A Papua New Guinea National Court ruling to overturn a ban on Starlink has been widely welcomed, fresh off the back of a natural disaster which highlighted the need for low-orbit satellite services in the country.

Last December, the National Information and Communications Technology Authority (NICTA) announced that the Starlink network’s parent company, SpaceX, had been instructed to cease all services in PNG due to a directive from the Ombudsman Commission.

But a court ruling on Friday quashed this, paving the way for NICTA to liaise with Starlink to approve its licence to operate in PNG.

• READ MORE: Other Starlink reports

This is good news for many Papua New Guineans in remote and rural parts of the country who struggle for reliable telecommunication services.

Earlier this month, Tropical Cyclone Maila caused major damage to various provinces in PNG. During the Category 5 storm, when VHF radio services were down, broadband internet services provided a vital communication link for some affected communities.

Disaster experience
Prime Minister James Marape said the court decision provided clarity and allows the country to move ahead with practical solutions to improve telecommunications services.

“Our recent disaster experience has shown us clearly that communication is no longer a luxury — it is a necessity,” Marape said in a statement.

“When communities are cut off during cyclones, floods, earthquakes, or other emergencies, lives can depend on real-time communication. We must ensure our people are never isolated in times of crisis.”

Jelta Wong, the MP for Gazelle Open in East New Britain, one of the parts of PNG badly affected by Cyclone Maila, said Starlink should be allowed to operate since not all of PNG can get service.

“As we have seen in the past month with Cyclone Malia causing havoc on all coastal hamlets, if we had Starlink in strategic areas in the remote parts of Papua New Guinea we could have planned a much quicker and better response,” Wong said.

Game changer
The Governor of East Sepik Province, Allan Bird, said an easily accessible and affordable service like that which Starlink provided was “absolutely indispensable” in most parts of PNG outside of the capital.

“You see, my province is bigger than Fiji. So getting access to rural communities is extremely expensive, extremely difficult. With something like Starlink, we can have things like tele medicals,” Byrd said.

He said the ratio of doctors to people in East Sepik was around 22,000 people to one doctor.

“So having things like Starlink changes the game, because you can have a doctor sitting in our provincial capital, talking to someone trying to do a delivery in a location that’s 50 minutes away by plane. So it’s absolutely critical.”

Wong also pointed out that Starlink’s services would make service delivery more accessible, helping people trade and do banking from remote locations, creating opportunities for rural people to achieve goals.

‘Coordinated rollout’
In early 2024, the commission blocked licensing efforts for Starlink, arguing that existing regulations may not be adequate to manage potential risks to public interest and safety.

But in her National Court ruling last week, Judge Susan Purdon-Sully strongly criticised the Ombudsman Commission for its move to halt Starlink’s licence process.

Finding no breach of PNG’s leadership code, nor evidence of corruption, the judge said the Ombudsman’s concerns were more administrative, meaning its directive to NICTA had been “an unconstitutional exercise of power”.

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister again urged Starlink to work collaboratively with state-owned Telikom PNG to “ensure a coordinated rollout that complements national infrastructure priorities”.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

ANALYSIS: By John Hobbs

The New Zealand government remains unwilling to support Palestinian statehood recognition at the United Nations General Assembly.

This is a disgraceful position which gives support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza and seriously undermines our standing. Of the 193 states of the UN, 157 have now provided statehood recognition. New Zealand is not one of them.

The purpose of this opinion piece is to highlight the troubling lack of transparency in how the government deliberates on its foreign policy choices.

• READ MORE: As delegates walk out in protest, Netanyahu tells UN Israel must ‘finish job’ in Gaza

Government decisions and calculations on foreign policy are being made behind closed doors with limited public scrutiny, unlike other areas of policy, where at least a modicum of transparency occurs.

The government has, over the past two years, exceeded itself in obscuring the process it goes through, without explaining its approach to the question of Palestine.

New Zealand still inconceivably lauds the impossible goal of a two-state solution, the hallmark of successive governments’ foreign policy positions on the question of Palestine, but does everything to not bring about its realisation.

To try to understand the basis for New Zealand’s approach to Gaza and the risks generated by the government’s lack of direct action against Israel, I placed an Official Information Request (OIA) with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Winston Peters. I requested copies of advice that had been received on New Zealand’s obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948.

Plausible case against Israel
My initial OIA request was placed in January 2024, after the International Court of Justice had determined there was a plausible case that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza. At that point, about 27,000 people in Gaza had been killed, mainly women and children. My request was denied.

I put the same OIA request to the minister in June 2025. By this time, nearly 63,000 people had been killed by Israel. At the time of my second request there was abundant evidence reported by UN agencies of Israel’s tactics. Again, my request for information was denied.

I appealed the refusal by the minister of foreign affairs to the Office of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman reviewed the case and accepted that the minister of foreign affairs was within his right to refuse to provide the material.

The basis for the decision was that the advice given to the minister was subject to legal professional privilege, and that the right to protect legally privileged advice was not outweighed by the public interest in gaining access to that advice.

The refusal by the minister and the Ombudsman to make the advice available is deeply worrying. Although I am not questioning the importance of protecting legal professional privilege, I cannot imagine an example that could be more pressing in terms of “public interest” than the complicity of nation states in genocide.

Indeed, the threshold of legal professional privilege was never meant to be absolute. Parliament, in designing the OIA regime, had this in mind when it deemed that legal professional privilege could, under exceptional circumstances, be outweighed by the public interest.

The Office of the Ombudsman has ruled in the past that legal professional privilege is not an absolute; it accepted that legal advice received by the Ministry of Health on embryo research had to be released, for example, as it was in the public interest to do so, even though it was legally privileged.

