Words matter: Comparing discussions of New Zealand and Australian aid to the Pacific

CANBERRA — In November, Australia’s released its Foreign Policy White Paper, cementing the idea of aid to be promoted as an avenue to create regional security and a secure Australia. It is an objective that is commonly emphasized in the language used by the sitting government. Australia’s Minister for International Development and the Pacific Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, frequently emphasizes the role of aid in Australia’s “stability, prosperity, and security” when discussing Australia’s aid program. But next door, a very different approach to aid sparked attention in Australia, where continued aid cuts have been the norm. When New Zealand’s deputy prime minister and foreign minister, Winston Peters, addressed the Lowy Institute in Sydney on March 1 discussing his country’s “reset” on engagement and aid in Pacific, which will see a 180 million New Zealand dollar ($122 million) investment, with reasons far beyond regional security. “New Zealand must, over the term of this government, reverse this recent decline by expanding the size of our official development assistance program to help our Pacific neighbors improve their resilience, and through that their autonomy,” he told the audience. “There might not be votes in it, but it is the right thing to do and it shows New Zealand’s seriousness in being an active and good neighbor.” For aid delivery, does language surrounding the reasoning of donors matter? And what difference can it make? Observer insights Michael Powles, former New Zealand diplomat, told Devex that he believed there was a marked difference in the language used by both countries. “The difference is that while Australia seems — from Kiwiland [New Zealand] — to be obsessed with security considerations,” he said. “New Zealand focuses more on development and what I call ‘neighborly’ issues.” He believes it is important for donors to move beyond security when engaging with the Pacific. “I don't think Pacific countries like being viewed predominantly from security perspectives,” he said. While Terence Wood, research fellow at the Development Policy Centre, said there was a degree of difference in the language, he believed it is a difference that shouldn’t be overstated. “New Zealand must … [start] expanding the size of our official development assistance program to help our Pacific neighbors … There might not be votes in it, but it is the right thing to do.” --— Winston Peters, deputy prime minister and foreign minister of New Zealand “Although Australia — and particularly some Australian newspapers — is starting to talk about aid to the Pacific in more strategic terms, development objectives still get spoken about a lot,” Wood explained to Devex. “And although Winston Peters is foregrounding development objectives a lot in his language in New Zealand, he is also making reference to strategic objectives too, albeit less often.” Language influencing engagement in the Pacific The language used by nations surrounding their engagement was a possible indication of the way they would engage Pacific countries and contribute to their development objectives. Powles believes that for the Pacific, decisions by donors on who to partner with would go beyond money alone. “I think that usually, if not always, Pacific Island countries would be more influenced by substantive considerations,” he said. “But there can be a tendency in Canberra and Wellington to discount their capacity to make appropriate judgments in this area.” Wood said that that language matters less than the approaches taken — even though this might be reflected by the language being used. “One would imagine recipients would prefer donors who engage in a more partnership-oriented way,” he said. “Even then though, any such differences will be around the margins. Australia’s still going to be the main donor in Melanesia. And New Zealand’s still going to be the main donor in the Cook Islands and the other ‘realm states.’” The view from the Pacific Sakias Tameo, Papua New Guinea’s high commissioner to Australia, was more concerned with regional security as a collective objective of the region as a whole — rather than that of just Australia or New Zealand. “In terms of security, this is a collective area of interest for Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific,” he explained to Devex. “All of us have to benefit from it — it’s a shared responsibility.” And security, he said, could be very broad. “We have a lot of challenges and in defining security, you can look at it from transitional issues, cybersecurity, and natural phenomenon such as climate change,” he said. “That is a security issue. And then there are health issues affecting Pacific Island countries. “So security is a cross-cutting issue that can be seen in the context of almost everything — from the community level, national level to transnational.” In addressing issues of climate change, health, fisheries, and more, Tameo said solutions were best when Australia and New Zealand were supporting the Pacific. Tameo’s interest in language is more focused on how they plan to bring Pacific nations into decisions of where aid money is best spent. “Pacific people have our own characteristics and priorities and goals,” he said. “We know what is best for ourselves and we need partners coming in, but how we deal with things, perceive things, and our understanding is important. And things have to be done our way for long-term success.” What will be the impact of the two approaches? As to what the impact of the two aid approaches will be, Wood said it is too early to tell. “For now we are mostly dealing with rhetoric,” he said. “While we’re solely dealing with rhetoric, I think the bigger issues will be New Zealand rebuilding the development expertise in its aid program, and Australia removing all asylum seekers from Manus and Nauru. Australia really needs to be engaging with these two states focused solely on development, not with dual objectives. “In the long run, for both Australia and New Zealand, there is a question — will we avoid entering into strategic competition with China or not? If we don’t avoid the competition scenario, aid from both countries may get worse.” As for which approach is best, Wood believes that Tameo’s calls for strong Pacific engagement will win out. “The best approach is clearly one that focuses first and foremost on using aid to foster development in recipient countries,” he said. “Once you start giving aid for other reasons, aid is less likely to work.”