10/10/2025
1. Jurisdiction Over Australian Troops
The Treaty gives Australia exclusive criminal and disciplinary control over its defence personnel operating in PNG.
Many in PNG view this as undermining national sovereignty and justice — particularly if Australian soldiers commit offences while stationed on PNG soil.
2. Unequal Sovereignty and Power Balance
Although the Treaty reaffirms “mutual respect,” it gives Australia broad authority to access, use, and secure PNG military facilities, while PNG has no reciprocal rights of equal scope in Australia.
Critics argue this creates an imbalance of power within PNG’s own territory.
3. Access and Control of Defence Facilities
Australia will have unimpeded access to “Agreed Facilities and Areas,” and can even control entry to those facilities.
This has raised concern that PNG might lose operational control over strategic installations such as Lombrum, Momote, or Jacksons Base once designated under the Treaty.
4. Limited Transparency and Public Oversight
Key details — including the list of bases, operational protocols, and logistics terms — will be set through classified “implementing arrangements.”
Civil society groups argue this shields vital national information from Parliament and the public, reducing democratic accountability.
5. Restriction on PNG’s Foreign Policy Flexibility
PNG cannot permit any third-party country to use or develop the agreed facilities without Australia’s approval.
This could constrain PNG’s ability to engage with regional partners such as China, Indonesia, or the United States on its own terms.
6. Risk of Strategic Entanglement
The mutual-defence clause commits PNG to consult and possibly act if Australia faces a threat or conflict in the Pacific.
Analysts warn PNG could be pulled into regional disputes or military alignments that do not directly serve its interests.
7. Economic Inequality in Defence Contracting
Australian defence contractors enjoy tax-free access and exemptions in PNG, but there is no firm requirement for local job creation or business participation.
This raises fears of economic leakage — where most financial benefit flows back to Australian firms.
8. Social and Environmental Concerns
The Treaty enables new bases, storage facilities, and increased troop movements.
Communities worry about land rights, cultural disruption, and environmental impacts — particularly in coastal provinces — with little clarity on how grievances will be managed.
9. Open-Ended Commitment
The agreement has no expiry date and continues indefinitely unless one side withdraws after 12 months’ notice.
This permanence could tie future PNG governments to a strategic arrangement that may no longer suit evolving regional realities.
10. Symbolic Dependence vs. National Autonomy
While the Treaty aims to strengthen PNG’s defence capability, critics argue it reinforces dependence on Australia for security, logistics, and funding — potentially delaying PNG’s progress toward a truly independent national defence posture.
