Prev
Next

Charity should begin at home

Don D'Cruz

by Don D'Cruz

10 Feb 05:43am

Must Reads

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge - this is a caption

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

38

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread? - this is a caption

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

92

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref - this is a caption

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

71

Filed under: Aid, Charity, Government, Png, Politics

121 comments

We need to cut our foreign aid budget to help for the reconstruction of Queensland and to help Queenslanders get back on their feet.

This AusAID pic shows PNG villagers using water purification tablets

There are three main reasons why we should look for savings within the aid budget.

First, the aid budget is set to undergo a massive increase in the next few years and there is room for cuts. Currently, according AusAID, the agency that hands out our foreign aid, our aid budget is about $4.3 billion. According to AusAID projections, this will increase to $4.84 billion in 2011-12; $5.53 billion in 2012-13; $6.44 billion in 2013-14; $7.42 billion in 2014-15; and $8.49 billion in 2015-16.

Julia Gillard is dead wrong when she says that “there are no easy savings”. It is possible to achieve significant cost savings by simply deferring these large increases for a couple of years until Queenslanders are back on their feet.

Repairing the Australian economy will generate income more quickly and efficiently than any aid dollars will do in less developed countries. Had the Gillard Government been smart it would have saved money here in the first place instead of imposing a new flood tax (levy) on people.

The second reason to look at foreign aid for savings is that, based on past performance it is impossible to justify the current levels of spending, let alone a massive increase. One just has to read the Auditor-General’s reports on foreign aid to realise this.

Perhaps the most shameful recent example of waste was a pilot programme called the Community Call to Action where taxpayer money was splashed on some unbelievably stupid things.

There was the $147,000 given to the ACTU to bankroll an education campaign to explain the importance of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Then there was the $50,000 spent impressing the importance of the MDGs on local government; the New Age types at the Birthing Kit Foundation got $150,000; Business for Millennium Development got $100,000 to host two black tie functions; $100,000 to the Fairtrade Organisation to plug itself.

But the worst grants were the $150,000 handed out to the Australian Council for International Development (ACFID) and the $100,000 given to the Oaktree Foundation to essentially run self-serving campaigns in support of a bigger AusAID budget.

A final thing to be noted about this egregious waste of money is that even though the pilot project was terminated, AusAID’s Programme Review Final Report was a positive one. When one reads an evaluation like this, it does throw into question the veracity of all of AusAID’s evaluations.

More broadly, Papua New Guinea is a neat example as to how badly the Australian foreign aid dollar has been spent. Despite Australian taxpayers pouring billions of dollars into PNG, where Australia has provided the lion’s share of overseas aid, the country is going backward since independence and is little more than a failed state.

If the Australian foreign aid dollar was guaranteed to be spent wisely then calls for cuts would have no basis. Unfortunately, the story of foreign aid is one of mismanagement, waste and corruption. The reality of foreign aid has nothing to do with the misleading foreign aid advertisements on television.

The third reason for looking for cuts in foreign aid is that there is fat in the existing aid budget. AusAID has more money than it knows what to do with judging from some of the questionable things it is funding.

When asked about foreign aid, Gillard said on radio that “I think Australians are a generous nation and we do go to the assistance of other countries for poverty alleviation, kids that are literally at risk of starvation.”

Hiding behind starving children is a familiar trick that defenders of foreign aid use in order to escape scrutiny. Only a tiny portion of the aid budget, maybe two per cent, deals with children at risk of starvation. Much more aid money is being spent ‘buying’ votes for Australia’s bid for a Security Council seat. It’s a waste and must be stopped.

There is something ironic in that one of the themes of Australia’s aid budget is good governance and this country is effectively using our aid budget to bribe Third World countries for their votes for a seat on the Security Council which is really about ultimately helping Rudd in his post-political career.

The fact that our foreign aid non-government organisations (NGOs) have said nothing critical about this reflects poorly about them and is indicative of how they are driven by the pathology of fundraising.

Beyond this, if you go through the aid budget you will be able to find no shortage of silliness being bankrolled by the long-suffering Australian taxpayer. While one undoubtedly finds examples of good projects in the aid budget, one also encounters terrible waste; waste which would make the average person shake their head in disgust. But unfortunately, waste which is not only tolerated in the world of foreign aid but thrives.

The first to complain about this article will be the ACFID, the peak body that represents the $800 million a year foreign aid industry. But given the size of this sector, one has to question why taxpayers have to pour hundreds of thousands dollars into this outfit every year for no real reason?

AusAID has also done silly things like bankroll the Global Poverty Project to the tune of $350,000. No starving children fed with this money, just the pampered activists who run this group.
If one is looking for savings then the AusAID- NGO Cooperation Programme has over the years been a programme with many grants that don’t stand up to scrutiny.

Similarly, there’s money in the $150 million International Climate Change Adaptation Initiative that can be cut. Not all of the grants here are worthy of funding. The $90 million Australia Africa Community Engagement Scheme is a great example of a project that should be scrapped.  One of the objectives of this ‘scheme’ is to create publicity or awareness back in Australia.

It’s always a bad sign when valuable Australian taxpayer money is wasted on the recipients being asked to spend resources on propaganda spruiking their work to the Australian public. Australian foreign aid NGOs will undoubtedly love this because in funding them to create awareness of their work back in Australia, taxpayers are effectively bankrolling the fundraising efforts of NGOs.

Australian foreign aid NGOs should NEVER be funded by AusAID to create “awareness” about foreign aid because every year they already spend hundreds of millions doing that already through fundraising and marketing. Australian taxpayers should not be subsidising this.

There are plenty of savings to be found in the aid budget. All it requires is someone to ditch the political correctness and go through the projects and ask the sort of tough questions which AusAID seems incapable of doing.

Our foreign aid budget can sustain substantial cuts which won’t hurt people in the Third World and still allow us to maintain a strong presence in our neighbourhood where there is no shortage of the world’s poorest people. It’s time we stopped making excuses and focussed on our own first.

This article was first published at the Courier Mail.

Most commented

427Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
375There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
304Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
262Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...

121 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Rob r Charteris says:

      05:55am | 10/02/11

      “Charity should begin at home” that’s a bit rich coming from a Howard snivelling dribbling Lib stooge isn’t it. Howard’s entire Prime Ministership was based on rewarding those better off while denigrating the less fortunate and less well off in our society. If we can aford to pay for this then why put forward a GREAT BIG NEW TAX for your welfare for the rich paid maternity scheme…. the height of hypocrisy.

      Reply

    • Jedi_T says:

      06:24am | 10/02/11

      Rob,
      So what, you couldn’t find anything in this article but its name to critisize?
      Or to drone on about a PM that hasnt been in power for close to 4 years?
      Please Rob, share with us why what this man has said, without your political persuasion, is inaccurate or wrong? And that these could not be acceptable cut backs?

    • George says:

      06:53am | 10/02/11

      @Jedi

      Rob just showed everything that ALP supporters claim they’re not.

      IMHO: Rob is still waiting for Harold Holt to come out of the water!

    • Slim says:

      07:30am | 10/02/11

      Jedi_T - how about old fashioned Christian charity, the idea that providing a village with clean water is as noble as helping to restore a water-side McMansion with beach side swimming pool, that improving living conditions abroad may reduce our refugee demand, and that investing in schools may moderate the extremes of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism.

    • Jedi_T says:

      07:43am | 10/02/11

      Spot on George!
      But i’d still like to see if Rob can redeem his argument.
      Or if one of his buddies can for him. wink
      Make a day of it!

    • Jedi_T says:

      08:02am | 10/02/11

      Slim
      Christian charity?
      Didn’t realise it was only Christians that were charitable?
      Look it’s not like Don is saying can the whole thing, lets be loners on the world stage.
      He is simply identifying areas in his opinion that could be cut, or defered that would have little effect on the countries we support.
      And all I asked was for Rob to clarify if his issue was with the title of the article or something within it!

