Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

There is no doubt that in Australia we hold the importance of maternal and child health very dear, and I commend the member from the opposition for raising this issue. Looking at sexual and reproductive health and the importance of universal access to it has been well understood in bilateral agreements, in Bretton Woods institutions and in most of the aid organisations around the world. I have worked in Madagascar and, although glaucoma is a far cry from maternal health, there is no doubt that we take a major and multilateral approach towards making sure that maternal and child health is as good as possible, for economic reasons as much as for social reasons.

We know that if modern contraception and the type of services that we enjoy here in wealthy countries were accessible, there would be massive falls in maternal and child deaths. We would expect that global maternal deaths would fall from 290,000 to around 90,000, and we know that infant deaths would fall by around 75 per cent from 2.9 million down to around 660,000—still startling numbers, but massive improvements are achieved by the interventions of wealthy economies. Australia holds its head high in this area, and that is why we are very keen to align ourselves with some of the concerns expressed by the opposition member, but we also note that the decision of the US is one for them to decide upon domestically.

In my role with donor coordination, having worked with major agencies in East Timor and other areas, I saw that most of these agencies simply move around to fill the gaps that are evident in-country and on the ground. While I am not commenting on the US policy, I would say to the member opposite that, fundamentally, in each of these areas—Madagascar included—agencies will simply respond to the need and shift their priorities if they identify that a deficit in maternal and child health needs to be filled. I have confidence that other agencies, other bilateral arrangements and other governments will fill that need. I am very confident that, even though it is an unmet need, there will be a significant move to do that, and I think that those providers are mature enough to do that.

Australia's record on sexual and reproductive health is very significant. In the last financial year we provided just over $9 million in core funding to the United Nations Population Fund under a four-year partnership, which is commendable. We also provided $4.6 million in core funding to the International Planned Parenthood Federation and another $3.5 million to the IPPF for its sexual and reproductive health program for crisis and post-crisis situations, as well as $2.5 million to UNFPA for essential child and maternal commodities. Australia also funds bilateral and regional partnerships to strengthen sexual and reproductive health services to a range of countries—Cambodia, which will be familiar to many; Timor-Leste; PNG, our northern neighbour; Vietnam and Pacific island economies. You cannot say that Australia does not have a significant footprint in this area already, but I would also have to concede that the withdrawal of a major donor economy like the US presents significant threats, which are going to have to be addressed by other bilateral agreements and other nations.

We also need to note that significant cuts were made by the previous speaker's side of politics prior to the 2013 election, and these have had significant impacts that have not been made up for by commitments since. After unsustainable and unaffordable increases under that government, the foreign aid budget has now found a more settled position where the focus is absolutely on value for money, delivery and a quality outcomes framework, not just how much money, in a raw sense, is dispersed.

During the 2016 campaign, Labor did announce that it would be increasing its aid budget by $800 million over four years if elected, and this was their first instalment. It is very important to remember—of course we will never allow them to forget, either—that this was in the context of massive cuts that had been delivered by the Labor government when they were in office by diverting $750 million from the aid budget. Ironically, it was to address the people-moving challenge. We found, paradoxically, that the Gillard government became one of the largest recipients of its own foreign aid budget, which was quite ironic if not tragic. What we did see were significant cuts from that side of politics—some commitments more recently to increase, but they are easy to make when you are in opposition. What we had was a government that could not hold its head high on foreign aid. It has since made some empty promises about increasing funding, but it is where the rubber hits the road that matters. When you are in government, it is how you spend it and how you raise the revenue that really matters, and I do not think Australia will let them forget.

In closing, the US has made this decision, but—as someone who has worked in this field of donor coordination, in East Timor in particular—I know that there are solutions and that providers will find a way to fill this vacuum.

See this speech in context