Comments

I would like to commend Dr Stephen Howes for a remarkable statement giving us a clear perspective of the ongoing efforts by the ANU Crawford School and SSGM with its committed staff for a positive outlook of Papua New Guinea and its work towards the development of PNG in some of its key areas of Education and community service. Nathan Polty Bachelor of Public Health University of Canberra

Stephen Thanks for this commentary on what is a tremendously important topic. In the context of transparency, I would argue we could do well to widen the lens on the conversation for it is not just an essential feature to ensure openness about what is being or has been spent. I would argue that it is an essential feature across the whole aid programming cycle including and importantly at the front end when concepts and designs are being conceived and developed – and of course when investment is made and services procured. There has been some obvious effort by the aid program to redress the information gaps that is the feature of the Austender system by DFAT posting <a href="http://dfat.gov.au/about-us/business-opportunities/tenders/Pages/business-notifications.aspx" rel="nofollow">here</a> information about forward planned investments. I think it fair to acknowledge DFAT’s effort in increasing this level of information at the front end, even if more could possibly be done. In October 2013 on this forum <a href="https://devpolicy.org/private-enterprise-is-not-developments-dark-side-20131004/">here</a> I wrote of the value the private sector can offer aid programming by earlier and more purposeful engagement, so it is pleasing that we are seeing more industry engagement sessions, early release of concept notes seeking comment and so on – but maybe there is room for more regular and consistent application of this practice. I argue there is an important link between transparency and the possibility of doing better development. Releasing information to the market as early as practicable not only helps to level a playing field and address any perception of advantage; regularly engaging the market in the thinking and concept development might well create an enhanced solution. Again, there are increasing examples of the market being engaged in this manner, including as recently as this week on the Design Concept: Proposed New Australian Government International Volunteering Program <a href="http://dfat.gov.au/about-us/business-opportunities/tenders/Pages/design-concept-proposed-new-australian-government-international-volunteering-program.aspx" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Again, DFAT should be acknowledged for this. Conversely, there has been a great deal of procurement through the Aid Advisory Services (AAS) Panels, some of not insignificant value. These investments did not make the Annual Procurement Plan. There was once a separate page on the DFAT website that had declared five planned procurements, but that information was not maintained and now no longer exists <a href="http://dfat.gov.au/Pages/Page-Not-Found.aspx?s=404&u=/about-us/grants-tenders-funding/tenders/pages/standing-offers.aspx&r=" rel="nofollow">here</a>. To be fair, the sheer volume of AAS activity, including of smaller value procurement, probably does not warrant the administrative costs of maintaining such detail. In the context of transparency, however, there could be opportunity for improvement in transparency in how decisions are made in terms of which Panel to use and which Panellists are invited to propose a solution. It should be noted that an exercise is currently underway to assess the current AAS in preparation for a successor arrangement. Finally, a feature of the aid program over recent years is the mobility for former AusAID personnel into other delivery partners of the aid program. This has tremendous value, by keeping quality, smart, experienced people involved in supporting the Australian aid program. In the context of transparency across the whole aid programming cycle it would be naïve to assume this feature does not create complications. Stephen, I think your call to action is warranted and I think it needs to holistically consider transparency in all aspects of aid programming. It is to do with much more than accountability; it is as you say about contributing to best practice in effectiveness.

This is a very important discussion and is helpful for women folks in PNG. Man resorting to any form of violence even to serve good course on this planet(earth) is a crime against humanity and PNG is no exception. Gender based violence in this country is rampant and has been an hindering factor on development in PNG as far as both men and women are concerned. But in a country like PNG where 80% of its societies are rural, male dominated and where some GBV are culturally accepted norm of resolving issues its pretty difficult and challenging in designing a better policy approach. In this decade this issues/crime must not be treated as a policing or social welfare matter rather, it has to be seen as an development issue and addressed at that level. As such is it is encouraging to see development partners, government and private institutions engaging in this discussion. A challenge here would how to get it down to the rural and settlements suburbs where there is frequent happenings of GBV to an extent that has now become a norm and accepted by women folks. A better approach and as indicated in your discussions is "engagement of all stakeholders in a coordinated effort would achieve some results". Ghandi Katao Second Secretary to Minister Hon. Tobias Kulang, MP Minister for Tourism, Arts & Culture

Thanks Luke for this interesting analysis. I often wonder if Australians are generous. In a report by the UK-based ‘Charitable Aid Foundation’, based on ‘all ATO tax returns that itemised a donation’, Australians gave $2.2 billion of donations in 2012. The government forgoes income tax revenue on a proportion of this money. Australia is ranked 11th in the world (individual giving as a % of GDP), behind (in order) USA, NZ, Canada, UK, Republic of Korea, Singapore, India, Russia, Italy, and the Netherlands. Ref <a href="https://www.cafonline.org/docs/default-source/about-us-publications/caf-gdp-report-v89c47ac334cae616587efff3200698116.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a> in ‘GROSS DOMESTIC PHILANTHROPY: An international analysis of GDP, tax and giving’. CAF, January 2016

Wonderful to see Robyn's outstanding work on village chickens being recognized. I have seen Robyn in action over more than 20 years, since she began work in Mozambique with Community Aid Abroad. I have admired her vision, her persistence and her long-term perspective, as she applied scientific knowledge to preventing disease in village chickens. Robyn combines the highest of academic standards with an ability to work with both governments and at community level. She is an idealist who has put her ideals into practice over the long haul. The article speaks for itself in detailing the positive results for poor rural communities in Africa.

I am a former senior education officer from the Department of Education, former Pacific islands education advisor and education monitoring and evaluation advisor for the EU funded education programmes. I am interested in the position of Head of Leadership and Education. Would appreciate guidance on how I can formally apply for the position.

Thoroughly enjoyed your paper, thank you! We need research like this.

Thanks Garth!, we are doing our best to. Terence

I think its great that you folks are continuing to help build a more complete picture about how and what people think about aid. Please keep it up.

Hi Paul, it would be interesting to see the movement of aid dollars per person per week over average income per week over time.

Thank you Finn, that's a very interesting question. It's not one we can answer with the data we have, unfortunately. Taking the quantitative approach you might get some form of answer if you were willing to pay for a bunch of questions about attitudes to the Pacific and attitudes to aid. We have this type of data for Australia (involving attitudes to Indonesia and China) and people who view these countries more positively are more pro-aid. This is the sort of quantitative work that could be done for NZ. But quite possibly this still wouldn't capture what you're after -- possibly focus groups would be better (although then there's the question of external validity). Possibly these sorts of questions are best answered by social historians? They are certainly interesting questions though. Thanks for the comment.

Hi Terence and Camilla! Interesting work! Will there be any further analysis on whether the large Pacific population has any influence on these responses? The higher visibility of Pacific people as well as a greater attachment/relationship to the region itself I feel may impact on the support for aid. Cheers,