Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I thank colleagues for allowing this debate to occur. It is an important one not only for the international community about also for Australia's sovereign position in the way Australian aid dollars are use. This comes from a lot of work done in the United Kingdom on debt relief. There was a 2005 UK report into heavily indebted poor countries which led to a tripartite supported bill in the UK parliament known as the Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Act 2010. At a time in the Australian parliament when bipartisanship is so difficult to achieve, it is good to see another jurisdiction in a minority government delivering tripartite support for something of such importance. It can be done when people act in good faith. The significance of this bill is obviously to provide relief through an international initiative on heavily indebted poor countries. Around 40 eligible countries are involved in dealing with their significant problem of debt, which then applies obvious pressures on any form of program delivery for those countries to participate in the modern economy, whether it is through progress in agriculture, women's health, education or basic governance principles. All of those issues become secondary in a country trying to work its way out of a very heavy loading of debt through questionable dealings.

I fully understand concerns in regard to chasing dodgy lenders and having a parallel exercise of pinning down those who, for the wrong reasons, have provided lending. The International community should do more to pin down those who have been the vultures in this exercise. I would also urge this fundamental support for debt relief in developing countries.

The reason this is not only about providing relief to 40 countries and the Millennium Development Goal arguments about doing that is the issue of Australian aid dollars. If we are going to maximise the effectiveness of Australian aid dollars, I would have thought we need them to go to the very important programs in agriculture. I remind everybody of the words of Bill and Melinda Gates, who said that 'no country has achieved a rapid ascent from hunger and poverty without raising agricultural productivity'. You cannot do that without making a financial contribution. I remind the House Tim Costello's comments that, in dealing with global poverty, the one issue he thinks there should be focus on is women's empowerment and related issues around women's health and sexual health. Those programs cannot be delivered without dealing with debt. Issues of corruption or maladministration around governance principles will not be addressed unless there is some conditional program work in dealing with debt. Long term, the knowledge contribution of many countries of the world will not happen unless debt is tackled. Australian aid dollars should be going to those programs, not to vulture funds.

We have a precedent on the table in the UK parliament, where long and good work has been done and where consensus has been reached in building a model that sees UK aid dollars—much of it in the Asia-Pacific region—going to valuable aid programs to help countries participate in the modern economy and modern community rather than paying off debts to vulture funds. Australia could replicate that and should replicate that, not only for the moral arguments but for the pure economic arguments around Australian aid dollars going to the right programs rather than to any dodgy lenders or to vulture funds. I urge this House to support this motion.

See this speech in context