One more thing - I know its slightly off topic, but Shonga - I'd like to suggest another item for your list -

6. Buying back and importantly "revegetating" the extremely marginal farming country which attracts drought relief every few years. It shouldn't have been opened up for farming in the first place, and we should work with the farmers to decommission and revegetate the land with CO2 absorbing trees, which will then also deliver improved water quality for our river systems.

Ludwig “I don’t understand why Australia can’t channel all of its international aid through the UN,”

I can think of one good reason – Iraqs Oil for Food Program

Kofi’s son certainly benefited.

The “Professionals” at the UN and the UN itself are more corrupt than in smaller, more “direct” organisations.
“More” of your contributions to relief aid for the masses is going to end up in the pockets of whores for services to UN bureaucrats than into a water pump for a poor African village than channelled directly to an charitable agency.

So what is wrong with you researching and deciding, for yourself, on one or a number of charities whose goals you empathise with, whose fiduciary proprietorship is unblemished and pay over to them your income benefit from reduced taxation, instead of leaving it to national or international Bureaucracies to dispense?

Shonga – “a compassionate Government with a budget surplus of $11 Billion could do many things with the extra tax money it has collected from us”

“Government” is incapable of “compassion” for the reasons I posted previously.

Only individuals can exercise “compassion” any government which claims “compassion” among its credentials is merely an unmitigated liar.

Rainier – this “conservative” believes, absolutely, that people will only grow and achieve their full potential through facing and making decisions for themselves and living with the consequences of those decisions.

As Margaret Thatcher said “Economics are the method; the object is to change the soul.”

To explain, with reference to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

“Economics” is down on that lowest and basest of levels, the psychological.
Socialists are obsessed by this “low” aspect of existence (everyone getting a fair days pay, share and share alike etc. (all the “leveller” drivel).

As dearest Margaret alludes to in the quotation, Conservatives, having developed superior self-realisation, know that the way to personal fulfilment is to aspire to higher things above and beyond the scope of economics.

The real shame is socialists just don’t get it and thus, will never lead fulfilled lives.

Thank you Tim. Great article.

Good on you Stuart for sharing your perceptions.

I like to add that sometimes we can even becomplicit in imposing ideologies on nations we give aid to.

For instance, where our aid, largely in the form of consultancy servics sourced from Australia and New Zealand,facilitates the receipint country to gain an Asian Development Bank loan which requires the receipient country to privatise a particular national asset and where this is likely to be contrary to its long term national interest. (I read somewhere that in the first days of the american occupation of Iraq all the national assets were privatised.)

cheers

chek

Bye the way folks, the UN is a "representative body" only (where Australia is one representative) UN policies are policies created by leaders of countries.... throughout the world. The UN has problems like any large organisation. It is not a world GOVERNMENT and would cease having any role if it became one.

Representation and "how" the "representation" works is a KEY issue here. The question I find everywhere is "who" is representing "who" through these policies, "how" and "why"?

Australia enjoys high "developmental status" (in this world) but seems to miss the boat when it comes to listening to "ground level" innovative citizens... everywhere. ie: Rural residents in Australia, Small Pacific Island Nations, Village peoples of Asia and Africa. I stay rural to make the point - however - ground level urban resources are also meant to be part - where the "inclusive" sector issues are at their depletion.

The true investment I believe is to implement the "bribe" (economic AID) around the involvement of grass-roots. Self Determination - "Let us Help Ourselves". Engage those feeling the brunt of "so called sustainable development" and be more careful of the way "regional" officals (middle-persons) engage with these communities.

LOOP THE "GRASS-ROOTS" BACK INTO DEVELOPMENT. Community Micro-Enterprise Making building a platform of new skills - and (community based) markets from the Ground UP.

Present policies present a table with no legs. They have a poor base platform and more often impose their "development" over the local community as if their was no original "state".

I say: Turn the Lens Back Onto Community... miacats 2006 "Christmas Wish" - for Australia and the world... see http://www.miacat.com/

Col, you write; “The ‘Professionals’ at the UN and the UN itself are more corrupt than in smaller, more ‘direct’ organisations.”

Notwithstanding some ‘less than ideal’ use of funds, I don’t think we can assume that the UN is any worse than small for-profit organisations. Worse than charities, yes probably, but then we can’t run a global humanitarian program from charities alone.

The problem with small direct organisations is that they inherently have a limited focus, whereas the UN has a global focus. So in theory at least, the UN should be able to direct funding to where it is needed, whereas small organisations operate in much less holistic manner. (That’s not to take anything away from their excellent work). The UN can then direct funding to these organisations according to their significance on a global basis.

I would hope (and I guess it is somewhat idealistic and naïve) that the world body would be striving to make the absolute best use of aid monies and that their professionals would have a much better idea than any of us as to where to direct funding, unless we did exhaustive research and became experts in the field.

As for the absorption of a portion of funds by bureaucrats, yes of course it happens. But this is just part of the cost. We can’t have a huge global organisation without a fair whack of shinybums. And yes, there are going to be profit-driven “whores” fighting hard for funding from the UN. Well, it is just part of the UN’s role to see that they provide good services for the money.

You write; “ ‘Government’ is incapable of ‘compassion’ for the reasons I posted previously.” Col, can you explain this, or direct me to your previous comments. Thanks

Ah Col-ly. Whilst you may do it unwittingly, you point out the moral indignity of the neo-right perfectly.

The problem is heavily interconnected with the Australian AID issue. It seems as days go by, so too does our governments ability to allocate AID according to vested interest, rather than actual merit of overseas 3rd-world nations. The provision of aid should be inexplicitly tied to our want, as privileged persons living in a privileged nations, to help those who are less fortunate than ourselves. Unfortunately however, it appears many Australians, and our government especially, only appear willing to do so when they see something in it for themselves beyond aiding the intended recipients. This is clearly recognised by our governments ridiculous provision of aid to the US, and also in the fact that the cast majority of Australians only choose to give when they read it on the front page of the paper or see a benefit cricket match on the television.

I may have drifted on a bit of a tangent, but if our giving on both a individual and governmental can be more consistent and attached to merit, the world would benefit. Unfortenately, however, it appears that at the moment, the rights ideological preoccupation with the 'not in my backyard, not my problem' approach, effectively stiffles any such movement. You criticise the left for wanting to create a common good, when it is the very source of its strength.

Aid is not about ringing up, donating fifty dollars and hoping your name gets up on the television at the benefit match, so you can feel better about yourself. Nor is it about making 'even better friends' with our already shadily close 'big-brother' in the US. It is about making the world a better place, something that all sides of the political spectrum should be morally obesessed with.