In a nutshell: help people in their own countries.

Poverty comes from lack of opportunity.

Every person or persons family was once a migrant, coming to Australia most likely for the opportunities these people today want.

If we do not kick them up the backside and leave them to thier own devices once they enter, perhaps we would not have the social and poverty problems many people fear.

You cannot expect people to turn their way of life completely on its head instantly, they need exposure to the Australian culture that many of us 'immigrants' have embraced.

We cannot be racist or culturally bias but we can protect OUR OWN CULTURE. This can be done via helping our new arrivals integrate with society, not by moving into clusters of other refugees, and not by trying to assist them throught the centrelink or 'poverty' network.

People are hard working when they want a better life. We must help them integrate to society by assisting them with finding suitable living arrangements, work opportunities and social amenities.

The enaction of a review period of 3 years for new arrivals and the appointment of a new arrival officer to personally ensure each person is reaping the opportunity in Australia is essential in solving these issues. It would not be hard to do, so lets do it.

Realist, I support pretty much what you say, but I would add a verrrrrry strict proviso, and it relates to protecting our own culture.

The only people who have the right to decide who comes to Australia, is US.
-Not the UN,
-not the Greens,
-not the Democrats,
-not the vested interest migration agents like Marion Li,
-nor anyone else BUT....

our elected representative government.

"We" determine,

'WHO, and on what grounds'

'SELECTION CRITERIA' (which may include a number of factors) all of which are aimed at ensuring ....

-Social compatability (as defined by us)
-Political Stability (as defined by us)
-Cultural cohesian (as defined by us)
-Strategic national population goals (as defined by us)

In line with these specific objectives, potential new arrivals will be CLEARLY shown what it means to live in Australia, if they come from a background which may in certain areas be at odds with our culture and laws. They will also be required to sign a document to this effect, with conditional residence determined by their loyalty to it.

Examples:
-SIKHS
will be told, that even if they are reading their scriptures (which apparently has to be done over a 50 hr uninterupted period) they can be ARRESTED immediately if the police deem it neccessary. They will also be informed that certain occupations may not be open to them if they wish to use their turbans 24/7.

-MUSLIMS
will be told, that domestic abuse is a) not a valid part of our culture, and they will be treated exactly the same as everyone else if they beat the daylights out of their wives.
-They will also be told, that their food laws must ALways be subject to our cultural norms, no matter how many of them may dwell in a particular suburb.
-BUDDHISTS.. what's to tell, they seem to fit in.

Under no circumstances whatsoever, will assylum seekers be allowed to 'sue' our elected government.

The only way to help the world's poorest is to see that the countries they live in are run as decently as possible and only a positive UN can do that.
Sending money to dictatorial regimes is useless. We see daily on TV where nations who have populations starving so miserably still have enough munitions and arms to wage war at all times.
Bringing in those who have totally opposing life styles has proven an absolute mistake, one that this country will pay for for many years. To open our borders has resulted in a severe loss of security and a marring of our own way of life.
Far better to have some way of regulating third world countries where the poor can have some comfort but the leaders have to face up to an authority if they do the wrong thing by their population.

Poverty also arises from lack of initiative. Ever since China, South Korea and even India embraced capitalism prosperity ensued.

The riots in France (and for a breif moment, Birmingham)show how open ended immigration creates problems for the host countries.

Democracy and capitalism are the key ingredients for a prosperous society. It is up to individual countries to decide whether to take it or leave it. Immigration transports problems. Some North Africans for instance swap a life of poverty in their home countries for a life of poverty in Europe. Don't let it happen here.

Tiziana, you say that "much of world poverty is not just the result of richer countries’ failure to help, but often the direct result of policies the same rich countries pursue in their own national interest." There are two fundamental errors here.

Virtually the whole world was very poor by present standards 200 years ago. The industrial revolution and subsequent technological and economic advances led to a large gulf in incomes between the rich industrialised countries and the rest. But this didn't cause or exacerbate poverty elsewhere. On the contrary, average incomes in poorer countries rose at an historically unprecedented rate through the 20th C. Western economic dvelopment led to higher standards throughout the globe. In the last 30 years in particular, the incomes of many hundreds of millions in China and India have risen enormously, the number of global poor has fallen dramatically. Poverty is not the "result of richer countries failure to help."

Second, the vast bulk of world trade is amongst rich countries. Freer trade would not only help poorer countries, it would increase incomes and opportunities in richer countries - it is in their own interests to drop trade barriers. Trade barriers are in no country's "national interest". Rather, they - and in particular Europe's Common Agricultural Policy - inflict great cost on the community at large in order to protect a favoured few from having to deal with the real world.

The best way to help combat poverty might be to get first-world voters to understand and oppose the negative impact of trade barriers on their own well-being.