Comments

Tapping into this post quite late, but I think it's important and useful to add some extra commentary to this. Child sponsorship is not just unpopular in development circles because it is "uncool" - it is unpopular because it is unethical. It feeds into ideas about poverty and development which are patronising to families and communities living in developing countries. How would you feel as a parent if some rich stranger off in a country you'd never been to ''bought''your child, because you couldn't afford to support them yourself. Pretty demoralising and disempowering. It also promotes the idea that we can ''buy'' people's way out of poverty (reinforcing the current global system of market capitalism), rather than recognising the root causes of that poverty, largely related to that very system. And what about the children themselves? What do they think about these strangers supporting them in far off countries and sending over cards and gifts, sometimes even visiting? Are we promoting ourselves as ''saviours'' to these children, creating unequal power dynamics as was done with colonialism in many instances, when really, we were just lucky to be born in a wealthy country where we have disposable income to spend on ''charitable'' actions like this. I suggest someone considers impact evaluations with some of these issues in mind - not just statistical calculations based on materials improvements. I suggest some further reading too, for anyone interested in a broader look at the issues: www.caritas.org.au/docs/about-us/can-we-end-poverty.pdf

Thanks John for your well-informed comments. And Terence, who I largely agree with on most issues discussed here. I too, hope that my perceptions will be changed by the current and future procurement reform initiatives in SI that you've outlined. Ideally these initiatives are driven by the political demand for procurement reform being made upon the Finance Minister and the Prime Minister by SI citizenry. I hope that procurement reform efforts will recognise that sub-optimal public sector performance does not arise purely out of technical ignorance, but also because of the power/information asymmetry that allows small groups of insiders to capture public resources at the expense of the vast majority. I hope that consequently procurement reform in SI focuses on seeking a more equitable distribution of the current power and information asymmetry that is the primary cause of procurement maladministration and malfeasance in SI. This may mean putting transparency, accompanied by an understanding of Northian concepts of ‘open access orders’, at the centre of procurement reform efforts. I know I’ve used the word 'hope' a lot, and “hope is not a strategy”, but if we base our collective efforts on understanding the nature of the problem unfettered by preconceived notions of what we would prefer the problem to be, then we’ve got a better chance that our response to the problem is based more on sound, frank and open analysis (and less on hope).

I appreciated the blog and its sentiments. However, it might be inconsistent to recognise - as the blog rightly does - that support for refugees qualifies as ODA but then to argue that the reallocation of aid from one legitimate purpose to another such purpose amounts to a reduction in aid. I recall the debate in the mid 80s on the discovery by the Jackson Committee of the $100 million 'subsidy' to overseas students who enrolled at Australian universities at the same (or only slightly higher) fee levels to those applying to Australian students. Australia's ODA count increased but AIDAB as AusAID was then known had no additional funding to spend. However, the problem was corrected over time as the subsidy was phased out and spending on full scholarships under Equity and Merit Scheme was steadily increased. The 'subsidy' which had been directed to relatively well-off students was replaced with a targeted scheme for the poor and disadvantaged. Instead of railing against a legitimate government policy change and expressing doubts about the quality of support for refugees or displaced persons, it might be better if the development community worked on ways to evolve the means of support for them to higher quality forms of assistance from the aid program.

Pacific Solution (Mark 1) under the Howard government saw shocking examples of poor governance in the aid budget. The Federal Budget papers did not reflect the full costs of all departments operating in Nauru and Manus (AusAID, Australian Federal Police, Health etc), or extra costs outside the core departmental programs. Amounts reported in the annual May budget papers were routinely upgraded in supplementary estimates, and official development assistance (ODA) for Nauru was supplemented by an extra budget line “Nauru additional”. On orders from then Foreign Minister Downer, the budget papers in 2006-07 and 2007-08 did not even reveal the amount for “Nauru additional”, stating that the figure is “not for publication.” This was an unprecedented lack of transparency, as noted in this exchange during Senate Estimates in May 2007: Senator Hogg: Are there any other such transactions in any of the documentation related to AusAID? Mr. Scott Dawson [AusAID]: There are no other measures that I am aware of that have an instruction from ministers that they are to be presented with a “not for publication” annotation. Senator Hogg: So there is nowhere else where this committee – if it pored over the documentation line by line – would be denied access to the appropriate figures. Is that a correct assessment? Mr. Dawson: That is correct (Senate Estimates, Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee, Monday 28 May 2007, p.86.) It seems that we’re heading down the same path again. Little wonder that our lectures to Pacific governments about accountability and transparency get short shrift.

