Australia’s foreign aid is starved of attention

Rossco says:

08:12am | 22/11/10

Yes Anthony, because throwing money at the problem always solves it.

Anjuli says:

09:05am | 22/11/10

Go to Bali and there is a price for the Australian and one for the locals as they think all Australians are wealthy . Take America who it seems give generously whenever there is a disaster ,yet every where they are not liked.we need to have full control of the money and the goods that are given . It causes corruption in all these poor country as the ones who distribute the aid are sorely tempted.

Rich says:

09:45am | 22/11/10

Typical left think that to solve an issue all you need to do is assign a $$$ value to it.

Foreign aid is a waste as it simply promotes unsustainable behavior (see Ethiopia), doesn’t change their attitude towards us, and is a burden on the taxpayer who may or may not agree with the cause.

It is simply forcing me to care about an issue that I do not.

richo says:

09:56am | 22/11/10

Does this mean they will stop spending our foreign aid money on promoting AFL in countries such as South Africa and Nauru?

Surely health care, education, food and vital infrastructure is more important to these nations then trying to force AFL on to them.

We could do so much good with that money and it is hard to gain support for more foreign aid when the money that is being spent is wasted on initiatives such as AFL.

I fully support the idea of Aus-aid, but I also see its wasted potential. Such a shame really. Spend the money on real things and people will see its value.

Chris says:

10:06am | 22/11/10

Foreign Aid is a joke!
We have many people struggling to live here yet all the do gooders worry about if how much we should be sending over seas.
What’s the point in helping other nations if we neglect our own less fortunate and go broke at the same time.
Charity begins at home.
If you have spare money left over then and only then give it to others.
Sounds harsh but I’d rather be harsh then soft and broke.

Dave says:

10:10am | 22/11/10

The best defence we could have is our foreign aid. Unfortunately it is often targetted at political and trade interests rather than where it is really needed. It is then left to other people to do the real aid work.
I have a neighbour who provides an amazing support network for aid workers from her home. She does not get paid a cent for what she does but the benefit to the government far outweighs the meagre amount she gets on DSP - she calls it earning her DSP. I say it is exploitation of her and the people she works for who are also all professionally trained volunteers. They are the people doing the real work - and yes, they provide things like toilets, water tanks, irrigation systems etc Things that people can use to support themselves, not prop up corrupt governments.

Jane Wallace says:

10:54am | 22/11/10

foreign aid? is that what they dish out at centrelink?

ibast says:

10:55am | 22/11/10

The reality is our foreign aid expenditure is directly linked to our total international obligations.  We have troops in Afghanistan and Irag and that means there is less diplomatic pressure for us to increase our foreign aid.  If we withdraw we will be pressured to increase our aid.  I too think it seems a waste at times, but if we were to decrease it, we would be forced to spend much, much more in the defense sector.

stephen says:

10:57am | 22/11/10

You can’t keep handing out monies to countries, in the form of aid, when such aid may be construed as reward.

Gregg says:

11:21am | 22/11/10

You do base your views Anthony on some doubtful realities as in:
. Global agreements are fine and dandy, usually made in the international stratosphere where egos are do not have the gravity of our own situation to restrict their inflation.

It is true that the government does have its idiots when it comes to the NBN plan without a plan and though our economy may have been almost impervious to the GFC, who says it is over and international dithering may continue as a depression develops and our reliance on a resources boom that goes bang - the dominoe effect Anthony - could see a few more millions here on our own shores closer to and below the poverty line.
A lot of people with very high mortages on property with average valuation/wages ratios far higher than the US could see some significant negative prosperity problems experienced.

” Mainstream discussions rarely critique the aid program’s heavy reliance on technical assistance. This category of ODA, which chiefly funds experts to provide advice to governments of developing nations, accounts for over 40% of our aid outflow.

Also lacking is a public debate concerning Australia’s reluctance to provide aid through multinational channels, such as the World Bank and United Nations. Instead, we prefer to deliver 90% of our development assistance on our own. “
It is a fact of life that all distribution of funds involves substantial overheads, be it internally through Centrelink or externally and the World Bank and the UN probably have even more fatter cats taking some cream and there will always be many corrupt fingers in any pies.

