Senator MARGETTS(10.50 a.m.) —There have been some interesting points made in today's debate. I was very pleased to hear the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Hill) saying that the emphasis by the government is, or will be, on humanitarian aid. I think that is very worthy, and I would like to think that that will be the case. We will certainly be making sure that the aid that is provided is going towards those causes. Basically, the Greens (WA) believe that we do ourselves no good in concentrating aid on assisting business in Australia. In the case of many of our aid programs—if we look, for instance, at Africa, which has not received a great deal of aid from Australia—unfortunately, the aid is in inverse proportion to the social, environmental and other needs of the countries involved.

Basically, the richer countries get more aid; the poorer countries get left off. That has been a very unfortunate aspect. I would like to think that what Senator Hill has said today is an indication of a change in that—that we will actually be looking at the needs of countries rather than the necessary prospects of return from emerging middle classes in the countries to whom we provide aid.

It is also true, as Senator Hill has indicated, that the Greens, as well as the Australian Democrats, have been very vocal in criticising the levels that have been used in the past in schemes like DIFF as aid and been part of the aid budget. It is also true that the non-government aid groups have been very critical, and they have pushed, as far as they could, for DIFF to be used in ways that are of greater benefit to the communities involved. There has been a move towards green DIFF, which many people have welcomed.

In supporting the motion, we are not saying that DIFF is the best thing since sliced bread, but that elements of DIFF definitely need support and critical analysis. That is why we asked for, and got, the motion to indicate that we would look at the contribution by DIFF to Australia's aid objectives. That is important because it will also give the Australian aid community, the non-government aid community in particular, the opportunity to put their views to the committee on the contribution DIFF has made and can make to Australia's legitimate aid objectives.

In supporting the motion, we are not endorsing, necessarily, all DIFF has done. Rather, we are endorsing the necessity of this chamber to do what it should do, that is, to look at the government's expenditure program. It is a very welcome opportunity to look at Australia's aid objectives, particularly DIFF, to see whether we are meeting them. So it is a vehicle for having a very fruitful discussion, and it is pleasing to think that we will have that. From our point of view, it is not a means of simply making cheap political points. It is demeaning to think that we would support the motion simply for that reason.

Undoubtedly, we have put a lot on the record about the aid program. It is the right time for us to consider any changes to government expenditure programs. It is the legitimate role of the Senate to review government expenditure programs, any proposed cuts to expenditure programs and the impacts those will have. That is what people expect us to do and that is why we will support this motion today.