Puzzling statement
The Ombudsman concludes his response to my request with the puzzling statement that the “general public interest in accountability and transparency in government decision-making on this issue is best reflected in the decisions made after considering the legal advice, rather than what is contained in the legal advice.”

The point I was trying to clarify is whether the government is acting in a manner that reflects the advice it has received. If it has received advice that New Zealand must take particular steps to fulfil its obligations under the Genocide Convention, and the government has chosen to ignore that advice, then surely New Zealanders have a right to know.

The content of the advice is extremely relevant: it would identify any contradictions between the advice the government received and its actions. Through public access to such information, governments can be held to account for the decisions they make.

The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem and Israel, concluded on September 16 that Israeli authorities and security forces committed four out of the five underlying acts of genocide. Illegal settlers have been let loose in the West Bank under the protection of the Israeli army to harass and kill local Palestinians and occupy further areas of Palestinian land.

At the UN General Assembly, the New Zealand government took a stance that is squarely in support of the Israeli genocide, also supported by the United States. International law clearly forbids the act of genocide, in Gaza as much as anywhere else, including the attacks on Palestinian civilians living under occupation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

In 2015-16, New Zealand co-sponsored a UN Security Council resolution that condemned the illegality of Israel’s actions in the Occupied West Bank, with the intention of supporting a Palestinian state. New Zealand’s recent posture at the General Assembly undermines this principled precedent.

That New Zealand could not bring itself to offer the olive branch of statehood recognition is morally repugnant and severely damages our standing in the international community. The New Zealand public has the right to demand transparency in its government’s decision-making.

The advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to the minister cannot be hidden behind the veil of legal professional privilege.

John Hobbs is a doctoral student at the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Otago. This article was first published by the Otago Daily Times and is republished with the author’s permission.

New Zealand’s Ombudsman, Peter Boshier, has given government agency media teams a well-deserved kick up the fundamental over some of their dealings with journalists.

Last week he released his report Ready or not? Thematic OIA compliance and practice in 2022. It is highly critical of the way the teams handle some media requests for information. Incredibly, many did not see such requests as falling under the Official Information Act.

The 66-page report revisits 12 government agencies that were investigated by his predecessor in 2015 and it picks out media teams for particular scrutiny.

• READ MORE: Other Gavin Ellis commentaries

“Most of the agencies I investigated have a Media Team responsible for handling information requests from the news media. These Media Teams operate separately from centralised OIA Teams, which typically process information requests from the public.

“While separating requests in this way is not unreasonable in itself, I am concerned that some of the practices associated with this method of request handling has helped to create a false perception that media requests are not OIA requests and, as a result, that agencies do not need to adhere to OIA obligations when handling them.”

The Ombudsman’s report states unequivocally that media information requests are OIA requests, with the core legislative obligations that those confer.

Some excellent service
As one might expect, there were examples of excellent service provided by media teams. He singled out the Ministry of Health Manatū Hauora and the Public Service Commission Te Kawa Mataaho.

The former was praised for its information handling during the pandemic, while the latter’s performance should be a given — it is the lead agency on implementation of the government’s commitments under the international Open Government Partnership.

However, he didn’t mince words over some of the actions of media teams: “In most of the agencies I investigated, I saw evidence of breaches of the law.”

Given some of Peter Boshier’s other findings, that conclusion should not come as a surprise.

“I was deeply concerned to find that the responses from some agencies to my investigation suggested they did not consider that media information requests fall under the OIA. As a result, it had become embedded in the culture and practice of staff in some Media Teams to refuse information without providing a valid reason under the OIA.

“Those staff considered that the OIA did not apply to their actions and decisions on information requests from the media—in stark contrast to their counterparts in OIA Teams operating in the same agency.”

When he gave the agencies a preliminary assessment of this aspect of their operations, one replied that “placing the constraints of the OIA over the work of the ministry’s media team will add a layer of formality over those relationships and despite the best endeavours of staff, will add to the time required to respond.”

Another said it would affect relationships with the media.

Misperceptions a problem
The Ombudsman disagrees with that assessment. And he went further, saying the perception that the OIA did not apply to media information requests was “simply incorrect”. He saw the misperception as the cause of media teams operating contrary to the law.

He called on the leaders of errant agencies to take immediate responsibility for a cultural shift within media teams and ensure policy, practice, and process changes were made to ensure compliance with the law.

The most common breaches have been failure to give reasons for refusing to give information, and failure to acknowledge a right of appeal to the Ombudsman.

He found distinct types of breaches of the requirement to give reasons for refusal:

• The agency acknowledged that information was being refused, but the reason given for refusal was not a valid one under the OIA, e.g. “That information is not centrally located’ and “We’re unable to provide that information within the given timeframe”.
• No information was given and it was not acknowledged there had been a refusal.
• The agency responded with general information but did not actually answer the question, and it was not acknowledged there had been a refusal.

The investigation revealed a curious relationship between media teams and an agency’s OIA team.

Media teams used a “triaging system” to determine when it was more appropriate for the OIA Team to handle the request. The 12 agencies’ media teams “triaged” requests in a broadly similar manner. Where the request could be answered by the media team within the requester’s specified timeframe — typically a matter of hours or days, to accommodate media deadlines — it would be answered by the media team.

Lack of clarity
If the request could not be answered within the timeframe specified by the requester because it was complex, voluminous, or if it was anticipated that withholding grounds may apply, the media team typically advised the requester that their request would need to be handled by the agency’s OIA team.

