The Pukpuk Treaty between Papua New Guinea and Australia has been hailed as a landmark military agreement, with both prime ministers reportedly agreeing on the text but holding off on signing. But does this treaty meet PNG’s real security needs or does it risk destabilising the country? And should such a radical departure from the past for PNG be rushed through or should it be more widely debated?
PNG does need external support to address its daunting security challenges. Its 2.4-million-square-kilometre exclusive economic zone and 824-kilometre border with Indonesia are difficult to police, for example, and the nation loses an estimated K400 million annually in revenues to illegal tuna fishing. Its porous borders also make PNG a transit hub for drugs and weapons. In 2020, a plane carrying 500 kilograms of cocaine, allegedly shipped via yacht from South America, entered PNG undetected and crashed near Port Moresby en route to Australia. Reports also suggest that high-powered firearms in the Highlands are mostly sourced from within PNG. These problems, combined with the occurrence of frequent natural disasters and the emerging risk of cyberattacks, show that PNG does need outside help with training and equipment to increase its capacity for timely and coordinated responses.
Given that PNG’s threats are overwhelmingly internal and non-traditional, there is no justification for additional external investment to increase the combat readiness of the army and even less for entering into a treaty that commits PNG to combat elsewhere.
Instead, what PNG needs are coastguard-style capabilities: maritime patrols, satellite monitoring, fisheries enforcement, customs and border policing, engineering units and disaster response teams. Similar investments are required for land-border control, while tribal conflict and criminality are best addressed by expanding and equipping the police and procuring the latest technology. These priorities can already be pursued through the PNG-Australia Bilateral Security Agreement signed in 2023 and ratified by PNG in 2024.
In fact, additional investments in the military could make PNG less stable rather than more secure. In the Pacific, Fiji shows how a disproportionately resourced military can become a political threat. Its five coups since 1987 were led or backed by soldiers, some of whom had gained experience on international peacekeeping missions. PNG’s own politics are notoriously unstable, with only two prime ministers completing their terms since independence. In 2024 and 2025 alone there were seven attempts to remove the prime minister, two of which reached formal votes. Despite this turbulence, PNG has managed peaceful, constitutional transfers of power. A stronger, combat-oriented military could upset this delicate balance and open the door to future coups.
Another danger lies in the country’s social fabric. Almost every Papua New Guinean is tied by obligation to their tribe or clan. Soldiers are no exception. Allegations already exist that political, business and security elites have funded and armed groups involved in tribal violence in the Highlands, which has become endemic in recent years. It is this same political class that will sign the treaty and the same security elites who will enforce it, both accused of fuelling the very conflicts destabilising the country. More hardware for the army is likely to mean more weapons for tribal conflicts, leading to violence that could escalate beyond the state’s control.
Australia should also remember its own history in PNG. During the Bougainville conflict, Australia supplied Iroquois helicopters and other military equipment to the PNG Defence Force. Despite guarantees from PNG that the helicopters were to be used to enforce the blockade of Bougainville, they ended up being deployed in operations that indiscriminately killed civilians. The Bougainville experience shows that Australian assistance, if poorly designed and poorly monitored, can deepen internal crises rather than resolve them.
Another problem is that this defence treaty contradicts PNG’s longstanding policy of neutrality, being “friends to all, enemies to none.” Under the treaty, the two countries will be “legally obliged to defend each other from a military attack on either territory.” Australia already has such agreements with New Zealand and the US, but it would be a first for PNG and could have major implications for its growing economic relationship with China. The PNG government might think these are separate and mutually exclusive domains, but in practice they are deeply interconnected, and pursuing one inevitably reshapes the meaning and perception of the other. Moreover, commentators are already arguing that the treaty’s provisions violate the PNG constitution and will end up in court. Surely such a massive change requires a wider debate. It seems the cabinet was not consulted properly, let alone the parliament or the broader public.
The Australian government and public must also recognise that negotiations with the PNG government are largely elite-driven, lacking a broader mandate. Academics have argued for a while now on this subject. Patrick Kaiku, for instance, raised concerns about political parties and politicians offering no clear positions on foreign affairs in the 2022 national elections despite geopolitical contestation. During elections, they instead campaigned almost entirely on local issues and promises of localised benefits. The positions they pursue internationally in the post-election period therefore have not been presented to the constituents during elections.
