 Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Australian National University and to the Crawford School and to the 2017 and 5th Mitchelloration. My name's Stephen Howes, and I direct the Development Policy Centre, your host for tonight. Let us begin by paying our respects to the first Australians, the traditional owners of the land on which we're meeting, and let us pay our respects to the elders of the Ngunnawal people, past and present. Thanks, everyone, for coming. It's great to see so many people here. And thank you for not being deterred by the bad weather. And of course, there'll be many watching this on live stream. So if you're there on video, good afternoon to you as well. And while on things to do the media, please do tweet the lecture using the hashtag Mitchelloration. Mayor, first of all, acknowledge our speaker, Dr. Ngozi O'Connor-Iwela. Thank her and her party from Gaby for coming all the way to Canberra and the ANU. Are we really looking forward to your speech? Now, we also acknowledge and welcome Harold Mitchell, in whose honour this lecture series is named, as well as Mitchell Foundation Director, Stephanie Copers Campbell. Both Harold and Stephanie provide terrific support to our Development Policy Centre. May I welcome my bosses, the Vice-Chancellor, Brian Schmidt, Dean of the College of Asia and the Pacific, Michael Wesley, and Helen Crawford School Director. I'd like to acknowledge the various members of the Diplomatic Corps, and thank you for coming along. Today, we have here ambassadors or high commissioners or their representatives from Nigeria, Algeria, Kenya, South Africa, and Mauritius. And we also have Australia's Ambassador of Health Security, Blair Excel. We have a range of distinguished guests, other distinguished guests as well, too many to mention. But I would like to acknowledge in our audience, in the audience, one of our earlier Mitchell oration speakers, Jim Adams, former World Bank Vice-President. Just to explain the running order, we're going to first hear from our Vice-Chancellor, and then from Harold Mitchell. Dean, Professor Michael Wesley, will then introduce our speaker, Chair of Speech and the Q&A session. And he'll then hand over to Helen Sullivan, Crawford School Director, to make closing remarks. So to begin, I'll please welcome the Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University, Professor Brian Schmidt. Thank you, Stephen. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you for your acknowledgment to country. It is indeed a pleasure to welcome you all to the 2017 Mitchell oration here at the Crawford School of Public Policy. As you are well aware, the Crawford School is one of the university's key hubs for bringing together leading experts from around the world to engage with global policy challenges. Harold, a warm welcome to you. Back to A&U. I've known Harold now for quite a while. And someone who is a great supporter of A&U, as well as a personal friend. Stephanie Cobus Campbell, welcome back. Director of the Harold Mitchell Foundation and a fellow Alaskan, something I don't get to say very often, but every year I do. And of course, a special welcome to our keynote speaker, Dr. Nguzi Okonjo-Iwila. Welcome to Australia and to our sunny weather, which I'm sure you're enjoying. We're all dancing in the rain. Anyway, Dr. Okonjo-Iwila is the board chair of GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance. And so it's great to have you. And I'm really looking forward to your speech. As well as being the former finance minister and foreign minister in Nigeria and former managing director of the World Bank. So it's a great privilege and honor to have you here. The Mitchell oration series is now in its fifth year here at A&U. Previously, we've had notable speakers, including Jim Adams, previously mentioned, as well as Mark Dible, executive director of Global Fund-to-Find AIDS for Tuberculosis and Malaria. The Mitchell oration series is only one aspect of a broader collaboration between A&U and the Harold Mitchell Foundation. Our partnership actually extends back to 2012 with an award of $2.5 million from the Foundation over five years to the Development Policy Center matched by A&U. Five years on from that grant, the support of the Harold Mitchell and the leadership of Professor Stephen Howes, we have really transformed the Development Policy Center from a fledgling center into a significant presence in influencing and informing how aid and development policy happens in Australia, our region, and further afield. And it's just right up the type of thing that A&U wants to be doing. In one example of this, I had the pleasure of attending the launch of the new DFAT-funded Pacific Research Program in October. And during that launch, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop noted the reputation of all of the partners, including the Development Policy Center, for producing high quality, important, and ferociously independent research, not normally good words coming from a minister, but from Minister Bishop actually with a sound of endearment when she said that. I think this is a testament to the work of Stephen and his team and to the importance of Harold's independent support for the center's research agenda. And I thank you for that. The center's initiatives now extend well beyond our borders with staff based at the University of Papua New Guinea and an annual conferences in Port Moresby and Suva. Harold, none of this would have been possible without your support and your belief that Australia should be contributing more robustly to the global and regional debates. And so we thank you for your leadership. As the National University, we do recognize that decisions made here in Australia have implications, not just within our own borders, but for our neighbors. And so our outlook is global in the national interests. We truly do want our research to have impact in this increasingly interconnected world. And from this perspective, the Mitchell Aeration Series fits well with the mission of our university. The series has already established a strong reputation for excellence and relevance, and I'm sure that Dr. Nguzi's lecture tonight will make a substantial contribution to our shared understanding of the crucial issues facing us in the 21st century. And with that, I'll hand back to Stephen. Thank you. Thank you very much, Brian. Harold Mitchell is one of Australia's leading businessmen and philanthropists. I'd like to now welcome you to the podium, Harold. Thank you very much, Stephen, and to all of you here. Almost a room full. Congratulations on a camera night, the way that we've got it is. And to Vice-Chancellor, can I thank you particularly for your words for what you've done and the fact that you've given such great support to all of what I've been able to help you with here, but particularly to the development center. I could not have been more proud, I must say, in the last little while with a new white paper into how we deal with the rest of the world, particularly with aid, with trade, and with our foreign affairs. And I should say to those of you that have been observers, I think of everything that Stephen and his people have done. I think in what you normally say and yes, Prime Minister, you've been very brave. And indeed, brave and sensible. And Stephen, to all of you, can I say how proud I was when I saw you take an independent stance, which had to be taken. Because it's only universities, as you've got here, and Brian was so kind to say that we've known each other for some time and such good friends that Stephen and another Alaskan introduced us. I congratulate you on the stance that you've taken as a university in the government's town in front of them and tell them a little bit that they're wrong. And so well done to you in every way like that. When I first became involved, it was with both Stephen and Stephen, who I'd known for some time. It was quite easy for me to see how, if I could help, I wanted to. Because I'd worked in that nasty world of advertising for some 40 or 50 years. Even nastier, I'd made a lot of money out of it. And I thought, I don't want to get to heaven if there is such a place. And someone says, what did you do? And I said, I've had money out of