We should first realise its not that we need to simply throw more money at the problem. Countries where poverty is rife are usually run by dictators or military juntas and democracy does not exist. If a form of democracy does prevail, such as in countries like India, corruption diverts money from the poor. Preventing poverty is about renewing the leadership of these countries and getting strong democracies and low levels of corruption not just handing out our cash to places where it will be wasted or used on arming the military.

One glaring omission .

No mention of the corner stone of poverty reduction, which is family planning.

Not only does this condemn countries to remain poverty stricken, it also means massive habitat loss due to the plague proportions of our selfish, greedy species and the environmental illiteracy of the major religions .

Best,

Ralph

...All the above is honourable but is to be tempered by circumstances at home. The effects on alleviation of world poverty by illegal queue jumpers arriving by boat on the shores of Australia is interesting: Do these “illegals” highlight the universal nature of human greed and naked ambition of those we are attempting to save with our overseas aid; and our notional acceptance of “anything goes” in Australia’s’ generous attempts to help the underprivileged in foreign lands?

...And what factor should apply to the exodus of Australian industries to Asia, which includes the work for Australians these enterprises once provided, an Asia which now “bulges” with middle-class? And the investment made by our society in lack of opportunities this exodus has created for our own young to gain worthwhile employment and a place in society fitting of them, and rewarded them further with poverty and homelessness as the new fashion: And the consequences of this exodus of Industry towards a permanent futureless welfare “Underclass” in Australia; What of that?

...There are two very succinct words that describe foreign-aid, the first begins with “F” and the second “O”

A good article and a reminder that not all is doom and gloom. The reduction in world poverty has been one of the highlights (amongst many lows) of the latter half of the 20th C. The fall in population across developing Asia and Europe and the introduction of education programs in SE Asia has driven up literacy and the ability of women to make sound family planning choices.

This has not been the case in Africa and its where a more long term committed foreign aid investment needs to be made.

One poster worried about boat arrivals. You ain't seen nothing yet.

Cheryl - Quote "One poster worried about boat arrivals. You ain't seen nothing yet."

OH so right we just had a period of one week in which over 1,000 arrived and it was still in the monsoon period.

Also a boat was intercepted near the Ashmore Islands with 84 people on board 25 of them had to be airlifted to Australia with more than a dozen of them in need of medical treatment. Just what we need we have welfare for lifers now we are potentially getting medical patients for life.
If you are an Australian citizen in need of medical attention while overseas the Australian Government would not charter a plane for you as it does for the refugees.
Months ago a big plane was chartered to fly one refugee to Australia from Christmas Island.

Absolutely agree with the sentiments of the Author. But for very different and, I believe, thoroughly more pragmatic reasons.
You see, there are just too many of us, and we can no longer rely on a population growth model, to continue to make far too few of us rich!
Simply put, alleviating poverty, wherever we find it, is just sound economics and practical common sense.
That then progressively creates and creates; more and more customers, for all those that desire wealth.
We need to focus on self help schemes that will snowball and continue to work; and alleviate regional poverty, long after the aid dollar has dried up.
We can also use it to selectively reward genuine democratic outcomes!
We also need to ensure that our remaining aid dollars are directed primarily at gender equality education outcomes, and micro loans!
Just this much will allow our aid dollars to do 7 times as much poverty alleviating work as they do now, by simply allowing them to pass through many more small trade and commerce hands, than is the current case!
We might assist by training some of or less advantaged neighbours, how to better market what they do can make.
Small local energy production projects, will allow womenfolk to be relieved of counter-productive, time consuming chores, like carrying all the water/chopping collecting firewood.
Small biogas projects, can be used to replace wood or fossil fuel fires; or, even power a modest garden tractor, which can also double as a means to transport trade goods and people, to nearby markets.
As hard as it is, we need to stop handing aid dollars to despots, who then use them to buy bullets, to further enslave and disadvantage their own people? The already starving cannot eat ammunition, so are hardly likely to be worse off?
Rhrosty.

Hi Maree,

As is often the case with foreign aid in any form, it comes from wealth, someone else’s wealth. It could reasonably be said that if the industrialized world does not create enough wealth it cannot afford the largess of foreign aid. This is also the case with national wealth in the case of our own welfare systems.

In Australia our welfare system appears to maintain the status quo for many recipients, this seems also to be the case with much of our international aid. Perhaps we should focus our energy on solving some problems much closer to home?

