Thoughs on Papua New Guinea/Australia relations

By PAUL OATES

 

Dear Malum,

 

John Fowke and I have emailed each other recently on some of the issues he raises here. I agree with some of the points John raises but I disagree with others.

I too have gone through one frustrating attempt after another to try and get some rational change in DFAT and AusAid policies but all to no avail. All you get is a 'snow job' that the Minister of the day just signs off on. The problem is that when a public bureaucracy is set up to manage a funding program, that very bureaucracy becomes irrevocably entangled in ensuring the status quo continues in order to preserve their own existence. On the northern side of the Torres Strait, there is an equally obvious reason why the status quo has become officially entrenched. The only way to break the 'Gordian Knot' is a political decision. The problem is, politicians are good at getting elected and manoeuvring but are mostly inexperienced in any manner of objective, public service management.

I have spent nearly 40 years in public administration and management positions. These positions were traditionally different to business management positions. Business has by its very nature, an objective of profit to ensure it continues and hopefully expands. Public Service management must be responsible and accountable to the public through the government of the day. The two have unfortunately become hopelessly entangled as successive governments sought to find solutions to convincing the public that they were able to cope with the complexities of a modern world. Who is there now who can untangle the current situation?

The problem with overseas aid is it tends to foster a notion of helpless inadequacy with the recipients and a feeling of disconnected altruism with the donor country voters. Most donors have no idea what the real situation might be and mostly don't care unless it affects them personally.

In a quote attributed to Albert Einstein, "The true definition of insanity is to keep doing that which doesn't work."

Tingting bilong mi emi olsem wankain long Jon long dispela samting tasol. Husat inap long stretim displela aswa a?

Some of us weren't particularly accepted when we practiced our views about equality and fairness when we worked in PNG. Afterall, there is only one race, the human one. Anyone who thinks otherwise should be ignored. I believe that the problems some of us encountered at the hands of some of our own fellow countrymen are well put behind us and should have no place in today's debate.

I didn't get a golden handshake and had to return to Australia to start again with all of my recognisable skills and abilities that were developed and honed in PNG, being ignored and often denigrated. That was the challenge. To succeed despite the system.

John clearly feels the frustration of inaction. We all do at times. However, to say as John has that, "The voices of these people, today, must be seen as irrelevant, no matter  that they think they all deserve medals, for fuck's sake!" is something else.  I find this view both disappointing and misleading. I have expressed this belief to John previously.

The real issue is one of credibility. Some of us would like to achieve something positive and different to that which hasn't worked for the last 30 years. If our commitment and interest in helping PNG/Australian relations and PNG in general can be strengthened through the process of government recognition, this must surely be a positive result. Both our counties have a shared history and are next door neighbours. We need each other in an ever more unstable world.

I don't wish to denigrate John's passion or sincerity. I respect them. I just suggest he may be a trifle narrow in the issues he promotes in his dissertation below.

 

Happy to discuss further.

 

kind regards,

 

Paul