Comments

Many thanks for this Anna (and Derick and Jana). I think it's the best explanation there is of why it's important, and how it is possible, to find a middle ground between "context is king" and "one-size fits all". It's very much in line with our new strategy and its focus on country-level learning, but explains things more clearly still. https://www.globalintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/GlobalIntegrityLearningtoopengovernanceStrategysummary.pdf best wishes, Alan

Thanks Camilla for your detailed response. Yes, it is easy for someone on the outside to critcise however as you say, more should be being done. I guess it depends on one's perspective and experience as to what one believes. I grant you that my perspective is far more focused on PNG than the rest of the world and in that aspect, I do have a modicum of experience. The recent decision by Julie Bishop to cancel an obviously corrupt {NG Departmental decision over the aid funded PNG pharmaceutical contract is an excellent example of what needs to be done to stop ongoing corrupt use of our overseas aid money. This debacle was after two years of funding an excellent scheme that actually delivered the pharmaceuticals to where they were needed at K70 less than what the PNG government adopted outside of the official tender process. The pharmaceutical delivery process in PNG is now back to where it was prior to our aid funded program. Naturally, nobody in Australia heard, knew or really cared about it because no one is educating the public in 'how to connect the dots'. The public relies on the government to manage our economy (yeah right!) yet complains when they have to pay more tax or their savings disappear due to inflation or fund overseas aid. I agree that we need to do more and especially more for PNG our closest neighbour. What is required is a national, overall managed approach to our overseas aid rather than the current scatter gun methodology. Individual programs need to be put to the acid test as to whether they are constructively helping those who need help or merely lining pockets on either side of the Torres Strait. Every project and program should first have set benchmarks that can transparently be seen as defining whether or not a program or project is helpful and sustainable and providing value for our aid money. An clear example of the problem is the huge amount of funding devoted to sending Australian police to PNG, based on a previous PM to PM discussion. This has only resulted in those officers receiving huge financial incentives while PNG's law and order problems just get worse and worse. At the end of the day, the PNG PM and the Police Commissioner have called the program of no use whatsoever and it will be terminated at the end of this year without any benefit from the overseas funding except perhaps a new police mess in Moresby etc. Local anecdotal reports suggest those police being sent to PNG have no real cross cultural training or appropriate language skills and are virtually kept apart from their local equivalents due to their being unable to take part in any operational capacity. Exactly who is being helped here? Hand out mentality never produces anything more than a desire for more handouts. What is desperately required is an international training establishment that both those going to PNG and those coming from PNG can acquire language skills, cross cultural training and be assessed as to their suitability for the transfer or placement. We used to have just such an establishment in Mosman, Sydney however it was closed due to obvious conflicts with the 'establishment' at the time. I think Julie Bishop is doing a great job and should be congratulated with what she is achieving given the obvious difficulties she faces at home not to those mention overseas. Again, thanks for your comments.

Hi Paul, Thank you for your thoughts on this subject. On the whole, I don’t think we’re as much in disagreement as you seem to think we are. I’d like to respond to just a few points from your extensive commentary. On your first, fundamental point, “The results of any survey depend on what questions are asked and in what sequence” – absolutely yes. Perhaps this is not adequately emphasized in the blog post, but this observation drives a large section of the Discussion Paper to which the post refers. As we note, this is also an area in which we hope to conduct more research, to understand better the ways in which surveys and polls may be used and manipulated by those on both sides of the aid debate. Similarly, we also highlight in the paper (and in the blog) that, as you note, many Australians do not know how much of the national budget is spoken for by different areas, and how much funding might be saved. Yes, Australia is facing an increasingly negative economic outlook, and yes this means that there may not be as much funding to go around. But you seem to imply that there is waste and room to spare in the aid budget, and not in other sectoral areas; I would push back on that. For example, while there has recently been some <a href="http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2015/08/26/Chronic-fraud-in-Australias-aid-program-Think-again.aspx" rel="nofollow">media attention</a> granted to fraud in the aid program, available data shows that the levels of fraud recorded by DFAT (and AusAID before it) have been significantly lower than fraud in a number of domestic programs and departments, including Defence. On this basis too I would respond to your question, “Can we therefore still keep funding overseas aid at the current level when ‘charity begins at home’?” with an emphatic yes. It’s a false dichotomy to suggest that we can only do one or the other. But certainly we could, and should, seek to do both much better. I also agree wholeheartedly that there is much to be gained by doing as much as possible to educate those involved with giving aid about what works and what doesn’t. You ask, ‘Have those that seek to influence our collective national aid program taken a constructive look and detailed investigation of what long term benefits of our long term aid programs have actually achieved?’ The answer is: not as much as we would like, but we are trying. Aid effectiveness has been a long-standing focus of this blog and of our Centre’s work more generally. But working to improve the evidence base and the effectiveness of the personnel and strategies within the Australian aid program does not necessitate ignoring public opinion altogether. I would suggest these can be parallel, not competing, activities. For accuracy, I don’t think anyone is implying that we should “get into a ‘bidding war’ with other and far larger economies”. Of course it would be ludicrous to argue that, for example, ‘The US will give <a href="http://beta.foreignassistance.gov/" rel="nofollow">$33.7 billion in FY2016</a>; why won’t Australia step up?!?” Generosity in giving ODA is typically measured as a percentage of GNI, precisely because it means we can make meaningful relative comparisons with other, much larger economies. In sum: yes, public opinion is not the be all and end all. Yes, surveys can be misleading (and/or produce misleading results) and respondents may not be adequately informed to respond to them. These are all points we readily acknowledge in the paper, and aim to learn more about. And you certainly won’t find any objection from our corner that aid effectiveness could and should be improved. But I don’t think it’s particularly helpful -- or accurate -- to make blanket statements describing the aid program as a ‘multi cobbled together animal’, to insinuate that taxpayer dollars are more often than not ‘corruptly syphoned off into tax havens and personal bank accounts’, or to suggest that aid program personnel, consultants, academics, and other ‘so called experts’ are either oblivious to or don’t care about the problems and challenges inherent in giving aid, or are indifferent to the very real needs of aid’s intended recipients. No one is saying running an aid program is easy. It’s a messy, complex business. That’s precisely why we are interested in pursuing this research. Camilla