Australian of the Year winner 2003, Professor Fiona Stanley, in her description of our “toxic society” says;

“Nearly 20 percent of Australian teenagers now have mental health problems. Nearly a quarter of all families now rely on welfare. Suicides among 15-19 year old males have quadrupled since the 1970s. Obesity has increased in teenagers from around 10 percent in 1985 to nearly 25 percent today. A quarter of all children aged four and five are now overweight for their height. The number of people aged 12 to 18 who are homeless on any given night has increased dramatically to 26,000 last year. Documented increases are evidenced in substance abuse, child abuse, binge drinking, teenage pregnancy, eating disorders, juvenile crime, juvenile diabetes, low-birth weight babies, Neuro developmental complications, asthma, serious behavioral problems and autism. Twelve year old children are having more and more mental health problems, depression, anxiety, hyperactivity, schizophrenia, right through to violent behavior towards teachers and parents”.

Under developed nations are so because their leaderships are ineffective.

One of the great tragedies of modern times and one of the greatest evils perpetrated upon the peoples of the underdeveloped nations, is the notion that their pain, suffering and poverty is a direct result of the policies, oppression, domination and power of the developed world, when in fact, it is a direct result of the policies, oppression, domination and power of their own leadership that is the primary cause.

It’s time charity began at home

What it is time to do is up the fight against people who get paid far too much of our money, to send our money on useless causes.

Even if any of our aid does get through to any of those we are supposed to be helping, a most unusual event, all it does is keep more of them fit for breeding, thus making the problem worse year on year.

When we see some of the huge wealthy class in places like Indonesia, & India doing something for their citizens, then & only then should a single cent of our money go overseas. We have enough of our own to worry about.

After their last Tsunami our defense people sent to help were told to "P1SS OFF", "Go home, we don't want you, just send money". Forget it.

It's endearing that we have some posts here who love Australia so much they won't sacrifice a cent of my tax dollars for international aid programs. Personally, I want more boat people here as then we can breed out these recalcitrant and objectionable racist attitudes that have haunted us since Federation and before.

What most of these people find objectionable is not the fact that we help build infrastructure for poor nations - water, agriculture, sewerage, etc - but that there are people to the north of Australia who don't look, act or sound like us. For them, the world is a frightening place.

Cheryl,

<< we help build infrastructure for poor nations - water, agriculture, sewerage >>

Yes we do but isn’t that the task of their own leaders?

Their own leaders are corrupt and wealthy beyond belief. Whatever we do for them in the form of money, skills transfer, education, healthcare or infrastructure, it all ends up be owned, operated and rhorted by their own leadership.

If you want to support their populations you have many choices. You can go there and help them, you can send your own hard earned cash, you can take some of them in as refugees, house and support them, you can get a job with the UN, you can stand for election in Australia and seek an electoral mandate for your views and you can lobby our current government to spend even more of other peoples taxes.

You’re spoilt for choice really. What are you waiting for?

PS. If you want to start a breeding program to rid yourself of Australian’s it might be quicker to emigrate, please let me know if you need a reference.

I can particularly recommend Pakistan, India, Central Africa, Afghanistan, China, anywhere in South America, Indonesia, Burma and my personal preference for you, Kazakhstan.

You would be right at home in all of these fine countries as there absolutely no racism or discrimination of any sort. Trust me.

Cheryl Quote "It's endearing that we have some posts here who love Australia so much they won't sacrifice a cent of my tax dollars for international aid programs. Personally, I want more boat people here as then we can breed out these recalcitrant and objectionable racist attitudes"

How naive of you 1st the tax dollars are the Australian peoples not yours.
2nd, wanting to protect a country for future generations from welfare invaders does not make a person a racist except in the eyes of someone who can not come up with a better argument.

To quote you further "One poster worried about boat arrivals. You ain't seen nothing yet." obviously in view of your more recent post this was a try at being sarcastic, you have now lost a degree of credibility.

Further to quote you "For them, the world is a frightening place." when they see your welfare system etc it is frightening because they do not have one and as the UN said a lot are just economic refugees.

Have you been around Cheryl, it sure doesn't sound like it? If you had you would know how the better off in the countries the boat people treat all the rest of the population.

It is only the better off who can cone as boat people, the rest could never raise the smuggler price, let alone get to Indonesia in the first place.

Have you ever seen where the money goes, if any of it is allowed to get past the aid NGO executives pockets? I have, & I never saw a single useful bit of work, other than that done by our service men.

Spend the aid budget on defense, we'll need it quite soon, & by all means let them go help, when there's nothing else requiring them, but Government Foreign Aid, & NGO games are as useful at tits on a bull.

Reaching the Millennium Goal reduction in poverty ahead of time is a great achievement and deserves to be celebrated. But linking this to aid budgets is frankly dishonest.

