Floods, earthquakes, droughts and cyclones are becoming more frequent around the world and the number of people affected by them is growing. In developed countries such as Australia and New Zealand we are experiencing firsthand the demands these events place on those directly affected and on those responding. In developing countries these challenges are amplified.

Sadly, we're going to need more programs like this, not less. Image: AFP

As Australia’s aid program continues to grow – in line with the bi-partisan commitment for aid funding to reach half a per cent of our national income by 2015 – it will become even more important to make sure we are using this money effectively. The current Independent Review of Aid Effectiveness, led by Sandy Hollway, is timely, needed and most welcome.

Australia’s aid program has experienced an unusually high profile in recent weeks. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott’s proposal to ‘defer’ a $448 million aid program to Indonesian schools – and the alleged ructions in Shadow Cabinet over it – generated a lively public debate.

As I said at the time of the announcement, the Coalition’s proposal is short-sighted and should never have been put forward. Yet, it presented an opportunity to highlight the positive impacts of that program – and to discuss more broadly the goals of Australia’s overseas aid program.

Our aid program is already doing much good, but we need to look at ways to make it even more effective in a rapidly changing world where the international community now faces a very different set of challenges from those faced when the Millennium Development Goals were adopted in 2000.

A relevant, high-impact and forward-looking Australian aid program must address four dangerous and inter-connected global development trends that together will make or break the world’s progress towards eradicating poverty over the next decade. These trends are scarcity, volatility, inequality and gender injustice.

Firstly, to scarcity. Competition for land, water and energy is intensifying and putting unsustainable pressure on the world’s most critical resources. This competition for scarce resources threatens the food supply and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of women and men living in poverty.

Every night for decades, more than 800 million people have gone to bed hungry. In 2008 the global food price crisis pushed that number over one billion for the first time in history. The physical and mental toll of hunger, particularly during pregnancy and a child’s early years, has life-long consequences that impair efforts to eradicate poverty.

The food price crisis is also an early indication of even greater challenges to come. Food and commodity prices are on the march again. On current trends, the next 20 years will see global demand for food increase by 50 per cent, for water by 30 per cent, and energy by 50 per cent. Yet there are already clear limits to the planet’s resources.

Secondly, volatility. Over the past decade, the world’s poor have experienced multiple, often simultaneous, shocks. These include a global food crisis that sparked food riots in more than 20 developing countries, spikes in oil prices, a global economic crisis and an increasingly unstable climate.

With the growing frequency of floods, earthquakes, droughts and cyclones, so the number of people impacted has grown. Together with unplanned and accelerated urbanisation, environmental degradation and increased competition for resources, this has put poor people at greater risk and has repeatedly reduced their ability to get back on their feet after a disaster.

The combination of scarcity and volatility fuels conflict. Conflict-related deaths have been growing since 2005, with two-thirds of these deaths occurring in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, and Sri Lanka. Ninety per cent of these victims are civilians, the majority women and children. And while civilians are increasingly targeted in conflict, most deaths are caused by the wider effects of conflict, such as dysentery or interruptions to food supply.

The third dangerous trend is inequality. With 75 per cent of the world’s poorest one billion people living in middle income countries in 2007, there is growing evidence that inequality has become the ugly underbelly of global prosperity. It follows that one of the main reasons the world is unlikely to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by the 2015 deadline is because inequalities within many countries have grown to the point of slowing down national progress.

The most enduring form of inequality is the continuing trend of injustice experienced by women. Seventy per cent of the 1.3 billion people who live in extreme poverty are women and girls. Consider this: women perform two-thirds of the world’s work and produce half of the world’s food, yet earn only ten per cent of the world’s income and own one per cent of the world’s assets. Empowering girls through education – as our aid program does in Indonesia right now – is just one example of an effective Australian aid program placing women’s equality at the centre of its work.

The recent public debate on aid has presented a false choice between charity at home and charity abroad. Doing our fair share towards tackling the scourges of gender injustice, scarcity, inequality and volatility are both central to Australia’s national interest and our obligation as a good international citizen.

