Comments

I agree that to the pessimism in the report. The saga will continue. A large weak point in the AusAID supported program will continue to be program development, implementation and management. Human behavior across global populations are the same, but traditional, cultural and religious influences on that human behavior is the challenging aspect of implementing the HIV-AIDS programs, condom usage, program development-implementation and management. Part of the AusAID funding could be used to offer specific HIV Program Development-Implementation-Management Diplomas and Masters at participating Universities in PNG to provide training to people from PNG and all other countries with similar backgrounds. That should be the starting point.

Yes, not only has Australia lost its limited leverage, but it’s lost it for such a toxic cause!

Thanks for this very helpful discussion. I think it's worth noting that within the humanitarian and emergencies context the cash transfer debate takes on different dimensions. Until livelihoods recover, affected communities often don't have income to take care of their own critical needs, and cash transfers into an at least semi-functioning local economy are often faster and certainly more empowering for those affected - who can then make their own decisions in real time about what their priorities are. In the 18 months or so after a disaster, even if cash is at best a temporary reprieve, as Starr and Hattendorf suspect, that's an important window while livelihoods recover.

I really applaud the comments by NRI and hope that this comment should shed some light to the long waiting PNG LNG project landowners from Juha PDL 9 to Napa Napa project site. The loan borrowed simply leveraged the future of the PNG LNG revenue inflow and fore-spent on what might be good investment for the people of PNG as a whole collectively but how about the real indigenous people on whose ancestoral grounds those resources are found and the long overdue commitment from the state to the landowners in Kokopo during the UBSA and LBSA in the pretext of pursuing and signing the PNG LNG MOA agreement. Can the landowners raise up now and let your position known on this issue the Government and the former Treasurer is having impasse on money for-spent leveraging the revenue from our resources. Pls lets share BS

Garth -- I imagine you're familiar with <a href="http://www.nyudri.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/driwp37.pdf" rel="nofollow">this </a> 2008 paper by Bill Easterly and Tobias Pfutze, 'Where Does the Money Go? Best and Worst Practices in Foreign Aid'. Perhaps it's not quite the kind of nitty-gritty, comprehensive analysis you had in mind but it's an interesting, if sometimes contentious, read. It concludes that, while the available data are terrible, they 'tend to confirm a number of long-standing complaints about foreign aid', including that 'the aid effort is remarkably splintered into many small efforts across all dimensions—number of donors giving aid, number of countries receiving aid from each donor, and number of sectors in which each donor operates'. In addition, 'a lot of aid still goes to corrupt and autocratic countries and to countries other than those with the lowest incomes'. And 'aid tying, the use of food aid-in-kind, and the heavy use of technical assistance persist in many aid agencies, despite decades of complaints about these channels being ineffective'. Not to mention that 'some agencies have remarkably high overhead costs'.

Cash transfers start with one clear advantage over many other types of aid - at least the money (or most of it) goes to the developing country and not to people from wealthy countries. I have never found a comprehensive analysis of where global aid dollars get spent - does anyone know of one?

Hi Tony, Stephen, and Ashlee. I agree there's a tricky balance to be struck. My essentially bureaucratic instincts and experience lean toward pressing others (interlocutors!) to meet any mutual obligations with as little fuss as possible. I'd accept that only ever focusing on preserving relationships in pursuit of outcomes while totally disregarding behavior and intent (to the extent that’s fathomable) could lead to rationalizing the indefensible or the sort of perverse incentives you’re concerned about—one occasionally needs to jump up and down. My argument for not doing so in these four cases partly rests on an assessment—admittedly unscientific—that Peter O’Neill’s single-minded, unsentimental, focus on the national interest is good for Papua New Guinea and good for Australia’s partnership with PNG. His willingness to go along with helping PM Rudd from last July and later Mr Abbott seems to me a case in point. I’d no more choose the four paths O’Neill has than you would, Stephen, but PNG’s voters haven’t, in their wisdom, asked me to divine their national interest. I’m sympathetic to O’Neill being a person in a hurry given all he wants to achieve and the pressures stacked against him. I also think Jenny Hayward-Jones makes an important point in Friday’s Interpreter about O’Neill’s credo of giving all Papua New Guineans a stake in the resources boom. And although I’m worried PNG may abandon its sovereign wealth fund, I’m conscious even rich Australia found it irresistible to return much windfall resource rent straight to the public in the form of tax-cuts and middle class welfare (though we’ve preserved our own Future Fund). PNG’s investment of current and future revenue in social and physical infrastructure to try to prime the economy seems riskier, and possibly misconceived, but understandable. I think you’re right to be concerned that entangling PNG in our asylum-seeker issue has the potential to distort the relationship or harm public opinion. And as costs to O’Neill for helping us rise, there’s a risk it could distract him from other priorities. But the introduction of this element seems to me to have done the relationship as much good as harm so far. The press conference you mention is preoccupied with Manus but there’s a journalists-will-be-journalists aspect to that: they fixate on MH-370 too. Every reader will have a slightly different take on Canberra’s wisdom and rectitude in asking Port Moresby to help with this difficult and contentious issue, according to their judgment, conscience, and views on off-shore processing. I’m hopeful PNG will be able to maximize the advantages and minimize the risks of assisting.

