Secretary fails to persuade on PNG policy
24 January 2011
BY KEITH JACKSON
PNG ATTITUDE READERS have been underwhelmed by Parliamentary Secretary Richard Marles’ cautiously bureaucratic pronouncements about critical issues facing Australia in its relationship with PNG.
Readers have expressed disappointment and cynicism at Mr Marles’ anodyne responses to a series of astute questions they posed late last year and which, at a meeting with me, Mr Marles’ agreed to answer.
The Parliamentary Secretary’s statements were clearly cobbled together from that bland porridge that constitutes “information” in the bureaucratic mind.
The kind of euphemistic double-speak that was so successfully counteracted by the pointed, gossip-ridden candour of the Wikileaks Cables, which allowed the world to see what the diplocrats really think behind the cover of those weasel words they expose us to when they don’t want to tell us the truth.
Lies, damned lies and bureauspeak.
Let’s face it, it would have been better for Mr Marles’ to say nothing than to engage in this pointless exercise of façade building and glossing over that convinced no one, impressed no one and served only to reinforce the impression that the Australian government doesn’t have a clue how to manage its relationship with PNG.
So does this matter?
Perhaps not at the moment, because PNG is not an electoral issue in Australia – although in recent meetings I’ve had with staff of the Shadow Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop, it is clear that PNG is only a step away from becoming a political problem.
All it would take is a breakdown in law and order in Australia’s former territory that resulted in significant civil strife, political turmoil and business disruption. And, as we know, PNG possesses that susceptibility.
Then the Australian media, already showing greater interest in PNG than has typically been the case in recent years, would kick the ball on to the park.
And the deficiencies of Australian policy, and the shabbiness of the politico-bureaucratic response to a group of deeply concerned citizens, would be on display in the glaring sun of the town square at midday.
No answers, no clues, no clothes.
Richard Marles has told me he's interested in improving the Australian conversation about PNG. To achieve even that modest goal, he and his people will have to do a lot better than this.
Let me conclude with a few comments from readers:
Terry Shelley - I have just transferred Richard Marles' reports to my JAW file . That is Just Another Wanker - totally irrelevant to the vast majority of grassroots people in PNG.
Trevor Freestone - Richard Marles gives a glowing impression of PNG. To get the Australian government's true impression go to its Smart Traveller advice on PNG.
Peter Kranz - Another example of Australian government rhetoric being on another planet to reality.
Paul Oates - As someone who has had in the past to write responses to Parliamentary questions, the old phraseology and use of percentages sounds all too familiar. With due respect to those who have to prepare benign yet seemingly positive responses for release by politicians, it's hard not to be a tad cynical.
Phil Fitzpatrick - I've fielded a few parliamentary questions in my day too. As I recall the question comes down the line to the area of responsibility. If it happened to land on your desk the response was usually: (1) What's this crap? (2) Oh hell, why do they want to know that? (3) I'd better cook something up to make them happy; and (4) I hope that will confuse them enough to keep my job. In short, the sort of responses we're seeing from Mr Marles are totally unreliable.
Barbara Short – Getting bureaucrats to feel for the country that they are trying to help is half of the problem.
I've got a sense that there is more intelligent, creative and practical feeling in the contributors to this blog than in any number of Canberra bureaucrats.
Maybe Richard Marles should just call a meeting of all PNG Attitude people - he'd probably get a damnsight better load of advice and ideas.
Posted by: Peter Kranz | 26 January 2011 at 03:43 AM
How disappointing and heartbreaking it is to see yet another useless bureaucrat enter the scene.
He got that information on the accomplishments of AusAID in PNG direct from DFAT propaganda.
If this is an indication of how Mr Marles is going to run his portfolio, the people of PNG are rooted. Another couple of years of present trends will kill the country.
Corruption has crippled PNG. What have the highly paid advisers had to say about this?
If Mr Marles decides to sit back in a comfortable office and depend on reports and dialogue with advisers and PNG government officials, he may as well send in the army and shoot the people - at least put them out of their misery.
His responses were patronising, disgusting, appallingly shallow and totally unacceptable.
I am not convinced: I am appalled.
