At present, Australia spends 0.21% of its gross national income on international aid or 21 cents in every $100. This is Australia’s aid lowest budget since it started to invest in international aid. Australia’s diplomats have pleaded for more funding after the Morrison government cut its budget by almost $180 million, despite times of growing international turmoil, trade wars and reservations over China’s economic rise. We asked several international consultants and diplomats to share their insights regarding the reasons for this budget cut and the consequences for Australia’s international development aid.
What are the reasons for this budget cut?
“The simple reason for aid cuts has been to save money to balance budgets. The underlying reasons are more complex. Since the mid-1980s, the neo-liberal economic mantra of balancing government budgets has implied that governments should not spend any more than they receive in taxes. Where spending threatens to exceed revenue, budgets are cut, usually starting within areas that have the least immediate negative impact. The aid budget is often the first targeted. This, in turn, fits into a wider, somewhat xenophobic narrative about ‘undeserving’ foreigners, be they in countries with corrupt or brutal leaders or those seeking asylum. A common perception is that aid to outsiders – broadly conceived – is wasted and that Australia can’t ‘afford’ foreign aid.”
“Australia had gone for resourcing its internal security apparatus to lofty heights to ensure its immediate home environment is more secure than paying scarce resources in a turbulent world to achieve the same feat. For example, the country’s current defense budget is $A59 billion compared to $A6.7 billion for diplomacy, trade and aid (DFAT) combined. Home Affairs agencies such as the Australian Security Intelligence Organization and the Australian Secret Intelligence Service have seen astronomical increases of 528% and 578% respectively since the 9/11 attacks – a period of two decades.”
“The ordinary Australian may find it reasonable and perhaps even justifiable to cut funding to international development aid at a time when Australia itself faces great challenges of its own. After all, we have been groomed by wealthy politicians and media moguls to believe that it is not our responsibility to care for neighboring countries and communities in hardship, perhaps even that a ‘tough love’ approach will finally give them the incentive they need to get off their lazy backsides and work hard to achieve the material living standards of countries like Australia. The $180 million dollar cut could and should be used to help Australians, right? But here’s the kicker, it won’t.”
How will this budget cut affect Australia’s international development aid?
“In short, reducing Australia’s aid makes it less of a good friend to recipient countries, reducing their capacity to grow and flourish and, from a more hard-nosed perspective, reduces Australia’s diplomatic and strategic influence. Cutting aid is part of a larger short-term political strategy that is pulling Australia in an ungenerous, unreflective direction. The longer-term costs are to our regional relations and, in many respects, the type of country and people we might otherwise like to be.”
“In economic terms, tough love has never worked, and Morrison knows this. In fact, the cuts are entirely consistent with the many other cuts that this government has made affecting the most disadvantaged and in need groups of Australians. Cuts to public health, education, welfare and other essential services including the CFA, represent the same plutocratic philosophy that is transforming the once lucky country into a classist dystopia devoid of the empathetic principles upon which a healthy society functions.”
“There is little doubt the cut will adversely affect the sheer size and volume of Australian aid programs and activities scattered far and wide, mainly in the Pacific, Asia, Africa and Latin America. As a matter of fact, observers and critics would rationally view the cuts to aid budgets as savage when in fact similar OECD countries are increasing their spending in a world where pronounced inequality is part and parcel of daily lives, particularly in the south. Notwithstanding, a closer look at Australia’s aid budget, one would be able to view that the country has taken a more selective and pragmatic approach to splash out its scarce resources.”
According to the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the reasons for previous cuts were due to budget deficit, leading one to expect an increased commitment by the Coalition now that it is projecting a budget surplus.
Check more about DFAT here.
