Council for International Development
June 10th, 2010 at 2:00 pm by David FarrarNo Right Turn blogs:
The Council for International Development is an umbrella organisation for aid groups operating from New Zealand. Last year, it criticised the government’s disestablishment of NZAID and shift in the focus of aid from poverty reduction to business growth. In retaliation, Murray McCully has just cut all their funding, resulting in 10 of its 11 staff being laid off.
This is a vicious, brutal, vindictive act of political thuggery. But its also stupid. Those staff perform a vital role in coordinating the efforts of relief groups during disasters. Without them, aid money is likely to be poorly spent. And when the government’s preferred response to disasters is to channel relief funding though NGOs, that will have a direct impact on the effectiveness of that spending.
I disagree of course. First of all I am staggered that the CID has somehow grown so it has 11 staff. I recall the days when it was around 1 to 2 staffers.
Secondly it is nonsense to say they perform a vital role in co-ordinating relief groups during disasters. I worked at the Red Cross for four years, and co-ordination was done globally or bilaterally. This is not to say the CID hasn’t been a group which provides some value, but it is massively hyping it to say they co-ordinate relief efforts and nonsense to say without them aid money is likely to be poorly spent. That is in fact insulting to the Red Cross and Save the Children Fund who are global leaders in effective relief. The demise of some CID staff will not affect the quality of their work in my opinion.
The CID, while providing some useful stuff, was partly a lobby group, and I regard it as improper for the Government to fund lobby groups. It is in fact anti-democratic. The health sector is full of these groups also.
What Idiot/Savant has overlooked is that if CID really does play such a vital role with aid agencies, then the aid agencies themselves can choose to fund CID, rather than the taxpayer. Taxpayer funding go on actual aid and relief, not Wellington lobbyists.
Look at their 2008 manifesto to see that they were very much a lobby group. Now nothing wrong with that, but don’t expect taxpayers to fund it.
Related posts:
- Business Council for Sustainable Development
- State funded lobbyists
- Funding cut to Auckland’s Combined Beneficiaries Union
- New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development
June 10th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
Far too many lobby groups recieve my tax payers dollars. Forest and Bird getting 750k is an outrage that should be stopped too.
Vote:June 10th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
Wasn’t this another one of those groups created by the last administration as part of its socialist agenda? If it was and its doing nothing except acting as a ‘holding pen’ for labour ‘friends’ who are intent on sabotaging the current government’s policies, (as many seem to be), then it is only reasonable that its funding be cut.
Contrary to what certain people in government departments may believe, being a Labour party croney is no reason to think your job is either secure or long term.
To echo two of DL’s favourite phrases, ‘Diddums’, ‘Get over it’.
Vote:June 10th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
The Red Cross was outside of CID – they do do a lot of work coordinating emergency responses, and the one position the government is funding is to carry on that role.
CID hasn’t done very much serious lobbying in recent years – it was more of a GONGO (Government Organised NGO) -providing a largely uncritical voice that the Labour government could use when it wanted to claim to have ‘consulted’ with civil society.
I think it’s hype to say the cutting off of funding was ‘retaliation’. CID did very little about the cutting of NZAID and McCully always wanted to shift government aid money to the private sector (particularly as ‘boomerang’ aid – funding your own companies to do work overseas and calling it aid) and away from the community development and partnership model CID championed. This is part of that programme. The government subsidies to approved NGO aid projects have been cut to, which will be a major impact on their work.
Vote:June 10th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
…and no, it wasn’t created by the last administration – it’s been around since the 1980s.
Vote:June 10th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
Sam’s just confirmed every word you said Komata. What a surprise.
Vote:June 10th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Thanks Sam – but which year during the ’80′s? Can you supply a ‘Founding’ date?
Thanks
Vote:June 10th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
For “1980′s” just substitute “previous socialist administration”.
Vote:June 10th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
I only had to look as far as their statement on climate change to know they are a politicised organisation with their snouts in the trough.
Vote:June 10th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
From their website:
“The Council for International Development (CID) was formed in 1985……”
So founded under the reign of windbag Lange.
Sam’s a socialist spinner (but not a very good one obviously) so I guess he would be employed by an outfit like CID.
Vote:June 10th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
1985 rings a bell, but I haven’t checked – and no it wasn’t created by the government – it was entirely an unfunded volunteer outfit at first.
It should have been much more wary of both government funding and the Labour party. ‘Friendly funding’ always results in casulties later on.
