Graham Ring on the 2025 Australian Election
Australian politics is as crook as a dog.  The days when we could have a gentle conversation about issues with people who saw things differently are in the rear-vision mirror. Politics now is about anger, bitterness and one-upmanship.  This is an ugly era of ‘echo-chamber’ chat groups where we only encounter others of like mind, and algorithms that feed us the kind of news we’ve indicated that we already like. We don’t hear different opinions because we don’t want to.

This dynamic has terrible consequences. We’ve forgotten how to ‘disagree agreeably’, so political discussion quickly descends into personal abuse. We are careening towards the kind of polarization which has rendered the US political system all but unworkable.  Now it’s all about party politics, with battles that have identifiable winners and losers.  The idea that our politicians might work together to come up with ideas to improve the lives of ordinary Australians is considered hopelessly naïve.

At a campaign function in the Hunter region of NSW Prime Minister Albanese slipped and fell from a stage. Fortunately, he was not hurt, and with a sheepish grin he regained the platform, presumably with a nod of thanks to the man beside him who had cushioned his fall. This unremarkable event got a run on the television news that evening because it provided some visual relief from the drudgery of political speechifying and choreographed media events. But the caravan did not move on.

Incredibly, the tumble became the subject of media analysis. There was forensic investigation as to what constituted a ‘fall’, as distinct from a ‘slip’. One media outlet reported the PM as ‘denying’ that he had slipped.  Political staffers doubtless searched for a ‘form of words’ to ‘minimize the damage’.  The staggering waste of column inches that followed beggared belief. People sometimes slip.

Earlier in the campaign Opposition Leader Peter Dutton did something extraordinary. He went on national television and said “I think we made a mistake and I think it’s important to recognize that.”  He was, of course, widely pilloried for the heinous political crime of ‘flip-flopping’. Internal party polling had shown that the electorate was not impressed with Dutton’s proposal to curtail working from home. Hence the policy was reversed – if only as a matter of political convenience rather than high principle.

Surely, it’s refreshing to hear a politician own up to a mistake, regardless of the reason. This is the behaviour we seek to instil into our children. This is the way we hope our friends and family will conduct themselves. Einstein reputedly said that a man who never made a mistake has never tried anything new. We need our politicians to be braver than that.  If we expect them to be flawless then we are – in the words of Alan Alda’s West Wing character – just begging to be deceived. We should forgive them the odd error if they are prepared to acknowledge it.  People sometimes make mistakes.

In the dying days of the campaign, Trump’s wildly volatile tariff policies became a hot issue. Do you have Trump’s mobile phone number? Are you strong enough to fight with a great power in Australia’s national interests?  Do you have the ticker? That’s why the radio journalist pinned the PM with the pointed enquiry “If you win the election will you fly immediately to Washington?”

Political pundits will recognize that there is no right answer to this question. A ‘Yes’ answer will be portrayed as a PM whose first act of a new term is to flee the country to prostrate himself before the world’s most powerful man.  A ‘No” answer says that the PM doesn’t understand the seriousness of the issue and/or lacks the gravitas to win an appointment with the president.

Politicians have become exceedingly skilled at evading this kind of questioning. Even novice politicians will skip past this kind of enquiry with generic waffle: “Look David, what we are about is getting the country going again by supporting industry to create the jobs which will enable us to build the houses we so desperately need to help ordinary Australians to live more fulfilling and productive lives …”  Skilled exponents can prolong this drivel until such time as the frustrated journalist interrupts to try another tack.

This sort of exchange may make for entertaining radio, but it obscures the fact that we are not learning anything about how our leaders intend to move the country forward.  Our superficial enthusiasm for political drama reinforces the idea that this is the way we want politics to be conducted.  This kind of ‘gotcha’ journalism punishes politicians who won’t take a definitive position, even when a situation demands caution and further thought. It excoriates leaders who - hopefully after much reading, talking and thinking - have the temerity to alter their position on an issue.

The moral highpoint of the campaign was reached with Peter Dutton’s gracious concession speech. Dutton – doubtless struggling with the news that he would probably lose his own seat – congratulated Mr Albanese on his victory. He generously observed that the PM’s mum – who raised Albanese in often difficult circumstances - would have been very proud of her son tonight.

