4.1
Submissions were received discussing the engagement of civil society and other key groups with the Pacific Step-up at that time. Groups working in the Pacific discussed Australia’s aid funding framework, and the ways in which this influences the operation and governance of civil society groups in the Pacific.
4.2
Considerations that inform the balance of targeting measures across the whole of society were also discussed. Submissions described a variety of perceptions of what the Pacific Step-up constituted, and whether it was appropriately focused. These perceptions are considered within the understanding that ‘elements of gender equality cannot easily be segmented by theme or topic – for a donor’s or a program’s convenience.’
4.3
As noted in the introduction to this report, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) states that ‘the Step-up was first announced at the Pacific Island Forum Leaders’ Meeting in September 2016 as a “step-change” in the way [Australia] would engage the region.’ Initiatives, such as the Pacific Labour Scheme for mobility commenced in July 2018.
4.4
On 8 November 2018, the Australian Government announced further initiatives under this Pacific Step-up. DFAT stated ‘under the Pacific Step-up Australia is making its highest ever contribution to Pacific development in 2019-20 with an estimated $1.4 billion, realising new opportunities for gender equality.’ In November 2018, the following initiatives were announced as part of the broader Pacific Step-up program:
Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific, a $2 billion infrastructure initiative to significantly boost Australia’s support for infrastructure development in Pacific countries and Timor-Leste.
[Opening of] diplomatic missions in Palau, the Marshall Islands, French Polynesia, Niue and the Cook Islands. This will mean that Australia is represented in every member country of the Pacific Islands Forum.
Establish an enduring rotational ADF Pacific Mobile Training Team [and] put in place arrangements to ensure that Australia has a dedicated vessel to deliver [humanitarian] support to our partners in the Pacific.
Consultation
4.5
DFAT’s COVID-19 strategy, Partnerships for Recovery, resulted in a change of priorities for the Pacific Step-up. DFAT, in July 2020, stated that:
Minister Payne has led regional-level discussions with Pacific women leaders and Minister Hawke has led public consultations to inform Australia’s development response strategy, Partnerships for Recovery, which prioritises women’s safety, reproductive health and rights and women’s economic empowerment as part of our development response to COVID-19.
4.6
The Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS) and the Pacific Community (SPC) stated that the Pacific Step-up ‘places engagement with Pacific countries at the centre of the initiative, and as one of [Australia’s] highest foreign policy priorities.’
4.7
The PIFS-SPC, in July 2020, raised concerns about the level of engagement with local civil society groups as part of the Pacific Step-up. The PIFS-SPC stated that ‘Pacific groups (governments and civil society)’ that it ‘consulted have heard of Pacific Step-up, however most are not across the details of the initiative, particularly how it fits with existing interventions and support for regional and national human rights commitments.’ The PIFS-SPC elaborated that ‘some stakeholders consulted for this submission were unsure whether or not they had been engaged or involved with Pacific Step-up.’
4.8
The United Nations Country Teams in the Pacific (UNCTP) stated that ‘development partners working in the gender equality space have limited engagement with Australia’s Pacific Step-Up and may benefit from more systematic engagement’.
4.9
UnitingWorld acknowledged the engagement by the Australian Government with Pacific churches, and suggested this approach should be repeated across the broader Step-up:
The Church Partnership Program section of the Australian Government’s Pacific Step up has shown commendable leadership in building connections with Pacific Churches. A key step was prioritising meeting with Pacific Church leaders at the Pacific Conference of Churches Pacific Church Leaders Meeting. The Churches’ priorities, concerns and desired engagement could be heard and inform the Pacific Step-up’s mode of collaboration with Pacific Churches. This approach should be a blueprint for the broader Pacific Step-up engagement within the Pacific.
4.10
In June 2021, DFAT advised that additional engagements had been undertaken throughout 2020 and the first half of 2021.
4.11
World Vision observed the exclusion of women with disabilities from ‘regional and national initiatives, policy, programs and services’, and noted that ‘unique forms of discrimination require holistic responses from lawmakers and policymakers alike.’ CBM Australia stated that targeted engagement should be more deliberate:
Australia’s Pacific Step-up has driven prioritised engagement with a number of representative women’s organisations through the Pacific Women network and existing relationships with regional bodies such as the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS) and the Pacific Community (SPC). However, targeted engagement with women with disabilities has been less intentional.
Locally led development
4.12
Inquiry participants presented a consensus on the value of official development assistance directly supporting locally led initiatives. The Localisation Policy Note published by DFAT defines localisation in the following terms:
For Australia, localisation means recognising, respecting and strengthening leadership and decision-making by national and local actors in humanitarian action, in order to better address the needs of affected populations.
4.13
DFAT stated that its Pacific Women program was ‘a deliberate strategy to reach more women and girls with practical support services through local organisations which respond to the diverse and culturally specific needs of women across Pacific island countries.’
4.14
The funding of crisis centres was presented by DFAT as an illustration of how Australian Government funding could enable a local organisation to grow into a stable institution:
… Vanuatu originally had a crisis centre that was really just run out of a house, a very local initiative. What we’ve been able to do through this program is to institutionalise that and support them through funding for them to institutionalise it. So there are now crisis centres across Vanuatu’s provinces, which do not just provide services for women but also support men, who are important to engage with in this space. And that’s really the ongoing lesson for the program—you need to have long-term, predictable support for these countries to grow themselves, and they need to institutionalise their own institutions in their own country.
