Comments

Michael Kabuni’s recent analysis of the Pukpuk Defence Treaty raises important questions about sovereignty, militarisation, and Australia’s strategic intent. His warning—that the treaty could backfire—deserves serious reflection. But it must now be answered from a citizen-centred position that recognises both the National Government’s authority over foreign policy and the citizens’ right to accountable implementation. The real issue is not whether PNG should engage with Australia, but "how those engagements are governed" once signed. 1 Respect for the National Mandate Foreign policy is the constitutional prerogative of the National Government. Papua New Guinea cannot and should not fragment its international voice. Prime Minister Marape and the National Executive Council have the lawful authority to negotiate and sign treaties. Citizens must respect that sovereignty. Yet signature is only the first act of governance. The daily work of translating any treaty into budgets, contracts, and projects falls to public officials—national and provincial—and this is where history shows our failures. 2 Where Past Agreements Went Wrong Manus Province knows this story too well. During the ANZUS era, Lombrum was traded for access without benefit to locals. Decades later, the Regional Processing Centre again turned Manus into a host site rather than a partner. Money flowed, but accountability evaporated. Provincial businesses were excluded, and the promised development legacy vanished. The problem was not foreign partnership itself—it was the **absence of enforceable governance mechanisms** binding our own officials to transparent performance. 3 The People’s Expectation: Justiciable Accountability The Pukpuk Treaty must therefore be implemented under rules that make every official—appointed or elected, national or provincial— "justiciable" for performance. The Constitution’s Eight Point Plan, the National Goals and Directive Principles, and the Basic Social Obligations give moral direction, but they are not enforceable in court. That gap between moral duty and legal accountability is where public trust is lost and corruption grows. Closing that gap is now essential. Performance-Based Contracts under the "General Orders" already exist. They set Key Performance Indicators for departmental heads, CEOs, and administrators. But those indicators rarely include treaty-specific obligations such as: - timely publication of procurement information; - compliance with local-content requirements; - adherence to environmental and social safeguards; and - transparent reporting of counterpart funding. Every official whose work touches the Pukpuk Treaty must have these duties written into their contracts and reviewed quarterly. Failure should trigger sanctions under the "Leadership Code" and the "Public Services Management Act." 4 Provincial Integration—Especially for Manus The "Organic Law on Provincial and Local-Level Governments" gives provinces clear legislative powers over trade, industry, and local economic development. Those powers do not challenge the National Government’s foreign-policy role; they complement it by ensuring that implementation on provincial soil benefits the people who live there. Manus therefore has both the right and the responsibility to establish instruments such as: A Manus Development Corporation (MDC): a provincial commercial arm to hold equity and negotiate joint ventures. The Provincial Procurement and Partnership Board (PPPB): a gatekeeper to certify local-content compliance before any contract above K2 million is approved. A Local Partnership Protocol (LPP): binding all contractors to hire, train, and purchase locally, and to contribute to a community infrastructure fund. Embedding these mechanisms inside the treaty’s implementation schedule does not weaken national sovereignty; it strengthens it by distributing responsibility. This is "governance for the people by the people." 5 From Secrecy to Transparency Kabuni is correct that the treaty has been discussed largely among elites. That must change. The principle should be simple: "no agreement that affects citizens should be implemented in the shadows." Every contract signed under the treaty should be uploaded to an "Open Contracting Portal" accessible to all Papua New Guineans. Payment certificates must be tied to quarterly performance reports published on that portal. “No Portal, No Pay” should become a rule across government. The Auditor-General and Ombudsman Commission must be mandated to audit and investigate treaty-related expenditure annually. Their findings should be tabled before Parliament and the Provincial Assembly. This transforms public oversight from sentiment to structure. 6 The Role of Citizens Citizens are not spectators in foreign policy. Our taxes, land, and resources sustain these partnerships. We must understand that "sovereignty is shared work"—the National Government signs, the provinces operationalise, and the people monitor co-creation. Civic organisations, churches, and youth groups in Manus and other provinces should use public data to track: - Self-employment numbers of local residents; - value of contracts awarded to local firms; - delivery of promised community projects; and - compliance with environmental obligations. When citizens are informed, manipulation loses its grip. 7 Avoiding the Trap of Sentiment Some voices frame the Pukpuk Treaty only through fear—fear of Australia’s influence, fear of militarisation, fear of loss of independence. These concerns are real, but they must not become paralysis. The danger is not partnership; it is poor governance. A treaty built on transparency and measurable accountability will not backfire. A treaty executed in secrecy and self-interest will. The difference lies entirely in our own systems of implementation. 8 Defining “Governance for the People, by the People” Governance for the people means that every kina spent and every commitment made under the treaty can be traced to a public outcome: self-employment opportunities, training, or infrastructure that improves lives. Governance by the people means that provincial institutions, local leaders, and civil society are not passive recipients but active participants in decision-making and monitoring. When the National Government negotiates in Canberra, it speaks for PNG. When the treaty is executed in Lorengau or Lae, it must perform for Papua New Guineans. That is the bridge between authority and accountability. 9 The Way Forward 1. Align Performance Contracts: All officers linked to treaty implementation must have KPIs on transparency, local participation, and fiscal discipline. 2. Enforce the Leadership Code: Any misuse of authority or conflict of interest in treaty projects must trigger immediate investigation. 3. Legislate Transparency: Mandate the Open Contracting Portal and annual audit publication. 4. Empower Provinces: Adopt by-laws establishing MDCs and PPPBs to operationalise local benefits. 5. Educate Citizens: Launch civic programmes explaining the treaty’s purpose, rights, and oversight channels. The Pukpuk Treaty is not, in itself, the threat. The risk lies in whether our officials and institutions apply the same discipline to implementation that our soldiers apply to defence. PNG’s strength will not be measured by the number of foreign ships in its harbours but by the honesty and efficiency of the officers managing those agreements. Thank you Michael Kabuni for his caution, but move the debate from fear to function. The National Government holds the constitutional pen; the people hold the moral ledger. Every official—national or provincial—must now be judged by the same standard: performance, transparency, and loyalty to the citizens they serve. That is how sovereignty becomes real. That is governance for the people, by the people - The Manusian Way.

