AusAID has transparency problems: audit

Australia's international aid agency, AusAID, is afflicted with problems of
transparency, accountability and a lack of communication capacity, an audit has
found.
High staff turnover within the agency is another concern that may have even hindered
responses to Papua New Guinea's HIV/AIDS epidemic, the Australian National Audit
Office (ANAO) report stated.
AusAID represents 83 per cent of Australia's annual $3.8 billion aid budget,
spending $3.2 billion a year on programs in the Pacific, Asia, Latin America and
Africa, with Papua New Guinea and Indonesia the largest recipients of aid.
Jenny Hayward-Jones, of the Lowy Institute's Melanesia Program, said such a
widespread program was poor use of taxpayers' money.
"The interest in Africa and Latin America of late is really motivated by Australia's
desire to be elected to the UN Security Council," she said.
Australia should focus on specific countries in the Asia Pacific region or
South-East Asia, she said.
The ANAO gave AusAID a tick of approval for handling the growth of its aid program
"in a way that supports delivery of effective aid".
But the 180-page report, tabled in federal parliament on November 26, found "AusAID
faces considerable management challenges amidst ongoing program growth".
The report stated that about 46 per cent of AusAID budgets went to "technical
assistance", twice the average of other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) countries.
Technical assistance covers administration costs and salaries for experts, advisers
or consultants for "capacity building" in a range of sectors.
But Australia had "a tendency to rely too much" on technical assistance while not
offering local staff greater responsibilities, the report found.
While promoting greater transparency and accountability through good governance
programs in countries like PNG, AusAID itself struggles with the concepts.
"AusAID's approach to classifying costs is not in line with conventional practice
and reduces the transparency of aid program expenditure, and the agency's
accountability for costs that it controls," the report stated.
Another hurdle was communication, with the report saying AusAID had "not yet
achieved effective internal collaboration".
"For two of the main posts, only six per cent of Australian public servant staff in
Honiara, and only eight per cent in Port Moresby, agreed communication between
different areas of AusAID was effective."
Dissatisfaction was due to a "lack of understanding between Canberra and posts, and
insufficient or ineffective communication from the executive and other senior
management".
Countries and agencies working with AusAID "consistently" listed high levels of
staff turnover as a "dominant concern" in "a long-term problem" reducing program
effectiveness.
An AusAID 2007 review of the Timor Leste program found staff turnover in Canberra
was a major deficiency, while AusAID's 2005 evaluation of the PNG National HIV/AIDS
Support Project found "rapid turnover of AusAID personnel responsible for the
activity may have hindered timely responses to problems".
Australia's aid program had been increased by 42 per cent since 2004-05 and is
likely to double in size by 2016 with a projected $8 billion spent a year.
AID/WATCH spokesman Gary Lee said the important issue was the quality of aid not
quantity.
"AusAID say they are increasing their aid commitment but who is that money reaching?
"What is the actual impact of that money on the ground and who is having a say over
how the aid money is being distributed?" he asked.