Comments

Hi Paul, Thanks for your comments. I agree that how aid is given is as important as how much aid is given. For that reason we do find it encouraging that the parties which responded to ACFID’s survey seem are expressing interest in placing greater emphasis on transparency and evaluation. Just a side note on the the subject of a departmental response to the Senate report on aid to PNG, as I understand it these are usually published on the Senate inquiry website (see for example the government response to the 2014 aid inquiry <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Foreign_Affairs_Defence_and_Trade/Overseas_aid/Government_Response" rel="nofollow">here</a>). Hopefully after the election takes place and the caretaker period ends then the Department will be able to produce a response before too long! I too would be interested to read what they have to say. Camilla

The real issue is not how much should be 'given' but how the amount 'given' actually helps those who it is supposed to be helping. The recent Senate Report highlights the question of accountability for results of Australia's overseas aid as opposed to simply 'spend!, spend!, spend!'. Funny how no one of any persuasion seems to be prepared to take up the points raised in this Report? When queried the Department replied that: “The department welcomes public scrutiny of the Australian aid program and thanks the Committee for its work. We are considering the report's recommendations closely and will provide a detailed response in due course.” To who the response will be supplied to was not said. Yeah! Right! Don't hold your breath. The graph above merely illustrates the similarity of both Labor and Liberal planning and the absolute fantasy of those who apparently think they can just allocate what they like. Should that ever happen the same people would be screaming about all the advantages they now enjoy that would disappear since there wouldn't be enough funds to go around. The 'warm and fuzzies' won't help the poor and suffering if aid money simply just gets distributed to those who have made an art form of siphoning aid money off into their own bank accounts. The introduction to the Senate Aid Report to PNG is telling in it's factual detail. In addition, the problems of overpopulation in regions and countries that are currently increasing to the point they will not be able to feed themselves will only exacerbate the future aid dilemma. One of those regions is the Pacific and most importantly PNG. The expression 'Do more with less' is sounding like a good mantra to start chanting. Hello...Is anyone listening?

Incredible post.. i agree with Tess Newton Cain on pre-deployment training and post-deployment mentoring on investment. very important.

I agree having connections means opportunities

Very true. connectivity creates opportunities.

Dear Carmen, thank you for the very balanced presentation and for the equally balanced discussion which followed it. I would very much enjoy joining the Bushwalking Club. are you able to give contact persons and telephone numbers or emails? Or whether the next bushwalk is: June 26th or July 4th. Jim Macpherson jmacpherson015@gmail.com

The whole affair sounds like the proverbial 'Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee' dissertation. I'm glad I didn't have to suffer sitting in the audience. The Senate has recently released the findings on a Report on PNG aid, so wonderfully timed as to coincide with the Parliament being prorogued and the government put in 'caretaker mode' so as no one will respond to the points raised based on the efforts everyone who contributed and who wanted to hear a government response about. If Tanya Plibersek felt that governance was 'undervalued', exactly what would she or any Labor appointed Minister do about it? Throw away lines and motherhood statements might satisfy the media but for those who take a real interest in PNG, the whole affair appears to be another talk fest and yet more hot air. Has 'global warming' struck again? Can anyone has the erudite skills and opportunity not get some answers to the real issues raised in the Senate Report? Maski traipla mauswara. Tupla lida imas kamapim sampla tok stret. Ol pipil iet bilo PNG ino lukim ol samting tru ikamap pinis.Tupla giamanim yumi olsem.

Hi Rohan Thanks for this important analysis. The exchange rate, and the related foreign currency shortage, is now regarded as the greatest impediment to business in PNG. Although exchange rate policy is often seen as a boring and technical issue, it is a priority for development analysis. Four comments. First, PNG probably would not be in the current problems if 4 June 2014 didn't exist. That is the date for the introduction of the exchange bands and the big upward spike in the blue line to join the red line. If the blue line just kept going down from where it was on 3 June 2014, possibly at a slightly faster rate, then PNG would be much closer to a market clearing rate (so no foreign currency crisis). Second, the graph is in US dollars. This is appropriate as the crawling peg policy has been based on the Kina/USD exchange rate. However, this hides a major story given the strength of the US dollar over the last two years. The Kina exchange rate has stayed much flatter relative to many of its trading partners, including Australia and Asian countries. Economically, this means that the exchange rate has not been as large a policy shock absorber as suggested by this graph. If PNG continues with a crawling peg system, this should be based around the Trade Weighted Index (TWI). Third, it is a matter of choice whether the vertical axis for the graph shows USD/Kina, or Kina/USD. Technically, both show exactly the same ratio. My preference is for Kina/USD which inverts the graph. This would show the tail end of the graph going up rather than down. This would reflect increases in competitiveness for the PNG economy. This small technical change can move the policy narrative from concern about a "weak" Kina going down, to one of a Kina becoming more competitive and going up. If you are a poor rural coffee or cocoa exporting household in PNG, you'd prefer the latter approach. If you are in an urban area on a formal sector wage relying on food imports, you'd probably prefer the former. Finally, PNG is currently seeking to release a USD 1 billion sovereign bond. There are K2 billion worth of reasons for making any needed exchange rate adjustment before issuing the bond (covered in <a href="http://pngeconomics.org/?p=184" rel="nofollow">this blog</a>). There are significant distributional issues in making changes and I look forward to the next post on international experiences of adjustment. Cheers Paul

I wonder what people dying from HIV or TB or other preventable lethal problems would think of statements in the debate like: "The 0.5% formula is merely a formula. It does not, of itself, mean better outcomes in health or education or security, or governance. It is a guide, an aspiration." Each day thousands of real people are dying because of a lack of resources for these programs. For example only 50% of people with HIV and a similar proportion of people with TB receive the treatment they need. Yet Australia only contributes $70m a year to the Global Fund or less than half of our fair share to this effective life saving program. Contrary to the Foreign Minister’s statement resources do matter, and in this case they determine whether people live or die. It is so disrespectful of them, and all of us, to pretend to argue otherwise. Listening to the hollowness of this debate makes me sad.

This connectivity should have been done ages before.

Thanks for this Matt and for agreeing to go to the lunch with me. One other issue that struck me was the comment made by Tanya Plibersek that she felt that governance was undervalued at present within the aid programme which is something I would largely agree with in the Pacific context. Again what we did not hear was how that might change should Labor win the election

Thanks Shaun, I agree we live in a world of limited resources and that efficacy matters. It naturally follows that I think evidence is important too. My main difference with MacAskill when it comes to aid is simply that we shouldn't be (overly) guided in choosing the work we do by the **type** of evidence we can obtain about the efficacy of our work. Terence