It came as no surprise in the federal budget handed down recently.

The Federal Government ducked their duty. Swan did a dive on  international development.

We have seen more ducks on this issue than even the Australian cricket team is capable of. We have seen more dives than the Uruguay football team did at Homebush in that famous World Cup qualifier back in November 2005.

Its announcement on foreign aid will save dollars. But it will cost lives.

I feel ashamed.

The federal government will save 1.9 billion dollars by not honouring its commitment to increase the amount allocated to international aid and development to .5 percent of Gross National Income (GNI) by 2015.  This commitment was made, along with the other 22 countries who represent the wealthiest billion people in the world, to help lift the poorest billion people out of extreme poverty.

The Millennium Development Goals (MDG), set in 2002, targeted eight key markers of poverty and sought to address these issues by 2015 (Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, Achieve universal primary education, Promote gender equality and empower women, Reduce child mortality,  Improve maternal health, Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases, Ensure environmental sustainability and Create a global partnership for development with targets for aid, trade and debt relief). To achieve these goals the 22 OECD nations committed to providing .5% of gross national income (GNI) by the same period. Most nations have fallen behind this commitment. In 2011, Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden continued to exceed the United Nations ODA target of 0.7 per cent of GNI.

We Australians like to think we are a generous nation. The private sector (corporate Australia and individual Australians) gives away about 11 billion dollars a year. That is about $500 per person and it includes giving to everything, from building funds for elite school gymnasiums, medical research into diseases caused by over-indulgence, restoration of historic sites and structures, gifts to run local charities, churches, synagogues, mosques, sporting clubs and so on. It also includes money sent overseas for aid and development and ‘mission’ work. I use the word in a general sense to cover Christian Missions and other faith or ideologically driven enterprises.

Is that generous? Is that generous enough?

The public sector invests billions into medical research and domestic welfare. The Government is to be applauded for its long overdue commitment to education and disability care.

The bipartisan approach to disability care shows that we have a heart, somewhere, and for some things. Most people I spoke to were very much in favour of a Medicare style levy to cover the costs of this initiative.

But why can’t we have the same compassion for families at critical levels of the risk of death because of starvation, preventable diseases and disability? Where is our public heartbeat for people lacking the basic needs of food, water, shelter, medicine and education?

Why does such a wealthy nation like Australia who “has done better than every other developed nation since the GFC “duck and dive” on its commitment to helping the world’s most marginalized and desperately needy people?

Is that generous? Is it generous enough?

A friend suggested to me yesterday that Australians are always there for each other when the times get tough. Times are never tougher than when a parent buries a child whose death could have been prevented. Times are never tougher than when parents are trying to live on a couple of dollars a day, while at the same time are caring for a child with a disability in a country that provides zero disability care.

All of us have ancestry who came to this country because its borders were porous or because generations of governments offered us a future here. Does our heart not beat for those who will never get a privilege like that and whose circumstances are so traumatic?

If we would readily accept a Medicare style levy for domestic disability care, perhaps we could lobby the government for a levy to be applied to international aid and development. We could easily raise our giving percentage of GNI to .5% and even .7% and make a significant contribution to achieving the MDG by 2015. I put it to us that we wouldn’t even feel any real discomfort, let alone pain.

It would be means-tested.

It would be fair.

It would be generous.

It would be Australian.

Feature photo: The Clyde