Comments

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.

As mothers and sisters, we women, have to take responsibility of giving our boys enough love, care and good values so much so that the new definition of masculinity should be standing up against peer pressure, injustice with all using the God's gift (physical strength) to the benefit of all. I somehow feel this is also rooted in greed, entitlement, low esteem (she is anyway going to say no to me and I am going to teach her a lesson) and also male ego. Men ,according to me, are not very strong mentally, they will do only things for which they get appreciated for or acknowledged by friends or stronger men. There is an undercurrent which glorifies rape and violence against women. It definitely has it roots in our homes, the mother who this little boy spends his initial stages of life with....Hardly there are any fathers who are keen in bringing up their kids. They come home, watch tv, read newspaper, order tea/coffee and once in awhile the kid sees mom and dad fighting over some extramarital affairs. Kids are not receiving the right signals. Avoiding divorce is not the sucess of a marriage or good parent, the real meaning lies in our effort.

This is a terrific appointment, for both its focus and the quality of the appointee, addressing a space for which there remains so much more to be done.

Daisy It is such a shame that this subject matter exists. That it does and that it is globally prevalent remains a plight of humanity. That said, your work and this story is truly inspirational. With more like you taking a meaningful stand, to support those effected, and to work to change behaviours and attitudes, maybe we can imagine a world where violence against women and girls is not only not accepted or ignored, it is extinguished. M

Thanks Don for raising this important issue again - I would have responded even if you had been more polite. The points World Vision made were that: 1. If we can help people to survive and live healthy lives this should be given priority in our assistance to people in poorer countries. 2. The strategies required to provide effective health aid are well understood and aid for health has the strongest evidence base of all aid interventions. There is much less known about how to reliably boost economic growth through aid - there is potential to waste a lot of aid with unproven economic development schemes. 3. Health aid has had a huge impact – helping to halve child deaths since 1990, cut new HIV, TB and malaria infections and deaths etc. 4. Many people are still not receiving adequate health care (eg the 35% of mothers without access to a trained birth attendant, 9 million eligible people still not receiving AIDS treatment, the three million people not receiving TB treatment each year, children not receiving rotavirus and pneumococcal vaccines etc) - but most could if more dollars were available. 5. The average cost to save a life reported by both GAVI (http://bit.ly/1hUABlI) and the Global Fund (http://bit.ly/1fvnbJE) is around US$2000. Last month The Lancet published the findings of a detailed investment framework for maternal and child health. The authors found that deaths could be averted at an average cost of US$2240 in 35 low income countries (see Appendix of http://bit.ly/18tb7sJ). It should not be surprising that many opportunities exist to prevent deaths at low cost – many of the major causes of death in developing countries such as malaria, TB, diarrhoea, pneumonia and many birth complications can be effectively prevented or treated for tens of dollars. I think that this is a very important debate and I would be very interested to hear from you and others about which parts of this argument you disagree with.

Garth, your contributions to the aid debate have not been great. Were you the 'genius' at WVA who got Costello to run around using the $2000 per life figure???????

Hi Tess, Thanks a lot for your comment - both very important points. The first is particularly crucial as challenge funds are seen as 'light-touch', which often translates as 'cheap'. That's why prioritisation across the portfolio is important (which I think ECF did well? I remember not all of your projects went for audit) I also agree with the second point - especially when trying to assess intangible aspects like the additionality of the grant, there's no substitute for good local knowledge. Which also doesn't come cheap, and in many places is hard to find at all... ECF just published a report on their experiences of using the DCED Standard, which is well worth a read - http://www.enterprisechallengefund.org/images/publicationsandreports/Designing%20a%20results%20measurement%20system%20for%20the%20ECF%20Nov%202013.pdf Best wishes Adam

Hi Tess, I agree with your concerns around state-based anti-corruption agencies, they have a pretty poor track record around the world, particularly in developing countries. PNG is trying to learn from these experiences. The National Anti-Corruption Strategy Working Group has compared ‘best practice’ to PNG’s draft Organic Law: http://www.actnowpng.org/sites/default/files/ICAC%20public%20discussion%20paper%20May%202013.pdf. While there are some areas where the draft legislation is in line with ‘best practice’, there are still many concerns – including unease about the proposed ICAC’s independence, accountability, ability to pursue past corruption (eg that uncovered by Taskforce Sweep), and processes around securing resources. I’m also disappointed to see that the ICAC will focus on public officials; I think that far more attention needs to be given to private sector corruption in PNG. Parliament has just passed a constitutional amendment for an ICAC, and we are waiting for the Organic Law to get passed. So, we still don’t know what the final law will look like, or if the ICAC will make it over the remaining legislative hurdles. Having said that, I think that in the short-term an ICAC could be useful. It could play a role in better coordinating anti-corruption responses – a key to Taskforce Sweep’s success. It also has the potential to help augment government processes, and to improve prosecution rates. As our survey suggests these improvements would be welcomed. However, by itself it’s unlikely that ICAC will effect long-lasting change. Sustained change will most likely come from a broader cultural shift. As a part of this, anti-corruption agencies will need to prove (not just promote) that transparency and accountability have tangible pay-offs. This is particularly the case in rural and remote areas, where most of the population live. If the public is convinced that corruption is damaging to resources and social harmony, they will be more likely to support an ICAC and other efforts to address corruption. I’d like to see a lot more discussion on shifting public attitudes towards corruption, and what role donors, state-based organizations, NGOs, and GROs could play in bringing this about. Grant

Thanks for this Adam, it is a really clear exposition of some key principles. As a (former) country manager for ECF I was involved in numerous discussions about appropriate principles for monitoring projects and I would agree that the current iteration of ECF monitoring and evaluation is much improved from how it started with it being a much truer reflection of these standards. I would add two things to this. One is implied in what you have written here but bears explicit statement and that is funders need to be prepared to invest in monitoring and evaluation and be explicit in recognising that it is likely to be expensive. Exciting and innovative projects located in rural areas with limited transportation links will require site visits and these need to be budgeted for up front. The second (and this applies to other stages of challenge fund activity including formulating criteria for selection, designing application procedures) is the need to know and understand the context in which (potentially) participating businesses operate (and remember that challenge funds work with existing businesses so that is a good location of knowledge about these things) - this includes legal, regulatory, political and cultural issues which may have an impact on the ability of a business to participate in the fund or contribute to monitoring activities.