advertising. So I wanted to make a difference. And I looked for places that made a difference. And Vice Chancellor, that's where I especially feel tonight that that's happened in every way. Not just tonight. I'll come to that in just a moment. The world is changing rapidly. I suppose everyone's been saying that for the last 300 years and it's true. I remember an interview on radio 30, 40 years ago. 100 year old lady, the interviewer said, what has been the biggest change in your life? Now, this is someone who'd been through two world wars, a depression, everything else that was just really bad. And just thinking, the greatest change that might have happened, she said, thinking for just only one second, sewage. And when you think about it, change is always underway. What is it that changes are so dramatically in every way? But my world was that of middle class, consumer societies, and therefore the West. But there's two big things that I could see from where I was. Not always easy in my little city of Melbourne. And Melbourne is a long way from anywhere, not on the way to anywhere else. So you have to go out to the world, which I did. And there are two incredible things that I could see, when I started to think a little bit more widely about it, was firstly the digital world, which has arrived, we now accept it, but it's only since about 2000 or so, Google, et cetera, all the things. You just think of how that changed the world. And as it changed the world enough for the new world, and the other thing, how the world after 200 plus years was tipping itself upside down. So the whole of Asia was just developing in front of us. I was able to see it because if I didn't get those choices right, I'd go broke. That's what happens in business. There is no protection, a doble-eyed government. You can't say, well, we'll have another white paper or do something different. If you don't get it right, that's just the end of it. So they are the two really big changes. And tonight I'm especially pleased, because I had a moment to speak to Dr. Nagerzi just a moment ago. And we had a wonderful conversation. It's something I've thought of, and I'm looking forward to so much tonight, that I had to live in a world where the 19th century had belonged to Europe, and particularly the British Empire. The sun never set on it, et cetera. I lived through the 20th century, which was the American century. 5% of the world's population had 25% of the world's wealth. I had to deal with it. And the nice thing was I beat it. I was happy enough about all of that. I didn't think it was fair in what it was. But it's changed just so dramatically. This century belongs to Asia and the rest of the world. Where is it going? We'll hear from Dr. Nagerzi about that in a minute. And her country and her whole continent of Africa, I truly believe belongs to the 22nd century. And that's a big thinking of where you go from here and lots of ways like that. Dr. Nagerzi, I'm proud that you were able to join us tonight. This, as you've heard, is our fifth lecture. Eminent, eminent people have been before you. That's no less eminent than you are with the history that you've had. We talked about Jim Wolfson at the World Bank before and the people. I feel a great connection with you and what you're doing and can I welcome you in particular on behalf of our foundation. Thank you. Thank you very much, Harold. Now I'd like to call on the Dean of the College of Asia and the Pacific, Michael Wesley, to chair the proceedings for tonight. Thank you, Michael. Stephen, thank you. And can I add my personal thanks to Harold Mitchell and the support he's given for two development studies here at the ANU. Ladies and gentlemen, it's my job to introduce to you our speaker tonight, Dr. Nagerzi Okonjo-Iwala. And it gives me enormous pleasure to do so because she is truly an extraordinary person. She brings a wealth of expertise to share with us today, gained through an intimidatingly illustrious career in the world of government international finance and developmental economics. She twice served as finance minister in her native Nigeria as well as minister for foreign affairs. Before her tenure as finance minister in 2003, Nigeria was ranked as the world's most corrupt government. She was brought in in light of her considerable economic and financial expertise to tackle this issue seriously affecting the prosperity of Nigeria and the quality of life for millions of her fellow citizens. In her determination to curtail these forces, she became known as a nemesis of corruption and quickly earned the title of trouble woman for her fierce and effective crackdown on corruption. Her effectiveness and willingness to tackle Nigeria's vested interests required considerable personal courage and moral integrity in the face of a large backlash and several threats to her life. She has held several positions at the World Bank, most recently as managing director, a position in which she held oversight of the World Bank's 81 billion dollar operational profile in Africa, South Asia, Europe and Central Asia. She was named by Fortune magazine as one of the 50 greatest world leaders in 2015 and by Forbes for five consecutive years as one of the most 100 most powerful women in the world. In 2014, she was recognized by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world. She speaks to us today about this latest chapter of her career, important and far reaching as chair of the GAVI board and institution at the cutting edge of efforts towards the universal provision of vaccine coverage. GAVI brings together private and public institutions and expertise, governments, NGOs, pharmaceutical companies to increase the access and affordability of vaccines to some of the world's most vulnerable people in order to eradicate disease and improve the quality of life and restore the premise of life for millions of people worldwide. Since 2000, GAVI has already vaccinated 640 million children worldwide, saving nine million lives. It has even more ambitious goals going forward. Dr. Ngozi, it is truly an honor and a privilege to be able to introduce such an incredible person and expert to address the contemporary issues in development practice and international aid in the 21st century. Ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming Dr. Ngozi to the stage. Well, thank you very much to you, Michael, for that very gracious and generous introduction. One of the things that I always struggle with when I sit in an audience is listening to myself being introduced and wondering, is that really me? So thank you. Thank you so much to Harrow Mitchell for what you're doing and to Stephanie for the foundation's work and for the support for knowledge building in this university and elsewhere. I'd also like to thank Professor Schmidt, the Vice Chancellor for his work and his warm welcome to Professor Stephen Howes and also Professor Helen Sullivan. Thanks to all of you. And to the audience for being here this evening on this wonderful sunny day. It seems like a day you should be curling up in the evening in your bed. So the fact that you're here puts me on my toes. I'm really delighted to be here tonight and I'm really humbled to have been invited to give this Harrow Mitchell Development Policy lecture. And it's because of the illustrious people who have spoken before me, I'm particularly happy that the Diplomatic Corps, particularly the African Diplomatic Corps are my own country, Nigeria, here tonight to give me moral support. So thank you. It's really an honor to follow in the footsteps of such esteemed speakers as Emilia Perez, Jim Adams, who is a strong colleague of mine. It's a very big pleasure to find you here, Jim. And Marie Pangestu, whom I know, Mark Dible, all of them friends, colleagues, and very esteemed speakers before me. Thank you for creating such an inspirational lecture series. In my view, we need to see more of these. And I'm not saying that because it gives me an opportunity to speak. In all seriousness, these discussions play an important role in helping to shape the future of development. They create a forum where the most pressing development issues can be mooted and where new ideas and potential solutions discuss. All in an environment that brings together