All police should be amenable to civil actions

Sir Rabbie speaks out on ECP

‘There is no Papua New Guinea conspiracy against the Enhanced Co-operation Program’ — Sir Rabbie L. Namaliu

ANYONE reading the article “Nose cut off to spite the face” by Helen Hughes and Susan Windybank (Courier-Mail, May 31) could be excused for believing the Enhanced Co-operation Program (ECP) between Australia and Papua New Guinea has been derailed by an evil conspiracy in PNG.
This is complete nonsense that does the writers, or The Centre for Independent Studies (CIS) that published the paper the article is based on, no credit whatsoever.
As the Minister who has had primary responsibility for the negotiation of the ECP agreement — and legislation — and now discussions with the Australian Government on its future following the Supreme Court ruling, I am in a better position than most to know why the policing facet of the program has been suspended.
The claim by the writers that the ECP has been undermined in PNG by “police supplementing their inadequate pay by consorting with the raskols”, and by “senior police officers (allegedly paid by Chinese triads to turn their eyes away from illegal gambling, drugs arms and even people smuggling) . . .”, or by “politicians, public servants and the ‘big men’ associates who fear exposure of corruption in the courts” is unsupported by even the most flimsy evidence.
The ECP between our countries was probably unique, for Australia and for PNG.
The deployment of a large number of Australia police personnel to work side by side with local police in day-to-day policing work cannot be compared, for example to the regional police and defence workers deployment in the Solomon Islands or the Australian police and army deployment in East Timor.
That is why the negotiation of the ECP took time. It involved extensive dialogue between senior police, public servants, legal officers and ministers.
It also required the passage of legislation through the PNG National Parliament before it could commence.
The greatest complexity was the insistence by the Australian Government, and the Australian Federal Police, of total immunity from prosecution under the PNG jurisdiction for not only police personnel but also for public servants attached to departments and agencies under the ECP.
The legislation granting this immunity was passed and passed overwhelmingly, by the PNG National Parliament.
That is hardly indicative of a “political conspiracy” against the ECP.
The ECP legislation was challenged before the Supreme Court of PNG on the grounds that certain provisions breached the Constitution.
The PNG National Constitution is relatively modern.
It was adopted by our Parliament at the time of our Independence from Australia 30 years ago. It is also a Constitution that not only provides for strong protection of the rights of the citizen, it also protects from improper political or other interference in the roles of certain statutory officers and institutions.
The Public Prosecutor and the Police Commissioner are among the officers afforded that unique protection.
The Supreme Court ruled that key sections of the Act granting immunity are unconstitutional. The full bench was unanimous in its decisions.
Do the writers seriously suggest that the judges of the Supreme Court are part of some “conspiracy” to destroy the ECP?
Our National and Supreme Courts are as free from political interference, either in their composition or their decision making, as any in the world. I say that with confidence because our Judiciary, unlike the Judiciary in Australia, is not appointed by the Government of the day.
It is appointed by an independent body called the Judicial Services Commission that includes the Chief Justice, the Chief Ombudsman and two members of Parliament — one Government and one Opposition.
The Government of Papua New Guinea believes in the rule of law, the independence of the Judiciary and it is bound to uphold the Constitution.
The Australian police engaged under the ECP agreement have been withdrawn by the Australian Government, not the PNG Government, because the “immunity” demanded by Australia has been declared invalid.
It is true that sections of the PNG Constabulary protested against aspects of the ECP policing program and how it was being implemented. Whatever our political, economic and social problems, we remain a robust democracy in which freedom of speech, and association, is actually guaranteed by the Constitution.
But that does not mean the constabulary wanted the total program to be abandoned, nor is there any evidence that our political leaders want it abandoned either.
Even the MP who instigated the court challenge wants it to continue, but under an agreement that is consistent with our National Constitution.
The implication that the fight against corruption and the abuse of public money has ended as a result of the withdrawal of Australian police personnel ignores the reality that much of the work of fighting corruption is the responsibility of the Ombudsman Commission, a body with similar powers to the CMC in Queensland or ICAC in NSW, and a body that is unaffected in any way by the ECP issue.
And the Supreme Court decision actually confirms the status and independence of two key office holders in fighting corruption and crime generally — the Police Commissioner and the Public Prosecutor.
The challenge for Australia and for PNG is now to make a genuine commitment to revising the ECP agreement, and the ECP Act, in a way that is consistent with the Supreme Court ruling.
And if and when that happens, the policing program will be able to resume as soon as practicable.
Our negotiations will enhance the effectiveness of the program, and community support for it, if we correct mistakes that unquestionably occurred in its initial implementation.
I have every confidence the commitment by both governments to the ECP — including the deployment of police personnel — remains strong.
Our joint responsibility now is to restore the program and to do so in a way that is consistent with the decision of the Supreme Court of PNG, that avoids to the greatest possible extent further legal challenges and importantly, that enhances public confidence in and support for it.
That will be a difficult, but not impossible, task for two countries that don’t always agree but have a bilateral relationship underpinned by shared interests and that is mature enough and robust enough to overcome obstacles such as those the Supreme Court decision has created.