Meet the Need - 2/3 of Brisbane Population Surveyed Believe Overseas Aid Should Be Increased

Two thirds of Brisbane population surveyed believed Australia should increase aid

What is this survey?
On August 28, 2005, an informal survey by members of the Micah Challenge group conducted at the Cabarlah Markets in Toowoomba, found that at least half of the people surveyed had little knowledge about the amount of overseas aid that Australia contributes.

They were asked, “What do you think about the amount Australia gives to overseas aid - way too much, too much, about the right amount, too little, way too little, or don’t know?” 52% said they thought we give too much or way too much.

They were then asked, “What do YOU think would be an appropriate percentage of the national income for Australia to give to overseas aid?“ Many people who said we give too much or way too much said we should “only” give 1-2%. This is actually five to ten times more than the 0.26% that Australia has been giving until recently.

The results of this intrigued us so much that we decided to ask Santiago Ayala and the Department Of Social Sciences at UQ to help us run a formal survey to assess whether these results could be duplicated over a larger area.

We developed an in-depth survey, and from the 8thto the 10th of December 2005, surveyed over 140 people in:
• Browns Plains (Federal Electorate: Rankin),
• Indooroopilly (Federal Electorate: Ryan),
• Chermside (Federal Electorate: Lilley), and
• Brisbane City (Federal Electorate: Brisbane).

What did the survey find?

• Not one single person said Australia shouldn’t give aid to poor countries.
• Almost 90% (89.7%) said it was ‘important’ or ‘very important’ to give aid.
• Two thirds (66.9%) of the people were actually in favour of increasing our aid.
• And almost 80% of these (76.9%) were in favour of increasing the amount of aid to meet the goal proposed by UN of 0.5% or more of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
• A majority of people (54%) would prefer aid to be distributed through Australian NGOs.
• Where nongovernmental agencies are not an option, then people would prefer that aid be distributed through governments rather than businesses. A majority say governments needn’t be democratic but should be stable (52.8%) and transparent (59.2%).
• While people recognise giving aid improves Australia’s international image (86.7%) and international relations (82.9%), the majority do not think aid should used as P.R.
• An overwhelming majority of people said aid should be directed towards countries that are poor (87.6%), have poor social services (91.5%) and poor health standards (89.8%) or suffering from natural disaster (94.7%) and post-conflict trauma (85.1%).

Why have we produced this document?
We particularly want to encourage the Australian Government to increase its provision of aid to foreign countries to half of one per cent of our GDP to help meet the Millennium Development Goals. We also want to encourage governments to provide aid to the areas of most need, rather than to those countries where provision of aid is considered politically expedient for Australia.

If the Government says that it can only increase aid if the electorate supports the increase, we thought we’d provide it with some evidence about what some people had to say about the idea of increasing aid.

What are the Millennium Development Goals?
The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are a set of eight goals to reduce global poverty, which were endorsed by all the members of the United Nations in 2000.
The eight goals are:
1) to halve extreme poverty and hunger by 2015;
2) to achieve universal primary education by 2015;
3) to promote gender equality and empower women in all levels of education;
4) to reduce child mortality by two-thirds by 2015;
5) to reduce the maternal mortality ratio by three-quarters by 2015;
6) to have halted and begun to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases by 2015;
7) to ensure environmental sustainability by 2015 by:
• integrating the principles of sustainable development into country policies,
• reversing the loss of environmental resources,
• halving the proportion of people without access to clean water or adequate sanitation,
• significantly improving the lives of at least 100m slum dwellers; to develop a global partnership for development based on:
• fairer international trade, financial and governance systems,
• a resolution of unsustainable debt,
• a special focus on the least developed countries, small island states and landlocked countries,
• increased and poverty focused aid, and
• sharing technology.

What is the Micah Challenge?

The Micah Challenge takes its name from the prophet Micah, who wrote, “What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with your God” Micah 6:8. It is a movement of people from many different faith communities round the world committed to work together to pursue justice, be passionate about kindness and walk humbly with God. Micah Challenge is associated with the Make Poverty History Campaign.