But aid is just one part of the development equation. Trade, investment, taxation, foreign policy, immigration, defence and security all have an impact on development and should be incorporated and aligned in a whole-of-government development cooperation program.

This development cooperation program must maintain its focus on people. This means making sure that those people and communities who receive Australian aid are involved in the aid programs from beginning to end, from the design of the program right through to evaluating its achievements. We also need to ensure that our aid is accountable to these people, as well as to Australian taxpayers. Only then will we know if it has really succeeded.

The strong bi-partisan commitment to grow Australia’s aid program - and the existence of a movement of Australians dedicated to holding both parties accountable to that commitment - provide the context for a unique opportunity to vastly improve the effectiveness of the aid program. The current review of aid effectiveness gives us a way to seize that opportunity.

54 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Erick says:

      05:02am | 24/02/11

      “Consider this: women perform two-thirds of the world’s work and produce half of the world’s food, yet earn only ten per cent of the world’s income and own one per cent of the world’s assets.”

      I seriously doubt this statistic. For one thing, most of the world’s valuable assets are in the developing countries, and women own a huge proportion of these - through inheritance (men die earlier), divorce, alimony and child support, as well as their own earnings.

      This is just another case of feminist man-bashing. When men have equal rights here in Australia, I’ll worry about women in third-world countries. As long as foreign aid discriminates against men, I say cut it all.

    • J White says:

      07:41am | 24/02/11

      I think they are also counting in un-paid labour force work. Such as raising children. Any work that is required for the perpetuation of mankind (raising children, looking after the house, cooking) should all be included. I am sure if women stopped working for one week, men would realise that they carry quite a large burden for non-paid domestic activites. Work doesn’t always need to be paid.

    • Grumpy says:

      08:11am | 24/02/11

      Atleast here men have a choice not to get married and pay support to spoilt ex wives. We’re talking about people who have no means and dont have access to clean water to drink. There is no comparison…We cant even compare the floods here to what these people go through for the entirety of their short lives. It sickens me people have the attitude that “charity starts at home” when everyone of those people who lost their home in QLD still had shelter that night with family or friends,they still had access to food and water, they still have jobs to repair the damage. There is just no comparison, its inconceivable what these people must go through every day.

    • AliceC says:

      08:21am | 24/02/11

      @Erick

      How is this man bashing? Andrew is simply the realities of the world.

    • Shelly says:

      10:16am | 24/02/11

      What are you on about? Did you get what you think is the thin end of the wedge in a divorce or something? I think you have no idea. In many developing countries women cannot own properties, there is no alimony, if their husbands die the children remain the property of the husband’s family etc. They often cannot borrow money because they have no assets as security. In African countries where there have been civil wars women-headed households grossly outnumber male-headed households as the men have been more interested in killing each other and raping the women. Many households in these countries are headed by girls, often as young as 12 who have the care of their siblings. When they talk about food production in the developing world, they’re not talking about export agriculture - they’re talking about the production of food to feed families. This almost always becomes the exclusive resposibility of women. If women are lucky they have control over some portion of the family income - mostly they’re not. And this is a huge shame. Do you know why? Because extensive studies about income distribution within families in developing countries have shown that when women have control over the family budget more money gets spent on food, education and healthcare of the family. Men spend their income on themselves first and the family second.

    • Jade says:

      12:04pm | 24/02/11

      Erick, you have literally no idea what you are talking about. The women that Hewett is referring to in his article are not women in Australia, the US or Western Europe. In general, they are the illiterate, unschooled women in countries you’ve likely never heard of, whose husbands likely don’t own cars, houses or most things we take for granted.

      Most of these women and men cannot access the courts to have a divorce, let alone an equitable division of assets.

      In these countries, there is not equal protection for women. They are considered dependent on their husbands and when their husbands die, dependent on their sons or on the husband’s family for support. Where the family is unable, or unwilling to support the woman, she is left to beg in the street and/or die.

