The Papua New Guinea High Commissioner, Sir Frederick Reiher, put a very forthright view that Australia has been heavy-handed, remote and unsympathetic to his county in its time of need. He was referring to Australia’s rejection of a recent request for $100 million bridging finance. The Australian Government offered $20 million immediately and a further $20 million on conditions.
Sir Frederick’s assertions went wider than that incident. In condensed form his argument is that Australia should not treat PNG as naughty boys not to be trusted with block grants; that Australia left PNG in the lurch at independence time two decades ago; that PNG helped save Australia during the war; that Australian companies take large amounts of profit out of PNG; and that it is in Australia’s interest to have a politically stable PNG so Australia should help PNG economically to ensure that. That is one way of looking at it.
There is another way of looking at it. International, PNG and Australian opinion were all in favour of PNG independence roughly in the timing and on the terms it was given and taken. PNG and Australia engaged in a joint defense against the Japanese in World War II which was in the interests of both communities. Australian investments in PNG provide infrastructure, employment, taxes and training in PNG as well as profit for their Australian shareholders. Those investments have come at some risk _ made worse by PNG’s appalling handling of the Bougainville crisis. Lastly, it certainly is in the interests of the people of PNG and Australia to have political stability, but the primary creators of that stability are the politicians of PNG.
It is a bizarre form of suicidal blackmail for Sir Frederick to suggest that Australia should give cash to PNG because not to would result in political unrest on Australia’s doorstep.
There is no doubt that Australia has a special duty to PNG. That arises out of the former trustee relationship that goes back to the aftermath of World War I. It also arises from the fact that PNG is our nearest neighbor and there are numerous personal ties between the people of each nation.
That duty requires more than responding with cash every year or on the odd occasion when PNG seeks a special request. The Australian Government has a duty to both its taxpayers and the people of PNG to ensure that its aid money is well spent.
For the past 20 years Australia has given the equivalent of $300 million a year straight to the PNG Budget. It has the apparent virtue of being less paternalistic in that PNG is seen to make decisions for itself. Against that, however, is the evidence of mismanagement, corruption and incompetence among PNG politicians that suggests the aid would be better spent if it were targeted to specific projects _ it would certainly be better for ordinary people in PNG.
To be fair to the Government of Sir Julius Chan, which Sir Frederick represents, it has inherited Bougainville and budgetary blow-outs and it has not been guilty of the corruption of past administrations.
It was valuable for Sir Frederick to put his view and its is important for Australia to understand the PNG perspective. It is equally important for PNG to understand that Australia is a good friend and neighbor, and that that friendship and good neighborliness is strengthened not weakened by Australia having the courage to say, “Hang on a moment, we are not going to endlessly hand out cash as part of some post-colonial guilt syndrome unless we are sure the help is effective.”
Australia has a right to say that because unless PNG improves its administration Australia will be put in a far harsher light as it is forced to support harsher financial measures later on.