The Micah Action Group in Queensland, (the Queensland branch of the Micah Challenge) is a collection of members from across a range of Christian church organisations which are committed to the Micah Challenge. More information about the Micah Challenge is available at www.micahchallenge.org.au.

Conclusion

The following report contains the data and analysis drawn from the survey. We think it contains a powerful message for the Australian Federal Government and a powerful impetus for a community that would like to see our country commit itself wholeheartedly to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. The message of the Make Poverty History Campaign is that if we take action now, we can meet the MDG’s. The aim of the Micah Challenge is to inspire people to be agents of hope, and to encourage our national and global leaders in their role in securing a more just and merciful world.

AUSTRALIAN OVERSEAS AID SURVEY

SURVEY RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics - Frequencies

1. Knowledge and awareness of the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID)
Of the 142 people interviewed, 115 or 81% said they were aware of the existence of AusAID (table 1).

More than half of the respondents (59.4%) nominated Papua New Guinea, Indonesia and East Timor as some of the countries that receive the most aid from AusAID (table 2). A significant portion of the respondents (23.6%) nominated African countries in the list of beneficiary countries. Only 10.5% believed that other countries in the Pacific and Asia received aid (table 2).

Table 1: AusAID Knowledge

Table 2: Perception of countries receiving aid

As shown in table 3, almost two thirds of the respondents said they were not aware of the latest decision of the Australian government regarding the recent increase of foreign aid to developing countries. Of those that answered they were aware, only 12% knew the correct increase in percentage (table 4).

Table 3: Awareness of the Australian Government’s decision to increase foreign aid.

Table 4: Knowledge of the percentage of increase in Foreign Aid

2. Criteria for Aid Distribution
The criteria which respondents considered were relevant when deciding which countries should receive Australian aid are grouped into four different categories: poverty indicators/issues; government and governance systems; effect on Australian interests; and societies suffering from natural disasters or post-conflict trauma.

2.1 Poverty Indicators: The majority of the respondents, as shown in tables 5 to 9, supported the idea of using critical poverty indicators as relevant criteria to select countries as beneficiaries of Australia’s foreign aid. A majority (87.6%) said economic disadvantage should be a criterion; 89.8% said poor health standards; 82.4% said low national average income and 71.8% said high illiteracy. Lack of basic services had a vast majority with 91.5% of the respondents supporting this criterion.

Table 5: Economic Disadvantage as criteria

Table 6: Poor standards in health as criteria

Table 7: Low National average income as criteria

Table 8: High levels of illiteracy as criteria

Table 9: Lack of basic services as criteria

2.2 Governance and government systems: Opinions as to whether governance issues should be criteria for aid are not as clearly skewed as poverty indicators. Having a democratic political system (table 10) or a being friendly with Australian political views (table 12) showed a non significant difference in opinions between the respondents. On the other hand, having transparency (table 11), stability (table 13) and honesty (table 14) within governments are criteria supported on average by two thirds of the respondents.

Table 10: Democracy as criteria

Table 11: Transparency as criteria

Table 12: Friendly with Australian policies as criteria

Table 13: Stability in government as criteria

Table 14: No political corruption as criteria

2.3 Effect on Australian interests: This set of criteria presented a non significant difference between the opinions of the respondents. Only the possible threat to Australian national security (table 16) had a majority of more than two thirds (or 68.3%) of the respondents saying that this should be a criterion in the selection of beneficiary countries.

Table 15: Impact on Australian exports as criteria

Table 16: Impact on Australian security as criteria

2.4 Societies suffering from natural disaster and post-conflict trauma: These criteria showed a substantial majority in favor with 94.7% nominating the former (table 17), and 85.1% nominating societies in post conflict trauma (table 18).