PNG governments seldom consult the public on major international agreements. The Pukpuk Treaty is a case in point. As Bernard Yegiora documents in this blog, in Australia, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties conducted public consultations and scrutiny of the treaty before publishing a report. By contrast, PNG’s equivalent body, the Permanent Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs, conducted no consultations and produced no report. PNG does not even have foreign policy or defence white papers to guide its engagements, meaning that even among its elites there are no broad consultations.
This delay in signing the Pukpuk Treaty offers PNG leaders a chance to pause and reflect on its wider implications, some of which have been outlined above. It should also prompt the Australian government and public to reconsider their support, ensuring that the treaty strengthens rather than undermines PNG’s stability.
20/9 Correction: Iroquois helicopters were supplied to the PNG Defence Force during the Bougainville conflict, not Black Hawk helicopters.
The fact that PNGDF isn’t given the amount of privileges in Australia which ADF will enjoy here in PNG has all the hallmark of neo-colonialism.
If the treaty is challenged in court as Michael has mentioned, I’m of the view that the argument will revolve around ‘infringement of PNGs sovereignty.’ It might end before it begin, or follow the same path as how the AFP were kicked out last time.
On the bright side, PNGDF needs capacity building, not to mention the infrastructures that will remain with us in future in the event that the treaty is repelled.
Michael Kabuni’s recent analysis of the Pukpuk Defence Treaty raises important questions about sovereignty, militarisation, and Australia’s strategic intent. His warning—that the treaty could backfire—deserves serious reflection. But it must now be answered from a citizen-centred position that recognises both the National Government’s authority over foreign policy and the citizens’ right to accountable implementation. The real issue is not whether PNG should engage with Australia, but “how those engagements are governed” once signed.
1 Respect for the National Mandate
Foreign policy is the constitutional prerogative of the National Government. Papua New Guinea cannot and should not fragment its international voice. Prime Minister Marape and the National Executive Council have the lawful authority to negotiate and sign treaties. Citizens must respect that sovereignty. Yet signature is only the first act of governance. The daily work of translating any treaty into budgets, contracts, and projects falls to public officials—national and provincial—and this is where history shows our failures.
2 Where Past Agreements Went Wrong
Manus Province knows this story too well. During the ANZUS era, Lombrum was traded for access without benefit to locals. Decades later, the Regional Processing Centre again turned Manus into a host site rather than a partner. Money flowed, but accountability evaporated. Provincial businesses were excluded, and the promised development legacy vanished. The problem was not foreign partnership itself—it was the **absence of enforceable governance mechanisms** binding our own officials to transparent performance.
3 The People’s Expectation: Justiciable Accountability
The Pukpuk Treaty must therefore be implemented under rules that make every official—appointed or elected, national or provincial— “justiciable” for performance. The Constitution’s Eight Point Plan, the National Goals and Directive Principles, and the Basic Social Obligations give moral direction, but they are not enforceable in court. That gap between moral duty and legal accountability is where public trust is lost and corruption grows. Closing that gap is now essential.
Performance-Based Contracts under the “General Orders” already exist. They set Key Performance Indicators for departmental heads, CEOs, and administrators. But those indicators rarely include treaty-specific obligations such as:
– timely publication of procurement information;
– compliance with local-content requirements;
– adherence to environmental and social safeguards; and
– transparent reporting of counterpart funding.
Every official whose work touches the Pukpuk Treaty must have these duties written into their contracts and reviewed quarterly. Failure should trigger sanctions under the “Leadership Code” and the “Public Services Management Act.”
4 Provincial Integration—Especially for Manus
The “Organic Law on Provincial and Local-Level Governments” gives provinces clear legislative powers over trade, industry, and local economic development. Those powers do not challenge the National Government’s foreign-policy role; they complement it by ensuring that implementation on provincial soil benefits the people who live there. Manus therefore has both the right and the responsibility to establish instruments such as:
A Manus Development Corporation (MDC): a provincial commercial arm to hold equity and negotiate joint ventures.
