The Australian aid sector’s fury at the aid budget cuts announced on Tuesday has been focused on the dollar figure that the Government has (or rather, hasn’t) allocated to foreign aid.

Funding international banks won't help this situation. Or any like it.

But there’s another reason to be angry.

Alongside its much-smaller-that-promised aid budget, the Gillard government delivered another announcement. “Australia is deepening its engagement with effective multilateral organisations including the Development Banks,” Foreign Minister Carr blogged proudly on Wednesday.

And spending plans reflect this. The World Bank and the Asian Development Bank were served a generous 20% portion of Tuesday’s limited aid budget. This is an increase on last year, and makes Australia the second-largest donor to the ADB. Effective?

History shows that the Development Banks are almost entirely ineffective in actually improving the lives of poor and excluded people. They assist in the economic growth of nations and walk away, half-heartedly crossing their fingers that the wealth at the top will trickle down to poor communities.

What’s more, the World Bank and the ADB are in the habit of funding large-scale profit-driven projects that sweep the rights and livelihoods of communities under the rug.

Do the World Bank and the ADB genuinely help the world’s poor? Just ask the 20,000 people whose livelihoods are being threatened by a World Bank-funded palm oil growing and processing project on Bugala Island on East Africa’s Lake Victoria.

The project is being implemented by a private sector consortium, Oil Palm Uganda Limited, and the Ugandan government – both of whom stand to benefit economically from its implementation.

Some of Bugala Island’s local communities cannot access clean water: it has been contaminated with chemicals from the plant.

Their food supplies are becoming inaccessible, as fines are doled out and animals confiscated when they are found grazing on the plant’s land. 

The project may be stimulating economic development, but is paying for it in human rights. Not particularly effective aid.

And yet the government is proclaiming with great pride that Australia’s 2012-2013 aid program will be more “effective” than ever. It needs to be.

The cuts to the aid budget mean that the Gillard government is going to have to get a lot more bang for its smaller buck if it intends to maintain its commitment to the Millennium Development Goals.

The MDGs were set by the international community for 2015. The deadline hasn’t changed. Bob Carr is going to have to pull rabbits out of hats to uphold Australia’s part of the bargain when the allocated budget to do so will be available a year after the deadline itself.

But the Foreign Minister is in luck. Real aid that changes lives is not just about a dollar figure.

Australia can still contribute significantly to the MDGs if we spend our money on ensuring that poor and excluded people can access their human rights.

When people living in poverty are empowered to stand up and claim their rights: to food security, to health care, to life without violence (the list goes on), world poverty will be eradicated.

Not only has the government reneged on its promise to help the poor, it is giving more money to banks who help those who violate the rights of poor people. Wayne Swan and Bob Carr would do well to remember this when preparing for next year’s Federal Budget.

Most commented

62 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Rusty says:

      02:21pm | 10/05/12

      Archie you should have realised that Labor is the party of lies, backstabbers and cowards? Australia will be a poor country if Labor keep pushing us further and further in debt.

    • Super D says:

      04:35pm | 10/05/12

      It’s even more outrageous when they lie to the bleeding heart left.

    • Little Joe says:

      11:16pm | 10/05/12

      How much money does Archie, and people like him, make every year on the back of world poverty, Then add up how many international trips they make, how many luxury hotels they sleep in and how many $100+ meals they consume in 5-star restaurants ...... oh my heart bleeds for you Archie.

      I will always remember a African Economist delivering a paper on how much richer Africa was before all of the Aid and Charity. An recent example of the ruthless waste of money was seen with the Haiti Earthquake. Yes it has fallen off the front page of the media but with quick searches Joe Public can easily see how little was done with so much donated money.

    • Craig says:

      02:25pm | 10/05/12

      Effective? Gillard Labor Government?

      The two never appear in the same sentence.

      Gillard is good at negotiating deals & getting legislation through, however her follow-through has been pathetic.

      The cut in aid will not only reduce Australia’s international standing, but also our future economic prospects.