experts, academics, government and private sector alike. It's an approach that encourages fresh thinking and new perspectives. And it's really a great opportunity to be here to talk about development towards 21st century approaches. Talk about the challenges that we're facing in this century and the solutions. And to be able to do it on a day when I've had the privilege of being able to see Shepardad by Blair, Excel and his colleagues in DFAT and to be able to see the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister for International Cooperation and share some of these ideas. That is a very, very important point. So I can say with a degree of certain authority at one point in my life or the other, participated from different perspectives on this issue of development. As a finance minister, as you heard, two terms, foreign affairs minister, by the way, I wasn't very good. As a foreign affairs minister, I'll just tell you a little joke about that. You know, it was the time of the war in Côte d'Ivoire. And so Nigeria president of Assange was leading issues and as Minister of Foreign Affairs, I was supposed to also chair the foreign affairs ministers. I just removed from finance. So we had this meeting with the foreign affairs ministers and we'd been talking for two or three hours about possible solutions that we had to hand over to our bosses. And after three hours, I thought, well, we've talked enough. I think we should summarize things now. And then, you know, we have recommendations. So I said, well, colleagues, I think it's time for us to summarize and, you know, our recommendations and move on. And everybody looked at me with a blank stare and they said, but we only just got started. At that point in time, I decided it wasn't my calling to be a foreign affairs minister. You know, so from all these perspectives, I've seen development from the World Bank rule and so on and now working a little bit with the private sector. And these different perspectives have given me the opportunity to look at development issues from all sides. And regarding development, while the world sometimes looks dark and uncertain at this moment, there's one thing I've observed consistently from each of these viewpoints that I have seen development from. It's that we're making progress. We mustn't forget that. So much has improved for the better over our lifetimes. I know that if we just go by these headlines, this may not be immediately apparent, particularly to the younger people. Ongoing conflicts in Syria, Yemen and South Sudan, tens of thousands of people risking their lives to flee their homes or seek better lives elsewhere. Too many of them not making it. And against all a growing backdrop of geopolitical nationalism and on the shadow of nuclear weapons, not yet since the Cold War. And yet, despite these headlines, despite the human suffering that continues to exist, and despite the temptation to believe that the world is getting worse, things have steadily improved for humanity. It's very apparent if you look back at how far we've come in recent decades, and I just want to remind you, in the 1930s, just three out of 10 people were literate. Today, eight people in 10 can read, and the fastest acceleration has been in Africa. Similarly, in 1950, around three quarters of the world's population lived in extreme poverty. Today, it's less than 10%. And in 1990, the same year Nelson Mandela was freed, more than 12 million children under the age of five were dying every year, around one in 10 infants. We have now half that to below 6 million, and over the next 15 years, we hope to half it again. These gains have come about partly because of technological and industrial developments which have led to greater productivity and prosperity, partly through the advances in science and medicine, enabling people to live longer, healthier lives, and partly through the gains of marketing, economics, and globalization. One of the biggest examples of this is China, of course. Over the last four decades, agricultural productivity there has grown by 12% a year, which has not only helped feed its growing population, but also led to better nutrition and health, higher rolling comes and falling poverty rates, all of which have helped drive China's economic development. China has been the biggest driver in the global gains made in reducing poverty. China's economic growth has lifted 800 million people out of poverty by 2015, the endpoint of the millennium development goals. But other developing countries have also made gains. Asian countries have steadily reduced the number of people in absolute poverty. Malaysia, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos. Even Africa has made gains in lowering the proportion of people living in absolute poverty from 56% in 1990 to 43% in 2012, though the absolute numbers keep rising due to population growth. Africa with 400 million people in absolute poverty living under $1.98 a day is the last frontier where the battle needs to be fiercely waged. But back to the gains. Gains like I've talked about have been made in developing countries due to the hard work of their people and their governments, but also due to partnership and assistance from other countries such as Australia. According to the OECD, Australia has contributed over 36 billion in development assistance over the last 10 years and should be justly proud of what it has done to help break the vicious cycle of poverty and disease for millions of families in poor countries. I know that for fiscal reasons, Australia has now caught its development assistance, dropping from 0.37% of GN9 to 0.22% of gross national income. But politicians would do well to look at the positive results this assistance has had. And the global visibility it has afforded Australia often tell people that Australia has punched above its weight internationally. So they should look at that and think positive again. Now for the future, let me admit that the road ahead for development is now likely to get tougher. Not just because of the current geopolitical climate, which without a doubt is one of the most difficult we've ever faced, but also because the global development landscape itself is steadily shifting in ways that will increasingly threaten to undermine our efforts to eradicate poverty, disease and inequality. I'm talking about formidable global trends such as demographics, climate change, human migration and urbanization, all of which will reach new levels in the 21st century that will conspire to challenges like never before. The fact that we now have some global consensus in the form of the sustainable development goals and the Paris climate agreement does offer some hope. These agreements give us a glimpse of the better world we hope to create and will act as waypoints towards which we can strive with clear but ambitious targets signed up to by almost every nation. But what is less clear is how we get there, particularly in the context of these emerging new challenges. Many of our multilateral development institutions and organizations that we depend on to fight poverty and create wealth were created decades ago when the global development landscape was very different from today. In light of this, it's important to ask whether they're still fit for purpose. Exactly what approaches will it take for these organizations to help us reach ambitious development and climate targets and to what extent are they able to adapt in the face of such daunting global trends? In addition, what other new or innovative approaches are needed to help us deliver on development and the sustainable development goals in particular? What role can technology play? The intention in saying all this is not to reinvent the wheel, but rather to highlight the fact that we cannot simply assume that we will reach these goals with a business as usual approach, particularly given the scale of the ambition of the global targets and in light of what in some cases are tectonic shifts in the global development landscape. Some organizations are already well placed and stand as shining examples. We'll hear about them later. Prepare to tackle what is coming. Others will, at the very least, need to adapt or reinvent themselves. But before I talk of the changes in approach that