Comments

Jo, I agree with you that putting someone in an in-line position might be an effective, perhaps the most effective, way to build capacity. But it would be unlikely that you placed a volunteer in such a position with the main purpose of building capacity. Rather, you'd put them there because you need someone to fill the position. That's one reason why it doesn't make sense to give as much weight to capacity development as a goal for the volunteer program as this evaluation does.

Thanks for your comment Paul. About the 2% defence spending target, I know that there are some in the defence community that are in favour of additional spending but would rather not have the target. The rapid increases in spending associated with the target (if they eventuate) can undermine strategic planning and significantly reduce bang for buck. It is interesting that you raise the issue of bang for buck in relation to aid spending but not for defence, especially when the 0.5% target for aid is not on the agenda. I think that the cuts to aid are partly driven by push back from those that think the ramp-up to the 0.5% target was either excessive or not value for money. There is a lot that the defence community can learn from this experience. On Hockey's statement, I'd rather save my ammunition for a later blog but I do note that it seems to resonate with a large number of people. I agree with your view about a more transparent and accountable approach to aid but recent changes do not seem to be positive in this regard (for example, see Stephen Howes' budget blog). DFAT has taken on a big responsibility as managers of the aid program despite never having managed spending of this magnitude. DFAT can value add on a number of fronts in relation to aid effectiveness but transparency, open debate, reduced insularity, rigorous monitoring and evaluation, risk taking, and evidence based approaches need to be further developed in the department.

Whether Australia actually meets Defence spending of 2% GDP or not the future that is still 50% below the traditional levels of last Century where 3% was the expected norm. The likely cost increases due to fluctuations in exchange rates will probably take up significantly more funds than what is budgeted for future Defence spending. Foreign aid spending levels are very ephemeral in nature since they have never really been related to realistic long term and sustainable goals. Boomerang aid projects come to mind as well. The point Hockey makes about why we give aid to countries who then give aid to other countries is well made. If we are to try and give 0.5% of our GDP to other nations we need to establish some ground rules about how the money is spent and what bang we get for our buck and whether the end result is what we want? At the risk of raising the ire of the foreign aid fraternity, current protestations are just that. What is actually required here is a genuine and accountable formula for providing aid that makes a real difference to those we give it to and not just to line the bank accounts of those who are possibly using the money to indirectly stay in power while at the same time absolve themselves of the responsibility to properly govern their country. Most Australians have no idea about where their foreign aid goes but moan about extra taxes that actually provide the funds for foreign aid. What is required is a more transparent allocation system that provides feedback answers to everyday Australians about what their taxes actually are being used for. The objectiveness of many aid projects in other countries may well not sit well with the Australian people if they were aware of what they are actually funding and how sustainable these projects have been in the past. A black hole indeed!

Tony, This is insightful analysis. It’s clear that aid has become a soft target for politicians looking for cost savings. I wonder what it would take to make it more difficult to cut aid. Protest? Lobbying? The 'aged lobby' has been successful in raising pensions in the past; perhaps there are some lessons to be learnt from their efforts? Until there is a more concerted effort to push back against aid cuts, I’m afraid the Australian aid industry will face further downsizing.

Is this special treatment or an insult to other Pasifika people? It would help to take the signs off. It intends to fool the PNG and Nauru people. The signs portray such a strong message that it not inserts other Pacific Island visitors but place Australia in the spotlight. This is what these signs say, "only certain group of people in the Pacific are wanted. The rest of you in the region can do whatever you want while in Australia, we don't need you". Perhaps it would be smart to remove the signs as it only insults the intelligence of the Pacific people. Whoever thought of such an idea should do themselves a favour and remove the signs. It pays to start work on a better solution which the SPC has tried in the past but failed because of such arrogance.

Agree that a "cooling saucer" would be a nice tool to have in parliament.....talking about world records in PNG we can pass bills at the speed of light. Would be good to put a brake on this exuberance..........

Thanks Stephen. What has been included in the past in "cross-regional programs"? And what do you suspect might be added in the coming months? You mention scholarships - do you think scholarship increases might make up the huge increase? Maybe an increase to medical research in line with the Medical Research Future Fund? An Australian Grand Challenges fund like that of Canada or Israel or Brazil? Or just the convenience of a fuzzy category that allows DFAT to decide later?

