Similar Posts

- Advertisement -

3 Comments

  1. “Less than two percent of aid spending went to activities focused solely on climate adaptation, according to the latest data in the report, and almost half have no gender equality component, despite a long-standing commitment from the government to mainstream gender across its aid programme.”

    This is very vague and waffly. Please be specific, with examples.

    1. Although it may be vague there may well be reasons for that.
      At least it is an alarm call towards much further investigation.
      Corso many years ago was an aid agency that collected widely across NZ and had govt grants. Corso collected clothes initially but grew in size. It was revealed after private investigation that Corso had grow fat and most of its budget was spent on administration and salaries. At one stage it was netting over 10 million pounds in the 1960s
      Public confidence was lost, donations declined and it went out of the “charity” business.
      Where ever there is money you will find corruption given time.

      Oxfams findings need investigating.

  2. I agree, when complaining state case, otherwise it gets lost in the Sea of Troubles. It’s getting so that anything definite should be numbered. With research showing that people have less retention and hardly read an email past the first para. there need to be coherent, cogent informed paras that are pinned by numbers. And then they have to reply by numbers, and if something isn’t covered you point to the question number and say that this is not covered adequately in this 1…a and this 1b… etc. It would be a case of me telling how to suck eggs, ie its all been heard and known before, but such a lot of things we accept as given, are not customary at all. I loved Kim Hill this morning on Radionz – she wanted precise info not generalisations and I think she was questioning Minister Hipkins. He was good too.

Comments are closed.