Comments

Thanks Stephen If I might add some comparative figures to your concerns about Australia's contributions to reducing poverty around our world (or at the least, within the Indo-Pacific region). From <a href="https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview" rel="nofollow ugc">the World Bank</a> (Nov 2022): "For three decades, the number of people living in extreme poverty— defined as those who live on less than $2.15 per person per day at 2017 purchasing power parity—was declining. But the trend was interrupted in 2020, when poverty rose due to the disruption caused by the COVID-19 crisis. The number of people in extreme poverty rose by 70 million to more than 700 million people. The global extreme poverty rate reached 9.3 percent, up from 8.4 percent in 2019. .............. "The recent crises have pushed the world further off track from the global goal of ending extreme poverty by 2030. Given current trends, 574 million people—nearly 7 percent of the world’s population—will still be living on less than $2.15 a day in 2030. And the challenge is made harder by the fact that extreme poverty is concentrated in parts of the world where it will be hardest to eradicate: in Sub-Saharan Africa, in conflict-affected areas, and in rural areas." US$2.15 a day is an unimaginable figure of personal hunger, distress and lack of opportunity.

Thanks again, Cameron I read that "Factsheet" with a great deal of interest and note it made no reference to any existing and annual responsibilities for reporting the Department's "performance" under the PGPA Act, where Section 39 specifies: "39 Annual performance statements for Commonwealth entities (1) The accountable authority of a Commonwealth entity must: (a) prepare annual performance statements for the entity as soon as practicable after the end of each reporting period for the entity; and (b) include a copy of the annual performance statements in the entity’s annual report that is tabled in the Parliament. Note: See section 46 for the annual report. (2) The annual performance statements must: (a) provide information about the entity’s performance in achieving its purposes; and (b) comply with any requirements prescribed by the rules." I could only find them using this search key https://www.dfat.gov.au/search?keys=PGPA+Performance+reports, where it was possible to find examples, such as * Technical Disaster Risk Reduction Program in PNG Evaluation Report and * Mid-Term Review Report of the Pacific Insurance and Climate Adaptation Programme (PICAP) and on the last page is * Achieving the millennium development goals: Australia's support 2000-2010 These have now been required for 10 years, since the PGPA Act was introduced in 2013, yet not publicised.

Thanks Xavier. Clarification: There are two versions of OLIPPAC online. OLIPPAC 2001 and OLLIPAC 2003. The first OLIPPAC was passed in 2001 under Mekere Mourata. It was amended and new provisions (restrictions to movement of MPs) were added in 2003 under the Somare Government. OLIPPAC 2003 is therefore replaced OLIPPAC 2001. Whilst provisions on government formation come under section 76 in the earlier version, under the updated version - OLIPPAC 2003 - section 63 provides for government formation. Section 63 of OLIPPAC is therefore the correct provision on government formation. Regards, Michael

Mike, correction on 63 of OLIPPAC; Invitation to form govt is under s. 76 of OLIPPAC, not s. 63. Just a correction. Thanks.

Thanks, Peter. DFAT has stated that it will "work closely with the recently established Australian Centre for Evaluation to further ensure the rigour of our evaluation practice." https://www.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/monitoring-evaluating-development-factsheet.pdf This will be something to watch. But I suspect the Centre's capacity will be stretched across larger govt programs and it's ability to engage on DFAT programs will be constrained.

Thanks, Ian. I agree that if the government is not going to re-establish ODE/IEC (it is still not clear why they are not doing this given Labor's strong criticisms at the time) then it should, at the very least, increase the number independent members of its Development Program Committee and appoint a senior evaluation officer who reports directly to this committee. Several submissions recommended the latter. DFAT have produced this factsheet which compares pre-aid policy arrangements with the new commitments: https://www.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/monitoring-evaluating-development-factsheet.pdf

Thanks Cameron. It is quite encouraging to see in the new International Development Policy at least 7 nicely phrased references to "monitoring"; 17 references to "learning";and 18 references to "evaluation". There are also several references to "enhanced accountability and transparency". Good. However, you can't help but wonder how much traction that will get in practice when there is still no longer an independent office of development effectiveness, or any clear reference to re-establishing one in the new policy. And I wonder if our standing and credibility as a "partner of choice" would have been strengthened further among partner countries, and with partner UN and other organisations, had the new policy committed to having a genuinely independent office of development effectiveness, together with the tracking of the extent to which lessons were subsequently learned. Or not.

I appreciate you taking the time to write this blog post. It was very insightful.

Good observation, Michael!

Thanks again Cameron - quite a reflective article, especially on establishing the real impacts and "effectiveness" of our aid. Eventually. Though DFAT is like all APS Departments, required to produce an Annual Performance Report under the PGPA Act. I am aware that DFAT has a "Development Effectiveness Division" https://www.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/dfat-org-chart-executive.pdf. But that means its activities are very much subject to the alternative priorities and decisions of senior DFAT management. At any time. The evaluation functions do not sit to the side of the Department and be able to operate independently. Fortunately DFAT and the entire APS is now being subject to demonstrating the effectiveness of their programs, through the Australian Centre for Evaluation being established in Treasury - https://ministers.treasury.gov.au/ministers/andrew-leigh-2022/media-releases/australian-centre-evaluation-measure-what-works

Thanks so much Stephen - appreciate your time with the updates!

An insightful article written by my classmates from DWU and my former lecturer Ms McKenna. It captures 'Fail State' narrative from a PNG perspective. In my reflection, this term is negative and it ignites a sense of negative nationalism whenever it is used. To use and express a negative term publicly will spark of many comments and narratives. As the article mentioned, there is a historical root of how this 'fail state' terminology developed. Politicians, journalists and academics using it must be mindful of the terminology used to convey a political message to the public as it may be sensitive enough to raise negative emotions. What an insightful article. Please continue writing more.