Contributing to the recent debate on overseas aid following recent comments by Tim Costello, Alan Oxley and words from the Prime Minister while at APEC in Chile.

Tim Costello's had the audacity to speak up for the poor and call for an increase in Australia's aid program. The response has been fascinating. Attack the credentials of the messenger. Blame the poor. Mock the development agencies that hazard to speak up for the powerless. Claim ownership of all the answers for global poverty. Denigrate the effectiveness of aid. Anything but loosen the purse strings for the needy. It is a perilous thing to seek justice for the poor. Then again, with Tim Costello's background, he should know this is what happens to the prophetic voice.

The Prime Minister weighed in from Chile and told us that its time for non-government organisations to stop complaining about aid levels because the answer is trade. Meanwhile at home, Alan Oxley tried to portray Tim Costello as an uninformed newcomer who should understand the real problem is poor governance.

The central theme in these messages is that somehow aid is the problem, that aid is not effective. There is one small problem with this. There is very little empirical evidence to support such a claim. To the contrary a recent review by the World Institute for Development Economics found overwhelming evidence that aid increases growth and improves poverty-relevant variables. Furthermore decreases in aid cause poverty to increase. It is therefore unsubstantiated rhetoric to suggest that additional aid to Africa and poorer nations wouldn't do any good.

The suggestion that no additional aid is required also runs counter to the consensus of the world community. In 2000 world leaders met to decide what was required to halve world poverty by 2015. Australia was represented and signed on to the United Nations Millennium Declaration that explicitly stated more aid would be required. To suggest now that no increase in aid levels is required is to contradict this earlier commitment. By doing so we are reneging on our promise to the most vulnerable, for whom this has life and death consequences.

The experience of overseas aid organisations is that aid delivers tangible and immediate benefits for poor people, especially children. Primary health services save children's lives. New schools enable children to read and write. Clean water improves the wellbeing of the whole community. If the Prime Minister doubts this I would be happy to introduce him to children in Africa who could point out the real difference that aid has made in their lives. It.s a standing invitation!

One thing we can agree on is that there is room for improvement in governance. There is certainly evidence that the impact of aid on growth is contingent on the policies of recipient countries, so that while aid works in all countries it works better in countries with better policy regimes. The failure of governance though is not the failure of aid rather it is a failure of politics, diplomacy and international relations.

Aid agencies have welcomed the government.s attempts to come to grips with poor governance issues in our region. But we have also warned that top down solutions to fixing the problems are unsustainable over the long run. What is needed is a careful mix of supply and demand side accountability improvements. Fast fixes to things in Port Moresby can only be sustained when community level groups are empowered to demand higher standards of their government. Overseas aid organisations stand available and willing to assist on demand led good governance.

Aid agencies are in full agreement with the parliamentary secretary for foreign affairs and trade, Bruce Billson, who clearly acknowledges that aid, trade and good governance are all part of an effective poverty alleviation strategy (The Age letters 23/11/04). I am concerned about where Mr Howard gets his advice that overseas aid organisations are anti trade or that we are silent on trade liberalisation. This is simply not true. Perhaps he mistakes us as part of the anti globalisation movement.

Overseas aid organisations have long advocated for reform to the world trade rules and frequently pointed out the damage done to poor farmers by massive farm protection systems erected by the USA and the EU. This is an area in which Australia's farming interests and the interests of the world.s poor are aligned. As a sector we have worked closely with the Minister for Trade and been represented on his WTO advisory committee, providing valuable research and support. Perhaps Mr Howard's advisors should check their facts on this.

Furthermore the aforementioned Millennium Declaration makes it quite clear that trade reform must go hand in hand with increases in aid if the goal of halving world poverty is to be achieved. Currently Australia only gives 0.25% of GDP, ranking us in the bottom half of all donor countries.

How is it then when a call is made for increases to aid levels certain people start firing off in all directions completely ignoring the agreed wisdom that an integrated approach using aid, trade, debt and good governance is required. Could this be a tactic of distraction? What is particularly galling is the way that international aid organisations are set up as the scapegoat. In substantive forums we have, and continue to, contribute careful, thoughtful work on how global poverty can be solved. We have a consensus in the Millennium Declaration on what action is required. It is not helpful to have the Prime Minister, either ill advised, or playing the issues for political gain when there is agreement on what needs to be done by the committed players.

What is really needed is for Australia to be one of those seriously committed to halving world poverty by 2015 and contribute its fair share. Pledging to double Australian overseas aid in order to help create a better future for the world's children would be a fitting way for the Prime Minister to mark World AIDS Day on December 1st.

For more information visit Make Poverty History.