Equally, the PM’s victory speech was notable for its absence of triumphalism. An understandably overjoyed PM instead made the theme of his address one of gratitude and responsibility. Right at the death of this ugly five-week-long campaign civility shone through. Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, commenting for a television network, was moved to muse about just when it became weak to be respectful and compassionate.

Politics in the USA has become grotesquely polarized and is now hopelessly dysfunctional. The president taunts his adversaries with schoolyard-bully nicknames. Unelected officials eviscerate the machinery of government without any clear mandate. People are swept off the street and incarcerated in foreign prisons without due process.

It would be catastrophic to import this kind of brutality into the Australian political firmament. Peter Dutton’s description of the Guardian and the ABC as ‘hate media’, and Senator Price’s imprecation to ‘make Australia great again’ were both dark harbingers.

Australian politics is characterized by performative mud-slinging that is conducted on a bed of fundamental decency. Civility in our politics is critically important and we must be vigilant in its preservation.

Graham Ring
Darwin
May 2025

Rod Nixon
First published 1st April 2022 on the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) site (The Strategist).*

T​he announcement by the Solomon Islands government that it intends to ‘broaden its security and development cooperation with more countries’ has provoked a rash of commentary from Australian and New Zealand journalists, academics, think-tankers and politicians. Amid the calls to ‘amass an amphibious invasion force’ or offer the Solomons an Australian naval base, is there potential for a ‘Pacific family’ solution?

The commentary erupted on 24 March after a leaked draft security agreement between Solomon Islands and China was circulated online. Controversial elements of the document include the following two provisions:

• 'Solomon Islands may, according to its own needs, request China to send … armed police, military personnel and other law enforcement and armed forces to Solomon Islands to assist in maintaining social order …'
• 'China may, according to its own needs and with the consent of Solomon Islands, make ship visits to, carry out logistical replenishments in, and have stopover and transition in Solomon Islands, and the relevant forces of China can be used to protect the safety of Chinese personnel and major projects in Solomon Islands.'

The agreement also features a confidentiality clause that says: ‘Without the consent of the other party, neither party shall disclose the cooperation information to a third party.’

While the deal has now been ‘initialed’ by Chinese and Solomon Islands officials, it is still yet to be formally signed.
​
Reflecting the possibility of secretive negotiations for a Chinese naval base in Solomon Islands, reactions from commentators covered the spectrum from ‘wake-up call’ to Australia’s own ‘Cuban missile crisis’.

Notwithstanding different positions along the alert–alarm spectrum, there’s broad agreement among commentators that Australia’s foreign policy approaches have proved inadequate, regardless of the funds spent on programs.

Meanwhile, a statement on Solomon Islands issued jointly by Australia’s foreign minister and minister for international development and the Pacific gave little indication of alarm, but within 417 words made five references to Australia’s ‘Pacific family’, with whom Australia stands ‘shoulder-to-shoulder … through good times and bad’.

The statement affirmed that Australia respects ‘the right of every Pacific country to make sovereign decisions’; referred to $22 million Australia has provided to the Solomons for budget support and record regional development assistance; and pledged that Australia would ‘be transparent and … continue supporting peace, economic prosperity, stability and democratic values across our region’.

A higher level of concern was articulated in an ABC article that quoted Solomon Islands opposition leader Matthew Wale saying he had warned Australian officials in late 2021 that ‘China would likely try to establish a military presence in Solomon Islands … but the Australian government did nothing about it’. The article also quoted Australian international affairs expert Clinton Fernandes warning that the same factors could well play out in Papua New Guinea.

Perhaps the big question is why the government of Manasseh Sogavare, on record for wanting to cooperate with China ‘to build a world that is fair and just’, was negotiating a security agreement with Beijing without first seeking the endorsement of the people of Solomon Islands? An APMI Partners survey carried out in the Solomons in December found that 91% of respondents preferred their nation ‘to be diplomatically aligned more towards … liberal democracies’.

Insight into this question may be provided by a case study by Indo-Pacific researcher Cleo Paskal titled ‘How China buys foreign politicians’. Paskal presents what appears to be evidence of August 2021 payments originating from China to ‘39 of the [Solomons] Parliament’s 50 MPs’. According to Pascal, all of these MPs were ‘supporters to one degree or another, of the Prime Minister’. Alluding to Article 61 of the Solomons constitution, Paskal notes that 39 votes would be sufficient ‘with a small buffer’ to pass an alteration and push through Sogavare’s plan to delay the 2023 election until 2024. ‘And who knows what else he and/or Beijing would like to “adjust”?’ she asks.

