Comments

A great analysis. Indeed, the only perceptive analysis. Thanks Robin.

Well said Robin. As a DFAT officer who has worked with AusAID a lot in some pretty risky countries, I have a high regard for AusAID staff and for the organisation. Please don't assume that the antagonism for DFAT is reciprocated. I'm sorry to see AusAID go, but DFAT will be the better organisation for the AusAID influx.

A beautifully crafted AusODE. How ominous that our unqualified purpose of 'helping people overcome poverty' should be put to death on All Hallow's Eve; resurrected so fittingly in the sanctified form (the national Interest) on the 1st of November. Having worked with AusAID as an implementing partner, I've seen the exceptionally good, the woefully bad and the frighteningly ugly. But as a taxpayer and a humanitarian, I believe wholly in the institution and feel yet more despondence about the government directing what we know to be its takeover. The challenge for AusAIDers-that-were now lies in remaining as stoic, magnanimous and judicious in the more personal battle of (dis)integration, as in the professional ones of which Robin speaks. Great empathy for job uncertainty and logistical adjustments though I have, and my belief in enterprise agreements and fair remuneration notwithstanding, I implore all to remain principled not petty, constructive not conceited. When an enlightened government is returned, we (Australians) will need you to have penetrated the undesirable imperialism of DFAT culture, and equally, absorbed some of their oft-impressive acuity. When this miscalculation is reversed, both agencies will be the better for it.

As somebody who has worked in Africa as part of the Australian Staffing Assistance Scheme of AIDAB back in the late 80s, and observed closely the initiatives of AIDAB/AusAID programs in my field in that region over the ensuing years, I am concerned at the implication this restructuring may have for effective Australian aid initiatives in the future. Restructuring appears to be a part of political change at state and federal level, but too often reinventing the wheel results in loss of dedicated staff and a step backwards in effectiveness of initiatives and outcomes.

Hear hear.

Thanks Robin, for eloquently expressing what many of us past AusAIDers are feeling. I, for one, am still proud to say I worked there.

Robin, THANK YOU! Thank you for honouring the commitment, the courage, the vision and the sheer tenacity of AusAID staff over the years. The Nonviolent Non-cooperation phrase made me smile and remember how many gender and conflict sensitive policies and programs have eventuated because people didn't give up. I have so many AusAID staff to thank for their support and encouragement. We wait and watch.

A beautiful analysis of what Australia will lose with the loss of AusAID. I have met and worked with a number of AusAID staff- both Australian and national staff in developing countries. Smart, committed, compassionate people all of them. I hope DFAT and elsewhere find good use for their professionalism and passion.

Thank you from me too, for this and all your recent writings about the sudden death of AusAID. I have relied on you for insights and calm analysis throughout! While institutional structures shouldn't really matter if the aid program is genuinely doing good things, and might be slightly crazy to feel sad about the demise of a public service agency, it's hard not to feel concerned about what may be signalled by this still-perlexing change. What the priorities and culture and incentives will be for the aid program from tomorrow onwards - that is what is important, and still seemingly unknown.

Thank you Robin. Congratulations on a masterful and heartfelt piece. AusAID won't get get a better eulogy. Witty, moving and pertinent. Those of us that invested in the ethos of AusAID understand what is being lost. While AusAID always had to adapt and change and it was sometimes hard to pin down exactly what was being achieved, nevertheless we know that the disintegration of AusAID represents the loss of a civilising influence in Australian public life.

Stephanie, I have to say, I agree with most of your comments. Technical solutions and training, on their own, will not address the issue of maintenance (or service delivery, for that matter). That’s exactly the point I highlighted in my talk. I agree that attitudinal change is needed, both at the political level, and at the managerial level within service delivery organisations. How does that happen? I think we’re basically entering into the area of political economy of reform, and the fact is, donors have found it very difficult to address political economy constraints. I don’t think that there are easy answers - if there were, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. I would say that I consider “attitudinal change” to be, primarily, an internal and organic process. There’s a limit to what donors can do to support change. Such change also takes time. There are case studies of successful management (and, asset management) in the Pacific, and it’s important we learn from them. I don’t agree that it is all “doom and gloom” – there is a great deal of diversity in the Pacific in relation to infrastructure management. One case study I’m currently writing about is the Fiji Electricity Authority. Improvement in FEA management (and maintenance) came about over a ten year period, due to massive organisational re-structuring beginning in 2001; political support for reform; and supportive regulatory changes that began in 2005 and continued under the Bainimarama Government. There were setbacks along the way, but overall, the FEA’s performance improved dramatically (it now has in place sound asset management systems, and dedicates sufficient resources toward maintenance). There is also diversity on the planning side. Cook Islands and Vanuatu are two countries that in recent times have turned down funding from the donor X to which you refer. In Cook Islands, the donor X-funded project that is underway is being managed very proactively by govt – it is clear that lessons have been learned from past mistakes (and briefly, I’d note that poor planning is an issue with more than just one donor in the region!)

I hate to sound cynical, but Matt's conclusions mirror those of numerous reports by development partners over the last 20+ years. We all know infrastructure requires ongoing maintenance, that bureaucracies require technical skills to manage it, and that budgets need to include recurrent expenditure allocations - the governments know this, the development partners know this, the researchers know this. And yet, time after time (with a very few notable exceptions) we get the same failure of maintenance, the same rush to have non-DAC donor X throw up a new building with no ability to finance the ongoing costs (particularly when the concrete starts to rot), the same diversion of funds to other purposes and the same failure of bureaucracy. So the real question is: given these needs, in infrastructure and other service delivery areas, how do we create an environment where governments, with assistance from donors, are able to meet them? What needs to change? It's not about project management, or training, or twinning, or donor funding of eternal road maintenance programs, or other supply-driven solutions. It is about sweeping organisational and attitudinal change within the Pacific. Where do changes need to take place and how does the Pacific community make them happen?