need to be made and try to answer some of the questions let me provide a little context by explaining what I mean by changing landscape. I'll just take a couple of examples. Consider demographics. While most developed and some emerging market countries are grappling with ageing populations and implications this has for productivity and economic growth, many developing countries are grappling with the opposite. Rapid population growth and increasing young population with implications this has for employment and job creation. Take Sub-Saharan Africa, my continent, for example. The demographic transition is yet to happen in most of the continent and 60% of the population is 25 years old, 25 years and under. The population growth rate is 2.73% per annum with a fertility rate of almost five children per woman. The current population of 1.2 billion is expected to reach 1.7 billion by 2030 and double to 2.4 billion or 25% of the world's population by 2050. By 2030, the continent's working age population is set to increase by two thirds from 370 million adults in 2010 to over 600 million in 2030, constituting one of the world's largest pool of people searching for jobs. And that leads me to another challenge, familiar in Australia, Europe, USA and elsewhere, the issue of migration. The population in developing countries is not just growing, it is also flowing, notwithstanding all the barriers put in its way. We are already witnessing the largest number of displaced people since World War II, driven by not just population growth but also by increased conflict and growing pressure from climate change with more than 65 million people forcibly displaced in 2016 alone. Migration is and will remain one of the most important challenges of our time. Much of this migration is taking place within countries with young people especially moving from rural to urban areas at unprecedented rates. Urbanization is another challenge and an opportunity of our time. In 1952, 2 thirds of the world's population lived in rural settings and a third in urban areas. By 2015, the world had become 53.8% urbanized. The change is most noticeable in developing countries. By 2030, nine of the 10 largest cities in the world will be in developing countries, in China, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Egypt, Nigeria and Mexico with unbelievably large populations ranging from about 24 million in Mexico City and Lagos to 36 million in Delhi. While urbanization can lead to efficiencies in basic service provision, it also comes with challenges of how to create jobs, housing, transportation and other infrastructure rapidly enough to cater for the burgeoning population. Providing access to quality health and education services can prove to be an overwhelming task for under-resourced cities and countries with weak institutions. But the inability to do so can lead to slums, crime, susceptibility of youth to terrorist recruitment and other social ills. Migration across continents poses another challenge. Technology and the ubiquitousness of mobile phones has allowed people to see that life can be better outside their own geographic boundaries. So the push of population growth, conflict and climate change combines with the pull of a better life to lead people to take enormous risks. Today, as we speak, millions of people are moving around the world. They are crossing by boat and ship from parts of Asia to Australia, in airless trucks from Southern Central America to the USA and by land and sea across the Sahara and Mediterranean from Africa to Europe. Thousands are abused or dying the process. The recent stories of South Saharan Africa young men auctioned into slavery in Libya or the 2016 age girls from my country, Nigeria, dying on rubber boats in the Mediterranean should give the world horse. And the numbers indicated may only get worse before it gets better. We cannot solve these problems through a fortress mentality. Or a turn against the multilateralism that has served us so well in the past. We have shown in over 70 years or more our ability as a world community to cooperate and confront these challenges. We can do so again. I'm so glad the Australian government agrees to quote the foreign policy white paper, quote, in an interdependent world, a system that promotes collective responses to problems that cannot be solved by countries acting by themselves best serves our interests. Australia supports quote cooperation to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction, address climate change and promote the 2030 sustainable development goals. Australians will continue to work internationally to respond to global health and humanitarian crisis. So this is front and center in your foreign policy white paper. I believe that all of the problems we are talking about can better be confronted if we improve the lives of people where they live. By creating jobs, improving infrastructure and access to basic health and education services. Nobody really wants to be a refugee or a migrant. Nobody really wants to leave their home. So when we think about people crossing and moving we shouldn't think of them in terms of people who are nuisance value coming to take away what we have because they don't want to leave. We should think of the reasons and think of the solutions which lie right where they live. So this is where countries have to carefully reexamine their bilateral and multilateral development assistance for the positive impact this can make on the ground in the countries. I know these are challenging times for development assistance but challenging times demand leadership and Australia is well placed to lead. Let me leave it at that. This is also where the sustainable development goals come in with their universality and their targets. And this is where joined up approach is key with governments, private sector, civil society and multilaterals working in partnership. No one actor can go it alone. But the question is how do we deliver? How do we solve the types of challenges that I mentioned? How do we finance the sustainable development goals? How do we take development to scale? We have relied largely on the multilateral development banks working with the bilateral governments and with country governments to deliver and we need to rely on them again but this time working much more with the private sector. But at the multilateral banks fit for purpose and they catalyze or mobilize the trillions of dollars needed to reach the sustainable development goals. Will development as usual take us to scale? What do the multilateral banks need to change in order to remain central to development in the 21st century? Here I will argue that the multilateral development banks face four challenges that they will need to confront if they are to be fit for purpose in helping the world deliver on critical development problems. These are the challenges of relevance, the challenge of legitimacy, the challenge of scale and urgency and the challenge of their business model. I will also argue that development as usual will have to give way to development with innovation and technology if we are to scale. So let me start with the multilateral development banks. To explain what I mean, let us look at multilateral development banks and the way that we now finance development. Beginning with the first challenge of relevance, when most of these MDBs were set up, they played a central role in funding development. Whilst they are still important in this role today, they have competition. It is a fact that the balance sheet of some national development banks and their lending have in some years surpassed that of the multilateral development banks combined. In 2011, for example, whilst the World Bank Group, African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the Inter-American Development Bank combined, committed a total of $110.8 billion US dollars in lending, the Brazilian Development Bank alone, BNDS, lent US dollars $103 billion, whilst the figure for the China Development Bank was about $163 billion. We also now have significant flows, such as remittances, totally over US $400 billion a year, going to developing and emerging market countries. While some see the trillions of dollars in liquidity in the international