Australia Reviews Our Security Deal. Why Has PNG’s Committee Stayed Silent?

-

The Australian Parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT) recently released Report 220, a detailed review of the Agreement Between the Government of Australia and the Government of Papua New Guinea on a Framework for Closer Security Relations. This report, tabled in September 2024, goes beyond the legal text: it explores obligations, costs, implementation pathways, and even sensitive issues such as the status of forces, immunities, and cyber security. Its central recommendation was clear—Australia should proceed with binding treaty action.

The report demonstrates how Australia institutionalises scrutiny of treaty commitments. JSCOT examined the treaty text, considered a National Interest Analysis, held public hearings, and questioned senior officials from Defence, Foreign Affairs, and the Federal Police. It explored implications for sovereignty, fiscal costs, and the legal framework of cooperation. This reflects a deliberate effort to ensure public accountability and parliamentary oversight of international security agreements.

Contrast this with PNG. Our Permanent Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence has the mandate under Standing Order 24E to examine matters referred by the Parliament, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, or the Minister for Defence. It may also investigate and report on other foreign affairs and defence issues at its own discretion. The committee is chaired by Mr. Belden Nama and includes members Mr. Toboi Yoto (Deputy Chair), Mr. Charlie Benjamin, Mr. Chris Haiveta, Mr. Gordon Wesley, and Mr. William Powi. Yet despite this authority and breadth of membership, it has not produced any equivalent report to JSCOT’s Review 220 for public knowledge.

The PNG Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs & Defence is mandated to scrutinize foreign and defence matters. Yet, unlike Australia’s JSCOT which published Report 220 on the PNG–Australia security framework, this committee has not issued any equivalent public report—leaving a major gap in transparency and public knowledge.

The silence is glaring. PNG citizens are left without a parliamentary report assessing the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA), let alone the Defence Treaty now under negotiation. While Australians can read about how their parliament weighed questions of immunity, dispute settlement, and critical infrastructure cooperation, PNG’s citizens rely on media soundbites and political statements. Our committee has not discharged its responsibility to provide transparent, evidence-based scrutiny.

This matters because the stakes are high. The BSA already obliges PNG to consult, share security information, and provide reciprocal treatment to Australian personnel. The Defence Treaty, expected to be signed in September 2025, will go further—entrenching military-to-military obligations. Without a report or hearings from PNG’s parliamentary committee, the public cannot weigh the costs, sovereignty implications, or long-term risks of such commitments.

It is worth noting that PNG’s committee has all the tools it needs. Like JSCOT, it could call public hearings, question officials, and publish findings. Even a short report would demonstrate that PNG’s parliament is exercising sovereignty and not leaving scrutiny of national security commitments to foreign institutions. Instead, our parliamentary committee has remained passive—ceding the space to Australian institutions and external think-tanks.

The absence of PNG-led reporting also undermines negotiation leverage. A government that walks into treaty talks with a publicly scrutinised risk assessment has stronger bargaining power. Australia can point to JSCOT’s 90-page record of consultation and analysis. PNG has none. This imbalance reduces our ability to safeguard our national interests and sets a precedent where treaties are agreed with minimal domestic oversight.

Ultimately, the contrast is uncomfortable. On one side of the Torres Strait, a parliamentary committee produces detailed reports to inform the public and strengthen sovereignty. On the other, PNG’s Permanent Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, despite having the mandate and respected members such as Nama, Yoto, and Powi, has yet to deliver a single equivalent document. The question writes itself: if Australia has Report 220, why has PNG’s own committee remained silent?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Commercial liberalism and the six norms

-
Image
Liberal internationalism is defined by Griffiths, O'Callaghan and Roach (2008, p.190) as a project to transform international relations so that they conform to models of peace, freedom, and prosperity allegedly enjoyed within constitutional liberal democracies. The same scholars go further by dividing liberalism into three distinct groups. They say these are the three ways to implement the project. The way they present liberal internationalism as a project makes their work interesting. Three distinct groups Firstly, commercial liberalism is about free trade between states. States bilaterally or multilaterally via a platform like APEC pursue the goal of trade liberalization. Griffiths, O'Callagahan and Roach (ibid.) argued that economic interdependence would decrease the likelihood of going to war. Republican liberalism is about democratic peace. The scholars argued that the spread of democracy among states so that governments will be accountable to their citizens makes it di...
Read more

FPA: Organizational Process Model

-
This model centers on the fact that different bureaucracies have different standard operating procedures. These procedures are made in order to allow day to day operations to be carried out. Thus, a foreign policy decision is made based on these standard operating procedures. It is hard for a bureaucracy to make a decision or let alone function out of character or contrary to their standard operating procedure. The reading Chapter 4: Foreign policy shares a straight forward explanation of the OPM: "An alternative to the rational model of decision making is the organizational process model. In this model, foreign policy decision makers generally skip the labor-intensive process of identifying goals and alternative actions, relying instead for most decisions on standardized responses or standard operating procedures. For example, the U.S. State Department everyday receives more than a thousand reports or inquiries from its embassies around the world and sends out more than a ...
Read more

Allison's rational actor model

-
There are 3 common models of foreign policy decision making according to Graham Allison: rational actor model organizational process mode government politics model.  We will discuss the 3 models and compare them with the 3 levels of analysis. However, I challenge you to use your own initiative to learn about the other models of decision making. This will help you as future decision makers or analysts to understand how decisions are made and the processes. When one wakes up from bed he or she decides whether or not to brush their teeth, comb their hair and have a shower. These decisions are paramount, they affect and influence how the individual interacts in a social setting. This highlights the fact that as human beings we make decisions every day. Decision making is defined as the thought process of selecting a logical choice from the available options. In the case of the ‘Kibung peles boy’ analogy; the male student had a choice of approaching the girl to ask he...
Read more