Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance) Share this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to follow my colleague the member for Eden-Monaro. Since he has held that position it has been very rewarding for those of us working here in the ACT to be able to work with him on regional initiatives and issues of concern to people spilling over the border from the ACT into Queanbeyan and the surrounding areas. I welcome the opportunity to follow him and endorse the remarks he has had to make about the regionally significant initiatives in the budget.

In the time available I want briefly to say something about the macroeconomic situation, talk about some issues of significance locally—both local and national issues of particular interest to constituents in my area—and then in the remaining time available to make some general marks about the development assistance budget. One of the privileges of the position I hold is the opportunity to attend some international conferences representing Australia, which I did recently. One of the regular aspects of commentary around the edges of those conferences is global recognition of the appropriateness of the shape and scale of the economic response of the Australian government to the global downturn, both in terms of what we have done domestically and in terms of our advocacy and leadership internationally. What I find strange is that in Australia and in the Australian parliament we have people arguing positions about the appropriate response that are economically far to the right of the IMF, far to the right of the World Bank, far to the right of the US Federal Reserve and far to the right of the Reserve Bank of Australia. If the IMF is not conservative enough for your economics, you had better re-examine your position. I am a great fan of the work of the IMF; I think it should be conservative. I am a conservative about the IMF. I have more dramatic views about the need for change in the World Bank, but I think the IMF plays its role appropriately, but it is very much the advocate of economic orthodoxy, and its position is that Australia’s response is appropriate in its shape and its scale. So I think macroeconomically, the package that this government has brought down, in its interim measures and in the budget, positions us as well as is possible in the face of a very serious global economic situation, which is affecting all of the developed countries but particularly is having devastating ramifications in the developing countries.

Let me talk more broadly about the budget as it relates to the ACT and the people I represent. I want first briefly to acknowledge two issues of fundamental importance that have been raised in community meetings that I hold around the electorate regularly and that will come to fruition as a consequence of this budget. That is the question of paid parental leave and the question of the increase in the age pension. I do not have time to speak at length about those, and I do not have anything unique or original to say. They are things I have spoken about in the past in the constituency and I am just so pleased to see them in this budget. They are the sorts of measures that, once put in, will never be taken out. It has taken a long time to come, but once it is introduced it will be there forever. For pensioners and families with children these are fundamental reforms.

In terms of the budget for the ACT I had the opportunity on Wednesday morning at the traditional Chamber of Commerce and Industry breakfast to speak at length about the implications of the budget for the ACT. I will not repeat that here. I just want to say that it is very good news for the ACT mainly because we are part of Australia and it is good news for Australia, but it does have some specific measures that I want to refer to. Everybody sees Canberra as a Public Service town, and of course the Public Service is very important and I am proud to represent all those people. Contrary to the expectation, this is a budget that has positive things to say about Public Service numbers.

But what is underestimated about the ACT, and particularly about my electorate of Fraser, is that it is a university city. A very significant driver of the economy of the ACT and the economy of the electorate of Fraser is tertiary education, science and research. This has been a fantastic budget for universities, long term and in the short term, and a great budget for science and research—long-term reforms of funding formulae that will transform the sector and capital injections.

I want to draw attention to two capital injections into the ANU. I did say at the breakfast I spoke at on Wednesday morning that I wanted an inquiry into my suspicion that my good friend the Vice-Chancellor of the ANU, Ian Chubb, had hacked into the Treasury computer and typed a couple of paragraphs in. Because it is such a good budget for the ANU, I thought he must have put in his private wish list.

There are two things that are of long-term significance to the nation, the university and the region. One is the establishment of an ANU chemical sciences hub. It is immediately valuable because of the $90 million injection, but in the long term it is going to create for the region and the nation a focal point for modern, 21st century chemical science expertise. It is going to create a centre of excellence of global significance.

The second thing is something I have been campaigning on for a long time—stage 3 of the John Curtin School of Medical Research. I have been talking to the leadership of the John Curtin school for more than a decade about the three stages of the transformation. I congratulate Professor Whitworth for the foresight and persistence she has had. When we started talking about it and she outlined the ambitious plans she had, I thought they were terrific but heroic. I was pessimistic about mobilising the resources, but in this budget we see stage 3 coming to fruition. It will have immediate employment consequences because the contract is ready to go. It will also be a great basis for modern medical research in Australia. The John Curtin school has produced Nobel prize winners and remarkable world-leading medical research. Stage 3 is a very exciting initiative for me and the region.

I briefly thank also the Minister for Health and Ageing for the ACT cancer centre initiative. That is something I have been talking about for a long time.

It might seem strange that the next thing I am going to talk about is of interest to my constituents, because it does not have any economic relevance to the ACT. As I go around parts of my electorate people consistently raise concerns about the future of the ABC, its long-term decline and funding for it to be able to participate in the increasingly competitive television market. In this budget there is $150 million over three years to enable the ABC to do a number of things, but I particularly want to focus on increasing the level of Australian drama content on the ABC. There is a similar $20 million increase for SBS.

This will transform the television industry. It will create enormous opportunities for Australian actors, writers, musicians and technical workers. It will increase significantly the volume of work for those people. Culturally I find that so rewarding and enhancing. I know that there will be people in Canberra, particularly, of course, the Friends of the ABC, who will be very excited about this initiative. I am delighted to welcome it. I congratulate the government on it.

