Prev
Next

We must immunise our aid budget from amputation

Michael Sheldrick

by Michael Sheldrick

27 Apr 05:40am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Budget, Federal Budget 2012, Foreign Aid, Health, Politics, Vaccination

52 comments

Every 20 seconds, a baby or toddler will die from a disease that can be prevented by a simple vaccine. Most of these deaths happen in developing countries because children go without the immunisations and lack access to other health services that parents in wealthy nations take for granted.

It is seriously this simple to stop a child getting polio.

As usual, it is the poorest children in the poorest countries who are least likely to be immunised, and it is those same children who are at the greatest risk of being exposed to life-threatening, preventable diseases like tetanus, polio and measles.

This week, April 21-28, is World Immunisation Week, and around the world we acknowledge that all children have the right to life and health, no matter where they live.

And for a very small amount per dose (13c per life for a polio vaccine) governments can make one of the smartest public health investments available today.

By helping kids to stay healthy, vaccines remove a major barrier to human development. Immunised children have higher cognitive abilities and are more likely to live to see their 5th birthday. Immunised kids are more likely to thrive at school and go on to be productive members of society.

By reducing illness and long-term disability, vaccines also generate savings for health systems and families. Health workers are freed up to care for other needs and parents spend less time looking after sick children.

Given all this it is little wonder that the Australian Government dramatically scaled up its investment in immunisation programs last year. In June 2011 the Government announced a threefold increase in its commitment to The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisations (GAVI), an innovative public-private partnership focused on saving children’s lives through increased access to vaccines.

This $200 million contribution was viewed by other donors as Australia ‘punching above its weight’ in the development arena and better yet, promises to help directly immunize some 7.7 million children from killer diseases over the next four years. 7.7 million children, that’s not a bad effort considering that we, as a country, gives slightly more than 1% of the total budget to foreign aid.

But now, just as Australia makes progress to meet our fair share of overseas aid, there are rumors that a tightening Federal budget is placing at risk the long-standing bipartisan promise to increase aid contributions to 0.5% of GNI by 2015.

The Government went to the last two elections with a commitment to lift overseas aid expenditure from the equivalent of 35 cents to 50 cents in every $100 dollars of our national income by 2015. This doesn’t quite meet the amount required to reach the targets set by the UN’s Millennium Development Goals, but it would bring our nation a whole lot closer.

Scaling back the commitment would be a giant leap backwards for Australian efforts to play our part in helping to lift people out of the devastating cycle of poverty. Almost one-fifth of infants, that’s 24 million children under the age of one, still miss out on life saving vaccinations. If organisations like GAVI do not continue to receive funding, there is a danger that its vital work to introduce new vaccines and expand existing ones will not reach those precious kids who are most at risk.

We must protect the aid budget from political posturing. We must continue to invest in effective, life-saving health interventions like vaccines. And above all, we mustn’t succumb to the temptation to secure a budget surplus when the greater and real deficit is the millions of lives at stake.

This piece was co-authored with Rachel Achterstraat, the Global Health Policy Advisor at anti-poverty advocacy group, RESULTS International (Australia).

Most commented

52 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • thatmosis says:

      07:03am | 27/04/12

      I may sound like a mean spirited person but I firmly believe that we should first see to the ills of our own country first before we look after other countries. Our hospital system is a mess with people waiting years for operations that would make their lives more liveable, ramping in such a state that people are dieing because of lack of funds and places and yet we look elsewhere to put our money. We have people living on the streets because there are no beds for them so before we fix other peoples problems fix our own first.
      The billions we give in aid and other UN and IMF backed projects would be better spent looking after our own people. Once we are able to say that we have fixed these problems then and only then should we look to help other countries and their self induced problems.

      Reply

    • DennyCrane says:

      08:54am | 27/04/12

      Totally agree, we need to fix our own country first, ensure that everyone can receive medical treatment when needed.

      After this yes maybe help overseas but with guarantee’s that these countries meet targets, and any money given has to be accounted for, if one cent is found to go to the wrong hands we then remove ourselves from donating money.

    • Chris says:

      09:55am | 27/04/12

      We will never, ever fix all of the problems in our own country.  Every country in the world has problems.

