Kevin Rudd seems to be on the right track… at last.. after his appalling stint as PM!

I applaud the comprehensive review of our aid programs and big increase over the next few years.

I hope to goodness that we can better focus on issues of sustainability and the causal factors of refugeeism, and really start making a difference, both unilaterally with our close neighbours and as part of the UN global effort.

It would also be kind of nice if our highly unillustrious government greatly increased its efforts in bringing on a paradigm of sustainability in Australia, and in better assisting the most needy people in this country!

And I’ve got to say: it would be really great if all those people who support onshore asylum seekers gave it up and supported this big increase and refinement of our international aid effort INSTEAD, so that we can have a very good input into refugee and aid issues AND regain control of our borders!

Maybe Australia's foregin aid should be considerably reduced.

Australia now imports so much that the money leaving the country in the form of imports becomes our foregin aid.

It is ironic that there were countries once considered third world, that we now rely upon for just about everything, and if it wasn't for coal and iron ore, Australia would be bankrupt (or third world country).

Fascinating.

There is very little interest in Australian aid or our efforts to help refugees in their home countries amongst the OLO readership. But a there is a great deal of interest and generation of discussion about onshore asylum seekers.

I just don’t get it: those who vehemently defend the rights for asylum seekers to come to Australia and for them to not be placed in offshore detention, or any detention, and who appear to be strongly humanitarian, just seem to have no interest in Australia’s offshore aid programs and refugee-assistance efforts.

I’ve noted this now over a period of many years, since I really got into the issue of asylum seekers and international aid at the time of the Tampa in 2001.

Very odd.

Ludwig,

Some of us are very interested. Some of us who sponsor children overseas are mindful of the value of helping their home communities and are heartened that during the election there was a bipartisan commitment to reaching an overseas aid level of 0.5% of Gross National Income.
One has to tread a very fine line, however, between assisting overseas communities to thrive in their own interests and harnessing them to fit into the West's global agenda.

This article highlights the glaring stupidity of our aid program.

"Things" in every category will get worse..........no matter how much money is thrown at "poverty".......unless a parallel, mandatory program of continuing sex education and family planning ( 2 children ) policy is introduced.

Culturally appropriate programs which are very firm on the imperitives of rapid stabilisation...........are a must.

For the politically correct brigade....time to crawl out from under the table........having 2 children is not a disaster...having 3 plus is.

Due to past "Save the Children Fund" or "End Poverty", wishful thinking fiascos ........... we are now trying to save millions more.......because no adequate family planning was put in place and maintained.

Spend the billions on effective family planning and watch "everything" improve.

Bill Ryerson at www.populationmedia.org , will help Governments and NGOs on how to achieve real outcomes........not a few isolated "feel good" stories.

Best wishes,

Ralph

<< "Things" in every category will get worse..........no matter how much money is thrown at "poverty".......unless a parallel, mandatory program of continuing sex education and family planning ( 2 children ) policy is introduced. >>

Oh you are so right Ralph.

The essential element of aiding countries to live sustainably is to aid them to stabilise (or reduce) their populations.

While I’m very supportive of a review and expansion of our aid programs, under the supervision of Kevin Rudd, I think that in all likelihood we’ll end up with a critically wrong approach, which does nothing to help poor countries tackle their population growth problems.

Unfortunately, our Mr Rudd has shown himself to be a manic pro-growther, with his introduction of super-high immigration and his espousal of a Big Australia when he was PM. I can’t see that he would take a more sensible approach to population and continuous growth issues within our aid programs.

Organisations like Sustainable Population Australia will need to keep a very careful eye, if they can, on the refinement of our aid program, and strive to get family planning and other genuine sustainability initiatives included within it.