Australia accused of using foreign aid to build security relationships rather than trying to solve poverty

Australia has been accused of being more interested in using its foreign aid program to firm up relationships for security reasons rather than trying to solve poverty, with experts warning the change in focus risked taxpayer money being spent poorly. They want an independent body established to assess the effectiveness of aid spending. Anti-poverty advocate Matt Napier, who walked 4400km from Perth to Sydney in 2013 to raise awareness of global poverty, moved to Namibia with his wife, Wendy, five years ago to “help the world’s poorest create a better future” through agriculture training programs. They run a charity that supports grassroots community development projects to enhance food security, promote sustainable livelihoods, reduce waste and stimulate economic growth. But since they arrived overseas, Australia has cut its aid funding in Africa — which includes the Middle East — from $305 million a year to $136 million to pump more money into Indo-Pacific nations. This is to bolster its standing in the region amid the growing influence of China. “Is foreign aid being used as a tool to build relationships between countries or is it there to benefit the poor in developing countries?” Mr Napier told The West Australian. “I’ve always been a big fan of Australia raising its foreign aid but I would like to first make sure that it is spent correctly. We need to be more hands-on by making sure the Australian dollar goes as far as it can in these areas and look at sustainability.” In this financial year, Australia will provide an estimated $4.77 billion in foreign aid, with the top five recipients all in the Indo-Pacific region. A Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade spokeswoman said Australia’s development program advanced the nation’s interests in a “peaceful, stable and prosperous Indo-Pacific” and ensured it was “a partner of choice” for the region. “Our investments help tackle regional challenges like poverty, economic growth, healthcare, infrastructure investment, climate change and gender equality,” she said. “The Australian Government is deploying all elements of our national power, including our development program, to make Australia more stable, confident and secure at home, and more influential in the world.” Australia’s aid program in the past financial year supported more than 10 million immunisations, provided 23.8 million vulnerable people with emergency assistance and enabled 248,310 additional students to enrol in schools. Mr Napier said he could see first-hand that foreign aid was not going to areas that needed it most. “If we have a more targeted approach, we can have a bigger impact on the ground,” he said. “Too many times you just see money going into the wrong pockets. Tenders go out and they’re going to the highest bidder who has political ties in that country. We need to get professionals in the international development sector overseeing these projects.” DFAT insists it has systems in place to monitor the delivery of Australia’s aid program with project managers tracking expenditure and performance. The department commissions independent evaluations and hires experts to independently rate the success or failure of projects once they have finished. Stephen Howes, director of think tank Development Policy Centre that examines foreign aid and how effective it is, said Australia was once a “much more generous aid donor — we were more of an aid leader internationally” but was now in “an austere period”. “Asia used to be more important, now it’s the Pacific,” Professor Howes said. “I think it’s a bad thing ... We’ve reduced a lot of aid to Africa and the South Asian economies that are a lot poorer than the Pacific. The Pacific already gets more aid per capita than any other region in the world. “When you give aid for these strategic reasons, there is a tendency for aid effectiveness to suffer as a result.” He called for an oversight body to evaluate Australia’s aid programs, similar to the Office of Development Effectiveness that was cut in 2020.