PNG PM advises he doesnt wish to settle refugees

[mellie]

“It was particularly troubling to hear the Prime minister of Papua New Guinea telling reporters at Friday’s media conference that he hoped there would be no refugees for his country to settle."-RCOA chief executive officer Paul Power

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/n/mr/130723_PNG.pdf


Sounds encouraging. -wry smirk-



So let me get this straight, Rudd has made a deal with PNG's PM to settle refugees in PNG, but their PM advises that he hopes it never gets to that?


In other words, PNG's PM is either lying to his nations people re- the "solution" (deal he made with Rudd) or he's of the view that the "solution" itself is not something he hopes his country will have to contend with.

[Rorschach]

He said that the day they signed the agreement.

Somare is now kicking up a political stink.

[Rorschach]

Somare says Rudd’s PNG plan will fail
26 Jul 2013
John Kerin

A former prime minister of Papua New Guinea, Sir Michael Somare, has denounced Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s asylum-seeker deal, accusing Mr Rudd of using his country as a dumping ground for displaced people.

Sir Michael, PNG’s best-known political figure and first prime minister after independence in 1975, is a fierce rival of present Prime Minister Peter O’Neill.

Mr O’Neill edged Sir Michael out of office in a peaceful virtual coup in 2011 that triggered a constitutional crisis and mutiny within the military.

“These people coming on boats want to go to Australia, so why send them to Papua New Guinea . . . It looks as though Australia is dumping them into Papua New Guinea,’’ Sir Michael told The Australian Financial Review on Thursday.

“I know Kevin Rudd well and he is a friend of mine, but what he is doing to Papua New Guinea is not right.’’

Sir Michael’s comments to the Financial Review were his first since Mr Rudd and Mr O’Neilll announced a deal a week ago under which all asylum seekers arriving in Australia by boat will be sent to PNG in an effort to break the people-smuggling trade and stem the flow of asylum-seeker boats.

The deal also includes a rejigging of Australia’s $500 million annual aid budget, the expansion of the Manus Island detention centre’s capacity from 600 people to 3000, and the potential for a second centre near Port Moresby.

But Sir Michael said the difference between Mr O’Neill’s deal and the Manus Island deal he had entered with former Australian prime minister John Howard as part of Mr Howard’s Pacific Solution was that it was always understood the detention centre would be a “place of transit until Australia found a place for them [the refugees] rather than resettling them in Papua New Guinea’’.

“How can we resettle them? Papua New Guinea has its huge problems itself . . . 80 per cent of the country’s population lives in rural areas,” he said.

“We need to find enough food to feed people in the villages, provide education and health services, without having to provide this to refugees and, in addition, we may have to find the refugees land,’’ he said.

Sir Michael said he also did not share Mr Rudd’s and Mr O’Neill’s confidence that the arrangement would stop the boats. “These people are desperate to get to Australia and to live the lifestyle Australia provides and I believe they will keep coming,’’ he said.

“Dumping people on Papua New Guinea is not a good arrangement . . . we need to stop this program,’’ he said.

Mr O’Neill had also made a unilateral decision without consulting the PNG Parliament or the people and it was clear even now that the PNG public was opposed. “The proposal should have been publicly debated, the Parliament should have been consulted.’’

Sir Michael said he was also concerned about the level of Australia’s commitment. “This agreement only goes for 12 months and, though Australia has given assurances of financial assistance, how long will that last and how much money will Papua New Guinea have to find in the longer term?

“Thousands of displaced people could finish up coming to Papua New Guinea and, while we have sufficient budget for our own, how will we find the money to support the program in 20 years or 50 years?’’