Oral: Should Australia cut foreign aid?

[Ferdy270]

In the past two decades the world has witnessed one of the most rapid reductions of poverty in history. Ongoing aid has helped lift millions out of poverty but yet poverty is still an eperdemic.
One billion people still live in extreme poverty, which is classified as less then $1.25 per day.
1 billion children worldwide are living in poverty. According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty.
That's more than 8 million each year.
The fact that they die silently does not make it unimportant.
The grim fact that they may not make the news paper every day does not make it unimportant.
Part of the mission of any government committed to the principles of social justice is to give a voice to the voiceless. And that is what Australia must continue to do through our aid policy. As US President Barack Obama said; “As the wealthiest nation on Earth, I believe the United States has a moral obligation to lead the fight against hunger and malnutrition, and to partner with others.” Such a passionate and spirited approach to an ongoing predicament should be adopted by other financially secure countries like Australia.
Recently Prime Minister Abbott addressed this issue and stated that; “we will build the roads of the 21st century instead of shoveling money abroad”. This sends a blatant message to the rest of the world and Australians alike, that Australia is ready to turn their back on people living in poverty, people dying of starvation in order to ensure that the road we drive on is smoother which is unmistakably insensitive.
For those curious, Australia on average dedicates 0.4 percent of the nation’s gross income to aid. To put that at a vantage point, 40cents is dedicated to aid for every 100 dollars earned. Mr Joe Hockey, Treasurer of Australia wants to drop the already low percentage forgetting that in 2007 the then Opposition promised to boost our Overseas Development Assistance to 0.5 % of Gross National Income by 2015. Despite the economic challenges and crisis we have faced we have continued to donate. The Government remains resolute. Going back on our promise and cutting aid will prove that Australia is incapable of implementing the commitment and promise we have made.
Bob Zoellick of the World Bank has pointed out, foreign aid to poverty is not just a question of a kind heart, but also the next step of global economic growth. Concern for the world's poor is evident in the heart of Australians.
Australians are great givers.
Australians are great volunteers.
Australians are driven by the deepest belief in a fair go for all — both at home and abroad and we must continue to uphold these values and perceptions of Australia by not cutting back on the aid.
It is simply unjustified. It shows a poor understanding on the governments role of aid in the world. By cutting foreign aid, we are practically shooting ourselves in the foot.
Heres why:
We give foreign aid not just for the sake of helping others, but also because it is in our best interest as a trading nation to do so. Aid money can be considered a long term investment in goodwill and in trust. Money sent to help eradicate poverty and stop the spread of disease in Africa, for instance, is expected to do us good in the long term; an Africa that can develop sustainably releases people from poverty and creates opportunities for trade and commerce for ourselves.
A current example is Asia, we continue to send aid to help the population and to help keep the region peaceful and secure to continue our trade.
Brian Atwood, the former chairman of the Development Assistance Committee, says: "You get more out of a dollar of overseas development assistance than you get out of a dollar of defence spending because you are preventing a crisis in the future if you are investing in that way."
Now lets take a look at the statistics if we do cut the foreign aid, Aid organisations say that the foreign aid cuts would effect on average 2 million children a year that need medication, 2 million people that will be left without an access to clean water, and the 1 million children that need the support to continue in school. That’s just the beginning, illness as a cause of the lack of medication distributed will cause a spike in disease, causing the death of countless people. The people left without clean water will ingest contaminated water as a means of survival and also contract disease, and children left without an education will forever leave a legacy of illiteracy and wasted talents.
I close where I opened, our foreign aid donations is something of which we should be proud. We are by instinct sympathetic people. Just as we are by instinct, practical people. We don't mind giving. For the one billion people from our human family who live in abject poverty today and the 24,000 children who this day have died of preventable causes. For all the statistics — for all the numbers we must not cut the aid, let us not forget that we are talking about people who are part of our common humanity. People, stuck in a condition of poverty who cannot live the kinds of lives which they have reason to value, because each day for them is a basic struggle to survive. Australians should be proud that we are responding to this challenge by being a real contributor to global development. This is what logic requires. It is also what our moral sense demands. And it is what an effective government must deliver. An expanding and growing aid policy for Australia should be a core objective of this Australian Government and it what Australia must continue to do.



Ferdinand Joseph


FEEDBACK, TIPS AND ADVICE WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED   

[literally lauren]

In the past two decades the world has witnessed one of the most rapid reductions of poverty in history. Ongoing aid has helped lift millions out of poverty but yet poverty is still an epidemic. using poverty three times in a sentence  try to substitute with synonyms or rephrasing
One billion people still live in extreme poverty, which is classified as less then $1.25 per day.
1 billion children worldwide are living in poverty. According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty.
That's more than 8 million each year.
The fact that they die silently does not make it unimportant.
The grim fact that they may not make the news paper every day does not make it unimportant. Very good
Part of the mission of any government committed to the principles of social justice is to give a voice to the voiceless. And that is what Australia must continue to do through our aid policy. As US President Barack Obama said; “As the wealthiest nation on Earth, I believe the United States has a moral obligation to lead the fight against hunger and malnutrition, and to partner with others.” Such a passionate and spirited approach to an ongoing predicament should be adopted by other financially secure countries like Australia.
Recently Prime Minister Abbott addressed this issue and stated that; “we will build the roads of the 21st century instead of shoveling money abroad”. This sends a blatant message to the rest of the world and Australians alike, that Australia is ready to turn their back on people living in poverty, people dying of starvation in order to ensure that the road we drive on is smoother which is unmistakably insensitive. good para. though sounds a bit familiar...
For those curious, Australia on average dedicates 0.4 percent of the nation’s gross income to aid. To put that at a vantage point,into perspective, 40 cents is dedicated donated to aid for every 100 dollars earned. Mr Joe Hockey, Treasurer of Australia wants to drop the already low percentage forgetting that in 2007 the then Opposition promised to boost our Overseas Development Assistance to 0.5 % of Gross National Income by 2015. Despite the economic challenges and crisis we have faced we have continued to donate. The Government remains resolute. Going back on our promise and cutting aid will prove that Australia is incapable of implementing the commitment and promise we have made.
Bob Zoellick of the World Bank has pointed out, foreign aid to poverty is not just a question of a kind heart, but also the next step of global economic growth. Concern for the world's poor is evident in the heart of Australians.
Australians are great givers.
Australians are great volunteers.
Australians are driven by the deepest belief in a fair go for all — both at home and abroad and we must continue to uphold these values and perceptions of Australia by not cutting back on the aid.
We are great givers, great volunteers, and we are driven by the deep seated belief in a fair go for all — both at home and abroad. We must continue to uphold these values. (inclusive language is generally more powerful, repetition is tedious here)
ItNeglecting those in need of aid is simply unjustified. It shows a poor understanding on the government's role of aid in the world. how? By cutting foreign aid, we are practically shooting ourselves in the foot.
Heres why:
We give foreign aid not just for the sake of helping others, but also because it is in our best interest as a trading nation to do so. Aid money can be considered a long term investment in goodwill and in trust. Money sent to help eradicate poverty and stop the spread of disease in Africa, for instance, is expected to do us good in the long term; an Africa that can develop sustainably releases people from poverty and creates opportunities for trade and commerce for ourselves. very good
A current example is Asia, we continue to send aid to help the population and to help keep the region peaceful and secure to continue our trade. In what has been deemed 'The Asian Century' it is critical for us to assert our position in the Pacific Region.
Brian Atwood, the former chairman of the Development Assistance Committee, says: "You get more out of a dollar of overseas development assistance than you get out of a dollar of defence spending because you are preventing a crisis in the future if you are investing in that way." good quote
Now lets take a look at the statistics if we do cut the foreign aid, Aid organisations say that the foreign aid cuts would effect on average 2 million children a year that need medication, 2 million people that will be left without an access to clean water, and the 1 million children that need the support to continue in school. That’s just the beginning, illness as a cause of the lack of medication distributed will cause a spike in disease, causing the death of countless people. The people left without clean water will ingest contaminated water as a means of survival and also contract disease, and children left without an education will forever leave a legacy of illiteracy and wasted talents. very good use of leading logic
I close where I opened,harry potter reference?  our foreign aid donations isare something of which we should be proud. We are by instinct sympathetic people. Just as we are by instinct, practical people. We don't mind giving. For the one billion people from our human family who live in abject poverty today and the 24,000 children who this day have died of preventable causes. For all the statistics — for all the numbers we must not cut the aid, let us not forget that we are talking about people who are part of our common humanity. People, stuck in a condition of poverty who cannot live the kinds of lives which they have reason to value, because each day for them is a basic struggle to survive. Australians should be proud that we are responding to this challenge by being a real contributor to global development. This is what logic requiresdictates. It is also what our moral sense demands. And it is what an effective government must deliver. Excellent! An expanding and growing aid policy for Australia should be a core objective of this Australian Government for us (repetition of govt.) and it what Australia must continue to do. and we should rise to this challenge as a nation.

Hi Ferdinand,
I was worried about your phraseology at the start, and you defs need to consult a thesaurus for 'poverty'  But your body paragraphs were strong and your conclusion was fantastic. The last sentence needs work however, I've made a suggestion, but it's kind of pedestrian; if you think of something better use that instead.
Repetition is a tricky technique to master. On one hand it can drive your points home and strengthen ideas by association (eg. your conclusion.) Other times, though, it becomes redundant and annoying to an audience. The rule of threes is a good guide, as you  demonstrated at the end, but try not to use this more than twice in a piece of writing, as it can become monotonous.
Some minor syntax issues, but these are easy to fix. I'd say this was a high end piece, but if you can bring the rest of it (esp. the intro) up to the same standard as your conclusion, this would bump up your mark considerably. Of course your oral ability will be the deciding factor, so practice aloud; try to memorise most of it if you can, that way you can give more thought to your tone and emphasis on the day.
Good luck