Comments

It is interesting to see how the AusAID people rate their own agency effectiveness. I am wondering if the high turnover (Staff Continuity weakness) has to do with the knowledge in the agency’s inefficiency and lack of effectiveness. I believe the sincerity of the aid staff in desiring to help people have better lives, and I think this survey's statistic shows that many become disillusioned with the organization. I, too, have become disillusioned at the aid organizations (UNDP, AusAID, USAid, etc). I first came to Indonesia after the tsunami. On the island of Nias, I helped our faith-based organization build houses for a small community. We stayed with the community while all the other organizations stayed in hotels in the larger city and drove through the countryside in their signed vehicles. The locals called them “drive by helpers.” On a trip to the city to purchase materials, we passed by the UN offices. We stopped in to ask what they were doing about water for the communities throughout the area. The person there was actually an acquaintance and told us the truth that the UN had about $100,000 for the water projects but the man in charge would not give it out unless someone agreed to give him 15%. We called people from our extended organization who cheerfully gave about half that and put shallow wells in 30 communities. Three years ago I moved here to Indonesia to help academy students learn about themselves and the specific skills they have so that they can be successful in their lives. During that time I have had first hand experience in the education sector corruption. Our school was “given” $18,000 to refurbish several classrooms. We had to use the government supplied contractor who promised that the job would be done in three months. Six months later the job was not finished because they ran out of money. Having been in the construction business for 30 years, I estimated the remodel at $6,000. For the $18,000 we could have purchased 25 computers for a state of the art computer lab as well. I mentioned this to my friend who also has a school where I help,, and she said that she was approached to be “given” $7,500, but she would have to “return” $2,500 to the person who was “giving” it. I told her that I calculated that about 60% of aid money gets to the people who need it and she corrected me and said it is the other way around, only 40% gets to the people. She has been in the business for many years. I have more stories from the other sectors as well, but my point is that the aid organizations are just avenues for corruption. People are making big money from “helping” others. The survey of people who are making money from the aid institutions is interesting. A better survey for the effectiveness of aid would be to ask people to whom the aid is directed. The other foreigners that live here have excellent ideas that work and actually help the local people, but they do not have Master’s degrees and many years of experience for ideas that do not work that are required to work for a development organization. They are simple folks who learn and understand the indigenous people and know what works. If they had one-half the budget, they could have twice the effectiveness of the current system. But, as they say here when I disagree with what the “all knowing” government says, “That is my opinion.”

Hi Grant & Jen I guess I was not quite clear on what I intended to say regarding the wantok system. Like any other system there are gaps or loop holes that can be exploited by the unscrupulous for personal gain. It is very easy as in most instances to say "its the wantok system". For example, if a public servant illegitimately took public money (somehow) and gives it to a brother, sister, uncle, aunty, sister-in-law or brother-in-law to build a copra shed, the most likely reaction to this act will be? It's the wantok system! Now, is that right? If a public servant illegitimately took public money (somehow) and gives it to a foreign national of no blood ties with the public servant to finance a business interest. How will you react? Will you react the same if the foreign national is married to a relative of the public servant? Most certainly the family ties will get more attention! So what's more important? the act of committing corruption or doing wrong? the socio-economic circumstances surrounding the act? or both? Just remember what is called wantok system is unregulated! Can wantok system be seen as a positive combination of resources through affinity to achieve a greater communal good? If wantok system has been a sustainable livelihood mechanism for the Melanesian societies of the Pacific is there room to explore further on how it can be adopted as a sustainable development model? I believe there is more positive to wantok system that development partners and the wider donor community could harness. Cheers Edd

Congrats Sina for Speaking Out!! Enough is seriously ENOUGH!!!

Mel, thanks for continuing to provide leadership on this point (engaging with the intellectual resources within the private sector) which is one with which I fully agree. Looking forward to talking more on this and other things in February (assuming you will be at the 13th/14th conference)

Thanks Milos, great to hear our analysis was of use to you. Terence

An interesting read. Although quantitative data does not show the whole picture as you say, its disappointing that our development aid figure reaches nowhere near the 0.7% target (particularly when countries such as Sweden show that it can be reached if there is the political will). Nonetheless, it is interesting to learn more about New Zealand's development aid priorities, so thanks!

