In conjunction with the joint military action against Islamic State (Isis), Tony Abbott has pledged $5m in humanitarian aid for Iraq on his recent surprise visit to Baghdad. But don’t be fooled by the government’s apparent show of generosity – Australia isn’t giving any more to foreign aid than it was before. In fact, it is giving significantly less.



It is vitally important that we don’t stop talking about recent cuts to foreign aid. The government’s mid-year economic and fiscal outlook has reduced the foreign aid budget to the lowest levels in Australian history. Foreign aid spending has been cut by almost $3.7bn over four years. In addition to the $7.6bn already cut in May’s federal budget, foreign aid has been cut by one quarter.

If the government is serious about tackling terrorist threats and defending “universal values”, cutting off foreign aid to programmes that provide education, reduce poverty and improve gender equality is one of the worst ways to go about it.

The Save Australian Aid campaign states that $11bn in foreign aid – the amount cut from the foreign aid budget in the past year – is the equivalent of 2 million children who may not be able to enrol in school, 1.4 million births without a birth attendant, 3.7 million children who may not receive vaccinations, 4.7 million people who will have reduced access to safe water, and almost 22 million people with reduced assistance in emergency situations.

These cuts further perpetuate the idea that Australia is not a team player, a notion fuelled by our past behaviour towards our neighbours, and our recent denials of international obligations towards asylum seekers and climate change.

In addition to the cuts in the Myefo, Australia backed out of commitments made to tax justice in the recent G20 summit. It is estimated that developing nations lose $160bn per year to corporate tax dodging; an amount that would end world hunger three times over.

The G20 commitment, Abbott said, was “about the countries of the world, the people of the world, receiving the tax benefits that are their due and it’s needed so that governments can fund the infrastructure and the services that people expect and deserve.” As the host of the G20, backing out of this commitment not only damages our international credibility, but also has a huge impact on the developing world.

The foreign aid cuts are irresponsible, but not surprising. Cutting the aid budget sends a clear message to our developing neighbours that Australia won’t lend a helping hand unless it’s in our own best interest.

However, our politicians seem to forget that there is something in it for us, and not only in Iraq. Aid is much more than a humanitarian gesture; it’s a tool for regional development, trust and cooperation. Foreign aid programmes promote stability through education and equality, in turn reducing conflict. As an added bonus, foreign aid and sustainable development programmes create stronger economies, which in turn create opportunities at home and abroad.

Poverty breeds hopelessness and despair, which are both contributing factors to extremist behaviour. Foreign aid is not the only factor in answering this issue, but it’s more than a step in the right direction.

Higher levels of foreign aid have the potential not to only alleviate extreme poverty in our region, but to raise international opinion of Australia as a fair country. A recent study examining the effects of foreign aid on foreign public opinion found that US aid programmes targeting HIV/Aids have improved perceptions of the US among the public in recipient countries.

Australia would reap these benefits as a side effect of foreign aid, saving the millions of dollars set aside to “stop the boats” and wage a “war on terror”. But our government has, predictably, made yet another irresponsible decision with untold repercussions. While two innocent people died in Martin Place on 16 December in what has been labelled an act of terror, a reduction of this size in the foreign aid budget will result in the unnecessary deaths of hundreds across the globe due to reduced access to vital services.

The high priority the Abbott government has placed on security doesn’t come cheap, with funds for anti-terrorism programmes costing billions of dollars. Wouldn’t this money be better spent reducing inequality, poverty, and conflict? Shouldn’t we be stopping the problem at the source, not trying to cure the symptoms?