Thank you Ashlee and Stephen for your responses. You are quite correct in that the New Colombo Plan initiative should not be labelled direct overseas aid. I have now received and am studying a comprehensive policy statement from DFAT. The original PNG media release was perforce rather lacking in any real detail. I agree 'Overseas Engagement' might be a better and more appropriate terminology. The results of this initiative may well prove beneficial to Australia's national interest. The extensive requirements for students who apply to join may select those attending tertiary institutions most suited to engage in this program. My concerns as to whether they as representatives of Australia, are uniformly trained, prepared and transparently reported on is however another matter and I reserve my thoughts until I have thoroughly perused the official policy. Notwithstanding, my original observations about surveys on whether Australians per se even think let alone know anything at all about 'overseas aid' still stand and are apparently unchallenged.

The New Colombo Plan also sends students to developed countries in Asia, like Singapore and Japan. We wouldn't consider that 'aid'. Why should it be any different for PNG? It's a student mobility program, with no development objectives. The objectives are to build a base for longer-term engagement in the region by young Australians. The students that go on the short-term mobility placements are largely participating in a supervised 'field school' type credit, usually coordinated by their home university in Australia, or a semester of language training or something similar. They aren't in-line or in operational positions at all. It's not aid, so it can't be boomerang aid. Whether one thinks it is a worthy investment in regional engagement is another matter entirely.

Dear Tim/Paul, I agree whole heartedly Australia could and should be doing more. But aren't you being a little bit disingenuous quoting statistics about how many refugees have been recognised by Lebanon for example..for what does it really mean for them to be recognised? will they gain citizenship, access to health care and welfare, as in Australia? and the huge numbers now in Lebanon are clearly a result of the conflict in Syria....so how many refugees per year and per head of population have Lebanon resettled over the ten years before the current crisis? That would be a more appropriate comparison. If you look at the UNHCR website, and remove the Syrian numbers, there are less than 10,000 refugees from other countries recognised in Lebanon, and the increase between Jan 15 and Dec 15 is projected to be 300 people. Do you point out that the Lebanese government has donated a grand total of $73,000 to the UNHCR in the last 10 years, whilst the Australian government has donated $350 million; or that Lebanese private donations to the UNHCR in the last 9 years has been $100,000 whilst Australian private donations have been $85 million?? So I think you are being just as disingenuous as you claim the Australian newspaper is, when bald statements like that about Lebanon's recognition per capita being 120 x that of Australia are made. You show no more rigor, and are just as happy to mislead for your own purposes

Thanks for offering up some comments and thoughts on this important topic. I found the ACFID article a little narrow in its outlook largely because it seems to focus on Australian private sector organisations. What about the private sector in developing countries? That is where there is enormous potential for real economic development, job creation and better service delivery. Too often, donors focus solely on the public sector and overlook the critical role of the private sector and the things that it can achieve in a highly effective way. DFAT has worked in this area a bit (witness the various market development and M4P programs around the place) and is also embarking on private sector development (PSD) programs such as Investing in Infrastructure (3i) in Cambodia. PSD is certainly an area with rich potential to implement aid programs in a different way.

