Reflections on Confessions of an adviser by Professor Stephen Howes

I have not read Gordon Peake’s book, Unsung Land, Aspiring Nation, but I find his observations as reported by Professor Howes in his article Confessions of an adviser, most instructive.

For me, Peake’s comments about Bougainville resonate loud and clear. In my view, they could just as validly be applied to any province in Papua New Guinea or the Solomon Islands. If that is a fair call, and I argue it is, then what does it tell us about the stated aim of Australia’s new aid program?

I think Peake is correct when he ascribes the disconnect between PNG nation building activities and those responsible for implementation to the influence of clans, land and culture.

Papua New Guinea has been described as a country comprising more than 6,000 clan groups, 836 languages and 22 provinces.

Absent from this description is the fact that more than 90 percent of the land and much of Papua New Guinea’s productive waters is under the unalienable ownership of clans. Tightly knit communities that have maintained their culture, language and independent way of life for centuries.

At least eighty-five percent of the population of nine, or more, million people in PNG lives on clan land that has been passed down through generations and is governed by traditional practices.

Clan or traditional land ownership is power. While land is often described as communal, in reality decisions affecting allocation and use are in the hands of traditionally powerful families. Land is rarely occupied successfully without their approval.

For the foreseeable future the majority of the population will remain dependent upon clan land to build houses, grow food, raise their children and make a little money.

The use of clan land comes with obligations. In keeping with time honoured practice, everyone who receives permission to use it is bound to acknowledge the traditional custodial line by way of feast giving and other actions of reciprocity.

For most rural and urban dwellers, meeting traditional obligations to maintain access and continued tenure for their family and descendants is the central theme of their lives.

Maintaining land rights is a lifelong obligation that places public servants under unrelenting pressure to meet obligations from clan members. It is not unusual for them to be more occupied with this than government business.

Peake also reports that the Bougainville government was "broke'. The same could be said for the provincial administrations of the twenty-one other provinces. All of which are responsible for delivering education, health, law and order and infrastructure services.

Given this, the machinery of government, particularly at local government level where services are delivered has little impact on the lives of the majority of rural people. Nearly five decades after independence most rural communities remain without reliable access to essential services.

So where does this leave our understanding of government, governance and services delivered for all in the best interests of the common good?

In truth, our vision of a government agency staffed with people, who without prejudice, fear or favour, deliver value for money outcomes for the majority of the population, is magical thinking. Further, the notion that this is possible through cash strapped authority in the absence of any significant input from those whose lives they wish to improve is laughable.

The model of service delivery instigated since before independence is the creation of a foreign power and like the introduction of the cane toad in Queensland has proven to be inappropriate for the environment. One flaw was to assume that the powers of public servants working through an alien model carries authority in a customary setting. It does not.

Many who work in government realise this and understand that for practical purposes their roles amount to little effect in the absence of community participation and ownership.

It is not surprising therefore that Peake reports it “was difficult to find someone (of like mind) to work with” and “there wasn’t any interest in facilitating effective government.” I would ask, “effective” from whose perspective, in who’s world view?

Peake notes that water and sanitation projects seemed to fare better in terms of impact and effectiveness. This should not surprise since these activities deliver benefits communities want.

And Peake wonders, if independence is unlikely to make a material difference to the lives of Bougainvilleans, why then did 98% vote for it?

When the land and resources of your ancestors is your inheritance. When the tragic consequences that ensued courtesy of inwards migration of people from other regions to work in foreign owned plantations, coupled by the impact of a foreign owned mine, whose operations permanently poisoned land, rivers and reefs, that paid royalties to a government hundreds of kilometres distant across the sea, that appeared to mismanage the benefits derived from your land, then cutting ties and going independent is a sine qua non.

So where does this leave Australia’s stated aim to focus aid policy on building effective accountable states that can sustain their own development?

I do not pretend to know the answers but riding roughshod over traditional societies in Papua New Guinea or the Solomon Islands in the interests of mining is not one of them.

The historical top down, one size fits all model that has existed for almost fifty years has failed the majority of the population. There is a requirement for a new compact with its citizens. One that is more responsive to the needs of those in traditional settings.

Clans must play a valuable role within the totality of nation building. For them to contribute to the services they desire, services the government cannot deliver within its own resources. Two-way street partnerships of this nature may very well provide economic opportunity, engage youth and strengthen service delivery across multiple locations.

As a starting point I trust the powers in Canberra will listen more earnestly to what the genuine stakeholders have to say before launching into another generational round of activities that history records can result in more harm than good.