      It’s like saying “I know you’re starving to death, and $25 I could give you would save your life, but honestly I have this mortgage I need to pay down first because ultimately I have to look after no. 1 first”.

      I recognise that we have problems.  But I think waiting until we fix them all (which is a pipe dream) will simply result in no aid being given to any developing country, ever.

      Cheerio,
      Chris

    • Al says:

      10:45am | 27/04/12

      Chris - Sorry to bring this realisation to you, but all human actions are based, in order:
      1) How does it effect/help me.
      2) How does it effect/help my family.
      3) How does it effect/help my country.
      4) How does it effect/help others.
      (And this is without consideration to money which can change the order).

    • DennyCrane says:

      10:54am | 27/04/12

      Chris,

      Have a look at most of the developing and 3rd world countries, they DO NOT need and more money for aid.

      What they need is reduction in money they spend on ARMS, halve the money spent there, they would have there own money for aid, that should be a prerequiste in any aid they get given

    • Kheiron says:

      11:23am | 27/04/12

      I don’t mind aiding other countries around the world. I just mind when it’s taxpayer money.
      All charity should come solely from personal pockets.

    • Sarah says:

      12:47pm | 27/04/12

      We don’t have to choose: we can do both!
      We’re always going to have issue in our country but what we give to aid is 35 cents for every $100.

      35 CENTS. Is that really a lot of money?

    • thatmosis says:

      03:13pm | 27/04/12

      A lovely sentiment Sarah but 35c might not seem like a lot to you but tell that to a pensioner who has worked his or her lifetime to make this country what it is and cant afford to have decent meals. Some go without meals because after all the expenses they have very little left. im not talikng about a few but a lot of people see 35c as a lot of money that would be better in their pockets than in some war lords.
        As for curing all the ills of the country, of course we cant but we could go a long way to making sure that people in our own country get the treatment and living conditions that they should have. we give money to various countries but its time we looked inward for a time and saw to our own.

    • Trace says:

      11:36pm | 27/04/12

      @Al

      I see the logic in what you’re suggesting.  But you have included the premise that all humans are the same.  Is this true?  You cannot speak for all human actions unless you can speak for all humans.  The very existence of this article suggests that you cannot.

    • Simple Human says:

      06:00am | 28/04/12

      I’m sorry the problems of global povety and local poverty are not mutually exclusive… 35c or even 50c / $100 leaves $99.50 / $100 for domestic needs - with a few other costs of course. How can we live with such luxury like food imported because we ‘like’ to eat it anytime when a billion people will go hungry today… Either thank your lucky prayers you were born in this country and be ignorant; or be a human and see a world where everyone can access their basic human rights. We need to be the advocates for those who can’t like 1.4 billion living in extreme poverty… Learnt to love everyone and enjoy it, it’s a great feeling!

    • ronny jonny says:

      07:13am | 27/04/12

      If we were to send teams of medical staff directly to these countries and immunise the kids ourselves I would say go for it, double the funding, triple it even! However, if we are merely handing out cash to aid organisations or even worse, third world governments I don’t think we get value for money. It would seem no matter how much money you throw at this problem it never goes away, indicating that there is something wrong with the delivery.

      Reply

    • Bev says:

      07:57am | 27/04/12

      Some of the revelations about NGOs have made people wary of how much aid actually gets to where it’s intended.  Many NGOs start out with the best intentions but are captured by vested interests who distort/warp the aims of the NGO to run an agenda which has little to do with the stated aims of the NGO.

    • marley says:

      08:24am | 27/04/12

      Actually, the vaccination programs work pretty well.  The problem is that the birth rate in the most vulnerable places (esp Africa, and Afghanistan) are so high that it’s a never-ending process.