The overwhelming reason for the reduction in global poverty since 1981 has been China’s economic development. Of the estimated 648.8 million reduction in the global absolute poverty headcount between 1981 and 2008, some 662.1 million occurred in China. In the rest of the world the global poverty headcount rose slightly, though as a percentage of the population poverty is declining in all regions:

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPOVCALNET/Resources/Global_Poverty_Update_2012_02-29-12.pdf

Aid many have its place, and personally I would like to see the government spend more on aid so long as it is carefully targeted at investments that raise economic growth prospects.

But in the aid vs trade debate on the most effective way to eliminate poverty, there is a clear winner. Economic growth, not handouts, is the way to sustainably reduce poverty; and trade in the globalised economy is an essential component of an economic growth strategy.

It is the Government of the People’s Republic of China, not the UN and its hangers-on, who deserve congratulations for this tremendous achievement

A worthwhile article on a serious issue.
How far should our 'benevolence' go? I don't know, but correctly placed I believe a reasonable level of targeted aid can be in our very best interests.
The BCG vaccination program against TB for example - as this disease is still rife close to home, and could easily reach us, with potentially disastrous results - given our own rate of non-immunization by a determined set of tree-hugging or 'new age' mothers who can't see the wood for the trees.
A similar case can be made for participation in the fight against HIV/Aids, Polio, Diphtheria, Hepatitis, etc, as well as Foot and Mouth and Anthrax, etc.
The fight against extreme poverty and high infant mortality is also a component in an overall fight to reduce overpopulation, just as are programs to increase facilitation and participation in the education of women in developing nations, undertaken in conjunction with other developed nations' foreign aid programs.

It is of course correct to point the finger at nations who could and should do more for their own people's well-being, and at corruption and disregard, particularly by politicians/leaders and a rising middle-class in some quarters.
Nonetheless, it is my understanding that AusAid undertakes a targeted program of hands-on projects in conjunction with local authorities and populace, and does NOT simply splash money around. There is a vast range of examples, including early and primary schooling for underprivileged kids, as well as transportation, health/hygiene, clean water and small-scale local power-supply projects. TBC>

Cont'd>
Many have said the solution to our 'boats' problem and the overall world refugee situation is to act to correct the causation behind the flight of these people from their home countries. This can only be done by the application both of political/diplomatic will and of reconstruction and development assistance - ie foreign aid.
As a responsible global citizen we are beholden to participate in such worthwhile undertakings.

Imagine: Major un-immunized populations suffer a high rate of communicable disease, with development of a segment of highly immune individuals (via genetically advanced immune systems), and the evolution of an occasional super-bug - as has occurred most recently in India. When such a super-bug eventually generates a worldwide epidemic it will be the super-immune who will survive, and for the rest it will be horror. Therefore it is in world interest for all major populations to be fully immunized.

Also, I have a theory that the way to settle North Korea down and bring her into the fold is by way of development assistance and not sanctions. The dove of peace and a hand in friendship.
How better to influence hearts and minds than major proof that the West is not the big bad wolf; while threats and sanctions can only exacerbate existing fears and distrust?

Unfortunately, Saltpetre, the West (led by the U.S.) is the big bad wolf.

Imagine if the money spent on war and armaments and seeking global domination was redirected to feeding the poor and educating them.

The world, overnight, would be transformed. But the wealthy 1% who control most of the world's wealth, wouldn't want that! No way!

I agree with your final thoughts. Goading North Korea is infantile and will end badly!

The author has forgotten we are now in a world based on a new economic paradigm.

Future benefits of innovation on the standard of living are slowing and resource limits are resulting in an exponentially decline to global growth goals. We have not seen this economic paradigm in the past 250 years.

Existing growth has been provided by various shifts in energy resources, whale oil, coal, oil and now into natural gas and other exotic and harder to extract energy sources.

The creep into a future faced with a global decline in ‘cheap’ energy is now growing exponentially.

We now face continued and unstoppable shrinking non-renewable resources, lack of substitution (energy return on energy invested) and the reality that globally future growth in real GDP per capita will be slower than in any extended period since the late 19th century, and growth in real consumption per capita for the bottom 99 percent of the income distribution will be even slower than that.

The premise of your article is based on Australia remaining a ‘wealthy’ nation, we are not, we are in the same boat as the rest of the world, fortunately we have not yet felt the headwinds of change that are barrelling toward us.