      Which I realise is the way you think it should be, but some of us think all humans deserve a little dignity.

    • Gerard says:

      12:20pm | 24/02/11

      Hmmm ... Executive Director of Oxfam Australia .... he stands to gain a bit in status and salary if his article is successful. Oh yes, the begging industry. “More Fuunnnddiing” is his war-cry.

      Wake up folks, Executive Director of Oxfam Australia? If the international problem is fixed he has to find real work. Note how they never address the syphoning of funds from donations.

      I hope all you people will contribute you own money and your own time to redress the “scarcity, volatility, inequality and gender injustice” in these countries.

      Or were you plastic compassionates thinking our taxes could be used so that you would not have to dip in yourselves? How easy for you. How plastic is your moral position.

    • Jay76 says:

      12:21pm | 24/02/11

      @ J White: Unless a majority of guys are sitting on their bums while women do the the cooking / cleaning / child-rearing / other work then the statement that they do 2/3 of the world’s work seems innacurate.

    • Erick says:

      01:34pm | 24/02/11

      Awfully defensive, aren’t we, girls?

      What’s so threatening about the fact that men do half of all the work? Worried about losing your precious victimhood?

    • Jade says:

      01:58pm | 24/02/11

      I’m not about to speak for the other women here Erick, but your obsessiveness about how hard done by you are as a man in Australia is getting a bit hard to take. Especially when you hijack an article highlighting the serious disadvantage and poverty of some people in other countries where the serious disadvantage and discrimination experienced by women is well documented into yet another tirade on the evils of divorce law in Australia.

    • Erick says:

      02:55pm | 24/02/11

      Well, Jade, I didn’t hijack the article. The author hijacked it, by using the issue of aid as yet another way to bash men.

      If you’re really concerned bout third world poverty, perhaps you should leave the man-bashing aside, and concentrate on global poverty instead.

      After all, it’s our taxes you’re asking for. So why start by insulting us?

    • Fiona says:

      10:49pm | 24/04/12

      A case of feminist man-bashing? Its a fact of the injustice of global poverty. These statistics can be found here http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/gii/
      Your final paragraph is one of the more worrying things i’ve read online in a while-not only does it highlight your lack of intellectual curiosity as to the impact of gender inequality, which by the way, has a massive impact on the development of men too,but the idea that we cut spending altogether? Wow. Ignorant. Its unfortunate that you’re obliged to vote in Aus, you should have your rights revoked.

    • Erick says:

      05:17am | 24/02/11

      P.S. Also, there’s no way that “women perform two-thirds of the world’s work”. It’s half, at most.

    • Jugg says:

      06:24am | 24/02/11

      It was a grand, unreferenced statement to make.

    • TChong says:

      06:27am | 24/02/11

      Agree, that stat sounds very much to be a moving goal , very much open to interpretation of “work”.

    • acotrel says:

      07:24am | 24/02/11

      You can’t seriously claim that doing a bit of cooking and cleaning, and changing babies botties is real work? That home stuff isn’t part of the equation?  Anyway supporting a man to get to do the hard stuff and be part of the corporate world, could be done by unpaid slaves, if the British hadn’t been stupid and abolished that stuff?

    • AliceC says:

      08:20am | 24/02/11

      @acotrel

      I woulg then challenge you to be a full time parent for a whole week, being the full time carer of a baby and two chidlren, plus being 100% responsible for the running of the household.

    • AliceC says:

      10:18am | 24/02/11

      @acotel,

      My apologies. I have heard about Mad Men, never watched it though. Recommend???

    • Ironside says:

      06:55am | 24/02/11

      Where on earth is your proof that earthquakes are increasing in frequency? Its also impossible for the same area to have both an increased number of floods and droughts, and the long term average for cyclones is unchanged.  Aid is all well and good but if you have to raise tax’s (the flood levy) to fix problems at home then you cant afford to donate to others.

