Comments

I have been silently following the latest political development of our once beautiful democratic country. Over the years people, especially ordinary citizens, have been freely exercising their rights, including freedom of speech and expression without fear, favor or intimation. Now it seems that the current government is shifting its gear towards a communist style regime with the application of elements of dictatorship and threat. The high offices in PNG such as Police Departments, Ombudsman Commission, Attorney General Office etc that expose the corruption and deals by people in authority are now silent. What has happened? Are they been manipulated, dictated to over the years or even rewarded with wealth and positions? Where is the freedom of media in PNG to report issues affecting this nation freely without fear or favor? I hope the creation of Kumuls 1, 2 & 3 and transferring the function of IPBC and now the taking over of PNGSDP is done to serve the vast majority of people and not with other hidden agendas. I see on one hand current government is doing good in promoting service delivery to the door steps of our people thus, focusing on decentralizing its functions from Waigani to districts and provinces with greater financial powers. On the other, the government seems to be power hungry thus by extending grace period, continues changing of some sections of the constitutions, introducing of death penalty, practicing of dictatorship etc… where will we go from now??? Pitz Nox

Fascinating, thanks Terence. CIFOR (where I worked last year for some time) have just this month released a fantastic multimedia package (videos, photos and stories) on the lessons that can be learned from the Amazon Basin for those interested in forest conservation and climate change. It's really worth checking out, especially since it touches on some of the changes highlighted in the podcast (particularly on REDD+ and other payment for environmental services (PES) schemes). You can find it here: http://blog.cifor.org/amazon

Noting the challenges inherent in dealing with "technical areas". I'm not convinced that a lot of the Aid industry problems (not just AusAID) are technical but rather they are managerial, professional or systemic in nature. Therefore “a strong focus on reviewing evaluative material already produced by and about the aid program with the objective of improving its quality and ensuring that findings are responded to” would surely be of major benefit? The public service, academia and interested NGOs are the places where there is vested interest in retaining or building on the status quo and therefore a sitting parliamentary committee is precisely the type of magnifying glass that is required. If there are reports and evaluative materials, delivered by such experts named above and there are outstanding issues or action points that have not been addressed, then isn't it a basic responsibility of elected decision makers to take a closer look at how it is all working? In NZ we are used to such reviews in all areas of government and a focus on the ""how as well as the "what" is generally a good thing to counteract the inbuilt inertia and burgeoning bureaucracy of any large institution. Surely this is an opportunity for Australian foreign aid, not a threat as is immediately supposed by many commentators in the development field?

"We need more parliamentary oversight of the aid program." Do we really though? I don't understand why this is the case. For highly technical policy areas, such as aid, I'm not sure more parliamentary oversight is the right road. Parliament, and the government, definitely have the dominant role to play in terms of setting the framework, the budget and the strategy. They should be accountable for this, and I think they generally are, given the public discussion of the aid cuts recently. In all seriousness, I think this blog would have more ability to effect change in the aid program than any parliamentary committee. Too often you end up with majority reports being rammed through, enquiry topics being very carefully selected to avoid any possible backlash and a general lack of interest from both members of the committee and the ability to engage with the committee. As the previous commenter noted, engagement with any parliamentary committee is not an easy process. Finally, I think any committee focused on "a strong focus on reviewing evaluative material already produced by and about the aid program with the objective of improving its quality and ensuring that findings are responded to" would be a major error. The public service, academia and interested NGOs are the places where this should occur, not by a sitting parliamentary committee. Improving the quality of aid is technical, specific and a very difficult. None of these things work well in parliamentary committees. I think the benefits of an aid parliamentary committee with this focus would be extremely limited. If there must be a committee, it should focus on high level strategy and/or where things clearly go wrong and/or major areas of expenditure, such as RAMSI.