Some of these headwinds include the end of the “demographic dividend;” rising inequality; factor price equalisation stemming from the interplay between globalisation and the Internet; the twin educational problems of cost inflation in higher education and poor secondary student performance; the consequences of environmental regulations and taxes that will make growth harder to achieve than a century ago; and the overhang of consumer and government debt. All of these problems were already evident in 2007. These problems have been pushed under the carpet but are still there and growing all the time.

The fact that so many fundamental one-time-only inventions or resources have already occurred or been used up; limits the potential for a continuing stream of growth and therefore taxes to support your vision.

I doubt Australian taxpayers will continue to support existing or increased foreign aid for much longer.

One of the major problems with online blogs is well demonstrated here - in fact, it's not the blog/discussion board, it's the people who post.

Ms Nutt's article was not very controversial. She stated her position clearly. Many of the comments have reconstructed her article as belonging to one or another faction or camp as per immigration, energy use, population, etc. Yet she made no claims to being a 'member' of any group or pushing a political line.

The reconstruction of her opinion so that it can be a punching bag - and this is a predominantly male thing - is immature and counter productive to debate.

I don't have the figures for the amount of our taxes that goes into public service wages & super funds for those above $100,000pa. Considering that the public service employs about 40% of the working population one can safely assume that those on welfare are still outnumbered by the public service. I'm convinced that a pay reduction for public servants could easily fund a lot of economy stimulating work & provide much needed employment.
The high to very high income public servants need a cull in both numbers & pay?conditions. Only that will bring back a good workable economic balance. It will also reduce the incidence of poverty by a huge degree.
The present pay claim by teachers is nothing short of rude & highly inconsiderate. These are the sort of people we can't afford to influence our young.

It seems to me, we would spend less, helping the boat people to return and set up as thriving economic entities in their own right, back where they came from, or in another, if SAFE, impoverished third world country.
Where our largesse, would also flow on and on, through many other hands; and or, create many new commercial, flow on, opportunities.
And a program like that, would likely cost us less than the current "refugee" Detainment policy?
It costs as as much as an UNAVOIDABLE $140,000.00 plus PA, just to house a single asylum seeker! And sometimes that outlay caries across several years.
We could very likely set up a whole family on a relatively modest intense production under-glass market garden, or fish farm or some-such, or heading up a brand new village industry, for less than we pay to keep a single asylum seeker housed for just one year!
And if their homeland still isn't safe?
Then any number of impoverished third world countries, would welcome them, with open arms, as comparatively cashed up economic migrants?
That way, we could make our largesse do two jobs or double duty.
And if we have no other choice but spend it, then surely we can do just that, far more intelligently and productively, with win/win outcomes for many more impoverished people!
What we are doing now simply isn't working, or throwing good money after bad!
Rhrosty.

Cheryl:

At the least Cheryl you have acknowledged a serious problem, Illegal boat arrivals. Governments have every right, and Citizens have every expectation, that the huge expenses involved in this human trade will be funded from sources “Other-Than” domestic budgets. Obviously overseas aid budgets will be high on the agenda; and why not

Afraid not Dan - boat people are not 'illegals'.

If they entered Oz on a visa and overstayed their visa term they would be 'illegals'. Big dif.

A couple of people here hit the nail on the head re investment in education in Africa.

Cheryl - They are mostly ECONOMIC INVADERS.

any number of impoverished third world countries, would welcome them, with open arms, as comparatively cashed up economic migrants?
Rhrosty,
They wouldn't go there, they're not interested in that because these countries are already converted. Australia is their last frontier.

Malcolm Turnbull as an advisor and assistant and politician could embrace Millennium Development Goals and up the ante to achieve progress.

The Liberal Party of Australia could appoint Malcolm Turnbull to head up an MDG action taskforce.

MT could table a project in Parliament and move that Australia make a submission to the IMF and WB and G8 to consider a new international real-aid business proposal focussed on MDG solutions.
Such a new project could be to develop new industry and business and employment regenerating land and ocean ecosystems and environment.

The ocean is in big trouble, seagrass and fish populations are devastated. Australian and all nations worldwide need real aid resources for whole of water ecosystem management including ocean biodiversity. At present oceans are not being managed.

This planet we live on could be made to thrive instead of being devastated. Healthy environment and prosperity can be engineered, made to happen. It can be done. Ocean seafood ecosystems must be sustained.

Instead of fiscal policy to increase national wealth while destroying natural resources, economic policy could be updated to also create wealth by regenerating resources when possible. It’s already done with timber plantations but not the oceans.

These days, bays and lagoons and estuaries could be made to provide shelter for seagrass nurseries to sustain ocean PROTEIN food supply.
Shelter from nutrient polluted currents is needed to regenerate essential food web nurseries that supply food to ocean animals. Seven dead whales on Fraser Island alone during a recent 2 year period is a bit much, as is worsening malnutrition and associated death amongst seafood dependent Pacific Island people.