We get now to the heart of the problem. As Australia and New Zealand emphasise transparency, sovereignty and democratic values and spend big on multimillion-dollar development projects, the geopolitical landscape may be rearranged by a series of budget bribes to members of Pacific parliaments. For, as Fernandes suggests, there’s no reason to think this vulnerability will be restricted to the Solomons.

Many Pacific islanders have strong links with Australia and New Zealand through education and family dating back to pre-independence times. If the APMI survey data is anywhere near accurate, Solomon Islanders remain strongly drawn to the liberal democratic model. Should, therefore, the leading democracies of the region respond to the strategic competition from China by seeking to make the much-vaunted ‘Pacific family’ more of a reality?

In other words, what policy options might be offered to Solomons government MPs such that alliance with the leading liberal democracies of the region becomes a permanent policy setting? What could be so attractive to the entire Solomons electorate that going against it even for money politics would be unthinkable?

The answer may be something Australians and New Zealanders enjoy most days of their lives—namely, access to a developed job market, education and healthcare. Establishing a path for greater integration of the Solomons and other Pacific island states into a ‘Pacific family’ led by Australia and New Zealand, in return for a common security policy, could settle for good the partner-of-choice question for these states. At the same time, increased opportunities for Pacific workers could provide badly needed labour and help stimulate a regional industrial revival.

Steps towards greater integration of Pacific states would represent a substantial change for Australian and New Zealand foreign policy. However, the audacious geopolitical manoeuvre by China calls for an equally innovative response from the region’s leading liberal democracies.

​* The author is grateful to the ASPI team for editing suggestions.
** Image of road conditions captured during SSD fieldwork in Malaita, Solomon Islands in 2021.

Rod Nixon

It was with great sadness that I learnt this week of the death of Dr James Scambary.
 
I first heard of James following his ground-breaking 2006 work on gangs in Timor-Leste. Although I became familiar with his work (later reading every word of his PhD thesis), I had the privilege of sitting down for a good chat with James only a handful of times. This was in Dili a little over three years ago, in advance of the 2017 elections. And what a lovey bloke, what a sharp wit, and what an interesting character. Someone who excelled in academia with his incisive analysis of politics in Timor-Leste, who also managed an additional career as an expert welder. A guy who was clearly as at home on a construction site as he was at an academic symposium or in a Timorese village. 
 
James’ passing is a great loss to the community of analysts and researchers working on governance in the region and beyond. My heart goes out to his family and loved ones at this time.  

Woe betide us if we forsake the capacity to cogitate. The opposable thumb on its own will not be enough to negotiate the troubled terrain of the twenty-first century.
 

​As the data tabled above indicates, PLDs consume around 40 to 50 per cent of the merchandise exports of the featured authoritarian states. This data suggests that authoritarian states are significantly exposed to a boycott by PLD consumers, assuming the latter can be sensitised at scale to take action. 
 
It should also be noted that the exposure of particular authoritarian states to possible consumer boycott action is likely to vary according to the profiles of their particular merchandise exports (which includes the main categories of manufactures, agricultural products, and fuels and mining products). Of the authoritarian states profiled above, manufactures represent the majority share of merchandise exports for China (93.7%), Thailand (74.5%) and Turkey (75.2%). Given that the origin of manufactures is generally labelled, a consumer boycott of manufactures sourced from authoritarian states could be relatively straightforward to implement (sensitising consumers perhaps representing the main challenge). Meanwhile, the majority of Russia’s merchandise exports fall into the category of fuels and mining (62.9%), with manufactures at only 21.8%. For Russia and other authoritarian states such as Saudi Arabia[13] for which the main category of merchandise export is fuels and mining (potentially unlabelled products), the organisation of effective consumer action would require a strategy that requires suppliers to clearly state the origin of such products as petroleum fuel. Added to this would be the challenge of promoting alternatives to fuels and mining products traditionally or commonly sourced in authoritarian states.
 