4.15
The Australian Red Cross stated that Government is ‘well-placed to require that partner multilateral organisations’ take actions to ‘support for locally led programs:
Power imbalances, which continue to undermine the human rights of women and girls in the Pacific, can be addressed by supporting local women’s organisations and initiatives that foster women leaders at all levels of decision making. It is important that funding mechanisms and opportunities are structured to enable and encourage local organisations, in particular those focused on women and girls, to access and receive international humanitarian funding without having to compete with international actors.
4.16
At the World Humanitarian Summit 2016, Australia committed to the Grand Bargain, which included a commitment for signatories to ‘achieve by 2020 a global, aggregated target of at least 25 per cent of humanitarian funding to local and national responders as directly as possible to improve outcomes for affected people and reduce transactional costs.’ ActionAid Australia stated that ‘the Government should develop a clear pathway over the next 12 months to meet its Grand Bargain commitment.
4.17
DFAT’s 2020–2021 self-report against Grand Bargain commitments states that ‘a localisation practice note’ was in draft form in February 2021. The self-report also states that:
We require all partners to submit localisation plans that outline how they intend to strengthen the capacity and influence of their downstream partners over the course of the multi-year agreement. … We encourage intermediaries to pass down an appropriate portion of the overhead costs to local/national partners to support institutional strengthening.
Capacity to access aid funding
4.18
DFAT stated that it ‘works with civil society organisations’ which have varying capacity levels ‘through a mix of funding mechanisms’:
Using partnerships with established organisations helps us to manage the risk of working with small local organisations, which are often best placed to deliver effective services, but which may not have the capacity or systems in place, working alone, to satisfy Australian Government standards.
4.19
The Australian Council for International Development stated that ‘some organisations do not have the capacity or desire to service the high levels of compliance required on DFAT grants.’ The PIFS-SPC stated that ‘many smaller and community based [civil society organisations] cannot access funding at all’, explaining that:
… many requirements of existing grant programmes – including having undergone formal audits, having certain polices in place, or being able to conduct in-depth scoping, analysis, or evaluation – exclude community based CSOs. Similarly, many smaller organisations do not have the absorptive capacity to take on larger grants or execute significant budgets, especially when project-based funding has only marginal allocations to management and administration.
4.20
Cardno stated in July 2020 that it was ‘uncommon for Australian development programs to be locally led’, and it supported ‘DFAT’s process of initiating a “localisation agenda”‘. However, Cardno outlined the challenges associated with local and ‘international expert’ leadership models, explaining that:
More often, at the leadership level, program management functions, such as financial management and procurement, are prioritised and typically filled by ‘international’ experts. While these functions are fundamental to protecting Australian taxpayer funds (including from fraud risks and upholding safeguards, such as child protection), local contextual knowledge and associated skills are also essential for achieving desired program outcomes and realising value for money from Australian aid spend. Sometimes, local personnel are put in leadership roles and valued for their contextual knowledge and relationships, but then penalised for not having perfect written English or knowing how to submit reports to DFAT in exactly the right format.
4.21
Cardno stated that it dealt with these challenges by establishing teams where ‘wholly local’ leadership teams ‘drive the program and make the decisions, with the support of others as needed.’ Cardno advised that the recruited international personnel ‘help [the local leadership] translate their vision into practice and support them [to] meet donor accountability requirements.’
4.22
It was suggested by the International Women’s Development Agency (IWDA) that non-government organisations acting as intermediaries for funding local organisations should be engaged on the condition that they be ‘held accountable for demonstrating improvements in the capacity of local partners through clear benchmarks included in contracts.’ The IWDA contended that while intermediary funding channels mitigate some risks, they also exacerbate others:
The use of intermediaries is largely focused on mitigating the institutional risks created by working through smaller providers; however, the addition of a third party comes with its own risks to program effectiveness. This extra layer can dilute control, decrease responsibility, reduce access to information and networks for both donor and implementer, and increase contract uncertainty.
4.23
The IWDA also identified that there was a need to ‘invest in DFAT staffing and capacity’ to allow DFAT to ‘actively manage tailored partnership arrangements and complex designs and contracts’.
Areas of focus for the Pacific Step-up
4.24
Inquiry participants expressed different views as to whether the Step-up had engaged with the most critical areas of need. This was seen in discussions about infrastructure development, economic empowerment, education and training. The COVID-19 pandemic also crystallised the importance of health systems.
4.25
Some submissions suggested additional areas the Step-up might focus upon to advance the human rights of women and girls in the Pacific islands. These areas included:
Domestic violence prevention
Protection of children from violence
Water, sanitation and hygiene
Decriminalisation of homosexuality
4.26
As discussed in Chapter 3, the underlying drivers of issues facing women and girls are interlinked and complex. Walk Free recognised that ‘investment in addressing the drivers of modern slavery will also work to tackle many other social, health and economic issues that co-exist in the region.’
Focus on infrastructure
4.27
Submissions presented differing views about the appropriateness of the Pacific Step-up’s focus on infrastructure development and whether it may sideline women and girls’ human rights.
4.28
More generally, the Committee has continued to hear since its 2015 report about the effectiveness of ‘gender mainstreaming’ across the aid program, that is, the ‘concept of assessing the different implications for women and men of any planned policy action, including legislation and programmes in all areas and at all levels.’