financial markets and the increasing access of more and more developing countries to this, as raising sharply the question of the relevance of the multilateral banks. This was certainly the position of the Meltzer Commission, set up by the United States Congress in 1998, to look at the function of the multilateral banks and remains the position of an important segment of the US establishment today. And it is not only in financing that competition and the relevant question comes up for the MDBs. It comes even with knowledge transfer and capacity building, where over time they have built up a significant in fact formidable capacity. But let me use myself as an example just to illustrate. As a minister, my first term of office from 2003 to 2006, when I needed help on tax administration and tax policy to improve on domestic resource mobilization, I turned to the World Bank from where I came and they told me to take six weeks at that time to put a team together. I then turned to the IMF because I needed them to come right away. The president was asking me and the IMF center team almost right away with a wonderful expert from Australia. He was so good I wanted him to stay for some months, but they told me he could only stay for three weeks. So they came and went. And I didn't really get the kind of support that I was looking for in a sustained fashion. So in my second term, when I came back as finance minister 2011 to 2015 and we still had the same problem, I looked around and I needed help first. I turned to McKinsey and within two weeks they were in operation with two people continuously in my tax office for six months and a monthly assessment of progress by a senior partner. The lesson to be learned here is that even on the knowledge and capacity building side, speed and presence is important if one is to remain relevant. But what about the issue of legitimacy? This can be a serious challenge for the multilateral banks in the 21st century since many shareholders no longer feel that the institutions belong to them or reflect their interests and priorities. For the Bretton Woods institutions like the World Bank and the IMF, this may be an even more serious problem because the voting power tied to shareholding structure has simply not evolved to reflect the changing evolution and economic weights of emerging markets in the new global economy. For example, China alone accounts for 25% of global growth while emerging markets and developing countries contribute over 50% of global GDP. Yet despite the recent welcome adjustments made in IMF quarters and related changes to voting power in the IBRD, China has 4.59% of voting power compared to Japan at 7.1% and the United States at 16.45%. Meanwhile, the total vote for the BRICS, the so-called BRICS Brazil, Russia, India and China amounts to 13.1%. While for the 54 African members voting power is just 6.88%. Australia recognizes this problem and again I put the foreign policy white paper. It says, Australia will support reforms that give new and emerging powers a greater role in the international system. Some change to institutions and patterns of global cooperation is inevitable, necessary and appropriate to reflect the greater weight of countries such as China, Indonesia, India, Nigeria and Brazil. I'm so happy you put Nigeria there. But powerful shareholders in Europe and the United States want little or no change. All this raises the question of legitimacy. Furthermore, the way leadership is chosen and of course I'm not an unbiased observer as some of you may know. And the way in which the board and governance is structured also undermines legitimacy. These were certainly contributing factors to the BRICS opting to start their own new development bank and China, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank on whose advisory board for purposes of food disclosure, I said. The third challenge is that of scale which is intrinsically linked to urgency. To understand why, consider again the issue of how we fund the sustainable development goals and the investments needed for a low carbon growth path to mitigate climate change. Both will require funding in the order of trillions of dollars. UNCTAD, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development estimates a bill of five to seven trillion dollars a year is needed for all these expenses, SDGs, climate change infrastructure, et cetera. At current levels of investment there's an annual gap of about 2.5 trillion US dollars. Given that the combined annual combined lending of the entire World Bank Group and other MDBs ranges from 103 billion to 115 billion, it's easy to see why this has been dubbed the challenge of the billions to trillions by the multilaterals. In other words, the challenge of scale. Urgency comes into the equation by virtue of the fact that if we don't scale investments quickly, climate change impacts are already severe including on poverty and conflict could escalate. For example, by 2030 without scaled investment we could see another hundred million or more people in Africa joining the 400 million who already live in poverty. The issue of failing to scale is one of the reasons I strongly believe the multilateral banks have not been able to make as big a dent on the goals of poverty, eradication and shared prosperity as they could. And one of the ways to overcome this on scale is through leverage of the billions in the multilateral and bilateral aid to attract the trillions of dollars from the private sector. Now the MDBs realize this and they're already beginning to make changes to their business model and they will need their shareholders to support them. First is their push for creativity and innovation needing to develop financial and risk management instruments attractive enough to the private sector to unleash tens of billions of dollars. Some of the multilateral such as the World Bank and the African Development Bank are also seeking additional capital to enable them to more effectively pursue this leverage and their shareholders should think carefully of how to support this. Next is a broadening of the mandate of these institutions. Virtually all were set up to focus on long-term development with little or no involvement in humanitarian crisis conflict and security related issues. Emergencies arising from natural disasters or pandemics this outside their charter. The original intention being that other organizations such as the UN would handle them. That business model no longer suits the emerging challenges of the 21st century because as we all know the lines between humanitarian assistance and development have become blurred to the point where now in many cases they are almost inextricably linked. Just think of the food crisis of 2008 to 2009. The financial crisis of the same year the Ebola pandemic of 2014 to 2015 the Syrian, Libyan, Iraqi and other refugee crisis and the ensuing migration crisis with more than a five-fold increase in UN humanitarian appeals in the last decade or so from US $3 billion to about US $17 billion in 2014. The multilaterals are now increasingly called upon to step in to help solve this crisis when it is clear that the UN system alone can no longer handle them. And yet the country-based project-driven lending model of the multilateral simply cannot handle this. How does a country like Jordan, for example, borrow to create jobs and provide infrastructure and services for the millions of refugees who are not its citizens but are on its territory? Similarly, Kenya, Ethiopia and Uganda have millions of Somali and Sudanese refugees and migrants in vast camp cities. Why should they incur sovereign debt to fund the needs of these non-citizens? Shareholders of multilaterals have begun to recognize this problem and have sought to tackle these extra developmental issues through special resources known as trust funds. The proliferation of trust funds is a clear sign of just inadequate. The present MDB business models have become and the kind of earmarking it leads to among donors is an indication of how much it can stretch legitimacy too because funders see to exert control over how and when resources aspect. According to the OECD that such earmark funding represents the fastest growing component of funding for multilateral