This story has good intentions but we need to fix every problem here in this country long before we give our money away to people far from our shores who don't often appreciate the interference, resent being told what to do and have little respect for the effort. there are many good causes here in Australia that can't do as much as they would like to do because of the classic tale "a lack of funding" if we ever reach a situation where there is an "abundance" of funding, money flowing over the brim of the coffers of the struggling AID agencies in this country then by all means take the residual, just don't hold your breath waiting.

yesterday was international women's day, today is someone's cultural day. Unless you address some parts of culture and people pretending that all cultures are equal then you will never address violence against woman. All people are equal, all cultures do not deserve equal value attributed to them. Babies in womb are slaughtered in our 'culture'. We can hardly point the finger at others.

I agree fully with the first post here. We should be helping our own people as much as possible before we give even one cent to any foreign country. Foreign countries should be helping their own people and those countries and governments should be held to account if they don't.
The only other thing I would like to add is that I suspect much of the violence here in Australia that the writer talks about is imported violence, imported by allowing foreigners into our own country. It stands to reason that if we allow people from countries with high rates of violence to migrate here, then they will bring some of their 'culture' and violence with them.
Being a likely migrant herself or from migrant parents I suspect the write is simply expressing racist views, telling us the same old story, that we are bad because we have not solved other countries problems. Tell me Teresa why those countries are not helping Australians here solve our problems.

I agree, but we do need to focus more on domestic issues? Like the extremely high rate of domestic violence in indigenous communities, here and in our near Pacific neighbours.
We should become far more proactive in this area; because, we are the wealthiest most advanced nation in our region!
If we don't, then there are others with far less ultruistic motives, who will do it for us, to our eternal disadvantage!
Besides, it creates goodwill and an economic upside over time, for us here at home! Rather than, like missonaries of old, because of a misguided belief that we are somehow our brother's/sister's keeper.
That said, American women seem to be complaining that they are going backwards, with regard to equality issues.
Strange, given they make up at least 55% of the voting population, control or own over 60% of that nations wealth, and around 80% of the property?
This factor is largely because they as a demographic, outlive men by 6-7 years, and inherit wealth and property!
They should understand, that as a group they are masters of their own destiny; unlike PNG women, who can be murdered by superstitious men, who seem to blame witchcraft or magic, for most of their negative outcomes, or the death of a loved or respected relative.
We simply cannot, in all good conscience, turn our backs on that sort of stuff!
But need to ensure, with our aid dollars, that their respective education systems are robust enough, to bring these folk, kicking and scream if necessary, into the 21st century.
Rhrosty.

Ms Gambaro,

>Australia's foreign aid budget for 2012/13 is $5.2 billion. Of that, $1.1 billion is scheduled to be spent in PNG and the Pacific.<

Given that, in the whole of this hyper-drive world, Australia is only 'big brother' to our most immediate small island neighbours, AND THAT the horrifying statistics in your article refer to those specific neighbours, I find it extraordinary that only such a small portion of our foreign aid budget is dedicated to helping these, who, together with New Zealand, are arguably of greatest cultural, geographical and physical significance to us, and to our indigenous peoples - with whom they would have compelling anthropological as well as cultural ties (even if they - our indigenous people - don't immediately recognise this relationship or proclaim any great interest in it).

So, where does the bulk, $4.1 Billion, of our foreign aid go? To help much larger and far more distant nations? Why, and to what aim? Sucking up to our more lucrative trade-related 'interests' I suppose? (= reverse 'colonialism'?) Where indeed is our 'soul', our altruistic, compassionate and Geo-political 'heart'? (And, I certainly hope we are not giving aid to that xenophobic, human rights abusing military dictatorship to our north, Indonesia, unless such aid is miniscule and has some very hefty strings attached.)

If we had any guts, any real interest in the value and virtues of 'multiculturalism' - in its relevance, potentially and ideologically to overcoming the destructive ethnic and cultural divisiveness abounding within our very disturbed global 'community' - we would be looking to strengthen bonds with our geographical 'kin', our 'Australasian' community. Our 'example' could well be a catalyst, a 'pilot study', for a visionary global focus on 'community' and on cooperation - in place of the capitalistic myopic materialism and competitiveness currently consuming so much potential and so much human dignity around the globe. (TBC>)

(Cont'd>)
We need a global compact - let the big nations, the true world leaders, tend to fostering cooperation and a focus on human dignity with other 'large' or troublesome global constituencies, and let us, and other relatively small nations look to our immediate 'garden' our home 'patch' and its needs. We are small fry, and need to live within our capacities and our very real limitations.