4.29
The DFAT Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Strategy states that the Australian Government ‘takes a twin-track approach to gender equality.’ DFAT stated:
In addition to gender-targeted investments, the Australian Government incorporates gender equality through Australia’s stepped up engagement to support a more resilient Pacific, through economic, security and people-to-people initiatives in our bilateral and regional investments in sectors such as health, education, law and justice, governance and economic growth.
4.30
The Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) outlined that ‘it works to empower women and girls and improve greater gender equity in all projects,’ and elaborated:
Project proposals must address gendered social relations from design to completion including the composition of research teams, any gender differentiated impacts, and application of the ‘do no harm’ principle.
4.31
The ‘do no harm’ principle is one of four principles underpinning the Australian Government’s second National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security 2021-2031. The National Action Plan states ‘in this context, a “do no harm” approach means maximising positive outcomes for women and girls, men and boys, while minimising any unintended potential harm that could arise from our actions.’
4.32
ActionAid Australia agreed that ‘to be most effective the Government should adopt a twin track approach that invests in both standalone programming that has gender equality as its central objective, alongside mainstreaming gender equality outcomes across all other investments.’
4.33
World Vision described that ‘the focus of the Pacific Step-up to [July 2020] has been primarily on financing economic infrastructure and strengthening defence ties, instead of addressing the pressing social challenges facing women and girls in the region’, and further recommended that:
… the Government’s Pacific Step-up integrates a stronger focus on the issues raised [including] women’s empowerment, child protection, social transformation, climate resilience and inclusive community development.
4.34
The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) commented that along with funding reductions, an ‘emphasis on large infrastructure projects and specific cuts to health care spending within the [official development assistance] will’ contribute to ‘a slowing or detrimental effect on the achievement of human rights for women and girls in the Pacific.’ Family Planning NSW echoed concerns about the redirection of funding:
The Step-up focuses on financial and structural development of the Pacific region and uses funds that have been redirected from programs that focused on health and education. Without health and education development programs, improvements in hard-infrastructure allow people who already have opportunities to take advantage of Step-up initiatives, leaving many women and girls behind.
4.35
The value of infrastructure development that incorporates the needs of women and girls was described by the Australian Red Cross:
It is important the [Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific] is not gender neutral and potential gendered impacts are taken into account at all stages of infrastructure project development. There is an opportunity for Australia to contribute to gender equality and women’s empowerment through the Facility as well as mitigating against potentially harmful or negative consequences (such as perpetuating existing gender inequality), but this needs to be part of the framework, analysis, development, implementation and monitoring of projects.
4.36
Infrastructure was recognised by the UNCTP to have ‘a gendered dimension’ but stated that infrastructure is ‘only one component of the larger agenda in working towards women’s human rights more broadly.’
Focus on economic prosperity
4.37
The interplay between economic stimulation and the advancement of human rights, and what this meant for official development assistance, was discussed in some submissions.
4.38
DFAT highlighted that it is ‘investing in gender equality through mainstreaming’ women and girls issues. As part of its Partnerships for Recovery strategy, DFAT recognised the heightened economic insecurity facing women and girls as a result of the pandemic:
We will invest in gender equality and women’s economic empowerment. Women are shouldering much of the economic burden of COVID-19. They are more vulnerable to economic insecurity during crises due to an increase in unpaid domestic labour. They often hold less stable jobs, rely on the informal economy for their livelihoods, and may not be part of policy-making processes.
4.39
The International Consortium for Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights emphasised that gender equality is a precondition to economic prosperity as ‘achieving economic prosperity will be impossible without realising gender equality and the prioritisation of the rights of women and girls, including [sexual and reproductive health and rights].’ The Consortium emphasised that this will require:
… incorporating gender-based analyses when financing infrastructure initiatives to ensure the needs of women and girls and other marginalised groups are included and prioritised. Meaningful engagement with community leaders and local civil society, including women and girl-focused organisations can ensure Step-up initiatives such as labour mobility and sporting programs are accessible and responsive to the needs of these groups.
4.40
Oaktree stated that ‘increasing young women’s opportunities to participate in the Pacific labour market is more vital now than ever, so they can further contribute to the Pacific’s economic recovery process, following the COVID-19 pandemic.’ Oaktree elaborated that this may stimulate broader economic benefits:
Investment to galvanise the economic participation of young women also strengthens Australia’s commitments under the Pacific Step-up. This includes our shared vision of an economically prosperous region, which in turn, paves the foundation for greater regional stability and security.
4.41
Concerns were voiced by ActionAid Australia that trade liberalisation as a result of ‘the PACER Plus agreement could negatively impact on women’s rights and gender equality across a range of spheres.’ ActionAid elaborated that ‘the reduction in trade tariffs could reduce available resources for public services that support gender equality’ and raised concerns that:
The agreement could also threaten women’s livelihoods by increasing competition in sectors with the highest rate of women’s participation, such as small holder farming and industries in their infancy such as garment manufacturing and food processing.
Focus on education and training
4.42
Improving education outcomes in the Pacific islands was posited by inquiry participants as important to advancing gender equality. The Committee in its 2015 report stated that ‘the right to education is a basic human right, and an essential foundation for efforts to empower women and girls and enable them to achieve their potential,’ and discussed evidence that ‘highlighted a range of factors that contribute to lower levels of education and poorer outcomes for girls and women.’
4.43
DFAT stated it was ‘looking for transformative change, which does mean supporting young women leaders to become the future leaders in their specific countries.’
