In a press release, the Greens have raised a concern over comments made by the Prime Minister regarding the use of New Zealand aid money to subsidise Air New Zealand to continue flight links between Samoa, Tonga and the U.S in the face of those routes being discontinued.
There is a legitimate concern that if links between these countries were to halt, the tourism industries of Samoa and Tonga would suffer, thus jobs would be lost etc. I am of the view that these services need to be supported so have no issue with the government underwriting the continuation of such services.
I also believe that it is a real concern if the money is going to come from the aid budget. Whilst it is rightly recognised as needing to come from the budget of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, to use aid money severely confuses what that money exists to do. Most New Zealanders would understand that our aid money is used to assist the poorest of the poor, creating development from the bottom up, whilst trade and structural economic development exist to assist a country from the top down – I would view the assisting of the flight links as the latter.
If money is taken from the aid budget to assist structural development rather than development amongst the poorest then we see a conflict. I would agree with the Greens in the assertion that the New Zealand public needs to be made aware of what exactly fits the criteria for New Zealand aid under the current government so that confusion is avoided. If the flight links fit that criteria then the aims of the foreign aid and development budget administered by NZAid have become much broader than the current focus and have moved beyond aid and development amongst the poor as most people would understand it. Some clarity is desirable.
Here is the audio of the exact comments from John Key. The reporter asking the questions is quiet:
To hear the entire press conference, click here.
Related posts:
Instead of spending the money on Air New Zealand, how would you guys spend it to benefit these pacific islands.
Our mandate is to work with the poorest in such places so if we had funds and were to move to work in the Pacific, we would identify indigenous projects run by Christian groups already working or moving to work in the poorer communities and would assist, support and resource them towards their objectives to lift up those communities.
Allow me to affirm that I do not see assisting Samoa and Tonga through Air New Zealand as wrong. Their tourism industries are important. I’m just not sure if the aid budget is the place to take it from. That fundamentally does not fit my philosophy of such aid.
Interestingly, there is a precedent for it in Niue though. NZAID has been greatly assisting Niue for some time since it was devastated by a cyclone. It has been working to build basic infrastructure and develop the private sector, including tourism. This has involved underwriting Air NZ flights since Samoa’s national carrier discontinued the service. Here are the relevant links looking at NZAid’s work with Niue:
http://www.rnzi.com/pages/news.php?op=read&id=19800
http://www.nzaid.govt.nz/library/docs/factsheet-niue.pdf
Niue was an island that was devastated and it was an island (if we’re to delve into the stuff behind the scenes) that New Zealand pretty much pillaged for phosphorous. It needed very serious help, so I’m not sure if the precedent actually carries over to Samoa and Tonga and their links to the U.S.