Comments

Robin, Is it your understanding that the $236m over 4 years for ‘unauthorised maritime arrivals living in community based arrangements’ in PNG is additional to the amounts already to be diverted for the support of asylum seekers in Australia? In the 2013-14 budget the Government said: 'To ensure predictable planning and management of the ODA budget, the Government will cap expenditure from the existing ODA funding envelope in any one year at $375 million.'

I don't know if I'd characterise this as simply a case of policy on the run. There's probably an element of that. The shift from processing in neighbouring countries to resettlement and community detention in those countries appears to lurch a little beyond the recommendations of the Houston report. The latter called for the implementation of 'processing options outside Australia for the determination of protection claims of those who arrive by irregular means'. However, in its discussion of processing arrangements with PNG and Nauru it did not propose local resettlement (or community detention). In the post above, though, my concern is more that the features and implications of the policy have not been canvassed openly enough. In response to your specific question, I didn't say above that it's not in Australia's policy interest to speed up the time taken to process asylum claims. I said, 'We know that the Australian government is in no hurry, as a matter of policy, to see asylum seekers’ claims processed'. That's a statement of fact about current policy, as embodied in the 'no-advantage' principle first articulated in the Houston report. As has often been pointed out, nobody knows exactly what average processing times would be consistent with this principle because there is in fact no clear point of comparison -- but the average will doubtless be measured in years. Aside from its assumed deterrent effect, slow processing obviously also confers the pragmatic advantage of deferring difficult decisions on where and how to resettle those found to be refugees.

Thank you for your on-going commentary on the recent Rudd government asylum seeker policies. One of the main points you appear to be making is that this is policy on the run and it is not clear that the government (Australian as well as the Pacific island governments) have a plan. My question is about one small point you make in this post. Why do you write that it is not in Australia's policy interest to speed up the time taken to process asylum claims?

Hey Ada, Thanks for your comments- and great work on an awesome and relevant pseudonym! I absolutely agree - technology is only a tool, albiet one that can significantly magnify the impact of the work aid agencies and workers do! It's fairly unarguable that AusAID has some catching-up to do in this area though. Whilst a strategy should only ever be the first step and has to set the right framework - the <a href="http://bit.ly/13j5MvZ" rel="nofollow">USAID experience</a> is a good example! - the bigger point is that more attention needs to be payed to this area to ensure we are using the most efficient and productive tools possible to achieve our aid and development objectives. Happy to continue the debate on Twitter- I'm on gerardtmccarthy. Cheers, Gerard McCarthy Director (Asia-Pacific) TechChange www.techchange.org

Technology is a tool, not an end unto itself. Aid agencies no more need a technology for development strategy than they do a manufacturing for development strategy, or a marketing for development strategy. There are enough useless strategies in aid agencies - the utility of yet another one is unclear.

What happens with PNG Citizenship that refugees may obtain. There is the question of whether refugees who obtain PNG citizenship will be allowed to enter Australia on the same conditions as any other PNGian? Will there be classes of approval based on refugee origin? Would this have to be countered by a further change in our Constitution? It goes to show that the whole affair was not properly thought through by either parties and that the rest of us were supposed to accept, not debate. Tony Flynn

Thanks Jo and Tess for both of these comments. I don't disagree with anything you say, though I don't know enough about the activities of the big Australian NGOs in the Pacific to evaluate your suggestion, Tess, that the organisations are tending toward homogeneity and a fondness for cookie cutters. However, our focus above is on the way aid resources are allocated to the big NGOs as a group, and among the organisations within that group. We think there are some interesting questions even in this limited domain. It's certainly true that the expansion of this group's resource envelope has the potential to change the way they operate in the field, though it will not necessarily do so. It's also true that it might reduce their appetite for criticising government policy though, again, it will not necessarily do so. They were all receiving quite a bit of support already, before the further expansion of funding in the post-2009 period. At the same time, the level of support they get from all AusAID sources is still minor in proportion to the level of funding they receive from community sources. My sense is that the ANCP Partners, and other NGOs for that matter, don't feel terribly constrained at present in what they can say and do in advocacy mode, provided they don't say or do it with support from the aid program. There was more of a problem in that regard in the earlier part of this decade.

An interesting post. Thank you. And to continue from Tess's last point in her comment, I see advocacy challenges as essential for NGOs to grapple with. In New Zealand, NGOs have been relatively silent regarding the ongoing erosion of the NZ government aid programme's attention to the most vulnerable people. Terence Wood and I argued in a conference paper last year that this was predominantly because NGOs didn't want to bite the hand that, albeit partially, fed it. And also the Minister sent strong signals about the potential consequences of earning his dislike: cutting funding to the Council for International Development and Global Focus Aotearoa, and attempting to sideline organisations that did speak out. I understand the difficulties, having managed NGOs myself. But NGOs are supposed to advocate for those whose voices are often silenced (aren't they?) and it is crucial they can do this with at least a degree of independence. This does not preclude NGOs from taking government money but it does require some careful thought and negotiation of the politics (ie: power relations) of it all.

Hi Lam Thanks for sharing the FSM situation - it's great to see how different Pacific island states are 'doing' democracy

These cases are very interesting from a comparative law perspective. In the FSM for example, there is no path at all between the Congress and the Supreme Court as far as a Speaker's ruling is concerned. The court would follow the Political Question Doctrine (which states that a court will not pass judgment on a political matter), and recuse itself from a challenge to the Speaker. A challenge may be taken up by the Congress as a whole, but in actuality no one has ever challenged the rulings in chamber of the Speaker, maybe by respect to the customs and traditions of Congress. Grumbled a lot, yes; made sarcastic noises, yes; but challenged, no. The legislation to the effect that an error must be prejudicial in order to be justiciable would in the FSM not be necessary because that concept is considered here as a doctrine of the Common Law supported by case law.

I am very wary of official development assistance agencies seeking to intervene in the national economic policies of any country whether least developed, low or middle income. This has to be done through a shared research and learning process exploring the policy and practice options open to the countries concerned. There can be strong external input into this process provided it is well informed and from bodies recognised and trusted by the policy and practice makers from the developing country and certainly never with a loud hailer. But there is a more important point. As countries move up the per capita ranks it would be reasonable, in my view, to expect them to pay for the advice rather than for it to be funded from aid programs. Sometimes free advice is valued at its price. Moreover, a scaled process of charges would also enable a continuation of a dialogues policy and practice research well beyond the stage of aid recipient status. All too often policy and practice exchanges end when aid programs stop.

Thanks for the insightful comments Tony. My piece focuses on the potential impacts on PNG and Papua New Guineans. But you are right, there needs to be informed and more objective analysis of what all this means for Asylum seekers as well. For example, I’d like to know how family reunions (‘split family arrangements’) – which has been a central part of the Australian refugee intake, although the <a href="http://www.immi.gov.au/visas/humanitarian/offshore/immediate-family.htm" rel="nofollow">rules changed</a> in 2012 will play out in PNG. And yes, it would be great if this analysis was sans name-calling.