Very interesting post Karl on a fascinating area for discussion. But I can't help but feel that mutually assured destruction is already happening. Not for the respective Prime Ministers or their governments. But for the people locked up on Manus whose already tattered lives are further damaged. For the PNGans who can't access the drugs they need at health clinics. For the young people in PNG whose chance at leapfrogging out of poverty on the back of a carefully managed resource boom is being shot by relegating robust bilateral discussion of the serious public policy issues that affect their lives and futures to whispers behind closed doors (or perhaps to silence). Even on the person to person level of calling on a mate to help out, I think there's a difference between asking someone to help you move house or asking them to help you bury a body. With Manus, PNG is helping Australia to do something that is very questionable from both a policy and moral standpoint. So how can Australia criticise next time the PNG government wants to make a questionable decision that is going to impact on the most vulnerable in its society? How can Australia criticise the next time PNG wants to formulate a policy based on convenience or political expediency that breaches the obligations that the government has to its people or its obligations under international agreements? Australia is not only giving up its leverage, but also any credibility it has when calling on other governments in the region to do the right thing. I don't think we can disregard the nature of the favours in considering the impact on the PNG-Australia relationship. I agree with you that there may now be more ballast to keep the relationship on an even keel during squabbles, but if the squabbles don't consider the human costs of policy decisions nor carve pathways for positive reform, does it matter?

Karl, It's great to get your contribution, but I would invite you to read the transcript of one of the Abbott-O'Neill press conferences <a href="https://www.pm.gov.au/media/2014-03-21/joint-press-conference-port-moresby-papua-new-guinea" rel="nofollow">here</a>. It is totally dominated by Manus Island and asylum seekers. Do you really think this is good for PNG? Whatever leverage we have over PNG (and we do still have some; for example, as Abbott mentions, PNG is hosting APEC in 2018 and will need lots of help from Australia to do that) we should be using to promote good policy in PNG, not to get what we want in relation to asylum seekers.

Dear Roy, Thank you for your comment. I have placed an update in the post directing readers to it. Terence

Let's Set the Record Straight: This story was first reported by The Guardian newspaper in the UK, who merely repeated the allegations made in the film. Once it was brought to their attention that their story was wrong, and after their own investigation, The Guardian <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2013/dec/12/corrections-and-clarifications" rel="nofollow">published</a> an apology to Operation Blessing and made a substantial donation for relief efforts..."Operation Blessing - An Apology: In an article entitled "Mission Congo: how Pat Robertson raised millions on the back of a non-existent aid project" we claimed that Pat Robertson ran an almost non-existent aid effort in Zaire, now the Democratic Republic of Congo. Operation Blessing actually sent six medical relief teams to Zaire, between July and December 1994, and arranged for 66,000lb of medicines and supplies to arrive in Goma on an aircraft it chartered from Amsterdam. In addition, the article referred to a report by the Virginia Office of Consumer Affairs (OCA) without making clear that there was a further report by the Attorney General's Office (AGO) which found no evidence of wrongdoing by Operation Blessing or Pat Robertson and no evidence of intent to defraud. Operation Blessing has asked us to make clear that the report was signed off by four individuals at the AGO, none of whom received any donation from Pat Robertson or Operation Blessing. The article claimed a school and farm set up by Operation Blessing in Dumi had failed. We have been informed that the school is thriving and the farm remains operational to this day. We are happy to clarify the position and apologise to Operation Blessing. We have agreed to make a contribution to Operation Blessing to be used in its relief efforts for victims of the typhoon in the Philippines."

Karl, A fun read and great contribution to the blog! I'm sure the quality of diplomatic cables has declined since you've been out of the system. While I agree that M.A.D can add to political stability I also think that it can lead to political entrenchment - a brand new hospital or four-lane highway paid for by Australia lessens the likelihood that constituents in PNG hold their MP to account. From a strategic perspective I think the issue is not whether Australia jumps up and down to push a point but whether it pulls the support that helps keep MPs that have contributed to PNG's woeful development record in a job. I have heard Julie Bishop mention the phrase "mutual obligation of partner governments" a few times. Hopefully these obligations are about partner governments pursuing good public policy in their own country and not just being there for Australia when we need help dealing with our domestic problems.