SUSAN HARRIS RIMMER would hate to see what Australia will do to aid when the budget is actually in crisis.

No one in the domestic sphere cares about foreign policy spending in a budget like this, even if our fiscal futures are linked to the region's fortunes and our ability to manoeuvre in a globalised economy.

Our region cares though, and they will notice what happened last night. 

It remains to be seen how the cuts and shifts to our foreign policy portfolio impact our diplomatic standing in the region and globally – especially since by OECD standards our economy is strong.

But I predict, that Australia shall one day soon rue the under-investment it makes in international relations, including our agents of ‘soft power’.  

As expected but to be much mourned, spending on official development assistance was cut by $7.6 billion over five years. The ‘saving’ has been made by maintaining official development assistance (ODA) at its nominal 2013‑14 level of $5.0 billion in 2014‑15 and 2015‑16, with much of the loss coming from the multilateral bucket.

This was the last nail in the coffin of Mr Howard's pledge in 2000 to meet the Millennium Development Goals target of 0.7% percent of gross national income (GNI) by 2015 – which became a compromise bipartisan deal between the major parties of 0.5% in 2007.  

Nevertheless, $5 billion can still do much to eradicate extreme poverty in our region, and hopefully the AusAID-DFAT merger will not hinder effective aid policy and delivery.

But two signs do not look good.

First, the government has confirmed that from 2016‑17 ODA will grow in line with the Consumer Price Index.  This is a stunt, and meaningless at best.  

It is not an Australian domestic decision to make. The OECD and the UN measure ODA spending against GNI, and adopting random other standards will not stop external judgment of our performance in this regard.

Second, the government also refers to the introduction of a cap on departmental costs for DFAT to administer ODA equivalent to 5 per cent of DFAT's total ODA budget.  This is ominous.  Administering an efficient aid budget takes skill, and is not an arbitrary measure.  Losing 500 experienced officials from the AusAID side will not help.

The reaction of most pundits is a sense of mourning from the aid sector, and solidarity for the civil society actors in the social welfare sphere at home.  As Tim Costello says, charity begins at home, but it doesn’t have to end there.

This budget is not charitable to those living in poverty at home or abroad.  We mourn the loss of the bipartisan commitment to 0.5% of GNI by 2015, lost under Labor, confirmed here.

Significantly, there is also far less detail to analyse than usual in this Budget.  

We have lost a major transparency tool to evaluate aid spending. To find out anything about foreign policy, you must look across several items in Budget Paper 2. The DFAT portfolio statement gives almost no detail, compared to the Blue Books that the sector is used to.  

However, the joint Ministerial press release issued by Andrew Robb and Julie Bishop does tell the story. 

The Ministers make their best case again for economic diplomacy. Certainly there is a clarity in the DFAT portfolio statement about what the Department will do, and how, with few surprises for those of us who follow the minister's speeches.  

But to really understand the implications of the Budget, you need to read the ANU Development Policy Centre analysis – they have provided further figures about changes to the program's overall growth and differences across country and regional programs.

While the NGO sector has mostly reacted with sadness to ODA ‘flat-lining’, it has welcomed the increase in humanitarian spending.  Generally, they point to the disproportionate cuts to aid.

As the government wielded the axe last night, Tim Costello tweeted:

Of the $36bill Govt budget savings -aid cuts contribute 20% when Aid is only 1.3% of total budget. Balancing the books on backs of the poor.

It makes for sobering reading. As sobering as what it means for Australia in the bigger picture and how we are set to lose our place in it. Once again it would seem ‘hard choices’ trumps ‘soft power’.

This Budget confirms what has been on the cards for some time now – that the Government will axe the Australia Network contract with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in 2014, saving $76.8 million over four years.

The Minister says it 'has failed to deliver a cost-effective vehicle for advancing Australia’s broad and enduring interests in the Indo-Pacific region'.  

However the government has also announced a massive deal with broadcast rights to mainland China. Surely the government wouldn't throw that away that sort of opportunity over problems with the tender process and the burnt hands incident?

And while the TV is switched off, we are investing in Australia Week in China.  

Go figure. It would seem tourism is the big winner in the DFAT portfolio.

Dr Susan Harris-Rimmer is director of studies in the Asia-Pacific College of Diplomacy at The Australian National University.