The moral cost of cutting aid

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

By Tim Costello
CEO World Vision Australia

Many Australians think we are the St Vincent de Paul of the world. When disaster strikes Australia responds. When there are poor communities in need we are only too eager to help. It's the Aussie way and perhaps even a responsibility for us as "The Lucky Country".

With such an understanding, you can't really blame people - who are now doing it tough - to argue we shouldn't keep sending a 'big chunk' of our national earnings overseas. We should keep it for ourselves - after all doesn't charity begin at home?

Doesn't floods and bushfires at home trump our need to respond overseas?

There is no better time to ask such as question as a government-commissioned independent review of the nation's $4 billion overseas aid budget is poised to pass judgement on the nature, shape and effectiveness of the aid we give.

We are also on the eve of a federal budget in which large spending cuts are certain. But this budget will also reveal the government's commitment to its promise to boost overseas aid spending by 2015 - reflecting a bipartisan commitment on aid.

So is Australia generous when it comes to helping people beyond our shores who are living in poverty (poverty so bad it kills 22,000 children every day)?

The answer is yes - and no.

Individually, private donations by Australians are generous, very generous. In fact we rank among the most generous on the planet.

Last year the World Giving Index rated Australians and New Zealanders as number one in the giving of their money and time. Yet in stark contrast to our private generosity, the level our government gives through overseas development assistance ranks us a lowly 15 out of 23 rich countries in terms of our aid funding.

For every $100 Australia earns, we give less than 50 cents to overseas aid. In fact our level of giving amounts to about 33 cents. This compares with the 70 cents for every $100 the United Kingdom has committed.

World Vision research shows that the world's spending on aid is just 1/13th of global military spending. Even soft drink sales in the developed world constitute more than double what the world's richest governments devote to overseas aid.

The real irony of aid is the fact that despite spending so little on aid, it has produced incredible results.

Since 1990 there has been a 36 per cent reduction in the number of children dying due to poverty, more than 60 million more children are in school, an additional 1.8 billion people have gained access to clean water and 1.3 billion more people now have sanitation facilities to prevent disease.  Aid has been critical to these achievements.

Australia has played an important role in this. A role we should be proud of.

The ten countries receiving the most aid from Australia are making significant strides to reach the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) - the world's blueprint for combating poverty. The only exception is Afghanistan which is wracked by war.

And while aid saves lives and helps the poorest of the poor, many of whom live in countries on our very doorstep,  it also produces a lasting dividend to Australia. We may be an island nation but we are not immune to the world's ills, as swine flu demonstrated a disease outbreak in Mexico one day can close Victorian schools  another day. By building strong communities, aid protects us against the impact of disease, instability and violence that incubates amid the very worst poverty.

By giving aid now we can avoid having to spend more to respond when a crisis erupts; a penny of prevention equals a pound of cure.

When violence erupted in the Solomon Islands Australia responded for the sake of stability in our region by setting up the Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands. RAMSI has cost Australia more than $1 billion since 2003. Aid also helps foster economic growth in other countries and that benefits Australians. Australia earns an estimated $130 billion in export dollars from countries that receive aid.

Former US President, Richard Nixon, once quipped: "There are no votes in aid".

So it will be tempting amid what promises to be a savage federal budget tonight, to take a knife to aid even though it makes up only around one per cent of the federal budget. But such a move wouldn't only hurt those in need. It would also be against our own interests.

Opinion Pieces, Poverty, Asia and the Pacific, Australian Government, Budget Cuts, Disaster relief, Foreign Aid, Millennium Development Goals, Tim Costello, United Nations

Back to all Results