Defence isn't the only lever to effect change

"If we are ever to achieve the sustainable development goals, which represent our collective vision for minimum living standards for everyone living on this planet, every country needs to do more," she said, before outlining Australia's work to reshape its development policy.

It was music to the development sector's collective ears. The Abbott government cut official development assistance from more than $5 billion per year to under $4 billion (in figures adjusted for inflation, the gap is larger). It was a clear sign development was out of favour - along with the UN, climate action and empathy towards asylum seekers.

Fast forward almost a decade and the tide is, thankfully, starting to turn. The Albanese government has said it intends to revive the aid budget, and in this month's federal budget it showed how it would do that, including with staged increases of 2.5 per cent each year for a decade from 2026-27. It's a modest commitment, but at least is predictable, stable and secure. The budget also included a small increase in development assistance, plus $1.9 billion in additional whole-of-government funds aimed at supporting the Pacific.

The new policy couldn't come at a more pivotal time. Geopolitical anxieties abound, not just in Canberra but increasingly being felt by the broader public. The AUKUS announcement around our $368 billion spend on nuclear-powered submarines has solidified recent calls for increased defence spending. Fears Australia will soon be drawn into a significant geopolitical conflict are stoking the fires of the defence community, which is happy its arsenal of submarines, jets and cyber warfare abilities is being boosted.

While warnings about Australia's security footing should not be taken lightly, we cannot let ourselves fall into the trap of believing bolstering defence is the only armour. Defence needs to work in conjunction with development, which is ultimately a pre-emptive approach. A good balance of the two, along with diplomacy - collectively known as the three "Ds" in the Canberra bubble - are what is most needed to elevate Australia's national security.

Mention the term "international aid" and you will witness a wide spectrum of responses: from ignorance over the amount of money Australia spends, to great enthusiasm for it, in that it is a way to find favour and friendship in other parts of the world, such as Pacific nations. (In truth, foreign aid accounts for less than 0.2 per cent of gross national income.)

At its core, Australia's development program is directed towards strengthening health systems, education and livelihoods, and bolstering democracy, all of which form guardrails against instability, extremism and illiberalism, which are the building blocks of wider conflicts, as we've seen in recent history. Yes, aid does help bring the strategic friendships Australia wants and needs. Officially, the parlance used is partnerships, which signifies the recognition friendships are two-way. Australia benefits as much from delivering aid to developing nations as the recipients do.

Any discussion of the need to spend more on defence must include development - because they are fundamentally intertwined, and seek similar objectives of stability, peace and prosperity. Think of development as preventative spending. It gives immediate returns on building alliances, and puts us in a place where Australia gets to know and understand partners well.

Thanks to the development program in recent decades, Australia has existing partnerships with neighbouring countries already in place. The focus should now be on forward planning for the coming decades. Instead of putting all our eggs in the defence basket, it's more beneficial to think strategically: that spending on economic growth, health systems and conflict prevention programs work towards our end goal of a safer region.

This pragmatic approach comes against the backdrop of a world in flux. Poverty is on the rise for the first time in 20 years, the COVID-19 pandemic exposed glaring holes in health systems and schools aren't adequate. Hunger rates are climbing, with some parts of the world on the brink of famine. Better and stronger action is needed if Australia is going to tackle the so-called polycrisis - that is, the interconnected and compounding crises that are our new global reality.

Given the common threat posed by climate change, the benefits here cannot be underrated. What happens regionally affects Australia - after all, temperatures go up globally, not locally. With climate and development need being interlinked, climate finance is increasingly coming to the fore - and the new development policy will undoubtedly see a decisive shift towards climate action, and development finance likely be directed towards adaptation measures. For the development sector, this would be a key win. Experts suggest it is imperative to our global survival that we help south-east Asia achieve net zero.

READ MORE:

A reset of priorities is sorely overdue. The development sector wants to see human development and climate change at the core of the new policy, and a recognition of how addressing root

causes can build security from the ground up. The question is, will we see the new policy rise to the occasion? Or will it be a business-as-usual approach?

Formulating new policy takes vision and decisive action, and if done right, could be the shot in the geopolitical arm the region wants and needs.