Of the authoritarian states profiled above, China would appear most exposed to an effective consumer boycott of authoritarian states. Not only is China the world’s largest single exporter of manufactures (at US$2.26 trillion),[14] but 93.7% of its merchandise exports are manufactures and over half its merchandise exports (50.15%) were being imported into prosperous liberal democracies at the time of the generation of the featured trade data.
 
Is it Time to Ditch Free Trade and Buy from Democracies?
Given what Freedom House (2019:4-5) describe as a 13-year decline, from 2005 onwards, in ‘political rights and civil liberties’ globally, the merchandise import patterns of the world’s PLDs deserve critical attention. 
 
The scale at which ‘democratic’ consumers have been importing merchandise from authoritarian regimes raises the question of the extent to which the material quality of life of the modern democratic citizen has become dependent on the input of workers operating under authoritarian control.[15]
 
In terms of principles, what does a high level of merchandise importation from authoritarian states suggest about the commitment to human rights and democracy, of citizens of the world’s leading democracies?  In the case of Australia, the nation’s enthusiasm for electoral participation is so strong that the population either supports or tolerates compulsory voting, yet the nation’s leading source of imported merchandise is the authoritarian state of China. Given the increasing uncertainty that capitalist economic success leads inevitably to democratisation, there would appear a pressing need for attention to the following issues and questions:

• A proportion of every purchase of merchandise originating in an authoritarian state can be expected to be paid in tax to a non-democratic regime. All such resources are disbursed without the oversight of elected representatives, and a proportion may be used to suppress human freedoms (as in the case of ethnic and religious minorities in China) or potentially threaten the interests of liberal democracies. Accordingly, should citizens of liberal democracies be concerned about the impacts of purchasing significant volumes of merchandise from authoritarian states? 
• What are the costs of no change to trade patterns between PLDs and authoritarian states. Can liberal democracies retain their prosperity and independence under such circumstances?
• Might the obligations of democratic citizens in the 21st century include purchasing merchandise sourced from democracies in preference to merchandise sourced from authoritarian states, in order to provide an incentive to national elites (and elements able to influence them, including transnationals) to prioritise and advance human rights and democratic values?

 
In recent decades, various campaigns have sought to influence consumer spending patterns in the interests of a range of specific environmental and social causes. Examples of these include the Rainforest Alliance Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN)[16] and the Marine Stewardship Council.[17] Other campaigns have focussed on human rights issues in particular contexts, with recent examples including a celebrity-led boycott of Brunei after the nation moved to implement Sharia law,[18] and a Codepink boycott of Saudi Arabia for an array of reasons.[19] And yet, to date there has been no systematic attempt to influence consumer spending aimed at leveraging ongoing democratisation in authoritarian states. This is notwithstanding the critical importance of the liberal democracy as the political system that has provided the space for multiple other agendas to be advanced over the last century, across a range of areas spanning human rights, environmental sustainability, gender equality and more. 
 
The Challenge for Citizen-Consumers
As the ultimate custodians and beneficiaries of democracy, it may be up to citizens, or citizen-consumers, to lead a change towards procurement practices that favour democracies. While tariff regimes like the one being currently implemented or threatened by United States President Donald Trump may have an impact, Trump’s behaviour is unpredictable. In any case, states may be bound by commitments to free trade, or addicted to trade partnerships with authoritarian states for economic reasons. No such factors prevent private individual, businesses and local governments from exercising moral judgement in their procurement choices. Furthermore, a boycott of authoritarian regimes that originates with citizen-consumers could contribute to the containment of authoritarian states without implicating the leaders of liberal democracies and thereby risking inter-state tension.
 
                                                                                         * * *
 
A change in consumer behaviour of magnitude sufficient to leverage democratic change in authoritarian states would represent no small achievement. A clear opposing force could be potentially higher prices associated with procuring from alternative sources where externalities such as environmental approvals and worker protection safeguards contribute to increased costs.  Yet there are historical precedents for significant changes to economic patterns on the basis of human rights advances.[20] Furthermore, the rise of India as a democratic, if troubled, manufacturing power may introduce new dynamics. Emphasis on the virtue of procuring from democratic nations could encourage authoritarian manufacturing countries to compete with more democratic rivals.
 