Table 17: Natural disaster as criteria

Table 18: Post conflict trauma as criteria

3. Amount of aid given
As shown in table 19, responses in this category are characterized by their polarization. Only 3 (or 2.2%) of the 142 survey respondents indicated they were in favor of a decrease in the amount of aid given. None of the respondents said that no aid should be given. Two thirds of the sample (66.9%) indicated they were in favor of increasing the percentage of aid given; and 30.9% or 42 respondents said that the current level of aid should be maintained.

Table 19: Altering the percentage of Australian foreign aid

Of those who believed that aid should be increased, table 20 shows that a majority (76.9%) of the respondents, said that aid should be increased to meet the goal proposed by United Nations of 0.5% or more (up to .6+%) of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
These results are verified at Table 21 where 122 of the 142 survey respondents (or 89.7%) considered it important or very important for Australia to give aid to less developed countries.

Table 20: Aid to meet United Nations goals

Table 21: How important is it to give foreign aid?

4. Effect on Australian interests
A significant majority of respondents perceived that Australia’s international image and international political relations would be positively affected by the provision of aid to developing countries (table 22). Australian security in relation to other countries was also distinguished by a comparatively smaller, but significant, majority as a positive effect. While giving aid is seen as bringing positive outcomes, it is not clearly perceived that it would improve security in relation to terrorism.

On the other hand, opinion about the impact on Australian social welfare is divided with 31.5% saying the effects are positive, 22.8% saying they are negative and 45.7% saying the provision of aid makes no difference. Opinions about effects on the economy are divided, with 42.6% saying the effects are positive and 41.9% saying it makes no difference. A smaller percentage (15.5%) said the effects are negative.

Table 22: Effect on Australia by giving foreign aid

5. Aid: Channels of distribution
Table 23 clearly shows that the preferred channels of distribution of aid are though non-government organizations (NGO’s). NGO’s distributing aid from Australia attracted 54% of support and NGO’s distributing aid in the recipient countries attracted 34% of support. The second most preferred method of distribution was through the public sector and the third through the private sector.

Table 23: How aid should be distributed

6. Conclusion

METHODOLOGY

I. Introduction
The methodology for this survey was developed with the assistance of a panel of academics from the University of Queensland, School of Social Science, who brought both qualitative and quantitative research experience to the project.

The panel also provided advice on ethical considerations and obligations and ensured the collection of specific data was both relevant and appropriate to the stated purpose of the project.

Two main methods were identified as being the most likely to meet the requirements of the sample and resources. A ‘door knock’ of local communities, and an ‘accidental sampling’ at shopping centers and other public venues in four different suburbs.

The separate locations were necessary to establish a sample population that was representative of the wider Southeast Queensland community.

1.2 Pilot Study of survey form

It was decided that rather than progressing directly to a survey in the general community, it would be advisable to conduct a pilot study; firstly to gain both practical experience and secondly, to further refine the questions so that they were less likely to lead responses while being more effectively coded in terms of yielding useful statistical data.

These forms were tested on a small scale of selected individuals from different faculties of the University of Queensland, to gain input on the clarity and content of questions and the time required to fill them in.

For the pilot run a question was included to gather data which could be used to crosscheck relationships between academic background and opinions/attitudes on aid provision.

In line with standard ethical and methodological procedure, and to avoid the possibility of non-responses resulting from a negative emotional response to personal questions, the survey did not ask for any personal information that might identify individual respondents.

The survey form was carefully designed to ensure that no lead or bias could be inferred from the questions.

The questions were ordered so that current knowledge and awareness about Australia’s aid position was ascertained; people were then provided with simple information and examples, and then respondents were asked for their final opinion.

Questions were then asked to allow for demographic sampling and cross analysis, including: religious and political affiliations/preferences, occupation/profession, gender, place of birth.

Appendix 1 includes the final survey form used in the study.

1.3 Final survey

The survey was collected implementing the door knock and accidental sampling during the 8th, 9th and 10th of December 2005. The final tally for responses was 142.

As a ratio of the wider Brisbane population, this is a representative proportion which meets the requirements for data processing and analysis, and is able to provide cells large enough to identify trends and differences with a reasonable level of statistical justification.