      Today’s successful aid recipients are tomorrow’s customers and business partners.

      Except of course when the money is spent ineffectively!

      Though I suppose at least the government will be wasting less money (through I effectively targeted aid) - but the real issue is not the size, but how it is used (something Gillard appears unfamiliar with).

    • Chris Topher says:

      03:18pm | 10/05/12

      It’s easy to be a good negotiator when you have no thoughts for what will happen after. Such as:

      Greens - Completely unnecessary to sign a formal agreement with them, they were never going to back Abbott, then the Greens forced them to back track on their no Carbon Tax promise. End result: BAD

      Wilkie - She completely welched on the deal at the first sign of being able to do so. Has probably lost Wilkie’s vote. End result: BAD

      Slipper - Rumours of his reputation were rife beforehand, so of course she puts him in the most prestigious position possible only to have it predictably blow up in her face. End result: BAD

      Real master negotiator there!

    • Max Power says:

      04:19pm | 10/05/12

      But I’ll give Gillard one thing, she is truly the best mass debater.

    • Rocksteady says:

      02:34pm | 10/05/12

      But does increasing Aid actually work in the long term? It seems to me that while the intention is compassionate the outcome is that it props up corrupt governments.
      Huge amounts of foreign aid money flows into Africa each year and the results are minimal. It’s not as simple as doubling or tripling the money as aid agencies seem to claim.
      Last years food crisis in east Africa showed that it doesn’t matter how much money and food you have right there ready to give. Corrupt warlords and gangs just steal it to prop up their enterprises. The physical threat was so grave for humanitarian workers that they ended up just avoiding the most needy areas for fear of being injured or killed.
      Recently saw North Korea complaining about the US reducing its food aid to them over missile tests that right there shows you how messed up foreign aid has become.

    • daf says:

      02:37pm | 10/05/12

      ’ ... government reneged ...’ so what else is new?

    • esteban says:

      02:41pm | 10/05/12

      This is going to cause a great deal of suffering. Some of the NGO workers will have to come home and get a job.

      A verey sharp slap in the face of Kevin Rudd who made the promise but he is getting used to disappointment now.

      This is one the Govt got right.

    • Bev says:

      05:56pm | 10/05/12

      esteban says:02:41pm | 10/05/12

      A verey sharp slap in the face of Kevin Rudd who made the promise but he is getting used to disappointment now.

      I would imagine it is a decision Wayne Swan found extremely easy to make.

    • Nathan says:

      04:39am | 11/05/12

      @esteban
      You do know that the work being done is by professionals many with years of specialised experience and are building infrastructure, education, hospitals etc. I know from personal experience that the people are not handing food to children but they work their asses of when they are away from home. Being away from home is difficult for them and their family it is done easily….i am not saying anyone need feel sorry for them but don’t write them off so easily

      It also gives you a voice when you want to negotiate with the recipient countries. Why does Indonesia get so much aid? Because in return they crack down on terrorist groups. Why other Asian nation? We want to trade with them.

    • fml says:

      11:47am | 11/05/12

      @nathan,

      “It also gives you a voice when you want to negotiate with the recipient countries. Why does Indonesia get so much aid? Because in return they crack down on terrorist groups. Why other Asian nation? We want to trade with them. “

      Exactly, the insular thought process of many australian’s is mind boggling. They somehow think that this wealth materialised out of no where. I would like to hear their thoughts on whom we shall trade with once we have pissed off all our neighbors.

    • AdamC says:

      02:48pm | 10/05/12

      As I understand it, there is no evidence that any form of development aid, whether provided by multilateral developments banks or other organisations, actually helps to eradicate poverty or increase living standards. Therefore, singling out the World Bank and the Asia Development Bank as ineffective aid organisations is quite unfair. It seems they are all as useless as each other.

