The founding director of the National Aids Council Dr Clement Malau states his position on the Tobias report which he terms as “part of a trend of academic sensationalism on HIV and AIDS in PNG”.

‘Sensationalism’ not helpful

The recent report titled The HIV/AIDS Crisis in Papua New Guinea by Mirinda Darling Tobias of The Centre for Independent Studies illustrates the need for authors and news reporters to understand and research the social and cultural context of development in Papua New Guinea.

To apply global standards of practice to a 31-year-old, socio-culturally diverse country without in-depth research into the social and cultural context can demoralise and stigmatise those trying to make a difference in the country. Academic authors like Ms Tobias can be labelled as wanting immediate attention for personal publicity gains and academic recognition.

This I believe is a dangerous trend evolving in the case of PNG, which is faced with many developmental problems. The facts are already known; and these need not be repeated. The notations highlighted on each of the pages of the report are sensationalised and repeat facts that are already widely known.

What is the rationale for the constant repetition of these facts? Will repetition of well known facts make any difference to HIV or any other development issue in PNG? Why hasn’t Ms Tobias analysed the many initiatives taken by individuals, the Government and church-based organisations in the country?

The critique of the Tobias report by Angela Kelly and her colleagues of the PNG Institute of Medical Research confirms the fact that Ms Tobias has not done her research adequately in coming up with a patronising report. The report also portrays the Government of PNG as reliant on Australia’s compassion and that leadership in PNG has not done anything to address HIV and AIDS in the country.

Once again academics like Tobias exploit the HIV situation in PNG to document sensational academic reports that do not provide solutions to the problem. I believe researchers should provide reports that provide evidence for change in policy or practice. This report only repeats known facts, raises no new findings and provides no suggestions for improvement.

As most of the technical disparities in the Tobias report have been well articulated by Kelly and colleagues, my response to the report focuses on two aspects;

i) aid delivery, and
ii) leadership commitments.

In regard to aid delivery a few basic questions need to be asked by both Australia and Papua New Guinea.
How are Australian and other partners’ aid packages being delivered? Have they had the planned impact? Have they created parallel systems, undermining state institutions that have been created to implement and sustain the national HIV response in the country? A classic example is the National Aids Council. It has been set up through an Act of Parliament to oversee a multi-sectoral response and meet up to the internationally accepted standards.

The core principles include;

° One national co-ordination mechanism,
° One national strategy, and
° One monitoring and evaluation framework.

Have all partner agencies including AusAID, UNAIDS, the Global Fund, WHO, UNDP, UNICEF, EU, and the Clinton Foundation supported the secretariat to meet its objective?

Has there been independent analysis of the support provided to ensure such new institutions of state are provided the capacity and support to function and meet their national goals and internationally accepted functions? To what extent has mistrust in the Government resulted in parallel systems which lead to dependency and undermining of what are meant to be sustainable systems owned and managed by the Government? If international support is to support countries leading and taking ownership of their individual responses, such serious questions need to be asked and answered in a transparent manner.

There is no question that Australia is committed to assisting Papua New Guinea. As noted in the paper it invested about $22 billion between 1975 and 2005. Over the last six years AusAID provided over $60 million just to fight HIV and AIDS. Such support is appreciated and acknowledged by all Papua New Guineans.

However, have we transparently analysed the aid package? I believe it is up to the Government of PNG and Australia together to make a critical analysis of this so that resources invested focus on the wellbeing of all Papua New Guineans. The broad discussions should focus around the road map to economic independence. Papua New Guinea is richly blessed with natural resources.

Its leaders need to stop a potential cycle of dependency created by not dedicating natural resources to the care and support of its people. While the report challenges leaders in PNG to be accountable, it is insensitive to how such documents can create more animosity and anger among political leaders. Ms Tobias’ documentation is culturally insensitive and does not assist leaders in taking the required actions.

It is in the interest of both Australia and Papua New Guinea that all of PNG’s citizens enjoy the best quality of life possible so that they can contribute to an independent, prosperous and economically viable state. With its natural resources Papua New Guinea can improve on the 0.05 doctors per 1000 population ratio, increase the expenditure on health to over 5% and more in the next five years, and increase the per capita health expenditure to the level of Botswana ($US232 per capita) in the next few years.

Papua New Guinean leaders (both bureaucratic and political) must invest in health if PNG is to improve its health indicators.
The Tobias report does not ask basic questions about PNG leaders’ commitment to the HIV response. What is the budget and policy commitment of the Government to the National Aids Council? The council secretariat could not have been set up without government commitment. The HIV Management and Prevention Bill, a first among the Pacific island nations, is not highlighted as government commitment to address HIV rationally and humanely. Like all new policies in any country (developing or developed) it takes time to implement.

This is and will remain a major challenge for the country. Leaders have moved on since 2002 when I indicated a slow phase response by many government departments. I am glad to note that things have changed dramatically since then.

The Tobias report lack of research into knowing what is happening in the country in regards to leadership is shown by no mention of recent initiatives by UNDP, AusAID and the Government to strengthen leadership. Initiatives such as the Leadership Development Program (LDP) of UNDP, the Asia Pacific Leadership Forum (APLF) supported by UNAIDS and the Leadership Support Initiative (LSI) initiative by AusAID were not mentioned. Other initiatives such as the church partnership program are building capacity and understanding of the implications of the threat of HIV to church based organisations in the country.

Such leadership initiatives are possible because of interest by national leaders. The commitment of the Parliamentary Committee and its chairman Dr Banare Bun to these initiatives and of leaders such as Minister for Health, Sir Peter Barter, Dr Puka Temu and Dame Carol Kidu have been undermined by the report. Grand Chief Sir Michael Somare made his personal commitment to HIV /AIDs in addressing stigma and discrimination by appearing in a national poster.

Recently he invited ex-President Bill Clinton to PNG to show support to the national response. Members of Parliament actively supporting their district AIDS committees include the Member for Unggai Bena, Benny Allen, Member for Alotau Isaac Taitibe, Member for Mul Baiyer Kuri Kingal, Member for Daulo, Ben Kiage and Dr Bun the Member for Henganofi. The Deputy Speaker for the Bougainville Autonomous region Francesca Semoso is involved in many new initiatives on Bougainville.

In conclusion I commend the PNG Institute of Medical Research team in responding promptly to this paper.
This quick response demonstrates the maturity and capacity of a government funded research organisation to set the record straight and counter academic sensationalism.

– Dr Clement Malau was the founding director of the National Aids Council