Comments

Thanks Stephen for this retrospective account of Downerist paradigm in the Pacific back then. As we move into the modern world with increased innovations in all aspects of our lives, we do so within the landscape of foreign relations. What used to be the thinking around Pacific nations as the last frontier is now a geopolitical power-playing field. During Downer’s reign, Pacific island nations were not that significant, and simple jobs like fruit picking in Australia was given to other well affluent countries. Australian aid to the Pacific nations was through a “boomerang” model. Now things have changed and former policy thinkers like Downer have moved on; a new breed of leaders has emerged not only in Australia but in Pacific nations as well. The new generation would see the boomerang model as obsolete and court new aid givers. One obvious development is the attraction of Chinese soft loans into the Pacific. This would also mean re-shaping Pacific foreign policy from Canberra. One obvious approach would be to increase and give opportunity for the Pacific nations to participate in the Australia seasonal labour scheme. However, China's soft carrot approach is not for Pacific islanders to work in Chinese rice fields but it still attracts the Pacific nations. Canberra's thinking about Pacific nations needs a better and smarter approach. The critique on improving governance systems to address corruption in Pacific nations is a relevant investment with Australian aid. However, much of it has not succeeded, as there are inherent ideological misfits that would not change quickly but it is what gives a unique identity to the islanders. The Pacific nations will remain a fragile and vulnerable political and economic zone in the Asia Pacific region while the geopolitical competition between capitalism and liberalism players increases in the future.

You are right. I would certainly agree that labour migration without protections can have a dark side and remittances are not a sustainable source of income. However they are a lifeline for many families that would otherwise have to wait years for employment opportunities within Nepal to improve. In the meantime the benefits of remittances need to be maximised for those whose livelihoods depend on it.

Veru interesting insights! We see Nepalese migrants in all cities and in our neighbourhoods for many years. It's possible that toursim in Nepal and remittances from the workers overseas has contributed to increasing HDI. However, much needs to be done. Incomes can be increased substantially with improving agriculture and allied sectors.

Very insightful. The context is quite similar to Sri Lanka.

Thank you for this detailed article. Very helpful. But there is a negative side to it: 1) Remittances are an unsustainable source of income; it depends on external factors and on the mercy of the host country. 2) The social costs of migration are not covered in this article, in particular, women - both returned or left behind - are suffering. 3) Most horribly, at least 2 Nepalis die every day in foreign countries, they are underpaid and heavily exploited - it's a new form of slavery (see https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/23/qatar-nepal-workers-world-cup-2022-death-toll-doha).

Excellent series of blog entries on changes to the WHS in Australia, Stephen. The recent policy changes certainly seem to be a backward step for a visa category that is designed to promote cultural exchanges and short-term periods of casual employment to assist with expenses of the holiday. Australia's WHS visa needs to be seen as a temporary work visa for relatively unskilled work. It will be interesting to see if labour hire companies currently recruiting Pacific workers under the SWP shift to the WHS. You did a great job in one of the blog piences in showing the incentives they (and employers) will have to making these changes. We will be watching developments from the other side of the Tasman with interest.

Hi Michael, I want to come to Stephanie's defence here. Of course there is massive corruption in PNG, and of course that is a huge problem. But what can the aid program do about it? Very little. Even if Australia was more outspoken about the problem, it would have very little effect. And, as much as we'd like it, Australia is not going to be outspoken, not when China is heaping praise on O'Neill and his government. So then what to do? Of course the OSF model has its own limitations. But it also has some very positive features. It works with government, but in a hands-on way. It is focused on results and monitors progress towards them. It tries to get things done rather than amorphously advise and build capacity. These are approaches that other donors could more fully adopt, including the Australian aid program. They are approaches that won't solve the problem of widespread corruption, but make it more likely that aid will succeed in a difficult operating environment. Regards, Stephen

Looking forward to your next post.

Whilst the article does make brief mention of corruption, it studiously avoids the giant, stampeding elephant that dominates the room containing all the problems that the author describes: Papua New Guinea is one of the most corrupt of all the world’s nation states. The author is disappointed in the Australian pubic for not taking enough interest in PNG. Yet what is far more important to the interests of the people of PNG, is the fact that the Australian government fails (at least openly) to acknowledge the immense corruption that exists at the top of the state apparatus. Papua New Guinea is a kleptocracy and the people that the author is trying to help need, more than anything else, their country not to be a kleptocracy anymore. I understand the diplomatic considerations that have historically subdued open acknowledgment of this problem, however I submit that this problem is now so acute that it must be faced openly. Oil Search, and by extension, the Oil Search Foundation, is in a compromised position in that regard because of its links to the PNG government. The result is that OSF simply bypasses the state to become a sort of quasi-state with Peter Botton at the head of the Hela provincial health system. The problem here is that the proposed solution to PNG’s problems relies on the neocolonial and paternalistic benevolence of multinational resource companies. Where are the Papua New Guineans in this article? Another problem with this approach is that, while the efforts of OSF are laudable, they rely on the personalities that are behind the leadership of the parent corporation: Oil Search. ExxonMobil (studiously not mentioned in the article) does not have an ExxonMobil Development Foundation doing good work in PNG. In that regard ExxonMobil and Oil Search are chalk and cheese, and the reason is that corporations are cultural institutions run by actual people with individual personalities. Peter Botton, being mortal like the rest of us, will not be around forever and neither will his benevolence. This model of development is both highly unusual in PNG (no other Provincial Health Authority has a multinational MD as chair, and none is ever likely to), and ultimately unsustainable. What happens when the gas runs dry, as it eventually will? This approach, successful as it is in the specific areas in which OSF operates, cannot work. In the absence of a functioning state, Oil Search has taken it upon itself to act like a state. Outside of the Oil Search anomaly the private sector cannot and will not act like a state. This approach has not prevented the spread of polio and TB that now threaten Australia’s bio-security. If the Australian state thinks of PNG as anything more than a site for a detention centre, or a geo-strategic military base, then it can and must call out the government of PNG for all its crimes against its own people.

Great information. Can you provide the 2007 and 2017 election results?

Thanks Stephanie for the eventful piece of firsthand experience working with Australian aid and in PNG. From the account of your shared experience, a few points become obvious regarding development in PNG. Firstly, the fact that PNG has weak institutional capacity and development is slow and cannot cope with the growing population. This has been demonstrated in a number of international development indicators including corruption indexes. Secondly, Australia needs to show interest in development for PNG, not only by increasing the aid or on the premise of sustaining a strategic fortress of an Australian neighbourhood. Many independent commentary and research papers documenting Australia aid to PNG and development outcomes point out more development failures than successes of the aid program. It is about time the Australian government refocused on this issue. Over time the bilateral aid goes from direct PNG budgetary support to budget and program alignment to direct service delivery. From 2015, the aid program has moved towards integration, strategic policy dialogue and partnership building. During these transitions, one thing that had never changed is the business model of aid delivery. With other development partners, we find this business model very evident and the outcomes results in successes. This is the selective engagement in the development program. The Australian aid technocrats need to take another look at the Australian aid delivery business model in PNG and provide appropriate and relevant to local context advice to help improve the outcomes of the aid program. Although many outcomes have been achieved, more can be done with greater innovations and business techniques. Over AUD $500 million annually in aid funding to PNG represents about 15% of PNG’s annual budget and this would best work with a new business model. At this value an overall achievement of 30% development outcomes in health, education, law and order, infrastructure, gender, governance are possible - a great story to tell. Moving on into late 2018, we began to see the increased engagement of the Chinese Government in PNG through the One Belt, One Road Initiative. At the expense of this engagement, it would greatly weaken what PM Billy Hughes said in the 1920 Paris Peace Conference on Australia and its neighbouring northern islands. The recent announcement by the Australian Government of a Pacific development fund (as a counter strategy to Chinese influence in the Pacific) and increased relationships between Australia and the Pacific countries, including PNG, would not make much difference to development issues in PNG. In your own words, “creating partnership” through selective engagement in development program would result in “large-scale changes” for PNG.

Stephanie this is a good broad-brush overview of aid in PNG. You've noted the importance that the Australian and PNG governments attach to engaging the private sector in development. Another key actor in development is the Church. Churches of various denominations have strong grassroots linkage and high levels of community trust. Some have been in the communities for over a century. When natural disasters strike, they will often be the first responders and will remain in the community during the recovery phase and long after. They provide services like health and they build local capacity through programs like adult literacy. Some international donors keep local churches at arms length because they 'speak a different language' but the churches are a key institute for bridging the cultural gap between international donors and local people. No broad-brush analysis of development in PNG is complete without acknowledging the current and potential role of churches.