Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Labor has a proud history of supporting foreign aid. We know that it's not just in Australia's national interests but it's the right thing to do as a prosperous nation and a good global citizen. In supporting foreign aid, we also support the multilateral agreements and institutions that drive our global systems of development assistance. If passed, this bill, Official Development Assistance Multilateral Replenishment Obligations (Special Appropriation) Bill 2019, will make a special appropriation from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to meet Australia's payment obligations to six multilateral development funds. These six funds are: the International Development Association, which is the World Bank's development arm; the Heavily Indebted Poor Country Initiative, a World Bank debt relief scheme administered by the International Development Association; the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative, a World Bank debt relief scheme administered by the International Development Association; the Asian Development Fund, which provides development grants to low-income members of the Asian Development Bank; the Global Environment Facility Trust Fund, which is administered by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development to support sustainable development activities; and, finally, the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol, which provides assistance to developing countries in phasing out ozone-depleting substances.

The six multilateral funds require pledging nations to provide an unqualified instrument of commitment stating that there is no impediment to making the pledged payments. However, since 2014-15 the annual appropriations bill has included automatic repeal provisions which extinguish unused appropriations three years after they are made. This is why these payments need a special appropriation instead of being included in the budget bills.

Australia's annual payments to the funds average around $350 million, but this will not have any impact on the underlying cash balance as they are funded out of existing aid appropriations. The bill continues the active role that Australia has played over many years in supporting these funds.

Labor is a big supporter of Australia's international development program, so of course we support these appropriations. In fact, Labor was behind many of the multilateral agreements that established these funds and the institutions behind them. Labor's commitment to the World Bank goes as far back as the Chifley government's decision to support Bretton Woods institutions in the aftermath of the Second World War. And it was the Hawke government in 1987 that made Australia one of the first countries to ratify the Montreal Protocol on ozone-depleting substances. This is undoubtably one of the most successful international agreements on the environment—if not the most successful—which has helped the ozone hole above Antarctica start to heal.

These funds are necessary not only as a part of our contribution to development assistance but also in supporting the multilateral institutions that are at the heart of this system. The work that these multilateral funds support is vital to many global development causes, such as tackling poverty, promoting sustainable development in some of the world's poorest countries and addressing environmental challenges which require global cooperation.

While we welcome this bill and appreciate the need for a special appropriation for these funds, it appears that this government has somewhat of a split personality when it comes to support for multilateral institutions. On the one hand, we have the bill we are now debating in the Senate in which the government is making a commitment to meeting its obligations to various multilateral funds. But, bizarrely, on the other hand, we had a speech from the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, late last year criticising what he refers to as negative globalism. After that speech, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade told Senate estimates that they had not heard the term 'negative globalism' before. If Mr Morrison was taking Australia's commitment to multilateralism in a different direction, then he certainly hadn't consulted DFAT. To get a sense of what negative globalism actually means, we can only look to the definition in Mr Morrison's speech. According to the Prime Minister, negative globalism:

… coercively seeks to impose a mandate from an often ill defined borderless global community. And worse still, an unaccountable internationalist bureaucracy.

I would like to know where this so-called unaccountable bureaucracy exists. Multilateral institutions are only given life and mandate by international treaties that countries like ours freely enter into. I, and I'm sure many Australians, would like some clarity around where the Prime Minister and his government are going with this concept of negative globalism. Does it represent a major policy shift away from a commitment to multilateralism or is it just another bizarre thought bubble from the Prime Minister? If there is one area in which the government's demonstrated commitment to multilateralism is badly lacking, it's their appalling record on official development assistance, or what is more commonly known as foreign aid.

Labor has a strong commitment to foreign aid because we understand and accept both the moral and the national interest arguments for it; and in government we followed through on this commitment. I am very proud of Labor's record on foreign aid investment. When we were last in government, we doubled foreign aid and we set out a timetable for increasing aid to 0.5 per cent of gross national income. This was an interim goal towards the agreed target of 0.7 per cent of GNI set by developed countries in 1970. So far only five members of the OECD have met this target: Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and the UK.

Foreign aid is not just giving away money to people overseas; it's an investment in a prosperous, peaceful, healthy and secure world. There are two major reasons why foreign aid should be a policy priority of any government. Firstly, contributing to foreign aid is in Australia's national interest. We live in a global community, and the security of our country is, to a large extent, dictated by the security of the world beyond our borders. So many national security threats from overseas are exacerbated by extreme poverty. Poverty fuels transnational crime, conflict and terrorism. Of course, it can't be accepted as an excuse for crime or armed conflict, but it is often a contributing factor. Consider, for example, the social and economic cost from the flow of illicit drugs into Australia, which is running into the billions. When crime offers an escape from extreme poverty then those experiencing poverty are more likely to risk engaging it, and the rewards of doing so will be comparatively greater.

