Australian governments spend $64 billion on health each year. We spend $3.7 billion a year on foreign aid. It is hard to sustain an argument that we should transfer our aid spending to the health budget

The pennies we give for foreign aid are far too few - Opinion - smh.com.au

When a constituent complains to a politician that Australia spends too much on foreign aid, sooner or later they will always use the phrase "charity begins at home" to sum up their view that there are more urgent domestic priorities for taxpayers' money.

I have a standard response: "Yes, charity does begin at home, but it doesn't end there."

In recent times groups like the Micah Challenge and the Oaktree Foundation have mobilised thousands of Australians who believe in foreign aid. But thousands of others believe foreign aid is too high and that the money should be spent on other priorities.

A few years ago I came across a study of US attitudes to foreign aid. I'm reminded of this study whenever I'm discussing the issue with a constituent who thinks we should cut aid.

Asked what the right level of foreign aid funding was, the most common answer from respondents in the US study was 10 per cent of the federal budget. Asked how much they thought was being spent on foreign aid, most thought the figure was 20 per cent. Foreign aid is about 1 per cent of the US federal budget. I'm sure the same study in Australia would have similar results.

A common refrain on talkback radio is: "Can't we look after our own first, and use the money we spend on foreign aid to fix our hospitals?"

Australian governments spend $64 billion on health each year. We spend $3.7 billion a year on foreign aid. It is hard to sustain an argument that we should transfer our aid spending to the health budget.

Scepticism about foreign aid among people who are doing it tough in Australia should not be taken lightly. But we have a way to go in putting our aid efforts in context for people concerned we spend too much.

As the world focuses on the global financial crisis, we should not forget the permanent crisis of abject poverty that engulfs millions. We need to ensure that the voiceless around the world are not the silent victims of the crisis.

Companies and foundations around the world are significantly scaling back their donations, and the less developed world will suffer. Government aid around the world has fallen from its peak of $US107 billion in 2005 to $US104 billion this year.

The need to keep development issues in focus is important when you consider that we are more than half way down the road toward the millennium development goals milestone year of 2015. In 2000 the world agreed to strive to meet some basic goals over the following 15 years. We were asked to "spare no effort to free our fellow people from abject and dehumanising poverty".

One aim was to halve the number of people living on less than a dollar a day. Another was to cut by two thirds the under-five mortality rate. This was not an effort to bring the rest of the world up to developed living standards, but to alleviate the worst of world poverty.

While huge numbers have been lifted out of poverty since 2000, most of this progress is due to the development of China, India and Brazil. Other nations, particularly in Africa, are not on track to meet any of the millennium development goals. Yet, as the United Nations has pointed out, "the overarching goal of reducing the world's poverty by half is within reach for the world".

Twenty three years ago the developed world sung along when singers asked us to "let them know it's Christmas time" and "feed the world". This Christmas there is still a long way to go to achieving those aims.

Chris Bowen is the federal Assistant Treasurer and MP for Prospect.