Kate Thwaites (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to rise to speak on this bill, the Official Development Assistance Multilateral Replenishment Obligations (Special Appropriation) Bill 2019, and the amendment moved by the member for Shortland. That's because, of course, meeting our commitments to replenish these development funds is an essential part of being a good global citizen. Several crucial multilateral funds are covered by the special appropriation included in this bill, and Australia has a proud history of support for these funds. We've historically played an active role in supporting them. That's why it is appropriate for parliament to make a special appropriation to support these commitments on an ongoing basis.

We know that these multilateral funds alleviate poverty and promote economic growth and development in some of the world's poorest countries. The funds also help tackle the big global challenges of our time, things like climate change, which require international cooperation. These multilateral development funds have contributed to lifting more than a billion people out of extreme poverty since 1990, and Labor continues to be a strong supporter of the multilateral institutions at the heart of this system. We know that supporting international development is in Australia's interests.

But the Prime Minister and those on the other side seem to be unsure about their support for multilateralism, and I note that there's a heavy list from our side of parliament speaking to this bill but very few from the other side who came to speak on this. Last year the Prime Minister gave the Lowy Lecture. At that time, he said:

We should avoid any reflex towards a negative globalism that coercively seeks to impose a mandate from an often ill defined borderless global community. And worse still, an unaccountable internationalist bureaucracy.

Well, unlike the Prime Minister, Labor is proud of Australia's support for multilateral development institutions. These types of institutions are the ones that have helped to promote peace and prosperity across the globe since they were set up in the aftermath of World War II. They were set up because we'd seen the impact of going it alone. They were set up because we'd seen what happens when nations acted unilaterally. They were set up so that we could achieve global cooperation. They further Australians' interest in a stable, secure and prosperous international environment.

As we see the dominant economic and political forces in our region and around the globe continue to shift, it's crucial we remain engaged with these multilateral institutions. Multilateralism ensures Australia is able to play a role on the global stage. They are somewhere where we, as a middle power, can come together and exert influence and make sure that our voice is heard and that we work constructively for a better future for all. And at a time when nations like the United States, who once we may have looked to as being leaders in these forums, are also disengaging from multilateral organisations, now's the time for Australia to strengthen our role and our leadership in these organisations at a time when we really are facing global problems, problems that can't be tackled by one country alone. Things like climate change—well, we can't tackle that alone; we need international institutions and international agreement—the movement of people across borders and people seeking asylum. These are all difficult problems that require us to be able to cooperate on an international level. That's what these institutions do, and that's why it's so disappointing that from the Prime Minister we have doubt about these international institutions and from the rest of his government's members we have disinterest about these institutions. This undermines Australia's commitment to these organisations, and it undermines our commitments to the rules based order which has been essential for ensuring a stable, secure and prosperous international environment.

Of course, it's not just Australia's spirit of cooperation that's lacking, it's our financial commitment too. Despite more than one billion people being lifted out of poverty since 1990, there is more to be done. More than 700 million people around the world still live in extreme poverty, and progress is made through those who can afford it doing their share. Unfortunately, that is not what Australia is doing. The coalition government has now cut $11.8 billion from Australia's foreign aid budget since 2013. In 2013-14 our aid budget was 0.33 per cent of our gross national income. On its current trajectory, it is expected to hit just 0.19 per cent in 2022-23. This is the lowest level on record. Within the OECD, we've fallen from being the 13th most generous country in 2012 to the 19th in 2017, making us one of the least generous members amongst OECD member countries.

We're now seeing the devastating impact of the Morrison government's cut to foreign aid. Spending on education, cut by 41 per cent; spending on health, cut by 32 per cent; support for South-East Asia, cut by 30 per cent; support for South Asia, cut by 42 per cent; support for Indonesia, our nearest and largest neighbour, cut by half. It is a disgrace that this government is ripping foreign aid money from countries with demonstrated need. These programs work. They make people's lives better and they make our region stronger. They're an investment in our relationships with our neighbours, but the Morrison government has shown that it is short-sighted and cold-hearted.

I've had the privilege of seeing firsthand the impact of Australian aid. I worked in the aid sector during the Rudd government years, when our aid budget was growing. I've travelled to South Africa, I've travelled to Timor-Leste, I've been to Vanuatu, I've been to the Solomon Islands. In all of those countries I saw the diverse ways that Australian aid was making real and practical changes in people's lives: women's groups who were getting a voice where they've never had one before; farmers in Timor-Leste who were being supported with small-scale farming, which meant they had gone from having a lengthy 'hungry season' to being able to feed their families; and people in South Africa who were being funded to get through the stigma and the difficulties of having HIV and AIDS.