organizations increasing by 93% between 2007 to 2013 compared to just 24% for core funding. The World Bank is one of the largest recipients with 28% of its total funding in 2013 accounted for by earmarked trust funds. Now I spent some time on the challenges confronting the multilateral development banks if they are to help deliver on 21st century development problems not because I'm pessimistic about the multilaterals. Quite the contrary. I strongly believe that the MDBs are needed for the world to succeed in tackling the sustainable development goals and the climate agenda. The truth is that if the multilaterals did not exist you would have to invent them. Almost all the studies carried out on these institutions conclude that they possess many unique assets or attributes objectivity and professionalism, apolitical nature, convenient power, unique ability to bundle finance and knowledge, ability to handle policy dialogue that make them still the best set of institutions to tackle development and multi-country issues. They are really well placed to handle negative spillover effects and externalities of country actors. They are also best placed to deliver on global public goods and contain the impacts of global public bads such as pandemics. But what I said or what I said about the challenges is because they cannot bring these good attributes I talked about in the fall unless they reform and re-engineer themselves to be fit for the 21st century. And they cannot reform or re-engineer themselves along the lines needed without the willingness of their shareholders to change and support them. Very often the accent is put on the institutions themselves but we have to walk it back and remember that the backing of the shareholders is crucial for them to make themselves fit for purpose. Now I cannot end this lecture without a mention of my favorite hobby horse. One that I feel is essential for development to succeed in the 21st century. That's technology of course. Technology is necessary to deliver scale. In other words, if you have reformed your financial institutions and they now make themselves fit you've leveraged the billions and trillions of dollars needed but you do not have the means to reach the millions of poor people who need help you still do not have the right formula. But there's good news because we now have technology that enables us to reach millions of poor people. I just want to share two examples of this with you to show you that we reform, we leverage the money and we also now have technology to enable us to reach the people we need to reach. So the first one I want to talk about is the development of the biometric identity technology. It's my favorite. And the best example of this of course is India's biometric ID system which now has over 90% of India's 1.3 billion people enrolled. This technology has opened the door to better and more directly target millions of formerly faceless poor women and men giving them access to services. Millions can now be reached with well-designed social safety nets. The biometric ID also provides a platform for financial services, including digital payments that could really change the lives of smaller medium-sized entrepreneurs. In short, the biometric ID provides the opportunity for developing countries and their partners to bring solutions at scale that deliver on the 2030 sustainable development goals and hold indeed the promise of eradicating poverty. Large poor countries including my own Nigeria have taken note of what India is doing and are trying to do the same. I forgot, I meant to show you my own biometric ID from Nigeria. In fact, I'll pull it out of my purse and show you with a chip. And we started it so that at the same time you have this ID, you know, you solve the financial inclusion problem because you can use it for transactions. My second example of technology at scale will not surprise you. It's about vaccines. And yes, for those who are waiting for a word about GAVI, here it comes. GAVI, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization of which I'm Board Chair, provides one of the world's best examples of deploying this technology. GAVI is an alliance of international organizations such as UNICEF, WHO and the World Bank. Foundations such as Bill and Melinda Gates, governments such as Australia, civil society and private sector pharmaceutical companies. Australia is a long standing and much appreciated supporter of GAVI, having contributed about 370 million US dollars to GAVI from 2006 to date with a pledge to contribute 200 million more by 2021. And I'm saying it so I have many witnesses. And so we make sure that the money is dispersed to us. And GAVI has delivered. Using this unique public-private partnership model, we heard it at the beginning. GAVI has immunized more than 640 million children since it was created 16 years ago and saved 9 million lives. It's well on its way to achieving its next goal of immunizing a further 300 million children by 2020, thus saving another 5 million lives. There's very little that can beat the scale at which GAVI operates for children. And vaccines are proving to be one of the most effective investments in development. Every dollar invested in vaccines yields $16 in avoided health costs and $44 in lifetime benefits. Just think of that amazing rate of return. GAVI uses government guarantees to raise money for vaccines in international capital markets by floating bonds. Since inception in 2006, this unique financial facility known as IFIM, the International Finance Facility for Immunization, has raised a total of $6 billion in bonds to finance vaccines and save lives. GAVI also uses the advanced market commitment mechanism to incentivize vaccine production and shape vaccine markets by promising volumes to manufacturers so that they can take on something that may not be as profitable and then bring down the cost of vaccines for poor countries. Let me just give you two examples. The rotavirus vaccine has been negotiated by GAVI at $2.50 per dose for poor countries compared to $91 per dose that it sells for in the US. The HPV vaccine at $4.50 per dose compared to $100 per dose, the normal price. This is a critical lifeline for poor developing countries and this is one of the most important things that GAVI delivers. GAVI pursues other technologies such as drones in Rwanda to deliver vaccines and blood and much credit to the Rwandese government for discussing this idea and bringing us into a partnership with it and ZipLine, an American company, to use these drones in a very really a mountainous country to deliver vaccines. You know, this is an approach we might consider here for PNG which also has some challenging geographical terrain for Laos where we just had our GAVI board meeting with equally challenging terrain and hard to reach people. So these are some of the technologies that GAVI might work with the governments to deploy. GAVI thus meets all performance criteria for development assistance, again set out in your foreign policy white paper. It is in Australia's national interest as it deals with global health security issues. It reduces poverty and promotes inclusion by immunizing the world's poor and vulnerable children and it ensures that Australia's contribution adds tremendous value. Australia gets seven times leverage for the $38 million a year on average that Australia contributes. GAVI puts in $259 million into the Indo-Pacific region. So you're getting seven times leverage for your money. And of course I've talked about the returns for every dollar invested $16 back. So clearly GAVI is value for money on all aspects. It's unique financial and implementation approach and it's deployment of vaccine code chain and other delivery technology at scale is so successful that it's been studied by other sectors such as education, water and sanitation for replication. So it is an approach that Australia should continue to support and strengthen for the 21st century. So I talked about the fact that you do have some successful organizations that are fit for the 21st century and here is one of them. So let me now conclude. You've been very patient. The world has made remarkable progress in the last seven decades of development. But uncertainties have crept in and the