Some media teams would tell the requester that their request “would need to be an OIA” without making it clear whether they had forwarded the request on, or whether the requester would need to resubmit their request.

“This language and the practice of separating requests in this way is problematic,” the Ombudsman said, “because it helps propagate the misapprehension that quick turnaround ‘media requests’ are distinct from other information requests. It also implies that the OIA does not apply to them, while ‘formal’ OIA requests ‘must’ go through a regimented, multi-stage process which invariably takes the maximum statutory time limit (20 working days).”

The report is couched in measured terms but I cannot help but feel this two-tiered system is a weapon used against the media. Twenty working days is as good as a refusal in the fast moving world of digital daily news. Peter Boshier acknowledges as much in his report.

“Where requested information cannot be provided in a matter of days, but the journalist finds it untenable to wait up to 20 working days, there is rarely a middle ground; the request is sometimes abandoned by the requester­. It is here that Media Teams’ commitment to responding in only hours or days may be a double-edged sword: when Media Teams cannot reply within the media’s specified timeframe, the request may not get answered at all.

Few agencies I investigated have effective mechanisms in place for providing information ‘without undue delay’, or under urgency if it falls outside the media’s requested timeframe. This ‘now or never’ approach to media information requests reinforces the false perception that the OIA requires a separate process for handling ‘formal’ information requests, and it creates a potential gap in the provision of information which is of great concern to me and does not serve the public interest.”

And he concedes that the two-tiered system fuels perceptions that the Official Information. Act is used as a shield by delaying or frustrating requests for information. However, he denies that the Act itself is at fault. It does not prescribe the processes to be followed, “and an agency’s OIA process can be as agile, flexible and swift as the agency is prepared to make it.”

Loopholes to be exploited
He is absolutely right. What he does not acknowledge, however, is the fact that the sometimes loosely-defined and voluminous reasons for refusing information that are contained in the legislation send a signal to agencies and their employees that there are loopholes to be exploited.

And even outside the OIA there are pressures that work against its spirit. For example, the Ombudsman notes that agencies employ a blanket approach to responses sent to ministers ‘for your information’ under the No Surprises Principle. Even when no input is required from the minister, the material is usually sent three to five days before it is due to be sent to the requester.

The Ombudsman puts it rather delicately — “[It] may lead to the perception that input from the Minister is being sought by the agency that might alter the decision planned for release” — but I read that as saying nothing contentious is released without political approval.

Throughout the report there are sensible and workable solutions to the problem that the Ombudsman has uncovered. Training, policy guidelines and culture change led from the top are all ways in which the spirit of the OIA can be met.

And media teams can start obeying the law.

Dr Gavin Ellis holds a PhD in political studies. He is a media consultant and researcher. A former editor-in-chief of The New Zealand Herald, he has a background in journalism and communications — covering both editorial and management roles — that spans more than half a century. Dr Ellis publishes a website called Knightly Views where this commentary was first published and it is republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.

Madang MP Bryan Kramer, who held the police, justice and later immigration portfolios in the outgoing givernment, is no stranger to publicity stunts.

Yesterday, he “ambushed” Chief Ombudsman Richard Pagen in the State Function Room of the National Parliament during the new MPs’ induction process.

Last week, the Deputy Chief Justice Ambeng Kandakasi had announced the appointment of a leadership tribunal to investigate allegations of misconduct in office against Kramer.

• READ MORE: Kramer welcomes PNG Tribunal hearing to clear ‘ridiculous’ claims
• Other PNG elections reports

As Pagen was speaking to the new MPs on their roles and responsibilities and the work of the Ombudsman Commission, Kramer found it an opportune time to pick a “verbal spat’ with Pagen.

After Pagen had finished his presentation, Kramer asked several questions that “pickled” the integrity and reputation of Pagen and the Ombudsman Commission.

Kramer told Pagen that the commission had lost many leadership tribunal cases and that his [Pagen’s] own integrity was also in question when a staff member had raised allegations against him and he was still holding office.

The Chief Ombudsman told Kramer that he was at the Parliament induction programme to talk to collective Members of Parliament and not to debate with him.

‘I don’t want to argue’
“Member for Madang, I’m addressing a crop of leaders and I don’t want to argue with you. Do not raise conflict of interest questions here. Your leadership (tribunal) is coming,” he told Kramer.

Pagen said he was not appointed to be a “briefcase carrier” but to perform his constitutional duties and he performed his duty without fear or favour.

“We are here to work with the leaders. If you fear us then, it is because you have done something wrong,” he said.

The Chief Ombudsman said that as a constitutional office holder his job was not to “carry a whip around” and hunt for leaders to be punished.

He said he made sure that there were prima facie cases to refer members of Parliament to the Leadership Tribunal and so far four cases had been thrown out.

“I have done my job to refer people. We are not here to fight anyone. We are here to support service delivery for the 9 million [people in the country]. We are technical people here to give you advice,” he said.

Pagen said they were there to help make sure the leaders perform their duties of serving the people honestly and transparently.

MPs told to be ‘transparent’
In a separate news story, the Post-Courier reports that Pagen urged MPs to be transparent and not to be involved in actions that would question their integrity and of the office they occupied.

Pagen told new MPs and those who were continuing that the office they held now was for the people and their position must not be demeaned by their actions.

He said the integrity of the office and the position they occupied as leaders must be maintained at all times.

“The integrity of the country must also be preserved,” Pagen said.

“We must not use the office for personal gain.

“In the Melanesian society, we have come from a wider family connection and relations and it is essential that the relationship does not creep into the office.”

Jeffrey Elapa is a PNG Post-Courier reporter. Republished with permission.

