By Rory Callinan, Daniel Flitton
Greater control of Australia's multimillion-dollar aid
program to Papua New Guinea appears to have been handed back to the
developing country as part of a sweetener to accept asylum seekers.
Papua New Guinea's Prime Minister, Peter O'Neill, boasted on
Monday that he had achieved a ''realignment'' of the country's aid
program from Australia as part of the recently negotiated agreement.
Australia has spent billions of dollars in aid in the country
and, last financial year, the amount was tipped to rise to about $500
million - the majority of which was to be closely controlled by AusAID
in a bid to avoid corruption.
 |
| Done deal: Papua New Guinea's Prime Minister Peter
O'Neill and Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd sign an agreement over
asylum seekers on July 19, 2013. Photo: Glenn Hunt |
Speaking just after arriving back in the country on Monday,
an upbeat Mr O'Neill said his government would set the priorities for
all of Australia's aid programs.
''We have had experience of where AusAID programs have been
running parallel to our own programs and, of course, when the AusAID
programs are delivered, there is nobody to take carriage of the programs
after they are completed,'' he said.
Mr O'Neill said the country had developed programs to counter corruption.
''We already have AusAID workers in our financial treasury
and across all departments, so I think those fears are unfounded,'' he
said.
While Mr O'Neill was happy to give some insight into what had
been offered to achieve the deal, he gave few details about how asylum
seeker processing would work, except to say would-be refugees could
arrive ''any day''.
He could not say how many refugees his country would accept.
''I cannot know what's going to happen in the future,'' he
said. ''I don't think the numbers are going to be as big as expected.''
Papua New Guinea has battled corruption issues for years,
leading to Australia's aid donations being closely managed and monitored
by Australian government interests.
Last year, Sam Koim, the head of Papua New Guinea's new
anti-corruption unit, Taskforce Sweep, described the country as
suffering from a level of fraud that had ''migrated from sporadic
corruption to systematic and now an institutionalised form of
corruption''.
A spokesman for Foreign Minster Bob Carr said Australia
always had a partnership agreement with Papua New Guinea over where aid
money is spent, with Australia deciding the amount.
He said Mr O'Neill had identified health, law and order and
education as the main priorities for Australian aid but not all the $500
million program would be directed to these areas.
''Each individual aid project needs to meet the test of merit
and show to be an appropriate use of aid money,'' the spokesman said.
But the country’s opposition leader, Belden Namah, spoke
critically of the deal. ‘‘[The Prime Minister] has failed miserably by
not consulting the people through their elected representatives on the
floor of parliament,’’ he said. "The problem in PNG is not money.
"It's about bad financial management and corruption."
A history of PNG corruption
June 19, 2013: Law enforcement sources tell
Fairfax up to $500 million may have been stolen from PNG government
legal aid funds over several years, which may have been siphoned to
Australian banks.
October 8, 2012: An analysis by Task Force
Sweep (TFS), a national corruption watchdog, finds up to half of PNG’s
7.6 billion kina (about $3.5 billion AUD) development budget from 2009
through 2011 was lost to corrupt practices or mismanagement by public
officials and government departments.
16 February 2011: Australia’s High
Commissioner to Papua New Guinea says he’s very concerned an Australian
aid advisor may have been attacked for fighting corruption.
2011: Transparency International’s Global
Corruption Barometer shows that 85% of PNG people survey found that the
level of corruption has increased in the last three years.
2007: In a diplomatic cable later released
by Wikileaks, the US embassy in Port Moresby refers to a PNG Health
Minister: "mostly remembered for his insistence that he was just a
politician and therefore could not be held responsible for the fact that
the country’s hospitals had run out of medicines while his ministry was
still flush with cash".
with Daniel Flitton