Comments

Shenggan, Thanks for your post. I was interested that you dropped in a fact on obesity and what a big problem it is, but then didn't follow up on it when you were outlining solutions. Is that because there is no solution to obesity within the predominantly agricultural solution space you are looking in? Is it wise to confine our search for solutions in this way? Is it only "agriculture and food security programs and social safety nets" that can address the "underlying causes of under-nutrition"? What about industrialization (for under-nutrition)? What about informational problems (for both under-nutrition and obesity)? What about advertising (for obesity)? I would like to think that the Food Policy Research Institute would look across the board for solutions to food-related problems and not only for ones which relate to agriculture.

Rick, these are important first steps, but addressing corruption in an aid program doesn’t root out corruption per se. Australia has made efforts towards reducing corruption in the aid program (including zero tolerance agreements with the PNG government, as we note). Even though PNG is, apparently, one of the most difficult aid programs in terms of corruption of aid monies, corruption within the aid program is relatively low (there is always room to improve, however). The problem is that the real money is not coming from Australian aid, it comes from PNG’s economic boom. According to forecasts, PNG will see GDP growth by around 20% next year. So the question is, what role can Australia play to help ensure that this largesse gets through the government system to benefit the grassroots, rather than being siphoned off by elites?

Marcus, these are big questions. In my view (Stephen may want to comment on this separately), I think there is a role that Australia can play in helping PNG address political corruption, and that these efforts should compliment other work that is focused on improving governance. Addressing corruption requires a myriad of responses – including engaging with civil society, helping to enforce (rather than just write) laws, and supporting state anti-corruption agencies. These initiatives should be led by Papua New Guineans; but Australia can and should help. Getting the balance right is not easy, and there are sure to be setbacks along the way. As a part of the response, Australia should be ready to call a spade a spade – when the occasion arises. This does not mean that Australian politicians should start calling leaders of the Pacific corrupt (especially when you consider what the NSW ICAC has been finding); I think that is absolutely the wrong way to go. But when there is such a clear case of contravening due process (Parakagate) and dismantling an anti-corruption agency (Sweep), Australia should speak out. This should not be left to the diplomats behind closed doors. The aid program has made its intentions to fight corruption public, as a result it should show the public how it is achieving its aims. Delivering public goods is a crucial part of any aid program. Given this, anti-corruption shouldn’t be viewed as an end in and of itself, but a means to reducing poverty and the constraints that cause it. (Particularly because corruption can be ‘reduced’ by changing laws without changing unjust transactions.) Often the link between anti-corruption and reduced poverty is assumed; I think that aid programs should try to make that link more explicit with the programs and projects they support. Showing how development outputs and outcomes (functioning schools, trained teachers, better literacy/health, etc) are improved by donor efforts should be a key part of the good governance/anti-corruption agenda. I am not sure if Australia is getting better at anti-corruption, but there are some encouraging signs. On the plus side, many I talk to associated with the aid program have a grasp on the cultural, political social and economic issues that frame issues of corruption in PNG. There seems to be more cooperation between PNG and Australia around issues of transnational corruption (https://devpolicy.org/anti-corruption-on-the-front-line-an-interview-with-sam-koim-20130611/). And, as we mention, there has been a greater emphasis on understanding and responding to the political environment, in policy documents at least. On the other hand, efforts are stymied by Australian politicians’ reluctance to speak out for fear of upsetting powerful people. The delivery of the anti-corruption strategies mid next year should give us a better sense of how serious Australia is about fighting corruption in PNG and elsewhere. Hopefully they will include sections on what diplomatic options Australia has when a country shuts down anti-corruption initiatives (such as Sweep or the press).

Conditions like availability of up to date reading materials and the internet are push factors. When I was working with UPNG in the politics strand the difficulty in having access to information was an impediment to my teaching experience. From my analysis, academia in PNG is a launching pad. An individual begins teach for various reasons, once they gain much need experience they test themselves in the market, that is probably why there is a high turn over rate in academic jobs. Also academia as a career is not really appealing. Maybe the general perception is; why should I waste my time teaching these bunch of students when I can make more money out there doing less work. I agree, teaching of politics is worst. When the likes of Sepoe, Gelu, Okole and Anere left the politics strand they left a big vacuum which is evident today. Most young graduates visualize working as a practitioner rather then an academic. They see academia as 'all work and no fun'. The challenge for Politics unlike Economics is to create a career pathway. Both UPNG and DWU needs to encourage more graduates to pursue a career in academia regardless of the dual pay system. The institutions also need to make the academic scene more challenging and attractive with more career enriching activities.

