Comments

Hi Sam, Interesting post. For me, raises broader issues of the global architecture for health - which is exceedingly complex and already has a huge number of actors. This is not necessarily bad - in some cases it can be good - but it is certainly complex and does have some down sides. From WHO to Gates to various parts of US government (USAID, PEPFAR, CDC) to Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation to GAVI to Global Fund to World Bank to ADB to other bilaterals to UNICEF to UNFPA to the various smaller actors. Global health is messy. As is, at the country level, they are bombarded with requests, declarations, invitations, initiatives. The problem - especially from a long-term systems building perspective that you very rightly promote - is that ministries and implementers get pulled in a hundred different ways. While I agree that the G20 has something to possibly offer, the thought of additional mechanisms, meetings, committees (such as G20 health ministers forum or G8 equivalent) fills me with dread. The only way I could see that being useful would be if some other mechanisms were eliminated (which virtually never happens in our global architecture). If you want a G20 health body, then abolish the Global Fund or equivalent (or better yet abolish the WHO). Otherwise, I would argue that we should ensure that the already-too-many mechanisms are running effectively and are actually improving systems on the ground. Joel

I agree Sam. How Australia uses its aid budget (comprising how much is allocated and what it is spent on) will be one of the criteria against which her performance as a global citizen will be judged. This latest attack will exacerbate the current situation in which 'investment' decisions are increasingly less and less to do with development given the pressure to agree to things that can be delivered quickly and require little by way of establishing context or developing meaningful engagement.

These cuts also don't make strategic sense. In the regional influence stakes Australia has just ceded the ground to China, which will happily fill the gap. Now this may not be a bad thing (we just don't know) but it does weaken Australia's voice in the region (in terms of 'money where mouth is' type arguments); and also weakens the War Against Terror argument whereby our assistance was to lead to safer and stabler neigbours.

Exceedingly disappointing step. The staff exodus from DFAT will continue, with more loss of skills, experience and capacity. Surely recent events (particularly Syria, ebola) have shown us that more aid, not less, is crucial not only as a moral effort to reduce poverty but as a practical measure to pursue Australia's national interests. It seems to be that part of the reason aid is being so strongly singled out for cuts is (at least the perception) that there are no votes in aid and that Joe Public would rather see the funding stay at home; hence the public emphasis that the budget cuts are mostly coming from the aid portfolio, both this time and previously. To my mind, this not only reduces the Government's credibility in aid, but far more broadly its foreign policy credibility. Aid is a key part of foreign policy. These cuts are a step backwards from Australia's responsibility as a wealthy, active middle power. They will hurt those who can least afford to be hurt, and they will undermine Australia's global image and relationships.

Thanks Stephen and Jonathan for this clear analysis of the data and for calling these cuts as they are, i.e. savage. Minister Bishop's 'new aid paradigm' is now trashed and her credibility on overseas aid completely destroyed. I wonder if you're right to anticipate reduced allocations to multilateral and humanitarian aid in future? These budget cuts will lead inevitably to many more aid staff leaving DFAT, as there will be a great deal less for them to do once they've gone through the process of closing down activities. In future years, wouldn't it be likely that the government will resort to writing checks to multilaterals and NGOs as an 'efficiency' measure? Margaret Callan

What a shame that the typo was not actually in the MYEFO and the government meant to place a plus sign ahead of the numbers, not the negative as it is! Australians should be loud in objection to this and not silent in acceptance - for it is hard to see how this retreat in commitment to the world's poor is anything but unacceptable.

Samuel, You're quite right. That was a typo, which we have fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. Stephen.

Hi Stephen and Jonathan, Thank you for the analysis. Just one query: "We’ve focused so far on the cumulative cuts out to 2016-17, but most of the cuts will be implemented next year (2014-15), when the aid program will fall by a round $1 billion or 20%" If I'm not mistaken, was this not the cut due for 2015/16? This agrees with your spreadsheet. Thanks again, Sam #maintainaid campaign

I spoke on Radio National Breakfast this morning on the widely reported aid cuts. As reported, they are, by a long shot, the largest cuts the aid program has ever seen. We'll be putting out more analysis once the MYEFO is released. Meanwhile, my interview is <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/aus-png-summit-underway-amid-reports-of-aid-cuts/5966998" rel="nofollow">here</a>.

From the ABC: "The ABC's AM program understands the aid budget will be reduced to Howard-era levels and more than $3 billion will be cut over the next four years."

I saw in the Canberra Times that Joe Hockey was quoted as saying that there will be spending cuts, but that they will be modest and will not harm the domestic economy. The clearest signal yet that aid will be cut on Monday?

This is quite a large topic, so please forgive the smallness of this reply. First, aid budgets have long been used to meet various emerging global challenges, such as the spread of HIV/AIDS and other communicable diseases. Climate change mitigation is one more such challenge. Provided the benefits of spending aid money on such things are primarily in favour of developing countries, people in most cases do not quibble about the fact that the benefits extend to developed countries. Second, adaptation programs deliver multiple development benefits, so it is difficult in both theory and practice to separate them from ordinary development investments. Third, and most importantly, adherence to the 'new and additional' doctrine, no matter how sacred it has become in the climate negotiations, just leads to semantic gaming. Almost all international climate change assistance provided to date has been presented as new and additional in one or another sense, and almost all that assistance has come from aid budgets. The intent of the 'new and additional' requirement is obviously to avoid having climate change spending completely swamp spending on pre-existing problems. At this stage, given past and pledged levels of financing, swamping is no great risk. As for the future, additional commitments would best be reflected in bigger aid budgets.