>The Gillard Government's hijacking of $375 million from the foreign aid budget..<
Gutless, electioneering mania; this Gillard government has no soul, no real 'vision'; its 'heart' is lost in an outdated and counterproductive ideology.

Violence and abuse has its roots in cultural disarray and in an all-consuming competitiveness deriving from a lack of opportunity, a lack of dignity, and a lack of hope. We, as a global community, have to restore hope and dignity, with a universal ethic of 'no-one left behind'. Without that, we are only bailing a fast-sinking boat.

Must look more closely at how many of these rat bags there are in the Libs.

Katter looks better after this rubbish from one of the sisterhood.

<<society prospers and flourishes best when women are properly valued for their insights, skills and vital contributions in building our communities and enriching our lives.>>

With communists in the Liberal party, who needs Labor?

<<Domestic violence against women is wrong.>>

And so is domestic violence against men and so is ANY violence.

<<This commitment was meant to be funded by new money>>

Translation - you will print more money, taxing people's savings through inflation.

<<It is only through such a commitment that alternate themes and priorities for International Women's Day in future years will be able to focus on something less shameful than domestic violence.>>

Nice to warn us in advance that whether this project is successful or not, even if domestic violence is totally uprooted and eradicated, some other agenda will be found so tax-payer funds will continue to be wasted indefinitely on the "Pacific Women Shaping Pacific Development" group. After all, all those public employees got use to pocket our money, so nothing can stop them.

Tony Abbott: is it with your knowledge and approval that such people are members of your party and shadow cabinet?

Yuyutsu,

So, you read the stats on domestic violence against women in PNG and those other Pacific Island nations (embedded in their cultural 'acceptance' - though apparently not so heinous as perhaps in India and some Islamic quarters), and the rates of maternal and child mortality in childbirth - AND you're happy with that situation??

You can't be ever so slightly misogynistic, can you Yuyutsu? (Since the author also just happens to be female?) Or, excessively patriarchal and male-chauvinistic, perhaps?

How come you have a go at this one small (and in my view very worthy) aid program, while the big picture shows that the great bulk of our foreign aid is going much further afield, and therefore in my view well beyond our sphere of influence and our capacity to really 'make a difference'. That doesn't bother you, but a small meaningful program does? Unusual prioritising, I would have thought.

Fair enough, we have needs at home, particularly in our poorer and remote indigenous communities, and needs for new job creation, but surely some worthwhile targeted foreign aid, particularly in our own neck of the woods, is the reasonable thing to do? (It's just like charity, after all. Those who can, do. Either that or turn a blind eye. So, which is the more ethical, or dare I say, Christian, thing to do?)

Communist Liberals? Now there's a clash of ideologies. (And an interesting oxymoron.) Diametrically opposed ideologies in fact. So, what causes you to make such an outlandish assertion?

Come now Yuyutsu, such negativity can only damage your Karma. (Women should be properly valued, after all. Put yourself in their shoes momentarily - carrying and nurturing a child for 9 months, suffering immense pain to deliver said child, and then spending the rest of your life caring for, protecting - even from men - guiding and preparing it for life's many challenges. Pretty impressive, hey, Yuyutsu? Plus caring for a male - and sometimes a bloody-minded one - feeding, toiling in fields, washing everyone's dirty drawers, and cleaning house. Where's your heart, Yuyutsu?)

Dear Saltpetre,

Wonder why the article doesn't describe in a word what that money does?
So many words about the prevalence of domestic violence and not one about how that government-money is connected. The reason: it is not!
It's money gone to feed bureaucrats, both in Australia and overseas - and those bureaucrats already tell you that if there wasn't a domestic-violence-problem, then they would find some other issue to focus on.

This money doesn't improve karma, isn't ethical and doesn't promote compassion. It could be different if it was voluntarily given (and I would gladly contribute to a worthwhile cause, though not to bureaucrats), but it isn't: it is taken from us without our consent and prevents us from improving our karma and developing compassion by donating that same money ourselves. In the long run, such programs atrophy our compassionate and charitable muscles.