“Moreover, the destination of our aid is seldom questioned. Rather than focussing on particular regions to ensure our funding is specialised and consequential, Australia chooses to distribute money all around the world, seeking to maximise its international respect. “
Catastrophes do occur globally Anthony but your claim is somewhat broad without backing it up with what has been provided to nearer neighbours in Asia, the Pacific region or the sub continent.

” Our economic policies are also not subject to a great deal of analysis. Although we purport to take reducing poverty seriously, we enforce import barriers on the textile and apparel industries, cutting off key trading opportunities for many developing nations. “
And this Anthony is where you really do need to get a grip on life and do some research on what the demise of industry has been like for Australia in just your life span, all those developing nations have miniscule labour rates and so jobs are continually being lost in Australia to manufacturing occurring abroad and the less protection will just see more employment demise and not only a lower GDP here but also more people in need at home.

Australian taxpayers do deserve far greater accountability for all government expenditure, that being a long way from what was delivered by Krudd/Gillard and it will be no better with Gillard/Swann and on the Aid expenditure with Gillard having some sort of a hate/sweetheart deal with Krudd feathering his own UN nest, we can expect no improvement.

You could do far worse as an investigative reporter to keep tabs on his moves, generosity with our funds and lack of accountability over the next twelve months or so.

Additionally, the Gillard government has handed the reins of AusAID to Rudd alone. By abolishing the long-standing position of parliamentary secretary for ODA and dissolving the portfolio within the busy foreign ministry, the government has stripped Australia’s aid program of parliamentary oversight.

While we ought to increase our aid, we must also ensure that the existing budget is spent with accountability. Achieving this could require a ministerial position for aid, something the Coalition has rightly proposed.

Rudd’s independent review will commence immediately. Without a doubt, it illustrates that progress is being made. However, without a broader dialogue taking place within the community, our foreign aid may continue to escape the necessary scrutiny.

Australian taxpayers deserve value for money in our aid program, and developing nations deserve our funds to be applied effectively. To achieve this, all of us must begin to take aid seriously and give it the attention it deserves.

Reg says:

11:25am | 22/11/10

If aid is spread thinly it’s no help at all, but if it’s concentrated to the best effect, it sits there like a stale bottle of piss being ignored.  Besides that, if the political party who provided it waves the flag, you’ll have Bronwyn darling making whimpering sounds again.  Then there is the problem of aid freeing resources for manufacturing which, by Australian standards is evil. viz: Indian Nuclear weapons. All the aid we supply carries with it an inbuilt judgment of whether the ultimate outcome is good for someone. Is that “someone” us or them?

I remain to be convinced that without our aid the Indian Government would reduce their nuclear program and devote the savings to the poor.

Anthony Antioch's missing chromosome says:

11:35am | 22/11/10

It goes without saying that foreign aid should be cut, probably to zero. Then at least we can help those less fortunates already in our own country. Afterall, that is what my money was meant to be used for. But at least the Australian government does not allow the UN or World Bank (the world’s most corrupt organisations) to take control of the money - that would be the worst result.

Zeta says:

12:47pm | 22/11/10

Damn… the United Nations Youth Association. That brings back memories.

Hottest girls in Australia. You can join the Young Liberals, or the grown up Scouts, and there might be like, a couple of hot girls. But they won’t even be that hot because you’re just judging them against all the other less hot girls in the organisation.

But UNYA is just rife with attractive women. It’s the best kept secret in Australia. It’s name even sounds like a hot Eastern European girl ‘Unya’.

I joined because I got kicked out of the debating team in year 12 - no regrets. My debating team were all mouth breathers, and I’m glad I set fire to my palm cards and attacked the judge. In comparison, the UNYA kids were just a bunch of chilled our bros who talked about global politics and knew people who could buy liquor. When my kids are at school under the pump to do extra curricula activities, I’m going to tell them to join UNYA.

Foreign Aid? I don’t really have an opinion. But if expressing one would get me invited to another UNYA party I’m down with it.

AdamC says:

01:14pm | 22/11/10

These articles appear every month or so in various media outlets. This 0.7% figures is just completely arbitrary and totally meaningless. Australia should prioritise and fund projects based on their effectiveness, including:

1. poverty alleviation;
2. promotion of good governance and reductions in corruption;
3. encouragement of economic development; and
4. furtherance of Australia’s interests internationally.

