Comments

It should also be noted that the CDI is essentially a ranking of commitment and not a scoring of commitment. This can mean that large changes in commitment can result in relatively small changes in the final scores. For the CDI absolute levels of contribution are generally standardised (converted to the number of standard deviations above or below the mean) in an effort to equally weight the contribution of each component. For example in the case of the Aid component, the 31% decrease in the ODA/GNI measure from 2013 to 2017 (from 0.36% to 0.25% of GNI) has resulted in a reduction of just 8% in the final score for the aid quantity component. In the 2017 CDI, Norway with an aid volume of 1.1% of GNI makes 4.5 times the effort of Australia's 0.25%, but its standardised CDI aid quantity score is just 1.7 times greater than Australia.

Current Prime minister Peter O'Neil is is most corrupted one. Because he is finding all means and ways not to submit to the law of this nation. Sooner or later he should be removed from the office and his government will not be remembered by the next generation as a legacy but corrupted leader.

Thanks for highlighting Australia's results in the Commitment to Development Index Camilla. Without such comparisons across countries we could be convinced by our politicians that Australia is doing a great job in supporting poorer countries. No index has the perfect assessment, but the CDI at least highlights the wide range of policies that support development and provides a transparent assessment process using the limited resources available. It is a useful basis for discussion about how rich countries can lift their game. Certainly Australia has a lot of game-lifting to do. Our overall position of 18th is way below our relative level of wealth and capacity to assist and should drive DFAT and the minister to do more, especially given our commitment to achieving the SDGs and their 13 year time horizon.

It's great there is a new focus on health security. It is not great that there have been huge cuts to support for basic health services. Given the importance of basic health services to international health security Australia appears to be taking one step forward and several steps back.

Yes. Let's have many more Australian aid projects which support long-term partnerships that respond to the concerns and needs of the least powerful people.

Not in this article, but it is there in her speech and the press release. Indeed, MDR TB seems to be a major motivator for this initiative.

That's a really good question. The old oil wells are running out, the gold mines never seem to pay tax, the PNG LNG project is not paying tax, and I'm not sure about Ok Tedi. Either it is not paying tax now because it shut down as a result of the drought in 2015 and/or because it is investing in a mine-life extension. It would be really good to see some more research on this topic though.

How is it possible that extractives revenues have disappeared when copper and oil prices are comparable today to 2006, gold has doubled in price, and a new gas industry has been developed?!

With the current Australian government grandstanding on an anti-refugee platform, and determined disinterest in climate action, we can only hope that future decision-makers are better positioned to engage the Australian public on these matters and walk this walk with Australia's Pacific neighbours.

I note there was no mention of the threats posed by drug-resistant TB (Ebola With Wings), especially in Papua New Guinea and on our doorstep in Daru/Western Province

James and Meg, The idea of greater migration access in return for policy reforms has been around for a couple of decades but gets less and less likely by the year with growing foreign interest in the region, giving countries more and more choices. Let's not forget that Australia also needs Nauru from time to time. All in all, our leverage is on the decline. Giving greater freedom of movement to the microstates is good for them and good for Australia. We should follow NZ's example, and just do it, rather than attach policy conditions.

The focal intentions of the health care personnel (clinicians) were now identified to be urban health facility oriented. The would mean, they want to enjoy the available services in the urban areas based on their own assumptions. However, majority of our populations are living in the rural areas but they are reluctant to serve them. According to my undergraduate research study conducted in 2016 in SHP, I found out that 99% of the HEO ( Rural Health) , 67% Nursing officers and 23% CHWs are now working in the Urban health facilities. From my point of view, RH profession should serve the rural areas, not the urban populous. They supposed to define their profession as Rural Health, but their intentions to be in the urban areas falsify their profession!. NOs are utility, they can serve in any level of health facility. Merely from my statement here, I strongly support the work of CHWs in the remote rural areas where they usually provide quality services to the people, especially mothers and children thus more better our responsible stakeholders make should make a full support to expand the CHW program in the country could be a satisfactory to the unmet people. Thank you By Dunstan Konop DWU Bclor in Health Management & Systems Development 2017.