Madeleine King (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Trade) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Official Development Assistance Multilateral Replenishment Obligations (Special Appropriation) Bill 2019. Labor will support this bill as we are leaders in international development and aid policy. I also want to state my support for the amendments moved earlier today by the member for Shortland. Those amendments are really important. It is really important that this House be concerned that, since 2014, coalition governments have cut $11.8 billion from the foreign aid budget, with the result that Australia's ODA investments are now at a record low as a share of gross national income. I also urge the House to agree that active and engaged participation in multilateral institutions, including multilateral development institutions, is essential for advancing Australia's interests in a stable, secure and prosperous international environment.

This bill provides a special appropriation to enable the Australian government to meet its commitment to replenish a range of multilateral development funds over the coming years. These funds carry out essential work in tackling poverty and promoting economic growth and sustainable development in some of the world's poorest countries. The funds also tackle very important environmental challenges which require global cooperation and have indeed worked with global cooperation. Australia has played an active role over many years in supporting these funds, and our support of them is part of Australia's commitment to being a good international citizen. It is one of the ways Australia contributes to global economic and social development and to tackling very challenging environmental issues across the globe.

We must always remember that supporting international development is always in Australia's best interests. Helping developing countries to grow and prosper will promote Australia's interests in a prosperous, stable, secure and, most importantly, peaceful region. While assisting our neighbours should not always be about Australian advantage, growth in developing countries will create new trade and investment opportunities for Australia that will not only help lift people in developing countries out of poverty but will also support jobs in Australia. Mutual benefit from international aid should be noted before this government seeks to cut that assistance as it has done in every budget since it's been elected.

It is manifestly in Australia's interest to tackle poverty in the region because it means a more stable and secure international environment. Poverty and social inequities can generate instability, insecurity and tensions in the international environment. By reducing economic disadvantage we tackle the root causes of that instability. This will not only improve the welfare of people in developing countries; it also improves our own security in the region. For this reason, Labor supports international aid and the funding of these institutions and these funds.

Tackling poverty is not only the best thing to do; it's the right thing to do. Tackling poverty is a reflection of Australian values. We want to help our neighbours in the region have better, more prosperous and peaceful lives. Australia has supported these multilateral development funds on a bipartisan basis for many years and we will continue to do so.

This bill covers a number of funds. One is the International Development Association, which is the World Bank's development arm and one of the world's main sources of multilateral official development assistance. Indeed, our commitment to the World Bank goes back to the international financial architecture adopted in the aftermath of the Second World War and to the Chifley government's 1947 decision for Australia to join the Bretton Woods Institutions. Labor always supports multilateral institutions and always will. Where those multilateral institutions are not performing, perhaps, as we might like, we would always seek to reform them rather than skulk away or take our bat and ball and go home when things don't work out as we might have hoped. It is important that Australia takes a leadership role in reform of all multilateral institutions where we think improvements can be made. That is what a good international citizen should do, and I urge the government to show leadership in this area.

Another fund is the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative and the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative, which the Howard government committed to in 2005. This provides debt-relief arrangements administered by the International Development Association, which has relieved 36 of the world's poorest countries of some US$99 billion worth of debt. The appropriation also assists the Asian Development Fund, which provides development grants to low-income members of the Asian Development Bank. It also funds the Global Environment Facility Trust Fund, which is administered by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development to support sustainable development activities around the world. The other fund which this appropriation bill will support is the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol, which provides funds to help developing countries to phase out the use of substances which deplete the earth's ozone layer.

The Montreal protocol is really a stand-out example of international cooperation to take action to avoid a global disaster, which would have been the loss of the protective ozone layer. I remember when we had a worldwide movement to do something about the hole that had developed in the ozone layer above Antarctica. Indeed, Australia was a world leader, under the Hawke Labor government, in 1987 when action was required. Now, when the world is threatened by another environmental crisis—climate change—Australia lags behind in taking any action at all. This Liberal government and their inability to come to terms with climate change and how they might take action on it makes this nation look like that grumpy old uncle at a family reunion who can't accept the facts in a good debate or who won't debate anything at all, and who just cannot accept that the world is moving on. We run the risk of being left behind under this government's leadership in action on climate change.

It's really important to remember that it wasn't easy to agree the Montreal protocol to save the ozone layer. Large industries lobbied heavily against it; particularly, I must note, in the US, where the Ronald Reagan White House was urged to not ratify this agreement to reduce the use of ozone-destroying chemicals. And we in this place know the effects of lobbyists—they come in here, they meet with all of us, on all sides of this chamber and in the other place. We know how powerful vested interests can be. The world is fortunate that the Ronald Reagan led White House did the right thing and enacted and ratified the Montreal protocol; likewise in Australia, we were lucky that Bob Hawke and his government enacted the Montreal protocol.

