Tony Abbott’s suggestion of cutting aid to Indonesia to fund Queensland flood reconstruction was met with immediate fury from aid experts, who declared the decision morally bankrupt.

Women in Afghanistan understand the true cost of war. Photo: AFP.

Yet Mr Abbott’s announcement has raised an important issue that should not simply be brushed under the carpet: the need for aid effectiveness.

When he announced the proposed cut, Mr Abbott said funding would be “deferred” subject to a full review of the effectiveness of the program.

The aid budget has been steadily increasing since the Howard Government committed Australia to achieving the Millennium Development Goals in 2000.

In short, the goals commit Australia to working with the international community to halve hunger, get kids into school and ensure families have access to basic health care.

Part of our commitment to reaching the goals is to increase our aid budget to 0.5 percent of gross national income by 2015. In real terms, that means doubling our aid program over the next five years.

That makes the need for ensuring the money is well spent all the more important. We shouldn’t just be spending more money, but be spending it more wisely.

Effective aid is a reward in itself, as it delivers justice to more of the poor more quickly. But ineffective aid not only slows the efforts to end poverty, leaving the entire aid program at the mercy of short sighted politicians.

Currently, our aid program is based on the belief that economic growth is a primary driver for eradicating extreme poverty. But as ActionAid’s experience in countries like India shows, economic growth alone is not sufficient for the eradication of poverty.

Often economic growth simply exacerbates inequalities between the rich and poor.

Over a billion people today live in absolute poverty, the majority of them in middle income countries, such as China and India, where the unjust distribution of resources is an acute violation of human rights and results in high levels of inequality and injustice.

To address this, we need to be less concerned with the wealth of nations and much more focused on the fundamental rights of human beings – in particular women, who universally bear the greatest burden of poverty.

Take the example of a forced marriage in a country like Afghanistan, in which AusAID has spent $106 million this year. The marriage of young girls is common practice to solve disputes or to ease financial pressures on families.

She won’t have further opportunities for education and will have children young, continuing the cycle of poverty. She will never have a say in her government, won’t own land and will probably never see a government service provided to her.

This cycle entrenches poverty and it can be broken. It is exactly the cycle that Australia’s aid program has the ability to confront.

Countless studies have shown that women are the key to ending poverty. They prioritise educating all their children, both boys and girls; when in leadership roles they reinvest in the community at higher rates than men and it has been proven that educated women’s children live longer.

That’s why non-government organisations such as ActionAid have increasingly put women at the heart of all of their work. With sustained, strategic support, women are the key to eradicating poverty.

The Australian aid program needs to have strategies to explicitly confront the oppression of women and put women at the centre of the program to maximise the effectiveness of our aid.

If we take this direction I’m confident the results will speak for themselves and Australians will be justifiably proud of their efforts to end extreme poverty.

79 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Rebecca says:

      12:10am | 18/02/11

      I’m sick of reading about the billions of dollars being spent on foreign aid when our school leavers can’t even get youth allowance - these kids are our future so why are we supporting them so they can get further education?? Here’s an idea - instead of taxing Australians MORE why don’t we give foreign aid LESS? The good will that will build at home would do wonders for this government…

    • Rebecca says:

      07:49am | 18/02/11

      should read “why AREN’T we supporting them…”

    • Richard says:

      09:12pm | 17/02/11

      Did you hear the rumours that Hozni Mubarack may be the richest man in the world? Yet his country, (which he ruled like his own personal fiefdom for 30 years), received billion after billion of foreign aid.

      Its like Ron Paul says, “Foreign Aid is taking money from the poor people in a rich country and giving it to the rich people in a poor country.”

    • Catching up says:

      05:58pm | 17/02/11

      “Randal says:

      I think if you took the time to read what I ahve put on this site, I have separated the two.

      As I say, those who come for the trade courses were ripped off.

      I will say once again, those coming for a university course surely do not need the bribe of remaining in Australia.

      We cannot all be experts but we are all entitled to our views.

    • Marilyn Shepherd says:

      02:06pm | 17/02/11

      We spend over $1 billion locking up Afghans, including women and girls, if they dare to escape, we spend $2 billion killing and occupying their country and $106 million on aid.

      That is the real problem.

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      11:37am | 17/02/11

      Of course and there is nothing wrong with that, at all. Education can be a business like any other. 
       
      The real difference between then and now is that back then, they went back to their own countries. ie, the came, bought a product and took it home. They didn’t get permanent residency because they bought from us. 

      I’d be happy to have them here being educated, then they can go home and be an asset to their own people.

    • Randal says:

      04:08pm | 17/02/11

      Why Catching up would you comment on an issue that you obviously do not know anything about??

      Have you never heard of “full fee paying courses” offered by all the leading Universities in Australia, who did you think was paying to attend these courses??

      Did you believe the hype that people like perse spin, that international students were all here doing ‘hairdressing and hospitality’ studies run by dodgy rip off merchants.

      No I am afraid you have been fooled by the ALP stooges, as the vast majority were studying legitimate courses such as medicine, maths and the sciences as part of an $18 billion dollar industry, our third largest - well until the ALP got their mitts on it of course. The students usually made outstanding immigrants as well, as they had money and are highly educated.

