New target for bureaucracy's jealous eyes

We’re sorry, this feature is currently unavailable. We’re working to restore it. Please try again later.

Advertisement

This was published 12 years ago

New target for bureaucracy's jealous eyes

The razor gangs are busy, but our aid program is untouchable.

By Daniel Flitton

JEALOUSY can manifest in many forms. In the occasionally bitchy halls of the federal bureaucracy, especially around budget time, green eyes used to be directed the way of the Defence Department. No matter how much money gurgled down the plughole on wasteful military projects, politicians kept the razor gangs at bay, wary of inviting any public backlash about cutting services to those in uniform. Defence even had the comfort of a guaranteed rise in funding.

But now, with Defence subject to a fiscal squeeze like just about every other department, those green eyes have latched on to a new target - the agency in charge of dispensing foreign aid, AusAID.

The amount of money Australia spends on foreign aid is growing exponentially. Both parties have matched one another with a promise to boost the overseas development program in the next four years. Depending on the amount of money the country manages to earn, the result could lift the annual aid budget beyond $8 billion. To put that figure in some context, in the 2006-07 financial year Australia spent only a touch over $1.8 billion on overseas aid.

So we're talking a big rise in dollars, and in short order too. At a time when the global financial crisis is blamed for hobbling the funds available to other government agencies, it's easy to see why the bureaucratic jealousy is growing.

AusAID is busily poaching staff, especially from the cash-strapped Foreign Affairs Department, while politically the aid budget ranks as a protected species. Labor has promised to meet a target of 0.5 per cent of gross national income on overseas aid, and for all his supposed negativity Tony Abbott is remarkably timid about taking on the government about the amount of money it plans to spend.

There was a blip earlier this year when the Coalition flirted with dumping a $448 million scheme to fund schools in Indonesia. Given the goal of the program was to curb the influence of radical preachers in rural Indonesian schools, it was easy for Labor to criticise the opposition's plans. After frank words with his deputy, Julie Bishop, on the issue, Abbott abandoned the idea.

Now, in the aftermath of Tuesday's federal budget, Bishop has again rushed to defend the aid budget from a predatory colleague. Joe Hockey left open the prospect of cutting the aid budget. ''From our perspective, it's not the major priority,'' he said, wondering aloud why the government would choose to cut domestic programs instead. But Bishop was quick to reaffirm the Coalition would match the aid target.

You really have to wonder why. Australians like to think of themselves as generous people, so many will welcome extra spending on aid. But no area of the budget should be given unconditional backing. If aid programs don't perform effectively, they should be cut. There is no magic in meeting a number.

But aid is a difficult issue for the Coalition to manage politically, just as Defence can be tricky for Labor. Both areas have active lobby groups that kick up a public stink and demand to be consulted about any changes in policy. This can create political headaches in constituencies both parties regard as part of their base - conservatives who favour the military, or social activists leaning to Labor.

Labor has been helped by ineptitude within Defence to sell its cuts of $2.7 billion over the next four years. Why give money to a department with a reputation for mismanagement and cover-ups. But the Coalition should apply the same test to the aid agency. There are rumbles the Liberals are looking at ways to increase the level of scrutiny over AusAID.

Advertisement

''Effectiveness'' is a buzz word in the aid industry - another is ''capacity building'' to help nations help themselves. Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd is soon to release a review of how Australia's development program performs. It's better that this comes before the money is spent rather than the other way around. But there are nagging doubts about the approach Western countries take to modern aid, which it is hoped the review will address.

The emphasis on working with non-government organisations and international agencies, such as the World Bank or International Monetary Fund, diminishes the control Australia exerts over where money is spent.

Australia now diverts 27 per cent of its aid budget through global programs, so, in effect, a lot of the new aid money will wind up in funds. That contrasts with the attitude adopted by a growing competitor in the aid sector: China.

The danger was starkly demonstrated in cables leaked to WikiLeaks.

''Africa was better off thanks to China's practical, bilateral approach to development assistance,'' a Kenyan told his American colleague in Beijing, ''and was concerned that this would be changed by Western interference.'' Before this view is dismissed as simply the complaint of somebody who doesn't enjoy scrutiny, and was happy to take whatever extra goodies the Chinese had to offer, the most telling indictment of the Western approach came next: ''Africans were frustrated by Western insistence on capacity building, which translated, in his eyes, into conferences and seminars. They instead preferred China's focus on infrastructure and tangible projects.''

After all, that is what aid is supposed to deliver.

Daniel Flitton is diplomatic editor.

Most Viewed in Politics

Loading