The Intel

The AusDevPortal is a very positive step from DFAT, demonstrating a renewed commitment to aid transparency after Australia plummeted in world transparency rankings. It was promising to see that DFAT also submitted reporting to International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) for the first time since reporting was discontinued in 2019. While the aid transparency index – put togther annually since 2012 with IATI data - will not be published in 2026 due to funding shortfalls, it is important that DFAT remains committed to transparency for the betterment of democracy and the quality of Australia's international development program.

It might sound like a niche issue, but aid transparency is essential in a functioning democracy, giving civil society visibility on if and how the Government is meeting commitments of its own policies and international agreements. It provides the raw data civil society can use to identify trends, such as changes in funding to particular countries, sectors, policy markers, or implementing partners, highlighting what advocacy is needed. The AusDevPortal usefully synthesises data that had been hiding in databases requiring specialist skills to use. On a practical level, transparency also helps Australian non-government organisations (ANGOs) better coordinate their activities in-country within the ANGO sector and with other implementing partners.

There are limitations with the AusDevPortal that DFAT should tackle next. To see if and how Australia is meeting its climate finance commitments, civil society requires visibility on the exact value of projects counted as either principally or significantly climate related. Similarly, future iterations of the Portal should publish the exact value of projects reaching non-profit ANGOs and local civil society organisations.

The AusDevPortal demonstrates Australia’s commitment to enhancing transparency of its development programs. True to its name, it is a portal to explore essential information on Australia’s support to other countries’ development. It is useful for answering simple questions, such as: Where does the money go? Which sectors? Which countries? And how much? Who are the implementing partners? How are they delivering DFAT’s objectives? As a member of the “industry” who wants to stay across DFAT programs, the portal is handy for simple mapping and information gathering.  

However, the portal isn’t as useful for more detailed analysis because it only presents high-level information and results. For example, it won’t help us understand to what extent Australian development programs have delivered on their commitments to partner countries and where the gaps are. Addressing these questions requires triangulation and digging into other resources. In addition, caution is necessary when interpreting the information. As a governance enthusiast, I was excited to see “government and civil society” rank second in terms of spend in 2022-23. However, it’s unclear if the program coding is consistent.  

While I welcome AusDevPortal as a solid tool for transparency, I suggest expanding it to enable higher order analysis. For example, how has DFAT’s distribution of ODA evolved over time? Some caveats and interpretation guidance would also be useful. DFAT may also consider adjusting the portal further in light of recent developments in the US and globally regarding aid, as well as in anticipation of upcoming elections in Australia. How will the portal benchmark the transparency of Australia’s development programs now that the Aid Transparency Index has been discontinued? How can the portal respond to potential queries about alignment of ODA to national interests? Can the data from the portal be used to explain trade-offs and opportunity costs when the ODA budget is being scrutinised? Should the portal also cover development assistance that does not qualify as ODA, such as security assistance? Lastly, I suggest seeking feedback from partners, including partner governments and civil society organisations, on the usefulness of the portal.  

Australian aid transparency used to be awful. No longer. Thanks to the AusDevPortal, anyone with knowhow and internet access can learn about Australian aid. From high-level numbers to project details, the portal has it all. First drafts are never perfect and it still needs improving. As we’ll highlight in Devpol’s forthcoming Aid Transparency Audit, functions like data downloads are missing.

The portal’s a huge achievement. Australia could do even better though. In much of the Pacific, people get their news from newspapers not dropdown menus. Navigating complex webpages without specialist knowledge isn’t easy. Simply accessing the internet is hard in places.

If Australia wants transparency where it matters most, it should publish aid numbers in local media. This shouldn’t involve narratives about how awesome aid is. In problem-plagued developing countries, no one finds that convincing. The information should be simple and factual: how much Australia spends, what it’s focused on, and who delivers it.

In places Australia already reaches out: high commissioners write columns in some Pacific papers. But their coverage of aid usually focuses on individual projects and apparent successes. There’s a billboard in Honiara touting how much budget support Australia has given, but that’s just one number. (And does anyone not fluent in aid jargon know what “budget support” is?) I’m asking for the full picture, with numbers and charts. Get this information to people in developing countries and it might help them hold their governments to account.

The AusDevPortal is a great start. Now Australian aid transparency needs to escape the internet.