    • Proud Rotarian says:

      09:27am | 27/04/12

      “It would seem no matter how much money you throw at this problem it never goes away”

      Yes it does, at least as far as polio is concerned.  Rotary International funds a wonderfully effective polio eradication program that started nearly 30 years ago thanks principally to an Australian, Clem Renouf, who sparked the program when he was RI President.  Rotary alone has spent some $US900m and polio is now present in just three countries, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Nigeria.  Go to http://www.rotary.org/en/EndPolio/Pages/learn.aspx for more.  But we can’t rest on our laurels.  Polio could reemerge if we waver, and the next stage towards permanent worldwide eradication will cost at least another $US500m or so.  Most of that will come from Rotary and generous & committed donors such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.  Yes, the dollars are huge.  No, governments don’t pay anywhere near all of it, although the recent Australian government commitment of $50m over four years is very welcome.  Do you remember iron lungs and kids in leg braces in Australia in the 50s?  I do, and I never want to see that again in Australia or anywhere else.  Polio is going away.  It costs heaps to get rid of it, but it IS going away.  Malaria next??

    • Bev says:

      11:13am | 27/04/12

      @Proud Rotarian Yes it is on track now (and has been for a long time) however back in the 1950’s there was a real bun fight in the US because two vaccines were developed.  The Salk vaccine won in the end but was subjected to fearful opposition employing all the dirty tricks in the book by the other camp backed up by the then US president. Just goes to show that once politics/agendas get involved we don’t always get the best result.

    • Sandra says:

      01:41pm | 27/04/12

      The aid and development sector does not simply hand third world governments cash, and nothing suggests that they are incapable of using this money effectively. Yes there have been problems with ALL governments, however, we also have examples of huge progress and success from aid and good investment by governments and multilateral institutions. Polio is a fantastic example of a disease that is now close to being eradicated thanks to immunizations and international collaboration. I believe Australia has a responsibility to ensure all children have the opportunity to live happy and healthy lives through improving access to basic health interventions that others cannot afford.

    • Sandra says:

      01:41pm | 27/04/12

      The aid and development sector does not simply hand third world governments cash, and nothing suggests that they are incapable of using this money effectively. Yes there have been problems with ALL governments, however, we also have examples of huge progress and success from aid and good investment by governments and multilateral institutions. Polio is a fantastic example of a disease that is now close to being eradicated thanks to immunizations and international collaboration. I believe Australia has a responsibility to ensure all children have the opportunity to live happy and healthy lives through improving access to basic health interventions that others cannot afford.

    • Michael says:

      05:11pm | 27/04/12

      @Proud Rotarian is absolutely right. Thanks to Rotary and its partners, we’ve managed to reduce the total number of polio cases by 99% since 1988. This demonstrates the life-saving impact our aid dollars can have as well as also demonstrating that progress in the broader struggle against extreme poverty is possible!

    • d says:

      07:16am | 27/04/12

      I love how every area wants more money, schools police hospitals foreign aid…. where does all of this money come from.

      should i go into a bank and borrow $20,000 and give it to charity when i cannot currently pay all the bills that i have?

      Charity begins at home. Maybe we should fix the problems within this country before dabbeling in the problems of another. who knows the people of these countries might decide they no longer want to live how they do mand make changes themselves….

      Reply

    • Lauren says:

      10:57am | 27/04/12

      As Chris mentioned above - we will NEVER EVER “fix” all the problems here. If we waited for that to happen before we offered aid to (much more struggling) nations, then it will never happen.

      “who knows the people of these countries might decide they no longer want to live how they do mand make changes themselves”

      Look, I get what you’re saying but that is such a ridiculous statement. You think the people in the poorest nations WANT to live the way they do? It is such a first world comment to make, and you obviously have no idea just how bad it is in some of these places.

      Government corruption, drought, no education…all these are real life scenerios for a hell of a lot of people. It isn’t just a simple case of saying “oh hey, I actually don’t enjoy living in a tin shack with 30 other people, where there is hardly any clean water, no food, no schools, no medical resources & the local government (if there is any) is so corrupt that they are willing to watch children die if it means they get to add an extra $10 to their bank account. i’m totally going to take my poor, uneducated, malnourished butt and change my life for the better!”

    • A says:

      01:53pm | 27/04/12

      You have used ‘charity begins at home’ out of context. It’s actually part of a longer saying by Sir Thomas Browne, who in 1642 wrote, within his first book Religio Medici:
      “But how shall we expect charity towards others, when we are uncharitable to ourselves? ‘Charity begins at home,’ is the voice of the world; yet is every man his greatest enemy, and, as it were, his own executioner.”
      The saying was actually a criticism of selfishness, but you’re using it to justify selfishness?
      No one is asking you to donate $20,000. 13cents for an immunisation to save a child’s life is a more accurate reflection of this article’s message.