      And I am also unconvinced by your example of an allegedly damaging development project. Ultimately, development is going to mean some change to the subsistence model of society that prevails in the poorest parts of the world. That is not a bad thing. The idea that agencies should de-fund projects because they may intrude on the traditional, poverty-stricken lifestyles of marginal peasant cultivators seems to miss the point of development altogether.

    • Rocksteady says:

      03:14pm | 10/05/12

      There are plenty of African economists who actually argue that aid is hurting more than helping.
      Zambian economist Dambisa Moyo:
      ” Africa is the only continent on which there continues to be famines again and again. Between 400 and 500 million people don’t have enough to eat even though the continent has more fertile arable land than any other. Something’s wrong about that.”
      http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,786465,00.html

      “Aid actually tends to pool at the top so it’s not like the average African is going to suffer. They don’t see the aid anyway. Essentially it‘s going to really affect the bureaucratic processes at the top and would really impact on corruption.”
      http://blogs.reuters.com/africanews/2009/02/05/time-to-stop-aid-for-africa/

    • Kika says:

      03:24pm | 10/05/12

      I’m with you Rocksteady.

      It’s time for Africa to stand on it’s own two feet. As we can see from our own backyard, pouring money into something doesn’t necessarily mean that all the problems will be fixed. It starts with individuals, families, communities, villages, tribes, then nations.

    • AdamC says:

      04:24pm | 10/05/12

      I read Moyo’s book. It certainly made a strong case that development aid is useless. Her argument that it is actively bad, however, was less strong.

      Aid is a case-study in the power of group-think.

    • Pete says:

      06:16pm | 10/05/12

      The only effective aid is directed at improvement in governance, and reduction of corruption. We’ve known for 40 years that food scarcity is not a problem: distribution is. Given the current aid model just encourages people to live with their dysfunctional governments, without taking any responsibility for their lives, it’s no great thing to reduce it. Poverty in Africa is not the fault of the west anymore, and we should only donate to causes that make people start taking accountability for themselves and their systems of government. It can be done - there are numerous charities that work on improving governance and reducing corruption. But in regard to corruption: remember, you’re trying to change a culture that runs from top to bottom so it’s going to take a long time.

    • Brian Taylor says:

      03:30pm | 10/05/12

      As far as I’m concrned,  foreign aid should be scraped completely.
      Who really knows where the money ends up anyway?
      Bet 95% doesn’t get to the “poor people”
      Besides, that foreign aid. should be used in Australia anyway, there’s so many foreigners taking a leaking boat to claim it.
      Strange how many “leaking boats” do actually get here eh.
      Can’t be that leaking in the first place.
      Also, that foreign aid.money would be far better off spent on penioners not people from another damn country who haven’t paid taxes to earn it and who have NO damn right to reieve it before Australians.
      I expect all the do gooders to have a crack at me, but then again….WHO GIVES A DAMN

    • Zaf says:

      05:10pm | 10/05/12

      Why are you imposing your views on Australians who dislike poor old white people?  Why should everybody have to pay to take care of them instead of (way cuter) black babies in Somalia?  Why are they more deserving even if they never bothered to save for their retirement?  Discuss.

    • Pete says:

      06:26pm | 10/05/12

      Plenty of old people are self-sufficient because of choices they made during their working life, and good on them - why should they (and others) subsidise those who had the same opportunity, but decided to consume instead of save? And so what if they ‘paid their taxes’? Everyone who works does.

      Young people on the other hand often struggle to even get a foothold in life: investing in their futures is far more beneficial to themselves, and society. The idea of an impoverished old-age if you don’t plan ahead is a good incentive to start saving now, because God knows there won’t be enough money from the guvmint to support to coming tsunami of the elderly.

    • Andrew says:

      11:17pm | 10/05/12

      Hey Zaf. Charity starts at home. End discussion.

    • Nathan says:

      04:45am | 11/05/12

      @Brian Taylor
      I wouldn’t bother with the humanitarian aspect as you are obviously a massive douch. But a few facts, go to AusAids website you will see where the money goes its transparent. Secondly a few thousand boat people does not compare with the illegals who fly here.