development landscape is changing and becoming more challenging. These 21st century challenges will require 21st century solutions for development. Consensus has been built around the vision and strategy for tackling the challenges. The sustainable development goals and the Paris Accord offer us unique opportunities to solve problems and to get it right. But the instruments we use to deliver such as the multilateral banks must be reformed to offer the legitimacy, relevance, scale and urgency we need. While development as usual must give way to disruptive approaches built on technology that can deliver at scale. I'm optimistic that all these elements can come together to make the 21st century another century for achievement on development. Yes for Asia, but yes also for Africa. As Nelson Mandela said, quote, provided we are dedicated and passionate about the task at hand, we can rise above challenges. We can achieve success. Let us go out together and succeed. Thank you ladies and gentlemen. Thank you ladies and gentlemen. Brilliant and thought-provoking for ladies and gentlemen. We have around 15 minutes for some questions and interactions with Dr. Ngozi. So I think there are some microphones around here so if you could wait for those things as they come. Let me just start off. You outlined a number of really interesting step changes in the development landscape and the issues of reforming multilateral development banks and of course you talked briefly about China but from where I said China represents a major challenge to the way that development assistance is done. Do you think there will be over time a convergence between say the Chinese approach to development assistance and the multilaterals or is this going to continue to be two separate tracks towards development assistance? I think the answer is yes and no. If you look at the way that China is working, I don't want to be on the one hand and on the other hand economists but in this case there might be an element of that and you all surely know more about China than I do because you're in this region but what I observe is this. China clearly wants to be seen as part of the international community and as doing the right thing. Hence they created the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank which is working super hard to reassure everybody that they're just going to be a regular normal development bank multilateral but with a difference of course they want to operate in a more nimble fashion more with the private sector less bureaucracy, et cetera but they really want to be. So in that way China is saying to the world we just want to be doing what you're doing. We want to be like you but on the other hand I think China also wants the ability to deliver vastly and maybe at a pace that the multilaterals may not be, they want their own channel. So they're going to do both from what I see and you know the one belt, one road and you know other projects that are huge are making a statement about China and they will use other means to do that. So I think you will see a two track approach that will continue. Well I'll soon ask you questions if you don't ask me. Thank you very much doctor. I usually call you by your first name Dr. Konjo Iwala for your very inspiring remarks. I'm from Zimbabwe and I want to ask you a very simple question about Africa. If you were to pick one single thing that maybe you think Africa should do in order to I think as I didn't say you said Africa a century is a 22nd century but I'm hoping that it could even be this century. If you could pick one thing that Africa could do that would ensure that it does you know it does take its place hopefully before the 22nd century. What if there is any single thing that Africa would do should do right now and focus on what would it be if there is such a thing. We have to get power. You know you as the president of the African Development Bank stays you cannot develop in the dark. We just don't have the necessary infrastructure in terms of power to power development be it new technological discoveries they'll need to be based on power be it manufacturing be whatever whichever way be it households be it relieving women of tedious work bringing our girls up in a modern way so that they don't spend all their time going to do tasks and chores because we don't have the power. We have to have power. So it's very clear to me the one single thing. You know you think about it. I think the whole continent generates electricity not generation but consumption per capita in terms of kilowatts is the same. The story the total electricity we generate sorry is equal to that of Spain. It's really and the per capita consumption and I'm trying to remember my numbers maybe 144 kilowatts per capita in my country Nigeria compared to about 4,000 in South Africa which is the best compared to 12,000 in the US per capita. So the orders of magnitude are so large. So that's the one thing I would try to do. Thank you very much Dr. Okunjo, Viola. One of the challenges which developed countries are facing is that of getting enough tax revenues and especially in this country there was a lot of talk about how international companies not paying the fair amount of tax. I thought that when it comes to Africa you might touch on that particular issue because I've had conversations and I understand that most taxes only paid by the formal sector and that is very small maybe less than 40% of the economy is the formal sector. The informal sector is not paying any taxes and without taxes how do you think African countries could raise the money to finance their development? Thank you. Well thank you, I think that's a crucial point. The development landscape I said is changing and most countries do finance their own development but even now most of the additional financing needed to reach these SDGs are supposed to come from countries. Countries are being transitioned out of various kinds of support and it's a good thing. Out of garbage, transitional, global fund, the World Bank, from Ida to others. So what is all these countries expected to raise more and more of their own resources to cover development? But this is very challenging even as finance minister like the story I told you, you know before we rebased the economy we were getting about 12 to 15% of revenue, our revenues were 12 to 15% of GDP which was already on the lower end. When we rebased the economy that is we had not looked at the true size of economy for 24 years and then you know we rebased it when I was finance minister the statistical office should be given full credit for doing much of the work and my economy doubled and revenue to GDP ratio halved to about six to seven percent of GDP. Now I didn't want to be the finance minister walking around with such a low revenue to GDP ratio. So I was very focused on this issue of domestic resource mobilization and many countries are focused on it. So we need to increase our taxes in various ways. One is first to strengthen tax administration because if you're to enlarge the base you have to be able to collect well first. So most of us have very weak tax administration and a lot of people escape the net. We also have a lot of companies escaping the net and we have this whole work about base erosion and profit shifting being done by the OECD. I'll come back to that. So strengthen tax administration. Once you've done that you cannot look at tax policy and you know then see do you have the right tax rate the right approach. What is it you need to change. And you're right. Most of our economies have a large informal sector in fact 50 percent or more. So how do you include them over time. We have 32 million smaller medium enterprises in Nigeria. How do you incentivize them so that they'll begin to pay taxes. And there are ways and means to do it. We're beginning to move in that direction. So I think we need to do that. We need to look at companies that are trying to use loopholes and that requires sophisticated help. That part. It's not easy. You know the information is symmetry when you're talking about paying taxes of companies is huge. They are the ones who have all the lawyers who can exploit all your loopholes which someone helped you create when you were not looking. You know and you need