    • acotrel says:

      07:34am | 24/02/11

      ‘As I said at the time of the announcement, the Coalition’s proposal is short-sighted and should never have been put forward. ‘

      Did you really ever expect to get sense from Tony Abbott?  His ‘vision’ doesn’t go much past improving his own political future.  We, the voters are not suppose to notice his perversity.  We hear all about ‘pull factors’ and asylum seekers, yet foreign aid has the potential to drastically reduce ‘PUSH FACTORS”!

    • Ironside says:

      08:27am | 24/02/11

      @ actorel If foreign aid has any affect on push factors then the amount of Afghan asylum seekers would have reduced rathe than increased over the last few years. Also if your advocating foreign aid as a method of attempting to reduce push factors then we should only be providing aid to those countries who have refugee problems affecting Australia, that would mean no aid for Indonesia.

      Please try to stay on topic and don’t let your blind hatred of Tony Abbot blind you to the thrust of my comment, that being that we should not raise tax’s on Australian citizens to subsidise aid programs to other nations when we have large scale needs going unaddressed in our own country.  It’s the national equivalent of a family on welfare going into debt to by a plasma screen TV they don’t really need, just because having one makes them feel good.

    • acotrel says:

      09:11am | 24/02/11

      Ironside, You got it wrong - I love Tony Abbott.  Without him my life would be dull and uninteresting. His take on foreign aid is typically stupid, and it reveals his disingenous approach to asylum seekers.  It’s all about his own political future, NOT border protection, immigration or multiculturalism!

    • James Ricketson says:

      07:11am | 24/02/11

      Unfortunately, this article about an important subject, and one worthy of debate is diminished by an opening assertion of questionable veracity:

      “Floods, earthquakes, droughts and cyclones are becoming more frequent around the world.”

      Even if this statement were true, it is not primarily when the potential recipients of aid are victims of natural disasters that we should be lending a helping hand. It is during the periods between disasters that the poor of the world need to be helped to become sufficiently self-sufficient to be able to solve their own problems and not be reliant on charity hand-outs.

    • rb says:

      09:52am | 24/02/11

      This is a great point. Give a man a fish and he will have a meal. Give him a fishing rod and he can feed his family and make a living. More proactivity.

    • Richard says:

      10:19am | 24/02/11

      Isn’t the saying: “Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
      Teach him how to fish, and he will sit in a boat and drink beer all day.”?

    • watty says:

      07:29am | 24/02/11

      Gave up donating to Oxfam when they started playing politics in the mining industry in developing countries opposing resources development.

      Wonder what % of donations to Oxfam hits the ground and what % is gobled up in “administration” and political lobbying? Believe one of their mining engineers is on $250,000 to oppose mining?

    • Fairsnotfair says:

      08:38am | 24/02/11

      In a prvious ThePunch article, this conundrum of the cost of running charities was raised. The figures show that the majority (59%) of your donation is eaten up by the “charity” before it gets to its intended destination.  Questions were asked following the tsunami in Aceh.

      Check your favourite charity’s website: do they disclose their costs? How much do they pay their CEO? Tim Costello (for all his pious attitude) collects a measley $250,000 p.a.

      http://www.businessday.com.au/business/how-societys-helping-hands-may-be-dipping-into-your-pockets-20081226-75k5.html

    • Grumpy says:

      08:03am | 24/02/11

      Every night for decades, more than 800 million people have gone to bed hungry. In 2008 the global food price crisis pushed that number over one billion for the first time in history. The physical and mental toll of hunger, particularly during pregnancy and a child’s early years, has life-long consequences that impair efforts to eradicate poverty.

      I dont know how the world can let this go on. Such a shitty planet we live on.

    • Adam Diver says:

      08:58am | 24/02/11

      Its not the planets fault…

    • Jim says:

      08:41am | 24/02/11

      We’re in Donation Overload…we cannot go to the shops without being hassled by groups asking for donations. We cannot sit down to eat without the phone ringing and someone harassing you for money. We’re put on guilt trips by corporations like Oxfam, who never divuldge where the money is going - certainly not how much actually makes it to the target! We see fake collectors during door knock appeals.