    • Al says:

      08:36am | 27/04/12

      Removing the ability to reduce (or even remove) funding from our foreign aid is illogical.
      Australia as a country should only ever provide support to other countries where we can afford it. It may sound heartless, but there is no point to reducing suffering in another country if it will inflict suffering on our own citizens.
      The primary responsibility of the Australian Government (and the funds it distributes) is to the Australian People. Everyone else comes in latter.

      Reply

    • Michael says:

      05:22pm | 27/04/12

      Hi Al

      I’m not arguing that we should ‘remove’ the ability for the Government to reduce funding in overseas aid. I don’t think you can constitutionally bind the Parliament of the day on how it determines the make-up of its federal budget with respect to any item of government expenditure.

      Rather I am arguing that in this year’s budget - due to come down on 8th May (i.e. in 10 days time) - we should not delay the commitment to give 50c in every $100 in overseas aid by 2015. The Government, of course, has the power to delay this increase if it wants to, but I hope it doesn’t.

      Our Treasurer is fond of saying that Australia’s economy is the envy of the world. That we have the lowest debt levels amongst any developed country. So why should we remain in the bottom third of the OECD in how little we give in overseas aid?

    • Super D says:

      08:47am | 27/04/12

      Oh what a classy argument.  If you don’t support a bloated aid budget you want children to DIE.

      Ok lets keep all the vaccine and other medical aid and scrap the rest.

      Reply

    • Trace says:

      11:29pm | 27/04/12

      Were we reading the same article?  I sure didn’t see that message in there…  Nor did I see any suggestion whatsoever of your conclusion.  Could you kindly fill me in?

    • ShamWow says:

      08:52am | 27/04/12

      Borrowing money to pay for foreign aid doesn’t make much sense.

      Reply

    • Paul says:

      05:06pm | 27/04/12

      Australia’s foreign aid program is not going to bankrupt the country, in fact it will save us money by improving peace and security in our region. Australia is deeply interconnected to our neighbours, we need to think bigger than this us or them mentality. If we helped some of the poorest nations kick start their economies, where are they going to send their children to study? Australia. Foreign aid is a smart investment and it saves lives.

    • RyaN says:

      09:36am | 27/04/12

      “Aid” money makes Mugabe rich, we all know that money thrown at third world countries go no where near the people. It mostly ends up in the Swiss bank accounts of the fat cat dictators.

      Reply

    • marley says:

      10:32am | 27/04/12

      A lot of aid money certainly goes that way.  Properly managed vaccination programs, though, are making a real difference - smallpox is gone, polio is almost gone, measles is much better controlled, etc etc.  It depends on how well the program is being managed, and by who.

    • RyaN says:

      11:29am | 27/04/12

      @marley: While I have no problem with increasing the quality of life of people, all vaccination programs should come with family planning programs.
      In Africa people have large families because they expect some of the kids to die (I know it sounds harsh but it is reality), now the do-gooders go there, vaccinate and everyone survives (great quality of life increase and good initiative) only problem is that now that everyone survives, there isn’t enough food from the subsistence farming to support the large family. Next thing you know the villages are starving and everyone dies.
      The do-gooders are still patting themselves on the back at the great job they did without realising they missed one very important part of the entire program with catastrophic results.

    • Banford says:

      12:22pm | 27/04/12

      Excellent RYaN
      Let the children die from hunger and disease, because they would have anyway if we didn’t feed them and vaccinate them.

      And let’s label the compassion that endeavours to help innocent children survive their childhood as bad and blame the do-gooders for doing good.

      Why am I not surprised at your ugliness?

    • Tim the Toolman says:

      12:22pm | 27/04/12

      You might want to ask the religions, who hold a lot of sway in uneducated countries, what their stance on birth control is.

    • RyaN says:

      01:28pm | 27/04/12

      @Banford: Do point me to where I said that was my opinion. Clearly your little brain cannot comprehend the reality of Africa.
      Fact is that if you had actually taken the time to read what I posted before jumping to your vile conclusions you would see that I advocate two things.
      Option 1: Do nothing and leave people to live they way they want to live without do-gooder interference.
      Option 2: Interfere however realise that your interference comes with the responsibility of making lives continue to be sustainable through birth control otherwise YOU are responsible for their starvation whether you like it or not.