    • Denny Crane says:

      08:06am | 10/02/11

      Rob,

      That is a bit rich, we should fix our own nation first before helping others, at the moment we have been swamped, and we need to sort out issues at home before helping those out in other countries.

      The countries we also assist, by now should be helping themselves, most of them spend excessive amounts of thier GDP on the militiary, one criteria, should be that we wont give aid until the amount spend on military is no greater then 10%, we spend around 8%.

      Instead Gillard would prefer to give more and more money to ensure Rudd gets his seat on the UN

    • Sheldon says:

      06:43am | 10/02/11

      The phrase, “charity should begin at home” is just another way of saying, “I’m going to look after myself before I look after you”. It’s a saying of the greedy. We are one of the most richest nations in the world and I dont see why we can’t do both.

      Reply

    • KH says:

      07:06am | 10/02/11

      Rubbish.  It isn’t greed.  Foreign aid is what countries with money to spare offer.  It is an act of generosity.  How generous you can afford to be depends on your circumstances.  Right now, we have thousands of our own people suffering.  It the cyclone/floods were in some other country, no doubt you would be saying the government should give them money.  Well, they are here.  I personally would prefer to cut foreign aid in favour of Australians, given the situation at this time.

    • Sheldon says:

      07:52am | 10/02/11

      @KH Even our poor are better off than those living in 3rd world countries.

    • Jane says:

      10:24am | 10/02/11

      Sheldon has clearly never spent any time working on isolated communities in Australia, nor bothered to investigate same.

      At some point people have to take responsibility for their own future. Money and imposed good intentions can be soul destroying.

      On the other hand there is a lucrative industry with a lot of highly paid careerists doing very, very nicely out of mouthing platitudes.

    • James1 says:

      11:20am | 10/02/11

      Jane,

      People in isolated Australian communities, one would assume, have access to the dole.  In other words, individuals can access at least $340 per fortnight.  That is far more than the average poor person in PNG, who can access exactly $0 per week.  People in isolated communities can be airlifted to hospital when they are sick, often have government funded clinics nearby, and a range of other services like schools that your average Papua New Guinean would not even be aware exists.

      Thus, our poor are far better off than those in the third world.  If our poor choose to spend it on drugs, alcohol and gambling instead of food and accommodation, there is nothing anyone can do to stop it.  In light of this, the last thing we should do is give them more money.  Personally, I would much rather money goes to worthy programs overseas (like those identified in the article above) than to increasing the benefits of dole bludgers who decide to live in the middle of nowhere.

      Otherwise, it is hard to disagree with the author’s argument.

    • Jade says:

      12:51pm | 10/02/11

      James1, I personally know several people who have lost homes and crops to the floods. They are currently sleeping on couches or on swags on their properties because they are hoping and waiting for the government or someone to help them rebuild. When you have lost your entire income for the next few years as a result of a natural disaster, you are in a similar position to some of those our aid helps.

      I am someone who believes that the single mothers’ pension and the dole should quite frankly be pretty much eliminated in this country. We have abortion and birth control available, and the armed services are chronically understaffed. There is simply no need for either of these welfare programs in this nation. I also don’t believe in housing commission housing or the old age pension. If the elderly could not save out of their income for their retirement like I will have to, they don’t deserve my hard earned tax dollars.

      But I do believe that when something unfortunate and horrific like this occurs, that destroys what people have worked their whole lives to build, that it is the duty of our government to help them, over the less fortunate of other countries.

      You forget that to access the dole, you must have less than $3000 in savings, and there are other criteria. You must also wait to be out of work 3 months, an eternity for those seeking a brief period of assistance to get them back on their feet.

      While it is true that people in remote communities can be airlifted, this is only if the RFDS planes can actually access their properties. Furthermore, this service is a critically underfunded necessity that is made possible by incredible men and women who dedicate themselves to this.

      I find your attitude to helping Australians in need utterly appalling.

    • James1 says:

      01:15pm | 10/02/11

      In response to your first paragraph, Jade, the people you know can access the exact same benefits as every other poor person in this country.  That is enough.  It is not the job of the social welfare system to subsidise their lifestyle during tough patches - if they cannot just move and get jobs, why should they be entitled to more than other people who refuse to work?  Just because they once grew food or whatever else does not entitle them to anything above and beyond that to which other Australians have access.

      Why should we pay the dole to people who have more than $3000?  The only time you need to wait three months to get the dole is when you have quit a job.  If, through no fault of your own, you find yourself without income you can access the dole immediately, unless you have savings, in which case you must use your savings to live until they run out.  There is nothing wrong or unjust about this at all - our welfare system is a safety net, which kicks in when people are desperate (if one discounts middle class welfare, which is another matter for another discussion).  A person with $3000 is not desperate until the money runs out. 

      Honestly, I have no problem helping people in need.  But we do that already, and I don’t see why we should increase the assistance we give.  Also, I distinguish between relative need, which is what you are talking about (the people you know clearly have food and a roof over their heads), and absolute need (there are many people in the world who have neither).  Whether someone lives in Australia or not is irrelevant.  A person is no less worthy of survival for having been born in Togo rather than Townsville. 

      That you distinguish between people on the basis of where they were born, and evidently attach differing levels of value to human life on this basis is something I find appalling.

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      01:37pm | 10/02/11

      Jade

      those on the old age pension contributed tax in the full expectation that they would then be entitled to a pension. An expectation the Government put in place.

    • Jade says:

      01:38pm | 10/02/11

      James1 - the dole is not a safety net. The dole is an entrenched system of welfare designed to support those who just plain don’t feel like working. The reason that it would be beneficial to allow those with more than $3000 in savings to access the dole is so that when the motor in their car craps out, they have funds to access to fix it. Which means that they can get out and find a job.

      Many people I know who were affected by the floods, as I pointed out, do NOT currently have a roof over their heads. Some of them are camping in their ruined homes in a swag. I would rather see my tax dollars go to helping these people than helping war criminals line their pockets further. I also would rather see my taxes go to helping these people get back on their feet, than to some welfare recipient who doesn’t know what a hard day’s work is like and have never observed such a creature in reality.

      Is it the job of the social welfare system to support 3rd generation welfare recipients - families where in 3 generations noone has had a job? Or the 14 year old girl who gets pregnant for 2 reasons: the baby bonus, and because “you make more money on the single mothers’ pension than on the dole or AUSSTUDY.” In reality it is currently these type of people whose lifestyle I am subsidising through welfare, not those who have fallen on hard times and need a leg up.

      I do not distinguish between the rights of people to survive based on where they live. I distinguish between helping the people that I know and care about, and helping slick NGOs make more money to hold benefits and functions that do very little in reality to fix the world. I choose to donate to MSF and Amnesty International, among other Australian charities, but do not believe that much of the Government Aid really goes to the ground.

      I believe that at this point in time, it is important to assist Australians to get back on their feet and minimise the economic impact where possible. Or in the future, we may be asking other countries for food aid and clean water, rather than being in the fortunate position of being able to provide that for others less fortunate than ourselves.

    • Wynston Cruso says:

      02:24pm | 10/02/11

      Since when is self preservation and self improvement “greedy”?

    • Jade says:

      02:39pm | 10/02/11

      Tony of Poorakistan - Not really my problem. They should be grateful that they are getting something my generation won’t be entitled to. They bought their houses and their holidays and their campervans and squandered their earnings on luxuries many of my generation won’t have, knowing that they would live off the earnings of my generation.

      Instead of bleating constantly about the small amount of the pension, they should shut their mouths and thank people like me for continuing to work so that they get money I won’t get. Despite paying more in tax than they ever did.

    • James1 says:

      02:46pm | 10/02/11

      I see now Jade.  You argue things from your personal perspective (your choice, but I prefer to argue using evidence and facts) - you are more bothered by minor suffering and discomfort that you can see personally than true suffering which you can not see.  That is still discrimination on the basis of geography, I should point out.  Your basic contention is that you care more about people who live in Australia than those unfortunate enough not to have been born here.

      I actually agree on the focus of our aid program.  While perhaps a bare majority of the money is spent on good projects, there is a lot of fat that can be cut (not least of which are the consultants and “capacity builders”), and directed to areas where it will do more good.  I still maintain that it would do more good providing food aid and other such items to the starving (who by definition live overseas - there is no starvation that is not self inflicted in this country)  than rehousing someone who failed to get proper insurance.

      I also couldn’t agree more on the chronically unemployed - there should be a cut off point for the single mother’s pension - say, after one child there will be no increases for further children, and unemployment benefits should be cut off after a reasonable period of time, in which a person could find a job.  I agree with Tony on the old age pension though.  You don’t seem to understand our welfare system or recent Australian history very well at all, to judge by your posts, Jade.  You should look into that before commenting further.

    • James1 says:

      02:58pm | 10/02/11

      Wow.  After reading your reply to Tony, I advise that you should really stop posting anything more before you embarrass yourself even further, Jade.

    • Jade says:

      03:06pm | 10/02/11

      I don’t consider my friend who is currently sleeping on a couch in someone else’s house, or the other friend who is sleeping in a swag on his destroyed property because the thousand dollars does not give him enough to even pay bond on a house and who is relying on the kindness of friends and strangers to feed and clothe him, living in minor discomfort.

      Or the man I spent hours sandbagging with, who slaved away to help protect the homes and businesses of others while his was being swept to the ground by flood waters.

      I don’t see why these people are not more deserving of our money than failed aid programs or those who choose not to work and contribute.

      I also never suggested that we eliminate foreign aid to pay for our own. Merely that there is something to be said for helping our own less fortunate before worrying about the concerns of others. Perhaps a selfish attitude, but a more natural and realistic one than your contrived self-superiority.

      Australians are suffering, and suffering in a significant and major way, despite your trivialising of the issue. There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying that Australians should not be subjected to the post flood living conditions of Haiti or Pakistan, simply because other people are suffering MORE.

    • Robert says:

      09:58pm | 10/02/11

      No Sheldon you are missing the point of the article. Don D’Cruz is accurate in his analysis of the failings of the Australia’s foreign aid agenda. The government provides grants far too generously to non-profits whose primary agenda is to create more awareness about themselves. Self-promotion, in other words. Publicity, and the collateral required to build it, does not come cheap, and how much benefit does this increased awareness of another NGO out there provide for the greater god. Unless AusAID can find programs overseas that are worth investing in, why can’t the money be spent on programs at home that will help the disadvantaged here?

    • Kate says:

      06:56am | 10/02/11

      I would definitely like to see the aid budget spent more wisely, but to argue for it to be cut is outrageous. Australia falls shamefully short of its international obligation under the MDGs. “Charity begins at home” is little but a polite way of saying that you don’t think the wealthy owe anything to the poor. You might believe that’s true, but have the courage to say it, don’t mask it with your own political correctness. When people in Australia can’t afford to be immunised against life-threatening disease, and don’t have clean drinking water, then we can say “charity begins at home”. But I don’t believe this saying was ever intended to imply that an Aussie family needs a new lounge suite more than a child in the third world needs clean water and education. (And I’m a flood victim.)

      Reply

    • AliceC says:

      07:41am | 10/02/11

      Well said Kate.

    • Jedi_T says:

      07:49am | 10/02/11

      Kate & Sheldon
      You both make valid points, and I beleive that Don is of the same opinion. That is why he was highlighting some of the areas of AusAID that dont directly affect the areas you are talking about.
      The main point being, would you rather;
      a) have the money go into those areas you speak of?
      b) have the money go to marketing and campaign groups who are simply promoting that that will be the area it goes to?
      c) both of the above (currently happening)?
      d) money to be still spent on third world country needs of food & clean water, but the other spent on australia in its time of need?

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      08:01am | 10/02/11

      Kate

      tell them to stop breeding like flies, then. Perhaps if they had less kids, there would be more to go around. Simple maths.

    • grumpy says:

      08:05am | 10/02/11

      Thats a good perspective Kate. Lives would be lost without foreign aid. There wont be any more deaths from the floods, the money given to help QLD will be spent on restoring a far superior lifestyle than those who are starving to death or are victims of war.

    • CABAL says:

      09:56am | 10/02/11

      Wow I expected to see an outpouring of support for this article… Instead all I see is people attacking someone who has made a good point… ($100K on fundraising dinners…please). But what annoys me more is that people seem to think that other countries come before the people in our own… and here I was thinking we had a national Identity. Guess not, kinda makes me sad…

    • El says:

      09:59am | 10/02/11

      @Tony you are showing some embarassing ignorance right there.

    • James1 says:

      11:22am | 10/02/11

      The author didn’t call for a cut.  He called for planned increases to be deferred, and for the existing money to be spent more wisely by cutting some programs.

    • Jade says:

      02:00pm | 10/02/11

      Well Kate, in some communities they don’t have access to clean drinking water at the moment. And there are some communities where they rarely have access. Furthermore, there are a whole host of people in Australia who cannot afford immunisation costs.

      So get over yourself and recognise that Australians are not all as lucky as you. And some do need help.

    • BL says:

      07:12am | 10/02/11

      No, what we should be doing is cutting politician perks and wages. It has gotten out of control and I think if an audit was done and released as to how much we pay all sides of politics there would be an uproar.

      We need to keep our committments to foreign aid in order to cement our standing in the international community. If we choose to cease freign aid there will economic and social rammifications, which countries chooing to boycott Australia. And what happens when there is another disaster or several and there will be), are we going to expect donations and aid from other countries when we refuse to give any ourselves?

      One of the major problems with this country is politicians and their perks (such as their pensions). If we start regulating and cutting these you will find there will be extra billions to spend on homelessless and other social issues.

      Reply

    • Condom Onium says:

      07:13am | 10/02/11

      “...aid budget spent more wisely..”  - key words toany government in power.  Much aid ends up in the pockets of the corrupt and contemptable while homeless Australians and indigenous societies have worthier needs, as well as run down hospitals without enoughdoctors and nurses.  Another key word is Birth Control.  I’d rather give Condoms to Africa and Indonesia than cash.

      Reply

    • Jeremy says:

      07:14am | 10/02/11

      “Charity should begin at home” but it shouldn’t end there.

      As for the specific programs you smear - who knows? We’ve never heard of any of them. They’re not the one the Libs were bashing this week - that was the sensible plan to ensure that our neighbours’ children receive an education other than that handed out by an extremist madrasa.

      If there’s actually waste (and forgive me if I doubt the accuracy of your summation of these specific programs), obviously it should be removed. But there shouldn’t be overall cuts.

      Reply

    • TChong says:

      07:18am | 10/02/11

      Another Lib staffer, posting political crap. Anything to deflect attention from Abbott, and what better way, than to start on those ungrateful, undeserving foreigners.
      What LNP apologists like Donny fail to mention is that foreign aid is given to reinforce and promote Australias strategic interests.
      Dont fund schools in Indonesia, just let the unfilled need be met some of those more radical elements. Thats smart thinking.
      The Punch CV states you are an expert on foreign aid and activist.
      That would give the impression that you actively,  engaged in this area.
      Nothing constructive? I think your expertise on “activists” was more about drawing up lists, Joe McCarthy style.

      Reply

    • Jedi_T says:

      08:58am | 10/02/11

      What’s Abbott got to do with this opinion piece TChong?
      This is DON, giving his OPINION, about what items in AusAID are not being well spent.
      Do you disagree with that? If so, why?
      Lets make this relevant and not another Abbott bashing party. Everyone else, even persephone’s on topic.

    • Syl says:

      10:05am | 10/02/11

      Wow TChong, you managed 3 paragraphs of Liberal bashing without addressing a single point in the article.

      As for “Anything to deflect attention from Abbott” I count 3 articles on the main Punch page discussing Abbotts actions this week.  Isn’t that enough?  Are there no other issues worth discussing?  Should we just name the site “Punching Tony Abbott” and have only Labor sided contributors to keep you happy?

      Congratulations on showing yourself to be fair, unbiased and essential to the conversation.

      Oh wait..

    • haggis says:

      11:00am | 10/02/11

      Jeez, who needs comedy hour? There is so much splendid amusement afforded by that thoroughly objective multi-personality disorder that is Perse-Robr-Chongy(with its wild literary stylistic swings)-ChrisReal. It begs the question: Can The Punch really be considered a serious medium

    • TChong says:

      11:18am | 10/02/11

      Syl , you ever read Joans, Rosie, AtM etc posts.?
      I’m just going with the conservative precedents.
      BTW Syl, cut and paste any post of mine where I say that different POVs should not be heard.
      Only wanting , and tolerating one concerted voice is very much a conservative tactic.
      Take a little while to look, plenty of examples are on offer.

    • TChong says:

      11:25am | 10/02/11

      YOu dont like it haggis ?
      Go back to frontpagemag,
      I’m sure you’ll find a world view you’ll agree with.

    • Jedi_T says:

      12:15pm | 10/02/11

      Ignoring my fair questions TChong?
      How unsportsmanlike of you.

    • Syl says:

      12:34pm | 10/02/11

      TChong

      I have read their comments, and have argued with them before.  In general they are just as blatantly biased as yourself just for the other team.  Whats your point?  How does that make your comment any less ridiculous and worthless to the discussion?  if you are trying to label me as a right wing nut you will have a lot of proving to do, considering I have stated time and time again that both parties disgust me in their current forms.

      Please don’t say “Only wanting , and tolerating one concerted voice is very much a conservative tactic.”  Its bullshit.  Both parties would be ecstatic if everyone agreed with them, neither side want to be challenged, to say otherwise is a blatant lie.  Comments from both the extreme left and right spectrum on the Punch prove this well.

      I also never said you stated other POVs shouldnt be heard, just that your comment about how this is to move focus away from Tony Abbott is ridiculous considering the front page of the page is full of articles discussing his actions this week.  You seem to insinuate that this isn’t enough coverage.  I was simply taking this opinion to the extreme, being facetious you may say.

      Now do you have an actual opinion on why you agree or disagree with the article, or will you continue with personal insults instead.  I await your further anti-conservative ranting, as if it somehow applies to me, with bated breath.

    • Jedi_T says:

      03:27pm | 10/02/11

      Syl,
      I doubt you’ll get a response, your argument is to clarified and well presented. TChong like to hack against other hacks.

    • Jade says:

      07:20am | 10/02/11

      I am all for cutting it.  We need to get our own country and own people back on track before we continue to help others, especially when most of the money is being sucked up by the bureaucrats or wasted as stated in the above article.  I am sure there are some genuine projects that we must continue to fund… but there are many more…. Muslim schools in Indonesia for one that could be scrapped to help fund the recovery of these disasters Australia wide.

      Reply

    • Emily says:

      07:21am | 10/02/11

      That’s a reprehensible argument, our aid saves lives every single day. We already lag far behind other countries in the percentage of our budget we allocate to aid- why would we want to get further behind?

      What a short sighted premise- the world is more connected than it’s ever been. We can’t simply pretend that those workers in Bangladesh or China that make the goods that we buy everyday are totally disconnected from us. They are poor because countries like us are rich.

      Reply

    • AdamC says:

      01:49pm | 10/02/11

      Slogans along the lines of ‘our aid saves lives’ are foolish. Development aid is provided for the purpose of increasing the level of economic development of the recipient country and, by extension, reducing the number of the receipient country’s citizens who live in poverty.

      Increasing economic development and reducing poverty certainly does ‘save lives’, but there is no evidence that development aid does either of these things.

      Australia should continue to provide development aid for foreign policy reasons, but lets stop kidding ourselves.

    • James1 says:

      03:06pm | 10/02/11

      I think Emily might have been referring to humanitarian aid, which does go towards “saving lives”.  However, most of the aid budget goes to either development aid, or capacity building.  The latter is a massive rip off, IMHO.  I have had some involvement with capacity builders in PNG, and the whole thing is a farce.  Our officials arrange an education session, PNG officials turn up because they basically have to, they listen to the capacity builders waffle on about key performance indicators and rural development initiatives, they smile and nod the whole time, eat a free lunch and ignore everything the capacity builders tell them (which is mostly rubbish and divorced from the realities of rural development anyway).  Everyone goes home, and Australia is $150,000 poorer, and PNG none the richer.  Why not just spend $150,000 on a doctor for a Western Highlands village for a year instead?

    • Ashlee says:

      07:22am | 10/02/11

      Isn’t the that is proposed program being cut in Indonesia one that was started under the Howard government?  With one of its objectives to give poor Indonesian children more access to education that wasn’t provided by radical Saudi funded sheiks? What have you to say about that?  Will you all be doing your usual whinging that Labor isn’t doing enough to fight terrorism when you are advocating slashing such an important program?

      Aid expenditure can always be improved and scrutinised, and AusAid seems to be undergoing a process of reform, especially in regards to their use of technical assistance etc.

      With all due respect to the victims and their families, in some ways, if anything, these disasters in Queensland show how lucky we are.  If disasters of a similar scale had happened in a developing country, so many more lives would have been lost.  Poor building codes and weak structures, rapidly spreading water-borne diseases, governments with a smaller capacity to react to a rapidly developing situation, reduced communications and technology systems, higher population densities… all of these things would have added up to a huge death toll.  But because we are a developed, wealthy country, we were able to get out of huge disasters with a relatively low death toll.

      I also take issue with the headline of this piece.  Foreign aid isn’t really charity… there are strategic and political issues at play in the donor-recipient relationship.  It’s not like Australia just goes “hey, poor people, have some money!”.

      Reply

    • persephone says:

      07:33am | 10/02/11

      Interestingly, for starters, that the Opposition doesn’t agree with you. If they had, they would have nominated the cuts you did.

      Instead, they’ve argued that Foreign Aid should be raised and merely deferred a couple of proposals to later - and even those have been criticised by former Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer.

      Reply

    • simon says:

      02:44pm | 10/02/11

      I don’t think using Alexander Downer as an example helps your argument!!! The guy is a has been!!

    • Concerned Citizen says:

      07:41am | 10/02/11

      I’m all for charity but for all the millions we have sent into africa, what have we achieved?  Do we get any tangible results from our money? Does it just line the pockets of some bureaucrat ?

      It’s not just the money we send to africa its all of aid money.

      Reply

    • CABAL says:

      10:54am | 10/02/11

      Last time I checked most of Africa is either ruled by Despots or is in a state of total anarchy. So the answer to your question is basically nothing.

    • Kate says:

      05:16pm | 10/02/11

      CC, unfortunately we condemn the effectiveness of our own aid spending by insisting that much of it has to be spent on Australian consultants and organisations. The government knows, I’m sure, that it would be more effective if spent in the recipient countries (where a $ goes much further), but the sound-bite public debate in this country ensures that the ballot box puts more weight on simplistic slogans like “buy Australian!” than on longer discussions about optimal effectiveness. Consequently, there are more votes in paying an Australian consultancy firm $10M to study why Africa needs more wells, than in actually using that $10M to create thousands of wells with local labour.

    • traff says:

      07:44am | 10/02/11

      The thing people seem to keep forgetting is that by giving foreign aid we are in effect purchasing greater national security. It’s not just dead money - it’s an investment in our region and helps cement Australia’s reputation as a generous and inclusive country that means no harm to anyone, especially our neighbouring countries, many of whom are developing economies and/or politically unstable.

      It’s no fun having the flashiest house in the street if all your neighbours resent you for having it.

      Reply

    • Greg says:

      04:43pm | 10/02/11

      So it is just the same as paying protection money to the mafia, or giving your lunch up to the school bully.