Yes, women suffer in birth and thereafter caring for children, preparing them for life's increasing challenges because more children need to compete with other women's children for the same resources. The main cause of violence is overpopulation, so not being bound by having to keep a politically-correct image (as governments do), I would donate generously to pay women for getting sterilised and committed to having no babies. Not having children will also make it easy for them to leave violent relationships.

I didn't mention "Communist Liberals", but just one communist somehow finding her way into the ranks of the Liberal party. I wouldn't bother commenting if the same was said by a Labor MP/minister as that would be a normal occurrence. What brings me to assert that? her own words: "SOCIETY prospers and flourishes...in building OUR COMMUNITIES and enriching our lives".

Yes so true Yuyutsu, if ever you see a pot of taxpayer money, get the hell out of there, quick time.

If you don't you'll be crushed in the stampede of bureaucrats, & academics, [you forgot them], rushing in to get their grubby hands on it. After all, we can't have anyone do anything useful with tax payer money now could we? Hell that could set precedents that would destroy the main objective of public service.

Well, Yuyutsu, Aus seems to spread its aid $'s far and wide - I got to item# 200 just back to 28 September 2012, including early learning and primary school education in Myanmar and a railway reconstruction in Cambodia, among so many others, including many projects in our own region (Samoa, Solomons, Vanuatu, etc) and projects in Africa, Indonesia, Nepal, etc, per the AusAID website:

http://www.ausaid.gov.au/Pages/home.aspx

Mind you, in the Myanmar early school project aimed at the poor and disadvantaged, and which is part of a larger program training teachers and supporting school principals and administrators, Aus is participating in a consortium with the UK, but we're putting in $15 million to the consortium (as part of an overall Aus four year $80 million education project) to UK's $5.8 million - just slightly out of shape, given the size of our respective economies?

Nonetheless, I guess the point is that as a nation (from the combined public purse) we can do more than via individual contributions - particularly when you consider the time and effort lost by individual agencies and NGO's having to chase up donations. Also, Aus can work in concert with other governments and international agencies far more easily than independent 'charities' and NGO's.

So, I think the mechanism of AusAID is sound, just that we as individual behind the scenes contributors don't get a say in how our tax dollars are spent - but then we don't really get a say in how our governments, federal or state, get to spend those overall tax dollars anyway. So, we take it on good faith that our governments will do the right thing - for better or worse.

Do they spend our dollars wisely? I guess that's another good reason for keeping well-informed and using our votes wisely.
(Pity so many of the Aus constituency don't take much of an interest generally, and in the end result are such dip-sticks. Every vote counts the same, whether by a truly concerned citizen or a total ning-nong. Such is life - and 'democracy'.)

Dear Saltpetre,

The one property that distinguishes governments from all other groupings of people is that they are non-voluntary and can use physical force. This is intended and legitimate for defending the people from violent threats - internal and external, not for any other purpose.

By what logic should the body which is responsible for arresting murderers and launching military preventive strikes to protect the country, be more qualified than any other body in providing charity?

The state should keep to its defence role and not forcefully take up the space of other groupings of people who want to take benevolent action. The self-fulfilling concept of taking up all space by pushing others aside, then claiming that "others are no good because they have no space", is unacceptable.

<<So, we take it on good faith that our governments will do the right thing - for better or worse.>>

You don't seriously mean it, do you? Does it help or matter if we have no such faith in (our?) government and don't believe that they do the right thing? Does it matter if we accept neither democracy nor the ning-nong perversion of it that you mentioned which turns it into a joke even if it were acceptable to begin with? All that the government has on its side is brute force. If it only kept to its legitimate role, then that would be acceptable.

Yuyutsu,

I guess on the Aid/Charity side, it's just being good-neighbourly, but as a nation, and by working in concert with other able and responsible nations it serves not only to do a great deal of good for those less fortunate nations, particularly in times of great need following a major natural disaster and such, but also serves to enhance our international reputation and standing as a good global citizen. I don't think we should reasonably expect any less, in this respect (as long as our government doesn't get too carried away with its benevolence on our behalf).