expertise to also close those loopholes. So we need all of this help and development assistance is spending only about 1% of resources on tax issues. I think we would be wise to relook at that and help developing countries strengthen all these areas of domestic resource mobilization. So we don't just talk about it, we actually do it. You mentioned the trillions of dollars, investment dollars floating around the world and you've just talked about electricity. There's a company called DigiCell and a other part of the economy that has a business plan that brings mobile phones to companies, countries where you wouldn't think that they'd be possible to bring them in. At the same time, over at the other side of campus here, people are working on solar energy and it's happening all over the world. You think there's a possibility that some of the private investment dollars will be focused into business plans that will allow small scale electricity developments to be introduced into places like Africa in a scale that the local people can afford without big billion dollar investments with central power systems? Absolutely, I think it's crucial. And I tell you, I mean, I'm co-chair of a company, co-chair of the board of a small company called Lumos that is doing that. And it's bigger than the one light bulb. It actually has systems to power smaller, medium enterprises. And this is what we need because the grid, we cannot hope to reach all the families we need to reach at the speed and the scale. So we have to have a look at renewables and what renewables can do. So all these companies, DigiCell, that are also linked to payment systems on the mobile phone that make it easier for families in rural areas and others to access this power and pay. They are vital and we must support them. And investment dollars going into those absolutely appropriate. So I'm very enthusiastic. I think that's the way to go. The question of taxation in developing countries. And I was just wondering, so first of all, countries like Australia even, we really struggle to get enough corporate taxation. And we rely, you know, 47% of our tax collections are personal tax. Do you have an opinion on what sort of taxation helps in development, generally, I mean, or in the case of Nigeria? Well, I think that when you say what, I mean, of course you have all sorts of different types of taxes and some are more easy to collect. Indirect taxes like the VAT, you know, but that generates substantial resources. You know, these are very, very important, you know, sales taxes and things like that. They're very important taxes to collect. And we have the VAT, many countries implement that. The sales tax, India has just tried to put it on. So that's one way and a good way. And we have it, but a very low rate in my country. I think we could make it a bit high and collect more. And that tax, in fact, goes to the state governments, the bulk of it, you know, cause we have a state federal structure. So you can look at those types of taxes. Then you have the more direct taxes, the income tax, the corporate income tax, and so on. I think, you know, a country should try to institute and collect, you know, the various types of taxes that it can. I think the issue is not that. It is how complicated or complex is the tax, the structure and how complicated is it for, you know, companies and individuals and households to pay. What happens is if you can have a tax system that is relatively simple and easy for people to walk in and pay, I think you can generate more compliance. But in many of our countries, it gets so complex. With so many loopholes, and you know, we want to do all the right things, have a progressive structure so that those at the bottom, those at the top pay much more. But in doing all of that, we sometimes end up with a very complicated system that in the end, people don't pay. So for me, it is the structure of taxation, the way you set it up. So to make it easier for people to go in and pay, for companies not to have loopholes that they can walk through. But let me tell you something, the same way you're trying to do all of this and have a simple tax system. There are people with loads of, I don't know, lobbyists, is that it? Who are busy with the legislators, trying to do precisely the opposite and get a loophole put in. You know, and I often joke, you know, I, you know, forgive me, you know, when I think many professions like lobbyists, I don't know, I don't need lobbyists in the room. It's camera, they must be. They must be, but forgive me. You know, sometimes, you know, if you take a Senator or Congressperson to lunch at home in my country and try to get something, they say you're corrupt. You know, but abroad, it's been given a very nice name called lobbying. So there are plenty of lobbyists, you know, who are busy trying to create those very same loopholes and things, which you, you know, are trying to avoid. So it's not an easy world, you know, and that's why sometimes you get real headaches if you're in government or you're finance minister and so on trying to solve these problems. Thank you. Can I ask Helen Sullivan, the director of the Crawford School of Public Policy to come and provide a vote of thanks? Thank you. I often say as the director of the Crawford School and indeed any school of public policy that there is much more that is shared across the different disciplines that go into public policy than is distinct. And I think Dr. O'Connor O'Wheeler, your lecture, your oration this evening has just demonstrated beautifully how the lessons that you have talked about, the innovations that you have described are not just lessons for development. They're not just lessons for particular parts of the world. These are lessons for how you make and deliver good public policy wherever you are. And it really struck me that there were three things, you talked about so many things, but there were three things that were at the core of what you were discussing and some of them came out in the Q&A. The first is innovation and obviously your passion for what technology can do and how it can transform lives and systems. And it's quite clear that all countries, all public policy makers, are being challenged by both the opportunities but also some of the questions and anxieties we have about technology that can apparently do everything but at the same time can also lead us into some of the very difficult situations that we find ourselves in currently in terms of our politics and fake news and the role of the media and so on. That leads me to something which, again, you only mentioned right at the end but I think was absolutely at the heart of your talk and which is contested currently and that's expertise, the significance and the real importance of having a deep expertise in whatever you do and our ability as public policy scholars, as practitioners to recognize when that expertise is insufficient, when we need to do more but also to constantly have that expertise being tested against others, whether it be experts from different sectors, whether it be experts from the public who are themselves experts in their own lives. That's something that we are currently fighting not least in Australia where there is a rather overdone disrespect for expertise that I think we could well be wary of. And the third thing is integrity. All of your comments, it seemed to me, whether they were about multilaterals and their need to reform, whether it's about the nature of place and who makes decisions in politics, whether it's about the scalability of innovations and how you make those or retain the legitimacy of those. All of these things have at their heart, systems, institutions, process that have integrity. And this isn't just about individuals, important though leaders are, it is about our systems, it is about our processes. And so I would love to show your aeration to every beginning group that we have in the School of Public Policy, whatever they've come to study because I think you have demonstrated both the complexity of the challenges we face but you've also given us some amazing and novel ways of thinking about how we can positively make change in the future. So I would like you all to join me in thanking Dr. O'Comey O'Rourke. Thank you.