    • grumpy old man says:

      07:45am | 10/02/11

      Don, great article. The issue should not be about how much money we spend on foreign aid, but how effective that expenditure was in meeting its objectives. We could increase foreign aid exponentially in the next few years, but not achieve anything with that additional expenditure, or we could adopt a policy that said Australia will only spend money on things that are going to achieve real and measurable positive outcomes for the recipients.
      Which way we go depends on the reasons why we provide foreign aid. If we are providing foreign aid to look good in the eyes of the world, then I guess it doesn’t matter what we spend it on, since the importance will simply be how much we spend.If, on the the other hand, we actually want to achieve something positive, then we should be measuring successful achievement of specific objectives within budget.
      Sadly, I think its the former that prevails. It does appear that those we have tasked with spending our tax dollars see the elevation of KRudd to a seat at the UN, and then selection as UN Secretary General as a lofty and moral goal worth achieving. Personally, I find this offensive and insulting to all those people in the world that we could be helping.

      Reply

    • Rosie says:

      07:48am | 10/02/11

      You have to live in these places to know how foreign aid is badly managed. This undeveloped countries haven’t a clue how to manage the aid that is given to them and in some cases it goes straight into Government pockets.

      Renowned ethicist bigwigs like Tim Costello, CEO of World Vision Australia, leading voice in global poverty and social justice, can’t function without aid money will tell it differently for his own gains.

      We can argue all day why affluent countries like Australia are made to think that it is a moral obligation to give to these as much as we are able while others will say that it is a disincentive for the development in the well being of its people.

      Don D’cruz is implying that it wasn’t so much the aid that was given but how it was distributed and used effectively that was the real issue. For the time the money is very much needed for our own children who have lost schools etc so why not trim some of the fat off the aid money that leaves this country.
      Tim Costello has said that the best way to solve world poverty was to educate all females so as to pass on the understanding that with a good education comes employment. It is of vital importance and the best legacy any mother could leave behind for their children. Also the best way to narrow the gap between our indigenous brothers and sisters.

      Reply

    • ABC says:

      08:11am | 10/02/11

      Why don’t we send people like Costello to these places to manage the aid, he then may be commended for doing something about world poverty. Very easy talking from your mansion and agree with educating females.

    • Grumpy says:

      08:26am | 10/02/11

      “You have to live in these places to know how foreign aid is badly managed. This undeveloped countries haven’t a clue how to manage the aid that is given to them and in some cases it goes straight into Government pockets.”

      Im interested to know if you have lived in these places?

    • Rosie says:

      09:31am | 10/02/11

      Yes I have and as a volunteer have distributed aid in kind after all the good stuff was taken by government officials that are being paid the aid money that comes into the country.

      In most cases only some of the aid money is being used in the city and big town schools to show that it is being used for the purpose it was intended for than in the village where it is very much needed. This is for poltical gains, target the more populated areas.

      I was in touch with teachers, politicians and school board members and knew exactly what was going on. Nothing can be done about it because that is the way it is. Solution: we need to send our own kind to police and manage the money and report back to the Government. Leave the embassies out of it, they are usually there only to enjoy the social scene as big fishes in a small pond.

      Like aid that is being given by the Japanese, they send they own kind to manage the aid because of this very reason.

    • simon says:

      11:43am | 10/02/11

      Why don’t we give the aid to organisations like World Vision or Red Cross, they would have a much better understanding of how to spend it where it’s most needed.

    • James1 says:

      01:16pm | 10/02/11

      The ACFID organisation mentioned in the article is the umbrella group for organisations like World Vision.

    • Rosie says:

      01:32pm | 10/02/11

      Yes simon, the non govt organizations do what they can with the money their raise but it is never enough. I believe they need to be given the aid from the govts of developed countries.

      I also believe that countries which are ruled by a military regime should have their aid deferred until they hold democratic elections. People will say why should the poor suffer more but in places like Fiji since the coup of 2006 there hasn’t been any progress and the economy has had a spiralling effect. To the people of these countries, they think that what little they are given is from the military regime because of their lack of education to know otherwise. Life goes on for these people thinking the military regime are doing the best they can for the country. They do not know any better.

    • Lucius says:

      07:50am | 10/02/11

      This arguments seems to completely ignore what foreign aid achieves for Australia - which is strategic and political relationships with foreign countries that could help us with our standing in the world in the years to come. You cut foreign aid, then you watch extremists slowly take over these countries and in turn breed hatred towards the western world and western countries such as Australia.

      When we have political leaders and ministers claiming lunches, meals and their weekly shopping as “perks” meanwhile being paid in excess of $100k, the problem lays not with foreign aid but with those in charge of our tax dollars who seem to be rewarding themselves every year with payrises, while hundreds of thousands in this country live below the poverty line.

      Reply

    • rb says:

      08:25am | 10/02/11

      “If the Australian foreign aid dollar was guaranteed to be spent wisely then calls for cuts would have no basis.”

      So are you saying to cut it or to spent it better. Even after the summer we’ve had we are still capable of helping those less fortunate then us.

      Reply

    • simon says:

      08:31am | 10/02/11

      Yes I 100% agree with this article, we should cut foreign aid, I deeply object to my hard earned tax money going overseas, then they raise levies on us when there is a shortfall. So basically we have to pay an extra tax to pay for overseas aid. Julie Bishop is wrong on this, TA is right. All foreign aid must be stopped, does anyone give us aid, NO!!!!! We need this money at the moment!!!

      Reply

    • Rose says:

      09:12am | 10/02/11

      Simon, several countries HAVE given us aid after the Queensland disaster.  Please know WTF you are talking about before making a comment.

    • grumpy says:

      09:30am | 10/02/11

      You’re a loser. Queensland would be fine without the levy. The only reason it is being introduced is to keep other projects on track. Your hard earned money is insignificant. With your attitude you dont deserve a job. You should be thankful you live in a country where you have the opportunity to pay taxes that will help people and instead of being forced to sift through garbage and drink contaminated water to survive.

    • Greg says:

      04:49pm | 10/02/11

      Rose, Indonesia donated less than A$1 million to Australia, despite receiving $1 billion in tsunami aid and $500 million in education aid from Australia.

      It was an insult, that only the truely stupid cannot see.

    • Dieter Moeckel says:

      08:45am | 10/02/11

      “Charity begins at home” is as “trite as shit happens.”
      Mateship is all about helping someone in need and Australians have a domestic responsibility and an international one. Our international mateship is an ongoing response to the simple fact that in 2011 nearly one billion people will be malnourished or go hungry. No one in Australia has ever starved to death yet one child dies due to starvation every 5 minutes or so.

      Reply

    • Matt says:

      09:07am | 10/02/11

      When the flood levy was first announced the Liberal party acted as if the savings could be found easily to avoid it. “Cut the fat” was a term i heard from a wide range of sources. And fair enough, theres no reason to tax the people when pointless waste is occurring.

      But instead of finding the quick fix to the pointless program, the opposition has spent an eternity going through the budget to finally arrive at a program that attempts to reduce extremism (or terrorism) in our neighbor Indonesia. Cutting the fat indeed.

      If there was any merit to avoiding the flood levy; these cuts do not satisfy the basic criteria of “cutting the fat”. The program in question exists to make us safe, and give us a more stable and prosperous neighbor. Its not just aid (but that should also be a part of what we do), its investment in the future security of this county. Is it really the most pointless “wasteful” program that the liberals could find? If so perhaps they owe the Prime Minister an apology.

      Are we to sacrifice that in order to make a $0-5 p/w savings for one year?

      Reply

    • john of solomon says:

      09:13am | 10/02/11

      I think many of the people writing here are kidding themselves with regard to the positive effect of the aid given by australia. I have been living in receipient countries for the past 40 years and can assure you that in most of these countries we are regarded with suspicion and considered to be “big brother”. Also the amount wasted on ” consultants” and local bureaucrats could be better spent on our flood victims.

      Reply

    • LJ says:

      09:28am | 10/02/11

      Has anyone ever drawn up a chart of the money Australia donates to other countries as Foreign Aid, and the money Australia has received from these same countries after the terrible disasters?
      I’d been interested to see the level of reciprocation, or do we just foot the bill for everything?

      Reply

    • john h says:

      09:54am | 10/02/11

      about $130 billion a year in export trade LJ - great questions.

      im pretty sure the indonesian foreign minister is going to be handing over a $1 million check to Anna Bligh on Saturday.
      INDONESIAN GDP per capita - $2,349
      Australian GDP per capita - $42, 279

      you do the sums LJ you seem like a bright spark!

    • Ashlee says:

      10:11am | 10/02/11

      LJ… what do you mean?  Of course these countries can’t give us as much as we give them… that’s why it is called aid?

    • MN says:

      09:49am | 10/02/11

      When have we ever seen the majority of taxpayers agree with the idea of a new tax? Not till the flood levy I believe.
      Rebuilding Queensland to its former vibrant self will help all the states in the long run.
      So too it is with helping to improve the situations of the numerous poor countries that surround us with a strong and generous aid program.
      We can afford to do both.
      I do not disagree that there may be some corruption and wasefulness in the aid program, but is the aid program the only guilty party that it should be attacked exclusively by commentators and opinion writers?
      The reality is that the aid program does help tens of thousands of people every year. The reality is that our aid program is also LOW compared to other countries
      We rank 16th out of the 23 other rich donor nations.
      This is despite that fact we we alone survived the global financial crisis.
      Julie Bishop is right to stand up and fight Tony Abbott’s proposed cuts to the aid program.
      And Rudd and Gillard must also publicly recommit to staying on track to increase our aid to 0.5% by 2015

      Reply

    • simon says:

      11:39am | 10/02/11

      I think if you ask those that actually pay taxes (generally not Labor supporters) you would find 90% are against it. And I am 100% against increasing overseas aid, if you want to pay the levy and increase overseas aid then thats up to you buddy. I am sure most people disagree with you!!!!

    • john h says:

      09:50am | 10/02/11

      Don, you have always despised aid organisations and aid in general - since your charming work with the IPA. this is a great return to form.

      instead though of your life as an exceptional denigrater it would be interesting to know if you had actually been out of your arm chair and out into the third world as you are so fond of endearingly terminating it.

      get out and have a look at what aid organisations like oxfam et al are doing. giving people the skills to be better off. a good capitalise stooge like you should be supporting such entrepreneurial spirit

      regards

      J Howard

      Reply

    • Ashlee says:

      10:05am | 10/02/11

      The thing with this article is that is is talking about how aid needs to be used more effectively.  Well, derr.  Everyone in the field knows that.

      But in terms of what is happening at the moment re the flood levy and coalition proposals to slash aid, what Abbott has raised is cuts to a specific program, the Australia Indonesia schools partnership, which has on multiple reviews been shown to be one of the best performing programs in AusAid’s portfolio.  If it is really about trimming the fat, why target one of the most effective projects?  It makes absolutely no sense to go for the best program if you are looking at improving aid effectiveness and saving money.  What Abbott’s move is is basically a pitch to the boganistic xenophobes among our populus.  “Hey, let’s rebuild Queensland by taking the money off those Muslim terrorists in Indonesia!” Cheap point scoring at the expense of an effective aid program.  That’s all this is.

      Reply

    • token says:

      10:24am | 10/02/11

      No to the levy! I gave $500 to the anti-levy fund to stop the levy! No more taxes!

      Reply

    • Grumpy says:

      11:34am | 10/02/11

      Money well spent…............spent more on the donation than you would on the levy. Youll be paying the levy anyway because Abbot wont stop it, so double sucked in.

    • hot tub political machine says:

      10:38am | 10/02/11

      I think we should all sit back and remember the sage comments of J’amaie King from “We Can be Heroes”:

      “Other countries are so pov its like…....get some money”

      Reply

    • HappyCynic says:

      10:47am | 10/02/11

      We’re a rich country.  We could afford to give more aid to other nations and rebuild Qld without breaking a sweat.

      I do believe that we should receive guarantees that aid money, whether internal or external, is spent wisely and efficiently.  Unfortunately given how inept and greedy most people are I guarantee there will be too much waste in both.

      Reply

    • El says:

      12:21pm | 10/02/11

      Well said Happy.

      It annoys me how there is the ignorant attitude that we can help the flood victims ONLY IF we cut foreign aid.

      This is exactly how the poliiticians want us to think - then it becomes a pitful comparision-fight as to which group is the most deserving (both are) - to which inbred Aussies who only think of themselves will get themselves into a bind (it is easy to spot these people).

    • mary monica roche says:

      10:59am | 10/02/11

      The australian foreign budget is extremely low by world standards thanks to the Howard regime that cut the foreign aid budget to zero when the Liberals were last in office.Howard had no charity in his budgets.

      Reply

    • Aitch B says:

      01:21pm | 10/02/11

      @mary

      Sorry, Mary. I know you’re a rusted-on tunnel-visioned dyed-in-the-wool Labor supporter but I’m going to have to call “bullshit” on you here.

      Australia’s foreign aid budget and more importantly, actual financial aid has NEVER been zero!!

      At least not since 1974, anyway…........

      There have been reductions over the years in terms of percentage of GDP, however.

      Nice try!!

    • simon says:

      11:36am | 10/02/11

      Who is prepared to pay extra taxes to pay for foreign aid. You would find very few people who say yes!!!

      Reply

    • grumpy says:

      12:48pm | 10/02/11

      I would. But we pay enough taxes to cover it as is.

    • James says:

      01:14pm | 10/02/11

      Only if the money was being wasted.

    • loxy says:

      12:03pm | 10/02/11

      I think those claiming we are a rich country are being a little simplistic. The fact is, with the cost of living rising exponentially in this country there are now many people seriously struggling. Electricity poverty is on the rise, mortgage defaults on the rise, credit card debt on the rise = people are really finding it hard to make ends meet. There will also be knock-on effects for those in Brisbane with the inevitable raise in rates to cover re-building costs.

      Now I’m all for helping out other countries but not at the expense of our own people. The last thing people need is another tax and Labour should be looking at other alternatives, including cutting foreign aid for a bit, rather than another tax to burden us all.

      Reply

    • Your name: Janey says:

      01:05pm | 10/02/11

      Your comment:
      Really loxy, we are not a rich country?
      Bet nobody in Brazil, Haiti, Indonesia or Sri Lanka received the equivalent of AUD$1000.00 per adult and AUD$400.00 per child on the basis of losing power for 48 hours during the natural disasters that have occurred in those countries.

    • Budz says:

      01:29pm | 10/02/11

      I think that’s a load of bull, unless someone can prove otherwise. The reason people are defaulting on their mortgages and have increasing credit card debt, is in most cases, their own fault. People are getting mortgages they cannot afford and have no control on their spending.

      This whole cost of living rising (more than usual) is also crap looking at the stats.
      http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6302.0
      Average weekly earnings increased around 4.5% over the last year while CPI increased only 2.6% over the same period.
      Can someone please for the love of god write an article on this misconception that the media keep portraying to make us feel like we are getting poorer and need to work harder?
      http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/6401.0Main+Features2Sep+2010

    • James1 says:

      01:32pm | 10/02/11

      It truly is a lucky country if the worst concern you have is that electricity is expensive, that you spend too much on your credit card, or that you might have to move to cheaper accommodation.

      In some countries, large parts of the population are too busy trying to scrounge enough grass roots each day to prevent their children from starving to worry about their credit card debt…

    • Jade says:

      02:36pm | 10/02/11

      For some people, defaulting on a mortgage that they could afford when they took out the loan, but can no longer due to rising interest rates, increases in payments from banks, rises in the cost of living (due to the floods food prices will rise exponentially), and a myriad of other factors means that these people will in fact, be scrounging for a home. Or living in similar conditions to those in the 3rd world.

      I find it reprehensible that those in Australia who are fortunate enough to live in comfortable and secure homes and afford enough to eat can trvialise the very real concerns of the average Australian. It is very easy to make the kind of comments about electricity affordability that you make, James1, but how dare you imply that those families who are struggling with this issue when you clearly don’t have to should be grateful that is the worst they have to worry about? You clearly have never had to struggle and experience what it is like to have to work out whether to prioritise electricity to cook with, food to eat, or rent to ensure you have a house for your family.

      Or perhaps you would believe Australian families are struggling when they are living out of cars and dumpsters like many of their American counterparts.

    • James1 says:

      03:14pm | 10/02/11

      All that tells me Jade is that you have never been to the Third World.  Many people in the Third World would kill to be able to live in a car like a poor American.

      I’ve struggled.  I grew up during the recession of the late 1980s.  My wife and I had a child young, and supported ourselves while I struggled through university to acheive a better life for my family (which is why I don’t have to worry about such things myself).  I know what it is like to be the poorest of the poor insofar as this country is concerned.  That is why I feel the way that I do.

      I find it offensive that you would trivialise the struggle to prevent your children from starving by comparing it to worrying about the price of electricity.

    • James1 says:

      03:18pm | 10/02/11

      Also, I have to agree with Budz.  Why do people feel their cost of living is increasing exponentially?  Where are these increases coming from, if not inflation relative to income?

      Sure, we all know sob stories, but these are just individual stories.  They do not seem to relfect a wider trend.

      Much as people hated him for it, JWH was right when he said that Australian have never had it better.

    • loxy says:

      06:29pm | 10/02/11

      Janey - saying we are a rich country doesn’t mean everyone in it is rich which was the point I was making.
      Budz - I watch my electricity, rates, water bills go up every quarter while my wages do not. Some of the bills have gone up 10% or more in one hit so even if I had got a 4.5% wage increase in the last year (which I didn’t) it does not cover it. Misconception, I think not.
      James1 - Yes people have it very rough in third world countries but Australia is not a third world country so comparing them is pointless. My husband and I earn very good incomes and as such have no problems with making ends meet, however unlike you, I still have great concern for those in this country who are doing it tough. If your main concern is those in third world countries then why not move over there and help out.

    • James says:

      12:33pm | 10/02/11

      I think we should demand value for money but I don’t think cutting our Aid budget is a very good idea, we are rich and can/should help less fortunate people around the world.  I would advocate increasing the Aid budget to at least 0.7% GDP but put a heap more effort into measuring its effects and altering programs so that we are getting best bang for buck.  It is not the money that is the problem it is the implimentation.

      Reply

    • Craig Stevenson says:

      01:28pm | 10/02/11

      Ashlee is spot on. sounds as if she knows what she is talking about.

      I think when Donrefers to charity he means flat screen TVs. as others have pointed out- its not as if we dotn beenfit from the aid we give overseas’ lokign onthe ausaid website they saythat it is for national interest as well as povert reduction- so as Don puts it are these two things diametrically opposed?

      Most of the other punters in here wouldn’t know poverty unless it wacked them in the face - poverty for them means they cant buy their 100 inch F Off new flat screen TV. This is the exact public sentiment that LNP is seeking to tap into - the tendency for a large number of ozzies to think they aren’t getting a ‘fair go’. Shannon Noll plays in the background ‘what about me it isn’t fair’..

      Well a few points to add to the mix:

      Don just for starters - what is the ‘third world’ - anyone that knows anything about developemnt these days would not use that term. I think people stopped using this term after the 90s mate. So you might want to omit that from future articles. These days you’ll find that human devleopment has progressed such that a lot of contries that were in the low income status (or what was termed third world’ ) have moved or are moving into the middle income status. So there is no clear cut distinction anymore between the so called thrid world and first world. (oh and ditto for ‘failed state’ Don)

      Having said that lookign at impacts of disasters, Australia is a much more resilient country to disasters than our negihbours (and devleopign coutnries). take the Philippines or Indonesia for example. Both of these coutnries experience a number of natural disasters a day (Indonesia for example has 4 earthquakes a day). Add to this the problems foreshadowed by Ashlee’s earleir post and we have a natural disaster. Buildings made of poor cement or toehr materials that easily collapse and kill or crops and livelihoods that will be torn away from disasters. In Australia however, we have the ability to withstand disasters- look at how our government is bailing us out. we have access to insurance. we have savings or a govenrment that will help us if we need it. try and compare what we experienced here with what happened in Pakistan? or does anyone even remember Haiti at the beginning of last year? I think you could safely say we are doing a lot better here with second highest human devleopent index score in the world compared to Pakistan and Haiti. For them floods and earthquake might mean death and loss of hosue income and any chance of recovirng. for most Australians affected it will mean getting new roads and a new house in months (not to mention my new flatscreen). There are many people in haiti and pakistan who will remain homeless in tents malnourished for years to come - is that justice?

      Another word on Don’s points- from an aid program that is worth $4.3 bliion, Don writes a beat-up story about a tiny Community Call to Action project that was targeted at bogans like most of you in Australia. Wasnt it designed to educate those who have no idea about aid how aid works - so you could say it wasnt really ‘aid’. Is this program reflective of the type of work going on in the broader aid program? hmmm my guess is that a resounding NO would be the answer as the community call to action was a first time initative. it wasnt development- its aim wasnt to help others overseas. so well done Don with cheap point scoring by targeting a program that was thakfully scrapped- could you perhaps show where the other 4.2 something billion dollars goes and how it is just a waste? yes you site povety project, africaand the cliamte change example but again does this mean that we al aid is good.

      Oh and finally, most of you punters have no idea how much tax actually goes towards foreign aid- would you be surprised to hear that it is aornd 30-40 cents in every $100 of tax you pay.. if you would just reflect on that for a moment…

      yes 30 to 40 cents in every $100 goes to foreign aid.. that is peanuts. yes it is set torise to 70-80 cents wow is this so much to ask guess you need to ask yourself how tight a**e do you want to be?

      Reply

    • Delraiser says:

      01:36pm | 10/02/11

      Here’s an idea. Rather than helping to lift poor foreigners’ standard of living, let’s instead feed battling property investor, or parent of privately schooled children…......................oh hang on…................OK, then let’s save the flood victims. Most aren’t black and poor….......

      Reply

    • Dick J says:

      01:59pm | 10/02/11

      Why does a person in Western Sydney for instance, on $60k a year with kids and a mortgage have to pay for a cup of coffee a week for the   multimillionare waterfront home was damaged in the flood?

      Insured or not it makes no difference.

      The flood levy exemption and disaster relief is not means tested.
      The millionaire is already entitled to the $1000 handout. Now I am not saying that all well off people will take the time to ring Centrelik to get their exemption but if you it does strike me as odd and an ill conceived levy.

      Reply

    • Henry says:

      02:15pm | 10/02/11

      Greed, priorities, looking after your mates first - call it what you want..

      Australians want to spend our money on needy Aussies first.  Cut the OS aid until we get sorted.

      Reply

    • fairsfair says:

      03:40pm | 10/02/11

      until we get it sorted is the crux of it Henry.

      I have not seen it suggested by anyone that it be a permanent cut/delay, just enough to contribute toward us recouping the costs of the disasters and getting ourselves back on our feet.

    • Mick Malin says:

      03:30pm | 10/02/11

      Dose this conservative lacky know the difference between “spent” and “spend”?

      Reply

    • NicoleG says:

      03:50pm | 10/02/11

      And does this left wing, shit picking, numpty, know the difference between ‘dose’ and ‘does’?

    • grumpy old man says:

      04:22pm | 10/02/11

      reading these comments, there are a significant number of people who appear to equate spending large amounts of money with value. It doesn’t work that way, we could achieve more with less dollars if we actually attached some accountability to the aid. Some aid we give goes to countries that patently don’t need it, like China, yes, we provide aid to China. So all those folks who think if you spend more you get more, you are wrong. If we spend more, more will go into the personal bank accounts of various dictators and despots around the world, not to the people who actually need it. How do you think they get rich? And using aid money as a form of bribery is just so absolutely immoral it doesn’t need any further comment.

      Reply

    • Shelley says:

      04:28pm | 10/02/11

      Valid points well written.

      Reply

    • Greg says:

      04:40pm | 10/02/11

      Giving foreign aid money to Indonesia to prevent Islamic extremism is just the same as paying protection money to the Mafia.

      It is not just wasted money, but it is detrimental to our interests. The Indonesians will lose any respect they may once have had for us, and they will just see us as an easily exploited soft touch.

