Consultants: first big winners of aid review
20 January 2011
BY KEITH JACKSON
THE FIRST BENEFICIARIES of Australia’s Independent Review of Foreign Aid have been identified – the consultants.
And in this case the consultants are members of the team appointed to undertake the review, who will jointly benefit by $660,000 reports Sydney’s Daily Telegraph newspaper.
According to the Australian government's AusTender website, team leader Sandy Hollway and two other members of the foreign aid review, former Liberal Senator Margaret Reid and former diplomat Bill Farmer, will each be paid $220,000 for about six months work.
Jamie Briggs, Opposition spokesman on government waste, said Mr Hollway "does seem to have benefited more than most from this Federal Labor Government".
Mr Briggs also said that the "cost and ill-defined nature" of the foreign aid review raised questions about value-for-money for taxpayers.
In addition, Mr Hollway has already received about $400,000 in consultancy fees in the past 18 months as the government's “whaling envoy” and “envoy on Kokoda”.
But the former Sydney Olympics' chief rejected suggestions he would earn $220,000 to tell the Foreign Minister how to better spend the $4.5 billion aid budget.
Mr Hollway said he will earn a maximum of $100,000 for six months work. The additional money is for “reimbursement expenses”.
Readers of the Daily Telegraph were scathing at the disclosure: “$4 billion to give away. What a lucky country we are to have such benevolent politicians and Labour lackies,” said Robert Ingle of Moonbah. “You pack of bastards.”
And Don Campbell of Port Macquarie wrote: “You don't need to be a Rhodes Scholar to know how to better invest $4.5 billion, or be paid a six figure sum to provide the advice. Queensland, parts of NSW and Victoria are in urgent need of massive investment to assist with the reconstruction of the flood damaged infrastructure. Foreign aid is great when Australia has no urgent need for the money but now is the time to rethink all projects including foreign aid...”
Source: ‘Aiding the consultant - Rudd's man earns a fortune’ by Steve Lewis, The Daily Telegraph (Sydney), 19 January 2011
More details on the aid review are at http://www.aidreview.gov.au/index.html. Submissions must be received by 2 February
Funny thing is that, like its PNG counterpart making the same old mistakes, the Australian government has done it again.
Once again, it’s the Australian consultants who will be laughing all the way to the bank.
Keith Jacksons is right to say that the first beneficiaries of an independent AusAID review panel team will be the "consultants".
The list of beneficiaries will continue.
So here's my key list of beneficiaries when this review report is done:
1st - Australian consultants
2nd - Australian government (development
partner)
3rd - PNG government (development partner)
4th - Australia/PNG approved NGOs
5th - People of PNG.
Like before, there will be very little or no trickle-down effect, because, by the time the so-called aid gets down to the 5th level of beneficiaries, the people won't really feel its effect on their lives.
For years, the efficacy of the existing AusAID program has been questioned by both PNG and Australia. Past reviews have still not got the formula right.
On the whole it is still a 'gifting program' designed by Australians to benefit Australia ("boomerang aid").
Successive PNG administrations have also not done their part as a responsible government.
The government consistently failed to ensure AusAID enhanced its own development efforts over the years.
It keeps on accepting aid without really validating the program's effectiveness.
A key contributing factor of why the AusAID program are not very efficient is that they undermined the PNG government’s sovereign role.
AusAID is like a quasi-government of PNG; it runs parallel to the government's budget implementation program.
The PNG government also has consistently failed to ensure AusAID is synergistically factored into its annual development plan.
This independent AusAID review may be another useless report and a total waste of the Australian taxpayers' money that will only benefit highly-paid Australian consultants.
I wonder what sort of experts are they on PNG?
Don Campbell of Port Macquarie is absolutely right in saying: “You don't need to be a Rhodes Scholar to know how to better invest $4.5 billion, or be paid a six figure sum to provide the advice."
From PNG's perspective, I bet I could write up a fairly good report on the weekend and present it to NEC on Monday at a fraction of the cost.
Yes, I could give it a fair shake with K2,000 to cover the cost of refreshments like coffee, club sandwiches, some cold SPs including stationery and a small support staff to do the typing and binding.
Posted by: Reginald Renagi | 20 January 2011 at 10:36 PM
This year Australia has to cut back its overseas aid program. Our friends in Queensland and Victoria need massive aid in order to get back to normality and they must be our top priority.
Besides, if the review is thorough, it will take a year to sort out what has gone wrong in the past and what needs to be done in the future.
Aid should be to help the poor and disadvantaged not a source of income for the rich. When you volunteer your expertise and services, I'll believe you are genuine.
Maybe these consultants can donate their fee to the flood victims. Surely they (the consultants) have enough wealth already.
Posted by: Trevor Freestone. | 20 January 2011 at 08:23 PM