These are vital programs. These are the programs that this government has cut. They've said they don't care about these people's lives: 'We want to leave you to yourself. We're not a good neighbour; we're not part of this community. We don't have any interest in supporting you.' That's what this government has done, and it is so disappointing to all of those good people working on those programs, people who were committed to improving others' lives. That work has now been undone, including the relationships we built and the knowledge we built about how things work in other countries. If we are engaging with other countries, if we want to go and talk to them about how things work, how we might have a better relationship with them—we've just lost decades of work. We've lost relationships that we had. We've lost contacts and knowledge that we had because of this government's cuts to foreign aid. It's short-sighted and it's mean.

Of course, it doesn't have to be like this. In contrast, the Conservative government in the United Kingdom put into law a target of 0.7 per cent of gross national income on foreign aid spending. That's right: a conservative government. Former British Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron championed raising the foreign aid budget, calling on better-off countries to meet their moral obligation. In 2012, in a speech to the United Nations, Cameron warned of the dangers of continuing to underspend. He said:

If we don't, the problems of conflict, the problems of mass migration, the problems of uncontrollable climate change are problems that will come and visit us at home.

If other conservative parties across the globe can see the importance of committing to foreign aid spending, why can't this government? This government continues to slash the aid budget and weaken Australia's reputation as a generous nation.

We know that Australians expect us to support these programs overseas. We know that they value foreign aid. Research conducted by the Lowy Institute in 2018 found that the average Australian actually believed that we invested around 14 per cent of the federal budget on foreign aid. They thought that maybe the right level would be about 10 per cent. What a difference! The Australian people think we should be investing 10 per cent; 0.19 per cent is what we're on track for. Australians know that it's in our interests to be generous. They are big-hearted. They are people who see that we can reach out, that we are wealthy enough to support others and that we are wealthy enough to be good neighbours. But this government is so short-sighted that it can't see those benefits.

There are other benefits for Australia. Reaching out to our neighbours can enhance our security and reduce the impacts of global instability. More importantly, it's an expression of our Australian values. It shows that we, as Australians, care about others and it demonstrates to the world that we want to be seen as a country that is engaged, supports others and sees beyond our borders.

The need for strong multilateral institutions and for a strong foreign aid budget is also apparent when we look at some of our closest neighbours in the Pacific region. The Pacific region is one of the most aid dependent in the world, and Australia does remain the largest donor in the region. Within the region we need to work to remain the partner of choice for Pacific nations through improved diplomatic development and economic links. Labor has long been an advocate for deeper Australian engagement in the Pacific.

One of the ways that we really need to look at stepping up in this space is our engagement when it comes to climate change. Leaders from across the Pacific have been clear with us that their countries are already seeing the effect of devastating climate change. I hark back to my previous experience working in this space. Even back in 2013 I remember travelling to countries in the Pacific and being told that the climate was changing and that farmers couldn't grow food in the same way. These are people whose lives are already being impacted and these are people whose lives were already on the edge. If we're not stepping up to be a good neighbour, if we're not showing that we're part of a global effort, a community effort, to tackle this, what are we demonstrating? We're showing our Pacific neighbours that we're not genuine and that we're not really listening to them—we're not interested in their priorities. Actually, we'll give them some money, but it's based on what we think they need, not on what they think they need and not on what they're telling us they want support for. We have to make sure that we're listening to the Pacific, and that means we need to be supporting them on tackling climate change.

While this government has initiated the Pacific step-up, and Labor supports part of that, the Pacific step-up is undermined by the fact that we've ripped aid money from other countries and by the fact that we refuse to spend some of this money on tackling climate change in the Pacific. That's a vital problem there at the moment. Until we can listen to our neighbours, until we can demonstrate that the money we're giving them hasn't been ripped from other people around the world, we're not setting ourselves up to have the relationships we need to be able to support people around the world.

This government has also lost valuable expertise from our aid program. By cutting the aid program, they've lost the people who knew what they were doing. By cutting the people who had years and years of experience in this space, they're finding that—oops!—we've got to outsource to the private sector. And the private sector is saying, 'Actually, the amount of money you're spending doesn't really make this worth our while.' So there's no-one delivering these programs who has the expertise or the knowledge that they used to have. We're finding that people who had built decades of knowledge and experience in a particular area are being pushed to one side, and, again, this undermines the relationships that we've had. People in other countries who may have been able to walk into, say, a bureaucracy in Pakistan and know who's who and know their way around are no longer on Australia's side, because we've cut their funding. It's short-sighted. It's undermining us all. This government have shown they don't care about foreign aid. If they cared, they'd invest. If they cared, they'd be thinking about the future, they'd be putting their money where their mouth is and they'd be supporting efforts to reduce global poverty.

See this speech in context