Bainimarama wins over Melanesian countries

By Sean Dorney in Port Vila, ABC news

The leaders of Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu have given their full backing to an attempt to have Fiji's suspension from the Pacific Islands Forum lifted.
Fiji's military leader Frank Bainimarama secured their support at a meeting in Port Vila.
At a news conference the chairman of the group, Vanuatu's Prime Minister Edward Natapei, said the leaders praised Commodore Bainimarama's strategic framework for change for Fiji as reflecting a clear vision to achieve sustainable democracy.
That strategic framework would see Commodore Bainimarama stay in power for at least another five years without elections.
Papua New Guinea's Prime Minister, Sir Michael Somare, said he had been convinced that some of Commodore Bainimarama's plans were good for Fiji.
The Melanesian countries say they will take Fiji's case for withdrawing its suspension from the Pacific Islands Forum to next month's leaders' meeting in Cairns.

TI Vanuatu welcomes ruling to curb gifting MPs

Transparency International Vanuatu says it’s encouraged that MPs are finally being held accountable for the practice of gifting in exchange for votes.
The Supreme Court this week ruled that four MPs be removed from parliament after they were found to have used inducements to win their seats in Efate.
It follows a case last year which saw an Epi MP lose his seat for the same reason.
TI’s Marie-Noelle Ferrieux-Patterson says the practice of gifting is widespread in Vanuatu politics and is destroying the parliamentary system.
She says people have to be taught to distinguish between parliament and village.
“I mean citizens have got to be aware or to be taught that they have to elect leaders not on the basis of the number of gifts or positions they get for their community but on the policy of their leaders so we go in a better direction and are better managed than what we are at the moment.”

News Content © Radio New Zealand InternationalPO Box 123, Wellington, New Zealand

Vanuatu PM acts to shore up support

(Australia Network News) Vanuatu's Prime Minister, Edward Natapei, has appointed a new Minister of Lands in an attempt to secure a parliamentary majority ahead of a vote of no confidence against him next week.Radio Australia has confirmed that the member of parliament for Tanna, Hairy Lauko, has left the opposition bloc and been sworn in as the new Lands Minister.His departure, and that of Labour Party MP for Efate, Joshua Kalsakau, mean that both the government and opposition appear to be evenly split, with 26 members each.Earlier this week, the parliamentary speaker, George Wells, crossed the floor with two others after accusing the president's National Union Party of misusing $US400,000 of copra subsidies.The motion of no confidence against Mr Natapei tabled by the opposition on Monday is due to be debated next Tuesday.

Vanuatu government faces no confidence motion

(ABC Radio Australia) Vanuatu's opposition has lodged a motion of no confidence against the government of prime minister Edward Natapei. The news comes just days after the speaker of parliament, George Wells, was expelled from the ruling National United party for accusing trade minister and fellow party member James Bule of misusing $US400,000 in copra subsidies.He has since joined the opposition ranks, taking up to three members of parliament with him.However, the government party on Monday failed to attend a scheduled sitting of parliament, forcing the sitting to be deferred until Thursday. The Deputy Executive Director of the Pacific Institute for Public Policy, Derek Brien, says it appeared the opposition had the numbers to unseat the government."At this stage its looking as if the government has conceded that as of this morning they didn't have the numbers, although the rumour mill abounds throughout the afternoon that the government has taken some of the numbers back so its too early to say what will happen on Thursday," he said.

Vanuatu’s NUP leader expels parliamentary speaker form party

The president of the National United Party in Vanuatu, Ham Lini, has expelled the speaker of parliament, George Wells, from the party and asked him to resign as speaker.
This follows a demand by Mr Wells that Mr Lini, who is the deputy prime minister, punish the trade minister for the alleged misuse of 400,000 US dollars in copra subsidies last year.
But in his letter of dismissal to Mr Wells, Mr Lini accused him and others of plotting against the government claiming they are trying to set up an alternative administration.
Mr Wells has rejected the letter, saying only the party congress has the power to dismiss them.
He also accused Mr Lini of defending the very people who he claimed have been corrupting the party.
News Content © Radio New Zealand InternationalPO Box 123, Wellington, New Zealand

