Traditional rights under pressure in Strait
The day a nation acknowledged its gratitude

AusAID in PNG: any way forward from here?

This is the third and final article in a series by PAUL OATES analysing issues and concerns raised in a recently published review of Australian aid to PNG

IN ITS PREFACE the Review states that its overall aim is “to consider and recommend how Australia’s aid can most effectively contribute to PNG’s current, medium and long-term development priorities.”

In my first article, I examined claims that the PNG public sector was ineffectual and not delivering intended government services because of reasons including failures of leadership, management, strategy, knowledge, and capacity. And a bunch of other factors that suffocate good governance.

I proposed that, to achieve real results, full control by Australian departments over some areas of aid expenditure might be considered on an interim basis.

The second article looked at an existing AusAID performance report in the context of the recent aid review and showed why it has not been possible to initiate a results-based program or effectively monitor the use of AusAID funds.

The main problem in appraisal is the interweaving of Australian aid funds into PNG government programs. The PNG government operations are unable to be properly monitored or assessed simply because there are no effective mechanisms to do so.

Despite this, the Review remains bullish, saying: “There is a shared commitment to act.” Well tally-ho, but where?

It seems to me, after scrutinising and weighing these reports, that changes to the status quo are unlikely to occur in the near future.

Details on the website explain how, at the 2008 Australia-PNG ministerial forum in Madang, it was agreed that the continued placement of senior and experienced officials in the PNG public sector would help accountability and good governance.

A previous Australian government program was renamed Strongim Gavman [strengthening government]. This program was to be run from Canberra with this remit:

“Our officials are focused on providing strategic and policy advice and on building capacity in the PNG public service, including through mentoring to improve the knowledge and skills of PNG staff”.

In other words, there was a new name but essentially no change to how the aid program is run. Therein lies the current dilemma.

The review highlights changes in the level of aid Australia gives to PNG, which has fallen in real terms since independence. It is stated:

“There are signs that PNG is diversifying to other donors. 2010 PNG budget documents put Australian aid at 68% of the total. China has started to provide aid.”

Prime Minister Somare has publicly declared a ‘Look North’ policy and the PNG Opposition Leader has claimed China is bribing PNG leaders. While Australian aid has been maintained at a steady level, it remains highly fragmented.

Since 1999, per capita spending by the PNG government on health and education has decreased from K140 to K40. While PNG’s GDP has substantially risen, spending per capita has remained at virtually the same level as at independence. The Review states:

“Education, health and infrastructure have long been important sectors for Australian aid. In the last decade, governance has become an increasingly important area. Over the period 1975 to 2002, 27% of Australia’s aid went to education, 24% to infrastructure, 12% to health, and 21% to governance (AusAID, 2003).

“The main change over the last decade has been in the area of governance, where the share of total aid spending almost doubled from 20% in 1999‐00 to 36% in 2009‐10.3 Health has increased its share of the aid program (thanks to new HIV/AIDS spending), but education and infrastructure have both seen a significant decline.”

In other words, real spending on education and health (other than on HIV/AIDS) has decreased while spending on governance has increased. Yet the same review suggests that PNG governance has been steadily worsening. Clearly the switch has not had the desired effect.

So what opportunities are there to change the current regime? In 2010-2011 it is estimated that official Australian aid to PNG will be $457 million. Yet under the situation revealed in the Review, this amount will virtually disappear without any real benefit to the PNG or Australian people.

On the web page under the heading ‘Mutual Respect’, it is stated that:

Australia and partners will also acknowledge accountability to our respective Parliaments for the impact and effective use of development assistance.”

Yet how can accountability to the Australian Parliament be discharged when AusAID has publicly acknowledged it is not possible to monitor the impact and effective use of aid given to PNG?

It seems there will be no opportunity this year to review the current bilateral arrangements at the highest political level because the Rudd government cancelled the annual ministerial forum with PNG. The official explanation was that this was due “to limitations on ministerial travel in an election year." Hmmm.

Unless AusAID can effect major changes to its PNG operations, it appears another $457 million will go the same way as the previous billions and disappear into a big black hole that is the PNG government.


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Ringke Yaungke

Thanks for the aid you are pouring in to PNG.

I am a Lutheran pastor's wife. I live more than 40km away from Mt Hagen city, at the foot of a mountain towards the Southern Highlands.

I have been very close to the people of Tambul/Nebilyer. I serve the people of Lower Nebilyer.

I suggest that if you really want your aid to reach the people in the village, the first contact person should be the pastor who lives and works with the people.

(For your info, the pastors don't have flashy cars, or live and meet in hotels, or roam in the city etc).

Pastors are the people's servants who live among them and serve them.

Peter Kranz

Kevin Rudd was interviewed live on ABC TV this morning, talking about aid to PNG and other Pacific countries.

He claims the recent review has already produced better results for AusAID spending, closer alignment with Millenium Development Goal targets, and greater involvement of the non-government sector in the delivery of projects.

Programes will be reviewed annually to ensure they deliver results.

He sidestepped a question about highly-paid consultants.

Reginald Renagi

Any future aid review between PNG and Australia must cover key areas which impinge on our two country's national security and interests.

The need to promote broader international relations with other countries must occur within the context of a potential wider breakdown in global peace and order.

Present strategic assemments indicate no direct external military threat to PNG (and Australia) in the near future. Nevertheless, as a sovereign nation, PNG must either independently or collectively (with Australia, New Zealand and Indonesia) pursue national interest objectives that will also contribute towards regional security.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)