The anti-corruption movement Transparency International reports that 70 per cent of respondents from Papua New Guinea believe the level of corruption in the country has increased over the past two years, including 46 per cent who said it has increased 'a lot'. Without wishing to join any 'PNG bashing', it is worth trying to gain a clearer understanding of what Kevin Rudd has promised and whether it is in the interests of either Australia or PNG.
The Regional Resettlement Arrangement Between Australia and Papua New Guinea consists of 11 paragraphs of text. Although it is labelled a 'regional' arrangement, it is actually a bilateral deal with no other signatories. Under the arrangement, for a period of 12 months PNG agrees 'to accept unauthorised maritime arrivals for processing and, if successful in their application for refugee status, resettlement'.
The implication is that PNG is liable to resettle all those deemed by it to be refugees, though the document refers to other unnamed (and uncommitted) Pacific nations sharing this burden. Prime Minister Peter O'Neill has since used the word 'quota' to imply a limited PNG resettlement commitment, without explaining further. The agreement bears all the marks of a hastily conceived, ill thought out plan — unlike the blockbuster taxpayer-funded advertising campaign that has accompanied it.
The agreement asserts that both countries are abiding by the 'non-refoulement' obligation under the Refugee Convention. It means they must not put refugees in harms way by sending them to a third country. Some commentators have suggested that PNG — for cultural, religious and economic reasons — is not a destination Australia can genuinely say meets this concern, notwithstanding that PNG is a signatory to the convention.
In this regard, the Catholic Bishops' Conference of Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea stated on 21 July: 'This country [PNG] does not have the capacity at this time in its history to welcome a sizeable influx of refugees and provide for their immediate needs and a reasonable hope for a new and prosperous beginning. The leaders of Papua New Guinea and Australia surely know this and therefore appear to be making a very unwise decision.'
The agreement says all necessary arrangements will be paid for by Australia. Since, under international rules, the money cannot come out of the existing aid budget it must necessarily be new spending. No estimate has been offered of the amount of money likely to be involved. In addition to