There is unquestionably much about governance in liberal democracies that could be improved. Citizen involvement is often limited to periodic participation in polls, governing parties may deviate from stated positions and attempt to hide unethical conduct from public scrutiny on the pretext of ‘security’, populists may succeed in gaining entry to parliament or even control of government, and electorates themselves may prioritise short-term interests over long-term needs. Yet the world over, people have benefited from progressive political, human rights, and environmental changes that owe their origins to the freedom of inquiry and expression that flourishes in liberal democracies. Is it time for citizen-consumers to target their spending practices to help stem the global recession of liberal democratic values? Is it time to Buy Democratic?

Notes
[1] British Broadcasting Corporation (2018).
[2] According to an Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) report (ASEAN 2018), “Thailand is the 13th largest automotive parts exporter [shipping to over 100 nations] and the sixth largest commercial vehicle manufacturer in the world, and the largest in ASEAN”. 
[3] An Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) interim report referred (AHRC 2019) to “fundamental democratic shortcomings” with the 24 March 2019 general election in Thailand.
[4] See WTO (2018:80). The United States was in second place with merchandise exports valued at US$1.55 trillion (WTO 2018:382).
[5] In its ‘Framework for the Consideration of Prospective members’, OECD restate (2017:4) the position that ‘OECD Members form a community of nations committed to the values of democracy based on rule of law and human rights, and adherence to open and transparent market-economy principles’.
[6] See OECD (2019).
[7] Based on review of merchandise import and other data included in ‘Trade Profiles 2018’ (WTO 2018) for the economies of Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and United States. 
[8] Note that imports into ‘prosperous liberal democracies’ from ‘Partly-free’ states are not included in the analysis.
[9] See UNDP 2017.
[10] The total is potentially significantly greater, as the WTO data (WTO 2018) used in the present analysis includes only the leading five sources of merchandise imports for each country. Remaining sources of merchandise imports are aggregated into a category titled ‘Other’. For the PLDs included in this study, the ‘Other’ category averages 21 per cent of total merchandise imports (see Table 4.1).
[11] Sourced from World Bank (2017). The full table is included under Annex 1.
[12] Information on composition of merchandise exports sourced from WTO (2018).
[13] Fuels and mining products comprise 75% of all Saudi Arabian merchandise exports (WTO 2018). Note that Saudi Arabia is not fully profiled in Section 5 because no meaningful information is included in the WITS database (World Bank 2017) concerning the destination of Saudi Arabia merchandise exports.  Specifically, the ‘Unspecified’ category of merchandise exports for Saudi Arabia is reported to be 79.08 per cent.
[14] China is followed by the United States at US$1.55 trillion, based on 2017 data (WTO 2018).
[15] Other trade relationships also emphasise the importance of this theme.  A timely example concerns the 2018 withdrawal of China from the management of overseas waste, a development which highlighted the extent to which some PLDs have hitherto been dependent on an authoritarian state for the recycling of domestic rubbish. See, for example, Semuels (2019) and Cansdale (2019). 
[16] www.rainforest-alliance.org/
[17] www.msc.org
[18] According to the BBC (2019), Brunei announced the intention, on 3 April 2019, to apply the death penalty to offences “such as rape, adultery, sodomy, robbery and insult or defamation of the Prophet Muhammad”. However, following a celebrity-led boycott, Brunei’s ruler Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah was reported to have “extended a moratorium on the death penalty to cover the new legislation”.
[19] The Codepink Saudi Arabia campaign claims “It’s time to sever ties with the Saudi regime while it wages a devastating war on Yemen, murders its own people, tramples on human/women’s rights, and bullies all those who dissent with its policies”. See: https://www.codepink.org/saudiarabia
[20] Such a precedent was the Clapham Common movement which influenced Britain, in the early decades of the 19th century, to transition from the ‘still profitable’ practice of slavery. See Ferguson (2004:114-119).