As it stands, foreign aid is like weight loss programmes. We keep hearing about how great it is, but there seems to be very little evidence of it actually working sustainably in practice. Unless projects deliver, they shouldn’t be funded, committments to arbitrarily-selected numbers notwithstanding.

Shut down foreign aid says:

01:35pm | 22/11/10

Over-populated countries should be given condoms instead of aid.  Every time there’s some disaster, some fat politician stands Krudd-like before some camera asking for more and more of our hard earned, over-taxed money.  Next disaster - double the people with double the wants.  Foreign aid perpetuates over-dependance.  I don’t want my country over-involved with the United Nations, the World Bank, the G20 or any other meddling outfit.  We’re doing just fine as an independant sovereign nation and foreign aid should cease forthwith.

horrified says:

04:47pm | 22/11/10

Who are you people?????

pretty much all of the comments here advocate stopping foreign aid - which is tantamount to saying ‘let them all die’ because we don’t care about them.
Sterilise them?
Give them condoms instead of aid?

Half of you have missed the point in the provision of Australian Aid in that it is 40% technical assistance which means experts are working in countries to boost local ability.  The Australian Govt doesn’t just hand over money to a foreign government and say “here, put this in your own pockets”....
but of course, people like the idiots commenting here can’t be told any different from their own uneducated, ‘a current affair’ supported points of view.

I am ashamed to be Australian when I read trash like this.

sam says:

08:55pm | 22/11/10

i fully support the rise in aid budget, but it does seem odd to remove accountability - which seems to already be limited.

Sure we need to be careful about where our money goes, but the arguments that we’re just wasting it on people who hate us is just racist and shows no compassion to those who are born in a country without any standard of living or expectation of a decent life - the comments about sterilization / one child policy are ridiculous - many of these people have big families so they can look after them when they are older, and because the rate of child mortality is so high - to see people who can’t care for there kids and have to watch them die is something that we can act to change.

Re looking after our own people, that’s a fantastic idea too - but it’s hard enough to get aussies not to dodge the system so there’s enough money for everything, including the big waste of money projects in our own backyard, not that pouring money in is the solution (just like foreign aid) - helping people to help themselves, look after their money and look long term are some ways to help people stuck in poverty in aus.

Andrew Reid says:

11:08pm | 22/11/10

I am an Australian working for an NGO in Egypt. I thought this thread might benefit from some on the ground experience, rather than ignorant posturing about “it all goes to rich politicians” or “it’s a waste of money”. Most foreign aid here goes direct to NGOs or other community groups working towards reducing poverty, improving democracy and human rights, and reducing discrimination against minority groups. The government makes us go through a long approval process to spend foreign funds, but with some exceptions the money doesn’t go to them. (The main exception is the Americans who give significant military aid)  They are in fact pretty annoyed by all this foreign aid working against their interests.
On effectiveness, every project has to measure its development outcomes, justify how it will be sustainable after completion (ie reducing dependence) and is subject to financial audit. Specifically with the Australian AID Program, they are focussed squarely on deliverable, on the ground results. Our NGO has had a couple of our applications rejected by AusAID for that very reason - not specific enough about development outcomes.
I hope the inquiry helps us to direct our aid funding better, especially since we can’t replicate the scale of USAID, the EU or the UN agencies. But we can and do already achieve positive outcomes with the comparatively small amounts we spend.

thomas vesely says:

02:26am | 23/11/10

that means its doubled its commitment to 4wd vehicles all over asia.driven by confused people.doing local inflation,due to salaries…...

Cindy says:

12:14pm | 23/11/10

I am appalled by the comments on here. We need to start thinking of ourselfs as citizens of the world and take some responsibility for the billions of people living in poverty. If you are in the position to do something about this, you should so should our Government. There are people making a diffrence every day in these areas who should be comended for their efforts. Australia should be donating far more to regions, not for political gain but to aleviate poverty especially amongst women. I suggested reading anything written by Peter Singer on the matter.

Coxy says:

05:55pm | 23/11/10

I just have a couple of comments:

Aid quality is far more important than aid quantity: Though we are well behind as a nation in terms of generosity, it is pointless investing any amount if the money isn’t going to be spent properly (ie: on basic needs, the Millennium Development Goals, the poorest countries and communities, etc).

