A defence re-organisation is required in Papua New Guinea

BY REGINALD RENAGI

OVER THE NEXT few years to the end of the decade, Papua New Guinea’s defence organisation needs to undergo some far-reaching changes.

As part of the government’s long-term Defence Reform Plan, the Ministry of Defence must continually improve its functions by systematically implementing rationalisation at the higher defence level.

In recent times, a separate training branch has been established within the Murray Barracks defence headquarters in Port Moresby.

The Ministry will need to co-locate public affairs, legal services and an integrated logistics component.

An urgent need also exists for a defence reserve force structure to include lower level operations headquarters under existing command arrangements.

The strategic and operational headquarters must also be refined and reshaped.

Unlike in previous years, the new Defence Force headquarters must work well with the Defence Department.

After this, operational units must be further reviewed in some depth to streamline their structures and operational roles.

These proposals will involve changes to the PNGDF’s current organisation, preferably over the next 12 months to two years to make it more effective and efficient.

Once provisional arrangements have been trialled and established, the Ministry should start boosting the overall strength of the Force to meet PNG’s future security requirements.

In addition, the Ministry must be more creative in the use of civil contractors to efficiently maintain its capital assets such as ships, aircraft, heavy vehicles and associated equipment.

In the next two years, before the next national general elections, the PNG government through the Ministry must fully commit to initiate changes designed to deliver defence cost savings while substantially increasing the country’s total military effectiveness.

The Ministry’s continuing challenge is to keep the Defence organisation focused on key outcomes in ways that conform to broader government practices and requirements.

There also needs to be greater centralisation of policy and planning functions, including capability development arrangements.

The Defence secretary and the Force commander must be unambiguously in charge of the Defence organisation.

There needs to be a clear definition of functions solely the responsibility of the secretary, solely those of the Commander, and those which are shared.

A Chiefs of Staff Committee and a senior Defence Management Committee should also be created to provide high level policy and management guidance to the organisation.

The ways in which the military branch and civilian division heads exercise their responsibilities must be considerably changed.

In short, defence executives from both civil and military must know where their organisation wants to go, and what resources it has to get there.