Comments

One key difference: Contributions to Multilaterals /International Organisations in Australia is managed by AusAid now DFAT. In Canada it is under the Finance Ministry (correct me if I'm wrong). If that is so, Australia has an advantage to still manage its aid/ODA flows through a singular and possibly still development-oriented institution.

Is that "effectiveness" for Australian resources or effectiveness for the recipient countries?

Thanks for your question. It’s always about national interest, one way or another. However national interest has multiple lens; for example, securing a country’s bilateral support for free trade (or even their cooperation for stemming irregular boat arrivals), using the aid program may achieve the ‘first’ best foreign policy objective but only the ‘second’ or ‘third’ best development outcome. Under Australia Aid’s new mandate, such an outcome may represent ‘effective aid’.

I have heard that DFAT will be renamed the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Aid (DFATA). Peter Jones Melbourne

Hi, im a Management and Marketing student at the University of the South Pacific (Laucala campus, Fiji Islands) and would like to commend your article on Labour mobility and how it affects the Australia, New Zealand and the South Pacific island nations. Labour mobility through PACER Plus would have much positive impact for the Fiji labour and industrial market. More should be done to loosen the restrictions placed by our allies with strict guidelines for migratory workers to ensure that transparency and accountability is maintained by governments in order to further improve labour mobility for our workers.

How is aid from a bilateral donor never about its national interests?

This is a welcome initiative. Medical supplies are essential to the core infrastructure of an effective health service. Improvements to quality of service through training; supervision; innovation and partnership are almost nonsensical if basic inputs (including medical supplies) are not in place.

Thanks Ashley - looks like a very useful resource 🙂

I have been silently following the latest political development of our once beautiful democratic country. Over the years people, especially ordinary citizens, have been freely exercising their rights, including freedom of speech and expression without fear, favor or intimation. Now it seems that the current government is shifting its gear towards a communist style regime with the application of elements of dictatorship and threat. The high offices in PNG such as Police Departments, Ombudsman Commission, Attorney General Office etc that expose the corruption and deals by people in authority are now silent. What has happened? Are they been manipulated, dictated to over the years or even rewarded with wealth and positions? Where is the freedom of media in PNG to report issues affecting this nation freely without fear or favor? I hope the creation of Kumuls 1, 2 & 3 and transferring the function of IPBC and now the taking over of PNGSDP is done to serve the vast majority of people and not with other hidden agendas. I see on one hand current government is doing good in promoting service delivery to the door steps of our people thus, focusing on decentralizing its functions from Waigani to districts and provinces with greater financial powers. On the other, the government seems to be power hungry thus by extending grace period, continues changing of some sections of the constitutions, introducing of death penalty, practicing of dictatorship etc… where will we go from now??? Pitz Nox

Fascinating, thanks Terence. CIFOR (where I worked last year for some time) have just this month released a fantastic multimedia package (videos, photos and stories) on the lessons that can be learned from the Amazon Basin for those interested in forest conservation and climate change. It's really worth checking out, especially since it touches on some of the changes highlighted in the podcast (particularly on REDD+ and other payment for environmental services (PES) schemes). You can find it here: http://blog.cifor.org/amazon

Noting the challenges inherent in dealing with "technical areas". I'm not convinced that a lot of the Aid industry problems (not just AusAID) are technical but rather they are managerial, professional or systemic in nature. Therefore “a strong focus on reviewing evaluative material already produced by and about the aid program with the objective of improving its quality and ensuring that findings are responded to” would surely be of major benefit? The public service, academia and interested NGOs are the places where there is vested interest in retaining or building on the status quo and therefore a sitting parliamentary committee is precisely the type of magnifying glass that is required. If there are reports and evaluative materials, delivered by such experts named above and there are outstanding issues or action points that have not been addressed, then isn't it a basic responsibility of elected decision makers to take a closer look at how it is all working? In NZ we are used to such reviews in all areas of government and a focus on the ""how as well as the "what" is generally a good thing to counteract the inbuilt inertia and burgeoning bureaucracy of any large institution. Surely this is an opportunity for Australian foreign aid, not a threat as is immediately supposed by many commentators in the development field?

"We need more parliamentary oversight of the aid program." Do we really though? I don't understand why this is the case. For highly technical policy areas, such as aid, I'm not sure more parliamentary oversight is the right road. Parliament, and the government, definitely have the dominant role to play in terms of setting the framework, the budget and the strategy. They should be accountable for this, and I think they generally are, given the public discussion of the aid cuts recently. In all seriousness, I think this blog would have more ability to effect change in the aid program than any parliamentary committee. Too often you end up with majority reports being rammed through, enquiry topics being very carefully selected to avoid any possible backlash and a general lack of interest from both members of the committee and the ability to engage with the committee. As the previous commenter noted, engagement with any parliamentary committee is not an easy process. Finally, I think any committee focused on "a strong focus on reviewing evaluative material already produced by and about the aid program with the objective of improving its quality and ensuring that findings are responded to" would be a major error. The public service, academia and interested NGOs are the places where this should occur, not by a sitting parliamentary committee. Improving the quality of aid is technical, specific and a very difficult. None of these things work well in parliamentary committees. I think the benefits of an aid parliamentary committee with this focus would be extremely limited. If there must be a committee, it should focus on high level strategy and/or where things clearly go wrong and/or major areas of expenditure, such as RAMSI.