      Just because you have grown up all soft and cuddly in a protected little world does not mean that the harsh reality of life does not exist.

    • marley says:

      01:39pm | 27/04/12

      @RyaN - oh, I agree with you.  The Gates foundation, for one, finances both vaccination and family planning - and I reckon, if you can get moms to bring in the kids for vaccination, you’ve got a good opportunity to explain family planning to them.  It isn’t working very well in sub Saharan Africa, but India shows what can be achieved with a little effort.

    • A says:

      02:04pm | 27/04/12

      RyaN, why don’t you support organisations that tackle corruption so that aid money does reach the people who need it most?

      Further, you might be interested to learn that research has shown that family size/population decreases when progress is made on increasing the living standards of developing countries, including providing basic needs like clean water, food and very modest health care.

    • RyaN says:

      02:05pm | 27/04/12

      @marley: And what a fantastic job the Gates foundation does in India, however in Africa if it is not working then they should be reviewing the approach to avoid the catastrophic consequences.

    • Paul says:

      05:02pm | 27/04/12

      How do you know money to the developing world doesn’t reach the vulnerable? I agree that some doesn’t but i think you are throwing the baby out with the bath water. You would be hard pressed to look at AusAID’s work and find evidence that it all get’s wasted. Also you can’t let one corrupt leader stop you from saving lives, especially when we are only asking to spend 0.5% of our Gross National Income, it’s fraction.

    • Matthias says:

      10:14am | 27/04/12

      There is a great book called Poor Economics, written fairly recently about the failure of foreign aid because of the lack of understanding about how poverty affects those living in it. I recommend it to anyone interested in the problems with the western worlds current aid policies.

      http://pooreconomics.com/about-book

      Reply

    • john of solomon says:

      10:32am | 27/04/12

      I am presently living in a third world country and heve lived in various other third workl countries that receive Australian aid for the past 40 years, and although there is a lot of merit in the immunisation program, many other programs have been in varying degree a waste of money. Mainly due to local corruption and the impractical eggheads on inflated salaries who are sent to monitor the programs.

      Reply

    • AB says:

      01:48pm | 27/04/12

      When matters of health can affect Australia so quickly, as we saw with swine flu taking only 2 weeks to reach from Mexico City to Melbourne, I don’t see any problem with preventative measures. The government should maintain it’s commitment to a global health system.

      Reply

    • Charlie says:

      02:53pm | 27/04/12

      I completely agree @AB. To all those who feel we should look after our own country first, you must realise that if we were to stop assisting with funds for preventable diseases they would spread to our own country eventually. We live in a globalised world and with international travel so accessible to many diseases would spread at an alarming rate.

    • Ren says:

      02:13pm | 27/04/12

      Have you watched World Vision Australia’s video?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NWtAukUPIY&list=UUBeJcbzIdUEfQqTUDr0fuzA

      Or read this article in the Huffington Post by the Global Poverty Project’s co-founder Simon Moss:

      http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/simon-moss/aid-doesnt-work-breaking-the-cycle_b_1256889.html

      Both of these help dispell some of the myths about Australian aid I see in these comments.

      Aid does work, it’s a tiny proportion of our budget (currently 35 cents for every $100 we earn) and while corruption is an issue, it’s effects are much smaller than the media tends to portray and there are things we can do to help mitigate it. Extreme poverty (defined as the number of people living on the equivalent of $2 or less a day) has been halved since 1981. Let’s build on that amazing progress!

      Reply

    • Al says:

      02:41pm | 27/04/12

      The question is NOT the effectiveness of aid, but whether we should make it impossible for the government to reduce the amount spent on aid (‘We must immunise our aid budget from amputation’).
      I advise that we should not make this restriction.
      While it may not apply today, how would you like to have to deal with a $billion disaster in Australia as well as providing the money for foreign aid? (And it could happen).
      To remove the ability to reduce the funding based on the circumstances is simply over restrictive and could get us in serious trouble. Being able to help others and not help those in Australia.

