Comments

Thank you for this excellent outline of Australia's compromised position. I had been under the impression that Prime Minister O'Neill came to Australia and offered Manus in Australia's hour of need rather than Australia going to him. Is that correct? My recollection was that the expropriation of PNGSDP's shares in Ok Tedi occurred shortly after the Manus arrangement had either been announced or signed. There seems little doubt that PNG's Administration is well aware of the leverage they have by means of this arrangement and are employing it with increasing impunity. I feel sure that a great deal is happening outside of the public gaze here in Australia but there must be a range of rather more subtle means by which Australia can help ensure that PNG's anti-corruption agencies and officers are supported and provided with platforms to the wider world.

Thanks Stephen. It is not at all user-friendly. To add to your criticism of the website, the news section of it is barely ever updated now. One piece of news so far in August, none in July, two in June. For comparison, we can see <a href="http://aid.dfat.gov.au/latestnews/Pages/home.aspx?archive=true&year=2013" rel="nofollow">from the archives</a> that former AusAID posted 19 news stories in June 2013, 37 in July 2013 and four in August 2013. And that's not even counting the content on the former AusAID Engage blog, which <a href="https://devpolicy.org/in-brief/better-little-read-than-dead-ausaids-blog-goes-quiet-20140402/" rel="nofollow">has died</a> since integration. The current DFAT website is not telling the Australian public anything useful or clear about what the aid program is actually doing, whether one is looking for up-to-date project information or feelgood press releases.

Senator Lambie strikes again, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F51bf64f5-0da0-45b0-8f27-30816cdb43b4%2F0034%22" rel="nofollow">in Hansard from the Senate yesterday</a>. In her spiel on the budget measures, Senator Lambie suggests alternate cuts could be made "by halving Australia's record foreign aid budget by $15 billion, so it is reduced to $15 billion from $30 billion." It should be noted that the aid budget is roughly $5 billion... not $30 billion. It is also not a record aid budget. "Why should billions of taxpayers' dollars be given to overseas countries—Indonesia, $565 million—some of which have militaries that are 10 times the size of ours and in one case, Pakistan, $75 million, which is nuclear armed. The needs of the average Australian family should be put before the back pockets of corrupt foreign aid officials, because, quite simply, charity begins at home."

Regionalism has been a long term plan for the Pacific and its leaders. There seem to be only a few issues that could be partly addressed at regional level and majority of the issues of concern are still carried forward to future meetings, such as poverty, good education for all, political stability, maximising trading benefits for all. Apart from emerging issues of climate change, human trafficking, etc which need to be taken up the at world forum. How could we as the Pacifika tackle the issues? First of all the Pacific people from leaders to the grassroots need to have common knowledge about the regional issues.

Shenggen, Thanks for the article, it is a great overview of how to maximise the benefits of aid activities in improving hunger and malnutrition. My comment relates to your conclusion that this area deserves more attention than it is currently receiving. Of course hunger and malnutrition are extremely important, but since development resources are always going to be stretched, proving that large gains are possible in any particular area isn't sufficient to decide to allocate more to that area, or give it more attention in the SDG framework. In other words, your article is an excellent exposition of the probable benefits to increased investment in improving hunger and malnutrition, but "good economics" would require you to justify from where you believe those resources should be taken, and why?

I agree completely that formality for its own sake brings few advantages. Formality brings with it access to the legal system and access to finance. If the legal system is opaque and costly and if access to finance is not possible, formalizing is not a sensible course of action for those in the informal sector. It is one of the reasons that the cost of formalizing in the Doing Business Indicators (while also often inaccurate anyway) is an indicator that by itself does not make a lot of sense.