The UN does not yet have data and knowledge about the seriousness and generality of worldwide seafood collapse that is increasing poverty because relevant indicative information of substance is being gagged, suppressed, even edited from the Internet.

It’s fortunate there is OLO. Major media has been insisting on scientific evidence but non-one can count and measure ocean fish populations. It’s an insane situation because the real cause of ocean ecosystem damage remains unchecked and ongoing damage is compounding.

(continued)

(continued)

Our planet is one of a kind – the only one. So why destroy it. Why not make it thrive by applying real aid to develop new industry and business and employment on special projects that will regenerate once abundant and available natural food resources for island and river people.

Initial research indicates an aqueduct system could be developed to run water from the wet tropical north of Australia to upper catchment of the Darling River that runs all the way to the Coorong estuary and ocean at South Australia. The system could provide water for natural wetland along the way as well as for farmers. Presently wasted wet season rains could supply The Coorong and leave more water for the Murray Irrigation Area.

Malcolm Turnbull and water minister Barnaby Joyce could make it happen, or at least look and categorically indicate possible or not. There are numerous reasons to assess possibility. Indigenous workers and even boat people and Pacific Islands people could be employed to construct such an aqueduct system.

Google Earth indicates land elevation. The Gregory Range has about 800 metres elevation. Distance from there to upper Darling River catchment is less than from Queensland to South Australia’s Coorong and ocean. At Bourke elevation is just over 200 metres yet the Darling River flows from there all the way to sea level at the Coorong.

A water harvesting aqueduct system could be a special MDG aid project engineered to provide genuine poverty stricken neighbouring islanders and refugees with income, while also constructing whole-of-water-ecosystem management infrastructure for Australia (and other countries).

At present virtually nothing is being done with MDG’s except talk.
It’s time to up the ante as Maree Nutt has said. It’s time to ask MT about this

JF Aus,
That is called the Bradfield scheme which, by the way, I have drawn attention to in many posts here. This chap was a century ahead of time in his thinking. Our present Greenies & environmental "engineers" are a hundred years behind him which um, effectively makes them being 200 years behind in their thinking.

The Bradfield Scheme is about dams on existing rivers and canals to transport water.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradfield_Scheme

Harvesting wet season water from high far northern catchment and then using aqueduct and big gully storage to transport the water south to upper catchment of the Darling River, is quite different to the Bradfield Scheme.

These days, funding is due for ocean rehabilitation infrastructure development including to sustain the Coorong environment and affordable food and fibre supply.

One key to availability of ocean management infrastructure development resources in this day and age is whether world ocean seafood supply should be sustained or not.

There is example of sick oceans and need for management.
When the world’s Shearwater mutton bird population arrived on the Queensland coast in 2000 from Alaska they were unable to find adequate food. Subsequently mass starvation and death of these birds occurred along coast all the way from Rockhampton Qld to South Australia and around Tasmania.
The Gladstone- Hervey Bay feeding grounds to the north and Coorong and other food web nursery estuaries southward, were already damaged and devastated and did not supply adequate food.
State border jurisdiction mean nothing biologically.
Lack of food in one area impacts on others, on seafood dependent people and animals. That's why European super-trawlers are trying to fish in Australian waters.

Cost of managing oceans could not come from the public. Quite the opposite, such infrastructure development should help stimulate pockets and purses and national economies instead of being impossible or a burden.

Think about new money, a new additional economy to also stimulate existing economies, say an International Monetary Fund economy for the purpose.

Maybe the US or China has the courage to engage in exploring and leading such development, if not Australia. But Australia has first chance because MT is reachable.

It can be done. (if not why not?)

JF Aus,
The scheme has enormous positive potential in every which way. I'll quiz Campbell Newman about his feelings about that. After all, he has a civil engineering background & should have some views on it.
It would certainly take the pressure off the coast if a million or so people would move inland. It would be great opportunity to consult hindsight & establish new & functional communities west of the range.
There would be sufficient flow of water for food production & transport & recreation.
It would & in all probability will become a win win scenario once people wake up & realise that a whole new economy is waiting to be tapped out west simply by water from the east.

Small correction there, individual.
Water from the north, instead of SO MUCH being wasted into the Gulf.

If people were to move inland it should be of their own accord and in agreement with people already inland.

Detention - come temporary contract labour camps could be set up at construction sites west of the range so refugees could earn their keep.

BHP Billiton and others should be very interested.

Premier Newman's education minister Langbroek is somewhat aware of substance of my marine ecosystem background.

JF Aus,
The fight against poverty is not simply a fight for more food or more money, it also requires a huge input of thinking clearly & that I think is the toughest component in the scheme of things. I have seen money thrown at poverty & nothing changed, I have seen money thrown at stimulating the economy & nothing changed, I have seen money thrown at education & things are getting worse. I have yet to see money being given to schemes which provide employment, offer shelter, offer internal revenue but most of all provide for a solid base of a strong, sober & cohesive society. I have not seen even any attempt to offer people the opportunity to build a functioning society. There's only one & one only way to start & that is National Service. Unless people can have a degree of hope rather than constantly search for loopholes in a system full of holes we can not seriously expect to get people to view life with a realistic & sober attitude. This me, myself & I mentality is a mentality that leads to ruin or hasn't anyone noticed yet ?

Extort more money from the workers so that "Do-Gooders" can hand out alms (with a sizable handling cost), sounds like more of stupid. Largesse has not been responsible for lifting people out of poverty, it's been business. Get non-workers such as soft topic Uni Profs., many Government fools and other sundry "Progressives" something useful (harmless) to do and let it continue.

A lot of good thoughts there, JF Aus, and I agree with you 100% - if it can be done it should be done, in respect of both water from the North and the management and preservation of the marine and aquatic ecosystems.
So many fail to see the value of the world's oceans, and the extent to which they are being over-exploited and rubbished and polluted. The human race will pay dearly for this lack of stewardship.

Water from the North will be an enormously expensive undertaking, but, much like railways, the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Snowy Mountains Hydroelectric Scheme, it would prove to be money very wisely spent, and provide enormous long term benefit in the race for national and global sustainability. Definitely a game-changer.
There should be some scope in there for hydroelectricity production along the way as well perhaps, at least in the upper reaches?
Also an opportunity to advance long-line tunneling technology I would think, and certainly provide work for many, and the chance to learn some valuable skills.

Fingers crossed your vision will take hold in appropriate quarters, and the money found to lift us out of our current nowhere treadmill and genuinely into the 21st Century. (And before cheap, or affordable energy vanishes into the mist.)

if it can be done it should be done,
Saltpetre,
It will be done because there is no other way out. Instead of highways going everywhere from the coast there should be a Mono Rail system to west of the range FROM which then roads can go off accessing & servicing the adjacent communities.
The employment from that alone would create sufficient internal revenue to make it all viable for both State & Federal Government to invest in such a scheme. Just keep the experts at bay & it'll be a success.

Maybe the android phone companies will come up with a 'beam me down Scotty' flip phone, to get here and there!

Malcolm Turnbull, it's high time you upped the ante in the fight against poverty for a number of reasons.

1. You as a politician and your electorate that includes the Bondi sewage outfall into the ocean, are the biggest sewage nutrient polluter of the SW Pacific Ocean. Tony Abbott/s electorate with the major North Head sewage gets second prize. Both plants are dumping unmanaged nutrient pollution. SE winds drive fresher surface water against the shore. Alongshore coastal current transports fresher water and bonded nutrients northward into coastal estuary and Great Barrier Reef waters where severe damage is occurring. http://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/great-reef-catastrophe-20121002-26vzq.html

2. Empirical evidence of substance categorically established beyond reasonable doubt that sewage nutrient pollution has already damaged and destroyed rare areas of SW Pacific seagrass food web nurseries. Those areas are supposed to feed seafood dependent animals and Pacific Islands and Australian people.

3. Loss of free or low cost fish supply is causing chronic poverty, MDG’s going backwards.

4. Australian politicians and major media have been virtually ignoring the situation. Absurd fishing restrictions including a “throw back the juveniles but kill the adult breeding stock”, has led to a now critically serious collapse of world ocean food sustainability.
http://www.spc.int/en/employment/1074-getting-to-the-point-on-pacific-tuna-fisheries.html

5. Australian politicians and major media failed to participate in the 2004 United Nations Wold Environment Day focus of "Wanted Dead or Alive - seas and oceans".

6. Politicians from all sides can no longer ignore the real state of the marine environment and need for whole of water ecosystem management involving socio-economic opportunities for Australia and the environment while at the same time assisting to achieve Millennium Development Goals. Seafood dependent people and most people need affordable food. Check the price of fish these days. Fish and chips used to be staple food for poorer people.

7. Sewage nutrient pollution is even destroying water quality in Lake Burley Griffin on a river that runs into ocean coast food web currents. http://www.nationalcapital.gov.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2331:parts-of-lake-burley-griffin-remains-closed-to-swimming&catid=136:2012-media-releases&Itemid=859

Julie Bishop writes articles on this OLO Forum site. Malcolm Turnbull should also participate.

