Comments

Tenktu tru tupla. I am grateful that you have started this conversation. It is noticed, by those who have moved across to development from the private sector how remarkably, 'absent' the PNG private sector are from the Development discourse. This is a deeper conversation with the Development sector on why private sector in Pacific states are left out of the discussion. Two thing from my reflections. First is that there is an opportunity to have a discussion on a health system architecture that is fit for purpose and resilient. But more then that whether system design should also be devolved to PHAs aswell to deliberate on the model best suited to each province. Second, is there a requirement/ToR for board members to have directorship training and experience i.e through PNGID or a public service equivalent? If PHAs are talking about quality of governance then this is seems only fair.

The SWF should have a clause that allows for withdrawal for Budgetary Support. Under its two Funds; the Stabilization Fund for price stability/volatility and Savings for the future generations..where is the Fund for Budgetary Support?

Thank you, Ludwina, we are hopeful there will be some form of changes in the near future.

Thank you, Trevor. Hopefully there will be some changes in the near future.

Also not met: extending short stream from 9 to 11 months.

Great commentary Stephen, and of course since you wrote your piece, Minister Burke has announced that in future undergraduate students will no longer be able to bring family either (though Pacific students are thankfully exempted). That suggests you are right to be concerned that "the original promise to end enforced family separation may simply be forgotten". Already forgotten is another promise in the 2022 Labor election policy: "We will ensure the Federal Government meets upfront travel costs for Pacific workers under the Seasonal Worker Program – costs which currently have to be met by Australian farmers. This will increase the attractiveness of the Seasonal Worker Program for Australian farmers."

Thank you, Mr Moses Sakai. I am very interested in studying this topic of death penalty in PNG. I am a student studying School of humanity and social sciences in UPNG in my line of study I am doing research about death penalty. Thank you for valid information and explanation, which could be shared with the local community.

Seeking to apply for your company in Australia, fruit picking.

Andrew, this piece is so far the best piece I read as far as pragmatic approach to assessing aid effectiveness and efficiency in addressing real development needs at the aid-recipient/country is concerned. Well written and I feel that in the case of PNG, the Australian Aid must be critically reviewed against its tangible outcomes on the ground because I observe that much of the money that is funded through Australian aid for health, education, security and other sectors also appears to have a large number of Australian so-called experts following that money as experts or liaison officers. Their personal emoluments and cost of employment also uses considerable funding that could otherwise be used for delivering real projects on the ground where development needs matters.

There is a lot of critique of randomised trials, while those based on observations alone can show interesting data, but those that require surveys need to explain to people what the survey is about (informed consent) which naturally will affect the answer which causes problems for control groups. More importantly is having a common context to assess the change against every community is different and attributing change to the intervention is problematic given different contexts. An association doesn’t represent a causal effect. There are far more reliable evaluation methods including talking to people and exploring if an association has a causal explanation or something else. Then programming cna be skewed to interventions which lend themselves to these RCTs. I’m a great believer in the community knows best on what is going on in that community.

Australia is fortunate to have Andrew Leigh as a champion of evidence and learning. I strongly agree that “the burden of ineffective policy falls upon people”—and with his call for rigour. The Australian aid program already generates a vast amount of ‘MERLA’ material. Much of it, however, is fragmented, difficult to find or poorly synthesised. What is less clear is how consistently it influences actual decisions about what to stop, adapt, scale or fund. RCTs and formal evaluations are important, but we also need to bring the full weight of evidence to bear—including administrative and operational data, research, comparative experience and practical insight—and become much better at translating it into decisions. To paraphrase Andrew, the burden of inadequate evaluation—and of good evidence that never influences a decision—also falls upon people.

The Editor's note here seems telling. Why, more than three years after ACE was established, are there no completed evaluations on international aid, and how many are well on the way to completion?