By Kevin Rennie:

With the issue of overseas aid emerging as an election issue in Australia (as indicated in an earlier Th!nk3 post) the tabloid attacks/exposé on government expenditure and a series of electoral forums on making poverty history have begun.

Firstly, a Murdoch press ‘investigation’ slammed ‘the foreign aid industry’:

TENS of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ cash has been splashed on questionable foreign aid projects, including $13 million to redevelop one school in Nauru and $12 million to research the giant panda in China. Huge amounts of public money have also been spent on mega-salaries for consultants and rich contracts for private firms under Australia’s foreign aid program, it can be revealed.
Questionable amounts of foreign aid could build our schools, hospitals

Their investigation included material from a government review. The Foreign Minister Stephen Smith responded to criticism cautiously:

Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith says he is not satisfied that enough has been done to prevent waste in Australia’s foreign aid program. But he says aid is in Australia’s interest and the government is proceeding responsibly. …Mr Smith says the government has announced a review of technical assistance, while an annual audit of the aid agency AusAID is now in its second year.
Australia checks for waste in aid programs

One person’s consultant is another’s technical assistant.

The review focused on Australia’s nearest neighbour Papua New Guinea. It can be downloaded here: Review of the PNG -Australia Development Cooperation Treaty April 2010 The ABC Radio National Life Matters program hosted a discussion on the issue between Dr James Goodman of Aidwatch and Bill Bowtell Director, HIV/AIDS Project, Lowy Institute and Executive Director, Pacific Friends of the Global Fund:

Critics say more of this money needs to go to providing goods and services. But others claim consultants provide critical capacity building assistance to the Pacific nation. Almost everyone agrees we need to know more about what they do and how effective they are.
Foreign aid spending

It was a seriously intense encounter. The Global Fund claims that it, “represents a new approach to international health financing.” Their Country Coordinating Mechanisms involve, “local ownership and participatory decision-making”. Bill Bowtrell explains how these work during the discussion:

Listen to MP3 of this story

Radio Australia also looked at the political implications:

As well as the imperative to ensure the best use of aid for development purposes, there’s a domestic imperative too. The Foreign affairs spokeswoman for Australia’s Opposition is Julie Bishop. BISHOP: We’re talking about consultants being paid more than the Prime Minister of Australia. We’re talking about consultants being paid a significant amount of the aid budget. Now, Australian people are generous – they support a foreign aid program, but they want to make sure that the money gets through to the people on the ground who need it.
More pressure on Australia’s aid program

(The transcript and podcast are available at the link.)

There is always the temptation in an election year to resort to the politics of populism. As the cliché goes, there is a danger that more heat will be generated than light.

This article was originally written by Kevin as part of the Th!nk3 European Blogging Competition.

Kevin Rennie is a retired secondary school teacher and teacher unionist. He spent 8 years teaching in the Northern Territory: 4 in Katherine, followed by 4 in Maningrida, an aboriginal community in Arnhem Land, returning in June 2008 to Melbourne to live after 15 months in Broome. He has been a member of the Australian Labor Party since 1972. Kevin’s blogs include Labor View from Bayside and Cinema Takes. He also posts at Global Voices and Blogocracy.

Tags: aidwatch, australian overseas aid, kevin rennie, Th!nk3