References
AHRC (Asian Human Rights Commission). 2019. ‘Thailand: Election Did Not Meet the International Standards’. AHRC article dated 27 March 2019, sighted 16 April 2019 at http://www.humanrights.asia/news/forwarded-news/AHRC-FAT-001-2019/
 
ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations). 2018. ‘Thailand’s Automotive Industry: Opportunities and Incentives’. ASEAN Briefing date 10 may 2018, sighted 16 April 2019 at https://www.aseanbriefing.com/news/2018/05/10/thailands-automotive-industry-opportunities-incentives.html
 
British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). 2019. ‘Brunei Says it Won’t Enforce Death Penalty for Gay Sex’. BBC news article dated 6 May 2019 sighted 16 May 2019 at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48171165
 
-   2018. “China’s Xi Allowed to Remain ‘President for Life’ as Term Limits Removed”. BBC news articles dated 11 march 2018 sighted 15 April 2019 at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-43361276
 
Cansdale, Dominic. 2019. ‘What’s Changed One Year Since the Start of Our Recycling Crisis?’. Australian Broadcasting Commission (online), 11 January 2019. Sighted 14 May 2019 at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-11/australias-recycling-crisis-one-year-on-whats-changed/10701418
 
Davidson, Helen and Christopher Knaus. 2019. ‘Australian Weapons Shipped to Saudi and UAE as War Rages in Yemen’. Guardian (online) article dated 25 July 2019 sighted 25 July 2019 at https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jul/25/australian-weapons-shipped-to-saudi-and-uae-as-war-rages-in-yemen
 
Ferguson, Niall. 2004. Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World. Penguin: Maryborough (Aust.). 
 
Freedom House. 2019. ‘Freedom in the World 2019: Democracy in Retreat’. Downloaded 5 April 2019 from https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/Feb2019_FH_FITW_2019_Report_ForWeb-compressed.pdf (including “Freedom in the World Countries” table available at https://freedomhouse.org/report/countries-world-freedom-2019).
 
- 2015. ‘Democracy is Good Business’. Freedom House articles sighted 15 April 2019 at https://freedomhouse.org/blog/democracy-good-business
 
OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). 2019. ‘Member and Partners…Current Membership’. OECD current membership list sighted 5 April 2019 at http://www.oecd.org/about/membersandpartners/
 
-   2017. ‘Report of the Chair of the Working Group on the Future Size and membership of the Organisation to Council: Framework for the Consideration of Prospective members’. OECD document sighted 17 April 2019 at http://www.oecd.org/mcm/documents/C-MIN-2017-13-EN.pdf
 
UNPD (United Nations Population Division). 2017. Spreadsheet titled ‘WPP2017_POP_F01_1_TOTAL_POPULATION_BOTH_SEXES’ sourced from the UNPD  World Population Prospects 2017 website. Downloaded 13 May 2019 from https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Standard/Population/
 
Semuels, Alana. 2019. ‘Is This the End of Recycling?’, in The Atlantic, 5 March 2019. Sighted 14 May 2019 at https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/03/china-has-stopped-accepting-our-trash/584131/
 
World Bank. 2019. ‘Doing Business: Training for Reform’. 16th Edition. Downloaded 15 April 2019 from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/975621541012231575/Doing-Business-2019-Training-for-Reform
 
- 2017. ‘World Integrated Trade Solution’ (WIT) database. Online trade database developed by the World Bank with partners including the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, the International Trade Centre, the United Nations Statistical Division and the WTO. Accessed 24-28 June 2019 at www.wits.worldbank.org 

WTO (World Trade Organisation). 2018. ‘Trade Profiles 2018’. Downloaded 9 April 2019 from https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/trade_profiles18_e.htm 

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 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]
(Note: This article is available for download as a PDF file by clicking here)​
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.

​As a seven year old I was very keen on a breakfast cereal called Sugar Frosties. They were corn flakes doused in as much sugar as could possibly adhere to a flake of cereal. But my palate and I have both aged considerably since then. Now I find the idea of eating Sugar Frosties to be revolting.

​I had changed my mind. There were two reasons. In a nation where obesity is the new normal, I had a growing awareness that doing little exercise while consuming refined sugar by the truckload was likely to have ugly consequences. But more importantly, I simply lost my childish taste for sickly sweet things. I have not been condemned for my revisionist position on Sugar Frosties.

​The ability to change our mind (and the dexterity offered by the opposable thumb) are two things that we humans really have going for us.  But let’s put our digital dexterity aside for the moment and focus on our capacity to change our minds – or more generally, to reason.

After new evidence emerges on an issue, or after circumstances change, it may be entirely appropriate for us to re-assess our view about a matter.  It may even be that after deep consideration about existing evidence, we genuinely decide to change our position. This is sometimes thought to be a brave and sophisticated course of action.

