11. KEITH LOCKE (Green) Link to this
to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
Does he agree with Bob Geldof that our low aid level is “the great shame of New Zealand” and that “the spirit of the electorate” is “not being made manifest by the pathetic 0.27 percent this Government gives to the poorest people on the planet”?
Given that the Pacific has been deemed to be the region most likely to fail to meet the Millennium Development Goals by 2015, how can the Government have an excuse for not having any timetable to move from the measly 0.27 percent of gross national income (GNI) in foreign aid, to the international standard of 0.7 percent?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
The “measly” figure the member refers to is in the broad order of $400 million a year. To achieve 0.7 percent would take approximately an additional $700 million a year. New Zealand also provides additional income to the Pacific by way of remittances, which run to many hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Our aid has been praised in terms of its quality; it is not tied. And we were one of the first countries to remove all tariffs on the least developed countries, a move that the Green Party opposed.
Does the Minister agree that no other country counts remittances in its overseas aid, and is the quality of our aid so great that our measly 0.27 percent of GNI somehow compares with the six European nations that give in excess of 0.8 percent of GNI and the many other countries that approach the international standard of 0.7 percent?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
Firstly, our figure is actually almost exactly the weighted average for the OECD countries that give aid. A number of OECD countries are not actually aid donors at all. The European countries the member refers to have very much higher per capita GDP than New Zealand has. Finally, I note that Ireland, the home country of Mr Bob Geldof, has received far more over the last 20 years by way of remittances from the European Union than it has given by way of foreign aid. If the European Union cares to give us a few billion dollars a year, I am sure I will have no difficulty in raising our foreign aid by $700 million a year.
Hon Phil GoffCan the Minister confirm that the increase in development assistance in the Budget last year—21 percent—gave us, in fact, the highest-ever level of official development assistance in this country’s history?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
That is indeed true. We have moved from 0.22 percent to 0.27 percent—and, indeed, next year it is due to reach 0.28 percent—of GDP. No doubt we would all like to do more, but I must say also that whenever we increase aid I get a lot of letters asking why I am not spending that money on hip replacement operations, new roads, or something else.
Will the Minister check his figures—because I think he will find that the OECD average is actually 0.42 percent of GNI—and will he review the projection he just mentioned, to increase our aid level from its current 0.27 percent to 0.28 percent in the next Budget; if not, could he explain how he will reach even the intermediate target of 0.35 percent by 2010 that Labour promised before the election, let alone the international target of 0.7 percent by 2015?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
There are large demands on next year’s Budget. The party that the member belongs to would like me to spend nearly $1 billion on electrifying the Auckland railway line and on building a loop within that railway line. That, of itself, would cost more than the amount required to raise our aid budget to 0.7 percent for 1 year.