I agree with just about everything stated by Philip S, Bazz, Jayb, Belly, rehctub, o sung wu, runner, chrisgaff1000 and worldwatcher.

Jayb, that is a very interesting presentation by Ernesto Sirolli. It has caused me to think long and hard about the whole aid thing.

While I have always been a strong supporter of the UN-recommended 0.7% of GDP in developed countries being spent on aid, it has got to be the right sort of aid. Arguably, most of our aid money, now and throughout the history of our aid programs, has by and large not been the right sort. The glaring absence of financial support for population control / limits to expansionism / sustainability issues springs to mind.

I am not so sure any more that increasing our aid budget would be the right thing to do. Perhaps refining it and striving to the best of our abilities to make sure that it achieves maximum positive outcomes is what we should be doing as the first priority. And we can probably do this while at the same time as actually reducing it.

Of course now that a huge wad of money is to be redirected from the aid budget into asylum seeker support, the government should be very particular about what is to be cut in our aid programs. In fact, they should be using this as an opportunity to undertake a total overview and refinement of our aid programs.

I see this as being very closely linked to the whole asylum seeker issue, although it is not something that is often mentioned in this discussion.

We as a nation should most definitely be showing a high level of compassion for those vastly less well off, but it has got to be properly focussed, and focussing it on onshore asylum seekers is a terrible mistake.

Now, if the likes of Sarah Hanson-Young and Christine Milne were to focus on refining our aid programs and offshore refugee-assistance efforts instead of on supporting onshore asylum seekers of dubious or certainly lesser claim for refugee status…

If only.

Just a thought.

WE would only have to sink a couple of these boats, & post vidio of this on face book, & the boats would stop like a switch was thrown.

Probably cost less lives, theirs & ours, in the long run.

I wonder if we could do an enactment, & have them believe it was real? Probably worth a try.

Ludwig: Jayb, that is a very interesting presentation by Ernesto Sirolli. It has caused me to think long and hard about the whole aid thing.

This is a lesson I learnt in 1968 when the Poms pulled out of Malaysia. I've told this before but I feel it needs repeating now. Every Company had a small village to look after with Aid in Malaysia. When the Poms pulled out our company was allotted one of theirs. A small fishing village. We went there, spoke to the head man about what he wanted & did an assessment of what was needed. A few weeks later we turned up with timber to repair the fishing boats, string to repair their nets & seed rice to plant for the next harvest. Bricks & cement to repair the school. The deal was that we provide these things & they provide the labour. However when we arrived the head man came out & asked what we were doing. We explained & he refused to let us unload the materials. He said that we were to give him the money to buy these things, then leave. He would look after the distribution. That was the system that they had with the Poms. In other words, He keeps half & gives the other half to his brother who keeps half & so on down the line. That way they don't have to fish or plant rice & they have enough money to live for the year.

We drove off & kept the material & the head man complained to the Australian High Commission who promptly visited us in an extremely agitated state. So we took him & the materials to the village & let the headman explain the situation to the AHC. The AHC shook his head & didn't want to know any more about it. We never went back to that village.
cont.

cont.

& So it is with Aid everywhere.

It was the same situation in Indonesia after the tsunami. The Australian Forces had been there for 6 months before the UN arrived on site. They had arrived in Jakarta 3 months beforehand, set up in the most expensive Hotel & had 3 months of Conferences before going out to the scene of devastation. Once they arrived on site the UN ordered the Australians to leave as they, the UN, were other only ones that had the expertise to deal with a disaster. These people are still waiting for help. Most of the money allocated to the disaster went to pay the UN's Hotel & transport bills. A sad but true story.

Jayb - What you say about the UN backs up part of my earlier post
Quote "the UN is useless for the BILLIONS of $ it sucks up I challenge others to name 5 things that it has accomplished that benifited the world as a whole."

There are many more instances that show it to be Useless Nations not United Nations.

Banjo - It is 4,000 we get not 2,000 No one with half a brain would go such a deal.

I have said many times here that Indonesia DO NOT WANT TO STOP THEM the more that come the greater the financial and social burden, they are undermining the country makes a takeover easier in the future.

Don't forget Indonesia are in Surplus while we are DEBT billions of dollars yet we give the foreign aid, next we will be giving aid to Bill Gates may sound stupid but so many things this Government do are.

Phillip S,
Sorry about the error. I'll try to improve,promise.
You are right about the UN. Others here, like Yabby, have said the same.

Indonesia gets economic benefit from the illegals. They need food and accomodation while waiting for the boat. If they did not get any advantage, they would kick them out quick smart. We are the fools.