      Then we see a government retain a foreign aid program worth billions (don’t kid yourself here, they don’t give a shit about little Apu who’s been chained to the arse of a dead elephant for 3 years, they just want the political ties) yet tax our own people to pay for a disaster.

      The tide is turning against people like you Andrew.

    • Gav says:

      10:26am | 24/02/11

      Donation Overload - very true Jim. Another problem is that a lot of the donations being made are hijacked along the way or at their destination by criminals of various types- some of which (the inumerable warlords in African countries) are the main reason that those countries suffer so much.  You can hate the US as much as you want, but people need to realise that their is a time for talk, then there is a time to put a bullet in a dictator to try to get a country back on its feet…

    • Duff says:

      10:49am | 24/02/11

      Jim.  Are you better off than you were 10 years ago?  Are you earning more money?  Do you have a bigger TV?  Greater variety of food?  Plenty of entertainment?  Do you have a nicer, flashier car?  A softer bed?  A bigger bank account?  Do you have better doctors, more conveniences, more tv channels, faster computers, more mobility, longer life expectancy, safer roads, more exotic vacations and more useless gadgets for your kitchen?

      I thank god for people like Andrew.

    • Jim says:

      11:52am | 24/02/11

      None of your business really Duff, but I’ll humour you….

      Better off? No, I lost everything I owned about 6 years ago and I’m still rebuilding

      Earning more? HA! I’ve actually dropped $30K a year, but I’m somehow my child support liability has increased…go figure.

      Bigger TV? Well, yes. 10 years ago I had a 51cm tube TV….but Joyce Mayne had a sale a while back and by 100cm LCD turned out to be cheaper than the old one…bargain doncha think!

      Greater variety of food? I’m sure it’s out there, but I still prefer my meat and two veg. It’s cheaper now to eat Maccas though, maybe I should try that?

      Flashier car? Not sure if a commodore qualifies as flash…it IS red though. Us blackfellas love red ones, or so I hear.

      Softer bed? Nope…see point one; still stuck with the AMart special wrought iron job.

      Bigger bank account? Bigger yes, but in the wrong direction! The joys of a messy divorce and a bitch ex-wife.

      Doctors? Meh…I know I should go more often, but I went to the docs for the first time in 12 years just last Monday. Took me 3 weeks to get in though….cost me $96 for a stick in the arm and a 5 minute consult.

      More conveniences, more tv channels, faster computers? Well yes, as much as I loved my old Pentium I with Windows 3.1 I sadly gave it away. And if you own a TV I’m pretty sure extra channels are a given.

      Mobility and longer life? What has that got to do with giving money to someone?

      Safer roads? Dude, I live in NSW…there is no such thing.

      Vacations? Went to Bellingen for a weekend last year…first holiday in about 16 years.

      More usless gadgets? Yeah, found a massive tool….called it Duff.

    • Adam Diver says:

      08:55am | 24/02/11

      Number 5: Population Growth

      Too many people. Sterilization incentives are cold but effective.

      Number 6: Economic Development

      Focus on economic goals both locally and regionally. Fund investments and employ the people who are disadvantaged. This has a flow on effect that aid can not match.

      Number 7: Perpetual Aid

      Aid should almost never be given (excluding natural disaters). Nothing should be given away for free, whilst short term its beneficial for the people involved, long-term it has the exact opposite of its desired outcome.

      Number 8: Ambigous Articles

      Don’t just say we need more aid, and a review to better use that aid. Its a common trend amongst the give me money crowd. You need to be far more specific in what your goals are, your methods of achieving these, as well as regular updates in the progress of these goals.

    • The Golfer says:

      08:58am | 24/02/11

      This is a crap article - muslims are the laziest people on God’s earth and indians are not much better. That is why Muhammed told the arabs to pray five times a day so they would get off their fat arses and face west - at least they then move from under the date fronds.

    • Tony H says:

      09:46am | 24/02/11

      I think our whole foreign aid budget should be sent in the form of contraceptive products. Sending food and money to already overpopulated third world hellholes is just going to encourage them to keep breeding out of control.
      If you live in a country thats prone to famine caused by the weather and grubby little tribal based conflicts and you’re going to pop out 15 kids you just have to accept there’s a good chance alot of them may die.

    • Jim says:

      10:08am | 24/02/11

      Good idea Tony H…unfortunately condoms don’t generate political good will, nor do they buy weapons and tanks for petty little warlords.

    • ZSRenn says:

      10:02am | 24/02/11

      I have a real problem with these Charities in that some of my money always seems to be heading to India.

      It’s not that I don’t recognize India has some real poverty issues but I just don’t like giving my money there.  India seems to be ignoring the problem and is spending billions at the moment to build a massive Navy.

      When India stops building its war machine and starts feeding its people I may change my mind!

    • NGS says:

      10:08am | 24/02/11

      Aid has been pouring in to impoverished countries for generations now and to little purpose- they are all still impoverished. Its about time they were allowed to get on with their own lives, make their own choices, right or wrong. Aid causes corruption of the leadership and makes beggars of everyone. I know, I have seen it first hand.

    • Levi says:

      11:21am | 24/02/11

      “give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.” - If only we could somehow apply this proverb to contraception, and how to stop making the bastards breed so much, then jump on leaky boats and come over here looking for better job opportunities, under the crap disguise of “persecution”.

      If i was a catholic being persecuted do you think the Saudis would offer me asylum? I think not.

    • Catching up says:

      11:29am | 24/02/11

      “acotrel “


      I think if you looked closer, you would see many women in the paddy fields and working the fields in all third world countries.  Woman through the ages have been the gathers, men the hunters. In previous times, women work beside there men folk in the field.

    • Catching up says:

      12:31pm | 24/02/11

      ““give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.” -”

      Levi are you so arrogant to believe that if there were fish available to catch, these people would not be doing so.  Give them a river with clean water and filler with fish, I am sure they are capable of working it out themselves.

    • biff says:

      12:41pm | 24/02/11

      “Between 1970 and 1998, when aid flows to Africa were at their peak, poverty in Africa rose from 11% to a staggering 66%”, says Zambian-born economist Dambisa Moyo.

      It’s clear that foreign aid merely creates a cargo-cult mentality.

      It’s reported that Mr Hewett earns about $185,000 per year so we might ask what happened to real charity?

    • Tom says:

      01:04pm | 24/02/11

      Well said, Biff. $185,000. The word “carpet bagger” comes to mind when I see these glossy fatcat international aid executives getting wealthy out of the misery of third world people.

    • Jimbo says:

      06:57pm | 24/02/11

      Well said. There is an orthodoxy that foreign aid will help developing countries which isn’t challenged nearly often enough. Aid flows basically assume the biggest problem of developing countries is that they lack capital to develop, when in reality there is a much more complex interaction of factors including poor governance, geographic situation etc.

      In reality, aid flows have largely just served to insulate corrupt and despotic rulers from criticism. Aid flows give governments an alternative to raising funds through taxation - ‘no taxation without representation’ works both ways - without taxation, there is less pressure from the populace for reform.

      I am not saying cut off aid - when implemented correctly it can be useful, and with safeguards to ensure it is not just used to prop up corrupt rulers. It also serves a useful diplomatic purpose, as seen in our aid to Indonesia. However, a large portion of current aid is at best useless, and may indeed be harmful.

    • St. Michael says:

      03:03pm | 24/02/11

      If there’s any organisation that can assure people their money actually gets to people in need, it isn’t Oxfam really: http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/98946/oxfam-may-sack-10-over-tsunami-aid-fraud

      I wonder if the 10 who were “possibly” up for dismissal actually got dismissed.  And I wonder if the other 12 who were up for “disciplinary action” are still with Oxfam now.