      Thinking that funds can be used to lift people out of poverty is not a do gooders thing it is a sign of a person who gives a dam and are not selfish

      This you should be able to understand why giving government aid. We want to trade with Asia correct? Aid helps to negotiate trade agreements What about a terrorist threat from Indonesia? Aid ensures their government keeps policing these organisations

      They are 2 of many examples of how it may impact you directly, you are clearly ill informed on the aid issue.

      fyi Australians do get aid in the form of welfare, but you have probably complained about them as well.

    • Good Grief says:

      03:34pm | 10/05/12

      Hey Archie, I think the government suffered from a lapse of memory as a result of suffocating under mountains of money they got from their self imposed raises and unclaimed expenses.

    • Kieran says:

      03:45pm | 10/05/12

      Rather than giving money to every other country why dont we focus on our own. There are still thousands of indegenous people that live in squaller and thousands that sleep ruff every night.

    • SDA says:

      05:37pm | 10/05/12

      And hundreds more who don’t know how to spell indigenous, squalor or rough.

    • Dave Charlesworth says:

      01:23pm | 11/05/12

      The grammar Nazi’s are out today!

      I take it you didn’t agree with the comment SDA?

    • TM says:

      03:46pm | 10/05/12

      No votes in it.

    • Cat says:

      03:47pm | 10/05/12

      Foreign aid is the best form of defence for any developed country. We should be tripling or quadrupling the amount of money we spend.
      That said we should also be drastically changing the way we deliver that aid and the way we allow it to be spent. This takes time, skill and often complex negotiations. It needs to be culturally sensitive and the intended outcomes need to be realistic.
      The problem with a great deal of government aid is that it tends to focus on the big-ticket projects where there is a great deal of room for corruption. It needs to focus more on very small projects that can make a difference to an individual, a family, a village and so on. It is very difficult - but not impossible - to do this.
      I know. I spent a decade of my life working on something that eventually became a UN declared International LIteracy Year. In that time I wrote more than 8000 letters to people around the world. Almost all of them responded positively and many of them became involved. During that year there were big plans and small plans. I was involved in many of the small plans. Interestingly many of those small plans have continued to this day. There are small libraries, small reading schemes, small mentoring schemes, single teacher schools funded by villagers etc etc.  The big plans had far more money and big ideals. They did not get things done. They did not involve local people who had a direct interest in the outcomes and saw tangible benefits from a project.
      The government’s cut to aid is indefensible - and so is the way they deliver it,.

    • Lola says:

      06:33pm | 10/05/12

      “The government’s cut to aid is indefensible”
      Why? On the other side of the coin, decades of aid haven’t shown much of a result, probably because giving people money they haven’t earned is money that’s not valued. I noticed that despite all the ‘we shoulds’ you haven’t once mentioned any reciprocity required for aid. It’s all ‘give’.

      The only aid given should be aimed at reducing corruption and improving governance so people can stand on their own two feet. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a ‘big programme’ or a small one, although rooting out corruption is probably harder to do with a small intervention.

    • David T says:

      06:56pm | 10/05/12

      Lola - did you read what Cat said? “And the way they deliver it…” - I agree with Cat. It is the layer upon layer of corruptopm which is the hard thing to be rid of. Much easier to deal with one or two layers of corruption at the bottom than the multiple layers at the top.
      For what it is worth teaching people to read and write is a highly effective form of aid - and Int’l Literacy Year was one heck of an achievement. (Hi Cat - if you are still reading this! Years since we spoke but I am still damn proud to have known you.)

    • Inky says:

      03:54pm | 10/05/12

      I’d like to see more international aid organisations that help set up imrpoved living conditions direction and assist in establishing self supporting communities.

      Well, to say I’d like to see “more” is a lie, i’d like to see the 50 million different aid agencies we already have refocus their efforts towards this. And probably collapse them in a smaller number of groups so there are less admin fees being charged.