Posted by: Lydia Kailap | 25 January 2011 at 07:41 PM
Ross - To be fair to Richard Marles, he should know better.
Prior to entering Federal Parliament, he worked as a solicitor in Melbourne, including on the Ok Tedi litigation against BHP on behalf of indigenous landowners in PNG, as well as on the draft of a new companies Act for the Kingdom of Tonga.
He also led an innovative program of cooperation between the Australian and PNG union movements.
He was chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Affairs from February 2008 to June 2009.
He is the author of this article -
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/png-a-forgotten-neighbour/
"With the exceptions of New Zealand and the UK there is no other country in the world with which Australia has such a deep historical and social connection (than PNG).
"With that connection PNG deserves our attention. PNG deserves to be understood. And the bilateral relationship at a government level deserves all the public scrutiny that great matters of policy need."
Posted by: Peter Kranz | 24 January 2011 at 11:47 PM
This begs the question does Mr Marles have anyone on his staff who knows PNG let alone what is going on in the country?
Posted by: Ross Wilkinson | 24 January 2011 at 07:04 PM
Every student and practitioner of foreign affairs recognises the need to support our northern neighbour.
Every experienced practitioner of management knows that management by objectives - or words or actions to that effect - achieves a focussed and predictable outcome.
The $64 question to Richard Marles is why not combine the two? It worked on the big jobs I took part in, but they were only measured in hundreds of millions and had strict scrutiny -why not here?
If you can't measure it you can't manage it. Old adage!
Posted by: David McMaugh | 24 January 2011 at 01:15 PM
There is a four-step formula for advice that is presented to the government from DFAT and it goes something like this (see the 'Yes Prime Minister' episode on St George's Island for actual details):
1. It's a complex matter and we shouldn't get involved in another country.
2. We are monitoring the situation but there's really nothing that can be done at this time.
3. We're giving the matter our fullest attention but the situation is unclear.
4. Maybe there might have been something that we could have done but it's now too late.
Posted by: Paul Oates | 24 January 2011 at 12:24 PM
In the light of the predictable four responses from Mr Richard Marles, it should be noted that there has been increase in emails commenting about the frustration being felt by all those who have been affected by the recent floods.
The total amount of flood aid promised and being disbursed by the Prime Minister is being adversely contrasted to the amount of development aid being sent to various overseas countries in our region.
If we in Australia have to be means test evaluated before any aid can be accessed, why is it large amounts of overseas aid monies seem to disappear without any accountability and effect?
Its time to inject some perceived relativity into the overseas aid program.
Posted by: Paul Oates | 24 January 2011 at 12:13 PM
So Richard Marles' report was all mauswara?
Maybe the Department of Foreign Affairs needs to set up some special advisory group, e.g., a PNG-Australia task force, to help it with its mammoth task of helping PNG.
They obviously have not been doing much of what they planned to do for the past few years.
Posted by: Barbara Short | 24 January 2011 at 11:39 AM
Keith - You mention that it might take "breakdown in law and order resulting in significant civil strife, political turmoil and business disruption" to get Australia to take PNG more seriously.
This might be already happening. See this report about the lock-down of the Hides LNG project in this morning's 'Post Courier'.
HIDES EXPLODES
By Andrew Alphonse
Three workers including one expatriate man are believed to have been flown to Australia for medical treatment as a massive evacuation exercise gets underway to remove all workers from the LNG Hides 4 project site to safety.
The conditions of the three men are not known at this stage but two of the workers were reported to be slashed with bush knives while the expatriate man was punched by the attackers, numbering 700 who forced their way into the camp operated by International contractor Clough Curtain Joint Venture...
The shutdown of work had affected construction of the gas condensation plant, the wellhead at Hides 4 and the pipeline.
On Saturday ExxonMobil ordered the evacuation of all workers using three helicopters.
According to a staff at the site, fear had gripped the workers because they did not understand the language, culture and the land they were working in.
“Many of the workers have left, some were airlifted, and others went by road to Mt Hagen to go by air or road to their homes. More will be leaving tomorrow (today),” the staff said."
Posted by: Peter Kranz | 24 January 2011 at 11:34 AM