Pacific Islands Bullied by Australian, NZ Trade Officials, Say Experts

AUCKLAND, N.Z.—Tactics employed by Australia and New Zealand to push Pacific Island countries into signing a free trade agreement are a form of “contemporary colonization,” said academic and respected analyst on Pacific Island affairs, Professor Jane Kelsey at a seminar in Auckland last week.Pacific Island officials involved in the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER) negotiations with Australia and New Zealand are worried that they are being pressured into signing an agreement that they do not fully understand, she said.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd at the opening of the Pacific Islands Forum summit in Niue, a tiny Pacific island state of 1,500 people in Aug. 2008. Cook Islands Prime Minister Jim Marurai is in the center. (David Brooks/AFP/Getty Images) PACER is a framework for a free trade deal between Australia, New Zealand, and thirteen Pacific Island nations.At a Forum Leader's meeting in Nuie in August 2008, Australian Trade Minister Simon Crean pushed for free trade negotiations (PACER-Plus) to begin at this year's Pacific Leaders Forum in Cairns. Trade officials were given a mandate to devise a plan for negotiations to begin.This, experts say, signaled a more aggressive approach.Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG) Coordinator, Maureen Penjueli, and Communications Officer, Westley Morgan, say that Australia and New Zealand are fast tracking the process and ignoring wishes previously expressed by officials in Nuie for Forum Island Countries (FICs) to be well-prepared.“Academics in the Pacific are predicting that 80 percent of Pacific manufacturing could close down under PACER-Plus,” said PANG last November, “leading to unemployment for thousands of workers. “Most Pacific countries lack secure social nets, such as state welfare, to assist unemployed workers … “These expected outcomes of PACER-Plus could leave many Pacific people faced with a bleak future.”Vanuatu Minister for Internal Affairs, Patrick Crowby, said the issue cannot be fast-tracked if advisory institutions are not set up. “How will the government fund its essential public services if we lose out on vital revenue? Depend on aid donor money? I don’t think so,” he said to the Vanuatu Post recently. Australia and New Zealand agreed to fund a Trade Advisory Office which could support national consultations and research, but only if the FICs did not seek funding from other quarters.


Professor Kelsey said the funding is inadequate. “It undermines claims that Australia and New Zealand are genuine about helping the Pacific develop trade policy to meet the regions' development needs.”“Those national consultations not only aren't being funded but if Australia and New Zealand have their way there won't be the time to do them properly anyway,” she said. “What we have seen, is a whole lot of behind the scenes practices that are highly manipulative.” The FIC's do not want to go into negotiations while some of their members are still negotiating other free trade deals—the Economic Partnership Agreement that Fiji and Papua New Guinea are involved in, and the World Trade Organization negotiations that Samoa, Vanuatu, and Tonga are involved with.New Zealand's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Murray McCully, announced earlier this month that foreign aid would no longer be directed to “poverty elimination” but linked to trade and economic development and should be compatible with New Zealand's foreign policy.This sort of pressure, says Professor Kelsey, places the Pacific Island nations in an even more vulnerable position.The principal reason for Pacific Island nations participating in free trade negotiations is that they are hopeful that it will lead to the opening of more doors into Australia and New Zealand for temporary migrants. “That is seen as a lifeline,” Kelsey said. “It soaks up unemployment, helps the balance of payment, puts money back into villages and households, as well as potentially creating investors.”“But until you get to the end of the negotiations, you are not going to know what is on the table, and the promises that you made in the process of those negotiations will be very hard to take off the table if you don't get what you thought you might, at the end,” Professor Kelsey said.Despicable treatment during free trade negotiations in the past have taught the Pacific Island nations to tread warily, says Professor Kelsey.Samoa, Vanuatu and Tonga have experienced “unconscionable demands” in their attempt to enter into WTO negotiations—the prospect of unfettered operations by foreign businesses, privatization and big cuts in tariffs that would reduce government revenue, she said. “To date, only Tonga has agreed to pay that price, although a statement out from Vanuatu suggests that they might actually be getting a bit closer to doing so.”The Pacific Island Forum's member states are: Australia, the Cook Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, the Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu. Since 2006, associate members territories are New Caledonia and French Polynesia. Fiji was suspended on 2 May 2009.

(www. Theepochtime.com)

Political climate change

(www.Economist.com) Britain’s legislature needs a vigorous cleansing; but now is not the time to redesign government.

OVER the past century, the British have lost a lot—their empire, their military might, their economic leadership and even their sense of superiority. But they still reckoned that they had one of the best parliaments in the world. The constitution might be a mess, the executive insufficiently checked, but compared with America’s Congress and most of the European systems, Westminster seemed relatively clean.
That is why the revelations of the past two weeks—that MPs have been picking taxpayers’ pockets, pushing the rules to breaking point on second-home mortgage relief, massage chairs, moat-clearing and the like—have been such a shock. The public is apoplectic. The speaker of the House of Commons was obliged to resign on May 19th, the first time since 1695 that a holder of that office had been ejected
Such profound shifts in the political climate are rare. What to do about this one? A vast array of solutions are being rushed forward. Broadly, they fit into three categories. There is an electoral solution: the opposition Tories want a general election to let the people sweep the cursed crooks from office (and themselves into it). There is a range of constitutional reforms, from fewer MPs to proportional representation. And there is institutional spring cleaning—changing the allowances system, improving MPs’ usefulness and getting rid of the most grievous offenders. This newspaper is not afraid of calling for elections or constitutional change, but in this particular situation the emphasis, especially now, should be on the last set of proposals. That is because this crisis—no matter how shameful the offences involved—is institutional, not constitutional.
document.write('');

Going, going, Gordon…
Begin with the idea of an election. The prospect of a fresh start is certainly alluring. These are unsettled times, in Britain as elsewhere. Having been forced, teeth gritted, to support failed bankers in lavish retirement, taxpayers are rightly outraged by the discovery that MPs too have their noses in the trough. Although Britons usually take a dyspeptic view of their representatives, there is a different, bloodier mood now. Giving the people a say would in theory cleanse the system.
There may indeed soon be good reasons for forcing an election—especially if it becomes obvious, as it well might, that Gordon Brown’s spindly government has lost the authority to govern the country. But the expenses crisis, if anything, weakens the argument for a contest now. If an election were called next week, Britain might well end up with a Parliament for the next five years that is defined entirely by its views on claiming for bath plugs, rather than on how to get the country out of the worst recession in 70 years.
The same yes-but-not-now logic applies to the calls for constitutional reform. Some elements in this crisis can indeed be traced back eventually to defects in Britain’s system, notably the drift of power away from Parliament to the executive. But the heart of the matter was much smaller: a shoddy way of dealing with expenses. You could re-engineer great swathes of Westminster—bring in an elected House of Lords, introduce a Bill of Rights, design open primaries for MPs, scrap the first-past-the-post electoral system—and it would not make a shred of difference if the people elected were left in charge of claiming their own expenses amid a “course-you-can-chum” culture. A pile of swimming-pool-cleaning receipts is not a good starting place for constitutional reform.
So focus on making a misused organisation work. Finding a new speaker is the first task. Michael Martin, the incumbent until June 21st, was inept, but it was his refusal to tackle—or even to air publicly—the laxness of the allowances system that did for him. His successor cannot be found among what Lord Rosebery, a prime minister in Queen Victoria’s time, called “the mediocrities of the House”. He or she will need heft to lead reform and to persuade the public to place its trust in a cleaned-up Commons. It is a mark of how bad the graft is now that some otherwise good candidates have been rendered ineligible by their own incontinence on expenses.
The second task is to deal with the most egregious envelope-pushers. Erring MPs cannot escape punishment by offering grovelling apologies and repaying the unjustified expenses they were caught claiming: that would be like letting off a shoplifter who volunteered to return the dress she swiped from Harrods. A few have been punished. Once the evidence is clear, all the rule-breakers should be chucked out of the parties, all the rule-benders dispatched from the front benches.
The third job is changing the way MPs’ finances are regulated. An independent commission is beavering away to come up with ideas for this. All parties have agreed to interim reforms meanwhile, clamping down on what MPs can claim for. Mr Brown’s main thrust is to replace Parliament’s ancient system of self-governance with an external body that would set and police MPs’ allowances. He is probably right in this: self-regulation is on the run in most walks of life, and recent experience of it in Parliament is dispiriting. But transparency will make much more difference than yet another quango. The reason MPs are likely to stay on the straight and narrow is the fact that their claims will henceforward be published online.
The great accounting to come
Do these three things quickly and much of the sting will be drawn. That still leaves room to begin a broad review of the workings of Parliament and to tackle the constitutional issues.
One reason for Westminster’s longer-run woes is that the job of an MP has become less appealing to capable independent minds. Ever more laws are in effect drafted in Brussels these days. A leaching of authority to the executive has left MPs too dependent for advancement on the goodwill of party higher-ups to hold the government to account. That could be corrected by giving more, not less, power to MPs—for instance by setting up permanent committees with long-serving members, more expert staff and power to compel evidence.
As for an election, one is due within a year. Better to save that great accounting for a time when voters care about something bigger than the dodgy expenses of some errant MPs.

(www.Economist.com)