      Then again, I’d also like to see pigs fly, just so I can point and go “Hey, there’s pigs flying, time to start collecting on all those promises!”

    • Chris says:

      04:37pm | 10/05/12

      I like Cat’s idea (above this). If you can monitor it then this works - the big aid organisations cost a packet to run.  Aid should come in small packages. It should be individually targetted. It should offer something which is really needed - the help to dig a well, the help to build a school, the goats after the enclosure is built and so on.

    • Skinny Wilson says:

      04:05pm | 10/05/12

      I am so poor I am boling my socks and will drink the water to hopefuly get some nutrient.

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      04:10pm | 10/05/12

      Wow, just wow.

      I thought I was fairly widely read but I hadn’t heard that story from Uganda.

      In general, I believe aid requires a quid pro quo. It is no good throwing money at poor countries where the culture is one of breeding rapidly and often so that, firstly, some offspring will survive and secondly, they can look after the old folk. We need to educate them that if we improve their position, they do not need tyo breed and should not. Perhaps a money for sterilisation program, where each person receives a year’s average income for getting the snip.

      Otherwise we’re making a rod for our own backs and creating the next generation of refugees.

    • fml says:

      04:41pm | 10/05/12

      So your answer is sterilisation for black people?

      That is diabolical.

    • PsychoHyena says:

      06:56pm | 10/05/12

      @fml oh come on, you know that’s not what he meant… If white civilisations were hyper-breeding in order to “survive” then I’m sure Tony’s comment wouldn’t have been any different, yours would have though, you would have changed black to white and patted yourself on the back.

      Essentially these countries will either a) Breed themselves to death or b) learn.

    • fml says:

      08:22am | 11/05/12

      “Perhaps a money for sterilisation program, where each person receives a year’s average income for getting the snip. “

      Seems pretty straight forward to me.

      “If white civilisations were hyper-breeding in order to “survive” ” The problem is Psycho, is that he didn’t.

      Oh come on yourself, Tony’s been sprouting the same crap for a while, and i think what he says is diabolical.

    • Rosie says:

      04:17pm | 10/05/12

      Labor is saying that they haven’t cut aid only delaying it for 1 year because they need to prove to the opposition that like them they can also produce a surplus. For their dream surplus they needed to cut back elsewhere - Foreign aid and Defense were the areas that voters they were targeting would know nothing or very little about. It would not have bothered them. Defense and foreign aid have lost out to this Govt’s desperation to remain in power. This Govt have brought shame to the people of Australia and delaying aid to the needy for 1 year is equivalent to 10 years in a wealthy nation like ours. Tim Costello was right in 1 year Australia could prevent 200,000 deaths if we didn’t delay in giving them aid money.

    • fml says:

      04:43pm | 10/05/12

      Dont you know?

      Julia read the punch and realised that the majority of australian’s dont like helping people who are not australians, and in some cases in even australians. So based on that they removed that from the budget.

    • Bev says:

      06:06pm | 10/05/12

      I think it had more to do with a side swipe at Kevin.

    • firefly says:

      07:39pm | 10/05/12

      And helping Australians first with OUR money is a bad thing how fml?
      Dont worry luvvie, there still are plenty of freeloading boat people in Australia to take advantage of our generosity at the expence of our own, so i am sure you can sleep well tonight. Regular punchers know you are our resident muslim, multicultural appologist so they wont be surprised by your comment above.  smile

    • firefly says:

      07:39pm | 10/05/12

      And helping Australians first with OUR money is a bad thing how fml?
      Dont worry luvvie, there still are plenty of freeloading boat people in Australia to take advantage of our generosity at the expence of our own, so i am sure you can sleep well tonight. Regular punchers know you are our resident muslim, multicultural appologist so they wont be surprised by your comment above.  smile

    • fml says:

      08:29am | 11/05/12

      firefly,

      No it isn’t firefly but most people who spout the charity begins at home line do literally f**k all about it, they say people helping foreigners should stop immediately, how then is anything going to be done?