      Reply

    • Janey says:

      04:45pm | 10/02/11

      Jade says:02:00pm | 10/02/11

      Well Kate, in some communities they don’t have access to clean drinking water at the moment. And there are some communities where they rarely have access. Furthermore, there are a whole host of people in Australia who cannot afford immunisation costs.

      So get over yourself and recognise that Australians are not all as lucky as you. And some do need help.

      Gee Jade, childhood immunisation in Australia is free - what immunisations do Australians have to pay for?
      Which Australian community currently does not have access to clean drinking water?
      Which Australian communities rarely have access to clean drinking water?
      Thankyou in advance.

      Reply

    • Greg says:

      05:01pm | 10/02/11

      To all those moral supremacists who endorse foreign aid while ignoring Australian needs, why don’t you just donate your own money overseas if it helps achieve your sanctimonious quest for conspicuous compassion? Nobody is stopping you from doing whatever you want with your money.

      Why is it that you control freaks always try to dictate what everybody else should be doing with their money?

      A government’s duty and responsibility is to look after it’s own citizens. If simple-minded people want to donate to corrupt foreign governments, then let them waste their own money, not everybody else’s.

      Reply

    • Jonathan Barrows says:

      08:08pm | 10/02/11

      I don’t think anyone is ignoring the needs of Australians. “Moral supremacists” are simply looking at a broader international picture because they feel it’s important and forming their opinions accordingly. You’re argument is emotionally loaded and without much factual basis. It’s also a touch controlling.

    • Craig Stevenson says:

      08:44pm | 10/02/11

      Your commeSorry Greg if you need another big screen TV or want a new pool out the back dont worry while the family in the developing world eats slop for dinner.

      First, Greg, Australians along with NZ-ers already give the most to charity per capita globally, so we already have achieved what you are talking about.

      Second, if you look at how aid works- majority of aid is traditionally government to government. This is because developed country govenrments are in a unique position to support developing country govenrments ie. they have access and similar structures and ways of operating. Do you think that an NGO will be abel to rpovide the same sort of supprot as the AFP coudl to East Timor or Geoscience Australia or the Bureau of Meterology to the Pacific Islands.

      Fianlly, providing aid to NGOs in Australia wont necessarily build the capacity of the insitutions in the cotunries we are trying to help. ie. usign their systems might actually help them get stronger rather then sendign in NGOs. Not denyign NGOS have their position too but jsutneed to understand the nuances between what NGOS and governemnt are good at achieving.

      Yes a Government’s duty is to its own citizens - but who said by providign aid that it doesn’t help others and us at the same time? the idea is that the funds provided helps us and the other coutnry at the same time.. not sure if that is too hard to understand for you; but for example providing funds to support Islamic schools in Indonesia might help them skill up their population and us get rid of terry wrists.. benefits are muttual smile

    • Greg says:

      10:45pm | 10/02/11

      Jonathan - So you believe that it is ethical to take money from Australians who earned it and give it away to foreigners who didn’t, just do you can feel better about yourself?

      Here is an idea - why don’t you improve your self-esteem through personal achievement rather than pursuing futile attempts to buy some using other people’s money?

      While you are entitled to your opinions, no matter how stupid they are, you are not entitled to other people’s money.

    • Greg says:

      04:52pm | 11/02/11

      Craig Stevenson, the issue here is diverting Australian taxpayer money away from discretionary foreign donations to fix flood damaged Australian infrastructure. Rest assured that the government nor anybody else is proposing to spend it on a big screen TV or a pool for my backyard.

      As for my own money, if I am entitled to spend money that I have earned on whatever I want, and not have it wasted on stupid foreign projects just so demented world improvers can feel better about themselves.

      And if Australians and New Zealanders already give the most to charity per capita, then there is no need for the government to give away even more of their money, especially when it is needed here.

      As for the rest of your incomprehensible gobbledegook, I’ll respond once you learn how to type an articulate sentence.

    • Tom Johnson says:

      12:01pm | 11/02/11

      I have studied the Australian aid program in depth, and can tell you that Don D’Cruz is inaccurate in his assessment of his proposed savings.
      The Indonesian education aid program that the liberals are now proposing to halt, was indeed started by John Howard. This fact that only highlights the sheer hypocrisy of a man who served under him - i.e. his advisor Don D’Cruz.

      Reply

    • Greg says:

      04:39pm | 11/02/11

      I don’t care if John Howard introduced the proposal or if he still supports it. I don’t care that Julie Bishop still supports it.

      I don’t care if every politician in parliament supports the idea.

      It remains a stupid idea regardless, and attempting to digress into a partisan argument doesn’t change that.

    • Darragh Scully says:

      05:14pm | 11/02/11

      There are some positives to foreign Aid. Unlike Australia as mentioned in the article above PNG is a virtual failure as a state. National Guard Bureau J3 Counterdrug Division notes that failing states are one of the major proliferators of Drugs, Child Prostitution, Radical Organisations and subject to sponsorship by Terrorist Organisations. Given that Australia is not about to fall into these traps despite the doom and gloom it makes a good bit of defence to try and do what we can to stabalise areas that are falling into further into chaos. Those numbers that were spouted may seem big though in reality we could probably do more. To offer more charity in Australia though would also be good. Its a pity it takes a major catastrophy for the hand to be extended though. However (even though you get bagged for starting a sentence with HOWEVER!), however this were not Communist and you have to think of the Cause and Effect issues. Throwing money at overseas people can come back on our economy when they use the money to access our economy, further more throwing money at our own poor just tends to cause interest rates to rise, go figure.

      Down with the Queen.

      Reply

    • Donate money says:

      07:16pm | 11/02/11

      4. Your information was so-so. Still I agree with you that doing Charity is very good. It helps people who are really in distress. And it’s my personal opinion that every person who is living a wealthy life, must Donate money of a little amount of their wealth to help others. <a >Donate money, Help a cause</a>

      Reply

    • Adinda says:

      03:18pm | 08/02/12

      I can see why Blitzer would raise the issue of aid to Haiti –  ginvig aid to poor countries who have suffered terrible natural disasters is the sort of tough question that’s reasonable to ask about Paul’s proposal.But aid to Israel? Are many people out in TV land wringing their hands over whether Israel gets its annual allowance from the American taxpayer? Is anyone seriously worried about the survival of Israel absent our handout? Blitzer really tipped his hand on that one.

      Reply

    • Ionut says:

      04:01pm | 10/02/12

      Oh! Dear Alex! Such an asmniug fellow. He does his best to lighten our burdens with his gentle humour…

      Reply

    • wondering says:

      07:30am | 25/04/12

      I would love to know if Tim Costello ever built any homes for the people out of the Tsumani money.  How much of taxpayer money did or does he spend on air fares and accommodation and taxi services and his credit card. He even took friends overseas with him.  Everything about Costello is hushed up. He is always asking for money but no one is game enough to ask what does he give and what does it cost the taxpayer for his high life. He was appearing on every tv for Tsumani but after the money donated nothing was heard.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 24 May 12 09:56PM

RT @popculturechris: Meanwhile, Gotye holds no.1 for a sixth massive week in the US - "that" song has now sold over 4 million copies there.

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 24 May 12 09:17PM

@loupascale if the survey made you sad, probably skip the comments...

Paul Colgan

Colgo 24 May 12 07:27PM

@paulwiggins @richardkendall that fountain pens yarn is a great social trend story

Paul Colgan

Colgo 24 May 12 07:27PM

I like how a tip erodes so only you can use it MT “@paulwiggins: BBC News - Why are fountain pen sales rising? http://t.co/0hk2MRtf”

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

by Tony Burke

38

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

When you take on a job like being Environment Minister there’s some hits you can see coming. …

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

by Tory Shepherd

92

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

Welcome to this week’s I Call Bullshit column. It’s a regular column that looks at skulduggery…

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

by Anthony Sharwood

71

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

We are taught early in life that we should not question authority. We must listen to our parents, our…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed