Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The 43rd parliament commenced its proceedings with a debate on our mission in Afghanistan. There was overwhelming support from the majority of speakers for our involvement in this war. Despite its risks, the terrible loss of life and, yes, even the cost, it appears that there is a core level of bipartisan support and understanding that our national interest is served by our presence there.

Of course, the cause of national interest is not always straightforward. It can be difficult to explain, particularly when it involves events and circumstances in a foreign country a long way from our own day-to-day experiences. But, from Federation to this day, leaders of all parties have been willing to put the national interest first when it comes to national security. Sometimes these things do not align with the interests of individuals or even political parties, particularly when they run contrary to popularly held but misinformed views, or when our long-term interest requires a short-term sacrifice.

I came to this place believing that an important part of my function was to lead, educate and explain, particularly when there was a misunderstanding of what lay in our national interest. That is why the proposed cuts to Australia’s foreign aid budget announced by the Leader of the Opposition this week are so deplorable an example of short-term thinking, a failure of political leadership and a base appeal to our prejudices, our fears—not Australia’s national interest.

It is hard to reconcile these cuts with the spirit of bipartisanship that has, in the main, characterised our approach in this area. Indeed, I could not agree more with the opposition spokesperson for foreign affairs when she said in August last year:

Fundamental to our foreign policy objectives is a renewed focus on overseas aid. We will honour our commitment to spend point-five per cent of gross national income on overseas aid. We support the Millenium Development Goals

Or, again, in December last year, when she said ours is:

… a bipartisan commitment in Australia to ensure we meet a 0.5 per cent of gross national income target for our aid budget by 2015.

Now more than ever, when our country is experiencing what the Reserve Bank has described as the biggest resources boom since the 1850s gold rush, is the time to step up to meet our responsibilities as a good international neighbour in our region, and not to retreat from this.

The need for foreign aid is great, with 1.4 billion people living on less than a dollar a day, two billion people in the world not having access to clean drinking water and 25,000 children dying each day from preventable diseases. We know that many of the world’s poor live in Australia’s region. Our longstanding aid program serves our national interest, creating a more secure, stable and economically prosperous region.

Recently, many of us in this place have received more than one copy of an email in wide circulation which contained some figures about our level of foreign aid, claiming that Queensland flood victims would receive only $1 million. These spurious claims have appeared in many online forums in recent weeks. This email appears to have emanated from a fringe political g roup in Queensland, and it is wrong in so many ways. Australia’s overseas humanitarian assistance does not come at the expense of assistance to Australians in need and it never has. Indeed, the proposition by the Leader of the Opposition that we should delay or cut our funding to Indonesian schools cuts to the very heart of what has been a bipartisan policy about fighting terrorism, at least since the bombings in Bali in 2002.

That is why, in 2004, with complete bipartisan support from the ALP, the then Prime Minister, Mr Howard, announced the Australia Indonesia Basic Education Program—in order to deal with the challenge of militant Islamism infiltrating the Indonesian education system. Sadly, the announcement by the Leader of the Opposition in the last week is a retrograde policy which plays right into the hands of militant Islamists and those who encourage terrorism—

See this speech in context