Samoa’s Ombudsman Luamanuvao Katalaina Sapolu says the human rights effects from the covid-19 pandemic have been catastrophic.

She has just submitted Samoa’s eighth State of Human Rights Report to Parliament.

Luamanuvao said that over the past two years families had lost loved ones, businesses suffered, unemployment rates increased, and freedom of movement was restricted.

• READ MORE: Other Pacific covid-19 reports

She said there had also been a grave impact on children’s right to education, and the right to health continues to be challenged with resources stretched to the maximum.

But she said human rights principles continued to play an important role in addressing discrimination and inequality and providing inclusion of everyone in the prevention of, and recovery from covid-19.

The report provided an analysis of the impact of the pandemic and government measures on the rights and freedoms of Samoans, especially on the most vulnerable groups.

The report also included recommendations for the government to ensure its covid-19 measures were consistent with the constitution, domestic laws, and policies safeguarding human rights, as well as Samoa’s international human rights obligations.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Vanuatu’s Speaker was forced to suspend a special parliamentary sitting today after the opposition and several government MPs did not turn up.

They were protesting against the government’s plans to push through major constitutional amendments.

Speaker Seoule Simeon adjourned the session due to a lack of quorum until next Friday.

• LISTEN: Opposition leader Ralph Regenvanu talks to Pacific Waves
• READ MORE: Other Vanuatu political crisis reports

Prime Minister Bob Loughman’s government needs the support of 34 MPs out of 52 to make changes to the country’s constitution.

But Loughman’s side was short by 3 MPs after the boycott by 7 MPs from the Reunion of Movement for Change party, led by former prime minister Charlot Salwai.

Opposition leader Ralph Regenvanu confirmed this morning the government had repealed “certain items” from the 16 proposed overnight after objections.

Two ‘disturbing proposals’
But Regenvanu said: “There are two very disturbing and dangerous proposals in these Parliamentary amendments which directly attack good governance in the country.”

The two changes include introducing a term of five years for the office of Chief Justice, and a change to the process for the appointment of the Ombudsman.

Regenvanu said previously the Ombudsman was appointed by the President after consultation with the prime minister, the speaker, leaders of political parties, presidents of the council of chiefs and provincial councils, chairman of the Public Service Commission and the Judicial Services Commission.

However, the amendment will only require the president to make the appointment after consulting the prime minister.

Regenvanu has confirmed the opposition will also not attend the Parliament session next Friday.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Papua New Guinea’s Justice Minister and Madang MP Bryan Kramer has been referred to the Public Prosecutor by the Ombudsman Commission for 14 counts of alleged misconduct charges.

The minister declared this at a media conference after the Ombudsman Commission delivered a letter informing him of the allegations and the referral.

Kramer, who has often been labelled as a “corruption fighter”, vowed to contest the charges.

• READ MORE: ‘I will eventually get killed’: Meet Bryan Kramer, Papua New Guinea’s anti-corruption tsar
• Bryan Kramer Report – Kramer’s Facebook journalism page

He slammed the allegations, which come on the eve of the national elections in June, as “absurd” and “ridiculous” and from an “incompetent” Ombudsman Commission.

While details of the 14 allegations were not disclosed to the media, the Post-Courier understands two allegations relate to articles he posted on his Facebook account.

The first relates to Kramer allegedly scandalising the judiciary by posting articles insinuating a conflict of interest by Chief Justice Sir Gibbs Salika.

The second allegation also relates to Kramer scandalising the judiciary by posting articles accusing Ialibu-Pangia MP Peter O’Neill and his lawyers of filing a fake warrant of arrest to deceive and mislead the court in 2019.

Other allegations
Other allegations relate to misappropriation and misconduct through the Madang District Development Authority.

In a brief response to the allegations, Kramer said the following over the first two allegations:

“The allegations of scandalising the judiciary are misplaced and nonsensical. It’s not an insinuation.

“It’s a fact the CJ, who I understand is the complainant in this allegation, is a close friend of the former Prime Minister Peter O’Neill and was appointed on an NEC submission sponsored by O’Neill.

“On the allegation scandalising the judiciary by posting articles on Facebook accusing O’Neill and his lawyers of filing a fake warrant of arrest to deceive and mislead the court in the matter OS JR No. 720 of 2019; the lawyer and registry staff were in fact criminally charged and after considering the evidence the Committal Court has ruled there is sufficient evidence to commit them to stand trial in the National Court.”

At Wednesday’s press conference Kramer discredited the investigations process applied by the Ombudsman Commission.

“On December 4 2021, I wrote to the Chief Ombudsman requesting an extension of time to respond to the allegations, and more importantly, asked that they provide the evidence they relied on to form the opinion that I was guilty of misconduct in office.”

He said his request was denied and he was told the investigations were confidential.

Convenient time for opponents
However, Kramer contends that after they formed their opinion, he should have been afforded the right to view the evidence. He noted that the timing of the referral had come at a convenient time for political opponents as the country is two months away from an election.

If a leadership tribunal is appointed to look into the allegations, Kramer will be subsequently suspended from office and duties.

“Everyone in this country knows, in terms of a member of Parliament that is carrying out major reforms in fighting corruption, would be myself.

“So given these allegations are ridiculous and the amount of corruption out there, that for some reason, the Ombudsman Commission saw fit to try pursuing allegations that, mind you, are completely ridiculous, against me on the eve of election,” he said.

“I intend to challenge these allegations, firstly, in the National Court, so seeking orders that the court direct the Ombudsman Commission provide me the evidence that I requested for breach of natural justice and once that evidence is provided then I look forward if the Ombudsman continue with these ridiculous allegations to then go before the tribunal and defend these allegations.”

