Opinion 
 Blogs 
 Jeff Corbett 
 Hazards of charity 

Hazards of charity

A small episode in a documentary following newlywed Novocastrians on a journey in Afghanistan has reminded me of the hazards of charity. In the documentary - Honeymoon in Kabul, to be screened on ABC TV on December 10 - former midwife Maggie Haertsch and hospital clown Jean-Paul Bell are shocked by an Afghan MP's rejection of their proffered suitcase of baby clothes. There was another, more serious shock for these two people, and that was when they found their donated humidicribs and medical supplies strewn about the dirty floor of a hospital basement.

In my column in The Herald today I write about experiences that have over many years led me to question just what it is we are creating with charity. Those experiences include government-provided housing for Aboriginal people in western NSW, the hostility of Kosovar refugees in the Hunter a decade ago, and a friend's crushing discovery that her money raised for an African school had been stolen by the head teacher.

The problem is expectations, both the giver's and the taker's. They are always different and often diametrically opposed.

Perhaps charity is not so charitable as we'd imagined. Might it be that we are doing more for ourselves than the targets of our largesse?

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Yes a big part of me giving to charity is to help me feel good about myself. However, I was taken to the outback as a child and also to third world and first world countries. So it was abundantly clear how lucky I am, and I feel as a lucky person, I should share it. We visited Mother Theresa's orphanage in Calcutta in 1980 and worked there. It was an eye opener, and never again did I take for granted my charmed life in Australia. We also got to see & experience the extreme wealth there. Wow just about covers it. Yes a percentage of charity does get siphoned off by some unsavoury characters at every level. But a whole lot does make it to the right people. Just like you think carefully about where to invest your savings, you need to think very carefully about which charity you donate to. I'm more than happy to donate to some of the bigger international charities that are well known (CCF etc) as I know that generally 20-30% goes in admin costs and the rest does in fact get distributed as they are well run charities that practice due diligence. However never ending charity in the land of oz (centrelink etc) is creating a situation where we are de-evolving as a society.
Posted by leahkf, 27/11/2009 9:15:23 AM, on The Herald
A classic example ( and a good topic too Jeff ) includes a couple of germs on welfare on the Central Coast about 2 years ago. The drug affected 'bludgers' (after blowing their dole at the club on the pokies) rocked up to an establishment that makes up food hampers / gives out food vouchers for the needy, all run and paid for by voluntary staff. They demand some vouchers, and get angry and menacing when told there were no more vouchers, but if they were happy to wait for 5 minutes the lone staff member would make a hamper up for them to get through the next couple of days. With the staff members back turned, they stole her bag and car keys. Five minutes later as they rumaged through the staff members handbag and car while driving erratically, they smashed head on with another car near the Wyong Golf Club, and done a runner. The driver of the other car was seriously injured, the owner of the stolen car left without a car and answers as to why she does what she does for people in need. Yes, the germs were eventually caught. When they rocked up two days later at the same refuge asking for food vouchers again. Makes you wonder why we bother sometimes doesnt it ...
Posted by Dave B, 27/11/2009 9:15:41 AM, on The Herald
Charity without scrutiny, diligence and governance will never fully reach its intended Beneficiaries . Then the cost of the process - maybe a substancial amount of the charity given? But the charity does reach those that need it. Thus the importance of teaching someone to farm , teaching how to teach others how to farm is all the more important as it is progressive and sustainable. (farming is just one simple example) The losses due to certain delivery are more than recovered in a few years. Remember it is always better to give than recieve and always better to be the giver than the reciever when its needed. We should always give a little just to remind ourselves of that.
Posted by notashrink, 27/11/2009 9:19:03 AM, on The Herald