4.44
World Vision stated that ‘access to education does lead to increased human capital. Investment in education is an investment in the future for all these communities across the Pacific.’ RESULTS Australia stated that ‘educated girls can bring about unprecedented social and economic changes to their families and communities’, and further stated:
The World Bank has noted the following benefits of girls’ education: ‘Better educated women tend to be healthier, participate more in the formal labour market, earn higher incomes, have fewer children, marry at a later age, and enable better health care and education for their children, should they choose to become mothers. All these factors combined can help lift households, communities, and nations out of poverty.’
4.45
Melbourne Children’s Global Health similarly highlighted the importance of education, stating that ‘the largest determinant of child health is female literacy.’
4.46
The Pasifika Women’s Alliance suggested that a ‘brain-drain’ in the Pacific was occurring:
… there is a lack of infrastructure to cater to the educational and employment demands of the people, which has caused a massive ‘brain-drain’ as more of the advantaged Pacific people leave their countries to live in Australia and New Zealand mainly.
4.47
In offering improved educational and skill development opportunities in Australia, DFAT recognised that Australia did not ‘want to contribute to brain drain in the Pacific. We want their skilled labour to go back and use that to start up businesses.’
4.48
DFAT stated it was important for Australia to ‘engage with Pacific governments to spend more of their money on education’ in their own countries. DFAT detailed that the quality of, and not access to, education was often inhibiting women and girls:
Access [to education] is actually not too bad in the Pacific. It’s pretty equal for women and men. The issue is quality, and it’s also the transition from primary school to secondary [education] and then on to higher skills. That’s actually really where the constraint is. So we’re shifting more of our focus to secondary with the Pacific and with partnerships like the Global Partnership for Education, because that secondary space is where we are going to get those emerging leaders coming from.
4.49
The Australian National University (ANU) Development Policy Centre similarly stated that ‘the quality of education is a major concern’:
… it’s not only about getting children into school or even necessarily about spending money but about making sure that translates into quality education.
4.50
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Institute for Statistics maintains national monitoring statistics on education, including data disaggregated by male and female. On page here, Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 lists enrolment statistics for primary education in Pacific island countries. On page here, Table 4.3 and Table 4.4 lists enrolment statistics for secondary education in Pacific island countries.
4.51
Table 4.1 shows that 15 out of 22 countries targeted as part of the Pacific Step-up have good enrolment rates for girls in primary education across their population. This is reflected by these countries’ gross enrolment ratio indicator for girls in primary education being above 90 per cent. This is further discussed at Paragraph 4.73.
4.52
Levels of engagement with secondary education for girls is reduced, with Table 4.3 reflecting that only 9 out of 22 countries targeted as part of the Pacific Step-up have a gross enrolment ratio for girls in secondary education that is above 90 per cent.
4.53
Generally, enrolment levels of girls in primary and secondary education has improved over time. However, there are significant gaps in the data obtained by UNESCO. Notably, data is not consistently available for all Pacific island countries. Some of the indicators included in Tables 4.1 to 4.4 did not have data reported for years after 2015 for American Samoa, Fiji, French Polynesia, Guam, Kiribati, Micronesia (Federated States of), New Caledonia, Palau, Solomon Islands. Only 10 out of 22 nations listed as part of the Pacific Step-up had data reported for the number of female students enrolled in primary education for 2019.
4.54
World Vision Australia highlighted concerns that ‘Australia’s aid investments in education are predominantly focused on adult scholarships and not primarily on children’s education.’
4.55
To see progress, the IWDA stated an ‘understanding why boys and girls are engaging differently in the education sector, why they’re dropping out of school and what is there for the kids when they finish their education’ is required.
4.56
DFAT described that ‘very little comprehensive education regarding sexuality is made available to girls and boys, and school-based “family life education” programs are often limited and face opposition from gatekeepers.’
4.57
The UNCTP observed that Pacific governments used education curricula as an:
… important mechanism for transforming gender relations, gender norms, contextualising cultural contexts, prevention of gender-based violence, and importantly instilling in young people a strong understanding of choice, responsibility, agency, social citizenship, and the promotion and protection of human rights.
4.58
The UNCTP also advised that it is working closely with Ministries of Education across the Pacific to ‘ensure the standardisation of curriculums with international best standards and practices.’
4.59
The Shifting the Power Coalition recognised a need to ‘raise the standards or raise the understanding of why we are working for women’s rights and gender equality’ within national curriculums and community education programs.
4.60
Cardno detailed how education curriculums and programs in the Pacific islands can be audited for inclusion of gender objectives:
If you did an audit of the kinds of materials that a school might be using and the way that girls and boys or men and women might be portrayed in those materials—the kinds of roles they’re playing, the stereotypes that emerge—that would be one example of how people’s ideas of male and female roles and the appropriate relationships between them get shaped from that young age and through the education system.
4.61
DFAT also identified that the achievement of gender parity in access to education does not guarantee women’s economic empowerment on its own:
Forum Island Countries except Kiribati, Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands have achieved gender parity in access to primary and secondary education. However, this is not necessarily translating into opportunities for economic empowerment for a number of reasons, including a lack of reintegration to the workforce for mothers and legislation that directly and indirectly limits women’s access to employment opportunities or contributes to discriminatory pay and conditions for women.’
4.62
The Shifting the Power Coalition stated that improving educational outcomes needed improvements across other areas of society, including ‘information communications technology that is appropriate and accessible’.
