Comments

Some interesting proposal which I am hopeful will work for the Pacific people. These are simple solutions that have been overlooked by policy makers over the years. Jonah

Particularly interested in #9 - what exactly would an "economic development initiative" entail?

While comparing SDGs with the MDGs, the SDGs are certainly broad-based in recognising and establishing universal values of peace, progress and stablity. It appears that global community has a sincere commitment towards these values and transforming them into professional and social ethics in the daily life. It is clear that the SDGs and their associated targets will be resolved in the UNGA to be achieved by 2030. However, the character of the elite in developing countries provides a different evidence. The elite is very enthusiastic to fall in line with the global institutions in resolving such universal values, programmes and strategies but sabotage them at the operational level in their execution. That is why, the South Asian countries are lagging behind in realising MDGs and the proportion of the world's poor is continuously increasing in this region. The research and innovation agenda is guided by the consideration to promote and strengthen the identity of the state and nation and thus social concerns inherent in the universal values have been thrown in the background. The greater emphasis has been in strengthening assimilative exercise. It is therefore imperative to analyse and reveal the politics of SDG realisation in these societies, for which data must be generated through 'process assessment' along with 'impact assessment' by applying reliable and scientific tools and techniques. The national/domestic elite will be reluctant in promoting such an investigation and thus social research and innovation agenda will be determined by the elite perception and interest. Can the international agencies impress the national level agencies to pursue the research agenda in consonance with the SDGs under the supervision and guidance of international agencies ? Otherwise national elite and crony academia are intelligent enough to manipulate and sabotage the SDGs realisation process as and when it is likely to hurt their interest. It is therefore suggested to devise an international monitoring mechanism within the SDGs Declaration itself to ensure reliability and scientific validity of the research and innovation (data and content) at the national and local level in order to realise SDGs by 2030.

Hello Peter, good to see you still responding the fisheries industry. Hope you and family are all ok and going well. Gary has finally made Governer and trying to do his best in PNG. Shall look out for more of your posts, often think of you and the boys and wonder how you all are. I am at gpselwood@bigpond.com if you get this message would like to here from you, cheers Gary

Thanks for those thoughtful background comments, Robin. My earlier comments admittedly had some cynical undertones, as I see important distinctions between what a Minister "says" and what a Minister actually "does" and finally what a Minister "achieves". I suggest that the "aid" aspects of Minister Bishop's portfolio have gone backwards under her tenure, especially (to re-iterate) in Afghanistan. I would agree, however, that the appointment of a "specialised" Minister is a good step forward, as "aid" becomes one of the main priorities of Mr Ciobo (rather than one of the rest, in the main Foreign Affairs portfolio). BUT - if the reasons for giving aid remain as instruments of our foreign policy, rather than being given for humanitarian reasons, then the (new) Minister doing this won't matter. "Naive" I know - I still believe that we in the wealthy West have much to share with those billions on $1.25 each day. Much less, accept responsibilities for those refugees disrupted by war, famine and other disasters.

Camilla notes that the appointment of Steven Ciobo as Minister for International Development and the Pacific might well be evidence of Julie Bishop's interest in aid. There is in fact at least one item of circumstantial evidence to support this. Ciobo, formerly a parliamentary secretary with responsibilities across the foreign affairs and trade portfolio, was not merely re-labelled. For one thing, he was relieved of his trade responsibilities. More importantly, his new label was taken from a finite pool of labels at some other portfolio minister's cost. The number of ministers is limited to 30 by <a href="https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2010C00436" rel="nofollow">legislation</a> so ministry construction is a zero sum game. At first <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/03%20Senators%20and%20Members/32%20Members/Lists/minlist.ashx" rel="nofollow">glance</a> Turnbull looks to have appointed some 37 ministers but when you look carefully he has in fact appointed exactly 30, since many of them carry multiple ministerial titles. Getting an international development ministry into the pack of 30 cannot have been a trivial matter. We can't know where the initiative came from but I note that Turnbull didn’t mention Ciobo in his long <a href="https://www.pm.gov.au/media/2015-09-20/changes-ministry" rel="nofollow">presentation</a> on the new ministry, while he did mention a number of others in the outer ministry. It seems likely that Bishop wished to send a signal by giving Ciobo his current status, and that this involved the expenditure of some political capital.

Thanks Camilla Can I make an important distinction between "interest in" and "results from" ? She may well be "interested in" foreign aid, but how well was she able to argue for the aid budget NOT being cut, much less actually able to achieve and increase ? And when was the last time she actually highlighted and promoted the results from any of the aid projects ? As in - saying that Australia's aid actually achieves reductions in poverty in ............ ? Like <a href="http://www.canberratimes.com.au/world/malaria-tamed-as-death-rate-drops-saving-millions--world-health-organisation-20150917-gjpegy" rel="nofollow">this one</a> recently on decreasing deaths from malaria. Or - last year, I helped fund a project in Afghanistan that trained 40 women to be paralegals and be able to act as defence counsel for women in domestic violence cases. I think projects like that achieve demonstrable outcomes that benefit local residents (in this case, long after the ISAF military forces have been withdrawn). I am aware that DFAT's Independent Evaluation Committee produces an annual Performance of Australian Aid report. I am unaware that it is ever highlighted in the media, as evidence of why Australia's aid helps others and to persuade Australians of the merits of our aid programs. I am not aware of Bishop actually promoting the benefits of Australia's foreign aid and what it achieves for some of the several billion people around our world who try to live on US$1.25 each. day.

Hi Peter - while I certainly don't disagree with you that Afghanistan needs stability and reliable support, I don't think you can convincingly argue that Julie Bishop is not interested in aid, at least not on the basis of this year's budget cuts alone. There are plenty of indications that the deck was stacked against her in Cabinet on this issue (see, for example, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-23/julie-bishop-to-question-treasurer-over-aid-cut-reports/6339780" rel="nofollow">here</a>). On the contrary, the fact that there is now a Minister for International Development and the Pacific may well be due to her interest in aid. (I can't offer any proof of that, but it's hard to think who else's influence might have steered Turnbull into creating the position). Camilla

Apologies - I missed <a href="https://devpolicy.org/in-brief/international-development-and-pacific-elevated-in-turnbull-reshuffle-20150920/" rel="nofollow">Ashlee Betteridge's comments</a> of yesterday. But I have to disagree with Minister Bishop supposed interest in foreign aid. Vide the reductions in aid to Afghanistan, when so many Afghans are fleeing the country - <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/14/world/asia/for-14-50-a-desperate-bet-by-afghan-refugees-on-a-way-out.html?_r=0" rel="nofollow">to Europe in this case</a> (as Australia has made it so plain that we will not facilitate them to this country) The second reference doesn't appear to made the Australian media and makes interesting reading about the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/11/world/asia/afghans-see-american-general-as-crucial-to-countrys-defense.html" rel="nofollow">continuing direct influence of the US military on the Afghan forces</a>. Compare with our claims about training Afghan troops.

So - any comments about what seems a significant step forward in the Foreign Affairs Portfolio ? There is now a Minister for International Development and the Pacific (Steve Ciobo) - back to the days of Gordon Bilney ? Given the abuse of AusAID and the Treasurer treating the foreign aid budget as just another expense to be reduced, this at least treats “aid” as worthy of a Minister in its own right. Best evidence on previous levels on non-interest ? The reduction in aid to Afghanistan: from $148.4M in 2013-14 to $81.7M in 2015-16. This is not maintaining the commitment to that country so loudly proclaimed by Minister Bishop. Reactions from the experts ?

thanh you Mr Thomas Wbster for the great research you have done on the issues concerning locals benefiting from those mines in PNG. I found it very vital informtion in a research paper I wrote at Unitech for acedemic purposes.

Good thing UNFPA Pacific has been trying to persuade countries to take population growth (and associated issues, especially SRH) seriously. Population policies developed in Vanuatu and Tuvalu recently and currently working on Samoa (as I speak - first policy workshop happening in the Ministry of Finance Planning Div on Tuesday this week) and Solomons. We started n Fiji last year but then the elections came along and some how they've lost interest/dropped the ball, not sure which or whether it's because UNFPA hasn't been pushing this along with the government.