What do you say Malcolm Turnbull? Or what do other politicians do or say?

An aqueduct, like the Roman aqueducts ?
ie an open structure with a continuous fall ?
Wouldn't a pipeline be better, no evaporation loss.
With a pipe small depressions could be followed and not need aqueduct bridges.
No pumps needed ?
Seems like a good idea if friction enabled a good flow.
There are companies that could do the job as just another pipeline job.

However, having gone back and read more of the posts and reread the
original post I can see that it is all doomed to failure as nowhere except one poster remarked on getting it all done before energy becomes
unaffordable. These projects are all very energy demanding and will be
the highest cost item in the whole project.
We are already seeing the effect of rising energy costs and it can only
get worse as the net energy availability falls.

Perhaps those administering the MDG should reset their priorities to
the least energy intense projects or projects that require much sooner
completion.

JF Aus, you wouldn't be as Green by any chance would you?

I don't believe anyone but a Green could put such an unmitigated pile of garbage into a post. It is such rubbish it is not worth discussing.

Hasbeen,

If you know what you are talking about then describe what you claim is rubbish instead of just saying so.
I am not a green or greenie. I expected they might be critical of the idea. Are you one of them?
But never mind if you are, just explain and justify the rubbish as you see it. If you can.
Or are you just talking rubbish yourself?
I wondered when knockers would start knocking.
Come on let's hear your reasoning if you have any.

Wouldn't a pipeline be better, no evaporation loss.
Bazz,
Not very smart to start with a system that's already got holes at each end :-)

I am not a green or greenie.
JF Aus,
who's talking about "a" or "or" ?

This is no time to be pedantic, however 'individual', note the language in Hasbeen's first sentence a few posts back.
Green, greenie, I was simply verifying what I am not. My focus is solutions to causes of islander malnutrition and national opportunities have arisen along the way.

Meanwhile how about upping the ante, for example by also challenging Hasbeen's run-away opinion of rubbish.

Poverty is everywhere. Possible solutions should be talked about and not put down for no reason by fat cats and knockers and others that don't care.

New projects and new industry to rehabilitate land and ocean water ecosystem environment could generate employment and income worldwide. All rivers link all countries to ocean food sustainability.

There is more chance from endeavouring to up the ante to alleviate poverty and hunger than rolling out an NBN or manufacturing chewing gum.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/08/congress-poverty_n_3000459.html?utm_hp_ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=040813&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief

Individual said;
Not very smart to start with a system that's already got holes at each end :-)

Sorry, didn't get your joke !

Baz,
I think individual was being funny or having a crack.

An aqueduct can be quite huge. In the US they have them big enough to carry barges full of cargo.
Gravity is the key, not costly power for pumps.

Gravity already takes water all the way from the upper Darling River to ocean at South Australia.

Do you have Google Earth? The pointer will show ELEVATION (bottom right corner of screen), say at Bourke, and at the Coorong sea level

JF Aus;
Understood that but I guess it would depend on whether they had a dam
at the top end to feed water continuously into a pipe or whether it
just ran when it rains.
If no dam then the water amount could be enormous and the pipe would
have to be very large, so an aqueduct perhaps would be the way to go.
A pipe would have the advantage that gullies could be followed rather
than needing bridges.
Anyway it is the principle that matters, get the water whatever it takes.

I think it would take at least 10 big gully type dams up high where there are only creeks and slopes. Water harvesting is a key.
There there could be more Cubby Station type water holding areas but supplied by aqueduct water instead of river water.

Windamere Dam is on a river but similar could suit northern wet season creeks and slopes. See here:
http://www.statewater.com.au/Water+delivery/Dams/Windamere+Dam

In this day and age with so much technology already available a flow via dams and aqueduct could be remote controlled including to put environment flow into wetlands.

Yes it is a case of get it happening whatever it takes.

I think it could be done if a fairdinkum politician helped to up the ante and make it happen.

It amazes me it has not been done already since the Murray Darling basin and other farmers are in such dire need of reliable water supply. That is saying nothing about needs of the Coorong and ocean food web nurseries.

P.S. I think this post may have reached my limit in a 24 hour period.