The review on aid spending is a good thing: it is welcome because it will help to clarify how we can make the biggest impact on the growing amount of funds being pledged as aid. This is the accountability a taxpayer would hope for. We must also realise that ‘a 5-month review’ will be an expensive operation, and you can bet on the money for this being taken from the very aid budget it claims to be improving. Reviews on spending should be constantly conducted by AusAID - this should in fact be there main function. Not sure why this most recent review is so historic or respectable?

Do we really need a Minister for ODA? I see promoting AusAID as a direct-reporting department of Foreign Affairs as a good thing. I see it as probably more useful than having a token Minister in charge (though can see the accountability it would also bring). I would rather it be in the hands of AusAID, the supposed experts on aid spending than a different MP each election.

Australia’s spending goes overwhelmingly to the Asia/Pacific region: Our money does sometimes go to specific projects in Africa and other places but these are limited and are a relatively new thing. It makes sense that Australia would spend money on its region for political purposes. The majority of the world’s poor live in the South and South-East Asian region. Once again, it’s what the money is spent on in these countries that I see as most important.

Australia should channel its funding through NGOs and multi-nationals: in my experience, these are the best agencies and they deliver the best form of aid (community targeted).

The ‘spend money at home argument’ is invalid: we are one of the world’s wealthiest nations with the highest standards of living (unless, of course, you are an indigenous Asutralian where poverty-alleviation here should target). We have a comprehensive welfare system and public schooling and health systems. If you honestly don’t think we can spend 0.7% of our money on desperately poor people and nations in the world this is a reflection of your own close mindedness more than anything else. 

I think part of the reason there is an absence of public debate or discussion about aid is because we have failed in selling the success stories of our aid program’s recipients. I want to hear about the countless individuals and communities whose lives have been changed by Australia’s aid program. Maybe then the public will be more supportive of campaigners efforts to influence an aid increase?

The comments on overpopulation here would be hilarious if they weren’t so alarming. Anyone that knows anything about this matter would realise that large family size is often a result of poverty (not a cause of it) and that the best way to reduce family size is through education… you should be calling for more aid not less.

Nobody can argue that 7 cents out of every $100 this country has is ‘too much’ or a ‘waste’ of money when spent on the world’s poorest people. Corrpution, embezzlement… often this is more a result of bad donor behaviour rather than a recipient’s. Do you really think that our government writes out a blank cheque to those we assist?

Aid is a necessary function of any developed country. We need to start showing why it is so important.

Frustrated in Pakistan says:

07:33pm | 26/11/10

I’m an Australian aid worker in Pakistan at the moment, and I should stop reading comment threads like this as the close-minded and ill-informed attitudes are so depressing. Yes, millions of dollars are handed over to governments that misappropriate funds (Of the US$500m that the US just gave to Pakistan, how much will actually reach the poorest of the poor?), but money that is channeled through NGOs, or the UN has strict financial and activity reporting measures put in place.

My problem with the 40% being spent on technical expertise by AusAID is not that this is what we call “capacity building” for government institutions. It’s that this 40% goes directly to consultants - individuals and companies - who are paid many times more what someone working for an NGO would earn. If just some of this 40% was channeled through Australian NGOs, a lot more impact could be made.

Most Australian NGOs have long relationships with local organisations (decades) and work with communities to improve their situations from the ground up. To contrast (and this is simplified and generalised), the technical assistance consultants fly in, do some training and fly out again.  I think I can guess which method has the most lasting impact for these communities.

steve b says:

09:11pm | 13/01/11

Well I’m in the minority here. I have no problem with the oz government spending 0.3% of the GDP on our less fortunate neighbours. It would be nice if more of it went to where it was intended - rather than milked by the leeches in the chain.

NGOs (non-governemt orgs) don’t have the luxury of unlimited tax money that governments have and they exist because their members care about more than their tiny self.
When a governemt clerk disperses aid the foriegn government ends up buying new guns for their army to keep power.
My theory is that any government that hasn’t got it’s shit together yet in 2011 to build water supplies and sewage systems and schools for it’s citizens doesn’t really care for it’s citizens. Don’t give me excuses give me a toilet.