Comments

Thanks Ashlee for your comment. The issues you and Francis raise are particularly pertinent when it comes to how women political candidates are portrayed in the media, how much coverage their platforms get as compared to those of male candidates and how accessible media outlets are to facilitate campaigning. The media can play an important role in framing wider societal perceptions about gender, power and representation.

Very interesting points raised in this interview. On gender, I think that is a challenge across the world for the media industry. When I worked as a journalist, many of my colleagues were female -- many of my editors were male and at the managerial level it was predominantly male. I think that the pressures currently facing the media at the moment only exacerbate this -- expectations of long hours, low levels of flexibility for women trying to balance work and family, 24 hour news cycles and increasing demands as journalists are expected to do more with less while operating across multiple platforms. In newsroom hierarchies, where editors have a guiding role over the tone and content selection for a publication, that lack of female voice at the higher levels really influences overall coverage. Like Francis says, it's not about having women reporters around to cover gender issues as some sort of niche round beside the 'mainstream' coverage, it's about equitably representing the perspectives of broader society and giving space to the perspectives of women and girls, whether they are writing on sport, business, politics or women's health. So Francis' point on the need to encourage women in those media leadership positions in the Pacific is really important.

In order to increase coverage of essential health services, especially for the poor, the Prime Minister of PNG has announced that he will remove user fees in public health facilities. This is a proven policy to improve health outcomes and reduce poverty but will require a substantial investment in district level health services notably in human resources and improving drug supply systems. Given this explicit policy priority it wouldn't seem to be a good time to enter into an arrangement which will undoubtedly increase the share of the public budget spent on the central hospital in the capital. One can see from the blog above that this is exactly what has happened in Lesotho where despite promises that the PPP would be "cost neutral" increased demand from the population with good access to the unit has led to huge budgetary pressures. When this happens and funds are reallocated to the tertiary sector, the losers are poor people living in remote districts who are unlikely to ever visit the capital, let alone the central hospital. So if the Government of PNG wants its national free health care initiative to be a success they might be advised not to listen to these siren calls to tie-up millions of dollars of budget funds on a PPP which will only benefit a small proportion of the population.

I think a more reasoned article with examples from a broader range of countries would have been more persuasive. Oh, and maybe one not written by the CEOs of companies who would most likely be first in line to pick up tender documents.....

This example from one hospital experience in a small country should only be one example shared with the Ministry of Health in PNG as they struggle to make the most effective, efficient and equitable policy choices for their population. The case studies shared with the Ministry should include the very negative experiences that many developed and transition countries have had, in trying to establish PPIs to deliver health care. Countries such as the UK, Bangladesh and many countries in Latin America have invested in these PPI agreements, with specifically negative impacts on quality accountability and access for the poor. Health care does not work well under neo-liberial marketing principles. The example that should be shared with the Minister of Health in PNG is the history of how Sri Lanka has managed and financed their health system, one of the few good health systems at low cost in the world. They have positive health outcomes focusing on the principles of Alma Ata, focusing on equity of access, active engagement of the population and a multisectoral approach. The same principles that Margaret Chan and the World Health Assembly endorsed as a key approach for achieving universal coverage of health care in the 2008 World Health Report. Please share these references with the PNG MInistry: <a href="http://www.who.int/whr/2008/en/" rel="nofollow">World Health Report 2008: Primary Health Care: now more than ever</a> and Save the Children's report on Sri Lanka: <a href="http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/sites/default/files/docs/bucking_the_trend_1.pdf" rel="nofollow">Bucking the trend, good health at low cost: Sri Lanka's policy lessons for the 21st century</a> and finally the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine's book on <a href="http://ghlc.lshtm.ac.uk/files/2011/10/GHLC-book.pdf" rel="nofollow">Good Health at Low Cost</a>. These should all be offered to the Minister to read.

Thanks for this post and raising this important topic. A related conversation is that relating to Development Impact Bonds as put forward by the Center for Global Development and which you can follow <a href="http://www.cgdev.org/blog/development-impact-bonds-comments-welcome" rel="nofollow">here</a>.

PNG needs a good transparent media, to cover the events both good and bad across the country. This will expose and educate the average person about the development. They can make their minds about the "good" and "bad" corruption. Public office belongs to the people of PNG not the handful of those who have the privilege to hold public offices When they make decisions and take actions to benefit the country it will be applauded.

It is not a surprise that the highlands highway from Lae to Kassam Pass will be better than the rest of the highway. The reason is simple. The Markham Valley is flat and has good drains. The second reason is land compensation demands. This has to be resolved before any development infrastructure proceeds.

Thanks to both of you for this realistic assessment of the current level of Australian aid. Interestingly, despite the much higher aid levels in the UK, opinion surveys show that in both countries around 60% of the public have an exaggerated view of the share of the budget that goes to aid. In Australia only 1.4% of the budget goes to aid and a slightly higher percentage in the UK (as their total budget is a larger share of GNI). Yet in both countries a majority think it is much higher. When asked to nominate what share should go to aid a majority of the public in both countries propose levels that are significantly higher than are currently provided (for example see ComRes 2012 UK Overseas Aid Survey for ONE Campaign and Quantum 2009 World Vision Australia Island Nation Survey). In fact when we inform Australians that our current levels of aid are only 1.4% of the budget or 0.37% of national income their usual response is "we can do better than that". <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NWtAukUPIY" rel="nofollow">This video</a> sums up the typical response.

Good article Joel. I don't think AusAID should follow DFID slavishly though. And I feel they are now and not necessarily learning from the mistakes DFID has made over the years. For example, value for money analysis is just hitting AusAID. But DFID has made a hash of this one, so will AusAID travel the same route? Counting beans? I would also add that AusAID is becoming DFAT-ised by stealth. It might still be an autonomous agency but the senior executive is largely ex-DFAT. Best, Cate

<a href="http://newmatilda.com/2013/07/01/win-west-papua-melanesia" rel="nofollow">This item</a> from Jason McLeod in New Matilda is (not surprisingly) quite strident - he claims that West Papua is now an international issue and reiterates the growing political significance of the MSG: In February, whilst in Canberra, I heard a Melanesian expert say that West Papua was a non-issue. It may or may not be that in the fullness of time that will be shown to be the case but at this particular moment, it is very much an issue in our part of the world.

Joel, I think you are right that support is wide and not deep, but this applies in all donor countries. When we survey Australians about their support of government aid 80% are in favour (eg see World Vision Australia 2009 Island Nation). This is a very similar figure to the UK and to most other donor nations (eg see UKaid 2010 Public Attitudes Towards Development) . While most people support aid to help people in poverty, I think it is quite understandable that the strength of this support is less than for issues close to home such as roads and hospitals that more immediately affect themselves and their families. It may be that the public are better informed in the UK (after all they have Richard Curtis), but I don't think the survey evidence suggests that levels of public support are higher. Given that aid makes up such a small proportion of the budget (only about 1.4% now and around 2% when we reach 0.5% of GNI) decisions about levels of government aid are generally made by a small number of senior MPs and bureaucrats. This means there is a tenuous relationship between public opinion in countries and levels of government aid. Around 80% of Australians are supportive of government aid and, when asked, they propose that aid spending should be significantly more than 2% of the budget. However it has been a battle to get Australian Government leaders to lift our relatively low levels of aid. Perhaps the difference between aid levels in the UK and Australia has more to do with the strength of aid campaigning in the two countries, or the beliefs of a small number of senior government MPs and/or perhaps it is a just a quirk of the different politics in the two countries.