I don't give to charities, I'm sure some of the money donated gets to where its meant but a lot ends up in the pockets of the administrators etc. I find it more fulfilling by being charitable when the oppurtunity arises such as paying for a pensioner's order at the supermarket while she's scrabbling around in her purse looking for those few extra dollars she needs or slipping a $20 into the pocket of a sleeping homeless person. As an aside, my mother used to collect for charities and found that the lower on the socio-economic scale the suburb, the more money they would give.
Posted by G, 27/11/2009 9:19:51 AM, on The Herald
Morning Jeff, charity is a bit like giving a book to some one who is illiterate ! My inspiration re the charity debate is Greg Mortensons book 'Three Cups of tea' what one person can do is amazing, & it all boils down to teaching, if you have not read it I can recommend it.
Posted by Ash, 27/11/2009 9:35:05 AM, on The Herald
I have collected for several charities in the past and the one charity people love to give to is the Salvos, when i collected for them there would be people waiting with the money set aside ready for you because they knew it was red shield appeal time. not once has anyone reacted negatively to me when asked for money for salvos... but different story when it comes to other charities. maybe they should be looking at why the salvos are so trusted by everyone.
Posted by catl, 27/11/2009 10:14:14 AM, on The Herald
Jeff when you consider the overheads in public housing-like damage/repairs- why couldn t these people be given the title to their houses and the rental payments they would have been paying become mortgage repayments. It's remarkable how people are less inclined to trash their own property.If they default they lose their house - but thats no different to eviction for non payment of rent anyway -and the Department retains the property as the First mortgage. If the punters pay the mortgage and maintain the place well -they get to keep the capital gain if they decide to sell,which they should be free to do if they choose.Its still a public housing scheme--but arguably more efficient,and builds social capital--rather than incubating crime and vandalism as happens in public rental housing estates now.
Posted by Snooze, 27/11/2009 10:47:33 AM, on The Herald
Great idea, snooze, and one that's been knocked down before. But I can't see why it doesn't make good sense. We'd overcome the often inevitable ghetto, we'd have pride of ownership, we'd overcome the stigma of charity, and those people housed would have a home-buying opportunity they would not otherwise have. I'll see what the dept has to say about it.
Posted by Jeff Corbett on 27/11/2009 11:25:02 AM
Charity should be the gift of being compassionate, about helping people to be able to help themselves, no point in giving wonderful gifts if the people cannot use them or use them and still sit in misery.
Posted by Jimbob, 27/11/2009 12:27:02 PM, on The Herald
Snooze, you are brilliant. This idea has too many merits for a politician to come up with. I too feel that to be considered as owning or just purchasing a public housing-built residence would instil a bit of pride in the family concerned. But you know and I know, it will go into the tooooo hard basket.
Posted by intouch, 27/11/2009 4:30:17 PM, on The Herald
Snooze's idea and a shared-equity scheme announced by the ACT Government this week are the subject of my column and blog for Monday. It seems to me, too, that helping public housing tenants into home ownership would do so much more for them than subsidising their rent.
Posted by Jeff Corbett on 27/11/2009 4:43:00 PM
I've been to many 3rd world countries and seen extreme poverty it's heartbreaking sometimes but the police will stop you if you try to give those people money as they don't want people begging. (How else do they eat?) Of course the real problem is overpopulation- or in Australia the wrong people breeding! Why we give teenage girls $5k for having a baby is beyond me. I know too many who used it to pay off a mobile phone or their boyfriend bought a huge TV! I think snooze's idea is a good one.
Posted by stapleclock, 27/11/2009 5:20:14 PM, on The Herald
Like you, I believe strongly that the baby bonus is encouraging the wrong people to breed. Anyone who is persuaded by the promise of $5000 to have a baby is the very last person who should be having one. Yes, I like Snooze's idea, too, and it is the subject of my column and block today, Monday.
Posted by Jeff Corbett on 30/11/2009 8:47:11 AM
1 | 2  |  next >
Jeff Corbett
Bend the online ear of the Hunter's most provocative columnist.

Most popular articles


 
Balance Health Club-Wests Tower
 
CPA Newcastle Convention 2012
 
Landcom Sanctuary


Newcastle Herald







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...