Hi Stephen. I guess it depends on your perspective. If the Australian government (i.e. the Australian taxpayer) is funding this plan and the plan is involving our relationship with PNG then why is this not anything to do with 'Australian Aid'? Aren’t we actually guilty ‘splitting hairs’? Exactly who is benefiting here? If we are paying Australian students to gain experience in PNG, then maybe PNG should be asking the Australian government to pay them for providing 'the PNG experience'? The essential issue here is not whether this expenditure is either labelled 'overseas aid' or merely just part of our Foreign Affairs budget involving another nation. The issue is whether this is a waste of scarce resources and could and should the money be better spent actually helping our next door neighbour, who has been kind enough to offer this opportunity to Australian students when overseas aid has actually been reduced except for PNG. Secondly, and most importantly, exactly how will 2 or 4 weeks experience with 'PNG operational or line positions' actually help Australian students without any substantial preparation for such a large cultural gap to cope with or any real language and appropriate cross cultural training to help them understand what they are in effect experiencing. Then there is apparently no stated and pre set benchmarks or transparent assessment methodology of the program by either Australia or PNG. It will however undoubtedly help justify the legion of consultants and officials who will be tasked with managing the process but only have obfuscated responsibility should any 'difficulties' be experienced. So if this isn’t ‘overseas aid money’ or apparently benefiting our Foreign Affairs, then why isn’t this part of the program funded through the Education budget? Isn’t the money merely just another ‘boomerang aid’ project that is intended to slip under the Australian public’s radar?

Paul, accuracy is important. The $100 million is for the entire reverse Colombo plan, over 5 years (and not just to PNG). It is not aid-funded.

Given the thunderous silence to my last observations on this subject I am persuaded by a recent article that has just appeared in the PNG media to add a few more suggestions. It has just been <a href="http://png.embassy.gov.au/pmsb/542.html" rel="nofollow">announced</a> by the Oz High Commission in PNG that 100 million Australian 'aid' dollars has been allocated to send Australian university students to spend short periods of time in PNG to 'deepen their academic and life experiences through study and work placements in Papua New Guinea.' These placements will be for periods of up to 4 weeks and apparently the students are to work alongside operational positions in PNG. Who ever dreamed this idea up has surely got to be an under experienced denizen of an ivory tower in Canberra and no doubt in close contact with those who lurk behind the razor wire in the Oz HC. What on earth can some young student gain by working for a short time (2 to 4 weeks) in PNG when they need to know and be well prepared to understand the customs, language and social conditions of the work area they are going to supposedly obtain some experience in. Apart from the distinct possibility that there may well be some very negative, short term culture clashes, exactly what will this 'experience' give Australia in terms of value for money or to PNG for that matter? 2 weeks to study 'Leadership' by walking the Kokoda track can no doubt give a great experience to whoever has been lucky enough to be given this opportunity and good luck to whoever it is. But on a broader scale, exactly what is Australia and PNG getting out of the $Aus100 million of taxpayer's dollars that could not be better obtained by using these scarce funds to create a comprehensive training facility for both those who might be sent to PNG and those from PNG who are sent to Australia for training and experience? If Australian taxpayers were actually told about the reality of how their taxes are being spent and these programs effectively audited on pre set and transparent benchmarks on long term, clearly definable benefits for both our nations, there might be some real value achieved. Failing that obvious and non reported deficiency, I would be very interested to hear some concrete views on whether this exercise in spending 100 million dollars is of any long term benefit to either nation apart from perhaps creating some short term, personal e mail or facebook contacts that can't possibly convey more than a brief impression of the disparate working conditions and a subsequent lack of any comprehension as to why this is so.

Yes, the general message of the post above is very much, 'it depends on what you measure'. However, the more specific messages are that (a) 'refugees resettled per head of population' is a practically irrelevant measure, and (b) it is highly misleading to claim, as various members of the government are now claiming on a daily basis, that Australia 'takes in' more refugees per head of population than any other country, without specifying that this statement relates to a particular way of taking in a very small proportion of the world's refugees. If your country is swamped with asylum seekers, you take some of them in via recognition, and you probably don't bother running a resettlement program. I would think that the Refugee Council of Australia does see itself as doing the things set out in your penultimate sentence but I don't speak for them. More importantly, one might as well say, 'To achieve popular support, the Australian government will need to clarify its objectives, calculate achievable outcomes, and advocate a plan of action in a positive way that most Australians can embrace. A lot of Australians are waiting for just that.' I think there might be some distance between increasing Australia's humanitarian intake and building tent cities.

It's really revealing that Aus private sector is legging behind rest of the developed countries in international development partership, Priyanka. In fact, public sector, private sector, 'third sector' (NGO's) and local people together are architects of not only sustainable development but global peace and stability. It is in them interest of private sector to get engaged in the shared values which in turn will facilitate operational activities of the private sector. Mutual learning and thereby generating synergy would make the better development outcomes. Neither private sector itself can flourish in isolation, nor mere corporate social responsibility is sufficient condition of sustainable development. Private sector must contribute a significant portion of its profit to the wellbeing of the people around the world. I am confident your ideas will convince and persuade Australian private sector for parterning with other sectors for promoting the global shared values of international development outcomes with greater zeal and vigour. I think private sector is not that much stubborn to ignore its role in development partnership but one must engage it through convincing and persuasive methods. We must innovate better framework for engagement by learning from the past and continuous mutual learning. Most of private sector players are highly enlightened and having vision of the better world and therefore, I believe that SDG's will be realised by 2030 with appropriate engagement of all the stake holders.