      So instead of just tackling the small number of operators who where rorting the system, the geniuses at the ALP targeted the whole sector and guess what happened? Australia’s universities are facing monumental funding shortages and you know what that means, less places for Australian students and higher costs for governments to fund those places – Yay for the ALP!!

      But don’t worry catching up Ministers Bowen and Evans are on the case and they are going to fix it all up… With the strike rate of this mob in ‘fixing’ their messes of course there is nothing to worry about (that’s sarcasm – just in case you were confused).

    • Catching up says:

      02:46pm | 17/02/11

      Randal says:

      No the scheme did not add anything to the education budget.  These people were offered mostly fraudulent eduction.  It was not aimed at those who come here for a University Education.

      Surely our education system is not that poor, that we have to offer citizenship to get them here.

      There are many that are willing to come without the bribe of a second rate training.

    • Catching up says:

      02:40pm | 17/02/11

      Te difference between Menzies scheme and Indonesian scheme is that the education is occurring in Indonesia.

      Mr. Howard’s scheme was an disaster. Under his scheme they were not expected to return.  There was no responsibility taken by the Howard government to ensure worthwhile educations.  In short, the students who took up the opportunity were ripped off.  They were treated as nothing more than cheap labour.  They were allowed to stay.

      Labor has cleaned that scheme,  up as it has done with many of Howard’s brain waves. .

    • Randal says:

      12:23pm | 17/02/11

      And isn’t that policy a home run for what was Australia’s 3rd largest export sector Perse, and now an $18 billion industry is under threat because the government panicked (yet again) and instead of targeting the ‘dodgy’ operators, put the ban across the whole sector.

      Just another disaster unfolding under the watch of Gillard - seriously can they get anything right!

    • persephone says:

      12:05pm | 17/02/11

      You’re right, Tony - it was Howard who encouraged foreign students to stay here, by virtually guaranteeing them residency if they undertook courses to tackle serious areas of skills shortage, such as hair dressing and hospitality.

      Fortunately, Labor has addressed this rort, ensuring that foreign students must go through the same process as anyone else when it comes to citizenship.

    • Catching up says:

      11:11am | 17/02/11

      I seem to remember,  it was Mr. Menzies, that began educating young people from Asian countries. 
      Did he not bring many thousands of young Asians to be educated in our universities?

    • Catching up says:

      02:32pm | 17/02/11

      Thank James.  I was not certain if that was the name or not.  What I do know is that the Liberal Party was very proud of that programme.  It seems it is only bad if Labor does it.

      Th belief was that they would return home and spread the word on what a great place Australia was.

    • James1 says:

      12:59pm | 17/02/11

      He did indeed - it was called the Colombo Plan, and really set the stage for our later massively expanded engagement with Asia.  AusAID still has a scholarship program, where students are brought to Australia to study (usually) Masters degrees, on the condition that they take their skills home to assist in building governance capacity.

    • Alexis says:

      10:12am | 17/02/11

      We have major problems with our health system.  People are waiting months and years for operations to save their lives.  Our aged case system is a disaster. There are not enough beds and the care that peopple receive is disgusting.  Please visit a few aged care homes and check this for yourselves.
      Why are we not ensuring that our sick and aged are taken care of quickly and efficiently.  With the extra burden of the floods should we not try to take care of our own ailing health and aged systems.  Not to mention the disabled and homeless people who are in desperate need of assistance, financially and in many other ways.  Please contact some organisations who can confirm this information.  Please help Australians. Tony Abbott may be suggesting something to benefit so many in need.

    • marley says:

      06:51pm | 17/02/11

      @persephone - you say, we don’t have major problems with our health system.  I guess you live in a major city.  For those of us who don’t, the truth is otherwise. 

      Regional Australia has enormous problems with our health system. Start with access to GPs, then to basic diagnostics, then to regional hospitals, then to specialists.  Where I live, we have one doctor (who seems not to be very competent), a regional hospital 60 km away which is scheduled for replacement this year (except the NSW government hasn’t actually bought the land or budgeted the replacement hospital) and a few specialists who come down from the big smoke once every couple of weeks. 

      My husband had to call an ambulance not so long ago.  After medicare covered its part of the bill, we were up for about $800 in additional charges.  We can pay it; lots of folks down our way won’t call the ambulance because they can’t afford the charges.

      And if you’ve got a real problem, it’s off to Canberra or Sydney for any kind of specialist care.

      Sorry, but there are serious problems with health care in this country.  And the fact that so many Australians have to carry private insurance tells you the system if flawed.

    • Randal says:

      02:56pm | 17/02/11

      You must write this crap with contortions Perse, and I really do admire the way that you stick at it no matter the back down’s, disasters and back flips… But geez they make your like hard the ALP.