Interesting indeed. What the hell is going on with the Australian government? What Pacific Island countries need is not a special queue at the airport, and more boomerang aid packages but to relax the rule of entry for up to 30days + at least (like so many neighbouring countries in the world) so the exchange of goods, services and the movement of people between these neighbouring countries could flow. Why is Australia still carrying on with entry restrictions towards its former colonies in this modern era is beyond comprehension. I hope this could be an opportune time for PNG, Nauru and the Pacific Island countries to start negotiating free access to the Australia market to trade, sharing of skills, knowledge etc. as "good" neighbours do elsewhere. Free entry of Australians into PNG and the Pacific Island countries could free up time, money and speed up the movement of goods and services between the SPC countries and Australia. For a start, give preference to PNG and Nauru for free entry as they are the "Pacific solution" to Australian refugee problems then work with other Pacific Island states as they have been, and will, in one way or other, be the 'solution' to Australia's 'other' problems in the future. Australia's future is not in Europe or the USA but in Asia-Pacific.

To be fair to PNG, the terrain and communications systems are a significant factor when elections are being undertaken. In addition, costly security arrangements, where the police and armed services have to be called out to maintain law and order must also account for the increased expense of holding elections. Disputed returns and stolen ballot boxes have dogged recent elections and caused extra costs. A corollary of the excessive election costs however is that these considerations as well as other factors cause PNG to only holds elections every five years. That means that whoever is elected has five years to cement his/her grip on the available funding and funding sources. It also means that each electorate is stuck with their MP even if the MP proves ineffective, just disappears into the flesh pots of Moresby or travels overseas and never turns up at home except with 'gifts' immediately before an election. Australia made a mistake in instituting a Westminster system of government albeit under external pressure from the UN and many new African states that have since descended into civil war and chaos. Distant authorities from the UN also presumed that everyone should logically replicate the rapid British evacuation of African colonies. The quantum leap between the traditional PNG society and a modern westernised nation was clearly impossible given the limited time available to train responsible PNG officials and politicians at the time. Younger, educated PNG politicians may well now want to change the current system but are meeting strong resistance from those who have assumed power and won't give it up easily. The dilemma Australia faces is that any aid will logically only help those who currently want funding to manage the programs to suit themselves. Why change the electoral system when it works for those in power? With the benefit of hindsight, the PNG Parliament should have had some form of review facility or even an upper house elected by each District and now Provence. Provincial governors cannot perform a review function if they are included in the lower house political power games. An upper house made up of Provincial Governors who could reject legislation and return it to the lower house would help ensure no regional block or alliance takes control on the Parliament. Alas, who in the PNG government would now be prepared to push for a change to the Constitution to allow this to happen?

I agree with Tom for the access in funding of elections in PNG, except that the Australian Government is very much obsessed with the illusion security threat to Australia if PNG elections ever failed. In such a scenario, it believed the instability could eventually lead PNG's fragile political situation to a 'failed' state. In this context, the spending of Australian taxpayers' money is justified but the actual situation could be otherwise different? Australia and PNG are geographically connected but their international relationship is far from being cordial. Just look at Australia's immigration policy towards PNG citizens, its incredible how its almost impossible for a PNG national to just get on a plane and pass through Australia to other countries, as a first point of entry. Doesn't that portray what is deep rooted in the Australian Government's mind-set that PNG is posing serious security threat to Australia and its people, and therefore it needs to spend more money to uphold democracy in that country, whether it is ridiculous makes no difference to Canberra. The question is not of when it will stop funding elections (whether in kind or in cash) in PNG but what is the saturating point of which spending could be reduced, assuming that the notion of security threat remains unchanged as it was ten years ago.

Thanks for the fascinating insights, Grant.

What Paul Oates describes sums up what transpired in PNG elections these days. What I want to add to is the cultural expectation of 'reciprocity' that underpins the 'big man' system is the fundamental cause of corruption and manipulation of the voting system. As candidates sought to gain access to national wealth, power and glory from becoming a Member of Parliament, vote buying, multiple voting schemes, bribes and even threats are used to gain votes. Block votes are common as there is an unwritten contract between the tribal candidate and the tribe the candidate is representing in the contest. It is an unwritten social contract between the candidate and the tribe that once the candidate wins, wealth, power, dominance, and glory will flow to the candidate and the tribe in return. From this perspective once the candidate wins the seat, he/she immediately seeks to align with the highest bidder so the buying of votes to form government intensifies. Corruption does not only involve the buying of votes in the electorates but intensifies after the election when factions start to 'horse trade' to form government. It does not help when voters start to put pressure on the candidate to provide personal wealth and expected community needs, thus, spurs on more demand for the candidate to seek funding through legal and illegal means. The whole electoral process is corrupted because of the cultural expectation of 'reciprocity' expected of a 'wantok'. These underlying value of 'reciprocity' is the cause for the spiral election costs which will get even worse as population increases, poverty sets in, expectations increases, failure of public service to deliver, MPs duplicating work of public servants to bring services more efficiently, and 'horse trading' intensifies to form coalitions in a fragmented political environment.