Australia’s role in helping PNG respond to COVID must be independently scrutinised

What an independent inquiry could initially look at is whether or not "cash" for the pandemic response was appropriate and effective?

Given that the pandemic in PNG is escalating rapidly and at a pace that is completely beyond the capacity of the "failed" PNG health system to manage, with hospitals and health centres nationwide overcrowded, woefully short of vital drugs and medicines, and with inadequate supplies of oxygen and other services, there can be no doubt Australia will be called on to provide further assistance.

The inquiry must determine whether the cash component of our generous support has been transparently spent. There is wide view in PNG that it has not been. But only an inquiry can determine that.

And this is the first issue which much be addressed. The good people of Papua New Guinea, in these desperate times, deserve our most effective, targeted and urgent support. I don't believe giving cash to a government facing a tough election in the coming months can be relied on to deliver that.

The question which has troubled me all week, after I saw the desperate text from the doctor providing front line support to very ill, and dying, patients, is simple – if we had given PNG more oxygen, drugs, and ventilators rather than cash would the nation's major hospitals been desperately short of oxygen last weekend?

I am sure that the enormity of our support, and our capacity to purchase and deliver oxygen and drugs efficiently, would have meant major hospitals has adequate key supplies to meet the demand from desperately ill patients.

Let's say our cash component to support PNG has totalled $100 million. To that needs to be added a proportion of our $600 million aid program and a share of the $250 million plus "loan" we have generously provided.

Had we delivered vital supplies, and services, and not cash, there would still be a Covid crisis in Papua New Guinea. But in my view the capacity of the nation's hospitals to respond to it would have been significantly enhanced.

What is wrong with an independent, forensic, inquiry looking into the adequacy, and appropriateness, of our generous support for our closest neighbour?

Transparency in the bi-lateral arrangements is more vital than ever as we give PNG more support than we have done for many years. That support in needed, but it must surely be transparently delivered?

As I write, the vaccination rate in Papua New Guinea remains under 2 per cent. The Delta variant is spreading across most of PNGs provinces rapidly. The nation's hospitals and health centres are simply unable to cope. And what is not known is how many citizens, and their children, are not receiving treatment for malaria, typhoid and other serious diseases.

I have written extensively about vaccination hesitation, and outright resistance In just about all sectors of the community. Our role in helping address vaccine opposition must also be reviewed.

I conclude with a wholly depressing but frank comment on the state of vaccination in Papua New Guinea reported this week on the 'DEVPOLICY' blog.

An official of the Bank of Papua New Guinea, Win Nicholas, in his private capacity revealed that only about 30 of his 200 work colleagues had taken up the offer to get vaccinated. If that is the ratio in a highly educated and skilled workforce, what is it in rural villages where the majority have limited or no education?

Australia must continue to support our closest neighbour, and our best friend, in these most dire and worsening times. But now, more than ever our generous support must get directly to the nine million men, women and children of Papua New Guinea – directly, and generously!