Stephen Thanks for this continuing summary for it is a conversation worth keeping alive. As I presented at the results launch last week, I agree that the findings/perceptions relating to the knowledge burden are most interesting and I offer there are two (at least) opportunities that emerge from this. First, there has been much commentary about the changes to the aid program and the potential of changes to the staffing base. And survey perceptions talk to issues with turnover and hence a consequent risk of intellectual property loss exacerbating the knowledge burden. So, the data seems very timely and rich to assist DFAT with its planning and change considerations and it is hoped it is considered. Second, relates to one specific aspect of managing the knowledge burden that you have previously defined – working through effective partnerships. Not all intellectual property of value to the aid program sits in agency. The stakeholders surveyed, and undoubtedly countless others, also have knowledge and value to contribute. The breadth of experiences from the private sector implementing partners remains. Many such implementing partners are members of IDC Australia. By continuing to explore more effective partnerships with the private sector implementing partners, and with the IDC, at a minimum the perceptions of any risk of IP loss from staffing changes could be mitigated. More strategically, the private sector implementing partners are development professionals, not just contract and project managers, and they bring a lot of learning and experience to better inform practice that is usefully harnessed. Importantly, the private sector implementing partners are not homogenous – individuals and SMEs are critically important in this complex development tapestry and we need to ensure their involvement and contribution is sought and valued. Mel Dunn (Chair, IDC Australia)

This is a ground breaking step for women and children in our region. Thank goodness Australia is stepping up to the plate. I think many of us have shared a concern that with 2015 approaching and the new post 2015 agenda, women and children may be forgotten. I know its a concern globally, as well as in our region. Thanks Ashlee for blogging on this - it is indeed welcome news!

Thanks Mel, Tess and Patrick for the comments, I completely agree with you all. It is a great appointment and it is really refreshing to see a cross-party team of high level and highly capable female political leaders heading out into the region from Australia. When we are advocating for improved leadership opportunities for women in the region, it is important to demonstrate that we practice what we preach. While there is some concern here at home about the way gender plays out in domestic politics and worries about the low level of women in Cabinet etc (and I feel these concerns are definitely warranted), this delegation does send a positive message. I should also note that Matt Thistlethwaite was also in this delegation, also playing an important role in showing that gender issues are of importance to both men and women. Of course, setting an example is not enough and we also need to follow through in a more practical sense by supporting the empowerment of Pacific women through aid program and other initiatives. But this is a promising start for engagement on gender from this government, so lets hope that it continues (and that we have more details on the fate of gender programming in the region and the aid cuts more broadly very soon).

Call out the policy for what it was at the time, appeasement of the Nationals by a Conservative government who refused to introduce a seasonal workers program. One option was easy, while the other required hard work. Personally, I'm unsure about the second year for WHM. If the government wants to run a low-skilled labour market program, then they should do that instead of operating one by stealth through the WHM program. This policy has likely made some employers in the agricultural industry particularly lazy, however at the same time, there are also many employers who would genuinely struggle without this labour. I believe an increasing number of lower skilled migration will be necessary for the labour market over time and its a public debate worth having. This interview helps to highlight why many young people use the WHM, to access the labour market and search for future residency opportunity. I'm not opposed per se to this rationale, however because of the country limits placed on WHMs, it seems to border on discrimination once the cultural significance of the program is downplayed. From what I understand, a larger number of 457 visas are being granted to migrants already in Australia, such as WHM and Students. This trend changes the composition of the migration program significantly. If some people are preferenced over others through the WHM program, this raises some important questions for Australia's migration framework. I believe it's likely the Abbott Government will remove the industry restriction on WHMs and allow 2 year visas for all visa holders, including those based in large cities. This would require a simultaneous expansion of the SWP program to include employers across the entire agricultural industry, instead of simply horticultural and the trials.

I second that as being terrific appointment but again I suspect not a paid appointment beyond reimbursemnt for time spent doing things. But I hope I can be corrected on this, and we have a full-time properly resourced ambassador for women and girls.

I also think this is a good appointment and I hope Ms Stott Despoja will be returning to the Pacific soon and often so she can acquire an in depth understanding of the key issues relating to women's empowerment in each country (there are many commonalities but there are also significant variations) and so that she can form the relationships with leaders, civil society and others that are key to promoting change in this part of the world. And I also hope that this appointment and the apparent focus on gender means that we will be hearing soon how 'Pacific Women Shaping Pacific Development' is being rolled out.