Thierry Lepani is a PNG Post-Courier journalist. Republished with permission.

By Miriam Zarriga in Port Moresby

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Political fallout from a controversial loan taken on by Papua New Guinea’s government five years ago could hinder rather than help attempts to remove Prime Minister Peter O’Neill.

O’Neill and other leading officials have been referred by the Ombudsman Commission to a Leadership Tribunal over a US$1.2 billion loan his government took on from Swiss-based investment bank UBS in 2014.

The ombudman’s report, which was completed last December but only handed to the Parliament Speaker, Job Pomat, late last month, is yet to be tabled in the house.

READ MORE: UBS loan to PNG may have breached 15 laws

LISTEN: The controversial loan saga on RNZ Dateline Pacific

However, the report has been published at a time when the parliamentary opposition, bolstered by recent defections from the government, is planning for a vote of no confidence against the prime minister later this month.

The UBS loan was nominally taken for the state to buy a 10 percent stake in oil and gas producer Oil Search, a major player in PNG’s burgeoning petroleum sector.

In last week’s heated Parliament debate the prime minister said it was imperative for the state to regain Oil Search shares.

These were earlier lost after being mortgaged by PNG’s Sir Michael Somare government in 2009 as it sought finance from the United Arab Emirates-based International Petroleum Investment Company to gain equity in the country’s first LNG gas project.

‘Strategic investment’
“The Treasury officials said the Oil Search investment is a strategic investment to government,” O’Neill explained in Parliament last week.

“So the company decided to offer the government of Papua New Guinea at a special issue so we can secure the 10 percent. Why? Because Oil Search, even today, is the biggest company in PNG, is the biggest taxpayer in PNG.

However, the report reveals that the Ombudsman found the prime minister failed to present the government’s proposal on the borrowing of a loan, from UBS’ Australia branch, in Parliament for debate and approval as required by the constitution.

O’Neill was found to have misled the cabinet into approving the loan, among other irregularities. But he was not alone.

The commission’s findings also implicate the former Finance Minister, James Marape, who was found to have signed off the loan’s approval as minister despite knowledge of irregularities and “that his actions were improper”.

According to the opposition’s justice spokesman, Kerenga Kua, the deal and O’Neill’s lead role in pushing it through were very suspicious. He said the greatest transgression in the deal was its commercial injustice.

“In the end we only held that share for about twelve months before it was foreclosed by UBS and sold. So you see we don’t have those shares in our hands any more, because the state fell into default on that loan arrangement.”

Stock price fell
PNG was forced to sell its Oil Search shares when the stock price fell sharply, incurring a big loss. On the other hand, UBS profited around US$83 million in fees, interest and trading revenue from the deal.

Kua said the financial professionals involved in arranging the huge loan must have known the transaction was bound to fail for PNG.

“They would have seen this as a scam, a real professional scam. Because everybody knew of the state’s financial vulnerability, and its lack of cash flow to pay for that loan,” Kua said.

“Yet they created a monster, so that within a matter of months it would fall into default, and then you foreclose on the asset, cover yourself. But what are the people of PNG left with? Nothing, except a debt of 3 billion kina [NZ$1.4 billion].”

But an issue over which the opposition has been attacking O’Neill for years is now proving problematic for the MP seeking to replace the prime minister.

Marape, who resigned last month as minister and left the ruling party, has emerged as the opposition’s choice for alternative prime minister in a motion of confidence against O’Neill which it lodged last week.

But along with other officials, including Government Chief Secretary Isaac Lupari, Treasury Secretary Dairi Vele, and the Central Bank Governor Loi Bakani, Marape has also been referred by the Ombudsman Commission for investigation under the leadership code over the UBS loan. This undermines his own recent attacks on the prime minister.

Questions unsuccessful
Standing on opposite sides of the Parliament chamber for the first time last week, Marape questioned the prime minister about the loan process. The questions were unsuccessful because the prime minister was able to remind Marape that he was also involved in those decisions himself.

While it remains to be seen whether O’Neill, Marape and others will face the Leadership Tribunal, the opposition continues to portray the prime minister as the lead transgressor in the UBS saga and other controversies.

The former Health Minister, Sir Puka Temu, who also left the government last month, has portrayed the prime minister as exerting too much control on state departments, overriding the authority of ministers.

“I resigned because I saw things were not working well. There were a lot of corrupt practices and there were governance processes from agencies and bodies of the state that the leaders did not support,” Sir Puka said.

O’Neill has denied any wrongdoing, characterising the investigation as politically motivated, and part of a “dirty game” by the opposition as it tries to lure support to change the government.

He has indicated that the issue would be the subject of a judicial review.

Although he was a member of the last Somare government in its later stages, O’Neill has placed blame with that regime for placing PNG in a weak position when it sought finance in Abu Dhabi for the LNG Project.

Country ‘mortgaged’
“When they borrowed that money, when the mortgaged not only Oil Search, but they borrowed every state-owned entity of this country,” O’Neill explained.

“So if we wanted to sell one of the planes in Air Niugini, we had to ask the permission of the Arabs. If we wanted to sell one of the buildings in any of the SOEs, we had to ask the Arabs. So literally, we were mortgaged to the Arabs.”

But Kua said the O’Neill government’s purchase of Oil Search shares under the controversial UBS loan was a far more shoddy deal than the IPIC transaction.

“The IPIC transaction led to PNG owning 19.26 percent in the PNG LNG Project. That equity is still there and annually we are receiving over a billion kina in revenue from that project,” he explained.

The UBS loan was opposed from an early stage by the then Treasurer Don Polye, who ultimately refused to sign off on the deal before resigning in protest.

Polye insisted that the loan required parliamentary approval, warning that taking the loan on would break the country’s official debt ceiling.

The former Kandep MP was also not involved in the negotiations with Oil Search on the purchase of the shares.

‘Cup of coffee’
According to the Ombudsman report, the agreement to buy the shares was reached “over a cup of coffee” in a swanky Port Moresby hotel when O’Neill and Vele met with Oil Search’s managing director Peter Botten and its board chair, Gerea Aopi.

The government’s purchase of the Oil Search shares allowed the company to buy a stake in the Elk Antelope gas field in PNG’s Gulf province. This resource is being developed by French company Total SA to be the second major LNG project in PNG.

The Papua LNG Project agreement was signed by Total and the government last month.

However, the agreement immediately preceded the exodus from O’Neill’s ruling party, and was cited as a causal factor in the move by several of the MPs who resigned, including  Marape.

Warning that interests of provinces and landowners were not being protected, the MPs lamented that promised equity and royalty benefits from PNG’s first big LNG gas project, based in Marape’s province, had still not transpired, 10 years after that project agreement.

Meanwhile, the Chief Ombudsman, Richard Pagen, says the commission submitted its final UBS report to the Parliament Speaker, Job Pomat, on April 30.

Asserting that the commission has jurisdiction over the prime minister’s office, Pagen said the Speaker must table the report within 8 sitting days of receiving it.

Public interest
However, he added that the commission decided to publish the report as it considered it a matter of public interest

Only one day of Parliament sitting has lapsed since the handover of the report. That was last Tuesday, May 7, the same day the opposition lodged its motion of no confidence, when Pomat adjourned parliament until May 28.

PNG’s Attorney-General has filed a Supreme Court application to which could yet delay the confidence vote against the prime minister proceeding.

Opposition MPs say they’re confident that the vote will go ahead. The group is not likely to change Marape’s nomination as alternative prime minister, but his involvement in the UBS loan may yet count against him.

• This article is published under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.
• O’Neill on ABC’s Pacific Beat programme
• Marape accuses O’Neill government of ‘sabotage ploy’

By RNZ Pacific

A Papua New Guinea opposition MP has filed a criminal complaint against the Electoral Commissioner for alleged misdeeds in last year’s general election.

Madang Open’s Bryan Kramer yesterday filed a formal complaint about Commissioner Patilias Gamato with the National Fraud and Anti-Corruption Directorate.

Kramer’s complaint focuses on the election in the provincial seat of Southern Highlands.

He said Gamato’s premature declaration of a result was an act of electoral fraud that must not be allowed to be “swept under the carpet”.

One of the most controversial results in an election hampered with irregularities, it sparked deadly violence among supporters of rival candidates in the province.

Tensions have lingered, and a court ruling in June which upheld Southern Highlands provincial governor William Powi’s election triggered a rampage by protesters who torched an airplane, courthouse and the governor’s residence.

Kramer has filed a similar complaint with the Ombudsman Commission.

This article is republished under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.

Pacific Media Centre Newsdesk

The Ombudsman Commission has obtained an interim court order to extend the return of the general election writs until 2pm on Monday as uncertainty continued over Papua New Guinea’s new government.

Chief Ombudsman Michael Dick said this was to ensure the remaining seats were returned within legal boundaries to ensure elected MPs could participate in the election of the Speaker and Prime Minister.

The Governor-General, Sir Bob Dadae, yesterday invited incumbent Prime Minister Peter O’Neill to form a government, reports Loop PNG.

But Electoral Commissioner Patilias Gamato recommended that O’Neill be invited on the basis of incomplete writs – only those for 80 seats out of the 111-seat Parliament were presented, although 88 seats are understood to have been declared.

O’Neill’s People’s Congress Party (PNC) won the highest number of seats – 24 elected members. But O’Neill depends heavily on coalition partners to be able to form a government.

EMTV News reports that Chief Ombudsman Dick said Gamato must abide by the court order to hand over all the writs on Monday.

The Chief Ombudsman was accompanied by legal counsel Dr Vergil Narokobi and Ombudsman Richard Pagen.

Chief Ombudsman Dick resssured the electorates whose writs have not yet been returned that this court order would allow their elected members to participate in the first sitting of parliament.

It is unclear when that sitting will take place.

Asia Pacific Report is publishing electoral news from Papua New Guinea’s EMTV by arrangement.

• More PNG election stories
• O’Neill ‘invited’ to form government in spite of incomplete election results

Many of the complaints have requested the Ombudsman to initiate an inquiry into the Samoa Observer, publisher of the Sunday Samoan.

The Office of the Ombudsman has the power to investigate matters of good governance in public administration and to promote and protect human rights in Samoa.

It does not have the jurisdiction under the Ombudsman (Komesinao Sulufaiga) Act 2013 to regulate the media in Samoa.

Given that many of the complaints were concerned with poor journalism and a lack of media ethics on behalf of the Observer, the Office believes that the proposed Media Council is the appropriate mechanism to investigate and determine such complaints.

This statement does not concern the possible criminal investigation into the death of Jeanine. It is concerned with the article, the photo and the reporting of Jeanine’s death as a suicide by the Observer. It does not suggest that Jeanine’s death was either as a result of suicide or a possible homicide.

That is a matter for the Police and for the Coroner. Rather, the Office has weaved together relevant human rights and fa’asamoa principles to highlight how the article was inconsistent with Samoan culture and was also a fundamental breach of human rights.

Anguish caused
The Office understands the anguish this article has caused within the Samoan community. Many complaints include passionate arguments in the defence of Jeanine and the fa’afafine community.

It is heartening to know that so many within the Samoan community defended Jeanine’s rights at a time when Jeanine could not.

It is also encouraging that so many people stood up for the rights of Jeanine’s family as well as fa’afafine in Samoa.

The Office notes that the Observer has since apologised to Jeanine’s family and to its readers for publishing the article. It has also published many editorials criticising the Observer, including a moving statement from the Samoa Fa’afafine Association. This statement seeks to assist in the reconciliation process so that Jeanine’s family can grieve for the loss of their loved one in private and to assure the fa’afafine community that they are loved and protected in Samoa.

Right to dignity and the lack of mutual respect afforded to Jeanine and family

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

— Article 1 of the Declaration of Human Rights.The dignity of the human person is not only a fundamental human right in itself, but constitutes the basis of all human rights.The Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrined this principle in its preamble where it states “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”. Article 1 of the Declaration reminds us that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that people should act towards one another in a spirit of ‘brotherhood’.

This concept mirrors the core fa’asamoa principle of feavaa’i (mutual respect). Like the human right to dignity, feavaa’i is demanded of all Samoans. It is something that should be afforded to all people, regardless of their gender, race or creed. It should also be afforded at all stages of the human experience, from birth to adolescence, adulthood and even in death.

The Observer did not afford Jeanine, and the family, respect when it published the photo and printed the article on the front page of the Sunday Samoan. It showed a callous disregard for Jeanine as a human being. It denied Jeanine’s right to inherent dignity and took away Jeanine’s humanity. The Office strongly endorses the Samoa Fa’afafine Association’s comment that we all have a responsibility to incorporate our fa’asamoa in all that we do. This sentiment reflects a central theme of human rights which is that we should respect the rights of others without discrimination.

The misgendering of a fa’afafine
The article also failed to afford Jeanine and the fa’afafine community respect when it referred to Jeanine as a man when the term fa’afafine is widely recognised in the Samoan community Terminology can have a profound impact on a person’s identity, self-worth and inherent dignity. The use of inclusive and accepted terminology empowers individuals. Terminology that describes such intrinsic parts of a person’s identity or characteristics carries a heavy weight and significance. This is particularly so for groups that have been stigmatised in their community. In those circumstances, terms validate who someone is and may help them to feel connected to others who share that identity or those characteristics. While terminology evolves over time, what remains constant is the importance of treating each person with dignity, in a way that protects the person from discrimination and violence.

Fa’afafine are an important part of Samoan culture. They are traditionally known for their hard work and dedication to the family in carrying out the roles and responsibilities of both men and women. We should always consider our fa’asamoa by ensuring that we afford fa’afafine feavaa’i and refer to them in a manner that is both culturally and gender sensitive.

Freedom of expression, the role of the media and the need for industry oversight
The media play an important role in any democratic society. Media organisations such as the Observer help generate public debate on important public issues and ensure that the government and business are held accountable for their actions. Above all else, the media should report the news in an objective and responsible manner. The media should always serve the public by providing it with accurate and reliable information. The article did not do this. It was based on hearsay and insinuated the reasons for Jeanine’s death without corroborating its source.

In an edition of the Observer dated 22 February 2016, the editor stated that Samoa did not need a Media Council as the Observer had been operating for many years without one. The inappropriate publishing of the photo, combined with the insensitive reporting of Jeanine’s death and gender clearly highlights the need for industry oversight of Samoa’s media.

The Media Council Act 2015 creates a mechanism for such oversight. It establishes the Media Council and requires it to develop a Code of Practice regulating the broadcast of news and current affairs in Samoa. Under the Act, complaints can be made to the Council about breaches of the Code. The Council has the power to hear, investigate and make decisions regarding such complaints. This mechanism is established practice around the world with many countries such as Australia, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Canada enacting similar procedures with regards to regulating their media. It is regulation of the media, by the media.

It is the responsibility of the Journalists Association of Samoa (JAWS) to elect an executive committee which then appoints members to the Media Council. It has yet to do this. The Media Act also permits the Head of State, on the advice of Cabinet, to appoint an interim Council if JAWS fails to appoint one itself. It also allows the Interim Council to adopt a Code of Practice from another jurisdiction until one is adopted by the Media Council.

In the same editorial mentioned above, the editor said that the Media Council would result in a restriction of press freedom and freedom of expression in Samoa. The right to freedom of expression is contained in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) as well as the Constitution of Samoa. It includes the right of a person to publish information and ideas of all kinds, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media. When the editor of a newspaper decides to publish an article he exercises his right to freedom of expression. However, freedom of expression is not an unlimited right. Under human rights law, a person’s right to freedom of expression can be restricted in certain exceptional circumstances. These include things like protecting a person’s reputation (defamation laws), as well as for the protection of national security, public morals, public health and public order.

As will be explained below, the prevention of suicide is considered a legitimate public health issue. A Media Code of Practice, which includes a set of standards for the reporting of suicide in Samoa is an appropriate way to regulate media behaviour, including preventing the inappropriate reporting of suicide. A Media Code of Practice would not breach Article 19 of the ICCPR and would be a permissible restriction to the right to freedom of expression.

Recommendation: If JAWS has yet to establish the Media Council, the Office of the Ombudsman recommends that the Cabinet establish an Interim Media Council. The Interim Council should adopt a code of practice from another jurisdiction until JAWS can appoint members to the Media Council for it to develop Samoa’s own Media Code of Practice.

Recommendation: The Office of the Ombudsman recommends that once appointed, the Media Council immediately take steps to formulate and adopt Samoa’s own Media Code of Practice.