Focus on health needs
4.63
Submissions were received prior and during the pivot of the Pacific Step-up to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. Some groups perceived that the earlier announcements relating to Pacific Step-up activities did not adequately focus on supporting health systems.
4.64
DFAT detailed that following consultations, it would be seeking to revise its approach to health and gender programs:
There’s an opportunity to strengthen linkages between our health programs, particularly the ones that focus on sexual and reproductive health and gender. Traditionally, they’ve been separate in DFAT, where we’ve had health programs and gender programs. We’re bringing those together so that there are much stronger linkages, and we can use the networks, particularly of Pacific women, to drive effectiveness on sexual and reproductive health programs, because it’s a component, again, of not only service delivery but also advocacy and community awareness.
4.65
The specific impacts of disease that are felt by women was highlighted by Results International Australia, which stated that ‘statistically, women are less likely to seek medical help than men, often due to issues such as lower levels of literacy or being worried about the impact on their family.’
4.66
DFAT detailed that ‘maternal health in an ongoing issue in the Pacific’, and referred to maternal mortality statistics for Pacific island countries reported by UNICEF:
The average maternal mortality ratio is 84 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births, according to UN-validated estimates from 2015, which means the region is a long way from reaching international development targets. Importantly, these estimates are based on data from seven countries only, and may be unstable because they often relate to small numbers of deaths per country per year.
4.67
The International Planned Parenthood Foundation (IPPF) highlighted that ‘the Pacific Step-up does not specifically mention health and has no targeted funding support towards health systems strengthening.’ The IPPF accordingly welcomed the focus in DFAT’s COVID-19 response, Partnerships for Recovery, ‘on strengthening health systems.’
4.68
The IPPF acknowledged that DFAT’s funding of programs aimed at improving sexual and reproductive health and rights access in the region had seen successes. The IPPF provided the example of DFAT’s support for the Niu Vaka Pacific Strategy 2019-2022, which ensured that:
In 2019 alone, almost 500,000 [sexual and reproductive health and rights] services, and almost 1 million health services overall, were delivered in the Pacific. This long-term investment has allowed Member Associations to increase mobile outreach services, enhance youth engagement, build a robust and vibrant volunteer and peer support network and reach people with [sexual and reproductive health and rights] services and awareness programmes in some communities for the first time.
Humanitarian and disaster relief vessel
4.69
As part of the Pacific Step-up, the Prime Minister announced on 8 November 2018 that ‘the Government will also put in place arrangements to ensure that Australia has a dedicated vessel to deliver our support to our partners in the Pacific. Its duties will include humanitarian assistance and response.’ The Defence Minister stated that this was a ‘commitment to a large-hulled humanitarian and disaster relief vessel that would operate semi-permanently operating in the south west Pacific.’
4.70
Through other concurrent inquiries examining the Pacific Step-up, the JSCFADT on 4 September 2020 conducted a public hearing with representatives of Pacific governments. The Deputy High Commissioner for Papua New Guinea, Mr Tameo, referred to the medical ships operated by Youth with a Mission (YWAM) and stated:
That would really help a lot because we need a lot of health facilities and health workers out there. I'm sure that would also be beneficial in other Pacific island countries. Imagine bringing a hospital next to a community that would never have an opportunity to access facilities and doctors.
4.71
The High Commissioner for the Solomon Islands, Mr Sisilo, stated ‘it certainly would be a very useful thing if we have a medical ship or health vessel with a multipurpose role going around the islands, especially the rural areas where health facilities are very much wanting.’ Mr Sisilo elaborated:
I come from a Polynesian atoll in the Solomons that is really on the outskirts of the country. The only way to get there is by boat, and the boat goes there once every three months—if you are lucky. Most of the time the clinic at home is without medication or medicines, and even without a registered nurse, so it's really a challenge for some of our outlying islands. If we had this kind of vessel working in Solomon Islands, visiting the islands every now and then, that would certainly be a game changer. It would also prevent people from coming every now and then to the main town. It can be very expensive coming over to Honiara, and then you have to spend another two or three months before the next boat goes back.
Education indicators for Pacific island countries
4.72
The following tables provide education enrolment statistics for Pacific islands countries, as published in the UNESCO Institute for Statistics’ national education monitoring dataset. There are significant periods where data is not available for some Pacific island countries. Accordingly, the data presented for each country is the most recent data available (generally 2019) and the earliest data available in the 30 year period from 1990 to 2020.
4.73
The school age population in Table 4.1 and Table 4.3 provides the number of girls, based on their age, that could be expected to be in primary or secondary education in that country.
4.74
The gross enrolment ratio (GER) listed in Table 4.1 and Table 4.3 measures the ‘general level of participation’ in primary and secondary education by girls in a country, by providing a percentage of the number of girls enrolled in primary (or secondary) education against the school age population. As the GER counts the ‘number of students enrolled in a given level of education, regardless of age,’ the GER can exceed 100 per cent as it accounts for over-age or under-age children enrolled in a particular level of education.
4.75
The UNESCO Institute for Statistics suggests that:
A high GER generally indicates a high degree of participation, whether the pupils belong to the official age group or not. A GER value approaching or exceeding 100% indicates that a country is, in principle, able to accommodate all of its school-age population, but it does not indicate the proportion already enrolled.
4.76
Table 4.2 and Table 4.3 provide the number of ‘individuals officially registered in’ primary or secondary education ‘regardless of age.’