Unless you are a politician.  Elected leaders who change their mind are ‘backflipping’, and in doing so demonstrating that they are unworthy, conniving souls, unfit for public office. Mind you, I’m not advocating ‘doing a Derryn’.  Senator Hinch’s recent performance in adopting four different positions on the backpacker tax in the space of four days did little to inspire confidence in his ability, or in the ability of politicians more generally.

It is unnerving – and wrong - for politicians to change their minds frequently without substantiating each new position.  We are entitled to expect our elected representatives to have the courage of their convictions, and to stand up for their beliefs, even when opinion polls and focus groups run against them.

Australian politics is plagued by ‘gotcha moments’ where politicians are seen to be caught out in a direct contradiction with something they had said earlier. This is the favoured terrain both of current affairs reporters and opposition members participating in parliamentary question time. In both cases the objective is to throw damning quotes in the faces of ministers as evidence of their infidelity: ‘Minister you said yesterday that you prefer coffee to tea. I now seek leave to table an interview from Style Magazine in 1977 when you stated explicitly that you were a tea-drinker by choice. Minister this demonstrates beyond all doubt that you are a lying, deceiving scoundrel who cannot be trusted about anything.  You must now make a full public apology, resign your office immediately and return all of your salary to consolidated revenue.’
​
There are less trivial examples. A recently elected prime minister’s assurance that ‘there will be no new taxes in my first year of government’ may need to be revisited if revenues from other sources unexpectedly dry up. A genuine and significant change in circumstance may demand a different response for the well-being of the country. We should applaud rather than upbraid leaders who respond skilfully to changed circumstances. That said, politicians should be wary of making blanket promises.

To change one’s mind on occasion, after thoughtful consideration of evidence old and new, is a mark of courage and intellect. Let’s not discourage it.

Graham Ring is a Darwin based writer and journalist.

Graham Ring
​Donald Trump has just been inaugurated as the President of the United States of America. This man who has no military or public service background is now the leader of the free world.  He will sit in the round room in the White House for the next four years and make decisions that will have far-reaching implications for the future of the planet.

As a candidate, he presented very much as an ‘outsider’ - a business man who was not of the Washington professional political class. In fact he was disdainful of ‘beltway insiders’ and said that upon taking office he would ‘drain the swamp’  - identifying and dismissing bureaucratic hacks ill- equipped to take America in a new direction. 

Voting in America – and most other parts of the world – is not compulsory. This means that opinion polls and predictions are even less reliable than they are in Australia. In a stunning election result, Trump failed to win the popular vote, but nevertheless garnered enough Electoral College votes to become President.

His campaigning style was one of broad themes, rather than specific policy undertakings. He tapped into a feeling, justified or not, of disaffection with the whole political machine, particularly amongst older white males. His defeated opponent, Hillary Clinton, was the archetypal Washington insider who Trump portrayed as representing everything that was wrong with a moribund political system.  It is widely agreed that his win was significantly the result of the same kind of ‘protest vote’ that saw the remarkable ‘Brexit result in the UK, and the re-emergence of Pauline Hansen as a force on the Australian political scene

The promises and prescriptions Trump offered on the campaign trail were many and varied, but rarely cohesive or well grounded.  At various times he has undertaken to:

• build a wall with Mexico
• reduce company tax
• increase the strength of the military
• adopt more isolationist foreign policy positions
• wind back US involvement in free trade agreements
• stop American-based companies decamping to countries where production costs are lower,
• embark on a program of huge public infrastructure spending which will cause serious shortness of breath amongst Republican deficit hawks in congress.

Most of all, Trump has said he will ‘Make America Great Again’, - though it seems that when the rubber hits the road the policy prescriptions that will bring this laudable sentiment to fruition are more than a little subjective.

His willingness during the campaign, and subsequently as president-elect, to use Twitter to make his views known has caused more than a little consternation across the nation and around the world.
 
On more than one occasion, Trump has been goaded into intemperate spleen-venting responses on social media after personal attacks. This knee-jerk behaviour calls into question his suitability to conduct international diplomacy at the highest levels.

Picking an untried recruit in a national sporting team in the hope of a narrative of redemption and triumph is intoxicating. Picking an untried recruit to be President of the United States is rather more sobering.

​Who needs Twitter when you’ve got the launch codes?

Graham Ring is a Darwin based writer and journalist.