      What kind of narcissistic bell end wants to prevent someone from helping? The reasons for helping other nations goes beyond merely helping its about creating diplomatic ties and bonds so in the future when we are dire need we will be helped.

      I guess you think these good times are always going to exist, aye?

    • fml says:

      10:34am | 11/05/12

      firefly,

      “Dont worry luvvie” Your condescending attitude is typical of the faux bourgeoisie nouvea riche infecting our shores today! 

      “there still are plenty of freeloading boat people in Australia to take advantage of our generosity at the expence of our own”, What generosity? How is removing funding from those that need it generous? My point has always been, people like you who say to withdraw our foreign aid and claim to want to help our own first do absolutely nothing at all but whinge, then expect others to think of them as generous!

      “Regular punchers know you are our resident muslim, multicultural appologist so they wont be surprised by your comment above.”

      Don’t give a shit, Just because i don’t call all muslims terrorists to fit inline with your prejudices? Call me what you like, it worries me not. I can call you a fascist sympathiser, it’s not going to get us anywhere.

    • Steve says:

      06:07pm | 10/05/12

      Poor people don’t pay union dues, stuff em.
      Blame the rich, it’s very trendy at the moment.

    • Jess says:

      06:11pm | 10/05/12

      We should allow our aid to go to health and contraception programs, Education programs and Capacity and infrastructure building programs. As well as our emergency aid and food aid.
      One of the dumbest US policies that Australia was forced to go along with is the one where they don’t fund any organization that promotes contraception education and use. .

    • Bob of Perth says:

      06:16pm | 10/05/12

      i think aid to Africa should cease immediately unless linked to a birth control agreement.

    • fml says:

      11:44am | 11/05/12

      I think the same should happen to the people of perth..

    • Doc Brown says:

      06:28pm | 10/05/12

      No. Juliar’s an artificial intelligence experiment from the 1950s that they put it into political office as a Turing Test to see if the public would notice. We just need a brave journo to ask her one of those logical riddles that gets her into an endless loop and causes a shutdown.. Or a homicidal rampage.

      Maybe the process already started as soon as they asked her why she lied about the Carbon Tax?

    • Chris says:

      08:43pm | 10/05/12

      All foreign aid should be scrapped. Those nations with teeming millions of starving people should learn to stand on their own. If they can’t, then (harsh as it sounds) they starve. The world could do with some population controls; we’ve controlled some of the nastier diseases, so it’s up to the old trio of famine, war and disaster to keep populations to manageable levels.
      We cannot hope to solve any problems beyond our own frontier. I can’t be expected to care about people a world away when their own people don’t care about them. There are too many problems here at home. If disaster strikes me, I’ll understand if African nations do not come to my aid. They’ll have their own problems to deal with. That’s how it goes. Some people just die, for reasons which are fair or not, predictable or not, preventable or not.
      We tolerate starvation on our own streets, but we wail at starvation overseas. We tolerate the slaughter of innocent children in the womb under the sanction of “medicine”, yet we howl about the deaths of babies overseas.
      I might be called harsh and callous, but I can smell the hypocrisy in the air.

    • Ags says:

      09:45pm | 10/05/12

      I totally agree with Chris. How many years has foreign aid been handed out, and what has changed? Virtually nothing. We are never going to change the mind-set of people who have been living the same way since forever. I know they are human beings, and I despair their situations, but, a lot of the time, their own countrymen are the ones that are keeping them in those situations. While we have our own problems with homegrown desperates, we can’t afford to toss money away just for political benefit and to give politicians a warm and squishy feeling and kudos on the world stage.

    • Ozymandias says:

      08:46am | 11/05/12

      Despite my past support for Humanitarian Aid, for Amnesty International, and for other such organisations… I am now forced to agree with Chris. I do not like it, but harsh reality takes no account of that.

