Comments

Hi Stephen, I agree that there is no need to end up in that particular type of contest with China. Let's hope it's avoided. Terence

In my opinion there is no need to match useless infrastructure projects of the sort pushed under China's programmes. I do agree with Minister Conroy that effective aid is what is needed, particularly in the areas of community economic empowerment (especially women), primary health care and education service delivery. These are the items communities across PNG are crying out for. Designing models of assistance that give communities greater agency over the outcomes they desire is the way forward. I believe both Ms Wong and Mr Conroy are well aware of this and commited to allocating some resources towards these objectives.

Thank you Andy.

Thanks Satish, I definitely agree on the idea of a review. Terence

Excellent analysis, Terence. Agree that the challenge highlighted by this statement: "The more Australian aid is focused on countering China and shoring up allegiances with political elites in Pacific countries, the less likely it is to actually help people in need" would also significantly undermine aid effectiveness in the region.

Question: Has the federal government given longer dated targets for PALM visa numbers. I heard the number 50,000 mentioned, but haven't been able to verify.

Thanks for this blog Terrence. Agree that a comprehensive review of aid, very much in the spirit of the 1984 Jackson and the 1997 Simon reviews, is well overdue.

Thank you Scott, That's a very good question. The most clean and tidy solution, it seems to me, would be to recreate a semi-autonomous aid program. However, I am not working in the trenches, and my academic perspective might well lead me to under-appreciate the difficulties doing this. In terms of function, all that is required is a structure that allows people to build a real career within DFAT focusing on aid, and also which allows aid workers a proper place at the decision-making table at posts. My guess is that there are a wide range of solutions which would more or less afford this. I presume the best way to choose which of these should be enacted would be a very careful independent review. Thanks again Terence

Thank you Juliet.

Thanks for this well-considered blog. Spot on (as usual).

An excellent piece of analysis. Additional funding can potentially be put to good use; however, government needs strategy and organisational capacity to effectively use this additional funding. Terrance, I would be interested in hearing more about your views on any required structural changes. Regards

Thanks Stephen An unfortunate summary of how the aid Budget(s) were cut, essentially in the name of domestic Australian Budget priorities. Not in the cause of delivering aid that achieved its objectives. The most disgracelu examples have been (1) abolishing AusAID, then (2) abolishing the ODE and IEC. This was despite the former Prime Minister Morrision subsequently promising to embed program evaluation (back) into the APS (following the Thodey Review) – from which it had been allowed to lapse in the Howard years after 1996. The Department of Finance's Resource Management Guide 130 on APS program evaluation (https://www.finance.gov.au/government/managing-commonwealth-resources/planning-and-reporting/commonwealth-performance-framework/evaluation-commonwealth-rmg-130) is only the beginning of this embedding. It can all too-easily be ignored by time-poor and/or indifferent APS management. More to the point, I do suggest that it is not the amount of dollars in any aid budget that should be the target. It's what those dollars achieve – demonstrably. Like children vaccinated; clean water projects delivered; maternal mortality reduced (as just some examples in the Health area with which I'm familiar). Again to the point, I do not recall any Foreign Minister publicising such results and highlighting just exactly why Australia delivers foreign aid. And thus creating a domestic constituency for this Budget and Australia's part in reducing poverty and hunger in the developing world. In 2017, just under 700 million people globally were living in extreme poverty on the World Bank's revised figure of US$2.15 a day. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/factsheet/2022/05/02/fact-sheet-an-adjustment-to-global-poverty-lines. As Scott Bayley has suggested, Australia's programs for reducing these poverty levels need to be removed from Ministerial and political priorities and handed to independent experts.