3 Responses

  1. Paul Oates
    Paul Oates June 23, 2016 at 11:23 am

    The whole affair sounds like the proverbial ‘Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee’ dissertation. I’m glad I didn’t have to suffer sitting in the audience.

    The Senate has recently released the findings on a Report on PNG aid, so wonderfully timed as to coincide with the Parliament being prorogued and the government put in ‘caretaker mode’ so as no one will respond to the points raised based on the efforts everyone who contributed and who wanted to hear a government response about.

    If Tanya Plibersek felt that governance was ‘undervalued’, exactly what would she or any Labor appointed Minister do about it? Throw away lines and motherhood statements might satisfy the media but for those who take a real interest in PNG, the whole affair appears to be another talk fest and yet more hot air. Has ‘global warming’ struck again?

    Can anyone has the erudite skills and opportunity not get some answers to the real issues raised in the Senate Report?

    Maski traipla mauswara. Tupla lida imas kamapim sampla tok stret. Ol pipil iet bilo PNG ino lukim ol samting tru ikamap pinis.Tupla giamanim yumi olsem.

  2. Garth Luke
    Garth Luke June 22, 2016 at 10:42 pm

    I wonder what people dying from HIV or TB or other preventable lethal problems would think of statements in the debate like: “The 0.5% formula is merely a formula. It does not, of itself, mean better outcomes in health or education or security, or governance. It is a guide, an aspiration.”

    Each day thousands of real people are dying because of a lack of resources for these programs. For example only 50% of people with HIV and a similar proportion of people with TB receive the treatment they need. Yet Australia only contributes $70m a year to the Global Fund or less than half of our fair share to this effective life saving program. Contrary to the Foreign Minister’s statement resources do matter, and in this case they determine whether people live or die. It is so disrespectful of them, and all of us, to pretend to argue otherwise. Listening to the hollowness of this debate makes me sad.

  3. Tess Newton Cain
    Tess Newton Cain June 22, 2016 at 10:17 am

    Thanks for this Matt and for agreeing to go to the lunch with me. One other issue that struck me was the comment made by Tanya Plibersek that she felt that governance was undervalued at present within the aid programme which is something I would largely agree with in the Pacific context. Again what we did not hear was how that might change should Labor win the election

Leave a Reply