    • thatmosis says:

      09:43pm | 10/05/12

      About bloody time our money was used for our people. Im from the old school where it was always charity begins at home. Look after your own and then look after others.
        To tell you the truth I dont care what is happening to people in other countries as long as the people in my country are being looked after, selfish , I dont think so. Theres nothing to stop those bleeding hearts who believe that we should prop up this country or that country from making a contribution but Australian taxes should be used for Australians, full stop!

    • Cars says:

      11:07pm | 10/05/12

      Why? Seems like a narrow minded view to only care about people born on a certain rock. We’re already the lucky country.

    • Camilla Hikarda says:

      07:17am | 11/05/12

      A great article thats says it how it is.. This government seems to be digging themselves a bigger hole each day and meanwhile Australia pulls back from helping the very people we should be..when the chips are down economically we all have to help each other. The world is a small place, charity starts at home and our ‘neighbours’ have to be seen as across oceans and not just locally.. Come on Gillard!

    • Bananabender56 says:

      08:13am | 11/05/12

      Having lived and worked in Africa I will never EVER give money to charities that work there.

    • fml says:

      08:41am | 11/05/12

      Do australians have any qualms when foreign nations help out australia during natural disasters - no. Do Australians have problems helping out other nations in times of need? - No, ummm, errrm, I mean, it depends….

      Only if they stop reproducing…

      It’s a disgusting mentality we have developed, no more lending a hand, no more striving to be a decent world citizen, It’s only about us, even then we still complain. We have lost our identity, we have lost our soul. AH well, at least i still have my house and my two cars and my jetski.

      What’s wrong with striving to create wealth for yourself and your family? nothing. Whats wrong with not contributing to any cause? Nothing. What is wrong is when you suggest steralisation of other nations so you can keep your life style.

    • Scotchfinger says:

      10:06am | 11/05/12

      we don’t mind helping out New Zealand!

    • fml says:

      11:42am | 11/05/12

      True!

      But they have given us, Russel Crowe. But we shouldn’t hold that against them. I personally think cliff curtis is a much better actor.

    • Scotchfinger says:

      11:55am | 11/05/12

      Yes we should impose trade sanctions for the ol’ Rusty…

    • Ross says:

      10:44am | 11/05/12

      I am a greedy money grabbing disability pensioner and as such would have liked a dollar or two to go toward my bills,we got next to nothing. However to cut our overseas aid is just mean and nasty.It deserves a rebuke of the strongest order.

    • Dismayed says:

      11:24am | 11/05/12

      Here we go again, all the same old tired, disproved myths being trotted out. No, aid does not make people more dependent - it makes them LESS dependent. There are reams of stats to prove it. Good aid empowers people to earn their own living, fight their corrupt governments and stand up for their rights.

      Good aid enables women to earn their own money, own their own property, and educate their children (daughters included) so they can work themselves out of poverty and contribute to their countries’ economies. Overpopulation is not the only cause of poverty globally - what about climate change (oh sorry I forgot we don’t believe in that either, do we?)

      You want to talk about corruption? Tax-dodging by global corporations takes way more money away from poor countries every year than they receive in aid from overseas.

      Aid doesn’t work? Since 1990, aid has contributed to halving the number of people living in poverty and reduced the number of children who die needlessly by 10,000 a day. A DAY. I’d call that pretty effective, wouldn’t you?

      Arguing that because aid is found in countries that are poor, it must be the cause of low growth is like arguing that fire engines cause fires because they can be found at the scenes of burning houses. And yes, there are times when aid is not done right, just as sometimes hospitals are not run well. Do we work to improve them, or just abolish hospitals altogether?

      As for that old chestnut ‘charity begins at home’ - I’m glad you think the mining companies, which will receive $9.4billion in fuel subsidies over the next four years, are such a charitable cause that we had to sacrifice $2.9billion earmarked to save lives all around the world. Only $1 in every $30 welfare dollars goes overseas, the rest goes to welfare projects at home. There’s plenty to go around people - we’re the 14th richest country in the world.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

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

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

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

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

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

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

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

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter