Comments

This item does not actually reference the fact that the necessary short-term repairs to the runway have been completed in accordance with the government's undertakings in its 100 day plan and according to schedule by 2 NZ civil engineering companies. The government is now in active discussion with the World Bank to secure a loan that will not only rectify issues with the airport at Bauerfield but will go beyond that to provide an upgrade to Level E (allowing for the use of larger aircraft). The High Commissions of New Zealand and Australia are well placed to advise corporate entities domiciled in their countries that the current government has demonstrated good will, active leadership and technocratic decision-making on this as well as numerous other fronts. I understand that Foreign Minister McCully is scheduled to visit Vanuatu in June in conjunction with a high-level EU delegation. One wonders how exactly he plans to get here.

An interesting and important article Ian. However, at the risk of being 'that guy', can I make a small but important point? Your article makes no distinction between Type 2 diabetes, which as you state can in many cases be prevented; and Type 1 diabetes, which is an auto-immune disease that cannot be prevented. The two diseases both impact the pancreas and blood-sugar levels within the body but are otherwise quite distinct conditions, both in diagnosis and treatment. I know the Lancet journal similarly did not distinguish between both types of diabetes, but in your article, when you make comments such as funding an 'off ramp' whereby diabetics can move to healthier outcomes, it makes those of us with Type 1 sound like we're just not trying hard enough. It's this conflagration of the two conditions that leads to mis-information and in some cases, mis-diagnosis and mis-treatment. I hope you understand that this comment is meant constructively, and that you'll take steps to distinguish between Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes in future articles.

Ian, thank you. Probably the most important - and complex - global development policy issue Dev Policy Blog has addressed, and that the world needs to act on.

Dear Ashlee, Thanks for your critique of the recent ODE evaluation on the Australia Awards' contribution to women's leadership. As one of the authors of that evaluation, I read what you had to say with great interest, and acknowledge and agree with some of the limitations you note with this evaluation. That stated, I did want to point out that one of the biggest criticisms you raise-- the issue of scholarships going to the elite, rather that fostering new leaders--is a bigger issue about the purpose of the Australia Awards within the Australian government's aid architecture. Specifically, scholarships have, and continue to be as much (if not more) about public diplomacy as they are about strengthening development outcomes within partner countries. The goal of the awards, according to a 2014 policy statement is to ensure, "Partner countries achieve their development goals, and have positive relationships with Australia, enhanced by the contribution of men and women with Australian qualifications, experience and networks, thereby contributing to security and economic growth in our region." In essence the awards are as much, if not more about Australia's interests, as they are about the interest of the partner countries these awards target. This presents some challenges from a women's leadership perspective, and particularly in terms of whom receives such awards, and why awards are targeted the way they are. As we found in the evaluation, awards go in the main to those within the public service, with prior overseas study experience, high levels of English and a prerequisite tertiary qualification. If the aim was to truly support development outcomes then the award programme would be structured entirely different, and might look more like what the Ford Foundation's award programme looked like. Unfortunately, given the leverage these awards often offer Australia with partner governments, that is unlikely to happen. As we note in the report, Australia Awards are one of the few forms of development assistance that goes to individuals, under the premise that investing in these key individuals has "trickle down" effects on society. This a questionable, and possibly flawed hypothesis. Our case studies do provide examples of women (and men) returning to their countries and becoming champions for change on a broader level, but often this is impeded by structural and institutional barriers that can demoralise and challenge such agency in the medium to long term. For that reason our evaluation does make a strong argument for post-award support to strengthening leadership outcomes that benefit broader constituencies, whether it be within or outside the formal workplace (noting that often it is often outside the formal workplace that these women are doing incredible stuff as I observed from my small case study into the Women in Leadership group in Africa). I believe Joel Negin and his team have come to a similar conclusion from their own study. Undoubtedly more can and should be done with the tracer studies in terms of the questions they ask. Most tracer studies do now ask about leadership outside the workplace setting. Unfortunately, our evaluation team faced significant challenges in obtaining raw tracer study data from various DFAT posts, and working to consolidate and analyse it under one master set. This precluded looking at this dimension of leadership from the tracer study data itself, but hopefully with the move to a global tracing approach, this can be done in the future. There are significant issues though with looking tracer study alone as they are based on self-report, often have low response rates, and do seem to capture the voices of metropolitan elites more than anything else. Fundamentally though, questions might and should be asked about whether Australia Awards are the most appropriate way to support and strengthen women's leadership outcomes. As you note, they do have an important role to play in shaping the "hearts and minds" of the recipients (men and women) and influencing gender norms. But this is on a very small scale, and ultimately is more about soft power and diplomacy than strengthening development outcomes for women and men in partner countries. From a value for money perspective, I might argue that if the Australian government is serious about strengthening women's leadership, it should go about doing so through vehicles other than the Australia Awards. Regards, Ritesh

Good.

Interesting information and yes supporting your notion that it shouldn't be restricted to specific sector, but demand-driven from Australian employers would assist the Microstates of Kiribati,Nauru and Tuvalu.

Mr Kama, I totally agree that the government will want to go to the elections with minor problems on its shoulder, only time will tell. On a different note, it was interesting to sit in a tutorial you gave at upng (L19) on the concept of 'separation of power'. As a political science graduate some years back at upng I was never given this insightful information. I am in first year law and I am eyeing constitutional law on 'constituent power' as the area of interest.

In my view, the creation of IDA is a total waste and misuse of tax payers money. There is no new role or special task that is performed by IDA. They are only duplicating functions of Works Department, NRA and Department of transport. Since the current government didn't support the idea of the role of IDA through the SWF bill, IDA should be Abolished. This office is financed thru the loan from Chinese Exim Bank and PNG taxpayers are repaying that loan .

Hi Ian, Thank you for your comment. The team working in the DFC are definitely a primary reason for the successful outcomes that are being achieved. The amount of time and energy that they are contributing to the clinic cannot be overlooked. Talking with clients at the six month review of the clinic really highlighted what a strong influence the staff were having on the clients. One client noted that the DFC personnel “try to make the client happy and make them laugh…they always talk to the patient and make them happy…they give them some strength to keep going.” This was just one of many comments praising the staff.

Thanks again for your view into understanding GBV. I agree that an in-depth analysis needs to be done to understand the interrelated correlation between modern influences, traditional norms and economic issues and cultural shifts in society like PNG and Solomon Island. On the other end, we also have to point out that GBV prevention and remedial mechanisms and systems established in society sometimes failed to provide adequate and reliable services to the GBV victims, therefore victims often do not seek support. These mechanisms and systems needs to be well resourced and better equipped to provide sustainable support to the individuals and families affected by GBV. Unlike Australia or other developed societies where GBV prevention and remedial agencies and systems are well functioning, places like PNG and Solomon Island still struggling to provide the right balances. For example, the police are the first point of call for the GBV victims, but policemen are not trained to address that, they can only arrest the culprit. While another agency is responsible for proving counselling and comfort support with the support of another related agency, therefore the referral pathways are sometimes not helpful. Even in a country with strong legislation on GBV, enforcement is still a long way to go. We had these challenges in PNG. We really need an in-depth study.

'A Lost Decade' turning into 'A Light Decade'.

This is how the big picture in Waigani does not translate into better services for people in the rural sites; it’s across the country, much worse in places like Western and Gulf, Sepiks and the small Islands. We cannot blame the systems or institutions or policies that they are not working favourably for the rural people, it’s how the commitment from groups and individuals who are tasked and duty-bound to serve are weak or failed to deliver. Adding to this failure is the insufficient allocation of resources like funding to the district or education system in the Province. The promised K10m-K15m DSIP funds only exist on papers, not that much of money landed in the district account at one point in a year, the reason is known to the local MP or the DA. However, groups and individuals at the district and others at the Provincial office failed to make good and efficient use of the limited funding that comes in, they tend to suck on the limited government funding as well with false claims, paper services and one day company style. So the real need like schools, aid posts and roads has gone from bad to worse. This further crippled student access to basic education, sick people die from communicable diseases and poor road system. It is the people who are tasked and duty-bound to do something like the DA and district staff, the MP and people at the Provincial office that is simply not doing their job. Even if they do their job, it was without or with limited funding. Apart from the government provided services like schools and aid posts, the only services that will continue to function and provide needs like basic education and medication will be the churches run or NGOs set up facilities in the rural location. Still the rural people hope for the best every time and lived with what they can make.