Government shake up should extend to overseas aid delivery
As the dust settles on a revamped federal government thanks to the courageous crossbenchers, an obvious question is will Prime Minister Julia Gillard pick up on this new way of governing and extend the shake up to some of her ministries.
If asked the same question the Greens would nominate an overhaul of Australia’s global citizen role as a priority for this government.
During the eleven years of Howard and three years of the Rudd government Australia’s commitment to responsible provision of overseas aid was little short of shameful. Our overseas aid program is insufficiently funded and driven by trade and strategic interests.
If Australia is to take its responsibilities in the Asia-Pacific region seriously, we should dedicate more resources and personnel to overseas development. There has not been a dedicated Minister for Overseas Development since Gordon Bilney in 1996. The Greens believe Australia needs to reinstate a dedicated Ministry that is separate from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
The overseas development budget needs to be increased. The Greens are committed to lifting Australia’s Development Aid contribution to 0.7 per cent of our Gross National Income by 2012, in line with UN recommendations and the first Millennium Development Goal - to halve global poverty by 2015.
Aid money should be delivered to foster social, economic and environmental justice. But too often the alignment of Australia’s development assistance program is to promote a trade liberalisation agenda.
An independent review of Australia's $400 million dollar aid program in Papua New Guinea found half the money was spent on private companies and consultants, rather than community projects.
The Pacific economic agreement know as PACER Plus is an "aid for trade" pact that the federal government has claimed is different from other free trade agreements. In practical terms it is a free trade agreement, which pushes for Pacific Island governments to reduce trade barriers, but gives little beneficial aid in return.
The Australian government needs to be strengthening ties to promote genuine economic development in the Pacific countries, particularly the building of new infrastructure to allow further indigenous economic development and to address climate change impacts.
Australia's aid program is not sufficiently focussed on climate change and its impacts. If global warming continues unchecked it will be felt most harshly by people whose poverty makes them the least able to adapt to rising sea levels and food and resource scarcity. The number of people affected by weather related disasters in the Pacific region increased 65 fold between the 1970s and the 1990s and unless action is taken soon, these figures will increase.
The degree to which Australia has abandoned a responsible approach to assisting low income countries is highlighted by our interaction with Afghanistan. It is reported that the total cost since 2001 (including the budget for 2010-11 of $1.6 billion) of Australia’s military operations in Afghanistan now stands at $6.1 billion , yet our total aid commitment has only been $650 million.
Putting the billions spent on the unwinnable war into development aid and rebuilding the country’s infrastructure would bring many more local benefits. It would also do far more to help limit the power of the Taliban than the military actions being waged in Afghanistan.
As the income gulf in the world widens Afghanistan should become a focus for Australia and other developed nations to demonstrate how they can use development aid to build independent, sovereign nations.
This is possible if our political leaders have the courage. The past two weeks of negotiations demonstrates that the potential for change is in the air. Let’s seize the moment and extend this new style to our interactions with low income countries.
