Comments

Thanks, Sara: DFAT may well not see itself as an aid or development agency but, at same time, the government does. The Minister has publicly and repeatedly said he wants DFAT to be a "world-class development agency", the govt. is rebuilding DFAT's "development capability", and that "development is at the heart of our statecraft" etc., etc. I'm not sure how to square the picture above with these statements (or whether to even try!). To your point, it was telling that the government chose not to add "development" to DFAT's title when releasing the policy last year; this would have been a small & simple, but symbolically important, change. I agree that the reforms being pursued through the Australian Centre for Evaluation and the wider APS are positive and hopefully they find some meaningful institutional expression within the aid program.

Your comment that "aid agencies are capable of learning and adapting" says it all, really. DFAT is not, and does not see itself as, an aid or development agency. Your comparator, the USA, still has a standalone agency and perhaps that is the key differentiating factor. To my mind, the real opportunity or enabler to build a stronger culture of learning and reflection within DFAT may come from the wider evaluation agenda in the Australian public sector and the signals coming from central agencies rather than the Ministers who oversee the development program.

Really good to read your 2022 Mitchell Oration, 'Ofa. Continue to be bold and to 'speak truth to power', as Sabet has put it. Hope that your fearless Pacific feminist voice, informed by long years of experience of working effectively within Tonga and the wider Pacific region, will bring changes to thinking and practice in donor communities.

Hi Cam and Lisa As a former member of the APS for over 4 decades, can I suggest that this lack of reflection may well be due to staff turnover? Short-term occupancy of positions (e.g. less than 2 years) leads to inability and disinterest to focus on the long-term - not just in Foreign Affairs. In the various Departments where I worked, staff were more concerned at satisfying the Minister and Secretary (in that order). Robodebt lessons, anyone? And as the Minister moved on and the new one had different priorities, so did the varying priorities of staff (at all descending levels). I note that the last Aid Program Performance Reports were in 2018-19: https://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/development/aid-program-performance-reports

Could not agree more Cam - and yes, very much the questions I was driving at in my earlier blog. I have just been reading the DPPs and you are right about the lack of reflection on what has been learnt from significant past investments. Given that they are political documents, perhaps we should not be altogether surprised. What seems more shocking is the absence of analysis of change dynamics that lies BEHIND those DPPs, or anywhere else in the aid program. Why is there not regular reflection of these questions built into routine operations? Where is the bringing together of Team Leaders, local partners and Managing Contractor Reps at Post to share analysis and generate collective understanding of how change happens in a given time and place? I suspect the 'all the tools of statecraft' mantra that you flag may be crowding out space for this bigger picture thinking. It strikes me that there are actually endless ways in which one could build a culture of reflection on how change happens and yet none of them happen... which suggests this is lower down the priority list than I'd like to believe.

Many thanks for your follow-up comments, Lisa Having been involved in lobbying on foreign aid for 38 years, I have seen many "promises" and statements of "good intentions" and significant "strategic plans" made by the federal government and its various Ministers for Foreign Affairs. However, DFAT's "Performance Reports" relate to annual progress in countries: https://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/development/development-program-progress-reports. Not eventual outcomes - usually requiring several years. In 1990 at the World Summit for Children, Australia committeed to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, where Section 38(4) remains highly-relevant to our war-torn world: "4. In accordance with their obligations under international humanitarian law to protect the civilian population in armed conflicts, States Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure protection and care of children who are affected by an armed conflict." Which Australia did in the 1990s, in its participation in peace-keeping missions in places like Cambodia, Somalia and Rwanda. With military support of civilians in northern Iraq (under Operation Habitat) and later in East Timor. But now ? When there are elements in Australia who say all aid should be abolished while we have poverty in Australia. In all those years since 1986, I have never heard a Minister for Foreign Affairs say something like: "Remember that aid program which Australia started X years ago ? It was intended to achieve (name objectives and targeted groups) and we spent $Y million dollars on it. I am now very pleased to announce that it has demonstrably achieved the following........................ Australia's foreign aid and your tax dollars make a difference to reducing extreme poverty and improving our world." According to the World Bank: "Around 700 million people live today in extreme poverty – they subsist on less than $2.15 per day, the extreme poverty line. After several decades of continuous global poverty reduction, a period of significant crises and shocks resulted in three years of lost progress between 2020-2022." Unimaginable in Australia. But where Australia can make a difference.

I'm interested.

Thanks for the comments. Peter, in response to your question about how the Act applies - I imagine that DFAT can be in compliance with this by undertaking the existing monitoring and evaluation steps that it does. The problem is that these are focused on ensuring effective use of taxpayer money for a particular intervention - and not on learning in aggregate about 'what works' (and what does not) in supporting developmental change across DFAT's portfolio. This latter question to my mind has the much bigger 'value for money' pay off but does not neatly fit compliance demands as per any laws and policies. It requires us, therefore, to have an interest (and make an investment) in learning that goes beyond the minimum required but potentially with a big pay off.

Thanks for publishing. As a PS: how do Sections 38 and 39 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 apply to our aid budget. More especially to Section 38 that applies to DFAT (too): 38 Measuring and assessing performance of Commonwealth entities (1) The accountable authority of a Commonwealth entity must measure and assess the performance of the entity in achieving its purposes. (2) The measurement and assessment must comply with any requirements prescribed by the rules. 39 Annual performance statements for Commonwealth entities (1) The accountable authority of a Commonwealth entity must: (a) prepare annual performance statements for the entity as soon as practicable after the end of each reporting period for the entity; and (b) include a copy of the annual performance statements in the entity’s annual report that is tabled in the Parliament. Note: See section 46 for the annual report. (2) The annual performance statements must: (a) provide information about the entity’s performance in achieving its purposes; and (b) comply with any requirements prescribed by the rules.

Thanks for the very interesting story of such a successful person PNG employees did actually benefited from to a stage. His knowledge and skills is something that a lot will still talk about. We need more of such innovative and knowledgeable person as such. Love everything I'm reading about Late John Paska. What a good man he was.

So: comments on these comments by PNG's Minister for National Planning Ano Pala : https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-20/png-minister-warns-australian-aid-may-be-wasted/104373828 "The ongoing discussions surrounding boomerang aid and concerns about funds being switched, withheld in Canberra and absorbed by Australian management contractors and consultants, emphasises the importance of ensuring tangible outcomes for the PNG citizens." Mr Pala asked Australia to "allocate resources that directly benefit the community, rather than focusing primarily on sectors that incur high administrative and consultation costs".

The Panguna lawsuit raises concerns about justice and profit. While aiming to compensate locals for environmental damage, critics fear the involvement of anonymous investors could prioritize financial gain, jeopardize unity, and hinder Bougainville’s independence efforts.