours while still respecting them as private citizens and successful people in their own right.

Let’s know our rights and insist that politicians should act in our interests and then we can accord them our respect.

The more we confuse traditional respect with present day bad behaviour, the more we compromise with corruption.

There is a clear distinction between a Melanesian leadership perception and a Western perception.

The more we confuse ourselves with Melanesian and Western perceptions, the less government services we see in the communities and the more corruption is right in front of us.

Corruption is a real threat to the growth of the nation. It is a double-edged sword that hangs over our head.

Together we must fight against corruption for a better PNG tomorrow.

Corruption threat to PNG – is the death penalty the answer?