The human consequences of poor public administration

Today we learned that the Gillard Government has moved $375 million out of foreign aid spending and towards paying for the cost of the asylum seeker program.

Foreign Minister Bob Carr says that this is nothing to worry about, offering a legalistic argument that “money spent on refugees within a country is legitimate aid” and citing an OECD definition to that effect.

Even in its own legalistic terms that argument is flawed – as it incorrectly assumes that all asylum seekers in Australia are refugees, when many have not demonstrated that they satisfy the requirement under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention (of a well founded fear of persecution in their home country.)

But there is a more fundamental response: what the Gillard Government is doing with this money is not consistent with the expectations most people would have about what Australia’s foreign aid money is used for.

This is money which will not now be used for such purposes as improved sanitation in poor countries; for building new bridges and transport infrastructure in such countries; or for funding microloan programs so that women in rural villages can buy a sewing machine or another asset which they can use to operate a business and support their family.

Fundamentally, this decision reminds us of the human consequences of poor public administration.

When the Rudd Government came to power with a promise to sweep away the measures introduced by the Howard Government, the unsurprising result was a sharp increase in the number of people arriving by boat and claiming refugee status.

There has been five years of increasing chaos, with 400 boats now having arrived – and a huge amount of money being spent to support these people.  As Coalition Immigration Spokesman Scott Morrison recently pointed out, the cost has now exceeded $6 billion during the Rudd-Gillard Government’s period in office.

The result now has been money set aside for foreign aid being redirected – and fewer people in poor countries receiving help from Australia. 

Mr Carr is effectively arguing that the money will do as much good in Australia as if it is spent overseas. That is clearly not right. 

For one thing, $375 million – or any other given sum of money – will buy a lot more food, and build many more classrooms or hospital wards, in poor countries than in rich countries.

For another thing, foreign aid is supposed to help poor countries and their people become more productive and in turn richer – and better able to stand on their own two feet – through funding vital needs like education and infrastructure.  Spending that money instead on the ballooning costs of supporting thousands of people who have come to Australia without a visa does nothing to achieve the aims of our foreign aid program. 

Mr Rudd got some headlines in 2007 for a more compassionate approach.  But the Rudd-Gillard Government’s administration of our borders has been chaotically mismanaged.  Now it has been caught out redirecting money from our foreign aid budget – and people in poor countries who desperately need our help have lost out.  That doesn’t sound very compassionate.