Recommendation: The Office of the Ombudsman recommends that all the complaints relating to unethical journalism regarding the article “Suicide in Church Hall” be transferred to the Media Council for its consideration.

Reporting of suicide in the media
This section relates to the reporting of Jeanine’s death as a suicide. Again, the Office does not suggest that it was either a suicide or a homicide. This section is only concerned with the appropriate reporting of suicide in the media.

Suicide is a serious public health problem all around the world, including Samoa. The factors contributing to suicide and its prevention are complex and not yet fully understood. There is increasing evidence that suggests the media plays a significant role in both the cause and prevention of suicide. A number of studies have shown that inappropriate reporting can lead to ‘copycat’ suicides. However, it has also been proven that responsible reporting of this issue in the media can help educate the public, and may encourage those at risk to seek help.

In 2008 the World Health Organisation and the International Association for the Prevention of Suicide released a Checklist for Media Professionals to be used when reporting this issue. The Observer failed to do nine out of eleven steps before publishing the article. It failed to:

• Take the opportunity to educate the public about suicide – suicide is never the result of a single factor or event. It can be misleading to attribute it to a single event such as failing an exam or a breakdown in a relationship.

• Avoid language which is sensationalised or normalised suicide – The media should recognise the importance of language when reporting events. Rather than educate Samoa about suicide, the Observer’s article and photo sensationalised Jeanine’s death.

• Avoid explicit description of the method used. The Observer’s inclusion of the photo and the article itself failed to do this.

• Avoid providing detailed information about the site. Again, The Observer’s inclusion of the photo and the article itself failed to do this.

• Word headlines carefully – the word ‘suicide’ should be avoided in the headline.

• Avoid including a photo of someone who has died of a suicide.

• Show consideration for family and friends who are grieving for the deceased. As mentioned above, the Observer failed to afford Jeanine’s family mutual respect (feavaa’i) by publishing the photo and the article.

The Office notes that the New Zealand High Commission has offered to fund training for the media in Samoa on the appropriate reporting of suicide and suicide prevention. The Office understands that the media is responding positively to this initiative.

Recommendation: The Office of the Ombudsman recommends that the Media Council, once appointed, adopt a set of standards for the appropriate reporting of suicide in the media.

Recommendation: The Office of the Ombudsman recommends that JAWS, with the assistance of the New Zealand High Commission, facilitate training for all its members in the appropriate reporting of suicide.

This week has been a difficult week for the fa’afafine community, the staff of the Samoa Observer and indeed for the country. However, it must be remembered that it is the people who were closest to Jeanine that have had to endure the worst. The Office would like to offer its condolences to Jeanine’s family and friends as they grieve for the loss of their loved one. Our thoughts and prayers are with you as you go through this difficult time.

Statement from Samoa’s Office of the Ombudsman published in the Samoa Observer.

• Earlier reports on the Sunday Samoan publication issue

By Serah Aupong in Port Moresby

Former Chief Ombudsman and Police Commissioner Illa Geno says investigations into allegations against the Prime Minister should continue without interference.

Speaking to EMTV News earlier this week, Geno, who is also an individual member of the Community Coalition Against Corruption, supports the call by the coalition for other constitutional offices such as the Ombudsman Commission to assure the public that they are addressing the serious allegations that have been made against public office holders.

Through his time in public office, Geno has been the police commissioner, chair of the public service commission and the chief ombudsman. He said the integrity of an individual and the integrity of the constitution must be upheld at all costs.

“Rule of law must be upheld without fear or favour. Everyone in this country is subject to the constitution. We are very fortunate that we have a constitutional democracy and in my view, democracy will not work on its own,” he said.

“We must have a very strong rule of law, which is the constitution to make it work. The challenge is that those officers who are manning, who are at the helm leading those institutions they must work otherwise we have lost the plot.”

Speaking about the events surrounding the questioning of the Prime Minister, and allegations of his involvement in the Paul Paraka issue, Geno said the investigations needed to be completed.

“The allegations of criminal offences and when the police officer authorised by the constitution (under section 196, 197 and 198), under reasonable suspicion believe offence has been committed, they have to act without referral to anybody, no,” Geno said.

Moral integrity
Former Chief Justice Sir Arnold Amet said in a separate interview from Madang that the moral integrity of the Prime Minister’s office needs to be protected and the Prime Minister O’Neill needed to go in for questioning.

“All that he needs to do is simply volunteer to go in and answer the questions from the fraud squad officers. Then the warrant of arrest will be rendered unnecessary and the calls to step aside. Although not required under any law at the present, it’s a moral issue,” he said.

Geno added that he believed there was cause for concern in regard to the issue of vetting investigations by higher-ranking officials.

“Any member outside of the police force to be involved in the vetting process, that is unconstitutional and also arguably may tantamount or impeach on the role of the judiciary,” Sir Arnold said.

He also said its time the Ombudsman Commission should state clearly if they are investigating a serious allegation of the breach of the leadership code.

“The ball is in the court of the Ombudsman Commission whether they are going to do anything about it or not. That is their call, but as a former Chief Ombudsman I can see that from observation multiple leadership breaches have already been committed,” he said.

So far the Prime Minister has maintained, through media statements and in Parliament, that unless evidence of his involvement is produced he will not go in for questioning.

“I’ve always stated this and will say this again, very clearly. If there is one evidence that I receive one financial benefit I will resign tomorrow,” the PM said.

Serah Aupong is an EMTV News journalist in Papua New Guinea.

• Former PM says O’Neill should submit to police investigation
• The National refuses to publish distinguished jurist’s statement