Vote:June 10th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Check here Sam:
http://www.cid.org.nz/about-cid/index.html
If you are still confused give this fellow a call:
http://www.cid.org.nz/news/media.html
“and no it wasn’t created by the government
I refer you again to my comment.
“So founded under the reign of windbag Lange.”
I never said he paid for it.
Vote:June 10th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Johnboy – I wasn’t referring to you – I was answering Komata.
Vote:June 10th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Intriguing that I’m still listed as comms manager though – that position was disestablished last year. I guess there’s nobody who knows how to update the website now!
Vote:June 10th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
Thank you Sam (and Johnboy) – much appreciated.
I have just checked the organisation’s website and find, unsurprisingly, that it is a site for socialists, radical feminists, tree huggers and all of the lunatic-fringe-type individuals who were Labour’s camp-followers during the years they were in power; the sorts of people that the green’s absolutely love. Given their socialist ‘all people everywhere are our friends’ type agenda’s and inclinations, its patently anti-National government diatribes on its site, and its self-righteous view of its own self-importance, the funding cut doesn’t surprise. The amazing thing is that it took National so long to cut it off.
Like CORSO, it has outlived its usefulness.
Vote:June 10th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
“it is a site for socialists, radical feminists, tree huggers and all of the lunatic-fringe-type individuals who were Labour’s camp-followers”
Ah, the funny old world of Kiwiblog, where the everyone outside of a narrow right-wing viewpoint is deemed to support the Labour party. Actually folks, Labour isn’t popular with “socialists, radical feminists, tree huggers”, it’s more of a mild social democrat and business people’s party, scary thought that isn’t it?
Vote:June 10th, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Money would be better off being donated straight to Red Cross or the like.
Vote:June 10th, 2010 at 4:06 pm
In Britain the new Con-Dem coalition is inviting ordinary people to write in and point out which entire departments could be closed.
Vote:Might I suggest for starters the Careers Services. What use is it? Should we spend millions on it every year? would anyone notice if it was gone?
June 10th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
Sam
‘Labour isn’t popular with “socialists, radical feminists, tree huggers”, it’s more of a mild social democrat and business people’s party’.
Thank you for your reply, but, sorry old chap – I have to disagree with that statement – and after nine years of exposure to a political dictatorship under the late, unlammented dear leader, have to say that there was no way that what we suffered (yes, that word is deliberately used) under her extremely hypocritical, corrupt, cronyistic and self-serving rule was ‘a mild social democrat and business people’s party’.
The fact that the ‘lady’ bought herself a promotion to the UN on our (my) tax-money is a classic example of what I mean.
Twasn’t so I’m afraid – and no doubt there are others who can convey this far better than myself.
But, of course, to each there own, and far all I know you may think labour was wonderful. As I said, I disagree.
Thanks anyway – your response was appreciated.
Vote:June 10th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Ones greatest disappointment is that one has yet to see this administration sluice out the Agean Stables of these waste of money and oxygen organisations.
God knows how many millions of tax payer dollars pissed up against the wall to fund no hopers non contributors to the betterment of our society.
One can only keep appealing to the PM and Ministers to put aside their policital correctness and cultural stupidity and take the axe where it belongs
Vote:June 10th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
Good start by Mccully.
All taxpayer money that goes overseas should be reviewed. Too much goes to kleptocracies and deeply corrupt regimes.
And I’m not so sure about the Red Cross now that they train the Taliban. Isee over at Jihad Watch that their trainees mustn’t have been listening as they hanged a 7 year old for spying.
Vote:June 10th, 2010 at 6:39 pm
Good move, well done National.
Vote:June 10th, 2010 at 7:10 pm
Way to McCully and the Nats. Next lets doit to the United Nations!!! Oh Please, please!!!
Vote:June 10th, 2010 at 8:43 pm
Too much goes to kleptocracies and deeply corrupt regimes.
How much?
Vote:June 10th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
I’m quite happy to agree that Helen Clark’s government was “extremely hypocritical, corrupt, cronyistic and self-serving” its policy and legislative programme though, was that of a “mild social democrat and business people’s party”.
Vote:June 10th, 2010 at 10:36 pm
“Too much goes to kleptocracies and deeply corrupt regimes.”
Agree with that – the ASEAN FTA has meant that the Burma dictatorship is now benefitting from New Zealand government aid programmes.
Vote: