Graham Ring reflects on the 2019 Australian Federal Election
On election day, the people of Australia spoke loudly and clearly, leaving no room for doubt about their priorities. They roared as one, in a voice that echoed from Queensland to all corners of the land: 
“We Want More Stuff!”
“We don’t care much for climate change and the need to protect the environment.”
“We are not interested in the plight of refugees and asylum seekers, beyond the thought that we don’t want them to have what is rightfully ours.”
“We feel the unemployed are letting as down, and we have no interest in increasing the pitifully low level of unemployment benefit.”
“We don’t want our taxes to be spent overseas. We have had the dumb luck to be born in one of the wealthiest countries on earth and we intend to wallow in it.” 
“We believe that the sectors we participate in are entitled to greater government subsidies – which should be funded by taking money from the sectors we don’t participate in.
“We want our taxes to go down and our incomes to go up.”
“This will enable us to Buy More Stuff.”

It’s impossible to avoid the conclusion that most Australians vote in their own short-term self-interest.  “Under which party will I be better off?” is the key question. More esoteric concerns about the kind of community we want to be, and the responsibility we have as custodians of the planet, can take a back seat.  

The Australian middle-class seems to be infected with an entitlement mentality. Despite the fact that our material standard of living has increased enormously in the last fifty years we still want more. A lot more.

As has often been observed, the accumulation of Yet More Stuff somehow doesn’t provide any lasting satisfaction. Clive Hamilton provides much evidence to support this view in his thoughtful book Growth Fetishpublished in 2003 by Allen & Unwin. 
 Australians are rarely moved to seriously examine other options like:

• Moving away from gung-ho development, particularly the wanton exploitation of our finite natural resources.
• Considering the possibility that a slightly reduced ’standard of living’ doesn’t have to equate with a decline in our well-being.
• Commissioning a broad-based panel to review the $38 billion Australia spends on defence each year, to examine whether a proportion of this money could be more effectively spent elsewhere.  
• Seeking a more secular society.  

The Australian Labor Party – and the labour movement more broadly – was perhaps the single greatest force for good in Australia in the twentieth century.  Mighty victories were won. We saw the establishment of one of most progressive social security systems in the world – now being allowed to run down. We saw the introduction of age-pensions and disability pensions, and housing assistance. We saw parliament pass laws to protect the health and safety of people in their workplaces.   We saw a public health care system which is the equal of any in the world. The value of these contributions can never be diminished.

However, the ALP faces a desperate battle to remain relevant in the face of the complex, shifting issues that confront us in the twenty-first century. Labor is hopelessly compromised by the electoral realities of having to gain the support of the We Want More Stuff brigade. Today it is the Greens who offer more in the way of a vision for the future. Is it conceivable that these two progressive parties can find a way to unite and fight the good fight together?  

Lobby groups like Get Up have also have a key role to play, with their demonstrated ability to react quickly and cleverly to developments.  They are both legitimate and purposeful in a pluralist society. There presence is valuable because there is much to be done

​The Federal Election 2019 was a victory only for mediocrity and consumerism.

Graham Ring is a Darwin based writer and journalist.

Pauline Wesolek



SSD Associate Pauline Wesolek specialises in forced displacement and civil society strengthening. She is currently serving as research consultant with the  Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre operated by the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC).

Photo Credit: "Roda was forced to leave her home with her children in search of food and water when drought in Somaliland (Somalia) killed her goats". NRC - 2018


​
Conflicts, disasters and poverty are among the reasons thousands of people flee their homes every year. While, over the past ten years, international attention has focused on cross-border movements, the number of people living in internal displacement - at 41.3 million[i]- is nearly double the number of refugees.[ii]

Internal displacement comes at colossal, long-term human and financial cost. Indeed, internally displaced persons (IDPs) are considered among the most vulnerable people in the world, unable to exert their human rights or achieve durable solutions.[iii]Internal displacement also affects IDP’s ability to contribute to the economy while incurring costs for their government and aid providers.[iv]

Preventing internal displacement is therefore crucial, and one would expect governments - who bear the primary responsibility on the matter - to take all the necessary steps to prevent and mitigate internal displacement. While guiding principles do exist, there are no binding international instruments to ensure adequate measures; and governments show varying levels of commitment. 

The launch of the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement in 1998 was a significant step forward and marked the beginning of the recognition of internal displacement. In fact, the majority of the 28 laws and 56 policies recorded globally in the Global Database on IDP Laws and Policies developed by the Global Protection Cluster[v]at the end of 2018 were developed following the publication of the Guiding Principles. Yet, those frameworks are not necessarily adopted where they are most needed. Syria had 6,119,000 IDPs in 2018[vi]but does not have a framework addressing internal displacement. India is regularly hit by disasters, yet its National Disaster Management Plan does not refer to internal displacement. 

Moreover, political frameworks tend to limit their ambitions to the provision of assistance to IDPs and the creation of the conditions for durable solutions, thus focusing on mitigating the consequences of internal displacement rather than addressing its root causes. The importance of those frameworks cannot, however, be overlooked, for they are key to the fulfilment of IDPs’ rights. The existence of policy frameworks and the efforts deployed to develop and implement them are also indicators of a government’s political will to address internal displacement.

Implementation remains a challenge and can be hampered by a lack of financial and technical capacities, the absence of political momentum and inaccurate data. The discrepancies between the existence of IDP policies and laws and the number of IDPs in protracted situations suggest that this is often the case.  For instance, Yemen adopted a comprehensive National Policy for Addressing Internal Displacement in 2013. The framework aims to prevent internal displacement associated with disasters and conflicts and to promote durable solutions, but does not have a clear financing plan. Yet, at 2,324,000,[vii]the number of IDPs in Yemen represents 8 percent of the country’s population, steadily pushed towards a protracted situation. Yemen is not an isolated case and a significant fraction of the countries which have adopted comprehensive frameworks do not have adequate financing and implementation plans, or the necessary capacity and political will.

Alternatively, the reason policy frameworks may fail to prevent and respond to internal displacement could lie in the fact that there is a need for a more comprehensive approach, which goes beyond a focus on triggers to address root causes. Conflicts and disasters are mere triggers of displacement. Indeed, research conducted by the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre[viii]highlights that displacement results from a combination of accumulated vulnerabilities, such as difficult socio-economic conditions, poor governance, inadequate infrastructure or inappropriate environmental management, themselves causing the event that ultimately pushes people to flee. This is particularly true in instances of natural hazards, for the development of disaster risk reduction policies, combined with appropriate investment in hazard-resistant infrastructure, could reduce people’s vulnerability to climatic events and, by extension, their need to flee in case of disaster. The causality is not as clear in the case of conflicts, which often result from more complex dynamics. However, addressing land issues, poverty and political stability could contribute to reducing risks. 

Because of the complexity of its causes and triggers, internal displacement cannot always be avoided. Nonetheless, preventive measures and a comprehensive approach encompassing human development, economic vulnerability, environmental sustainability and political stability can contribute to mitigating its scale. To achieve this, internal displacement should be mainstreamed in national development plans, poverty reduction strategies and disaster risk reduction plans.[ix]Global initiatives such as the Sustainable Development Goals, which have targets for human development, environmental sustainability and refer to internal displacement, can also contribute towards this without adding pressure on governments. 

The international community should push for the adoption of binding instruments reaffirming the rights of IDPs at the regional and global levels. The Kampala Convention – first legal binding instrument addressing internal displacement – has proven to be a good leverage for advocacy and policy development. Such frameworks must of course be domesticated into national policies or mainstreamed into existing frameworks and reform agendas in order to meet local realities. In fact, mainstreaming internal displacement in all sectors would allow for the comprehensive approach necessary for its prevention. It would also facilitate implementation, for focal points and financing mechanisms would already be in place.

The existence of frameworks, however, means very little without the adequate implementing capacity. It is therefore crucial for key players in the sector to help governments reinforce their conceptual understanding of internal displacement, design monitoring tools and strengthen their response capacities. Donors should put internal displacement higher in their priorities and avail resources for technical capacity reinforcement. The challenges are significant and the means to address and respond to internal displacement should be proportional to the amplitude of the crisis.

Notes/References
[i]This figure refers to the number of IDPs displaced by conflict as of the end of 2018.

[ii]IDMC, Global Report on International Displacement 2019, 2019.

[iii]Durable solutions mark the end of internal displacement and consist in three options: voluntary repatriation, local integration and resettlement. When durable solutions are achieved, assistance and protection needs, as well as potential violations of human rights associated with displacement do no longer exist.

[iv]IDMC, Unveiling the cost of internal displacement, February 2019.

[v]Global Protection Cluster, Global Database on IDP Laws and Policies

[vi]IDMC, Global Report on International Displacement 2019, 2019. 

[vii]IDMC, Global Report on International Displacement 2019, 2019. 

[viii]IDMC, Global Report on Internal Displacement 2018, 2018.

[ix]IDMC, Global Report on Internal Displacement 2018, 2018.

​





​
      The parliament among the palms: Nerve-centre of a functioning administration, or monument to a failed experiment?                                           

It’s seven o’clock in the evening on Territory Day 2018. Today is the fortieth anniversary of self-government in the Northern Territory and the good people of Darwin are celebrating by setting fire to things.

Bungers are exploding all around. Children scream and dogs bark as fire trucks roll through suburban streets extinguishing spot fires started by the crackers.  The dedicated professionals in the Emergency Department at Royal Darwin Hospital prepare for a long night and wonder just how extensive the casualty list will be this year.  

Is today the day when a child is so badly hurt that the NT Government will have no alternative other than to ban the infantile practice of exploding fireworks? There is a good reason that this action has been taken long ago in the more mature and sophisticated jurisdictions to the south. 

The smell of gunpowder hangs heavy in the air, along with a lingering feeling that self-government in the Territory has failed. It may well be time to ‘hand back the keys’.

In Canberra, where roundabouts are plentiful and shops hard to find, there are bucketsful of capable administrators who are unimpeded by four-year electoral cycles.  They have no truck with absurdly romantic notions of Territorians as croc-hunting, frontier dwellers. Nor do they pine for the silver bullet – be it space-base, waterpark, or super-sized crocodile, constructed entirely of empty VB cans – which will put the economy back on its feet.

They are middle-class, middle-aged men in grey suits who work dispassionately – if unimaginatively - through the problems and come up with the best available solution. Men without advertising spiels.  Men without extravagant dreams of unimaginable prosperity for the denizens of the Gateway to Asia. Men who just do a job. 

And in the Territory, we need people to just do a job. No more pandering to pipe-dreams. We need an end to the desperate desire for dramatic development. We can’t eat hyperbole. We need less reaching for the stars and more balancing of the books.  

Like the original settlers at Port Essington we’ve struggled hard and unearthed a few good performers along the way. But like those same pioneers, we too must admit defeat and come to terms with the fact that the venture has gone belly-up.  There is no shame in making a strategic retreat once one’s best efforts have proven inadequate. But to blunder on indefinitely is the political equivalent of trading insolvent.

A bright young woman with impressive educational qualifications was recently promoted into the NT cabinet. She has been a very good teacher - though not a principal - in the bush.  Her new job is to manage an education department with a billion-dollar budget and four thousand staff. Reflecting on the lack of managerial experience of this new minister, our American cousins may well call this a ‘sub-optimal’ approach to government.
 
There is a school of thought which has it that here in the Deep North the administration of education is essentially the province of bureaucrats – that all the money is already earmarked to pay the salaries of teachers and public servants, so it doesn’t much matter what the minister does.    

Not so. The single greatest problem facing the NT is the failure of Aboriginal children to get a good education. They don’t go to school, they don’t learn, they don’t pass exams, and consequently they don’t enjoy the same life choices as their non-Indigenous contemporaries. The vicious circle lies unbroken.

Education policy is our most pressing problem, and our finest minds must be tasked with finding a solution. The young woman mentioned above may well be one of these minds. In a larger jurisdiction she would be nurtured rather than thrown to the wolves.    

This is not a party-political matter. The limitations of our tiny population, and the tyranny of distance confront governments of both political persuasions equally. Successive administrations have lost control of the Territory budget as the deficit heads for the stratosphere.  Interest payments on our massive and ever-growing debt hang like a millstone around the neck of an economy whose time is at hand. 

The Territory’s former Chief Commissioner of Police has new accommodations at the Darwin Correctional Centre where he is serving a gaol sentence for perverting the course of justice. High rates of assaults and burglaries are an indication that all is not well in a community. But the corruption of a society’s systems and institutions is portent of mortal danger.

In Darwin, our economy lies bedraggled and beaten, mugged once again by the harsh reality of the boom-bust cycle of resource-based investments. Retail in the city lies in tatters, as itinerants beat out the death-march on improvised percussion instruments. Property prices plummet, in lock-step with business confidence.  The Inpex party lasted for five years – as stated on the invitations - and we all had a good time. But the party is over now and the only thing on the horizon is thunderheads.

The NT’s own-source revenue struggles towards a pitiful 30%. We are kept afloat only by GST money showered on us in abundance by a generous commonwealth. The NT - with 1% of Australia’s population - receives 4.7% of the nation’s GST distribution. Good thing too. 

It’s time for us to swallow our pride and beg Canberra to ride to the rescue. It’s time for us to beckon the grey-suited men. It’s time for us to offer contrite apologies for our profligacy, tug on our respective forelocks, and hand back the keys. 

We are really pleased that the Papua New Guinea National newspaper decided to feature our PNG Companion Product Condom Distribution (CPCD) project in their weekend edition, published 11 May 2018 (p.5).
​
​A readable image of the printed edition (you need to click on the link) is pasted below. An online version, which includes less detail, can be accessed here.   

Thanks to Glenda Awikiak and the team at the PNG National for this feature!

We are delighted to present the Final Evaluation of the Papua New Guinea Companion Product Condom Distribution (CPCD) trial, which includes a Foreword by the newly appointed Director of the PNG National AIDS Council Secretariat (NACS), Dr Nick Dala. 

​The CPCD project trialled the distribution of condoms included in the packaging of companion products (soap) as a strategy for overcoming logistical challenges associated with the distribution of condoms in rural PNG. Specifically, the project distributed condoms in the packaging of a utilitarian line of soap produced locally by Colgate Palmolive, thereby piggybacking on an existing supply chain in order to efficiently transfer condoms to the village-store level of the PNG economy. The trial  operated in the provinces of Milne Bay, Simbu and Jiwaka.
 
Following the encouraging results of an initial Pre-Trial Pilot Study undertaken in 2013, the live trial commenced in April 2015, after the preparation of a range of BCE materials including awareness posters, television and radio segments featuring kickboxing identity Stanley Nandex. 

The CPCD trial ended up running into 2017, with the  fieldwork informing the evaluation posted on this page taking place in the July-August 2016 period. The evaluation is being released now following the recent appointment of Dr Nick Dala as Director of NACS, after an extended period during which NACS was without a Director. 

In his Forward to the Evaluation, Dr Dala (formerly PNG National Department of Health STI/HIV Manager) notes that the trial has 'demonstrated proof of concept', as well as ways 'in which the CPCD approach can be improved'. Dr Dala observes that 'the future expansion of the CPCD project will depend on new partnerships both at national and regional levels', and encourages 'businesses at all levels' to work with PNG health authorities to 'help make universal access to means of protection against HIV, other STIs and unwanted pregnancies a reality in PNG'.

We join Dr Dala in thanking Colgate Palmolive for participating in the initial trial, and also to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) for their support of the media element and NACS itself for supporting the coordination, monitoring and evaluation of the trial.  

Graham Ring reviews Kim McGrath’s new book, Crossing the Line: Australia's Secret History in the Timor Sea

There is only one photograph in Kim McGrath’s new book, Crossing the Line. It’s an infamous 1989 shot of Australia’s then foreign minister Gareth Evans and his Indonesian counterpart Ali Alatas, drinking champagne in a jet over the Timor Sea. They had just signed the Timor Gap Treaty, purporting to divide the gas and oil revenue in the rich fields located off the south coast of Indonesian-occupied East Timor. The author describes it as ‘one of the most ill-conceived media events in Australian political history’. 

Crossing the Line is a forensic account of negotiations around the ‘Timor Gap’ area off the coast of East Timor - the last part of Australia’s enormous maritime boundary still to be settled. The author has made a painstaking search of the Australian Archives and relies significantly on the Australian Government’s own documents for her source material.

She reminds us that at 2 am on Sunday 7 December 1975, Indonesian naval vessels shelled areas east and west of Portuguese Timor’s capital of Dili.  Hundreds of Indonesian paratroopers dropped from the sky over Dili and carnage ensued.  The population of the country fell from 650,000 to less than 500,000 in the years following the invasion –significantly a result of killings by Indonesian soldiers, and famine imposed as a political weapon.

​This grim history is well-known, but the focus of McGrath’s fluent 200-page paperback, is the attitude taken by successive Australian governments to the invasion of East Timor - and its subsequent quarter-century occupation by Indonesian forces.  It’s an uncomfortable read for Australians as the author chronicles the actions taken – and not taken - in the name of ‘Australia’s national interest’. 

It’s abundantly clear that Gough Whitlam was aware of the impending Indonesian invasion in the months before his own demise in 1975. His government acquiesced because of an assumed political stability which an Indonesian-ruled East Timor would bring to the region.  The rogues’ gallery who succeeded Whitlam – Fraser, Hawke, Keating and Howard – acquiesced in turn, for an even more unsavoury reason. A compliant Indonesian Government would offer favourable Timor Gap terms, generating billions of dollars of gas and oil revenue for Australia. In the national interest.

It’s safe to assume that - in the absence of huge prospective revenues from the gas fields -the Australian Government would have joined the great majority of nations in condemning the Indonesian invasion. It also seems likely that – in the circumstances where projected revenues numbered in the millions of dollars rather than billions of dollars - the result would have been the same. This begs the ugly but inescapable conclusion that a macabre calculation was done by Australian politicians and bureaucrats. This could only have involved offsetting the extent of public outrage about the likely number of executions, rapes, and incidents of torture, against the projected revenue the gas fields were likely to generate for Australia.
 
A strong stomach must be needed to undertake such calculations. But clearly, such cost-benefit assessments of this nature must have been conducted repeatedly in the years following the 1975 invasion, to determine the appropriate course of action. In the national interest.

Given that we live in a representative democracy it seems reasonable that our Government provide its citizens with some detail about the way in which these sums were done. Then we can make a judgement at the ballot box about whether we are getting the kind of government we want. The only alternative would be for Australia to undertake to respond to such circumstances by doing what is morally right, without regard to calculations based on projected resource revenues.
 
Footnote: On 3 September 2017, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague announced that East Timor and Australia had reached agreement over the disputed territory, however details remain confidential.

Crossing the Line is published by Black Inc. and retails for $22.99
​

Graham Ring
In the age of the internet we are deluged by huge volumes of information delivered at hitherto undreamt-of speeds. Media outlets are driven by an imperative to report on events literally as they are occurring.  The speed at which everything must happen to make good the promise to be “first at five” makes mistakes inevitable. Little heed is given to context – an explanation of the circumstances surrounding an event – in a world where immediacy is king.  There just isn’t time.

How then are we to triage, analyse, and assess the information flooding over us? One ugly answer is that information has become so transitory and disposable that there is no need to bother. If you don’t like the piece you’re reading don’t worry - another one will be along in a minute. Mr Zuckerberg is refining his algorithms so skilfully you can be certain that opinions reinforcing your existing views are already speeding towards your computer.

Life is busy, and this is a convenient way for us to receive the kind of news and opinions we want. But do we have a duty also to receive the news and opinions that we don’t want? Without doing so, how can we make a thoughtful assessment about a matter? Are we letting other people do our thinking for us?

There is a grim irony that - at a time when information is more available than ever before - the respectful contesting of ideas is in precipitous decline. Apart from an opposable thumb, a rational mind is the thing that elevates us above the beasts. If we choose not to properly inform our rational mind then the consequences are uncomfortable.

I recently attended a forum where a speaker posited that “Indigenous people were under-represented in the Northern Territory Parliament”. He presented no data to establish his contention, nor did he indicate what the appropriate level of representation should be. These convenient oversights absolved him of the need to suggest a method by which this alleged under-representation could be overcome.

Later he would excoriate the NT Government for subsidising the Red Centre Nats car show in Alice Springs, and the AFL football games in Darwin. “What role does the government have in subsidising private undertakings of this kind?” he asked rhetorically.

The cases were both very weak. But neither was contested by an audience comprised of people obviously sympathetic to the two propositions. Today a great deal of our discussion occurs in various echo-chamber environments, where speakers ‘preach to the choir’,  and audiences have their views reinforced in a warmly satisfying way.

Indeed, we should be open to listening to the case for greater representation of Indigenous people in parliament - provided the proponent has established with something beyond bombast that the current level of representation is inadequate.

We should also be open to the argument that it is not effective for the government to subsidise private leisure industries – but not on the basis that this is axiomatically wrong. It’s likely that the NTG thinks that their investment in these sporting events provides a net economic return to the Northern Territory, and perhaps some social good as well.  Anyone who wishes to disagree with the view ought to be welcome to present their data and substantiate their case.

But that’s not the way we do business anymore. What is missing is the respectful contesting of ideas in the public space. The cited example was from a forum traditionally inclined to the left of politics, but this myopic malaise is not confined to either side of the political spectrum.

We subscribe to the media outlets that reflect our world view. We join chat-rooms and mailing lists to that we can receive the sort of material that confirms our pre-determined positions. This is both understandable and worrying. 

Our ideas are rarely questioned. There is little call for positions to be explained or justified. The skills of civility and respectful exchange are fading from atrophy.  Witness the rise of internet trolls, hateful graffiti, and tweets of rant rather than reason. The technical skills of respectful discussion and debate are in dramatic decline.  

We are losing the fundamental politeness of formulations like ‘In my view’ and ‘I believe that’. We frequently fail to listen carefully to someone who holds a contrary view – and to invite them to clarify and elaborate on their position. We no longer possess the wit to identify and expose verbal chicanery.

There is something admirable about individuals displaying absolute loyalty to the policies of their chosen political party. But these devotees who hold the line against any criticism of any policy, ultimately do their party - and the broader community - a dis-service.

Good public policy is generated by robust – but not rancorous – exchange of honestly-held views.  We desperately need to rediscover these skills.

Rod Nixon[i]
​Introduction
The purpose of International Sustainability Standards Schemes (ISSSs) is to verify that businesses comply with minimum social and environmental standards, no-matter where a product is produced or sourced. ISSSs clearly have potential in low resource or fragile state contexts, where they can substitute for state social and environmental monitoring and regulatory mechanisms that may be absent, poorly resourced, lacking in transparency, or otherwise ineffective. However, logical contradictions come into play when the process of gaining certification with a standards scheme in such a context requires evidence of compliance with state administrative processes that may lack rigour. This situation raises the issue of the extent to which ISSSs should be complicit in reinforcing the authority of public officials in jurisdictions known to be at risk of producing dysfunctional and/or corrupt public administration outcomes. There is a strong argument in such contexts for ISSSs to minimise reliance on compliance with the requirements of public sector agencies and utilise alternative means of verification wherever possible.
 
What are International Sustainability Standards Schemes (ISSSs)
ISSSs exist for the purpose of assuring consumers, regulators, and other interested parties that particular goods and services have been produced in compliance with minimum environmental and social standards. The origins of ISSSs lie in the increasing social and environmental awareness of recent decades, which have also been reflected in legislative changes in developed countries. Notable among the latter is the 2008 amendment to the (United States) Lacey Act prohibiting the import and trade of fish, wildlife and plant products sourced in violation to laws anywhere.[ii]
 
Broadly, certification schemes are intended to verify that production processes have not involved labour exploitation or the unsustainable management of natural resources, that land has been accessed only with the Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) of landholders, and that production has occurred in compliance with prevailing laws in the countries of origin (which for reasons outlined below, could perhaps be better thought of, as not illegally).
 
Examples of organisations offering standards certification include the following:

• Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)
• Rainforest Alliance Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN),
• Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), and
• Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), which certifies sustainable fishing activities.

 
Standards schemes are not restricted to primary industries; for example the certification of sustainable tourism ventures is possible through the Global Sustainable Tourism Council (GSTC). ISSSs normally provide certification based on external audit, the objective of which is to determine observance of a range of principles and criteria through verification of compliance with specific indicators (which may include laws). There are also meta-programs that specialise in monitoring and accrediting entire standards schemes to ensure their robustness. These include the International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling Alliance (ISEAL).
 
ISSSs and Fragile State Contexts
ISSSs would appear to have considerable potential for improving public administration outcomes in low resource or fragile state contexts where existing monitoring and regulatory frameworks are weak or non-existent.[iii] In such contexts, certification of commercial operations by ISSSs can ideally contribute to islands of functional public administration in contexts more broadly characterised by administrative variability or neglect. In the process, communities gain exposure to more robust standards, and conceivably may raise their expectations of the performance of both business and government.
 
However, in the event that certification with an international standards scheme requires that an operator demonstrate compliance with the requirements of one or more national government agency in a low resource/fragile state context, then a paradoxical situation may arise. On one hand, if compliance procedures administered by a national government agency are efficient, effective and robust, then the context may not be consistent with the low resource/fragile state typology (potentially meaning that the role of the ISSS in this context is redundant). On the other hand, if compliance procedures administered by a national government agency are not administered robustly (due to indolence, a lack of capacity, resources or transparency, or some combination of factors) then the compliance of the operator with the administrative procedures may serve little or no purpose in assuring adherence to sustainability principles, if indeed the agency even bothers to prepare appropriate documentation.[iv]
 
Perversely, a requirement to achieve documented compliance with a particular administrative procedure administered by a dysfunctional agency, as a requisite for certification with an ISSS, may even incentivise an otherwise bona fide operator to bribe an agency for compliance documentation. This would be contrary to the principles underlying all ISSSs and is a key point given the delays often experienced in low resource/fragile state contexts. In such environments it is not uncommon to experience prolonged delays in dealings with officials assigned legal competence (see Papua New Guinea example discussed below). Very high demands and expectations are commonly placed on any high-performing and responsive individuals who may work in such agencies, and such persons can be feted especially by international organisations. The clear absence of a broader functioning Weberian bureaucracy becomes starkly apparent every time such individuals are relocated or are temporarily absent.
 
Legalities and Realities
Palm oil is produced in equatorial regions, mostly in developing countries, and the industry has its own standards scheme. The Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) is a non-profit entity involving a range of industry stakeholders, which certifies sustainable palm oil production based on compliance by companies with ‘a set of environmental and social criteria’.[v] In the following paragraphs, criteria relating to legal compliance generally, and land tenure especially, are considered.
 
Beginning with legal compliance broadly, under RSPO Principles and Criteria 2.1 ‘[e]vidence of compliance’ is required ‘with all applicable local, national and ratified international laws and regulations’.[vi] Meanwhile, 2.2 requires that ‘[d]ocuments showing legal ownership or lease, history of land tenure ownership/control, and the actual legal use of the land…’ be available.[vii] At face value such requirements, clearly calculated to ensure that an operator is violating no laws, appear well intended. However, of the 18 ‘Grower certification’ countries listed on the RSPO website (RSPO 2017), only two (Costa Rica and Malaysia) score above the 2016 average score of 43 in the Transparency International (TI) 2016 Corruption Perception Index (TI 2017), which ranks countries from ‘0 (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean)’. The majority of the RSPO ‘Grower certification’ countries score on or below this ‘global average score’ of 43, which indicates ‘endemic corruption in a country's public sector.’[viii] For this reason, countries scoring 43 or less might be considered ‘higher risk’ jurisdictions, suggesting reason to question the integrity of formal land tenure documentation processes in these countries and the capacity of government agencies generally (although this may vary across agencies).
 
Of the 16 higher risk RSPO ‘Grower certification’ countries, national interpretations (documents outlining how the RSPO standard will be applied in a particular country context) are available on the RSPO website for Columbia, Ghana, Guatemala, Honduras, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea (PNG), Solomon Islands and Thailand. The general legal compliance and land tenure provisions of these documents are similar, although Thailand and Solomon Islands differ from the norm in the number and importance (major or minor status) of land indicators. With the exception of Thailand (which uses different wording), the guidance on ‘laws and regulations’ specifies that ‘Implementing all legal requirements is an essential baseline requirement…’[ix]
 
PNG is alone of the eight higher risk countries in that it features ‘Specific Guidance’ (under 2.2 on land) which expressly recognises performance issues associated with a government agency, noting (emphasis added) that ‘[i]n PNG, the issuance of land titles…can take several years, and has proven an unpredictable process. Cases have been recorded where valid requests have taken over twenty-years to be processed….’ The guidance, outlined below, then specifies a number of measures less reliant on a response from a government agency which, if fulfilled in combination, demonstrate compliance with the land access provisions:
 
'a)  the land has been alienated; 

b)  boundaries have been defined by a registered surveyor and portion 
numbers allocated by the Surveyor General; 

c)  there is no dispute over tenure…; 

d)  there is evidence that an application has been submitted to the 
relevant Government authority (Provincial Division of Lands and 
Physical Planning); and 

e)  there is evidence of follow-up to the authorities on more than one 
occasion.’

 
This particular ‘specific guidance’ is a recent addition to the PNG RSPO national interpretation, and it is clearly aimed at particular cases involving undisputed parcels of land previously alienated from customary tenure (almost certainly during the colonial period) over which ‘boundaries have been defined by a registered surveyor and portion 
numbers allocated by the Surveyor General’. The reference to ‘evidence of follow-up to the authorities on more than one occasion’ is a refreshingly frank reference to the sub-optimal outcomes and lack of responsiveness frequently associated with attempts to communicate with government agencies in higher risk jurisdictions for the purpose of advancing matters in accordance with due process. The reality is that in any jurisdiction characterised by endemic corruption, a single competent agency may, depending on the commitment to transparent and efficient service of the incumbent staff, as well as other fickle aspects including the status of fuel allowances, vehicle availability, printer ink, telephone lines, etc., be capable of furnishing compliance-related documentation promptly, within weeks, in 20 years, or at no foreseeable time. For ISSSs, the probability of corruption and other forms of administrative dysfunction in higher risk jurisdictions begs the question of whether the identification of indicators less dependent on action by government agencies should be prioritised broadly in relation to higher risk contexts, and across all or most criteria (at least as alternatives, if not as indicators of first resort).
 
The expectation that officials in endemically corrupt jurisdictions will operate competently extends to other sustainability standards approaches. The Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) between the European Union (EU) and the Republic of Liberia (2016 TI score 37), for example, charges the Liberian police with checking ‘that all loads passing checkpoints have the required waybills with them’. Already skilled at checking for fire extinguishes, safety triangles, working headlights, etc., as a basis for extorting drivers unfortunate enough to have neglected any of these areas, there is no question that Liberian police officers will relish all additional responsibilities.[x] But should international standards programs of any kind be complicit in adding to the authority of public officials already well known for venal and predatory behaviour, or should standards schemes be endeavouring to keep engagements with public sector officials to an absolute minimum at least until such time as public sector performance levels in particular jurisdictions reach minimum standards?
 
Practical Approaches
The land tenure revisions to the PNG RSPO national interpretation demonstrate efforts to facilitate compliance using a more flexible, less legalistic approach; one clearly adopted in recognition of the non-responsiveness of the competent government agency. The requirement that ‘boundaries have been defined by a registered surveyor and portion
numbers allocated by the Surveyor General’ still requires a level of state functionality, but less than previous requirements.
 
Elsewhere, the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) has taken a more systematic approach to enabling certification of compliance through verification of alternative (non-legalistic) indicators. For example, the ‘Governance and policy’ component of the MSC Standard Principle 3 on Management Systems refers to the requirement for a ‘Legal and/or customary framework’ for ensuring the sustainability of fisheries that is ‘appropriate and effective’. Although the specific indicators included in the ‘Governance and policy’ section refer primarily to the existence of a ‘national legal system’ meeting minimum standards, the general guidance on Principle 3 (under SA4.1.4) implies that assessment teams are not limited to state laws provided they provide sufficient evidence concerning the effectiveness of alternative management systems (MSC 2014:65):
 
‘When scores are based on the consideration of informal or traditional management systems, the team shall provide, in the rationale, evidence demonstrating the validity and robustness of the conclusions by:
a.     Using different methods to collect information.
b.     Cross checking opinions and views from different segments of the stakeholder community.'
 
The regard for ‘traditional or informal management systems’ in the MSC Standard is certainly not without precedent in sustainability initiatives. For example, the US Lacey Act (2008) also refers to the authority of ‘Indian Tribal Law’ in areas of US jurisdiction, in relation to dealings in fish, wildlife and plants.
 
ISSSs in an Imperfect World
Writing on the burgeoning number of new states in the second half of the 20th Century, post-Empire, historian Niall Ferguson (2004:372-373) remarks that ‘…many…are tiny. No fewer than fifty-eight…have populations less than 2.5 million; thirty-five have less than 500,000 inhabitants’. Noting the ‘economic disruption’ inherent in the fact that many small countries, post-1945, originated out of ‘civil war within an earlier multi-ethnic polity’ Ferguson remarks that such countries ‘can be economically inefficient even in peacetime, too small to justify all the paraphernalia of statehood they insist on decking themselves out in: border posts, bureaucracies and the rest’. Moreover, it is not just small states that struggle to achieve quality public administration outcomes. Realising effective and transparent public administration remains a challenge facing a great number of countries, and Transparency International reported in the their 2016 Corruption Perception Index report (TI 2017) that ‘[m]ore countries declined than improved…’.
 
Assuming that the realisation of effective and transparent public administration remains a medium-to-long term project across a host of nations in the developing world, ISSSs can a play an important role in advancing robust social and environmental monitoring and regulation systems in places that currently lack it. ISSSs might increase their workability in fragile state/low resource contexts by keeping the need for national agency compliance documentation to an absolute minimum, increasing recognition of bona fide attempts by operators to comply with state law even in the absence of cooperation and responsiveness on the part of state agencies, and expanding the option of greater consultation with traditional authorities/village leaders, civil society actors, and community members as a basis for measuring compliance.
 
Conclusion
International Sustainability Standards Systems (ISSS) hold potential as a means of ensuring that businesses comply with minimum social and environmental standards in low resource/fragile state contexts. Arguably it is in these contexts where ISSSs can make the greatest contribution. There is, however, an inherent contradiction in requiring compliance documentation from poorly resourced government agencies in high risk jurisdictions, and a possibility that such requirements will actively encourage otherwise bona fide business operators to bribe civil servants for documentation that might otherwise not be forthcoming. For this reason, it is important for ISSSs to keep requirements for national agency compliance documentation to an absolute minimum, as well as to recognise bona fide attempts by operators to comply with state law even in the absence of any response by the agency concerned, and expand options for consultation with traditional authorities/village leaders and community members as a basis for measuring compliance.
 
 
References
DNSS (Donor Network on Sustainability Standards). N.D. ‘Standards Systems as Effective Tools to Promote Sustainable Development – Opportunities for Governments’ Involvement’. Draft policy brief produced by the DNSS partnership involving the Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO) and German GIZ (Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit or Society for International Cooperation).

Ferguson, Niall. 2004. Empire: How Britain made the Modern World. Penguin: London.
 
MSC (Marine Stewardship Council). ‘MSC Fisheries Standard and Guidance v2.0…’. MSC document dated 1 October 2014. Sighted 11 March 2017 at https://www.msc.org/documents/scheme-documents/fisheries-certification-scheme-documents/fisheries-standard-version-2.0 
 
RSPO (Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil). 2017. ‘Certified Growers’ (list dated 28 February 2017). Sighted at http://www.rspo.org/certification/certified-growers 11 March 2017.
 
- 2016a. ‘RSPO Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Palm Oil Production: Papua New Guinea National Interpretation...’ PNG RSPO national interpretation document dated 21 March 2016. Sighted at https://www.rspo.org/key-documents/certification/rspo-national-interpretations 10 March 2017.
 
- 2016b. ‘Columbian National Interpretation of the RSPO 2013 Principles and Criteria…’ Columbian RSPO national interpretation document dated September 2016. Sighted at https://www.rspo.org/key-documents/certification/rspo-national-interpretations 10 March 2017.
 
- 2015a. ‘National Interpretation of the …RSPO Principles and Criteria of the Republic of Honduras…’ Honduras RSPO national interpretation document dated July 2015. Sighted at https://www.rspo.org/key-documents/certification/rspo-national-interpretations 10 March 2017.
 
- 2015b. ‘RSPO Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Palm Oil Production: Papua New Guinea National Interpretation...’ PNG RSPO national interpretation document dated 7 August 2015. Author’s collection.
 
- 2015c. ‘Ghana National Interpretation of RSPO Principles and Criteria…’ Ghana RSPO national interpretation document dated September 2016. Sighted at https://www.rspo.org/key-documents/certification/rspo-national-interpretations 10 March 2017.
 
- 2015d. ‘National Interpretation of …RSPO Principles and Criteria of the Republic of Guatemala …’ Guatemala RSPO national interpretation document dated December 2015. Sighted at https://www.rspo.org/key-documents/certification/rspo-national-interpretations 10 March 2017.
 
- 2013. ‘Indonesian National Interpretation of RSPO Principles and Criteria …’ Indonesian national interpretation document dated July 2013. Sighted at https://www.rspo.org/key-documents/certification/rspo-national-interpretations 10 March 2017.
 
- 2011. ‘Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) Principles and Criteria for Thailand...’ Thailand RSPO national interpretation document dated June 2011. Sighted at https://www.rspo.org/key-documents/certification/rspo-national-interpretations 10 March 2017.
 
- 2010. ‘National Interpretation of RSPO Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Palm Oil Production: Independent State of Solomon Islands.’ Solomon Islands RSPO national interpretation working group document dated August 2010. Sighted at https://www.rspo.org/key-documents/certification/rspo-national-interpretations 10 March 2017.
 
TI (Transparency International). 2016. ‘Corruption Perception Index 2016’ (released 25 January 2017). Sighted at http://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2016 11 March 2017.
 
- 2015. ‘People and Corruption: Africa Survey 2015.’ TI survey released December 2015 sighted at http://www.corruptionwatch.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Africa-survey-2015-Global-Corruption-Barometer.pdf 15 March 2017.
 
US Congress. 2008. 18 USC 42-43 16 USC 3371-3378 Lacey Act. Sighted at https://www.fws.gov/international/laws-treaties-agreements/us-conservation-laws/lacey-act.html 9 March 2017.
 
US Department of Agriculture. 2016. See ‘Lacey Act: Frequently Asked Questions…’. US Department of Agriculture document dated 28 April 2016, sighted at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/lacey_act/downloads/faq.pdf 9 March 2017.

Notes
[i] The author is grateful to Shane Cave, Ben Nixon, Yemi Oloruntuyi, Dr Howard Rogers and Graham Ring for comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Any errors, inaccuracies and omissions are the responsibility of the author alone.

[ii] Note that the ‘Prohibited Acts’ section of the legislation refers to ‘violation of any foreign law’ in relation to ‘fish or wildlife’, but not in relation to plants. Notwithstanding this feature, the Act is also taken to apply to plants, as per US Department of Agriculture (2016) guidance that the 2008 revisions to the Lacey Act make it ‘unlawful to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce any plant, with some limited exceptions, taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of the laws of the United States, a State, an Indian tribe, or any foreign law that protects plants or that regulates certain plant related offenses….’.

[iii] The utility of ISSSs in developing country contexts has received donor attention, including in a Policy Note prepared by the Swiss-German Donor Network on Sustainability Standards (DNSS). According to the Network (DNSS N.D.:1) group that has considered the potential of ISSSs, these schemes were ‘were originally developed as a substitute for lacking international regulation and ineffective mechanisms for the enforcement of national legislation’.

[iv] Note that in the case of the MSC, the standard requires first that management exists, that management stipulates processes and procedures to ensure sustainability and that there is monitoring and control to ensure compliance with managements objectives.  Accordingly there is not just an evaluation of compliance with management, but also an evaluation of management, the objectives set by management and ability of management to enforce compliance. 

[v]  See http://www.rspo.org/about

[vi] Based on reference to the RSPO ‘national interpretation’ documents for Columbia, Ghana, Guatemala, Honduras, Indonesia, Thailand, Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands. See, respectively, RSPO (2016b), RSPO (2015c), RSPO (2015d), RSPO (2015a), RSPO (2013), RSPO (2011), RSPO (2016a), and RSPO (2010).

[vii]Other areas of ‘relevant legislation’ referred to include labour, agriculture, environmental management, storage, transportation and processing.

[viii] Of the remaining 16 RSPO grower certification countries, Ghana scores 43, Solomon Islands 42, Brazil 40, Columbia and Indonesia 37, Gabon and Thailand 35, Ivory Coast 34, Equador 31, Honduras 30, Guatemala and Papua New Guinea (PNG) 28, and Cambodia 21.

[ix]  National interpretation information is available at http://www.rspo.org/key-documents

[x] A 2015 TI Africa survey (TI 2015: 14,35) found that 69% of Liberian public service users reported paying a bribe in the last 12 months, the highest rate of any country surveyed. Meanwhile, 77% of respondents surveyed believed that ‘most’ or ‘all’ Liberian police officers are corrupt. 

Graham Ring continues his critique of Australian Politics, this time addressing the issue of leadership.

There is an old adage in politics that says we get the politicians we deserve. If this is so then we are a nation of lightweights. Australian politics has plummeted so deeply into the trough of blandness there appears to be no way out. Focus groups are consulted, polls are commissioned and politicians pontificate with pre-tested formulations designed to maximise wriggle room.

Prime Minister Turnbull is cowed by his party’s right-wing hardliners, unable to lay to rest the last vestiges of the Member for Warringah’s prime ministerial ambitions. Every so often Turnbull throws the switch to vaudeville in his unhappy attempts to placate this constituency. His recent parliamentary ‘demolition’ of Shorten as a hypocrite and rank opportunist cheered his nervous backbenchers for a minute or two. It also briefly brightened things for poor sods like me, who have the time and disposition to take a day-to-day interest in the B-grade theatre that is the Australian Parliament. But the rest of the country was busy taking their kids to soccer practice, tucking into Big Macs and watching reruns of Dating Naked. They didn’t even notice.

A symptom of Turnbull’s malaise is that he finds himself hopelessly wedged on the question of same sex marriage. This would be a popular reform and has Turnbull’s personal support. Bringing on a vote in parliament might just see Turnbull regain some initiative. The prevaricating PM needs to take on his recalcitrant right and establish some sort of legacy. To crash through or crash as E G Whitlam might have said. Politicians can only be wedged when they try to play both sides of the street. Were they to make a firm decision on an issue, and have the courage of their convictions by explaining and advocating for the position, there could be no wedge. This is a hallmark of leadership. And frankly, Turnbull hasn’t got much to beat.

Bill Shorten’s confected outrage at every turn is lame. His tedious trickery on the Fair Work Commission’s penalty rates decision is a case in point. Better that Shorten was six seats short of a majority than two. Then he might abandon the short-term skirmishing for serious policy development work, and prepare to make his case to the country two years hence.  Before the Labor leadership position was filled, the party had a vote of its members to discover who they wanted as leader.  “Give us Albo” they chanted, before reality set-in and the matter was decided by caucus members remembering which side their bread was buttered on, and whose support they needed to gain advancement.  It’s notable that - bruised and battered as he is - a tottering Turnbull still enjoys significantly greater public support than the leader of the opposition. There is much work to be done.

Those who know about these things say that Australia’s taxation system is in a lot of trouble. The boffins say that changes need to be made as a matter of urgency if governments are to continue to raise the revenue needed to fund our health and education systems.  The Henry Tax review was designed to undertake a ‘root and branch’ review of the taxation system and make recommendations to steer the ship of state into safer waters for the next twenty years of the voyage

This report – the product of a substantial investment of public funds - was handed to Prime Minister Rudd in 2008. Rudd promptly placed the report in a drawer where it has remained ever since, ignored by governments of both political persuasions, because implementation would have required skill and courage.  Disaffection is the new black in politics across the world. Internationally it’s Trump and Brexit, locally it’s Hanson and Bernardi. There is much to be disaffected about.

Politicians no longer have the courage to deliver bad news when there is a vaguely viable option to do anything else. It is now unimaginable that a political leader might say that the country needs to have a mature debate about raising taxes or cutting services. Their opponent will start squawking about ‘’big new taxes’’, whereupon the issue will be consigned to the too-hard basket, even as the magnitude of the problem continues to escalate. Public consultation has its virtues, but ultimately decisions must be made and responsibility for these decisions accepted. That is leadership.

Should you, dear reader, ever have the doubtful privilege of taking part in a focus group or responding to a poll, you may wish to suggest that politicians place too much store in the opinions of people who take part in focus groups or respond to polls. That is not leadership.

Graham Ring is a Darwin based writer and journalist.