>Does it help or matter if we have no such faith in (our?) government and don't believe that they do the right thing?<

Such is democracy, I'm afraid, a representational compromise hopefully representing the majority views, interests and concerns of the relevant constituency, and in our case with benefit of a house of review, the Upper House (Senate or Legislative Council), whose composition may usually be relied upon to be broader and more balanced than the usual two-party dominance in the lower house (the House of Reps or Legislative Assembly).

Such arrangements are surely a lot better than a dictatorship, communism, fascism, sectarianism, fiefdoms, or anarchy - although it may nonetheless be 'imperfect'. But, there is unlikely ever to be a 'perfect' system - unless it be one where everyone gets to cast a vote on every issue. (Maybe the Internet Future? Though, even then, you can never please all of the people all of the time, and the majority view will prevail.)

We could be a lot worse off, and we do live in the age of miracles; humanity never had it so good, never had such immense capability and opportunity. Our paramount concern should be to use this opportunity wisely, and with a global focus and vision for the future of our native bio-sphere and our place within it.

Dear Saltpetre,

<<but as a nation...also serves to enhance our international reputation and standing as a good global citizen>>

As a nation? I am not a nation and nobody asked for my consent to belong to "a nation", so why should I care about any nation's reputation? Supporting the needy out of compassion is good, but since a nation is artificial and not a sentient being, why should I feel compassionate towards its needs and why should I pay to support other people's reputation and egos?

<<Such is democracy>>

The problem is not with democracy, or any other form of management for that matter - it is with the state overstepping its legitimate boundaries. If the state remained limited to its legitimate role, then whether it managed itself democratically or otherwise would both have been OK. Otherwise, the forced rule of majority is tyrannical and no better than any other forced rule.

<<we do live in the age of miracles>>

Examples, please?

Miracles of course happen all the time, but why this age in particular?

<<humanity never had it so good>>

"Good" by whom? by humanity's own expectations?
Sure we now have ice-cream and we consider it "good", but can it be used as a yardstick?

The only true good is God: what indication have you that humanity is any closer to God today than ever before (including pre-historical times)?

Dear Yuyutsu,

I take your point. We don't have a choice about many things - who our parents are, our genetic and ethnic heritage, where we're born, the religious and cultural environment into which we're born, or move - regarding immediate family or broader community - what we're taught at school, what jobs may be available to us, what facilities and services we end up cherishing and those which fall short of our expectations. Or, regarding those factors and individuals which exercise power over what we may or may not do - local leaders, council, government, laws, and neighbouring groups or nations.

However, we are not individual 'islands', we cannot help but interact with others, and this is the norm, from the beginning of our species, and even before that, from our predecessors (if you believe in human evolution, and the evolution of all living species, as I do).

We all belong to a particular community or nation, unless only a visitor. As a permanent resident we do belong, and can't avoid that - unless we go 'bush' and endeavour to live off the land or purely by our own resources, and even then we are still governed by the laws of the land and relevant territory ownership - and even visitors are governed by the laws of the land, whatever land that may happen to be. Otherwise, all is anarchy.

>The only true good is God: what indication have you that humanity is any closer to God today than ever before (including pre-historical times)?<

Humanity is probably further from God than ever, though most wouldn't realise this. Law is a poor substitute, but, given the broad range of cultures and belief systems across the globe, it is the best we can do, except on an individual level. But I'm sure God would want us to get on with our neighbours, and be a good citizen of whatever community or nation we find ourselves in. My reference to miracles was in respect to materialistic capability, and not our spiritual endowment.

Dear Saltpetre,

I did not suggest that one should not interact with others: between being alone and being connected with 22,947,064 others, 99.9% of which I haven't even met, is a wide gap. That we are involuntarily counted as if belonging to some conglomerate of people does not make it true.

In the true sense of the word, we do not belong to anything, but in a relative sense, we may say that we temporarily belong to some groups of choice - and so long as it is voluntary there is nothing wrong for example with me "belonging" to my orchestra, where we happily make concerted efforts together.

The one legitimate, or excusable, reason for having such large and non-voluntary bodies of people as the state, is defence. Ideally of course, one should turn the other cheek, but short of that, those of us who aren't saints may get together to protect themselves from physical threats - external and internal. States are therefore based on fear, rather than on love, and being involuntary, they should keep just to that role. Nothing of course prevents either that same, or largely overlapping, groups of people, from getting together voluntarily and doing good works of love.