In my remaining time I want to say a few things about the development assistance budget. I am not going to go through it chapter and verse. The parameters and framework of the development assistance budget are set out in great detail in what we call the blue book that is published with each budget. Standing here and reading that into the record will not add any information for anybody. I want to talk about some of the big-picture questions around it. Why is it as it is? If people want a description of how it stands, they should look at the blue book and read both the framework statement in the beginning and the detailed outline. I want to talk for a few minutes about why the development assistance budget looks like it does.

The fundamental driver is the commitment that we made in opposition, which we have honoured in good times and now in tough times, to regularly increase the aid budget to achieve 0.5 per cent of gross national income by 2015. That is not an easy commitment to maintain in a budget like this. I congratulate the Treasurer and the Minister for Foreign Affairs on the work they did to maintain that commitment. The budget shows us getting to 0.4 per cent by the end of the forward estimates period and being on track for our 0.5 per cent commitment.

People are entitled to say that 0.5 per cent does not meet the international standard—that we should be aiming for 0.7 per cent. In the long term that is our aspirational goal. But one of the realities of public life is that you cannot start from where you want to be; you have to start from where you are. And where we were was at 0.3 per cent. To get to 0.5 per cent by 2015 is going to be a major effort. The interesting thing in the data is that there is a little phrase in the budget papers that says that the 0.34 per cent level that we have achieved in this budget is the highest achieved since 1995-96. I would just ask people to think about that for a moment. That means that it is the highest since the last Labor budget of 1995-96. It has taken us two budgets to get back to where the Hawke-Keating government was. It has taken us two budgets to repair all that damage—and we have further to go. That is the first thing that defines the character of it: it is the 0.5 per cent commitment.

The second is it reflects the reason we made that commitment. There is a dual track. One is a humanitarian obligation to fight global poverty—and I am delighted to see the enthusiasm of so many young Australians to support that commitment—but parallel to that is just a clear-eyed recognition of Australia’s shared interest in a peaceful, prosperous region and globe. I am unashamed about saying that part of the reason we do this is our self-interest. To be able to do a thing which has a humanitarian purpose and outcome and unashamedly say, ‘I support it secondarily because it is in our national interest to live in a peaceful, prosperous globe,’ I do not apologise for. That is a legitimate reason to spend Australian taxpayers’ money.

There are a lot of particular initiatives in this budget that I could refer to, but they are outlined in detail in the budget papers. I want to mention two things. One very briefly, but I am proud of it, is in the framework statement at the beginning of the blue book, which is the outline by this government—by the foreign minister, by my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs and me—of why we are doing what we are doing. We talk about education as the flagship of this government’s development assistance. I am very committed to that. It is a priority that we will continue and pursue.

The other is the initiative about food—about agricultural development and food in developing countries. I just want to take a minute on this because there has been some criticism that we are spending money on helping people in Africa, the Pacific and Asia—but the criticism has been particularly with regard to Africa—to grow food at a time when it is difficult for our farmers in Australia. I want to confront that argument head-on. I am not the slightest bit defensive. When Australians see starving children on television, they are wonderfully generous people. The statistics show that they are almost the most generous people in the world in terms of their response in donations to international NGOs. If we are going to be generous in response to that crisis—and we are and we should be—surely it makes sense to try and stop them starving in the first place. That is what this is about. People can come up with very complex, convoluted arguments, but in the end you have got to distil it down to its essence. What we are trying to do is say, ‘Let’s not have appeals to feed starving children; let’s stop them starving.’ That does not seem like a bad principle to me.

If people think we should not be investing money in that, I am happy to have that debate in any forum, anytime, any day. It is in fact the case that the character of some of our investment in the agricultural research conducted by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research benefits Australian farmers as well, from research into production in semi-arid areas to fighting some of the diseases of crops and animals that occur in Africa and in Australia. I welcome that. That is a very good thing. But I am happy to just defend it straight on the basis that we are trying to contribute to stopping the children starving in the first place, because we have a long-term global food crisis.

Economic history tells us that this global economic crisis will pass. It is difficult; it is tough; and it is going to last longer than any of us would like, but like all economics crises it will pass. When it finishes, we will still have a global food crisis because the drivers of the imbalance between supply and demand will continue. I do not have time to talk about them but they will continue, and so the global food crisis will be with us when the global economic crisis passes. I want to see us focusing on that. I want to see us looking at the things that Australia can do as a great agricultural nation and as a great humanitarian nation and to combine our skills and resources to focus on agriculture.

Before I conclude I want to quote one statistic. In 2005-06, 16 per cent of the people of the Asia-Pacific region were hungry in terms of having consumption below the minimum dietary energy requirement of 1,800 calories per day set by the FAO. That percentage represents 542 million people going hungry in our region. With the increase in food prices as a result of the global food crisis in 2007, that figure increased to 582 million—another 40 million people were going hungry in our area. That is what we are trying to confront—and this issue is even more dramatic in other parts the world.

So I am proud to be associated with and to be contributing to the development assistance program. I am proud to work with the Australian people who are working inside AusAID, NGOs and international organisations and who are contributing as individuals and as part of the global movement in trying to fight poverty and to ease hunger in the world. We are trying to deal with the fact that we do not want to have to dig into our pockets to save starving children; we want to feed them, give them a chance for a decent future, an education and health system that enables them to make the full use of their talents.

I am proud to support the budget as a citizen looking at the macroeconomics of it and as a representative of this region because of the initiatives within it that will enable worthwhile things to be done, jobs to be created and future opportunities for our children here. I am also proud of the budget because of what it does for our culture and because of its development assistance approach, which creates a framework that I am proud to represent and that I think will stand Australia in good stead in our region and globally into the future. I support the bills.

See this speech in context