Comments

When will the ballot be drawn?
Go to comment
Thanks Andrew Always good to be reminded of the value of our foreign aid and knowing the basis of what works through Treasury's Australian Centre for Evaluation. The effectiveness of Australia's aid expenditure should always be assessed and the resulting benefits explained to the Australian people. Having been associated with the 1990 World Summit for Children and its Candlelight Vigils for Children beforehand, I have retained an interest in the long-term impacts of the Convention on the Rights of Child and action against childhood diseases around our world. So a slightly different form of evidence of what works on child immunization and poverty is available. It also identifies an important factor of long-term outcomes from aid expenditure, by assessing return on investment over an extended period of 20 years, taking it out of the short-term priorities of governments and funding bureaucrats: "Return On Investment From Immunization Against 10 Pathogens In 94 Low- And Middle-Income Countries, 2011–30" (Health Affairs,NO. 8 (2020): 1343–1353) - https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/epdf/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00103 Immunization included against measles, rubella, Japanaese encephalitis, hepatitis B and yellow fever. A key extract shows this financial impact and complements your example of anti-malaria bed nets: "Using the cost-of-illness approach, return on investment for one dollar invested in immunization against our ten pathogens was 26.1 for the ninety-four countries from 2011 to 2020 and 19.8 from 2021 to 2030. Using the value-of-a-statistical-life approach, return on investment was 51.0 from 2011 to 2020 and 52.2from 2021 to 2030." It concludes: "Potential users of ROI estimates could use either the cost-of-illness approach or the value-of-a-statistical-life approach according to their policy questions of interest. Insights from the ROI using the cost-of-illness approach will inform decisions that require consideration of the budgetary and macroeconomic aspects of immunization. In contrast, the value-of-a-statistical-life approach captures broader economic benefits of immunization beyond those attributable to wages and averted costs." This is a different form of assessing what works - especially in considering what works for ensuring children around our world are alive after five.
Go to comment
Unfortunately the government has not released up to date information.
Go to comment
I suggest you contact your government's Department of Labour or Employment Sending Unit to get the information on how to apply to work in Australia or New Zealand. However, it is up to the approved employer to choose the workers based on his or her understanding of the type of worker they need.
Go to comment
Just want to confirm from anyone who tell the people of Papua New Guinea about the lobbying system to elect a President or people to vote for President. This has never come down good to the people's minds and they clouded with doubts and needs further clarification.
Go to comment
Actually these SARV is believed to be a great trend in PNG. PNG still needs to be more concrete about legal protection about the perpetrators. I mention 98 percent are people in PNG are not sure of the legal process. There need to be more informed advocacy through various source of media to disembark and put to stop SARV in PNG. The Constitution on SARV must be enacted and enforced as most innocent victims are suffering on the hands of majority. SARV victim (Dept of Education).
Go to comment
I'm very much interested to join the Pacific Seasonal Workers Program. Can someone help me? Kind Regards
Go to comment
Thank you Mr Curtain and Mr Howes for your analysis of the Palm scheme. Sir, just enquiring,do you know how many PNG seasonal workers are currently in Australia, what is the number? Has the number reached 8000 or not yet? Thank you.
Go to comment
A great guy and a privilege to have known him. During my various times in the Solomons I considered him a constant beacon of commitment, objectivity and steadfastness.
Go to comment
Thanks, Terence. I would much prefer that all Ministers for Foreign Affairs actually highlight what is achieved through those various expenditures of our aid. Saying how much is up or down in the dollars of the aid budget is really only the beginning. We give aid for specific objectives in the recipient countries or programs. In my 48 years of involvement in government decisions around aid and its priorities, I have never seen or heard a Foreign Minister announce something like: "In the past X years, we have given $Y with the objective(s) of (e.g) reducing mortality in those children aged under five. Our priorities were in (named countries). We are proud to conclude over those "X" years that "Z" million children have been vaccinated against the six vaccine-preventable diseases, like measles and diphtheria. That means (Z) million children will be alive after five. That means they have an excellent chance of a healthy adult life. The healthy lives we take for granted for our Australian children are now possible for those millions of children in (named countries). That's what our overseas aid money achieves." So much of the aid debate has been sterile: "percentages of national budget", "annual Budgets up or down", "corruption in recipient countries". When real outcomes are identified by Government, that debate changes focus - where it belongs. On benefitting the lives of those in poverty around our world.
Go to comment