The Australian federal election is just around the corner. For most domestic voters focused on a cost-of-living crisis at home, aid and development will barely register. But globally, the landscape of aid and development is shifting dramatically. Once the polls close, the incoming government will need to establish an approach that can navigate this changing international environment.
This week we ask three experts to take a look at the competing views that politicians, policymakers and the public have on aid.
I have seen firsthand just what foreign aid can do, offering life when death is all around.
I have also seen the transformative power of foreign aid in education, in agriculture and food production, in empowering women and girls to the extent that it changes entire community economies and quality of life.
To say that aid and development assistance are transformative is an understatement. And for Australia, as a Western nation in Asia, this work benefits our own regional economy and security.
Yet Australia’s recent record on international aid is meagre and short sighted.
The agreed international aid target for wealthy nations is 0.7 percent of Gross National Income.
In 2012, we were just halfway there at 0.36 percent, but since then the ratio has declined to 0.18.
And this at a time when Australian policy makers and experts acknowledge that competition for influence in our immediate region, the Indo-Pacific, has not been higher since we were at war between 1939 and 1945.
Humanitarianism rather than strategic self interest should be paramount in decisions about aid, but the latter comes with the former.
And with international conditions tense, and climate change also a factor in global instability, arguably it’s more important than ever to acknowledge the benefits of international aid to the giver as well as the receiver.
This government may be more generous in its language about aid, but its record is hardly distinguishable from its predecessor. So, I don’t see evidence of competing views on aid.
More a charitable add-on than a genuine acknowledgement that as a major per capita contributor to global carbon emissions, we have a special responsibility to assist our low-lying island neighbours to develop the resilience needed to resist the rising waters lapping at their front doors.
Donald Trump’s disgraceful disembowelling of USAID simply makes it imperative and urgent that we rethink and step up our commitment to international aid.
Zoe Daniel is an Australian politician and former journalist. Elected to parliament in 2022, she is the first independent member for the seat of Goldstein and among the numerous independents dubbed ‘teal’ by the media. In a past life, Zoe served as an ABC foreign correspondent with postings in the USA, Africa, and Southeast Asia. At the Lab, we value politicians who bring lived experience from the field directly into the halls of parliament to inform policymaking.
US actions to dismantle their own aid program increases the temptation for the Australian government to cut Australia’s contribution too.
Proponents of this argument might claim that this money should instead be spent at home or invested in hard power national security measures, such as increased defence spending. The opposite could not be more true. What critics fail to acknowledge is that investing in foreign aid is actually essential for securing that national security.
Providing our fair share in foreign aid is not only about supporting those who need it most, but it’s also a sure way to reduce immigration pressures, risks of extremism and global health threats. For example, Australia has long prided itself on its response to the civil unrest in Solomon Islands in the early 2000s. While putting troops on the ground as peacekeepers played a significant role in quelling the violence, providing aid has also helped improve the quality of life for communities, offering them more hope for the future and preventing a worsening development crisis on Australia’s doorstep. Providing foreign aid can even be viewed through the lens of geostrategic competition, with Coalition MPs recently raising their concerns about the risk of China strengthening relations with some of Australia’s neighbours if Australia were to cut its aid to the region.
Simply put, providing aid should be seen as a critical tool alongside defence, development, and trade to offering communities stability, safety, and prosperity – not just for the countries where we provide aid, but also for Australians. But if we’re serious about backing national security then we need to be serious about backing foreign aid, or we run the risk of allowing global crises to fester, harming Australians, as well as communities around the world.
Currently serving as CEO of Save the Children, Mat Tinkler is a leading voice for children’s rights and a deep policy thinker. Before joining the development sector, Mat was a commercial lawyer, parliamentary adviser and Ministerial Chief of Staff, working across social policy, financial services and education portfolios. At the Lab, we admire Mat’s bold leadership, sharp strategic and policy instincts, and commitment to holding Government to account.
Whilst aid and development pundits regularly discuss competing political views on aid, we often miss capturing the public’s perceptions.
Recent large-scale international cuts to aid and development have had, and will continue to have, a devastating impact on the world’s most vulnerable populations. As non-government organisations, multilaterals, and private philanthropists scramble to fill the holes left in international development, the Australian Government has a unique opportunity to shape the public perception of Australian aid, and in turn garner support for their programs.
Historical data suggests that the Australian public—in general—are becoming less supportive of foreign aid (26% in 2022 thought Australia gave too much aid, up to 40% in 2024). However, there appears a fundamental lack of public understanding of the benefits of contemporary aid, specifically those associated with locally led development approaches and reciprocal benefits to donor governments that are commonly touted within the development sector.
Importantly, the Australian public does not appear to prioritise the strategic components of aid as a tool of economic statecraft and the highly effective, low-cost nature that a soft power approach brings to donor countries. Nor do they appear to prioritise initiatives aimed at locally led development and greater recipient control aimed at reducing long-term reliance on Australian aid.
Presuming an incoming government will pursue continuity—let alone uplift—in Australia’s development assistance, then the task ahead will be to get serious about mobilising public support, to ensure that the public understand the broader benefits of Australian aid in a contemporary world.
Jack Hennessy is an experienced health economist with expertise in international development, health system financing, social protection and Indigenous health policy. With a constant focus on improving healthcare systems for underserved communities, Jack’s currently a Senior Health Economist at The Fred Hollows Foundation and pursuing a PhD in Health Economics at Monash University, researching the impact of health aid on global health outcomes. At the Lab, we love Jack’s ability to translate complex economic analysis into solutions for real-world health challenges.