Once the protocol was enacted, the world changed and industry developed new products—and we still have fridges and aerosols. The scare campaign was very similar to what we see today, as some predict economic doom from seeking to develop a strong carbon-neutral economy to limit the warming of the planet. With the Montreal protocol, the sky did not fall in—and, quite frankly, it would have fallen in, without action to get rid of CFCs—and, because of what Australia and other nations agreed to in 1987, the ozone layer should recover by 2050. It's taken a long time for the ozone layer to start to recover, and it's going to take a long time yet for it to fully recover. But the recovery had to get started with an objective, followed by a plan, which, in turn, was followed by action—action despite naysayers and vested interests. We could learn a lot from what the world did with the Montreal protocol. It has saved Antarctica, for one, and the ozone layer that protected those parts of our planet that are more susceptible to the hole in that very thin part of our atmosphere that protects us all from dangerous UV rays. The government might like to take a leaf out of the book of the Montreal Protocol when it's thinking about how it deals with international action and international institutions to address important and dangerous environmental challenges.

I'd like to reflect for a moment on the government's failure on international aid. We cannot ignore the cuts the Liberals and Nationals have made to Australia's aid budget and the Prime Minister's undermining of Australia's role in multilateral institutions. Since this government came to office in 2013, it has cut no less than $11.8 billion from Australia's aid programs. As a result, Australia's official development assistance is on track to fall to just 0.19 per cent of gross national income. That's the lowest level of ODA as a share of gross national income since the Commonwealth started publishing data in 1961.

Under the current Prime Minister, Prime Minister Morrison, Australia's international aid is lower as a share of national income than it was under Liberal Prime Ministers Menzies, Holt, Gorton, McMahon, Fraser and Howard. What a legacy that is! Australia's aid budget as a share of GNI has fallen from the middle of the pack of the OECD to one of the least generous amongst OECD Development Assistance Committee member countries. That's not a record to be proud of. It's contrary to Australia's interests in promoting economic development and the prosperity, stability and security that we all know economic development brings. It's harming our international standing and our bilateral relationships. What's worse, it's hurting some of the poorest people in the world. Does this government think that no-one is watching? Well, they are watching, and people are suffering because of the government's $11.8 billion in cuts to the foreign aid budget.

I'm also concerned about the hypocrisy we see from this government concerning international institutions. I'm really glad that this legislation is here to support these multilateral funds. That is a good thing, and I support it. On the other hand, in the public arena, the current Prime Minister seeks to undermine our commitment to multilateral institutions with that weird rhetoric about negative globalism. What exactly does he mean by negative globalism? Is it the 70-plus nations that have committed to reducing carbon emissions and setting actual targets? Is it the negative globalism of Prime Minister Boris Johnson or the negative globalism of German Chancellor Angela Merkel committing to have their great nations address the challenges of climate change? Is it the Paris Agreement itself? Whether it's all or one of them, who can tell? This strange conspiracy-theory-laden language of negative globalism has become another example of the Prime Minister's approach: playing political games rather than developing actual policies to tackle the important issues for our future.

Labor will support this bill as it supports our continuing participation in multilateral development institutions. It's part of the Labor legacy. It's part of Australia's legacy on the world stage. It's something that this government tends to ignore, and it doesn't pay much respect to the legacy of this nation and its efforts and leadership in international affairs throughout the years. Labor will continue to retain its commitment to strengthening Australia's foreign aid investments, because we know a strong international development program and active positive engagement in global institutions will further Australia's interests in a stable, secure and prosperous international environment. Moreover, it is the right thing to do to be a good international citizen and play a leadership role.

There have also been cuts to international health funding, which we found out in response to Senate estimates questions from Labor. Infrastructure spending is a good thing, but this government has robbed Peter to pay Paul by switching funding from health funding into infrastructure. Cutting assistance in international health is against our national interest. We're witnessing the terrible health and economic impacts of the outbreak of COVID-19 in our region, and we know some of our neighbours have less robust health systems. Outbreaks like this show how important it is that our regional neighbours maintain and prosper under strong health systems. In the face of this tragic set of circumstances with COVID-19, this government cuts health funding to our Pacific neighbours.

It has been reported that health funding has been cut by 75 per cent to the Cook Islands; 22 per cent to Fiji; 13 per cent to the Solomon Islands; and 36 per cent to Samoa, which has also been devastated by a measles outbreak that has claimed the lives of more than 80 people. This is unacceptable. This government likes to talk about its Pacific step-up, but, quite frankly, this reads like a Pacific step-back—a step way, way back—where we cut health funding to the people who need it most, to the people in our neighbourhood, to the people we should be showing leadership and friendship to. Not under this government's watch—no way. Leadership has been lost in the Pacific.

I look forward to the minister trying to do some more. I know he's going to have a battle with his Treasurer to stop funding for international aid and development, just like the foreign minister before him, the former member for Curtin, who we all know was powerless in the face of this government to stop cuts to foreign aid. It really must stop. I support the amendments moved by the member for Shortland.

See this speech in context