      More to the point, I wonder what culture’s changed in 4-5 years which says this sort of fraud on charitable donations isn’t still going on.  Let’s see what Oxfam thought was responsible…

      “The investigation found that while Oxfam’s policies and procedures are of the highest standard, weak management and monitoring systems in certain areas, aggravated by high staff turnover and difficulties with recruitment, created the possibility for fraud to occur.”

      Wow.  So for all the bleeding-heart lefties out there begging us to give our money to charities, the only lefties Oxfam can get to work for it are either incompetent (the managers) or criminals (the fraudsters).

      Your charitable donations hard at work.

    • Gran says:

      04:18pm | 24/02/11

      I use to donate to all who asked before now i refuse to donate to any charities who send money overseas,as a tax payer the goverment is doing that for me now,so no more double dipping,500 million to Indonesian this year in foreign aid what the hell for they don’t like us anyway,plus 126 million to build new islamic schools,this money would have been better spent through out the world sterilizeing men who think it is their god given right to have mulitiply wives and breed children into horror and starvation ,every developed country give foreign aid and it doesn’t make a bit of differance from one year to the next,

    • Cosmic Charade says:

      09:53pm | 24/02/11

      I completely support Gran’s statement.  Why are we supporting people who really don’t give two hoots about us, and always seem remarkably absent in our own natural disasters, of which we have had many in recent years.  It really seems like a never ending one way street of questionable effectiveness or return to anyone, anywhere, when the only proven contributor to poverty, population growth, is censored from almost all debate.  http://cosmicharade.com/2011/02/24/foreign-aid-and-population-growth/

    • Wendy says:

      10:28pm | 24/02/11

      I think Oxfam does an amazing job; i’ve seen it with my own eyes.

      And for once people, think about the people in the shoes of the campaigner, they are not out on the street to make your life a bit worse today! They are working because they believe they can make the world better.

      They are trying to make you aware of horrible circumstances and how you can help! And yeah a few bucks goes to managing your donations!
      What about the remaining dollars that actually help someone in a refugee camp! Imagine you are taken away out of your home, or even country because of a war! You leave EVERYTHING behind! You step into another country where you dont even know the language! Who is gonna feed you? Give you cooking supplies, shelter, fresh water and sanitation??
      RIGHT OXFAM!!!

    • St. Michael says:

      11:44pm | 24/02/11

      22 Oxfam employees in 2006 clearly thought this wasn’t enough.

      Wonder how many there are who think so right now.

    • Cosmic Charade says:

      06:06pm | 25/02/11

      Wendy proves my point.  Why are there so many refugees?  Could it be a combination of once necessary practices of having many children, combined with the well intended push to spread medicine and lower infant mortality, has in fact caused more suffering that it has alleviated?  The reason being is perhaps many are, in fact, out for their own selfish reasons, to feel good about feeling good?  Otherwise someone would have put some thought in to some strategies around accommodating all the extra people before it led to - guess what - scarcity, conflict and inequality.  Is there truth in the saying that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions?  If the do-gooders of the world were truly out for the good of humanity, they would have considered women’s education and fertility control before anything else, then we would have this mess of millions of conflict displaced refugees today, that we are all expected to now support in a never ending cycle that never seems to improve.

      Am I daring to question the unquestionable?  I feel like I am taking on the Catholic Church in the 16th century.  Oh wait, the Catholic Church did contribute to this too.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Greece makes the final and Ireland gets in on a golden ticket. How awkward and embarrassing. Love it. #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Every single #eurovision band is roxette #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

The weird thing about #eurovision is you've got this massive collection of dorks in a room and no one is wearing Spock ears #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Europe has the large hadron collider which is light years ahead of its time and #eurovision, where the eighties never die

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

Last year, thousands of Azerbaijanis spontaneously took to the streets of Baku shouting and chanting.…

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

Last month, Katy McCaffrey boarded the Disney Wonder cruiseliner. At some point during the trip, a sneaky…

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

ClubsNSW is set to introduce a fresh new effort to combat schoolyard intimidation, insisting on a principal’s…

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]

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