      Come on now, it was not that long ago that you were trumpeting the “Greatest Reform of the Health system” since medicare all over the punch… Remember how you lectured us on the importance of the Fed being the dominant funder, the critical importance of the Fed being the sole funder to Primary Care, how the regional networks would restore local controls and help hospitals ensure they could band together to share services and reduce costs. With higher levels of accountability to ensure money was spent where it was needed most.

      Yet now you seem to be saying that these elements, so critical and important to you under Rudd are now nothing more than “sticking points”...

      Surely the whole point of the plan, as per the ALP pledge of 2007, was to “end the blame game”.... No wonder Rudd stormed out of cabinet )

      Really Perse, I expect the broken promises and failure to deliver from the government, but for Greek Goddess to play so loosely with the truth, well that is just disappointing.

    • persephone says:

      01:51pm | 17/02/11

      Randal

      there’s very little difference from Rudd’s announced reforms and what Julia has negotiated.

      This is because the only real sticking point was the way this was to be financed.

      The main concern about health is not so much the present system (although, as I repeat, everything can be improved) but the future.

      Health costs are growing at such a rate that soon state governments won’t be able to cover them.

      That’s why the financial support offered by the Feds was so important.

      Gillard hasn’t backed down on anything essential; she has simply negotiated a more acceptable financial arrangement.

      It appears the states would rather accept the blame for the state of their health services rather than receive more money and blame the Feds.

    • Randal says:

      12:36pm | 17/02/11

      @perse says “We don’t have major problems with our health system…the vast majority of people receive excellent care at a reasonable cost.”

      And in that statement we see yet another broken ALP promise, as prior to the 2007 election Rudd made it clear that we did have a major problem and he would fix it and ensure that the ‘Buck stopped with him”.

      So we had the “Greatest health reform since Medicare” announced, and then suddenly Kev was gone, and along came Julia, and suddenly it’s:

      “We don’t have major problems with our health system”

      Gone is the notion of reform, and instead all we have is the same base funding model, the same inept bureaucrats running the system, with increasing waiting lists and treatment for public patients being further undermined.

      Yet another Labor promise broken, in what is a barren wasteland of failure.

    • persephone says:

      10:52am | 17/02/11

      Alexis

      well, Tony isn’t. All he’s talking about is cutting.

      We don’t have major problems with our health system. It certainly can be better run, more efficient and more responsive, but the vast majority of people receive excellent care at a reasonable cost.

      The Labor plan, recently approved by the Premiers, will help here. It will see local health providers working together to ensure that patients get the care they need, regardless of which health service they access, and thus cut down on a lot of overlap.

      Aged care homes are constantly improving - they’re come a long way from the ones I used to visit thirty years ago.

      Far from not being enough beds, the big problem many aged care services face at present is precisely the opposite. Most have empty beds, which is making them unviable, as patients - and families - prefer to keep their aged relatives at home.

      Our elderly are fitter, healthier and more active than they’ve ever been, and they don’t like going to a place where their lives are regulated.

      Health services are increasingly focussing on how to solve problems like this at a local level, due to the agenda pushed by the federal government.

      The floods aren’t really creating a huge burden. As both sides of the argument have continually said, the levy isn’t that huge. The money required to rebuild after the floods isn’t that great, either, in comparison with Australia’s GDP.

      Yes, things could always be done better, and yes, there are people who need our help here. But even they are living in far better circumstances than the vast majority of those helped by our aid programs.

    • Jenni says:

      09:46am | 17/02/11

      Giving effective aid to anyone - whether you are a government, a business or an individual - is all about doing your research and knowing where your money goes and how it is used. I am involved in fundraising for many organisations - at home and overseas - and have done enough research into each of them (via annual reports and the like) to be confident that the largest proportion of my dollar is getting where it’s needed AND is making a substantive difference when it gets there.

      Much as I *hate* to agree with Abbott on anything, this is essentially all he is suggesting. He wants to be sure - before continuing to send billions of dollars of taxpayer money overseas - that our contribution is being used in the best way to help those truly in need, and not lining the pockets of beaureucrats or being wasted on activities that will have no long-term benefit.

      I, for one, am all for this idea of accountability. I do not hold with the notion of “charity begins at home” but I do want to know that any money given - either overseas or in Australia - is ebing used wisely. It’s just common sense.

    • persephone says:

      10:39am | 17/02/11

      He is? Do you have any evidence for this statement other than it’s what you want to believe?

      If this was true, Abbott wouldn’t be talking about cutting the aid to Indonesian schools.

    • OLD MAX says:

      09:33am | 17/02/11

      Papua New Guinea gained independence in 1975 thanks to Goth Whitlam.
      Our aid to this country now exceeds 1 Million A DAY, yet the only people benefiting from it are the politicians and the Australian advisors, who reap 90per cent of the aid. The poor native in the villiage gets little or nothing. So let the investigation on how our taxes are being applied begin. let’s stop the waste and get fairdinkum

    • James says:

      09:19am | 17/02/11

      Clearly what we need is an accurate way to measure, report and improve the effect aid delivery has, that should be funding priority number one.

    • Archie Law says:

      09:18am | 17/02/11

      This is great feedback and a terrific debate.  I can’t see the linkage between financing education in Indonesia and financing recovery efforts in Queensland which is certainly a national priority.  Charity might begin at home but it doesn’t end at home! The Coalition’s proposal is straight out of the One Nation playbook and the Coalition leadership and a number of media commentators (thank you David Koch) is engaging in a race to the bottom by regurgitating One Nation’s policies.  Instead why shouldn’t the government be looking at taxing the super profits that mining companies and banks make in this country (including CEO multi million dollar salaries) to establish a sovereign wealth fund to invest in the country when the mineral boom finishes (whenever that might be but we do know the boom is finite) and also use some of this revenue for disaster risk reducation and disaster response in areas of the country where people are most at risk from disasters such as floods/cyclones and bushfires?

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      10:06am | 17/02/11

      Very good post except for pilloring One Nation. Yes, the Government should think ahead and get something out of the mining boom for all. 
       
      But they won’t. This is Gillard the Redheaded Clown and the rest of the ALP circus you are talking about here. Won’t happen. 

      I’m actually in favour of a ‘supertax’, and frankly, I think it needs to be levied against any company that posts more than (say) $4B in profit per annum. Like the banks and Telstra.

    • Steve of Cornubia says:

      09:02am | 17/02/11

      Some years ago, I was approached by a scientist who was seeking funds to teach science kids in remote towns and villages in Africa. I asked, if successful, what were these newly-qualified kids, now endowed with an enquiring intellect, supposed to do next? Get jobs teaching science in schools that didn’t exist? Become scientists in non-existent universities? Go to work for a biotech company in Germany?

      As usual, the guy hadn’t thought it through - he just wanted to ‘do good’.

      I would also add that, for around forty years now, I’ve watched ads for and contributed to charities that aim to alleviate poverty and child sickness in Africa. In that time, billions upon billions of dollars must have poured into Africa, yet nothing seems to have changed much; I certainly can’t see where that vast mountain of money has gone - presumably much of it ended up in corrupt dictators’ bank accounts.

      So yes, it’s about time the ‘aid industry’ was properly examined.

    • St. Michael says:

      05:14pm | 17/02/11

      @ Steve: the reason you’re not seeing any change in Africa is because, economically, there hasn’t been any.  Adjusted for inflation, the average African is *worse* off economically than they were 50 years ago—explicitly taking into account all of the literally *trillions* of dollars thrown at Africa over the years.

      The numbers were calculated by Dambisa Moyo, a Zambian-born economist, in the book “Dead Aid”—the obligatory promotional website is here: http://dambisamoyo.com/books/?book=dead-aid.

      About the only people criticising the book are those who are sucking on the tap: those either tied to the aid industry or countries whose corruption is fuelled by the aid industry.  They also try and straw man the debate by pointing to the HIV-AIDS and communicable disease rates dropping and saying that’s evidence that the aid has done something meaningful.

      I could accept that if the African mass immunisation programs combined over 50 years actually cost a total of $2 trillion—because that’s how much money has gone into Africa for the past 50 years.  I think, though, it’s a drop in the bucket compared with how much has been wasted over there.  And whilst I’m a big believer in mass immunisation, it would be nice to see all those saved children doing something other than joining or being forced to join militias that then cut people’s hands, feet or other extremities off.

      Interestingly, though, in the wake of Dead Aid, the aid industry changed its tune somewhat.  Instead of loudly proclaiming that its work does great good, it now is saying you need the “right kind” of aid, suggesting—as ActionAid does on its website—that you should be giving money to bodies that will act at a local level but also fight for democracy in that particular country.

      ActionAid’s website breathlessly reports that “According to the United Nations, of the 140 countries that hold multiparty elections, only 80 are ‘fully’ democratic.  Close to half the world’s population live in countries that are not fully democratic. “

      The joke is that the biggest concentration of nations with one-party “democracies” or outright military juntas or dictatorships is in Africa.  How does one suppose that these “democracies”, juntas, or dictatorships survive? The money to feed the President and the troops has to come from somewhere.  Where? Not the people, certainly, if the “endless poverty’ picture is to be believed.  And not from large-scale economic activity within that country.  Even Rio paying massive bribes to African dictators can’t sustain entire armies on its own.

      Rather, a good proportion of it is coming from the aid that’s thrown at these countries and leaders to keep their nations from falling into anarchy.  That is, foreign aid programs.

    • marley says:

      09:26am | 17/02/11

      I agree with a lot of what you say, but the one thing that has improved in Africa is child mortality rates.  So some of those dollars weren’t wasted.

      But yes, maybe instead of teaching kids in remote villages mainstream science, we teach them the science of agriculture, so they can farm more effectively.  Maybe instead of teaching kids mathematics, we teach them arithmetic so they can work out ratios for fertilizers, the price they should be asking for their products, etc.

    • Geoff - Brisbane says:

      08:45am | 17/02/11

      @ Erick - Usually i agree, but come on mate this one had nothing to do with men and women. Don’t follow the feminist’s lead and turn every issue into a sex one.

      On a main note, cut the foreign aid budget. Australian dollars for Australians first.

      Look at the programs like the one to save the Giant Panda. In economic terms, we borrow money from China to give to China AND we pay interest on it.

      The 0.7% of GDP in foreign aid has been pushed by the Usless Numbskulls (UN) for decades. We can’t afford it.

    • Tim says:

      08:40am | 17/02/11

      Archie, where does ActionAid direct its spending? What kinds of programs does it specifically support?

    • Archie Law says:

      09:52am | 17/02/11

      Thanks Tim, most of the ActionAid spend is directed to work that enables people to engage with their governments and hold them to account for delivering services such as education.  Our programs primarily focus on women’s rights, as women are the most excluded social group in most societies where we work, and we also know that enabling women to be empowered to claim their human rights has a big knock on effects in terms of education and health. 

      You can find out more about what we do at wwww.actionaid.org.au

    • Colin J Ely says:

      08:39am | 17/02/11

      I work hard for my tax dollars, why should they be squandered building a new palace in Zimbabwe for Robert Mugabe? Overseas Aid has a defence/political perspective. We should be concentrating on areas within our realm of influence. In giving aid, we have a priority in giving to Timor Leste, PNG and The Solomons, to repay a wartime debt. I saw a story once about an Australian Aid Agency that gave no money and food aid only in times of national crisis. They concentrated on giving practical aid at the local level. In the story they gave a set of carpenters tools to an African village. @alcotrel, the whole point of Tony’s argument was that we should cut back on our profligate spending, particularly overseas, while we had pressing commitments at home.

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      08:17am | 17/02/11

      I’m not against aid when it is tied to conditions. And the first condition should be reducing the rate at which they breed. 

      How about we give anyone who gets themselves sterilised $500? That’s probably two years wages to some of these people and would go a long way towards geting them out of the poverty cycle.

    • Catching up says:

      02:53pm | 17/02/11

      The number of children a woman has in any country deceases when the economy of a country improves. 

      The better the standard of living, the fewer children.  Sterilisation is not necessary.

    • Ryan says:

      02:33pm | 17/02/11

      @Invictus: wow, don’t you put forward a logical argument. I can see merit in what Tony is saying.
      In Africa families have a lot of children, I know it sounds harsh but there is an expectation that some will die, hence having large families and since you need someone to take care of you when you are old. Now we have these do-gooders that go and throw that balance out of whack by running around inoculating everyone yet don’t explain that there will be a requirement for family planning. Years later we see the results of this catastrophe where there are too many mouths to feed and not enough food to go around, entire villages starve to death because their subsistence farming just doesn’t cut it anymore and the do-gooders have long left the scene, patting themselves on the back as to how wonderful they are.
      Now I am not saying that you shouldn’t help people out, just make sure you aren’t doing more damage than you are helping.

    • Jade says:

      01:43pm | 17/02/11

      I would support that plan.  Overpopulation (especially when they are bred into poverty) is getting us and the world no where.

    • Invictus says:

      12:42pm | 17/02/11

      Tony
      Then a few voices started to chant “Sieg heil! Sieg heil!”, and these were joined by more voices, and gradually the whole assembly rose to its feet.

      In your dreams mate. Sterilisation begins at home. Have you bred yet, because we certainly don’t need any more bigots like you.

    • rob foster says:

      07:05am | 17/02/11

      So boring…..like a old broken record….yawn….i see the cobwebs are still entrenched around your brain…

    • Grumpy says:

      08:45am | 17/02/11

      im glad someone said what i was thinking…wasnt the same thing written the other day?

    • thatmosis says:

      07:04am | 17/02/11

      Thats right, give overseas countries aid whilst our flood and cyclone victims have to beg the Government for some money. Get the priorities right, Australians should get the money first and foremost and then if there is any left then think about letting overseas countries get some. To send Tax Payers Monies overseas whilst our own people suffer is morally and criminally corupt and indefensible but then again thats what we have come to expect from the likes of Joolia and Krudd. Only those with the mentality of a gnat cant see that the Australian people are being screwed big time whilst our money goes overseas to buy Krudd a seat on the UN. Australia first or leave.

    • rufus says:

      08:06am | 17/02/11

      Well read from the One Nation script. Looking for promotion in the party?

    • Graham The Great says:

      06:47am | 17/02/11

      Its been that way for hundreds if not thousands of years, yeah go on knock Tony Abbott but something has to be done about the way some of our politicians throw money around seemingly without a stipulation of seeing value for the Aussie Dollar.  After all it really ain’t government money it belongs to all taxpaying Australians and I for one want to see value, I want to see accountability.  I also want to see a system where we can help our own before we help others?  How much money has the Indonesian Government tossed in for the disaster relief fund in Australia?

    • Pete says:

      06:47am | 17/02/11

      There is a guy in bangladesh erick who found a way to battle poverty. He did it buy giving very small loans so that people could set up a small cottage industry.  He gave the large majority of the loans to women.  This was not only culturally challenging for bangladeshis but also highly successful because women were found to be more effective in making the industry viable and paying back the macro loans. so perhaps ausaid has seen what is most effective and followed that path. Nobody is picking on men, you are just being paranoid.