JF Aus & Bazz,
Of course redirection a literal river hundreds of miles isn't going to be a cheap alternative. But look at the alternative to this alternative ?
If the pressure of population can be taken away from the coast then it will be a viable project which will literally pay for itself in every which way.
Some places will require tunnelling, others canals whilst a fair bit of natural waterways can be enhanced also. The thing is it will be an economic stimulus with internal revenue side effects unlike the pointless wasting of good money we saw not so long ago. the other important thing is that peoples' mentality needs to be groomed to accept that such a project is not to invest money next week & expect to make a handsome profit next month. This would be a project that goes on over a couple of generations not just some short-term quick buck thing.

Individual,
There is a big word once put to me at KPMG. "Contemporaneously" is the word. It means all at once at the same time.

Evidence indicates need for ocean ecosystem water management the need is critically urgent.
Therefore water harvesting and aqueduct south, as being discussed here, should all be developed together at once during say a 2 to 3 year period.
e.g start at both ends and in the middle and in between at the same time with different contractors and work crews. It can be done.

It must be done because there is also need to stimulate pockets and purses and the economy.
Such stimulation can not be done if people earn money slowly over a 10 year period. If they can earn 10 years of salary in 7 years they are better off because the cost of living total is less.

So lets say construction can be really sped up by contemporaneous works with crews working 12 hour days with a salary to also entice hard work - get it done on time contracting and construction.

There could be a lot of quick bucks from construction and from politicians buying up land where water will be known to be available.

I think benefits from watered food and fibre production could go on forever.

This planet is getting very populated by humans and already there are AFFORDABLE food supply sustainability problems.

As for tunnelling I think that could occur to send some of the water through/under the Great Dividing Range to top up coastal rivers where and when needed, if possible.

Such water harvesting aqueduct would need to almost follow the western side of the range.

I don't think people can be forced to move inland. But be sure many would go farming and trading and exporting.

Natural aquatic/marine life could come back to the Coorong.

"Contemporaneously"
JF Aus,
Well, that word encapsulates all that is so wrong in modern society. It totally ignores forward planning which of course means that no possible future problems are given consideration, hence the mess we're in now.

Individual,
I agree however I think most of that mess is happening in the same period of time but not on the same project. Without the same focus.
Different government agencies presently have to compete with each other for scarce resources.
Individuals often have self interest.
Ego and jealousy are also very destructive.
There is need for teamwork with the same goal.

There is need for teamwork with the same goal.
JF Aus,
A non-military national service of two years for everyone a few days after their 19th birthday will ensure this mentality snowballs.

From poverty to pipelines, I guess there is some connection?
That said, the Bradfield scheme has been unearthed and rejected several times, as prohibitively expensive. However, a viable alternative that might move as much water to the south and west; might be to build a dam, and then use gravity, to inject surplus northern water into the Great Artisan Basin, via a much more affordable, much shorter pipeline.
Given the Basin goes from far northern Queensland, to northern SA; a project like that, could distribute reliable water over the length and breadth of a vast arid area.
If the agricultural projects were under-glass or relied exclusively on underground applications, huge food or bio-fuel production increases could be envisaged, and well worth any reasonable outlay!
Rhrosty.

Rhosty,

Using the artesian basin is a good idea if it would work. It's already a virtual aqueduct but it's covered with sand and stones. So water runs through from one end to the other but slowly in order to seep through. Then it would have to be pumped and lifted up and out.

There are some good photos of big aqueduct overseas but I can't post them up on this site.
Cost of aqueduct here would have to be linked to ocean and water ecosystem management infrastructure.
All water ends up in the ocean and it should go back in a healthy condition without sewage nutrient overload - pollution dumped in it.

I think the big future for bio fuel is to feed algae with sewage nutrients from cities and big towns instead of dumping it in rivers and ocean.

Campbell Newman inspected an algae biofuel plant yesterday but they are not using sewage nutrients to my knowledge. Besides Qld is way behind development because algae is already being used for fuel overseas. However Qld may end up a winner with a more viable system.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/algae-blooms-as-a-future-fuel-20130409-2hj6o.html

Put it this way. There is more new business and employment and export potential is a big and sustainable water supply project that there is in another $30 billion NBN.

Rhosty,

Re your: "From poverty to pipelines, I guess there is some connection?"

If you go back on this thread to top of page 5 you should see the connection.

The aqueduct project became an apparent solution and opportunity after adding these situations together.

1. Need for river flow to coastal estuaries in order to sustain seagrass ecosystems and ocean food web supply linked to already devastated seafood supply for island people and marine animals.

2. Need for neighboring islanders and other impacted people to now have local and overseas employment and income to buy alternative food.

3. Need to manage presently un-managed oceans.

4. Need for ocean management resources that could also stimulate national economies.

If you stand back and look at the problems it is possible to explore feasible and viable solutions that are associated, connected.