Table 4.1:
Gross enrolment ratio (GER) of school age female population in primary education
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
American Samoa
|
1992
|
88.1
|
-12.0
|
4,278
|
+243
|
|
American Samoa
|
1990
|
100.1
|
|
4,035
|
|
|
Cook Islands
|
2019
|
112.7
|
+8.8
|
797
|
-510
|
|
Cook Islands
|
1997
|
103.8
|
|
1,307
|
|
|
Fiji
|
2019
|
114.2
|
+5.6
|
51,084
|
-3,475
|
|
Fiji
|
1991
|
108.6
|
|
54,559
|
|
|
French Polynesia
|
1996
|
111.7
|
-13.5
|
12,587
|
+1,992
|
|
French Polynesia
|
1990
|
125.2
|
|
10,595
|
|
|
Kiribati
|
2017
|
104.9
|
-13.3
|
8,090
|
+1,911
|
|
Kiribati
|
1990
|
118.1
|
|
6,179
|
|
|
Marshall Islands
|
2019
|
78.1
|
-10.7
|
4,449
|
-12
|
|
Marshall Islands
|
1999
|
88.8
|
|
4,461
|
|
|
Micronesia (Federated States of)
|
2019
|
94.7
|
-17.1
|
7,002
|
-1,258
|
|
Micronesia (Federated States of)
|
2004
|
111.8
|
|
8,260
|
|
|
Nauru
|
2019
|
121.0
|
+10.2
|
758
|
+27
|
|
Nauru
|
1998
|
110.8
|
|
731
|
|
|
Niue
|
2019
|
145.6
|
+54.5
|
79
|
-55
|
|
Niue
|
1998
|
91.0
|
|
134
|
|
|
Palau
|
2014
|
105.2
|
+4.4
|
712
|
-166
|
|
Palau
|
1999
|
100.8
|
|
878
|
|
|
Papua New Guinea
|
2016
|
103.6
|
+52.3
|
568,258
|
+208,850
|
|
Papua New Guinea
|
1990
|
51.2
|
|
359,408
|
|
|
Samoa
|
2019
|
115.7
|
+15.4
|
14,133
|
+1,523
|
|
Samoa
|
1994
|
100.3
|
|
12,610
|
|
|
Solomon Islands
|
2019
|
103.9
|
+23.1
|
49,703
|
+23,584
|
|
Solomon Islands
|
1990
|
80.8
|
|
26,119
|
|
|
Tokelau
|
2019
|
134.4
|
+39.9
|
61
|
-68
|
|
Tokelau
|
1991
|
94.6
|
|
129
|
|
|
Tonga
|
2015
|
116.0
|
+9.1
|
6,942
|
-463
|
|
Tonga
|
1990
|
106.9
|
|
7,405
|
|
|
Tuvalu
|
2019
|
104.1
|
+27.5
|
756
|
-49
|
|
Tuvalu
|
1990
|
76.6
|
|
805
|
|
|
Vanuatu
|
2015
|
107.8
|
+11.8
|
20,172
|
+8,168
|
|
Vanuatu
|
1990
|
96.0
|
|
12,004
|
|
Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics, ‘National Monitoring Indicators: GER_1_F; SAP_1_F‘, Education National Monitoring, data extracted on 12 August 2021.
Table 4.2:
Number of enrolled students in primary education, female and both sexes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
American Samoa
|
1992
|
3,769
|
-270
|
7,884
|
-690
|
|
American Samoa
|
1990
|
4,039
|
|
8,574
|
|
|
Cook Islands
|
2019
|
898
|
-459
|
1,871
|
-1,011
|
|
Cook Islands
|
1997
|
1,357
|
|
2,882
|
|
|
Fiji
|
2019
|
58,340
|
-904
|
121,666
|
-342
|
|
Fiji
|
1991
|
59,244
|
|
122,008
|
|
|
French Polynesia
|
1996
|
14,058
|
+795
|
29,415
|
+1,561
|
|
French Polynesia
|
1990
|
13,263
|
|
27,854
|
|
|
Kiribati
|
2017
|
8,483
|
+1,185
|
16,695
|
+1,986
|
|
Kiribati
|
1990
|
7,298
|
|
14,709
|
|
|
Marshall Islands
|
2019
|
3,474
|
-486
|
7,234
|
-975
|
|
Marshall Islands
|
1999
|
3,960
|
|
8,209
|
|
|
Micronesia (Federated States of)
|
2019
|
6,633
|
-2,601
|
13,819
|
-5,286
|
|
Micronesia (Federated States of)
|
2004
|
9,234
|
|
19,105
|
|
|
Nauru
|
2019
|
917
|
+107
|
1,856
|
+193
|
|
Nauru
|
1998
|
810
|
|
1,663
|
|
|
New Caledonia
|
1991
|
10,780
|
-318
|
22,325
|
-633
|
|
New Caledonia
|
1990
|
11,098
|
|
22,958
|
|
|
Niue
|
2019
|
115
|
-7
|
217
|
-65
|
|
Niue
|
1998
|
122
|
|
282
|
|
|
Palau
|
2014
|
749
|
-136
|
1,639
|
-262
|
|
Palau
|
1999
|
885
|
|
1,901
|
|
|
Papua New Guinea
|
2016
|
588,562
|
+404,434
|
1,275,085
|
+859,890
|
|
Papua New Guinea
|
1990
|
184,128
|
|
415,195
|
|
|
Samoa
|
2019
|
16,355
|
+3,709
|
33,841
|
+7,160
|
|
Samoa
|
1994
|
12,646
|
|
26,681
|
|
|
Solomon Islands
|
2019
|
51,632
|
+30,525
|
107,118
|
+59,520
|
|
Solomon Islands
|
1990
|
21,107
|
|
47,598
|
|
|
Tokelau
|
2019
|
82
|
-40
|
167
|
-85
|
|
Tokelau
|
1991
|
122
|
|
252
|
|
|
Tonga
|
2015
|
8,052
|
+137
|
16,982
|
+460
|
|
Tonga
|
1990
|
7,915
|
|
16,522
|
|
|
Tuvalu
|
2019
|
787
|
+170
|
1,688
|
+433
|
|
Tuvalu
|
1990
|
617
|
|
1,255
|
|
|
Vanuatu
|
2015
|
21,741
|
+10,223
|
45,931
|
+21,460
|
|
Vanuatu
|
1990
|
11,518
|
|
24,471
|
|
Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics, ‘National Monitoring Indicators: 20063; 20062‘, Education National Monitoring, data extracted on 12 August 2021.
