May 22, 2012

Professor Peter Singer

CANBERRA’S decision to strip foreign aid by $2.9 billion over the next three years prompted an outcry from aid agencies this month. The government denies it is balancing its books at the expense of the world’s poor, but one of the nation’s most influential public intellectuals, University of Melbourne ethicist Peter Singer, is not convinced.

Does this create a pause in funding for the world’s most vulnerable people?

Yes, certainly. I think it’s very unfortunate the government has moved away from the bipartisan consensus to reach 0.5 per cent of gross domestic product by 2015-16 – now it is 2016-17 – because certainly foreign aid does save lives.

How many lives could be affected?

World Vision has put a figure of a quarter of a million lives that could have been saved if the government had kept to its promise. It’s very difficult to put an exact figure on it but that does seem to be in the right ball park, and that is tragic.

So why hasn’t the government kept its promise?

I really can’t understand why. The government should not have worried about political flak from it because it is a bipartisan consensus. [Opposition Leader] Tony Abbott has himself indicated his support for it, so he would not have been in a position to attack the government for maintaining its promise, its commitment on foreign aid. It’s not a huge amount of money that was involved, certainly not compared to other expenditures. And it was going to help the world’s very poorest people as well as strengthen Australia’s position and moral authority in the world, especially in the Asia-Pacific [region].

Where the vast majority of the world’s poor live?

That’s right. It means also we are falling behind other nations, which are giving more aid than we are as a proportion of their economy and as a proportion of their gross national income. We’re actually doing better. We pride ourselves on having done reasonably well in the global financial crisis; we are not subject to some of the problems of European nations. Yet they are continuing to give more foreign aid than we are. That really is something to be ashamed of, as an Australian.

What have other nations pledged?

The United Kingdom has pledged to get to 0.7 per cent of GDP, which I think is what we should have pledged to get to. Australia pledged to get to 0.5 per cent. To put that in clearer terms, that’s 50¢ in every $100 we earn as a nation. The United Nations many years ago recommended getting to 0.7 per cent – 70¢ in every $100. We’ve never got there. The UK has pledged to get there and despite their problems, I would say, being significantly worse than ours in economic terms … they’re giving about 60¢ in every $100.

Much more than Australia.

We’re currently giving 35¢ in every $100. So they’re giving close to twice as much as a proportion of their economy as we are. Ireland is another nation that’s had financial problems; they are giving more than we are. Even Spain, which has been having a terrible financial crisis, is still giving more.

What of Australia’s commitment to the Millennium Development Goals?

In 2000 the leaders of virtually all nations came together in New York for the Millennium Development Summit and they set development goals on a range of things – [including] dramatically reducing the numbers of people living in extreme poverty … Some of those goals the world is meeting, or close to meeting, not always because of foreign aid but sometimes because of economic progress.

But in overall terms?

No, we’re not really getting there and Australia is not doing its part in meeting those pledges.

DEB ANDERSON

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/is-australia-meeting-its-foreign-aid-commitment-20120521-1z0xo.html#ixzz1vl32NaCi