Graham Ring
A turbulent 2016 saw Britain vote to Brexit, and a clutch of their European neighbours veer to the political right. In the US, a man with no experience in the military or the public service is about to become leader of the free world for the next four years. 

In Australia, a double dissolution election meant that senate seats could be won for half the usual number of votes. Voters returned a ragtag bunch of minor parties, along with a bewildering bunch of independents including David Leyonhjelm, Derryn Hinch and Jacqui Lambie. 

Our much vaunted system of democratic election, means that this result is, by definition, legitimate.  The People Have Spoken, and The Voters Are Never Wrong.  That said, it’s worth musing about just why the voters made these decisions.

At a superficial level, the answer to this question has been shouted from the rooftops: The electorate is disaffected.  But what does this mean? 

Australia has enjoyed many consecutive years of economic growth. And our material standard of living is higher than it has ever been, even if the distribution of this wealth is uneven. So why the backlash?

Anyhow, the ‘disaffection’ we vented at the ballot box has seen a bunch of randoms installed in the Senate. Just how this will improve things is not entirely clear. What is apparent is that the government’s legislative agenda will grind to a halt, since nothing can get through the upper house without protracted horse-trading with these liquorice all-sorts.

Our system does not require voters to be informed, only to cast a ballot for a candidate of their choice. Even if it’s Pauline. This is widely believed to be a good thing.

​Specific policy detail from the minor parties and the independents was very thin on the ground during the campaign, but that didn’t seem to matter. We voted for them anyway. Apparently we wanted to ‘shake things up’. Now we wait in trepidation for our monster to mature.

​Perhaps next time we should invite candidates to make clear and specific promises about what they intend to do if they win office. Then we can make an informed choice based on this information. Or not.

​In any case, allowing politicians to let rhetoric masquerade as policy does not serve us well. 

Graham Ring is a Darwin based writer and journalist.

References:
Harsono, Irawati. Pengarusutamaan Gender dalam Tugas-Tugas Kepolisian, Panduan Pelatihan Tata Kelola Sektor Keamanan untuk Organisasi Masyarakat Sipil: Sebuah Toolkit. ISDPS. Jakarta. 2009

IDSPS (Institute for Defense, Security and Peace Studies) . Seri 7 Penjelasan Singkat (Backgrounder): Gender Mainstreaming di Kepolisian. IDSPS. Jakarta. Juni, 2008

Satria, Riri. Kita Kekurangan Polisi Wanita, Sebuah Catatan Menyambut HUT Polwan ke 64. http://ririsatria40.wordpress.com/2012/09/19/kita-kekurangan-polisi-wanita/ accessed 25 December 2014

Web:
Human Rights Watch http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/11/17/indonesia-virginity-tests-female-police

Profil Unit Pelayanan Perempuan dan Anak, http://uppabareskrim.com/sippa/links_menu.php?op=profil accessed 30 December 2014

Perwira Tinggi Polwan dari SEPA,  http://sipsspolri.com/perwira-tinggi-polwan-dari-sepa/ accessed 30 Desember 2014 Syarat Pendidikan Polri, http://humas.polri.go.id/informasi-publik/Documents/Syarat%20Serdik%20Dikbangspes-2014-1.pdf accessed 28 December 2014

News:  
DPR Kritik Minimnya Jumlah Polwan, http://www.tempo.co/read/news/2013/03/21/173468408/DPR-Kritik-Minimnya-Jumlah-Polwan accessed 30 December 2014 Hamil, Bripka Siti Tak Lulus Sekolah Inspektur, http://news.okezone.com/read/2014/11/19/337/1067940/hamil-bripka-siti-tak-lulus-sekolah-inspektur accessed 30 December 2014  

Jumlah14.400  Polwan Dinilai Masih Kurang, http://www.jpnn.com/read/2014/09/05/255899/Jumlah-14.400-Polwan-Dinilai-Masih-Kurang-  accessed 25 December 2014

Polri siapkan delapan lembaga pendidikan untuk 7.000 Polwan,  http://www.antaranews.com/berita/426588/polri-siapkan-delapan-lembaga-pendidikan-untuk-7000-polwan accessed 30 December 2014

Seribu Polwan Dilantik di SPN Purwokerto,  http://www.pikiran-rakyat.com/node/310196 accessed 30 December 2014