One form of crime, in particular, that is having an impact on the lives of everyday Australians is, of course, cybercrime. I've said a great deal in this place over the years about cybersafety and the threat posed to Australians by scams. The ACCC's Targeting scams report found that in 2018 Australians lost close to half a billion dollars to scams, and that rate of loss has been increasing rapidly over time. Most of these scams are perpetuated from beyond our borders and often by people who see it as a way out of poverty. There is, of course, no excuse for trying to cheat innocent people out of their money—none at all—but if we are helping people find legitimate means to escape poverty then it will also help to reduce the incidence of crimes such as these.

Another security threat facing Australia is the spread of infectious diseases. The COVID-19 pandemic is a perfect example of how connected we are to our global environment and how poverty in other countries can impact us here in Australia. In an opinion piece in The Guardian Australia, Ian Goldin, Professor of Globalisation and Development at Oxford University, wrote:

… the poorer the country, the less capable it is of addressing people's pressing needs, from identifying and treating cases of the virus to supporting communities and businesses deprived of income.

A further observation in Professor Goldin's article read:

We are only as strong as our weakest links. In the case of Covid-19, if one country is a pandemic hotspot, we're all at risk of reinfection.

Professor Goldin went on to conclude that we need to show 'solidarity with those beyond our borders'.

I sympathise with those who talk about the challenges confronting struggling Australian families and who say that we should fix our problems at home before sending money overseas. But, if we can create a more secure and prosperous world, the money we save from having to defend against national security threats such as terrorism, crime and communicable diseases can be reinvested in helping Australians. Furthermore, when other countries develop economically, our economy benefits too.

It's worth recognising that a number of our most valuable export markets were, at some point in history, aid recipients. While foreign aid investment is in Australia's national interest, there is another really good reason to invest in foreign aid: it's simply the right thing to do. The good we can do in the world by such things as supporting economic development, feeding starving children and stopping the spread of preventable disease is our obligation as one of world's wealthiest nations and as a good global citizen. I have no doubt most Australians would agree. We are, after all, generous by nature.

Egalitarianism, mateship and fairness are principles integral to our culture and national identity. Each year Australians give around $11 billion in charity. In day-to-day life we help our friends, neighbours and even people in the street, not because it might be material advantage to us but because most people have the decency to lend a hand when somebody needs it. If we practice these principles when dealing with each other as individuals then as a nation we should behave the same way. A prosperous country like Australia should give generously to those less fortunate.

A 2019 Lowy Institute poll found Australians on average think about 14 per cent of Australia's budget is spent on foreign aid. The average response for how much of the budget Australia should spend on foreign aid is 10 per cent. The amount Australia actually spends is closer to around 0.8 per cent of the budget, about one-twelfth of what Australians, on average, consider reasonable. So if you look at that spending in terms of Australia's gross national income, our current contribution is only 0.19 per cent. This is the lowest level Australia's aid spending has been as a proportion of GNI since the data started being published in 1961. Australia's contribution to foreign aid has fallen to this record low because of $11.8 billion in savage cuts since the Liberals came to power in 2013. Australia's meagre aid budget under this government is doing irreparable damage to our international standing and bilateral relations. Australia used to have a reputation as one of the most responsible forward-thinking global citizens and now our standing is falling in the eyes of the world. What is even worse about these savage cuts is that they are short-changing some of the most desperate, impoverished and struggling people in the world. I'm not exaggerating when I say that these cuts are savage enough for thousands of people to die as a result. One estimate says that close to half a million lives may be at risk. These are not the actions of a government that is truly committed to international development.

I and my colleagues on this side of the chamber are appalled at this government's record on international development. Ever since those opposite came to government they have treated the foreign aid budget like an ATM that they can take money from any time they need to prop up the budget. If they are tempted to do so again in this year's budget using their recently established foreign aid review as cover, I would strongly caution against doing so. Cuts to foreign aid at any time are both cruel and counterproductive but during this crisis it is one of the absolute worst times to be making these cuts.

The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated more than ever the importance of global solidarity. We know COVID-19 has had a disastrous economic impact at home, but for many developing countries it has been even more devastating. Not only do they need our assistance more than ever before, but the benefit of our assistance in how it lessens the pandemic threat to health and safety of Australians is so much greater.

While I welcome the bill that is now before the Senate, I would also welcome a commitment from this government to recognise the value of foreign aid and start working on reversing its savage cuts and reinvesting in international economic development. If I cannot convince those opposite that this is in the interests of Australians then let me appeal to their humanity. Let me implore those opposite to help more people have the means to eat, drink clean water, have access to shelter and electricity, go to school and stop dying of preventable diseases. If my appeal to the government's humanity is unsuccessful then it simply confirms what I have long suspected—that this government is heartless and uncaring, that they are devoid of compassion, decency and any sense of moral obligation. I would love for those opposite to prove me wrong and I invite them to do so. They can start by winding back their cuts to foreign aid and by treating the foreign aid budget as something to invest in, not a cookie jar they can raid any time they're short of funds. I commend the bill to the Senate.