The treaty have both positive and negative outcomes that we will soon encounter . Australia may be concern about its border corridors, but that does not mean we sign this treaty. Australia and PNG have been together for a for a centaury since Australia's Independence in 1901. Australia and PNG are naturally allied! This defense agreement is a treat to PNGs economic growth and security itself. In case of a conflict, Australia will surely use PNG because of this defense agreement. Australia achieve is agenda, so lets wait and see Chinas agenda!

I concur this observation.

Hugh was a beautiful man. I pay my deepest respect to his partner Connie and family. I remember fondly spending time in PNG with his family, travelling to the Highlands and sharing time when they were in Townsville. I especially pass on my condolences to Jocey, such a beautiful person.

Absolutely!

Insightful read! Thank you Richie for putting this together, as a young Papua New Guinean interested with the Economics of Health and International development, this gives me much needed perspective. A challenge for us Pacific Island nations would taking control of our development agenda, this would mean setting our priorities and putting health front and center in our development plans. I've been reading about investments in Defense treaties and sports diplomacy all while health takes a back seat. I hope we will see a shift in momentum towards HSS in the years to come.

Thankyou for putting it down on paper. Hope this reaches the leaders in that area.

Thank you Mark. Complexity is the order of the day. In my experience leadership at community level has little in common with the aspirations of those elected into the three tiered government system. An inherited artefact in contrast to traditional leadership roles. The two systems operate in different worlds that for practical purposes remain barely connected. In my view, while development assistance is preferentially channelled through one at the expense of the other, models to facilitate sustainable last mile services and community driven economic empowerment will remain elusive.

