Australian aid: in the national interest

Keen aid-watchers will be aware of the Aid white paper process that is currently under way. Foreign Minister Downer has handpicked a team of people to undertake a review of the Australian aid program that is due to be handed down in March 2006. Interestingly the team picked by the foreign minister includes several major recipients of aid contracts. It would seem that drastically changing the aid program may not be in the interests of those who already attract a fair percentage from it. Additionally the public consultation process included just four public meetings in the major capital cities with no public submission process. In comparison, the recent Defence White Paper held 28 public meetings and took over 1,157 public submissions.

When questioned at one of the recent public meetings about the issue of “national interest” subverting the altruistic goals of the aid program, the government representative MHR Bruce Billson, stated he didn’t know why the “national interest” clause was not removed as it has been in the UK and the majority of European aid programs. Unfortunately this clause will not be considered for review in the White Paper process as it was deemed to be outside the terms of reference. No mention of any of the substantive issues raised at the public forum were included in any of the White Paper prepatory material released to form the nucleus of the paper. Apparently no meaningful public consultation, failure to address important issues and conflicts of interest are not considered to be good governance requirements.

Raising further concerns about Australia’s appropriateness to deliver “good governance” programs was a recent report from the OECD that found the Australian Government did not condemn the payment of monies by an Australian company to expedite an outcome that it desired and further that these payments were still legally able to be written off as tax deductions. The Australian Attorney General denied these problems were a poor reflection on Australia and its laws played down the seriousness of these matters.

Unpicking the good governance agenda

Putting aside Australia’s suitability to impose good governance on its aid recipients, there are other concerns about the type of good governance programs that Australia is promoting. A key concern that exists in recipient countries is the type of economic restructuring that Australia promotes. “Australian aid assists developing countries to undertake structural reforms to encourage the private sector to flourish” is typical of the Australian development dogma. While again it is difficult to argue with the wealth that has been created in Australia with the flourishing of the private sector, questions remain as to the suitability of the economic structuring being pressed for by Australia and the suitability of cultures, societies, social structures and local infrastructure to accommodate these drastic changes.

One key area Australia has controversially pushed for both bilaterally and through the World Bank has been the registration of customary land. A 2004 report from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade on the Solomon Islands clearly stated that traditional lands needed to be registered for that country to prosper. While land titling in Australia is crucial to the fabric of our lifestyles, in the Solomons, PNG and many other aid recipient countries customary land ownership is indicative of a very different social and cultural legacy.

The communal, village or tribe system of living is embodied by the traditional and often complex system of land ownership. Often land will be used and therefore owned by several different people, families and or groups for different purposes. Unpicking this complex web is tricky to say the least. In 2000 in PNG a protest about the World Bank's planned land registration project in that country ended in the deaths of four people. In a country like the Solomons or PNG where there has been ongoing problems with the government’s ability to provide services and many cases of corruption, even the possibility of a secure central registry to collate and oversee the titles for such a scheme is likely to face many problems.

Another interesting example of good governance - the Australian way - is the push to downsize the public sector in places like PNG. Foreign Minister Downer, when in PNG in 2003, encouraged PNG to downsize its defence force to less than 2,000 personnel or risk losing $20 million in Australian aid. For a country of over five million people this represents just 0.04 per cent of the population in the armed forces.

In comparison Australia has more than six times that number at a per capita rate of 0.26 per cent of the entire population in the army, navy and air force. It is difficult to surmise how PNG, bordering the troubled region of West Papua, could be forced to downsize, or “right-size” as the Australians now like to call it, any further.

Good governance to whom?

Australia’s suitability to push the good governance agenda is somewhat dubious - even before we know the outcome of the AWB Inquiry. Our record in aid delivery is drastically weighted in delivering to our own domestic commercial advantage and more recently, political advantage for its government. The focus on strengthening governance can be beneficial but it needs to be focused on assisting those who are most in need - and they are not the ones currently benefiting.

The lens of “national interest” through which the Australian aid program is delivered will always ensure Aussie aid kowtows to the slavish interests of business and politics. If Australia truly wants to promote human security and not just its own security, we need to do away with the “national interest” blinkers and deliver aid that goes to poor people. Good governance will be essential but it may just be that a more appropriate format will not be what Australia deems to be good governance but a mixture of traditional governance with a clear focus on ensuring the integrity of the people that it impacts upon.