Blackie

Well I wholeheartedly agree that it's a good thing for the people affected. However I just can't believe that Howard's motives are 100% altruistic to the people. He and the Australian government of the past decade have always been trying to get Indonesia on side. From a political perspective, it's a great foreign affairs coup.

Maybe I'm being a little cynical on a matter which for all its intents and purposes is a great gesture, but how much of those $ will be absorbed by building contractors, suppliers and middle men who in turn are owned by political families and their friends? Where was Australia when Indonesia annexed East Timor (and killed over 200 people on the streets of Deli) in the 1970s? Our government didn't even bat an eyelid.

AusS2000

I had a discussion with someone recently who was admittedly biased towards a particular political party. Anything bad that happened was the fault of the entrenched party and anything good that happened was apparently for devious reasons.

There is no doubt that the motives of the government are political. We live in a democracy and developing relationships with our neighbours is good for us, the voting public. But this is the government, doing the job we elected it to do. How this reflects on John Howard's personal feelings on the matter is totally unconnected. I don't know them and nor do you. And if we are going to judge these individuals personally I'd love to hear the reaction to Latham's response. If I'm not mistaken it was 'Pass the Tartare sauce'.

As for misdirected funds, what can we do? We give the money to aid organisations and entrust them to use it responsibly. Or we give it to governments and encourage them to use it correctly. We all know there are abuses, but what can we do? Not give it in the first place?

Blackie

I'm not discounting Howard's personal feelings on the matter and like most people on the planet I'm sure there is some compassion there. I voted for the guy so there's no bias against him if that's what you're insinuating. As for Latham, well the less said about him the better.

You have a point on the abuse of funds, and there's probably not a lot we can do about it other than to give it and hope for the best. It's funny how we can "donate" $100 to an organisation and never know how it will get to our intended cauase and to what effect it will have on our intended cause. We want to know how many calories and milligrams of sodium imtoofathydrates are in our $3 Big Macs yet we simply donate thousands of dollars (even millions) to charities and don't question any further. Is it not more than just a form of guilt alleviation? There was a slogan going around which said "Give till it hurts" which I found amusing. In an economic rationalist view it would be interpreted as give enough money so that you feel better about yourself, but not a dollar over where the pain of loss of wealth would overcome the joy of giving. How much is your conscience worth?

naishou

The money that Australia is giving will be overseen by a joint Indonesian-Australian committee. Spending decisions will be made by that committee alone. It would be hard for someone to siphon off funds without the Australian contingent being aware of it, but not impossible. It's certainly better than just handing over the money and hoping for the best. For all Johnny's failings I don't think he's dumb enough to part with that much money without control over where it goes.

fisting dwarves

Unicef usually takes up to 10% of donations in admin charges. For specific catastrophic events, it pays out 100% of donations, and it funds its admin out of the 10% it takes from 'usual' donations.

As for the $1b...do we all realise that's $50 for every man, woman, and child in the country, whether taxpayer or not?

That's whole lot of giving, especially where (I dare say) such generosity would not be reciprocated if the tables were turned.

Can't say I'm surprised that Labor gave its full support though. Imagine the flak you would cop if you actually voiced dissent.