I totally agree with you Rick. Problems arise however when the agency concerned is either the recipient nation's government or an entity tacitly supported by the recipient nation's government. If Australia offers aid on the basis that each program will be funded only if it is transparently administered and audited, logic suggests that we may be shunted into only funding projects the corrupt aren't interested in. The key element however aught to be easy: Transparent administration of all our aid projects where ever they are funded. To prevent an explosion in public servants monitoring all these projects, perhaps there should be a mandatory element of each project’s funds allocated to auditing from an independent auditor. The issue is then: How does the Australian Government ensure those who have been found to have their metaphorical 'hands in the till' will be successfully taken through the justice system of the recipient nation? This is where the current impasse in PNG exists at the moment. Look at the lack of any real progress over the Finance COI Report. Even go back to the Barnett Report into illegal logging. The effective prosecution of any public figure has been effectively stalled or obfuscated by those in power at the time and for one must assume, their own selfish purposes. Australian sources however could be more effective on a clandestine level with the implied threat of public exposure through independent audit reports. Those found guilty should then be politely informed that they are not welcome in Australia based upon publically released information from the auditor. Imagine some threats that would really hurt. 1. Refusing medical treatment of family and friends in Cairns. 2. Barring ownership of any property in Australia and any property so purchased through clearly embezzled funds to be seized and the proceeds used to fund reputable projects in the future. What about the necessary cooperation of Australian banks I hear you say? Yes! Exactly! 3. No more visits to casinos and public ‘amenities’. Visas blocked by publically advertised personal sanctions. 4. Public humiliation through the local media when auditing reveals malfeasance. Ads taken out in local media and news could well be funded from a guaranteed amount of the project’s funding allocated to auditing. All sanctions would be made at the behest of the independent auditor and not directly attributable to any identified decision by the Australian government. Of course the downside could be the possible alienation of our aid program by those who are corrupt. Other more indulgent nations might then try to fill the gap left by this increased integrity. That's an unfortunate but inevitable possibility however so what? At least we wouldn’t be funding corrupt practices and I’ll bet other donors won’t necessarily be interested either although you only have to review the recent case of the Borneo Pharmaceuticals contract pushed through by the PNG PM, Health Minister and his Secretary to see what can and does happen. Yet where is the public humiliation and vilification of what actually happened with this BPP debacle?

This does the Department no favours in selling the merits of integrating the aid program into Australia's broader diplomacy efforts, particularly when not even the good news stories are available to the public. Rather, it adds further weight to the negative perceptions held by many about the changes to what used to be AusAID.

The first step donors can take in combating corruption is to ensure the projects they fund have sufficient corruption controls: regular, unannounced audits both financial and technical; screens in place to review bids on all procurements for signs of collusion. Donors should require that firms implementing their projects have anti-corruption compliance programs along the lines required by the new U.K. law. These programs should be audited to ensure they are not simply window-dressing. Donor agencies should have an inspector general or integrity unit dedicated to investigating complaints of corruption in projects. Companies and individuals found to have corrupted a project should be prosecuted, either in the donor country’s courts or those of the recipient.

Thank you for this excellent outline of Australia's compromised position. I had been under the impression that Prime Minister O'Neill came to Australia and offered Manus in Australia's hour of need rather than Australia going to him. Is that correct? My recollection was that the expropriation of PNGSDP's shares in Ok Tedi occurred shortly after the Manus arrangement had either been announced or signed. There seems little doubt that PNG's Administration is well aware of the leverage they have by means of this arrangement and are employing it with increasing impunity. I feel sure that a great deal is happening outside of the public gaze here in Australia but there must be a range of rather more subtle means by which Australia can help ensure that PNG's anti-corruption agencies and officers are supported and provided with platforms to the wider world.

Thanks Stephen. It is not at all user-friendly. To add to your criticism of the website, the news section of it is barely ever updated now. One piece of news so far in August, none in July, two in June. For comparison, we can see <a href="http://aid.dfat.gov.au/latestnews/Pages/home.aspx?archive=true&year=2013" rel="nofollow">from the archives</a> that former AusAID posted 19 news stories in June 2013, 37 in July 2013 and four in August 2013. And that's not even counting the content on the former AusAID Engage blog, which <a href="https://devpolicy.org/in-brief/better-little-read-than-dead-ausaids-blog-goes-quiet-20140402/" rel="nofollow">has died</a> since integration. The current DFAT website is not telling the Australian public anything useful or clear about what the aid program is actually doing, whether one is looking for up-to-date project information or feelgood press releases.

Senator Lambie strikes again, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F51bf64f5-0da0-45b0-8f27-30816cdb43b4%2F0034%22" rel="nofollow">in Hansard from the Senate yesterday</a>. In her spiel on the budget measures, Senator Lambie suggests alternate cuts could be made "by halving Australia's record foreign aid budget by $15 billion, so it is reduced to $15 billion from $30 billion." It should be noted that the aid budget is roughly $5 billion... not $30 billion. It is also not a record aid budget. "Why should billions of taxpayers' dollars be given to overseas countries—Indonesia, $565 million—some of which have militaries that are 10 times the size of ours and in one case, Pakistan, $75 million, which is nuclear armed. The needs of the average Australian family should be put before the back pockets of corrupt foreign aid officials, because, quite simply, charity begins at home."

Regionalism has been a long term plan for the Pacific and its leaders. There seem to be only a few issues that could be partly addressed at regional level and majority of the issues of concern are still carried forward to future meetings, such as poverty, good education for all, political stability, maximising trading benefits for all. Apart from emerging issues of climate change, human trafficking, etc which need to be taken up the at world forum. How could we as the Pacifika tackle the issues? First of all the Pacific people from leaders to the grassroots need to have common knowledge about the regional issues.

Shenggen, Thanks for the article, it is a great overview of how to maximise the benefits of aid activities in improving hunger and malnutrition. My comment relates to your conclusion that this area deserves more attention than it is currently receiving. Of course hunger and malnutrition are extremely important, but since development resources are always going to be stretched, proving that large gains are possible in any particular area isn't sufficient to decide to allocate more to that area, or give it more attention in the SDG framework. In other words, your article is an excellent exposition of the probable benefits to increased investment in improving hunger and malnutrition, but "good economics" would require you to justify from where you believe those resources should be taken, and why?