Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Prior to entering parliament, I saw first hand the burdens and suffering of the unfortunate and impoverished, some of the things the member for Kingsford Smith talked about: in refugee camps in South Lebanon; closer to home in the Philippines, in the Solomon Islands and in Timor Leste; extreme poverty in Afghanistan and Iraq during deployments there in 2001 and 2005; and, in Southern Iraq in my role as chief of staff of the British-led division in Basra, included helping organisations like DFID, USAID and a variety of NGOs.

As a senior public servant, I managed my department's regional cooperation programs, some hundred million dollars every year, in building institutional strength in regional countries. Together, these responsibilities have confirmed for me the vital importance of our aid abroad. But our genuine sympathy from an aid perspective must always be balanced with our capacity to pay for and sustain our aid program. On that basis, those opposite should do less pious lecturing about aid and consider why our economic freedom of action has been diminished. The official record of the meeting that the member for Kingsford Smith refers to does not support his claims. But the budget papers support the following claims—Labor left a $47 billion deficit this financial year, a $123 billion in cumulative deficits across the forward estimates and debt due to peak at $667 billion. I ask: where were their fine words about devastating effects on women and children when their party removed $5.7 billion from the forward estimates of the aid budget in the last 15 months of the 43rd Parliament—cuts, by the way, that Labor never took to an election?

Why did Labor break their promise three times to increase the aid program to 0.5 per cent of gross national income? Why was it okay for Labor to rip $375 million from the aid budget to pay for their cost blow-out in the immigration budget? Where is the national interest assessment in justifying Bob Carr's spending on rhinoceros programs in Sumatra and re-building Grenada's parliament? How could Libya be so important to Australia's national interests to justify Australia being the third largest donor to Libya during the Libyan crisis, behind the EU and the United States of America?

Where is the logic in Labor objecting to our refocussing of aid, trade and diplomatic efforts to our own backyard? After all, that is what we promised at the 2013 election, it is where our primary national interests are and it is where we have the most capacity to make a difference. Our job is to stabilise the aid mess that Labor has left us.

In the current financial year, the Australian government will spend $5.042 billion on aid—that is, only $107 million less than was spent on aid in 2012-13. Unlike Labor, this government made clear before the election its policy of saving $4.5 billion from the aid budget over the forward estimates. We also promised to implement the aid effectiveness recommendations from Labor's own review after the 2010 election. From next financial year, the aid budget will grow each year in line with the consumer price index. As one of the most generous aid donors in the world, we will provide greater stability and certainty to aid organisations. We will prioritise sustainable economic development in recipient countries because, as the chairman of the OECD's Development Assistance Committee has said, 'Development assistance is good, but economic growth is even better.' Foreign aid is the hallmark of a generous, tolerant nation. But—and herein lies the rub—it must be affordable, sustainable, and consistent with our national interests. Our aid program must be underpinned by a strong culture of accountability, so that waste is eradicated and Australian community support is maintained.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly of all, aid should be directed at helping recipient nations become more independent, not miring them further in dependency. That is why it is called aid, not charity—because well-directed aid supports constructive outcomes. There is no more constructive an outcome than a nation becoming self-sufficient through its own economic growth. I commend these ideas to and I thank the House.

See this speech in context