There has already been a flurry of commentary about the 2012-13 federal budget’s cutback on Australia’s aid promises. GetUp has asserted that this narrow surplus has been constructed “on the backs of the world’s poor”.
For those of us specifically interested in global health, what are the implications of these changes to the international development assistance program? Tim Costello at World Vision has claimed the $2.9 billion in savings over four years will lead to the deaths of up to 200,000 people.
While this is perhaps a dramatic extrapolation of some previous data, the point is valid. Where Australia provides core funding for vaccination programs and malaria treatments, cutting back on those savings will have an immediate and direct impact on survival in communities that would not have access to those services without our support.
The news from the budget is not all gloomy however. Following on from the Independent Review of Aid Effectiveness conducted in 2011, the aid program has made some important changes.
Primary of these is the new focus on the poorest people in the world — signifying a new emphasis on people rather than countries. The aid program is guided by five strategic goals — the first of which is saving lives. More than 18% of the total official development assistance is allocated to this goal, which represents about $850 million in 2012-13.
Saving lives is based on a strong commitment to improving access to quality maternal and child health services and supporting large scale disease prevention, vaccination and treatment. One of the other focus areas for AusAID is providing clean water and sanitation services to the poorest communities. Improved sanitation and clean water makes a tremendous contribution to improved health but has largely been neglected by the public health community. Toilets just aren’t that popular as a health message.
Australia’s water and sanitation efforts are particularly robust in sub-Saharan Africa — which saw a substantial increase in funding to more than $350 million. Programs will provide safe water to almost 200,000 people in Zambia, Malawi and Mozambique and will restore water services for more than a million in Zimbabwe. Sanitation facilities will also be provided in the Solomon Islands and elsewhere.
Immunisation remains a pillar of Australian aid efforts with a $20 million contribution to the Global Alliance on Vaccines and Immunisations and specific programs in Fiji and elsewhere in the Pacific to immunise an additional 41,000 children. Polio vaccination programs are also planned for Tanzania.
Though I am critical of the government’s budgetary decision, it is important to note that the aid budget has been increasing dramatically over the past decade.
In 2000-01, the aid budget was $2.4 billion (in current dollars) and in 2011-12, it was $4.8 billion. This year it will be $5.1 billion rather than the $5.5 billion originally planned. The aid budget is still forecast to reach almost $8 billion in 2015-16. This represents an unprecedented scale-up in the aid program and an immense challenge for AusAID and all those involved in delivering this program.
Thankfully, with this budget has come several measures to improve the effectiveness of the aid program including the establishment of a clear Results Framework and an Independent Evaluation Committee. Additionally, more of Australia’s aid will be delivered through multilateral partners such as the GAVI Alliance, UNICEF and the Global Fund for AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. This represents more efficient ways of spending taxpayer dollars to achieve measurable health outcomes.
The Australian government has made a real commitment to improving the effectiveness of its aid program and AusAID has delivered better results over the past two or three years.
It is a real pity that this progress has been hindered by politicians who used to assert that increasing aid was a bi-partisan article of faith. Now that development assistance has been cut to expedite other political goals, what is preventing future governments from cutting further?
It is taking us an embarrassingly long time to get to the o.5% of GNI
as foreign aid.
Mr Howard wallowed around 0.2-0.3 for his entire time as PM. He was
even more woeful than this decision by Labor.
But it is a bad decision. Made because of a bad assumption: that we
must have a budget surplus! That ridiculous starting point is driving
us to make foolish decisions. How long can it be held on to? What if
there is another bad downturn in the world economy in the next 12
months? Will that not matter? “oh well, we promised a budget surplus
come what may, so we will deliver it!”
What the?… Can nothing make that a bad decision? Is saving face the
absolute all important thing for this govt? They promised it… it will
happen come hell or high water!
Of all the promises to decide to keep, why that one? [I know the answer:
they will be crucified by the opposition and the conservative media if
they dont deliver it. …. Ridiculous really, isn’t it!]
This decision to not increase world aid like we said we would, (deferring
it), reminds me of the story of the rich man and the poor man Lazarus,
who ate the crumbs that fell off the rich man’s table.
We are good at letting the poor of the world have our crumbs, aren’t
we!
Sorry, cut our foreign aid before we cut or defence budget.
Why should we make the fat cats in these countries fatter.?
How much actually gets to the targeted people?
These people have had untold billions of dollars thrown at them for the last how many years and the west, for that who is expected to pay this is continually asked, no make that belittled by those in the aid industry to give give give. Well I say bugger that; no.
It is time we fixed what is broken in this country first and then worry about foreigners. In the not too distant future these so called 3rd world countries are going to be the 1st world leaders on the backbone of foreign aid that sucker countries have given. Again I say bugger that; no. Let then stand on their own 2 independent feet. All these countries have central governments that know they don’t have to provide for the neediest of their own as the international community will pick up the tab, again I say bugger that let them look after their own
We seem to maintain the particular kind of superiority that made our ancestors
support missionaries in Africa. Now, despite the fact that their own governmeents
are not (apparently) attempting such elementary measures as vaccination on
a scale we think they should we want to order their priorities for them. Why don’t we
wait for their own governments to tell us what good things they are doing with
the money they have and what their next priorities would be if only they had
a little more. If that includes vaccination and other measures to help keep their
populations rising for the forseeable future then that is their choice and we
can choose to help them provided we have reason to believe that our money
will be spent wisely and honestly.
OCHRE1954 (if that is the year of your birth, we are very close in age!)
You raise important questions about aid that many have raised in the
past.
Some nations have very corrupt govts that do “take from the
international aid” that comes to them… and others dont.
More and more aid is being directed in more targeted ways: bypassing
governments that are suspect, and working more with those closer to
the point of need.
Sadly, there are still cases where aid money is wasted or stolen etc.
But the tragic reality is that there are still 23ooo kids under 5 who die
every day from preventable sicknesses – mostly because their water is
not clean, but for other reasons too. It is as many kids a day as die from
preventable diseases, as 8 sets of twin towers being dropped every day,
full of kids!
As members of a global community, it is appropriate to share some of
our vast wealth with the most poor. We are an extraordinarily rich
nation. The world’s poor would love to be even “lower middle class” in
Australia. Even poor here (with the social services and Medicare facilities
that we have!)
I have met people who have said things like: charity begins at home
mate!, etc… but when I have then asked them if they are happy to see
the dole increased, or newstart increased, or more given to single mums,
or more put into fighting homelessness… they suddenly say “no! they
are bludgers sponging off the community!”
I guess for some the “charity begins at home” line, is just an excuse to
not want to help anyone – here or anywhere else!