I don't disagree with you on paying down debt as debt equals risk but if you read my post below you will see it can be argued dividends were paid from operating cashflow and borrowings were to partly cover new investment. The argument would be that the new investment will generate returns in excess of the interest rate on debt and possibly the dividend return on equity. This looks like bull**** when you go back to the overseas investments MRP wrote off prior to being offered to the public. The other argument for debt is that we have central banks worldwide whose policy is to raise the price of everything at least 2%-3% annually. Provided interest rates don't get too far ahead of inflation, inflation will take care of the debt over time. Seems wrong but I think everyone is relying on this to continue.
Another thought although it won't apply to 51% govt owned MRP is that a company's balance sheet is "lazy" if it has too little debt. This argument I am not too sure of so stand to be corrected but in some cases private equity buys the shares as dividends are low and the company is not growing so is not highly valued. They then cut jobs and make stock control more efficient and boosting profits. They then borrow to pay massive dividends from the company to themselves and when the balance sheet is no longer "lazy" (i.e. loaded up with debt) they offer the company back to the public through an IPO usually at a price much larger than they purchased it for. (think MYOB and more recently Dick Smith). Why people buy into these I don't know but good advertising and people wearing sharp suits does work.