Comments

Thanks Michelle for this insightful analysis which provides some really important context and highlights that in PNG (as in Fiji) the final determinants of power relations are domestic rather than external. I also think that your analysis plus other comments from Bal Kama indicate that the major constitutional damage that we witnessed in 2011/12 prior to the elections was never properly resolved and some of that is coming back into play.

Thanks for this response which I think highlights a very important issue - that economic growth is only really growth where it is achieved without causing damage to the environment and the social fabric, not least in communities that are still moving through the post-conflict space.

Not sure if people saw this but Indonesia has <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-19/an-sby-in-fiji-pidf/5535892?section=australianetworknews" rel="nofollow">pledged</a> $20m to help Pacific Islands fight climate change. So Indonesia (a large aid recipient) is stepping into the gap vacated by Australia. Interesting times!

Clearly aid agencies are not providing education to their supporters if the information in the article has people believing aid is more about humanitarian relief than ongoing development and if some believe we spend 16% of our budget on aid. Perhaps aid agencies need to ask questions about what they are communicating in their marketing.

Hi Tana, yes it is available here on the DFAT website: http://aid.dfat.gov.au/aidpolicy/Pages/home.aspx

In today's world money is everything and everything is money. Without money the living standards and livelihood of ordinary Bougainvilleans can and will never be improved. For sure this a fact of life. However, re-opening Panguna is not the only solution though it has the potential to propell Bougainville to its economic footing so as to achieve fiscal independence. There are means for Bougainville to economically free and liberated like agriculture, fisheries and tourism. Most of these do not exert pressure on the natural enviroment. Money alone will never bring fiscal independence but the freedom to make money will. Such freedom can only be achieved through unity. Bougainvilleans will have to be united and have a common goal to achieve and to correct the past and proceed on. Unless Bougainvilleans are united, forget about mining the land at Panguna or elsewhere and start talking about mining the mind now. Everything including riches and wealth begins in the mind of a person provided he/has the right frame of mind.

The suggestion that the State should explore innovative ways for increased ownership in companies such as Oil Search" - isn't that exactly what the State did by buying 10.01% of Oil Search? The concluding remarks regarding the State exploring innovative ways for direct participation by people in these companies is inconsistent with the neo-liberal arguments advocated in the article! Oil Search shares are publicly traded on POMSOX and ASX and people can purchase them there; the State purchased the shares through public placement. The perception peddled publicly that SOEs are inefficient has been made but when one considers that the average aggregate rate of returns on equity and assets over the last decade is around 10% and 5%, respectively, then it is not so bad. Any return on equity around 5% is considered conservative.

WhyDev put up a great comment on Twitter on this post, saying that there was another problematic omission in the new strategy: climate change. Since I couldn't think of a 140-character response, I'm responding here. The words 'climate change' do actually feature once, but only once in the strategy. I agree that the topic is, if not omitted, then very much underdone. My only defence of our omission of this almost-complete omission is that the latter unfortunately reflects a problem with the Coalition's lack of commitment to serious action on climate change (both at home and abroad) more broadly rather than with their aid policy per se.

Great blog! Is the new aid policy available online? If so, where can it be accessed? Thanks!

Hi Garth, I 100% agree. Listening to the Minister's words, she mentioned that aid had failed to meet expectations and that we can't continue to spend billions and get no results. But especially in her answers to the questions from the journos, it did start to seem clear that the rationale for the "new paradigm" is largely driven by perceptions of failure in PNG. It's a bit odd - where countries have succeeded, it represents the success of trade and economic growth (aid is irrelevant); where countries have not succeeded, it represents the failure of aid (and not the failure of trade or economic growth). So aid can't really win. So in PNG, it is not that economic growth and trade has failed to take hold or lead to progress but rather that aid has failed. The idea that aid is a panacea is a strawman - I don't think anyone in the aid community actually ever argued that aid alone would solve all development challenges. Joel

I agree with you Stephen that continued incremental reform of the aid program is a good thing and I hope that many of the ideas promoted by the Government are a success. There is room for improvement and we should be open to innovation. However I notice that the minister relies heavily on problems with aid to PNG to explain the need for reform. It is true that PNG may not reach any of the MDGs by 2015 but an analysis of Australia's main developing country partners shows that PNG is not at all typical of their performance. Of the 14 largest aid recipients only PNG and Afghanistan are doing poorly on the MDGs. The other twelve all score 55% or higher when assessed using the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2013/may/29/millennium-development-goal-progress-data" rel="nofollow">Center for Global Development/DATA MDG Index</a>.

Hi Irene, That is an excellent point. Good development practice implies a long-term partnership over 10 years (or at least 5) where trust is built and innovation and mutual risk-taking is allowed. One year windows to judge success or failure does not mesh well with the realities of projects nor the reality of innovation. Not sure how that will be balanced. I do wonder how many projects will actually be axed after one year. Joel