      As for Tony Abbott, what do we expect from the liberal party attack dog, jump up and down, bark a lot,  crap everywhere and water the occasional tree.

    • Ironside says:

      06:43am | 17/02/11

      @Erick, give it a rest man, do you get up at 5 in the morning just to find stuff to whinge about on the Punch? There are real issues with Australian men being discriminated against particularly in relation to child custody and child support in the event of a divorce, but that has nothing to do with foreign aid. Women in impoverished countries do need more assistance than the men, and when provided the opportunity do give more back to the community so get over yourself.

      @ Actorel, again with the blind anti Abbott comments? Ok smart guy answer me this question…since Abbot was specifically talking about suspending aid to Indonesia and Indonesian schools in particular (please note…suspending not cancelling) how many so called boat people (other than the crews themselves) are actually Indonesian? I’m going to go with the official figure which is 0. None, Nadda, Diddly squat….you getting the picture? Australian Aid dollars have no direct correlation to boat arrivals, otherwise the number of Afghan arrivals would have decreased as our aid to that country has increased.

      As for the central question of should we suspend Aid, I would just like to ask those of you who are against this one question……….what vital infrastructure would you leave unfunded in Qld following the floods. Even if the levy gets passed it will only raise about 2 billion dollars the cost of the damage is significantly higher than that. So we either borrow the money, which will cause inflation and interest rates to rise,  start cutting essential services to the rest of the country, cut off non essential expenditure such as green programs or suspend our foreign aid for a short time while we sort out our own problems. You tell me? Where should the money come from?

    • sidel says:

      01:21pm | 17/02/11

      The money should come from mining.

    • john of solomon says:

      06:42am | 17/02/11

      to acotrel - if you really think the aid australia gives is going to slow down the flow of illegal immigrants then the idiocy is yours not abbott’s. I have lived in third world countries in the Sth East Asia/Pacific region for the past forty years and have no doubt that if the restrictions were relaxed there would be a mass exodus from these places to australia. the aid australia gives is a mere drop in the bucket.

    • Jade says:

      06:28am | 17/02/11

      How many Australian’s are now living in poverty thanks to Labor….

    • Richard says:

      09:24pm | 17/02/11

      No persephone, you have manifestly no idea about how economics works.

      Wealth isn’t just there, it doesn’t just exist, all ready for you socialist lefties to redistribute to your hearts content. It has to be made.

      The way a country makes wealth is by exporting.

      During the GFC, our mineral exports held firm, and maintained their record high prices. Our current account surplus continued to grow. Real wealth continued to be generated, which held us in good stead in the face of the GFC.

      So as you can see, in this sense, the mining industry well and truly did save Australia from the GFC, it had nothing to do with Rudd and Swan’s spend-a-thon.

      But its so typical of you to say that people shouldn’t think for themselves, that they should just accept the hot air theories of some foreign “expert”.

      But there are “experts” of all different stripes and persuasions. For every one of you leftist big government socialist nobel-prize winning “experts”, I can show you another expert who actually has some credibility, because they were able to forecast the GFC in advance, unlike your “experts” who totally missed. The fact that all of these prescient genius who accurately forecast the GFC and understood the reasons why it all happened are laissez-faire liberal free market advocates is a material and relevant point.

      And the proof is in the pudding, because America, which had no mining industry of equivalent size of Australia’s, was hammered by the GFC, despite embarking on numerous Swan-style stimulus spend-a-thon’s of their own.

      Meanwhile Canada, with a mining industry similar to our own, also sailed through the GFC largely unscathed.

      So do you see now? The mining industry saved Australia from the GFC and that is a rock-solid fact. The fact that they are flexible enough to lay off a few thousand staff and still remain strong is immaterial to this discussion.

    • persephone says:

      01:46pm | 17/02/11

      MarK

      that’s right, all those international economists are wrong and you’re right.

      The mining industry experienced a major downturn during the GFC, too - in fact, they were amongst the hardest hit.

      Given that they didn’t recover until the worst of the GFC was over, they had little to do with Australia riding it out, although (like all of us) they’re now benefitting.

      Mary

      love to know what you’re basing those statements on.

      All the indicators are that in a year’s time, Australians will be better off than they are now.

      Of course, things might happen to upset the apple cart, but at the moment we’re sitting pretty.

    • Mary of Brisbane says:

      01:01pm | 17/02/11

      persephone

      You better belive it, we really are in deep over our heads and it was thanks to Rudd’s reckless GFC Plan.  It is only starting to become obvious now, so someone who is a die hard Labor support probably can’t see it yet.  I would love to see what your opinion is in 12 months time.

    • MarK says:

      12:40pm | 17/02/11

      “So, without a LIberal government, we’re already out of it and surging ahead of most of the rest of the world. “

      So why do we need a levy?

    • Randal says:

      12:28pm | 17/02/11

      No perse, we have stayed with our head above water because of the continuing resources boom, and the Howard government putting us so far ahead of the world.

      First Rudd and now Gillard have been doing their to drag us down to the rest of the world through one disaster policy failure of another for 3 years, and this job should be just about complete once a carbon tax makes our industries non-competitive on the global scale.

    • persephone says:

      12:01pm | 17/02/11

      Paul C

      by world standards, we were never in ‘this one’ - we avoided the high unemployment, high government debt and low growth figures currently dogging most of the developed world.

      As a result, unemployment is falling, interest rates are both relatively low and stable, growth is forecast to remain strong and the economy seems to have come through in fairly good shape.

      So, without a LIberal government, we’re already out of it and surging ahead of most of the rest of the world.

    • Paul C says:

      11:10am | 17/02/11

      @persephone - Funny how Labor’s rating surged during the short sighted handouts of the GFC and then the ratings went through the floor once everyone realised the mess it has left us in.  Like I said, the only way Labor can get votes, is to buy them.  Only conservative government will get us out of this one - something Labor is not capable of delivering.

    • persephone says:

      10:34am | 17/02/11

      Nowhere near as many as there would have been if the government had not taken quick action to combat the effects of the GFC.

      And nowhere as many, proportionally speaking, as in the countries we send foreign aid to.

    • Paul C says:

      08:08am | 17/02/11

      Labor thrives on people living in poverty, that is where most of their voting base comes from. If you make welfare easier to get, people become reliant on it and will not vote for anybody such as the LNP, who want to break our own poverty cycle. Some people simply will not work, ever, if the government makes it so easy to get handouts. It is about time the government provides real incentives to get off your ass, and go and work for a living. Providing the bulk of ones welfare in essential goods vouchers would be a good start. This would not only provide a psychological incentive but ensure the money is being used for it’s intended purpose. Not everyone of course would need this control, but long term unemployed, say, after 12 months on the dole might be a good starting point. And this would only apply to those who are able , but not willing to get a job.

    • Seamus says:

      06:27am | 17/02/11

      Lets put Australia first for a couple of years whilst we restore the damage caused right down the eastern seaboard by cyclones and flooding.

      Those screaming the loudest about lost funding would be those on the highest salaries within the aid authorities I’m thinking.

      Good on you Mr Abbott.

    • acotrel says:

      08:10pm | 17/02/11

      Wayne, if you think Seamus’s comment is sensible, you ha ve a real problem!

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      12:39pm | 17/02/11

      Seamus , your comment is right and sensible.  What baffles me is that so many people do not understand that this country has huge socio-economic problems of it’s own .

      Quote from Archie Law’s article -  ” Effective aid is a reward in itself , as it delivers justice to more of the poor more quickly. ”  End of quote.

      Yes , it is a reward in itself , and yes , it does deliver justice to the poor more quickly .  There is no place , at present , more needy or lacking the justice of relief and compassion , than those flood and cyclone devastated areas within Australia.

      In the name of humanity in our own backyard , let’s do something about our own problems for a change .
      Is it moral bankruptcy to ignore the plight of Australian taxpaying citizens. ?
      Is it immoral to suspend aid to other countries to allow a flow into our own state disaster areas. ?

      If Australia is to be in any future position to extend aid to other countries , it’s first priority is to look to the well being of it’s own people.

    • rufus says:

      08:08am | 17/02/11

      Where is your evidence that repairing the damage from natural disaster won’t come first while we also continue to do other things, including foreign aid?

    • acotrel says:

      04:59am | 17/02/11

      Just the usual idiocy from Abbott!  Perhaps aid improves conditions in foreign countries, and people would be more likely to stay at home?  Then there would be no need to ‘turn back the boats’?  It’s all just too difficult for an ambitious Rhodes Scholar to understand?

    • persephone says:

      06:40am | 18/02/11

      Hamlyn

      the shortage of doctors has nothing to do with Youth Allowance.

      Places for medical students were limited under the Howard government, as the result of lobbying by doctors who wanted to lessen competition so that they could make more money (mind you, they wanted to achieve this without them having to move to areas where doctors were needed).

      That led - as was predicted at the time - to a doctor shortage.

      Doctor shortages take several years to be addressed due to the time it takes to train new doctors.

      So there are now bigger intakes of medical students in an attempt to catch up.

      There’s no trouble filling these courses, but they’re also not infinite in capacity.

      Short version: doctor shortages were a deliberate and foreseeable outcome; doctor shortages have nothing to do with the number of Australian students accessing University; as medical student placements are limited, increasing the number of rural students going to University would have no effect on the doctor shortage.

    • Hamlyn says:

      10:28am | 17/02/11

      I’m sorry but I think our own rural students should have priority over indonesian schools. We are bringing in foreign doctors to cover shortages while kids from our own country are getting very high scores but having to turn down uni placements because they cant get austudy. The family farm or home might be an asset but doesnt actually bring in enough money unless sold. How can anyone afford to pay city rent etc as well as keep other family members at home. They now are expected to pay for flood damage which isnt even anywhere near them.

    • Syl says:

      09:04am | 17/02/11

      What the hell has this got to with the article?  Did you read it?  Or did you see the name Abbott in the first paragraph and decide it was time for another rant?

