Australians are a generous bunch. On Good Friday, the nation banded together to raise over $15 million for the Royal Children’s Hospital. In fact, a report released in 2005 by FAHCSIA found that 13.4 million Australians donated over $7 billion for charity organisations. This all adds up to be an average donation of $424 annually by each member of the adult population of Australia.
So, as the issue of foreign aid is propelled into the media spotlight in the lead up to the 2012-13 budget, just how charitable are you willing to be to help those who cannot help themselves?
Australians are preparing to tighten their finances with the Federal Government pursuing an agenda of returning the economy to surplus for 2012-13. With widespread spending cuts likely, how are we expected to increase our charity whilst struggling to make ends meet at home?
What if there was a way to increase our foreign aid to impoverished villages by cutting a program most Australians are completely unaware off?
Although Australia was recently ranked the 2nd wealthiest country in the world by Credit Swisse, we sit in a region that is a breeding ground for poverty. The Asia and Pacific region is home to a little over half of the world’s populations, yet the region accounts for over 60% of the worlds’ starving according to the WFP. Our closet neighbours, East Timor, languish with the one of the worst child mortality rates in the world, whilst 18 other nations within our region are considered as developing.
So, with the financial year coming to a close, local council’s budgets are presently being prepared to conceive the best way to waste rate-payers funds.
And every year, tens of thousands of dollars from these funds are being allocated towards developing and maintaining chic sister city relationships with foreign nations.
What a nonsensical waste of rate-payer money.
These strategic alliances are maintained to encourage greater cultural, economic and educational exchanges whilst inspiring friendship and understanding aiding a peaceful co-existence. And whilst the goals for the program are admirable, surely the money can be better spent.
In 2004, the Ararat Rural City Council spent $10,000 on erecting a “friendship stone” in Taishan, China. Furthermore, over 90 people travelled from Ararat to China to witness the unveiling ceremony.
How’s this for an alternative: instead of spending an incomprehensible amount of money to maintain these fashionable relationships, why not use it to sponsor an impoverished town instead? Imagine what $10,000 could do to assist a developing town. According to World Vision, those funds could be used to immunise 400 kids or it could provide clean drinking water for 6 communities, it could maybe even provide training for 80 teachers.
Think about it, your local council agree to spend ratepayer money on a new program to assist a developing town to provide food, clean water and education. What a way to encourage new bi-lateral links between nations, whilst still getting the satisfaction that we are succeeding in making the world a better place. And the best part? It won’t cost a cent.
By creating a support network within a developing region, neighbouring councils will have a responsibility to their specific town. The system will allow proceeds to remain transparent whilst keeping councils accountable.
At the end of the day, the scale of poverty is a global problem and so too its responsibility. But who said charity can’t begin at home?
Paul Purcell is in his final-year of a Bachelor of Journalism degree at Monash University. He’s a proud advocate of using a nonsensical approach to reach reason. You can follow him on Twitter @PaulWPurcell.