The Provincial Procurement and Partnership Board (PPPB): a gatekeeper to certify local-content compliance before any contract above K2 million is approved.
A Local Partnership Protocol (LPP): binding all contractors to hire, train, and purchase locally, and to contribute to a community infrastructure fund.
Embedding these mechanisms inside the treaty’s implementation schedule does not weaken national sovereignty; it strengthens it by distributing responsibility. This is “governance for the people by the people.”
5 From Secrecy to Transparency
Kabuni is correct that the treaty has been discussed largely among elites. That must change. The principle should be simple: “no agreement that affects citizens should be implemented in the shadows.” Every contract signed under the treaty should be uploaded to an “Open Contracting Portal” accessible to all Papua New Guineans. Payment certificates must be tied to quarterly performance reports published on that portal. “No Portal, No Pay” should become a rule across government.
The Auditor-General and Ombudsman Commission must be mandated to audit and investigate treaty-related expenditure annually. Their findings should be tabled before Parliament and the Provincial Assembly. This transforms public oversight from sentiment to structure.
6 The Role of Citizens
Citizens are not spectators in foreign policy. Our taxes, land, and resources sustain these partnerships. We must understand that “sovereignty is shared work”—the National Government signs, the provinces operationalise, and the people monitor co-creation. Civic organisations, churches, and youth groups in Manus and other provinces should use public data to track:
– Self-employment numbers of local residents;
– value of contracts awarded to local firms;
– delivery of promised community projects; and
– compliance with environmental obligations.
When citizens are informed, manipulation loses its grip.
7 Avoiding the Trap of Sentiment
Some voices frame the Pukpuk Treaty only through fear—fear of Australia’s influence, fear of militarisation, fear of loss of independence. These concerns are real, but they must not become paralysis. The danger is not partnership; it is poor governance. A treaty built on transparency and measurable accountability will not backfire. A treaty executed in secrecy and self-interest will. The difference lies entirely in our own systems of implementation.
8 Defining “Governance for the People, by the People”
Governance for the people means that every kina spent and every commitment made under the treaty can be traced to a public outcome: self-employment opportunities, training, or infrastructure that improves lives.
Governance by the people means that provincial institutions, local leaders, and civil society are not passive recipients but active participants in decision-making and monitoring.
When the National Government negotiates in Canberra, it speaks for PNG. When the treaty is executed in Lorengau or Lae, it must perform for Papua New Guineans. That is the bridge between authority and accountability.
9 The Way Forward
1. Align Performance Contracts: All officers linked to treaty implementation must have KPIs on transparency, local participation, and fiscal discipline.
2. Enforce the Leadership Code: Any misuse of authority or conflict of interest in treaty projects must trigger immediate investigation.
3. Legislate Transparency: Mandate the Open Contracting Portal and annual audit publication.
4. Empower Provinces: Adopt by-laws establishing MDCs and PPPBs to operationalise local benefits.
5. Educate Citizens: Launch civic programmes explaining the treaty’s purpose, rights, and oversight channels.
The Pukpuk Treaty is not, in itself, the threat. The risk lies in whether our officials and institutions apply the same discipline to implementation that our soldiers apply to defence. PNG’s strength will not be measured by the number of foreign ships in its harbours but by the honesty and efficiency of the officers managing those agreements.
Thank you Michael Kabuni for his caution, but move the debate from fear to function. The National Government holds the constitutional pen; the people hold the moral ledger. Every official—national or provincial—must now be judged by the same standard: performance, transparency, and loyalty to the citizens they serve.
That is how sovereignty becomes real. That is governance for the people, by the people – The Manusian Way.
The treaty have both positive and negative outcomes that we will soon encounter . Australia may be concern about its border corridors, but that does not mean we sign this treaty. Australia and PNG have been together for a for a centaury since Australia’s Independence in 1901. Australia and PNG are naturally allied! This defense agreement is a treat to PNGs economic growth and security itself. In case of a conflict, Australia will surely use PNG because of this defense agreement. Australia achieve is agenda, so lets wait and see Chinas agenda!
PukPuk Defense Treaty – A sovereign Breach to PNG’s Foreign Policy of being “Friends to All and Enemy to None”
Hidden behind the Pukpuk Defense Treaty lies the real intention and agendas of a Australian government that can dictate our national security interest.
This treaty might sound very good to our ears however in reality it indirectly violates our Foreign Policy of being “Friends to all and Enemies to None”. As an independent nation, the government must conduct a thorough analysis before signing it. It is important that the treaty negotiated must be aligned to our national security interest, it must respect our bilateral or development partners and most importantly the 10 million people of Papua New Guinea must understand the consequences of it in the long run.
As a developing nation with a welcoming foreign policy, it is irrelevant to certain stage to beef up our defense capability and capacity on the 50th anniversary of our nation. Economically we are still dependent. The government must set a tone that should focus on negotiating Economic Treaties and Communique instead of depending on the aid and grants donated annually by our bilateral partners.
As we progress into another 50 years of nationhood the government should strengthen its ties and negotiate treaties which can solidify our status as a Melanesian nation that strive for peace, respect and collaboration.
In the Geopolitical arena, the Superpowers (USA and China) are battling against each other over the influence in the Pacific Region. As a citizen of Papua New Guinea, I view this treaty as a strategic move from the Australian Government to counter the Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific Region.
As per military perspective, this Treaty exemplifies the fact that Papua New Guinea is heading towards the status of being classified as a “BUFFER STATE” between the Western Powers and China.
In the end, as a sovereign nation we will become victims of this treaty if not examine thoroughly.
DOES AUSTRALIA WANT PNG TO PROGRESS??
I don’t see the logic of Australia suddenly being interested in a security communique, obviously with China in mind, when Australia is flooded with Chinese students and businesses?
I don’t know about the other states but Canberra sounds and looks like a Chinese Province, on campus and outside.
Since the introduction of the OBE by DFAT consultants that disrupted the education system, impacting several generations, I started to think maybe Australia does not really want PNG to develop as fast as it could.
I am an Australian Award Scholarship student and am grateful to Australian taxpayers but academics is a neutral space to speak and we are educated to think critically and not be naive and indifferent to realities and be rubber stamps for a salary, so I am expressing my views.
PNG needs an economic Communique with Australia, and this should have commenced 50 years ago. We shed blood side by side with them didn’t we? We are the last frontier therefore it is in Australia’s and the US’s best interest for PNG to become a strong vibrant economy and so they could have and should have guided a young PNG to develop its industries, and through out the years help to develop PNGs energy sector to reduce costs of businesses.
We became a sovereign nation but it was obvious from the outset we were naive of realities to come and Australia and US have benefitted tremendously from our resources and continues to be today because we remain naive after 50 years.
PNG is a satellite of Australia, we eat talk dress like them and play their sports. But Australia must never think we will remain dependent on them nor should they undermine or suppress PNGs potential.
I will never forget When the Australian Immigration checked Grand Chiefs sandals at about the time “look north” was coined, this incident was direct disrespect to our nationhood.
Indecisive and shallow political leaders will flatter for credits points and grants/loans for political survival but cannot make a strong statement on PNGs real needs, interests and future aspirations.
Pacific political leaders look to have more wisdom than their PNG counterparts that is why despite having no significant resource projects or big national budgets, their social and economic indicators surpass PNG stats.
I concur this observation.
Great insight, well articulated article.
Is there an urgent need for both Governments to sign a Treaty. With regard to our Defence Force the GoPNG’s international obligation to another country is only for active service, if that county is at war. “Active Service” is defined as service in the field against an enemy, combat activities. Does the GoPNG have an international obligation to deploy our Defence Force troops for active service in Australia? Clearly not, my layman opinion is that this Treaty does not comply with section 202 (b) and section 205 of our Constitution. We the ordinary citizens of PNG require the intervention of the Supreme Court to interpret this Treaty and determine whether this Treaty is unconstitutional or not. Our Government must not deceive its citizens to believe that this Treaty will create employment opportunity for PNG citizens into the Australian Defence Force. The relevant authority to make the Supreme Court application owe it to the ordinary PNG citizens to make a court application, PNG is a democratic county, we have three arms of Government, we must not allow our Government Ministers to patronise us, by doing anything and everything which is not in our national interest, and does not comply with our Constitution. We are a pacific nation, peace loving people, our government’s policy for the last 50 years has always been friends to all and enemies to none.
Pukpuk indeed. Was the choice of name deliberately prescient? And Michael Main has spotted the bull elephant in the room.
This Pukpuk Treaty is being decided by those persons favorable towards Australia. Despite our best efforts in negotiating this Treaty The “Yes Master” mentality of the colonial era doesn’t seem to leave us yet. What we fail to see as intellectuals is that if this Treaty goes through, it will just be another Boomerang that is swung to us and will float back to the thrower. Everything we anticipate to benefit from will be just 10% PNG and 90% Australia. It will not only bind the military but also the economy making PNG vulnerable to Australia’s whims and controls. PNG economy is gaining slowly and our leaders need to be careful. Where is the look North Policy, Friends to all and Enemies to None to name a few policies. Australia is going to put us at a disadvantage by locking us in and eventually use this Treaty as a tool to prevent other countries like China and its friends to trade with us rendering PNG Economy to Australias control. Why does PNG not start thinking on its own and try doing something smart?
If you understand PNG Tok PISIN, PukPuk means crocodile; interestingly, the Treaty was called that.
This is a terrific article Michael. If Australia wants such close integration with PNGDF then surely its first priority must be to concentrate on PNG’s internal security requirements. If Australia wants a reliable security partner in our region then it must be based on the social stability and prosperity of the PNG state and its people. To our peril we consistently overlook just how serious this situation has become.
I think the idea for the treaty here is for the benefits of the Australians. Seeing Chinese involvement in PNG economic development, Australia and its partners, New Zealand and the US, are concerned that PNG might sign a defence deal with China (which, they already raised concerns about China trying to influence small island nations in the Pacific). Treaty is the only way forward for Australia to stop PNG to sign a defence treaty with China because the PNG NRL leverage was not working for Australia so the defence deal is strategic enough.
Thanks all, I will find time to respond to some of the points raised. It’s good to see senior public servants, ambassadors and defence leaders raise similar points, in particular Ambassador Kalinoe, former PNG defence force commanders Peter Ilau and Jerry Singirok. See links below:
Amb Kalinoe: https://www.postcourier.com.pg/kalinoe-pukpuk-defence-treaty-needs-clear-alignment-with-foreign-policy/
Retired PNGDF commanders Jerry Singirok and Peter Ilau: https://www.abc.net.au/pacific/programs/pacificbeat/png-defence-treaty-with-australia-could-breach-constitution/105787138
This treaty was formulated by Australians. They want PNG to agree to their terms while not considering ours. The underlying agenda of that Treaty is “war”. A possibility coming to our doorsteps. The treaty is saying “in the event that there is a war with either Australia or PNG” we will go to war to help each other. The big question here is PNG does not have enemies, so whose enemy are we fighting? This will put our citizens at risk. The biggest war we should be fighting in PNG is Corruption. If we can control corruption we are able to manage ourselves way better than Bukina Faso. God bless.
The Australia -PNG Security pact will have alot of Socio Economic benefits for PNG. This deal may be a challenge to the Sovereignity of PNG, however every PNG government since 1975 have failed to Build the PNGDF and create vast employment opportunities for the thousands of tertiary Graduates and school leavers.
This Defence pact will be a golden opportunity for PNG youth to find employment abroad and gain exposure and quality experience serving in a world-class military abroad. And they will also have an opportunity to further pursue their desired education qualifications easily accessible abroad, with the benefit of gaining Australian citizenship while service in the ADF.
PNG also needs to beef up its military and this is a great opportunity. There is high rate of armed tribal conflict, and a strong PNGDF with modern hardware will be able to support Police operations to disarm armed tribal groups in the highlands and effectively police the big land, sea and air borders.