PukPuk Defense Treaty – A sovereign Breach to PNG’s Foreign Policy of being “Friends to All and Enemy to None” Hidden behind the Pukpuk Defense Treaty lies the real intention and agendas of a Australian government that can dictate our national security interest. This treaty might sound very good to our ears however in reality it indirectly violates our Foreign Policy of being “Friends to all and Enemies to None”. As an independent nation, the government must conduct a thorough analysis before signing it. It is important that the treaty negotiated must be aligned to our national security interest, it must respect our bilateral or development partners and most importantly the 10 million people of Papua New Guinea must understand the consequences of it in the long run. As a developing nation with a welcoming foreign policy, it is irrelevant to certain stage to beef up our defense capability and capacity on the 50th anniversary of our nation. Economically we are still dependent. The government must set a tone that should focus on negotiating Economic Treaties and Communique instead of depending on the aid and grants donated annually by our bilateral partners. As we progress into another 50 years of nationhood the government should strengthen its ties and negotiate treaties which can solidify our status as a Melanesian nation that strive for peace, respect and collaboration. In the Geopolitical arena, the Superpowers (USA and China) are battling against each other over the influence in the Pacific Region. As a citizen of Papua New Guinea, I view this treaty as a strategic move from the Australian Government to counter the Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific Region. As per military perspective, this Treaty exemplifies the fact that Papua New Guinea is heading towards the status of being classified as a “BUFFER STATE” between the Western Powers and China. In the end, as a sovereign nation we will become victims of this treaty if not examine thoroughly.

Thanks, Ian, for outlining this well. It's making me think that since it is a development issue as you have argued well, we should focus on developmental solutions more than just health solutions to the issue. Fiscal policies to curb the epidemic and raise finance, urban and infrastructure development, governance and policy cohesion, technology and innovation etc.

DOES AUSTRALIA WANT PNG TO PROGRESS?? I don't see the logic of Australia suddenly being interested in a security communique, obviously with China in mind, when Australia is flooded with Chinese students and businesses? I don't know about the other states but Canberra sounds and looks like a Chinese Province, on campus and outside. Since the introduction of the OBE by DFAT consultants that disrupted the education system, impacting several generations, I started to think maybe Australia does not really want PNG to develop as fast as it could. I am an Australian Award Scholarship student and am grateful to Australian taxpayers but academics is a neutral space to speak and we are educated to think critically and not be naive and indifferent to realities and be rubber stamps for a salary, so I am expressing my views. PNG needs an economic Communique with Australia, and this should have commenced 50 years ago. We shed blood side by side with them didn't we? We are the last frontier therefore it is in Australia's and the US's best interest for PNG to become a strong vibrant economy and so they could have and should have guided a young PNG to develop its industries, and through out the years help to develop PNGs energy sector to reduce costs of businesses. We became a sovereign nation but it was obvious from the outset we were naive of realities to come and Australia and US have benefitted tremendously from our resources and continues to be today because we remain naive after 50 years. PNG is a satellite of Australia, we eat talk dress like them and play their sports. But Australia must never think we will remain dependent on them nor should they undermine or suppress PNGs potential. I will never forget When the Australian Immigration checked Grand Chiefs sandals at about the time "look north" was coined, this incident was direct disrespect to our nationhood. Indecisive and shallow political leaders will flatter for credits points and grants/loans for political survival but cannot make a strong statement on PNGs real needs, interests and future aspirations. Pacific political leaders look to have more wisdom than their PNG counterparts that is why despite having no significant resource projects or big national budgets, their social and economic indicators surpass PNG stats.

Thanks for this analysis. I see it was announced that the MW will rise to the hypothetical K5 in the piece on 1 January 2026. The scope of the analysis is clear (i.e. one urban FT MW earner with dependents and the CoHD), but this is probably too narrow a frame to make a compelling argument for a raise without any discussion of the actual number of people it will affect (how many are actually known to be on and paid MW) and any potential implications for employment and compliance, in terms of following it or going informal. I was looking into the literature on this recently for another project in another country and found these two pieces helpful: https://docs.iza.org/dp15340.pdf https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X20302928 In terms of the analysis, it seems the crucial determinants of food security status above is household type. That is, whether one young person living in the city, a dual earning couple, and whether and how many children and dependents, all of which we can observe but give rise to a wide degree of heterogeneity in thinking who to optimise welfare floors with respect to. Thanks for an interesting read, and I hope people are planning to collect data on the impacts of the MW rise in addition to the GST exemption! Ryan