In many countries 'curing' poverty is largely a matter of obtaining a democratic government and establishing free trade and the rule of law. But this cannot be done simply by handing even more money to the current kleptocratic rulers. It requires either wholesale invasion and regime change -- and that usually doesn't work out too well -- or a slow and enlightened application of political and democratic pressure. Throwing money at successful thieves and swindlers will just encourage others to go into the same trade.

A sensible first step would be to deny access to the UN -- or any other international body -- to all non-democratic regimes.

I also am disappointed that the Gillard government has opted to slow down on its foreign aid commitment.
However I would also remind Marie Nutt that poverty would largely be alleviated in the Third World if various 'government officials' did not siphon off much of the aid intended for poverty alleviation.
The recent publication 'Dead Aid' by Dambisa Moyo is very enlightening on this subject.

Jon J has it right. Poverty is brought most often brought about by corruption. It is no co-incidence that the least corrupt countries are also some of the wealthiest.

We aren't wealthy because we are 'lucky' we are wealthy because we have a more rigorous system of laws, governance and justice and a democratic system.

Corruption Index: http://www.transparency.org/country

High Corruption goes with poverty, low life expectancy and high crime rate.

Simply injecting money into a corrupt system is not the answer.

Despite the difficult operating environment, Australia has a proud record of delivering highly effective aid and development assistance in the Asia Pacific. It is very disappointing that PM Gillard and Treasurer Wayne Swan chose not to honor their commitment to increase overseas aid to 0.5% of gross national income. In their political calculations they must have assumed that Australian's public and the political establishment do not care that much if the aid budget if reduced.
The truth is that most Australians and the rest of the world expect our government to reach the 0.7% target as has been done by affluent countries in Scandinavia and elsewhere. How can Australia hope to get a seat at the UN Security Council later this year when it is undermining its own credentials. Australia must make poverty reduction a top priority if we want to see sustainable peace and stability in the world. Otherwise we will continue to run around extinguishing bush fires which we could have prevented in the first place.

I must agree with the bulk of the posters that although the Gillard Government could have increased aid, the solution to poverty does not involve increased aid as such. In fact, due to the apparent failure of multi-billions of dollars poured into very poor countries over the years, the whole issue of spending on aid is now being kicked around quite a bit. One school of thought, put forward by some Africans is that aid should be cut entirely.

Not many people would agree with that approach, but it should give the author an idea of where the debate is heading.

I recently watched a documentary about poverty in the Phillipines.
A thirty seven year old woman was in hospital, delivering her
eighth child. Her husband had no job and they simply cannot feed
all those kids. She desperately wanted her tubes tied, but was
denied this procedure. Religion in the Phillipines interferes
with the poor receiving family planning.

It does not matter how much money we throw at foreign aid. Until
we start to address some of these root causes of poverty, it is
frankly nothing but peeing in the breeze.

What we need to do is make sure that they 4 billion already donated,
is spent a bit more wisely. Include family planning and spend
less on overpaid consultants.