Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise this afternoon to speak on the grievance debate and to make some points regarding the issue of the Australian aid budget, particularly Australia's contribution to two international initiatives, which I think are of tremendous significance in terms of providing real concrete and effective aid to those in the world who are most in need. I refer particularly to the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation, commonly known as the GAVI, and also Australia's commitment to the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tb and Malaria.

We are a wealthy, prosperous nation and a generous nation. Australia certainly has a significant role as a global player in doing what we can to help stamp out poverty. If we just look at the immediate Asia-Pacific region, we have some 740 million living in extreme poverty—some 60 per cent of the world's undernourished. The numbers have halved since 1990, but there is still much more work to do.

The circumstances around the debate around foreign aid in recent times is that it was a consensus around the question of meeting the millennium development goals. However, in the lead-up to the last election there were changes—there were changes by the then government of which I was proud to be a member—and subsequently significant changes, drastic changes, on behalf of this coalition government.

I refer to a number of those changes in terms of an article which came out in The Sydney Morning Herald earlier this year :

It goes on:

escaping cuts.

…    …    …

As you can see, these reductions are significant—and they are not just numbers. They are about people's lives. They are about helping those in international communities who are very desperate and in a situation where they are in real need. The plea that I make today is that, given this is what is happening and it is the way that it is, there are some aid programs that surely even this government will recognise as performing well and providing real assistance that is going to make a real difference to thousands and thousands of lives. I mentioned those two programs before.

GAVI is a public-private global health partnership committed to reducing the number of children dying, by increasing immunisation access in the poorest of countries. Around seven million children die every year, mostly from preventable diseases such as pneumonia, diarrhoea and malaria. Two things need to be done to stop this happening: vaccinate against dangerous diseases and strengthen the capacity of local integrated health systems so they in turn might be able to manage their own disease prevention treatment systems.

GAVI works through four methods. First, it works with recipient governments to build political will for vaccines. Second, it assists the country in strengthening its health systems so it is capable of delivering immunisations and other health services. Third, it ensures funding from donor countries and sustains co-financing of vaccines by recipient countries. Fourth, it shapes the global market for vaccines to make sure there is an adequate supply of vaccines at sustainable prices for developing countries.

GAVI has immunised over half a billion children. On AusAID's multilateral scorecard in 2012 GAVI was ranked 'very strong' or 'strong' against all assessment components in the effectiveness category. GAVI has also been endorsed by the current foreign minister. On 14 February this year in a speech at the ANU she said:

I had the privilege of travelling to Myanmar in late 2012 to see GAVI programs in action on the spot, and that is exactly what we saw. We saw good work being done. We saw people being helped. We saw capacity-building and, through that and through the nature of the financing mechanisms, we saw dollars that were donated effectively multiplying and that multiplication saving lives. So I urge the government to consider the question of Australia's commitment to GAVI in the future.

In 2011, under the then Labor government, Australia made a pledge of $200 million, which covered the next three years. However, there is a need for a further commitment now, and that commitment needs to be undertaken. I urge the government to commit an extra $75 million over 2014 and 2015 to ensure that the fantastic work of GAVI can continue.

I also mentioned the global fund, and I will speak briefly on that. The global fund does excellent work on the questions of AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. To provide an example I quote again from a document regarding the work that is occurring in Papua New Guinea:

The fact is that, when we look at these particular diseases, we see that 3.5 million people are killed annually by HIV-AIDS, TB or malaria. Although improvements have been made, there is a risk to our investments if these diseases are allowed to gain a foothold once again.

On 3 December 2014 Australia made a pledge of $200 million for 2014-16, and I welcome it. However, it falls roughly halfway to what is needed to maintain the growth that is required to actually conquer these diseases. The program that is in place and the aims of the global fund require that growth. They require it from a range of donor nations. Our role and the money we provide will have a multiplier effect with regard to the actions of the United States in particular but also others. Dr Mark Dybul, the fund's executive director, makes a very valid point: 'We can invest now or pay forever.'

So I urge the government to look to consider supplementing the $200 million they have provided and go to the question of $400 million, which is what is actually needed. I note that the 20th International AIDS Conference will be in Melbourne in July this year. I think it is important to send a message at such a conference that that is the commitment we make to the international community and that we recognise that there is a great need there. These programs are examples of international aid that work; they are programs which I would urge the government to get behind. They are examples of where a few more dollars in a large program budget can actually make a real difference. It is something that needs to be considered. It is aid that will save lives. It will save lives in the region; it will save lives all around the world. I urge the government to consider these matters incredibly seriously.

See this speech in context