      The amount of party hacks on this site amazes me, Labor and Liberal.  Forget discussing the issues and opinions actually posed in the articles, just copy and paste the same crap to any thread, day in, day out.

      I await the inevitable personal attacks and political assumptions with bated breath.

    • Sid says:

      07:33am | 17/02/11

      Spoken from someone I bet who supported the Giliard changes that started the illegal immigrant boat convey again. The only way they will not leave their country is if it is economically on par with us as we are looking at a stream of ECONOMIC refugees. A high up in the UNHCF if Indonesia has already stated that you will be hard put to find a real asylum seeker in the hoard breaching our boarders.

    • Joan says:

      07:27am | 17/02/11

      Indonesia has 230million people ....Australia can not educate them all to our way of thinking., we don’t even give our own people an education they deserve.  The first people to leave a troubled country are the educated and they usually are smart enough to get jobs in places outside their country. You don’t need to be a Rhodes Scholar to understand that poverty will never be eliminated and there will always be people on the move and taking risks to enter countries illegally to economically improve their lives.

    • marley says:

      06:52am | 17/02/11

      While I don’t agree with Abbott on the Indonesia schools issue, I do agree that we need to take a long hard look at our aid program and its actual effectiveness.  Having worked in countries which are awash with aid programs funded by foreign governments and NGOs, I know just how inappropriate and wasteful some of these programs can be.  Has all the aid money poured into these countries actually achieved anything?  In some cases certainly, but I suspect in many cases not.  And sometimes it has contributed to environmental devastation.  So, a hard, cold review is more than called for.

    • Bris Jack says:

      06:21am | 17/02/11

      Hey stalker,  “Yet Mr Abbott’s announcement has raised an important issue that should not simply be brushed under the carpet: the need for aid effectiveness”.

    • Erick says:

      04:52am | 17/02/11

      Yet another example of sexism against men. All poor people should be helped equally, but it seems increasing numbers of aid agencies are helping women only.

      This is yet another good reason to cut Australia’s foreign aid budget. It’s only funding misandry.

    • DS says:

      08:25pm | 17/02/11

      Erick, I guess you also don’t like it that Muslims are being helped. You are so obsessed it’s pathetic!

    • Johnny says:

      01:47pm | 17/02/11

      Erick the Nob - you continue to read but not understand. The article does not discusshelping women only. Pull your head out of your arse

    • Syl says:

      08:58am | 17/02/11

      Normally Im with you Eric, but in this case I don’t see it as a sexist proposal, but a more effective use of money.  IF it has been proven that providing aid to the women of these countries is the most effective way to help everyone (i.e. get men, women and children) out of poverty, then so be it. 
      If it was a proposal purely based in pushing women in front of men I would be opposed.
      Of course, I dont know if the proposal has been proven to be effective, I can only take Archie’s word for that.

    • marley says:

      07:27am | 17/02/11

      Erick - could you leave the issue of misandry aside for a minute, and look at the actual proposal.  Do you think we need to review the way our aid works?  If so, what areas do you think we need to look at?  And what areas do you think we should focus on to make its impact more effective?

      Archie Law has proposed one possible approach - he argues that, by helping women, you have the biggest impact on society at large.  Obviously, you disagree with this and feel it’s sexist.  But, handing out aid to everyone with an outstretched hand isn’t going to to work either.  So, how would you prioritize where money should go?  And I’m not having a go at you, I’m just asking what would be your suggestion for getting the biggest bang for the buck.  Because that, really, is what it’s all about.

    • Adam Diver says:

      07:27am | 17/02/11

      Erick, I will have to disagree on this one, old mate. Whilst it is sexist in the approach, if indeed it is ture (which is not proven), that supporting women has a better result in alleviating poverty I am all for it.

      Essentially your point is that everyone should be helped equally regardless of outcomes, which when applied to pay inequality is the opposite of what you argue.

    • persephone says:

      06:39am | 17/02/11

      Read the article properly, Erick.

      Men in these countires are not discriminated against. The women are.

      Study after study shows that helping women - particularly educating them - is the best way to get the whole community (men included) out of poverty.

      Educating women has shown to be the most effective form of birth control.

      Money earnt by women has been shown to be more effective in tackling poverty then money earnt by men - men tend to spend money eant to benefit themselves, women spend it on their families.

      The article is about the most economically efficient way ot spending aid money, not doing a bleat about advntaging women because of a particular ideology.

      It’s not about discrimination. It’s about effective use of money.

    • stevie p says:

      06:24am | 17/02/11

      Yours is a very poor argument. The writer makes the point about investing in women who in turn invest in their family. It is not about some competition between funding male and female. A good book for you to read on this is Half the Sky.

      http://www.halftheskymovement.org/

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

Dementor doing a good job for sweden #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Ukraine song pinches chord progression from The Verve's Bittersweet Symphony. Fo real #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

RT @GerardDaffy: @antsharwood all the talk over there is the grannies will win.they entered to get a church built,feelgood story

Anthony Sharwood

These peole insult my grandmothjer, who was born in minsk, belarus #sbseurovision

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

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