What's happening at the
Thursday 24 Aug 2017 | 11:35 | SYDNEY
Thursday 24 Aug 2017 | 11:35 | SYDNEY

Response: Promoting foreign aid

By


This post is part of the Promoting foreign aid debate thread. To read other posts in this debate, click here.

COMMENTS

19 July 2010 17:10


This post is part of the Promoting foreign aid debate thread. To read other posts in this debate, click here.

Paul Davies makes some good points in his response to my post on promoting Australia’s aid program. Certainly donors' primary goal should be to work towards improving development indicators. I agree that critical examination from the media is warranted — hence my links to those articles in my post.

However, my post did not equate engagement with the public to an increase in spending (of taxpayer dollars). Communication with the Australian public is vital and can be significantly improved using existing resources. It is an important tool of transparency and accountability — each of which are absolutely essential for any publically-funded aid program, particularly one in the midst of huge transformation, in terms of both size (with a rapidly increasing budget) and geographical direction. Significant improvements can and should be made in this area.

The Australian aid budget has been under some fairly heavy scrutiny this year. A good deal of this is warranted, yet some is exaggerated, and still more fails to present a full picture. Scrutiny is important and justified, no qualms here regarding that. The aim of my post was to point out that the bulk of the media coverage of Australia's aid program rarely exposes us to the full story. I want to know more about Australia’s aid program — the good, the bad and the ugly. At the moment, as a member of the Australian public, it seems I am only fed the ugly — which is simply one dimension of a much larger story.

You may also be interested in...