“Over the two days we visited over 70 politicians from all parties. As expected, the response was varied. The Greens and Democrats have already adopted policy stances that reflect the substance of what we were asking - namely an increase in overseas aid to 0.5 per cent of Gross National Income by 2010 rising to 0.7 per cent by 2015 and explicitly targeting of this aid towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).”

How sad that it is the Greens and Democrats and NOT the political parties which claim to support the Christian vote which support these things. Good on the Greens and Dems in this regard but I would certainly like to see the other parties (particularly Family First) put their money where their mouth is with this one.

I mean we're talking about "those who are marginalised, those who don’t have clean water to drink, those without sanitation, those suffering from AIDS, malaria etc, those without education, those outside our modern society". How much more Christ-like could you get to want to battle these issues?!

And really, its not that difficult for us and other developed nations to do our part. For example, as you said "Oxfam estimated in 2002 that if Africa, East Asia, South Asia and Latin America were each to increase their share of world exports by one per cent, the resulting gains in income could lift 128 million people out of poverty." 128, 000, 000 people. That's 6.4 x population of Australia. Imagine if they were your relatives?

Also, I've heard that the amount of money already spent fighting the nonexistent WMDs in Iraq would be enough to feed, clothe and educate every poor man, woman and child on Earth.

I'm a Christian and I'll be a first time voter next election (yay). This will DEFINITELY be an important issue for me and my other Gen Y friends (Christian or not). Take note, federal politicians!

Right on, Rhian.

"The freeing of world trade simply has not happened" because of factually inaccurate and misrepresentative articles like this. It is to the detriment of the humanity the author claims to represent.

The growth in prosperity in the West over the last 100 years is in large part due to increased international trade.

Global trade liberalisation and anti-corruption measures would bring hundreds of millions out of poverty. The effects of trade liberalisation would be far greater in magnitude than that of any aid program. And the results would be lasting.

With free trade poor country wages eventually approach those of developed countries as first world wages fall. This is basic macroeconomics. The sacrifice of our wages for the benefit of those in the developing world is the biggest gift of all.

John
My heart leaps up when I behold good people like yourself working for a noble cause.
Your objective would be more quickly achieved if you could raise consciousness on the following.
1 The need to have wealth and tax records in the public domain.
2 The need to have relativity in wages where the maximum wage would be no more than 20 times the minimum wage.
3 A limit to individual wealth of say 20 million dollars.

Greed is the cause of poverty and unless it is curbed there will never be an end to poverty.
Yes Rhian this is simplistic and naive, but today's heresy is tomorrow's orthodoxy.

A couple of points ” Most of us in the Voices for Justice lobbying group are neither economists nor development experts,”

Absence of skills is nothing to be proud of or worth admitting in support of a campaign.

“The freeing of world trade simply has not happened”

That is a lie. Trade liberalization has improved significantly over the situation in 1970’s and before. Australia s an example had tariff barriers and quotas in force and applied to everything from dishwashers to cars to underpants.

It was Hawke who, with his “level playing field” speech, started trade liberalization in Australia.

World Free Trade situation would improve if US, Japan and Europe worked harder at removing agricultural restraints but they are not alone. Many third world countries are happy to embargo selective imports whilst complaining about access to developed world markets, they seem to think the corrupt “Kyoto thinking process” should be misapplied again.

As for ”However, the problem is that the current rules that govern world trade are rigged in favour of rich countries and their corporations” I suggest the author justify his claim if he wants to make it.

Using the “corporate boogeyman” is pitiful and undermines what scant credibility he might have had.

The last time I looked, ownership of “corporations” could be traced back to breathing people. A corporation is an artificial entity, designed to facilitate trade and accept risks which a single individual could not carry but they are artificial entities owned and run for the benefit of their share holders. They are artificial entities which remain subject to corporate and criminal law and when they do transgress that law, the operating individuals can be held personally liable.

Catfish23 – agree with your post. The major problem with third world countries lies with internal corruption not absence of access to first world markets.

Many merely find comfort in the statistics substanting their own position. One set of stats will prove one thing, only to be countered by stats showing a ‘spin’ for an opposite view. So does it just come down to a pure ideology or belief about the ‘nature’ of things, where ultimately, in the mind of the adherent, nothing will or can be proved?

Nevertheless, the ideology of ‘free trade’, like an over inflated balloon needs a little prick. “While the logic on how rich country trade liberalization can lead to poverty reduction in developing countries is straightforward, it is important to realize that in most cases the impact of liberalization will be limited…”
http://www.cepr.net/publications/trade_2004_11.htm

Col,
As you know we agree on not much at all, however I would like to say that I am pleasantly surprised to see you post on this subject. Of course I have a different view, and we have had many on-line stouches, however I wan't you to know that whether we agree or not, whether we have a go at each other or not I respect your opinion.

Everyone here sees part of the solution, I would not for a second pretend to know the full solution, however what I would say is that trade is not the answer, if it were after 100 years of trade we would not be in this situation still. I believe we should investigate mechinisms to combat the corruption so that the broad population recieves food and water, followed by a self help program.

We continue to talk about growth economies, it seems we are unable to talk about sustainable economies, growth is finite, why not change our mindset to helping our fellow human beings dying of malnutrition, rather than always including the economy in the discussion? My wife and I are in a group at the moment helping a single mother with nowhere to go, by donating items and time to her search for accomodation, no charge, just compassion, why can't those of you who don't agree with my opinion put these views into a much larger picture?

What we are doing is so rewarding and we are asking, nor wanting anything in return, our group consists of 6 people, of different political persuasions working together for a common cause, because it's the right thing to do. Is this such a difficult concept to embrace?