Are you content with Australia using our citizens as labourers to pick their fruits and vegetables in their farms and now announcing this pathetic news to use our citizens as human shields to defend their border against their enemies, it is impossible for a non-citizen to be employed in any country’s Defence Force, our citizens we have to first and foremost acquire citizenship for that country. Our Government’s responsibility is to create employment for its citizens, we are a democracy county and we gave our MPs that responsibility, they have failed us. Do not forget how the conflict in Bougainville turned out when we involved our Defence Force. As for the tribal conflict, this is a matter for our Police Force to deal with, identity those perpetrators and prosecute them under the relevant laws.
The treaty is delayed, not signed yet, as PNG leaders review concerns. Likely to be debated in parliament soon.
PNG is currently at a risky step to sign the treaty with Australia, which also challenges founding father, Michael Somare’s neutral foreign policy being “friends to all, enemies to none” policy and keeping the military in very small size to guard our boarders.
However, the dialogue prematurely triggered China now issuing early warning to PNG.
The Pukpuk Defence Treaty: Strategic Gains or Sovereignty at Stake?
As Papua New Guinea marks 50 years of independence, the signing of the Pukpuk Defence Treaty with Australia signals a new chapter in bilateral relations. Named after the Tok Pisin word for crocodile, the treaty outlines five core principles that aim to deepen defence cooperation between the two nations. While the agreement promises modernization and strategic benefits, it also raises critical questions about sovereignty, foreign policy alignment, and long-term national interests.
What PNG Stands to Gain
The treaty offers several tangible benefits for Papua New Guinea:
1. Defence Force Modernization The ongoing partnership with Australia will enhance the capacity of the PNG Defence Force (PNGDF), particularly in areas such as cybersecurity and electromagnetic warfare—domains where PNG currently lacks infrastructure and expertise. This collaboration is expected to uplift operational standards and improve national security readiness.
2. Regional Security and Border Protection PNG faces persistent challenges from transnational threats, including human trafficking, illegal fishing, drug smuggling, and weapons trafficking. The alliance with the Australian Defence Force (ADF) strengthens PNG’s ability to monitor and secure its borders through joint operations, intelligence sharing, and surveillance support.
3. Career Opportunities for PNG Citizens A notable and exciting provision of the treaty allows qualified PNG citizens to join the ADF with equal pay and benefits. This opens up pathways to employment, skills development, and potentially Australian citizenship, offering improved living conditions and professional growth for many Papua New Guineans.
The Ambiguity of Mutual Defence
Despite these benefits, the treaty’s first core principle raises concerns due to its vague wording:
“A mutual defence alliance which recognizes that an armed attack on Australia or PNG would be a danger to the peace and security of both countries.”
Unlike traditional military alliances that clearly define obligations—such as NATO’s Article 5—the use of the word “recognizes” lacks clarity. Does this imply automatic military support in the event of an attack, or merely a diplomatic acknowledgment of shared concern? Without explicit commitments, PNG may not be guaranteed assistance during a crisis, leaving room for political discretion and strategic ambiguity.
Sovereignty and Strategic Autonomy
Retired PNGDF Commander Peter Ilau has voiced concerns about the level of integration between the two defence forces, questioning who truly holds ownership of the PNGDF. As PNG deepens its defence ties with Australia, there is a risk of dependency and external influence over national security decisions. This could erode PNG’s ability to act independently and shape its own defence posture.
Foreign Policy Contradictions
The fourth core principle of the treaty appears to conflict with PNG’s long-standing foreign policy of being “friends to all, enemies to none.” If interpreted restrictively, it may limit PNG’s ability to engage in military partnerships or exercises with countries other than Australia. This could undermine diplomatic flexibility and reduce opportunities for cooperation with key economic partners.
Retired Commander Jerry Singirok warns that such realignment could jeopardize foreign investment, particularly from China and Japan, which have played significant roles in PNG’s economic development. Restricting military engagement with these nations may send unintended signals and risk destabilizing the very investments that sustain the country.
A Call for Strategic Clarity
While the Pukpuk Treaty offers promising avenues for defence and development, it must be approached with strategic foresight and transparent consultation. Treaties of this magnitude should involve robust public discourse, expert input, and parliamentary scrutiny to ensure they align with PNG’s long-term interests.
As we reflect on our journey since independence, it is imperative that we make decisions that strengthen—not compromise—our sovereignty. Politics will always be politics, but sovereignty is everything.