    • RyaN says:

      03:48pm | 27/04/12

      @Ren: “people living on the equivalent of $2 or less a day” You assume that these people need or want $2 a day. I have met people who are “rich” in African terms and don’t earn $2 a day, they have 100 head of cattle but they don’t live on $2 a day. I can tell you that as far as happiness goes they are a lot happier than we are.

      I find it utterly disgusting that people like World Vision would so disrespect peoples culture or their measurement of wealth by measuring them obnoxiously by our pre-requisites for wealth and happiness.

    • Michael says:

      05:35pm | 27/04/12

      For those concerned about corruption in the Australian Aid program you might be interested to learn that back in 2010 it was found that the level of fraud in the program was a lot less when compared with domestic agencies like CentreLink. Aid involved just 0.017 of 1 per cent of the $20 billion directed to aid between 2004-05 and 2010.

    • Caedrel says:

      06:35pm | 27/04/12

      The best aid programmes are the ones that organisations like World Vision are now delivering, where they are aiming at community development - NOT imposing Western standards or making them dependent on aid, but working with local families and leaders and helping them to develop their own solutions, like micro finance loans. Rather than sponsoring individual children, nowadays you are actually sponsoring their community, for whom the specific child is a representative.

    • RyaN says:

      12:39pm | 06/05/12

      @Caedrel: Yet they still use “$2 a day” crap disrespecting the people.

    • Alan says:

      04:31pm | 27/04/12

      The problem is is that 90% of any money handed to a NGO or a foreign government ends up spent on admin costs, weaponry or flash cars for the President. The problems of disease in third world nations will never go away until they themselves decide it’s a worthwhile objective. Until then charity begins at home and given the parlous state of this country’s health system we need to invest our money here rather than pouring it down the drain that is foreign aid.

      Reply

    • Simply Human says:

      11:52am | 28/04/12

      @Alan I would love to know where you get your 90% statistic as I have never heard of anything above 30%  in and development agency yearly report. Most admin costs go to ensure effectiveness and transparency as you and all the skeptics insist upon - aid money not being wasted… Besides the aim of effective aid is not a hand out but a hand up, we are talking about the very resourceful people who live in extreme poverty and lack access and opportunity not brains or brawn. Please see Michael’s comment about effective foreign aid spending when compared with domestic social services spending… Also you should be thanking your deity or non deity you are not one of the people living in extreme poverty as no one chooses to live with enough food, water, health or education…

    • Simply Human says:

      11:52am | 28/04/12

      @Alan I would love to know where you get your 90% statistic as I have never heard of anything above 30%  in and development agency yearly report. Most admin costs go to ensure effectiveness and transparency as you and all the skeptics insist upon - aid money not being wasted… Besides the aim of effective aid is not a hand out but a hand up, we are talking about the very resourceful people who live in extreme poverty and lack access and opportunity not brains or brawn. Please see Michael’s comment about effective foreign aid spending when compared with domestic social services spending… Also you should be thanking your deity or non deity you are not one of the people living in extreme poverty as no one chooses to live with enough food, water, health or education…

    • Alan says:

      03:29pm | 28/04/12

      10 years living in West Africa is where I got my “statistic” from. It’s real and if any of the NGO’s tell you otherwise they are lying.

    • Shae Lannister says:

      12:08am | 28/04/12

      I wholeheartedly agree with this blog.  AB and Charlie also make an excellent point.  Perhaps the skeptics are most looking for an answer to “what does this mean to me as an individual?”  How does spending money on vaccines over there help me here?  I only ask because I know there’s a good answer.

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

David Penberthy

penbo 26 May 13 05:57PM

That was pretty much the best thing I have ever seen #crowwwwwwwwws

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 13 05:27PM

MT @RaidersCanberra "Congrats to Blake Ferguson on his selection for NSW. LIKE to show your support!" Um guys, you can't "like" a Tweet

Paul Colgan

Colgo 26 May 13 05:16PM

@stilgherrian said Australia

Paul Colgan

Colgo 26 May 13 04:32PM

RT @TheEconomist: Google is coming under intense scrutiny from regulators http://t.co/4bfvNp5oyEhttp://t.co/NLV9yRSIKr

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter