It is all very well to commite a certain percentage of our budget to alleviating poverty, but the only way poverty can be addressed in a sustainable way is to give the poor in third world a 'hand up' rather than a 'handout'. The fixattion on getting our foreign aid up to a certain percentage of our budget is a pointless exercise and just an attempt to achieve some academic goal.

What is more important is how our foreign aid is spent and having lived in a third world country for over half of my life, I have personal experience that due to the rampant corruption and lack of government governance that generally exists in most of these countries, the most effective way is to support plans to increase the income of the poorer sectors of those countries. The eliites of those countries could not give a damm for the low standard of living of their own people while they live in their air-conditioned high rises and drive their luxury cars and send their children to first Australia or New Zealand for education.

gcm63,
How about the poverty stricken, and homeless in Australia, last year more than 5,000 families had their homes repossessed trying to find a rental while still paying a mortgage, and rent, and trying to survive may be foreign to you, but not for many Australians.

Shonga you muppet, you may have heard of St Vincent de Paul, the largest deliverer of social services to the impoverished in Australia - and part of the catholic church, just like Caritas.

Its people like you who are all pro-globalisation and free trade but not interested in the people that these issues actually impact upon.
Unfurl yourself from the flag, take off your green and gold glasses and have a look at the real world...i dare you.

regards
JH

Hi all,
I think it's very important for all to remember that the government has limited ability to control the incidence of poverty.
They are certainly able to measure it, determining a level of income at which an individual/group does not earn, that which has been determined to be the bare minimum for survival, for themselves and their loved ones.

Welfare programs are restricted by the income of the government, which is determined via taxation in various forms.

Why is the government able to measure such a level? They use market pricings that are ultimately set by makers, wholesalers, shippers and retailers. Those are the people that are responsible for setting the poverty line.

Some corporations should ask themselves, "Why DO we need to increase our profits via usurious practice? Who really benefits, long term? Just exactly what do we need all this extra money for? Reasonable profit is fine. Without it, no good at all is done. I can see no rhyme or reason, though, why someone picks an arbitrary figure, because that's all it really is, to determine what they will receive for their part in delivering goods and services.

Before it appears that I'm on a corp bash session let me say that a greater deal of responsibility must be assumed, in a lot of cases, by individuals to be honest enough to know what they need to do to improve their lot, and then do it. Laziness won't cut it. Someone once said that the beggar and the rich man both have 24 hours in the day. It's what they do with, and in, them that matters.

I believe a countries government should be able look after it's people, even in time of crisis. I can't think of anyone who has had to come to Australia's aid recently. We too often(figuratively)give them fish and don't teach them how to fish or make them do it. We akso take OUR measurement of poverty to the world and measure everyone else using that. Crazy.

Ravings? Perhaps. I'm sure that I can find more to say on this subject.