As Papua New Guinea approaches its 30th anniversary of independence, Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare wants to cut PNG's "umbilical cord" of dependence on its former colonial master, Australia, and to pursue aid relations with other countries.

At present, up to 90 per cent of PNG's bilateral engagements involve Australia and Sir Michael is not alone in believing this is too much. British high commissioner, David Macleod, agrees PNG is over-engaged with Australia and should open up to the rest of the world, particularly Europe.

But how did Australia become so dominant in PNG's outlook and will it always be that way? The answer lies in more than a century of historical links and Australian policy which saw PNG progress from a security buffer, to a colony, to a dependent neighbour.

Security buffer

It was in the mid-1880s that the Australian colonies first started to take notice of New Guinea, seeing it as a stepping stone for potential enemies. The Dutch already held the western part of the island (which is now part of Indonesia) and when Germany seized the north-east of the island in 1884, the colonies' fear was realised.

Britain soon followed, annexing the south-east and after federation in 1901, British New Guinea, or Papua, became Australia's first territory.

In contrast to the Germans, who exploited and developed their part of the island, Australia's only interest New Guinea was its own security, says Allan Patience, head of politics, at the University of Papua New Guinea.

"[Australia] wasn't that interested in developing plantations or money-making schemes ... It wanted something that would simply look after Australia's security interests," he said.

Australia occupied German New Guinea during WWI and at the end of the war - still primarily concerned with Australia's security - prime minister, Billie Hughes, was determined to keep control. Australia was awarded a mandate under the League of Nations to administer former German New Guinea, which became known as the Territory of New Guinea. From this time Australia controlled the whole area which eventually came to be independent PNG.

Allan Patience says WWII was a defining time for the island of New Guinea and for Australia's perceptions of its people. Images appeared in Australian newspapers of Papuans serving alongside Australians in the Pacific Islands Regiment and a Papuan made cover picture of the Australian Women's Weekly magazine.

"Given the racial values in Australia in the 30s, it would take a world war to bring about that sort of transformation but it takes place," says Patience.

Life in the Australian colony

However, tolerant values were not dominant in Australian policy in PNG after the war. Sir Michael Somare, the first and current prime minister of Papua New Guinea, grew up in the post WWII years and says there were discriminatory practices, such as segregation.

"There was some very severe treatment of local people," he said.

Discriminatory policies in education had a devastating effect on PNG's development, says Helen Hughes, senior fellow with the Centre for Independent Studies.

"Australia failed to provide primary education for Papua New Guinea, or to establish a central department of education and make sure that Papua New Guineans could read and write and speak English."

Under the UN mandate over New Guinea, Australia was required to set-up the institutions required for self-government and in 1963 the first plans were made for a House of Assembly; an embryonic parliament. However, according to Sir Michael, there were more expats than local members in the House and "major decisions were made by the expats".

When a ministerial member system was introduced in 1968, Sir Michael was elected to the seat of East Sepik Regional. "When I came in 1968 we pushed for independence, self-government and we started accelerating a lot of things ourselves," he said.

Fast-tracking independence

Despite the lack of education, Australian leaders were determined to fast-track independence. As the last Liberal minister for territories, Andrew Peacock was one of the first Australian ministers to sit down with PNG leaders to talk about independence.

"He had a good rapport with us, he understood what we were trying to do," said Sir Michael.

However, Allan Patience argues that Peacock only spoke with the educated elite.

"He sat down with a few specific Papua New Guineans ... they were the young, very ambitious, a tiny minority of reasonably well-educated Papua New Guinean political leaders who had absorbed a great deal of the anti-colonialist rhetoric and had enormous ambitions for themselves," he said.

Joseph Ketan, from the Pacific Institute of Advanced Studies in Development and Governance at the University of the South Pacific, agrees that only a small elite was pushing for independence.

"I don't think there was ever any pressure from the rural area where the bulk of the population lies. In fact, I remember there was a strong case made by Highlands politicians that they were not ready for independence," he said.

Post-independence problems

Following independence on September 16, 1975, Australia gave substantial aid with no strings attached, says Helen Hughes. And because Australia failed PNG on eductaion, she says, much of that aid was spent recruiting foreigners.

"So much of the aid was spent on expatriates rather than on health and education for the locals. But [there was] no control over those expats," said Helen Hughes.

Government instability has been a major factor in PNG politics and measures Australia encouraged in the constitution are seen as a contributing factor to this, says Allan Patience.

Firstly, he says, the no-confidence motions that can be passed against a PM have destabilised politics terribly. Secondly, "the provincial government system has been a great failure. The worst forms of corruption and levels of incompetence happen at provincial level."

One potential money-spinner for the nation, the Bougainville mine, was a disaster due to "Australia's total inexperience in development", says Helen Hughes.

Having provided 15 per cent of national revenue, the mine's closure in 1989 led to an economic crisis, reinforcing dependency on outside aid.

Australia's role now and in the future

In 2004, unhappy with how PNG was spending its $300 million per annum in Australian aid, the Australian government devised a package to ensure greater Australian control. The billion-dollar Enhanced Cooperation Package (ECP) provided for Australian police and public servants to go to PNG.

The ECP was greeted with mixed reaction on the ground. While some welcomed the return of Australian police, others were angry at what they saw as the reimposition of colonial power. A provision in the ECP which made Australian police immune from prosecution under PNG law was successfully challenged in court forcing the Australian police to return home in May 2005.

Agreement, in August, on the reworked package will see just 30 Australian police return to PNG. Instead of patrolling the streets, the police will act in advisory and training roles within the PNGDF, effectively removing the need for immunity.

Allan Patience says while the ECP is encouraging, it is "too little, too late" because it only addresses the law and justice sector and financial administration. "If you are looking at governance through the eyes of businessmen that might appear enough but it's not," he said.

Instead, he says, Australia needs to work out a true partnership with PNG that is not a neo-colonial relationship.

And while Sir Michael wants to pursue aid relationships with other countries, Australia can play a role in that vision, as Allan Patience suggests, by encouraging other nations to get involved in PNG's development.

Australia needs to "give leadership in the world - to the whole world - to come to Papua New Guinea and coordinate and partner a whole range of institutions to upgrade infrastructure, to bring capacity into [PNG]," he said.


Based on Rear Vision: Papua New Guinea: Nation State or Failed State?" first broadcast on Hindsight on ABC Radio National on Sunday 29 May 2005.