Thanks for the in-depth analysis Stephen. I have also looked at the issue from a different perspective, placing this move in the historical context (and growing trend) of DAC member countries to report 'in-donor refugee costs'. http://www.whydev.org/in-donor-refugee-costs-breaking-down-australias-latest-aid-cut/ I think it is important to consider Australia's decision in this context, as it is also representative of the failings of the current aid system. What perhaps is significant to note, is the early lack of consensus from DAC members around this issue in the '90s. Many were against the reporting method. Now, only two countries do not report these costs as ODA. There is no standardisation around this reporting. It is very inconsistent among DAC members. Australia has a track record of this reporting, but after the 2005, it disappears and does not occur again until 2009. But, the amounts of reported 'in-donor refugee costs' are insignificant at this stage. In 2010, it represented only 0.17%! Now, it will account for 7.2%. I think you break down the motivations behind this move well. It is a growing trend among DAC members to report these costs. However, we need to re-open the dead debate in the DAC about whether -in-donor refugee costs' should be reported as ODA.

Using part of the aid budget to fund border protection is simply wrong. And others doing the same is no excuse. The argument that sheltering and feeding refugees offshore is the same as helping them onshore is just as flawed. Providing food and shelter to refugees abroad is core humanitarian assistance: period. Incarcerating them onshore (or in Nauru, PNG, etc) as part of border protection is pre-planned punishment to deter further boat arrivals. Using funds allocated for ‘humanitarian assistance’ for ‘inhumane treatment’ of refugees is morally reprehensible. Worse still is having the cheek to claim the latter as the former.

PNG is ruled by kleptocracy...The rule of law is very weak but it is good to see the current PM Peter O'Neill trying to fight corruption at the national level so am looking forward to seeing the reults.

You have done many great jobs so far. Though we hope that there would be many and many more people helped in the next year. A better system that which ease all of the process of your work sounds like a good plan.

Reminds me... "Thank God our time is now when wrong Comes up to face us till we take The longest stride of soul men ever took. Affairs are now soul size. The enterprise Is exploration into God. Where are you making for? It takes So many thousand years to wake, But will you wake for pity's sake!" From "The Sleep of Prisoners" by Christopher Fry

I would like to suggest going further than just establishing rural-urban links as mentioned in the article. There have to be links to economic centers or growth centers such as resource project sites. Currently, many people miss out on the opportunities to sell their produce at these centers and the level of isolation of these project areas is reflected in the astronomical price of betelnut in logging, mining and petroleum sites.

AusAID funded Government Strengthening Program (SGP) has two issues that deserves closer scrutiny; namely, those of cost and sustainability. On the first, the four-year program has costed Australian taxpayers a total of $138.56 million. While the exact number of Australian officials posted to PNG over the four term has not been revealed, assuming this to be the same as the 42 currently on deployment in PNG gives an average annual outlay per posted official of $825,000. This figure begs the question of the value for money from SGP. The second issue, that of sustainability relies heavily on the success of capacity building within the key agencies of the PNG government. A suggestion worthy of some series consideration is posting of senior PNG officials into counterpart Australian agencies for 2 to 3 years. A program for PNG officials similar to that of the Australians via the SGP will: (i) expose Australians to the challenges of working in PNG; and, (ii) expose those deployed to Australia of the norms of working in Australia. The existing internships and study tours go some, but only a short, distance in achieving the above. Why not have mid to senior PNG officials placed in the Commonwealth Treasury, Department of Finance, and Prime Minister and Cabinet in Canberra for 2 to 3 years? A bonus would be that those deployed from PNG would cost a lot less than their counterparts from Canberra and are likely to contribute long term to strengthening the bureaucracy in PNG.

Aaron, this is a great story – thanks! The best news is the PNG economy is growing fast enough to deliver discernible differences to the wellbeing of the general population. The question remains as to how the improved fiscal outcomes will get translated into tangible improvements at the level of individuals, particularly those living in rural and remote parts of the nation. I agree that delivering services in this vast nation of difficult topography will not be easy but there now is the fiscal headroom compared to the situation a decade ago.