This was also a pleasing result given that no incentives were provided for being involved in the survey.

1.4 Data Analysis

Following the collection, the data was coded and entered using the SPSS statistical package software. Data was processed, providing a clear and accurate description of the results, together with an analysis of the trends in public awareness of foreign aid and opinions about that aid.

1.5 Technical Data

Date of Collection: December 8th, 9th and 10th of 2005
Sample: 142 surveys
3 different socio economic areas
Area of Collection: Greater Brisbane
Sample collection breakdown: Browns Plains
Indooroopilly
Brisbane City
Chermside
Technique for data collection: 24% Door Knock
76% Accidental Sample
Sample Size: 142 interviews
Standard Error

1.5.1 Sample Collection

-Accidental Sampling- -Door Knock-
Collection Area percentage Collection Area percentage
Browns Plains Logan
(Grand Plaza Shopping Centre) 14.8% 7.0%
Indooroopilly Indooroopilly
(Indooroopilly Shopping Centre) 22.5% 7.0%
Brisbane City Chermside
(Myer Centre) 18.3% 9.9%
Southbank
(Parklands & shopping area) 20.4%

1.5.2 Method of Collection

(Please see final publication)
1.5.3 Demographics of those surveyed

Gender
Males 55.7% of the sample
Females 44.3% of the sample
Missing 2 respondents

Place of Birth
Australia 72.1% of the sample
Overseas 27.9% of the sample
Missing 2 respondents

Highest Qualification
School diploma 10.3%
High school diploma 28.7%
No qualification since
leaving school 4.4%
Trade qualification 10.3%
Associate diploma 5.1%
Undergraduate diploma 3.7%
Bachelor degree (including honors) 25.0%
Postgraduate degree or diploma 12.5%

Category Occupation Profession
Unemployed 11.2%
Student 15.7%
Agriculture, forestry and fishing 3.0%
Mining 2.2%
Manufacturing 3.0%
Construction 4.5%
Wholesale trade 3.0%
Retail trade 5.2%
Accommodation, cafes and resta. 1.5%
Transport and storage 0.7%
Communication services 2.2%
Finance and insurance 9.0%
Property, business and services 1.5%
Government admin and defense 6.7%
Education 10.4%
Health and community services 14.2%
Personal and other services 3.0%
Non-classifiable economics units 3.0%

Religion
No Religion 51.1%
Christianity 22.9%
Catholic 13.0%
Hinduism 1.5%
Other or non-stated 11.5%

Political Party
-Party- -Percentage- -Valid Percentage-
Liberal 19.7% 25.0%
Labour 25.4% 32.1%
National 1.4% 1.8%
Democrat 2.8% 3.6%
Green 4.9% 6.3%
One Nation 1.4% 1.8%
Other 8.5% 10.7%
Would not vote
(no political party) 14.8% 18.8%
Non-stated 21.1%

Appendix 1

Meet the need - Public Perception, Knowledge and Opinion of
Australia’s Foreign Aid to Developing Countries, 2005/2006
MEET THE NEED - Public Perception, Knowledge and Opinion of
Australia’s Foreign Aid to Developing Countries

© Micah Action Group, Queensland, 2006.

Initiated by Dave Andrews.

Commissioned by the Micah Action Group Queensland and the United Nations Association of Australia, Queensland Branch.

Designed and implemented by Santiago Ayala with the collaboration of Ken Paterson, and Dr. David Ip (University of Queensland) and Dr. John Western (University of Queensland)

Collected Across Brisbane, Queensland, Australia on December 8th, 9th & 10th 2005

Sample collected with the collaboration of:
Volunteers from TEAR Australia
Waiters Group – West End, Queensland
World Vision – Australia

Edited by Heather den Houting, Brisbane 2006.

Published by the Office of the Social Responsibility Advocate, Uniting Church, Queensland Synod.

For more information contact:
Dave Andrews 07 38441043 dave@tear.org.au
Micah Challenge www.micahchallenge.org.au
Make Poverty History www.makepovertyhistory.com.au