Good briefing paper and article, Ashlee and Stephen. The ongoing absence of a specialised committee/sub committee to undertake inquiries (and receive briefings) on aid is a long term oversight. I worked on the Inquiry into Australia's policy in the Pacific around 2007, which was held under the auspices of the JSCFADT Human Rights Sub-Committee, and i don't think Human Rights was really a good fit. A roundtable inquiry process was held into cross-border health challenges by the Health and Ageing Committee a few years ago, which was interesting given that it really cut across aid and domestic health issues. For those working in the aid and development sector, engaging with Parl Committees is often an unclear process - requests to provide briefings are muddied by not knowing exactly who one should be asking to brief. Elevating aid in the committee system would be appropriate given the quantum of Australia's aid program, and would to an extent assist with creating more engagement between development players and parliamentarians. With the new Govt shaking things up, and at least rhetorically upping the ante on discussions around accountability and effectiveness, now's a good time to be raising these issues and one would think a separate aid sub-committee would be attractive to them. In my opinion, a separate sub-committee under JSCFADT would be the way to go - it would certainly be in line with the Govt's focus on aid falling squarely in the realm of foreign policy. If they went this way, they might consider creating a new 'aid inquiry secretary' role as well, hopefully bringing in someone who has a background in aid and knows the sector (with the added benefit of creating one opportunity in what could be an increasingly crowded development job market...)

I am not very sure about the 1999 cyclone I know only as much as you mentioned here. Considering just the Phailin, IMD could predict it 4 days before the cyclone hit. This gave the administration to take up necessary steps, even though not perfect, it has responded quite well. We may not have the same luxury every time. There was a cloud burst in Uttaranchal,during which the government could not respond effectively, it would be no exaggeration to say government has hardly responded. A country cannot rely on measures like these. It should try to ensure quality in construction, laws have to be made and enforced. Government has to effectively integrate these efforts with several social schemes such as IAY, MGNREGA etc. On top of all this developing countries should enhance the capabilities of their citizens in coping with such diasters!!

Thank you for sharing the story of your struggle to get a formal education and to determine your own life. It was very moving to read. My wish is that more PNG children are able to have more choices about how their lives will be via the path of a good education.

Over the past five and a half years I have liaised with AusAID staff on funding and program delivery. The partnership model implemented and the exchange has been professional and produced very positive outcomes. Monitoring and evaluation, value for money and overall measuring success occupies a space of qualitative outcomes which has evolved with global imperatives. The amalgamation of AusAID and DFAT will likely result in a cross pollination of values, systems and organisational culture. Integrity, empathy and accountability are worthy professional values to uphold. The up and coming graduates seeking work in the foreign affairs and international development fields will be provided with opportunities in a stronger and united outward looking organisation representing Australians and Australia's interests in the international sphere.

Thanks for the insights. Without any backing of research, my friends in Nias are also very disappointed with outcomes in economic development planning. I have just started an initiative with University of Canberra looking across the adaptations professions make and should make for more effective recovery, and economic planning and livelihoods is an area of priority, but so far I have no traction on where to take my initiative. A chat with you would be most valuable.

Thanks Robin for a great comment on the change. It's important that we understand it. I'm not so optimistic that the DNA can be changed. The elephant in the room is the difference in this dimension that you raise - culture/personality. AusAID and DFAT both do important things but they are vastly different things. The AusAID poverty focus was something relatively recent in a coherent sense. It felt like an important point in the evolution of the aid program. It's gone I think. For now. I really feel for AusAIDers. We've lost a lot. I'm sure there are smart people working out what next but I still worry.

A very good piece indeed. Having joined AusAID as local staff in Zimbabwe where the organization has been able to achieve results in a difficult political environment one reaches a point of great sadness when the future is uncertain. Not so much for the possibility of losing jobs, but on thinking how and whether this new arrangement will work. Just wondering whether we have embarked on a journey where we are taking two steps back in order to take one step forward or vice versa. All remains to be seen. I hope that not much time will be spent getting the new structures perfect while losing the momentum that the aid program had gained in these parts of the world.

Interesting post! this article is good in terms of ideas. for the people who are starting up their individual career, this topic can be their guide towards their own path.