National’s announcement made yesterday to make savage cuts to overseas aid to pay for cancer treatments is a stunner.
Imagining seeking the votes of those who want to have an improved health system and those who harbour racist thoughts at the same time. Simeon Brown must have thought that all of his dreams had come true at once.
Yet this is what happened. And it provoked a response from Winston Peters which makes you wonder how this Government can survive.
From Russell Palmer at Radio New Zealand:
Winston Peters is calling National’s latest campaign promise “desperate”, while ACT is hailing it as a win and promising to go further.
National’s leader Christopher Luxon and health spokesperson Simeon Brown announced their more than $820m plan to increase Pharmac funding and other health programmes – with more than half the funding redirected from non-Pacific foreign aid budgets – at a private hospital on Tuesday.
Luxon said he had not spoken to NZ First leader Winston Peters, who has been the Foreign Minister this term, and whose department has largely avoided cuts in that time.
“Well, look, I mean we’ll cross that bridge when we get there,” Luxon said.
“Between now and November 7th I’m making the case very strongly: I want everybody to party vote National. I want National government, I want National ministers, I want National policies, I want as many National ministers around that Cabinet table as possible.”
Peters was having none of it. Again from Radio New Zealand:
In a post on social media, Peters said the policy was dangerous, and desperate.
“We need to double the size of the economy and we cannot do that if we neglect the very markets we need to be in. The old parties have never understood New Zealand has to work for its money,” he said.
“The idea to cut foreign aid during one of the most uncertain global times in history is both desperate and dangerous. It is irresponsible for National to jeopardise the relationships we have in the very markets we need to grow our economy.”
Simeon Brown’s justification was interesting. He implied that the cut was not very big.
But this is cherry picking the data. the amounts budgeted for overseas aid during the last Labour Government increased dramatically year by year.
In the first year of this Government they were cut back significantly. And this year’s budget, at $1.04 billion is $430 million less than what it was under Labour. When you add the effect of inflation this is a significant cut.
Brown suggested that the cut is achieved by reducing foreign aid and associated administration costs by 10 per cent. But I can’t see how this works.
The current budget for aid is $1.04 billion. Ten percent of this is $104 million, not $431.2 million which is the claimed saving.
Can someone explain this?
It is also a further abogation of our responsibility as a developed nation. The United Nations urges developed countries to spend 0.7% of its GDP on foreign aid. The projected figure for New Zealand is currently well below this at 0.23%. In 2023 under Labour it was 0.31%.
Pacific Island aid is to be preserved. But historically it has absorbed about 60% of the total. There will be precious little left given the size of this cut. Clearly there will be nothing for Gaza or the Ukraine. New Zealand’s reputation as a responsible member of the International Community will be severely damaged.
It also continues National’s habit of rollong over the top of professional entities and directing what is going to happen. The Pharmac model is that they are entrusted with funds and then relied on to make decisions achieving the greatest good with the funds available. Directing a spend in a particular area may be good for headlines but undermines the need to consider what is the best spend, now what will deliver good media.
I don’t think this will be a vote loser for National. But it underscores how superficial its approach to politics is and how completely indifferent it is to our international reputation.
Luxon's first answer in the debate was about supporting Ukraine. Ironic.
Now, I doubt that he really means to axe that support, but Hipkins/Tame didn't challenge him on it. They should have.
Of course, this is not a serious policy proposal, it's only a cynical headline-grabber, which is why there are so specifics at all ("We will cut aid to Country X").
I always associate Simeon Brown with the absolute dumbest of policies. They are invariably for a short-term headline. And the idiot has certainly outdone himself this time.
I have to agree with Winston on these specific cuts – these cuts will be extremely damaging for our place in the world. Especially how we are perceived in the kinds of undeveloped markets that we need to diversify into. But also with the way that we are viewed by our existing marketplaces.
Aid is valuable adjunct to our trace and diplomatic efforts and always has been. It is far more valuable in the long term at providing the funds that power our economy and and our long term ability to fund pharma than providing a short-term unsustainable boost in an election year.