IN March, Papua New Guinea’s Chief of Defence, Rear Admiral Philip Polewara, issued a warning about PNG’s inability to secure its armoury and keep its guns and ammunition safe from being used by the civilian population to engage in acts of violence.
His concerns were voiced in the context of Australia’s announcement that it would give the PNG Defence Force 3500 new rifles following the landmark Pukpuk defence treaty signed in October last year.
Just to be clear, this was a public statement made by the Commander of the PNG Defence Force, to the effect that he could not guarantee that the guns Australia announced they would supply to the PNGDF would remain secure in the armoury.
Yet, according to recent news reports, five months on preparations for the shipment appear to be underway.
Asked in March about the storage concerns, an Australian government spokesperson said Australia was working to support PNG’s efforts to strengthen weapons management and added: “Australia acts in accordance with its international obligations, including those under the Arms Trade Treaty.”
But what does that actually mean?
These obligations place very serious responsibilities upon Australia before it can make the decision to export the guns.
At a minimum, Australia should fund the development of the safe storage of government armouries (if assistance is needed by PNG). It also means clarifying the standard against which its security will be assessed, having the assessment done independently, and publishing the result. Having Polewara provide his own verification would seem essential, given his earlier statement – and only then releasing the rifles.
The Arms Trade Treaty places obligations on an exporting state, Australia in this case, before authorising a transfer, to assess whether the arms would “contribute to or undermine peace and security.”
This includes the potential for “serious violations of international humanitarian or human rights law, or offences relating to terrorism or transnational organised crime,” as well as the risk of weapons “being used for serious acts of gender-based violence or violence against women and children.”
The Treaty also explicitly requires the exporter to assess the risk of diversion of the weapons, and to consider mitigation measures to ensure that does not occur. These obligations place serious responsibilities upon Australia before it can make the decision to export the guns.
PNG has a massive problem with illegal guns. It was only last week that Police Minister Sir John Pundari called illegal firearms the country’s “enemy number one” and had “become one of the biggest threats to peace and security in the country, fueling tribal fights, murders, rapes, armed robberies, vehicle thefts, drug trafficking and other serious crimes.”
It is well established that state armouries are a major source of supply of illegal guns and ammunition. When Philip Alpers surveyed the Southern Highlands for the Small Arms Survey more than 20 years ago, he found that around 75 per cent of the high-powered weapons in the province were believed to have been sourced internally, from the police or the defence force, rather than smuggled across an international border.
That finding has not changed over time, as was documented in 2024 by the ABC, and is regularly echoed by local observers of gun violence in the PNG Highlands. As one community elder in Western Highlands put it, “the bullets don’t come from the bush, they come from the uniforms.”
Polewara has said as much, telling the ABC about seizures at checkpoints in Enga whereby “we can ascertain that some of the weapons from the military have changed hands into the warlords.” Jerry Singirok, himself a former PNGDF Commander and who chaired PNG’s first National Gun Summit in 2005, also stated that PNG had “absolutely lost control” of illegal weapons over the past two decades.
This should be no surprise to Canberra. Stricter security controls at state armouries were among the 244 recommendations of the PNG National Guns Control Committee in 2005. In 2024 it was reported “strategies and reforms proposed by the report are yet to be tabled in parliament”.
An Australian Defence Force spokesperson told in April that “over many years, Australia has invested in the upgrade and sustainment of PNG Defence Force armouries as part of its Defence Cooperation Program,” including “ongoing maintenance of magazines and armouries, as well as the installation of alert systems to notify Defence Force personnel in the event of security breaches”, and that Australia “continues to work with PNG on measures that support the safe and secure management of weapons”.
Yet Polewara said in March there were no plans for Australia to help the PNGDF upgrade its weapons storage to accommodate the rifles.
To the best of our knowledge, neither has there been any public discussion of how the assessment required by the Arms Trade Treaty would be carried out, or by whom. Having seen up close the consequences of illegal guns over decades of research in PNG, this is deeply concerning.
PNG is currently asking its own citizens to give up their guns through a government amnesty and buy-back scheme. Many concerned citizens, having witnessed the bloodshed and terror wrought by firearms, are putting their trust in the government and doing just that. Australia has a moral and legal imperative to do everything in its power to ensure that the rifles it sends to PNG over the next four years do not end up undermining this faith shown by the citizens of PNG.
The Australian government should publicly state that no rifles will be shipped until secure storage for them exists and has been independently verified.
Source: Lowy Institute – The Interpreter
Original Article: An Australian gift of guns to PNG must not end up in the wrong hands | Lowy Institute
