Letters

The Age

Tuesday August 26, 2008

Developing countries need aid but without ties to open markets, privatisation

IN RESPONSE to Mark Zirnsak (Letters, 16/8), I support aid to developing countries. The corruption in developing countries is not limited to the elites of those countries who are often blamed by the aid providers for the country failing to progress. International companies are simply allowed in to ravage the country's resources and people and carry away most of the wealth generated as profit.

When international aid comes tied to economic liberalisation and does not support the development in those countries of strong national institutions that redirect resources back into the country, the country cannot help its poorest members. Most Cambodians and millions of people around the world live in grinding poverty that has not been alleviated by programs that open the borders of their countries to exploitation by large companies. Certainly, multinational companies that violate international standards and harm the people should be thrown out.

Aid packages too often come tied to "conditionality", requiring governments to cut social services and privatise public amenities. I support aid to developing countries, but not aid tied to open markets and privatisation.

Joanne Knight

Melbourne

Healthy investments

WE LEARN (BusinessDay, 21/8) that the Department of Human Services has reviewed hospitals' investments. I would have thought the best investments made by a chronically underfunded hospital would have been in doctors, nurses, equipment and beds.

What are millions of dollars doing in the unhealthy subprime market or any sharemarket for that matter? Spare cash could be kept in a local bank as a normal deposit that is safe from loss, free from trading fees and available when needed. The prime function of hospital managers is to work with medical staff to ensure the best outcome for patients. They are not employed as de facto investment consultants.

Roger Green

Ferntree Gully

Busy doing nothing

ACADEMICS Sinclair Davidson and John Legge (BusinessDay, 16/8) highlight that Sir Humphrey was right. If you want to appear to be doing something, but actually doing nothing, commission a report.

Perhaps former premier Steve Bracks had the best of intentions, but fear of the Productivity Commission emasculated the result. Davidson and Legge observe that it is time someone had the guts to face up to the fact that if Australia is to have a viable manufacturing industry, we must stop imagining that the world plays by the same tariff rules we do.

Essentially, Australians and their governments seem unable to understand that unless we support our industries and buy Australian-made products, we will become entirely dependent on iron ore exports and starve when the Chinese don't want it. Meanwhile, it is "cool" to drive a BMW, or to have a Miele kitchen, so the 64,000 workers in our car industry face extinction and the workers who used to produce those excellent St George ovens are working in warehouses distributing imported whitegoods.

And how many thousands of imported vehicles are used by government agencies and members of Parliament? Imagine the German, French, Italian or Japanese governments using Buick, Pontiacs, Fords or General Motors cars.

As Davidson and Legge observe, there is no objective, deliverable plan that requires a responsible government to face up to the critical question of future industrial viability in this country. That, of course, would require a "leader" - one who could conduct the people to a mutually desirable goal.

Neville Rutledge

Kew

Dam silly idea

IT WAS with considerable disappointment (and some anger) that I read Alan Moran's article (BusinessDay, 12/8) expressing concern that the Brumby Government was not investigating seriously the option of new dams.

Not unexpectedly, the arguments presented in favour of a dam on the Mitchell River were entirely economic, and we have heard them all before. Moran obviously has not caught up with the fact that governments have for some time assessed large infrastructure projects on a triple bottom line basis, considering environmental and social aspects with the economics.

It was revealing that not once in this unbalanced article did Moran mention that the Mitchell River is one of only two major Victoria rivers that are not regulated, and still in a largely natural condition, and people want it to stay that way.

I fully support the Government policy not to consider damming the Mitchell River. I hope it takes no notice of the shrill cries from blinkered economists such as Moran who appear unprepared to consider there may be big social and environmental problems that would far outweigh the suggested economic benefits.

Professor Barry Hart

Water Studies Centre, Monash University

© 2008 The Age

Back to News Index | Back to Home