Table 4.3:
Gross enrolment ratio (GER) of female population in secondary education
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
American Samoa
|
1992
|
88.9
|
+0.6
|
1,890
|
+22
|
|
American Samoa
|
1990
|
88.3
|
|
1,868
|
|
|
Cook Islands
|
2019
|
98.1
|
+26.3
|
934
|
-318
|
|
Cook Islands
|
1998
|
71.7
|
|
1,252
|
|
|
Fiji
|
2012
|
94.3
|
+19.0
|
52,569
|
-1,251
|
|
Fiji
|
1991
|
75.3
|
|
53,820
|
|
|
French Polynesia
|
1993
|
86.8
|
+9.1
|
14,098
|
-197
|
|
French Polynesia
|
1990
|
77.8
|
|
14,295
|
|
|
Kiribati
|
2008
|
91.4
|
+54.1
|
6,486
|
+2,566
|
|
Kiribati
|
1990
|
37.3
|
|
3,920
|
|
|
Marshall Islands
|
2019
|
66.4
|
-4.4
|
4,409
|
+160
|
|
Marshall Islands
|
1999
|
70.7
|
|
4,249
|
|
|
Micronesia (Federated States of)
|
2005
|
86.6
|
+1.6
|
7,765
|
+16
|
|
Micronesia (Federated States of)
|
2004
|
85.0
|
|
7,749
|
|
|
Nauru
|
2019
|
98.4
|
+45.0
|
621
|
-53
|
|
Nauru
|
2000
|
53.4
|
|
674
|
|
|
Niue
|
2019
|
109.7
|
+10.3
|
93
|
-67
|
|
Niue
|
1991
|
99.4
|
|
160
|
|
|
Palau
|
2014
|
122.9
|
+12.7
|
646
|
-316
|
|
Palau
|
1999
|
110.2
|
|
962
|
|
|
Papua New Guinea
|
2016
|
39.9
|
+31.7
|
517,605
|
+212,077
|
|
Papua New Guinea
|
1990
|
8.2
|
|
305,528
|
|
|
Samoa
|
2016
|
98.0
|
+12.8
|
13,420
|
+318
|
|
Samoa
|
1994
|
85.2
|
|
13,102
|
|
|
Solomon Islands
|
2012
|
47.0
|
+36.5
|
41,413
|
+21,743
|
|
Solomon Islands
|
1990
|
10.5
|
|
19,670
|
|
|
Tokelau
|
2019
|
113.6
|
+48.1
|
81
|
-55
|
|
Tokelau
|
2000
|
65.4
|
|
136
|
|
|
Tonga
|
2015
|
102.4
|
+4.9
|
7,547
|
+291
|
|
Tonga
|
1990
|
97.5
|
|
7,256
|
|
|
Tuvalu
|
2019
|
47.2
|
-31.1
|
808
|
+436
|
|
Tuvalu
|
1990
|
78.2
|
|
372
|
|
|
Vanuatu
|
2015
|
54.9
|
+39.1
|
18,326
|
+6,978
|
|
Vanuatu
|
1991
|
15.8
|
|
11,348
|
|
Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics, ‘National Monitoring Indicators: GER_2T3_F; SAP_2T3_F‘, Education National Monitoring, data extracted on 12 August 2021.
Table 4.4:
Number of enrolled students in secondary education, female and both sexes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
American Samoa
|
1992
|
1,680
|
+30
|
3,643
|
+206
|
|
American Samoa
|
1990
|
1,650
|
|
3,437
|
|
|
Cook Islands
|
2019
|
916
|
+18
|
1,819
|
+40
|
|
Cook Islands
|
1998
|
898
|
|
1,779
|
|
|
Fiji
|
2012
|
49,596
|
+9,054
|
97,254
|
+12,697
|
|
Fiji
|
1991
|
40,542
|
|
84,557
|
|
|
French Polynesia
|
1993
|
12,241
|
+1,124
|
22,366
|
+2,711
|
|
French Polynesia
|
1990
|
11,117
|
|
19,655
|
|
|
Kiribati
|
2008
|
5,931
|
+4,468
|
11,583
|
+8,580
|
|
Kiribati
|
1990
|
1,463
|
|
3,003
|
|
|
Marshall Islands
|
2019
|
2,926
|
-80
|
5,764
|
-193
|
|
Marshall Islands
|
1999
|
3,006
|
|
5,957
|
|
|
Micronesia (Federated States of)
|
2005
|
6,724
|
+136
|
13,634
|
+128
|
|
Micronesia (Federated States of)
|
2004
|
6,588
|
|
13,506
|
|
|
Nauru
|
2019
|
611
|
+251
|
1,203
|
+541
|
|
Nauru
|
2000
|
360
|
|
662
|
|
|
New Caledonia
|
1997
|
13,230
|
+2,557
|
25,560
|
+4,887
|
|
New Caledonia
|
1990
|
10,673
|
|
20,673
|
|
|
Niue
|
2019
|
102
|
-57
|
199
|
-103
|
|
Niue
|
1991
|
159
|
|
302
|
|
|
Palau
|
2014
|
794
|
-266
|
1,604
|
-573
|
|
Palau
|
1999
|
1,060
|
|
2,177
|
|
|
Papua New Guinea
|
2016
|
206,319
|
+181,384
|
507,278
|
+441,635
|
|
Papua New Guinea
|
1990
|
24,935
|
|
65,643
|
|
|
Samoa
|
2016
|
13,154
|
+1,995
|
25,964
|
+4,173
|
|
Samoa
|
1994
|
11,159
|
|
21,791
|
|
|
Solomon Islands
|
2012
|
19,473
|
+17,405
|
41,660
|
+36,024
|
|
Solomon Islands
|
1990
|
2,068
|
|
5,636
|
|
|
Tokelau
|
2019
|
92
|
+3
|
186
|
+6
|
|
Tokelau
|
2000
|
89
|
|
180
|
|
|
Tonga
|
2015
|
7,728
|
+652
|
15,800
|
+1,051
|
|
Tonga
|
1990
|
7,076
|
|
14,749
|
|
|
Tuvalu
|
2019
|
381
|
+90
|
682
|
+57
|
|
Tuvalu
|
1990
|
291
|
|
625
|
|
|
Vanuatu
|
2015
|
10,070
|
+8,273
|
20,568
|
+16,384
|
|
Vanuatu
|
1991
|
1,797
|
|
4,184
|
|
Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics, ‘National Monitoring Indicators: 20063; 20062‘, Education National Monitoring, data extracted on 12 August 2021.
Concluding comment
4.77
During the Committee’s 2015 inquiry into the human rights issues confronting women and girls in the Indian Ocean-Asia Pacific region, DFAT discussed the need for a better integration between aid and diplomacy. It appears, through the Pacific Step-up, that this integration has been realised.
4.78
The Committee heard that consultation may not have been effective in the early stages of the Pacific Step-up, with some organisations being unsure if they had been involved in consultations. The Committee acknowledges DFAT’s advice that virtual consultation sessions were held throughout 2020, particularly following the pivot of the Pacific Step-up to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.
4.79
The issues facing women and girls in the region are interlinked, and cut across the whole of society. The Committee heard that progress continues to be achieved, for example as can be seen in the improvements in education enrolment levels across the Pacific islands. However, there may be several areas of society where engagement as part of the Step-up could be improved.
4.80
For example, opportunities to enhance the quality of education and an investment in skills development is considered critical. The Committee heard that a particular focus on working with Pacific governments secondary education and institutions within the Pacific was necessary, as funding primarily for Australia-based tertiary scholarships may contribute to a ‘brain-drain’ in the Pacific.
4.81
The Australian Government’s second National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security 2021-2031 is underpinned by the principles of ‘do no harm’ and ‘gender mainstreaming’. The evidence received to this inquiry in 2020 revealed concerns that a gender-neutral approach to supporting infrastructure development could lead to unintended harms for women and girls.
4.82
The Committee acknowledges that the twin-track approach adopted by DFAT in its 2016 Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Strategy recognises that ‘gender mainstreaming’ does not eliminate the need for targeted gender initiatives.
4.83
Throughout the inquiry, DFAT detailed the work it has undertaken to support local organisations, and locally led development in the Pacific. Inquiry participants also expressed support for a ‘localisation agenda’ for development assistance.
4.84
However, this localisation agenda may be frustrated by the capacity and willingness to provide funding directly to small organisations. The Committee heard that the use of intermediaries can bridge these challenges, but presents different risks through the introduction of an additional layer of abstraction from direct service delivery.
4.85
The Committee understands that DFAT is currently developing guidance for localisation of humanitarian and development programming, which may clarify how DFAT will approach these challenges.
4.86
The Committee notes evidence of the efficacy of the medical ship operated by Youth with a Mission (YWAM) in partnership with the Government of PNG to provide health services and training to the western provinces. The Committee considers that the role of Australia’s dedicated large-hulled vessel should extend beyond naval humanitarian and disaster relief responses. In partnership with governments across the Pacific islands, the role of the vessel should include helping to facilitate the work of civil society groups in areas such as health, engineering and capacity building.
4.87
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government publish an assessment of the progress on building the capacity of local organisations in the Pacific to advance the rights of women and girls.
4.88
This should include data about what proportion of funding is provided to local organisations directly, and/or through intermediaries.
4.89
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government work with Pacific governments to provide support for the secondary and tertiary education sector within Pacific island countries, including infrastructure for education institutions.
4.90
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government extends the role of the multi-role vessel to include working in partnership with civil society to support the Pacific Islands.