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.