Thanks Grant for your excellent blog. I think your analysis is solid and well-founded. The 'song and dance' you mention reminds me of the 'dog and pony show' idiom. That is, a highly promoted, often over-staged performance, presentation, or event designed to sway or convince opinion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_and_pony_show). Given your analysis, the big question is "what is the appropriate role for the Australian bilateral aid program in promoting good governance in PNG?" Can anti-corruption programming in a bilateral aid program like Australia / PNG maintain its coherency and integrity if it is perpetually playing second fiddle to the main game of preserving power relations? Or is the aid program better off sticking to delivering public goods like health and education, whilst trying its best to minimize fraud, and not wasting its time and money with good governance promotion? Will history judge good governance programming to be largely a 'dog and pony show'? Or are we getting better at it, learning our lessons, and reaching higher levels of effectiveness? Do you think we should continue to call donor technical support for state agencies in PNG 'promoting good governance', even when the political commitment isn't there? Or should we adjust our nomenclature to the apparent reality? Would the good governance agenda be better served if we removed it from the structural shackles of the bilateral program, and handed it over to a more 'independent' body? Or is that a futile exercise that will end up in the same place? Your blog provokes some difficult questions, but certainly these questions go to the nub of the issue of the effectiveness of the Australian bilateral aid program in furthering human development in PNG. Surely, a worthwhile exercise.

There is a fine dividing line over publically discussing the policies and practices of another nation without these comments coming back to bite you in the bum. Just look at Clive Palmer's latest outburst about the country who helped make his fortune. Look at the reaction in some quarters about Tony Abbott's recent public comments about the upcoming Scottish referendum. The Australian government's responsibility to the taxpayers who elected them and who provide the aid monies is however not to be taken lightly. Neither is our national interest. PNG like Indonesia, is a sovereign country. There have been questions raised about Australia funding schools in Indonesia that actively promote Islamic fundamentalism. Is this in out national interest? Australia cannot publically support the corrupt use of our overseas aid and Julie Bishop's decision to withdraw funding of the PBG pharmaceutical purchase and distribution operation after two very successful years was based purely on stopping Australia funding continuing corrupt practices of the PNG government. That decision should send a clear message to the PNG government yet look what happened? Those responsible for public health (read PM, Minister and Departmental Head) simply ignored the decision and went ahead with what they wanted to do anyway. PNG Minister Malabag, who personally intervened to ensure the pharmaceutical tendering process was corrupted was a guest speaker at a recent conference in Melbourne. Did anyone at the conference think or want to challenge the Minister about his decision over the PNG pharmaceutical contract as he strutted the stage? Behind closed doors however is a different ballgame. Who knows what is said between our Foreign Minister and other national governments? The problem is simply one of leverage. Australians are clearly not seen as having much due to our past history of non accountable generosity to others. The clear problem is not what we say but what we do. The Chinese are reportedly able to gain significant leverage in the Pacific by picking up projects others don't fund. Even New Zealand has a better 'bang for their relatively small buck'. Perhaps the time has come to be 'no more Mr Nice guy' but that has to be behind closed doors. The public must be given no chance to actually find out what has been said. The only way the public will therefore ever find out there has been a change in the wind is through results then starting to happen. It is axiomatic that weak kneed apologists will demonstrably never be given any credence where thieves, bullies and the corrupt are concerned.

Likewise, lets not jump to conclusions on the riches of formalizing business. David McKenzie from the World Bank has gone here and the record is mixed at best. See here - http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2013/07/11/Rethinking-Informality-What-is-Keeping-Firms-from-Going-Formal

The recent events project the ‘c-word’ both as a sword and a shield. It seems the expectation has always been among many people – “please help,” either it be aid or interventions in the affairs of rule of law. But as Australia realign its commitment to confront its own challenges, the Pacific states are awaken to a new reality – the limitations of Australia’s commitment to their needs. The task then falls on the frail domestic institutions. The recent actions by the Ombudsman Commission and the Courts shed some hope but to what extent remains to be seen. Australia may have a duty but it would be a mistake for the people of the Pacific to rely on that assumption.

Thanks Grant. Missed the Manus reference first time round. S

Hi Sinclair, As we mention, Manus is one of the reasons why Australia found it difficult to speak up against Parakagate and the disbanding of Taskforce Sweep. PNG's economic boom also reduces Australia's leverage. Still, Australia needs to find ways to speak up about corruption at this critical time. With a surge of money soon to flow to the government, the stakes are only getting higher. Cheers G