Are the right 'experts' at the table for Australia's aid review?

CANBERRA — Consultations are underway for the new Australian international development policy, but some observers are raising questioning about the experts appointed to oversee the process. In December, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, along with Foreign Minister Marise Payne and Minister for International Development and the Pacific Alex Hawke, began roundtable discussions with key stakeholders on the priorities for the next phase of the Australian aid program. “This panel is very much focused on Australian government and private sector interests. ... They [DFAT] have put together a panel that will give them the recommendations they want.” --— Susan Engel, associate professor, University of Wollongong An appointed panel of experts will examine the provided information to advise DFAT and its ministers on what the new priorities should be and what performance framework should be used to assess the policy. But Australian development observers have raised concerns that these appointees are not the right experts for the job and may instead be selected to reinforce the Australian aid program’s refocus on national security and trade. “The members of the expert panel have substantial relevant experience,” Anthony Zwi, professor of global health and development at the University of New South Wales, told Devex. “Collectively however, the expert panel seems to reflect an approach to global development that positions it primarily as a vehicle for supporting national security, expanding the role of the private sector, and promoting aid and trade, and seeing development funding as a vehicle for advancing diplomatic objectives.” Who are the experts advising on international development policy? Six experts have been appointed to the panel to support and advise the new process. At the head is panel chair Dennis Richardson, previously the secretary of DFAT and deputy secretary of the now-defunct Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Richardson brings a wealth of foreign policy knowledge, including from his experience as Australian ambassador to the United States, but not necessarily any in development. His two-year tenure as the head of DFAT ended in 2012, prior to the AusAID agency being merged into the department. Where his expertise lies is in national security and defense — he was director-general of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and secretary of the Department of Defence for roughly five years. Jane Prentice is a former federal member of Australia’s Parliament and former assistant minister for social services and disability services. Her appointment to the panel is one of the most controversial. Prentice lost a bid for reelection under unusual circumstances, with her own party voting against her for preselection. Her role on the panel of experts could easily be seen as an appointment to heal bad blood, but she did show interest in international development while an MP. Through speeches, visits to Pacific nations, and heading an Australian delegation to observe the recent vote for independence in Bougainville, she indicated a motivation to better target the aid program and engage the private sector. Another controversial appointment is Lynda Cheng, director of corporate development and mergers and acquisitions at Pratt Holdings. Cheng brings the view of the private sector, and a perspective outside of politics, to this panel. She is also a board member for Export Finance Australia, a role that connects her to the Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific program and what the private sector can bring to the table to support the new program for loans and grants. But Pratt Holdings is also a major donor to Australia’s Liberal Party at the federal and state levels. Recent data from the Australian Electoral Commission shows Pratt Holdings donated 205,000 Australian dollars — roughly $150,000 at the time — for the 2017-18 fiscal year, with links between Australian Prime Minister and Liberal Party leader Scott Morrison and the company recently on show during a U.S. tour in September 2019. Bringing in a gender focus is Catherine Walker, who has served as a board member for U.N. Women Australia since 2014. She also has 22 years of experience with the Australian aid program, including senior development roles overseas. Jack de Groot, CEO of the St. Vincent de Paul Society NSW, aims to represent the voice of nonprofits. His previous roles include CEO of Caritas Australia, vice president of the Australian Council for International Development, and chair of the Make Poverty History campaign. His appointment also indicates a link to faith-based groups. And bringing an academic perspective is James Batley, a distinguished policy fellow in the Coral Bell School of Asia Pacific Affairs at the Australian National University. Batley took up his post at ANU in 2015 after a long career with DFAT, which included appointments as Australia's high commissioner to Solomon Islands and deputy director-general of AusAID. Assessing the experts In assessing the panel, Zwi noted the “considerable content expertise” related to social justice, women, Timor-Leste, and the Pacific. But he saw a dearth of on-the-ground experience in least-developed countries and knowledge related to eradicating poverty and the promotion of human rights, he said. “Most concerning is the lack of expertise in tackling the biggest issue facing us all: climate change, global warming, and the urgent need to transition to a green economy,” he said. Alison Broinowski, from the ANU College of Asia and the Pacific, echoed this criticism. “I imagine those appointed to the panel will be people whose advice can be expected to be useful to DFAT,” she told Devex. “They might, therefore, be unlikely to propose prioritizing development related to climate change or global warming and more interested in competing with China in Pacific Island states.” Susan Engel, associate professor of politics and international studies at the University of Wollongong, agreed that the panel appeared to be set up to reinforce existing views and policy priorities. “This panel is very much focused on Australian government and private sector interests and how to further them,” she told Devex. “They [DFAT] have put together a panel that will give them the recommendations they want.” And according to Engel, this meant the panel was missing the necessary expertise on aid and development to take the program forward. “There is very little critical or new thinking on aid and development,” she said. “There is no academic expertise on poverty or social justice or inequality.” The absence of Pacific voices also indicated that the panel would be limited in its ability to understand and target Australian aid to best support recipients. Engel said that lack of partner representation further highlights that the review and panel is focused on Australian interests. She further suggested that the panel may not be in a position to create change. “There doesn't seem to be much policy space for them to make changes, but if they do, that will mean further chopping and changing in the aid program, which has already seen a lot of churn,” Engel said. “And, as the aid effectiveness agenda has made clear, this is not good practice.” Advice for the panel To make up for missing expertise, Broinowski advised that the panel should visit recipient countries of Australia’s official development assistance to directly ask what they need. Assessing Australia’s steady decline in ODA and the impact this may have on obligations to the Sustainable Development Goals, Broinowski said, should also be a priority. Taking full advantage of the review to reframe Australia’s standing as an international development leader was a priority for Zwi. “If Australia is to regain the respect and credibility it once had in relation to global development, it will need to do much much more to repair its current disappointing reputation,” he said. “This review offers opportunities for the Australian community to set out its concerns, to restate its commitment to global citizenship, and for the Australian government to repair its poor reputation.” But Zwi questioned whether the chosen experts were the right people for the job. “A critical but constructive expert panel which has a more transformative agenda is required,” he said.