Just how generous are we? A very good question. The answer is 'most generous'. What other nation would plonk AUD$1 billion into the bank account of a nation that hates us. This act of generosity captured the quintessential character of Australians because while our government was busy giving our money away our government ignored Australians with dental problems, our government ignored Australians on hospital waiting list, our government ignored the plight of those with mental problems, our government ignored the 100,000+ homeless Australians, our government ignored carers who are saving us squillions of dollars by caring for someone at home, and, many other social issues that could stand an injection of funds.

There is nothing wrong with our morals Mr Costello. Why don't the churches melt down their gold trappings and sell off their land. That would raise millions. Start with that property in Sydney - St Mary's Cathedral. I'm sure some property developer would pay a handsome price for it. The Catholic church could then donate that money to the poor in Africa.

Our moral failure has been in supporting regimes which squander their natural assets and oppress their own peoples.

Should we give more aid to Zimbabawe ? The people deserve it but Robert Mugabe will get it and spend it on lavish birthday celebrations.

I agree with debt relief and increased aid by the West but it will be useless if we do not acknowledge the problems caused by hopelessly corrupt and inefficient 3rd world governments.

The unfortunate reality is that all too often aid merely promotes a culture of dependency, with the result that populations increase but the welfare of each individual remains static, or deteriorates. There is the expectation that more Western aid will always be available. Ethiopia is a good example. When Bob Geldof had his Live Aid performance in 1986 , he generated many millions of dollars in aid for Ethiopia's famine stricken population of 35 million poor people.
In 2006 he staged a repeat concert, for Ethiopia's population of 73 million poor people. More aid is no solution. What is Tim Costello's solution?
from Jack Sturgess

Like other posters on this thread, I worry about the effectiveness of overseas aid, especially government aid programs. Jeffrey Sachs' views are not supported by a lot of economists who fear that more aid and debt relief will not do much to reduce poverty unless we're very careful to address the many factors - from rising exchange rates and "crowing out" to corruption in recipient and donor countries – that can render aid ineffective. William Easterly’s “Elusive Quest for Growth” is a sobering account of how so many well-intentioned aid programs failed to deliver over decades.

http://www.amazon.com/Elusive-Quest-Growth-Economists-Misadventures/dp/026205065X

This does not mean we should refuse to give aid, but it does mean we should be careful, selective and realistic about where and how it should be given. A simple

Less aid = more poverty = moral failure

formula is simplistic moral grandstanding, and fails to do justice to the difficulties and complexities of this issue

Most poverty seems to be a result of corrupt Governments and wrong ideology (eg letting thousands of cows walk around while people starve to death). Much aid has been poured into places like Sudan and East Timor and yet unless someone is brave enough to tackle the underlying roots of poverty change is only temporary. If simply giving money to the poorer countries eradicated poverty then it would of been eradicated many years ago. Just look at the amount spent on Indigneous health and observe the results.

I admire all people inclusing Mr Costello who are showing compassion and raising awareness and funds for the under privileged. I hope we are all growing in our generosity towards the poor. I do however object to simplistic views that say Western nations only need to raise the amount of giving to a certain amount to eradicate poverty.

I don't think Jeffery Sachs outlook was based entirely on the immediate effectiveness of adequate international aid, its more so concerned with placing African countries on the 'first step of the economic ladder', whereas at the moment the capacity for economics to develop society is very limited within these countries and they simply miss out on the spread of economic prosperity circulating the globe.
China of late has been investing heavily in resource rich African countries, i just hope it ciphers down to the lowest rungs of society, whom are the ones who actually have the power to turn these countries around. As outlined in The End of Poverty by Jeffery Sachs, 'clinical economics' are the 3rd world's best chance, and as a student of economics, i strive to fill this moral void.