Comments

Very fascinating. Thank you for laying this issue out, as you highlighted the issue has gotten very little press.

This would have been more impressive if they had taken a broader definition of VFM - where is Aid Effectivenss? Where is Country Ownership, building capacity and commitments to Paris & Busan principles? This is an area that GFATM has been weak on from the outset, and this does not help. Richard Horton's recent Comment in The Lancet captures the issue well: http://download.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140673613615330.pdf

Good stuff. Hopefully the new government is serious about the program. To me, it seems like an issue the Nationals should get behind to 'future-proof' regional labour markets. If they are in a position of driving any reform, the program will better suit the industries they seek to represent. However I think there are some pretty significant barriers implicit in these suggestions. Removing the incentive for backpackers would be good policy, but I'm not sure if it will be politically acceptable. The long-term argument is firmly with seasonal workers over backpackers (productivity and labour certainty) but in the short-term, industry sees WHMs as the only thing propping many of them up. Why take that away? Someone needs to do some serious work on the productivity benefits of the program to convince industry of the merits of seasonal workers. In a similar vein, clamping down on illegal workers is very expensive and very much unknown. Compliance operations across regional Australia would be one of the most expensive to undertake and given the estimated scope of the problem, is unlikely to occur even in the medium term. If an ALP-led government wasn't interested in cracking down on illegal farm labour, why would the Coalition government be? Unfortunately, I think any change will have to come from employers choosing to use the seasonal work program as opposed to withdrawing labour from other sources. While I agree with increasing cost-sharing arrangements, why should employers not be liable for anything? There is a risk you will increase cost repayments and lower minimum work hours to such an extent that any net gains may become marginal. I don't think this would be common, but it should be considered. In New Zealand they are still required to co-pay on a range of activities and this doesn't reduce program activity. Having the aid program facilitate increased program activity in Melanesia is a fantastic idea given the potential returns over time. Finally, I think expanding the WHM program to Pacific island nations is a good idea but the amount of effort required is substantial. The WHM agreements take years to evolve and if we understand the bureaucracy to have a limited amount of resources and opportunities, isn't it better to focus on providing a workable seasonal worker program instead of introducing multiple bilateral MoUs with many pacific governments? This should especially with a new government that may be focused on improving the seasonal worker program.

Now that SDP is out Western Province the people's future in Development terms is quashed.

Hi Robin, Thanks for this. I want to strongly concur with your point that much of the criticised "excess" of AusAID over the past few years was indeed conducted to support a barely concealed "foreign policy" agenda. The Africa scale-up that included provision of programs to all 54 countries on the continent had a lot more to do with the foreign policy goal of a Security Council seat than effective poverty reduction as driven by AusAID. And now that the seat has been won, it seems that the Africa program was refocusing on a smaller set of deep-engagement countries. So the suggestion that AusAID was off going about its business with no thought to national interest just doesn't hold water.

Spot on! It would not only be ‘odd’, but very risky behavior 'if a high-powered task force was busily drawing up alternative organisational charts but no similar body was looking … at options for implementing large and immediate aid cuts'. AusAID’s existing identity in the Asia-Pacific region, which presents Australia as a good partner and neighbor, has developed over many years, and not without the occasional hiccup. Carefully considered strategies for minimising any negative impact, to either development programs of diplomatic relations, are required.

You are quite right - PNG has many health problems needing attention, some of which you highlight. Hospitals are just one of these.

Thanks Anna for sharing John Lister's analysis on Lesotho. As you correctly point out there is quite a body of literature on PPIPs from UK and Australia and elsewhere. We agree that this should inform consideration of any PPIP in PNG or elsewhere. Your comments emphasise, and we strongly endorse, the need for thorough due diligence by a team of experts, before embarking on such new models of service delivery.

Thank you for your comment. I am not sure that a PPIP is the only alternative to ailing public hospitals, but as we suggest: "This approach could be an option worth considering in PNG." The PNG government has made the rebuilding of major hospitals a policy priority. It is worth getting a range of options for financing and management on the table. We welcome suggestions from others.

Thanks Tess for raising the important issue of Development Impact Bonds, we have been following the nascent Impact Investing industry in Australia. You and other readers may be interested in the link to the <a href="http://foi.deewr.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/impact-australia_april_2013.pdf" rel="nofollow">DEEWR report on Impact Investing in Australia</a> [pdf].

Interesting articles, but as in all matters to do with Pacific statistics, proceed with some caution. A lot of this analysis hinges on the commonly promoted idea that what happens in the Forum Island countries is an adequate surrogate for describing the South Pacific as a whole. But which countries are left out? There are a number of "non-independent" countries in the region that receive a lot of "non-ODA" assistance. Recognising that Australia is by far the largest ODA donor in the Pacific probably needs to be balanced by a better appreciation that it is not just ODA that the Pacific has become dependent on. The total quantum of other forms of subsidy from France, the US and the EU into the region is also considerable. But the growth in South Pacific dependence on ODA is certainly worth commenting on, in its own right. As is the substantial decline in per capita aid to PNG over time.

To clarify on point 5, the cap for the SWP does increase on a yearly basis up until 2016. A document that emerged from a Senate debate has been forwarded to us and reveals that the cap for FY 2012-2013 is in fact 2,000 not 1,600 as suggested. The number of places scheduled for FY 2013-2014 is 2,500; 3,250 in FY 2014-2015 and 4,250 in FY 2015-2016. However, this eventual cap of 4,250 is still approximately half of New Zealand's annual cap under the RSE scheme.