Conflicting partner demands a challenge for Australia's new development policy

CANBERRA — The expert panel reviewing Australia’s new international development policy has a tough task ahead. Submissions from NGOs, research institutes, partner governments, and the private sector have presented the panel with a range of conflicting calls to consider as they make recommendations to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Australian government. From the budget to the region and the sectoral priorities, the submissions provide a range of diverse recommendations reflecting the priorities of the authors. Working within budgets vs. a generous aid program Australia’s leadership, including Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Minister for International Development and the Pacific Alex Hawke, has continued to discuss the fact that the Australian aid budget will not be expanding. Among submissions was an acceptance of the fact that budget limitations would exist. “Australia cannot do everything everywhere,” a submission from development consulting company Abt Associates reads. “Choices must be made to invest in those sectors which will have the greatest return on Australia’s investment.” Working within this budget means that Australian aid needs to focus on a narrower set of drivers and sectors than it currently does, which Abt Associates believes would enable greater value for money “than spreading the aid program thinly across many sectors.” “Likeminded development partners and Governments can be encouraged [to] ‘pick up the tab’ in sectors Australia will not focus.” But for most, the calls were to expand the aid budget for Australia. “As one of the wealthiest nations in the world that takes pride in punching above its weight globally, and as a society that values being a good neighbour, a new International Development Policy should make ambitious and generous commitments,” the submission from Australian Baptist Ministries reads. “It should begin with a timetabled plan to grow Australia’s investment in aid toward the internationally agreed target of 0.7% of [gross national income], and also include a commitment to using other instruments of legislation and foreign policy to improve the lives of vulnerable populations.” The calls for budget increases were echoed throughout submissions from NGOs in particular. An Indo-Pacific focus vs. a needs-based geographic footprint NGOs calling for a larger aid budget were also more likely to call for an expanded geographic footprint for Australian aid. “As a fundamental principle, Micah believes that Australia’s development assistance should be needs-based, focused on the areas of greatest disadvantage and those not on track to achieve the SDGs,” the submission from Micah Australia reads, saying aid investment “should be considered in the context of how Australia makes an investment in countries where poverty is still pervasive and human development is low.” This would enable more support in Africa, the Middle East, and other regions that Australia has stepped back from. But the existing regional focus on the Indo-Pacific was considered in other submissions as crucial to maintain — particularly when aid was considered an important component in Australia’s security. Chris Gardiner, CEO at the Institute for Regional Security, said in his submission that the aid program should continue in this region over the next 10 years, with a particular focus on Association of Southeast Asian Nations and Pacific Island Forum member states divided into two subregions — Southeast Asia and the South West Pacific. “Expenditure in countries such Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq and in the Palestinian Territories should be wound down and diverted,” he said. The focus, he believes, would help eliminate extreme poverty and a disease such as malaria in this region — more achievable than having a global focus. “Committing to such obviously positive and achievable outcomes, and being able to announce achievements country by country, would considerably strengthen public ownership of the aid program in Australia,” Gardiner said. An economic partnership vs. aid for Southeast Asia? In February, Hawke explained in a speech that the aid focus for Southeast Asia will change. Humanitarian assistance programs will continue to be maintained, but other programs will focus on economic and governance reforms to improve investment in the region. Indonesia, in particular, is a point of concern in any submissions that argue changes in financial support could see the country go backward on development gains — including from the Indonesian government itself. “While we have made great gains, poverty in Indonesia remains a key challenge,” Indonesian vice president Maruf Amin wrote in his submission. “People regularly move into and out of poverty, and the majority are not yet economically secure.” The Indonesian minister for national development planning, Suharso Monoarfa, said in his submission that it was critical to maintain development support despite expectations that Australian and Indonesia would transition to an economic partnership. “A focus on supporting Indonesia to innovate and strengthen its human capital through vocational education and training will help Indonesia consolidate development gains and improve equality of outcomes,” he said. “Working with Indonesia to address the issue of stunting through health, education, and a cleaner living environment can have the potential to improve the cognitive development of millions of Indonesian children, enabling them to better participate in the future workforce.” Abt Associates was also among the organizations advocating for Indonesia and “a small number of priority Southeast Asian countries where insecurity, instability, and economic stagnation is pressing and poses risks to Australia.” What should the priorities be? Conflicting messages existed on the key priorities that Australia should focus on in delivering an aid program in its aims of poverty and inequality reduction. Vision, gender, humanitarian need, hunger, economic development, and security were all priorities for various submissions. Climate change was also considered a major regional threat, potentially impacting all aspects of Australian investment including economic and security. But there were also calls for the aid program to be used to fund research and technology to solve environmental and other development challenges the world is facing. The Australian Institute of Maritime Science in its submission highlighted that its expertise has not played a major role in the aid program. But with the “critical importance of coral reef ecosystems to many Indo-Pacific island states,” it sees the need to focus on investment in science and technology to monitor, maintain, and support global reefs. “Australia is uniquely placed to lead the world in a global effort to save coral reef ecosystems, particularly in places like our own Indo-Pacific neighbourhood,” the submission reads. “With almost 50 percent of reefs in the Pacific currently considered threatened, ecological monitoring is critical to inform and guide the most efficient management interventions.” Expanded investment in “scientific expertise and research infrastructure” to utilize artificial intelligence and machine learning to assist with mapping and understanding the condition of coral reefs in the Pacific region is among the areas of investment they believe the aid program should consider. Increased investment in technology was also promoted by GSMA in its submission, saying donors have played a vital role to support emerging digital ecosystems for developing markets and Australian aid should continue this investment. “GSMA believes that mobile technology represents a key opportunity to address and promote inclusive growth and reduce poverty across the Indo-Pacific region and that mobile technology should be an important part of the new Australia International development policy,” it said. Mobile-enabled innovation to drive digital and financial inclusion of women and people with disabilities, and innovations that improve productivity and income for smallholder farmers were among the digital investments it recommended. Investment in increased research and development to support food security and agriculture were recommendations in submissions by CSIRO agricultural scientist Tony Fisher and the Crawford Fund. But with Hawke’s discussion of the review in February suggesting that many decisions have already been made, the question is whether these submissions and the diverse ideas they share will influence findings, or will simply enable arguments to be selected that support the decisions that have been made.