Sending aid where it's most needed

January 6, 2005

In the outpouring of concern that follows a great catastrophe there is an understandable tendency for compassion to overwhelm more realistic considerations. This is evident in the inquiries from many well-meaning Australians about adopting the orphans left by the tsunami. The best future for most such children will be amid communities and cultures that are familiar. Further dislocation may simply compound their distress. The same good intentions are there in proposals to freeze, or even cancel, the foreign debt of the worst-hit countries. While debt forgiveness has a place in international aid, such a very general measure is not the appropriate response to the very specific needs created by the tsunami.

The idea that the world's richest nations should forgive the debts of the poorest has gathered momentum in recent years, reflecting the advocacy of high-profile supporters such as the rock star Bono. They argue that poor nations no longer burdened by past borrowings will spend more on health, education, infrastructure and other worthwhile areas. Their particular targets are the world's 30 poorest nations - mostly in Africa - which collectively owe some $US200 billion ($262 billion). Even the US, once a critic, has become a supporter since it began campaigning for the cancellation of Iraq's $US120 billion in external debt. On the other hand, critics of debt forgiveness say it looks a lot like a blank cheque, and an invitation to further profligacy. Both sides of the debate do acknowledge, however, that debt forgiveness is often the only way ahead for very poor countries with a legacy of debt from past regimes, and little or no capacity to pay the interest, let alone repay the capital.

That does not, though, describe the countries worst hit by the tsunami, Indonesia and Sri Lanka. Neither is mendicant, though Indonesia does have a sizeable foreign debt of $US78 billion, and is urging some form of debt moratorium as part of the international aid package to be considered at today's emergency summit in Jakarta. While there is, reportedly, support for this proposal from some wealthy countries, the Prime Minister, John Howard, is right to express reservations. "There's no guarantee that ... what is forgiven ... will end up going in aid," Mr Howard has said, adding: "My overwhelming preference is for Australian aid to be targeted and for Australia to have a clear role in where it goes and how it goes ..."

What the tsunami victims need - and are entitled to expect - from the Jakarta conference is a long-term commitment to rebuilding after the present phase of emergency relief is well past. They will look to wealthy nations to fund homes and industries, as well as the infrastructure and services that support them, in a co-ordinated program that will be measured in years.

The conference needs to make sure that aid is precisely focused so that in Indonesia, and the other affected countries, the help goes where it is most needed.

Chatswood plans out of kilter

The quiet of the holiday season, when most people are celebrating or recovering, is often when governments make unpopular announcements in a bid to avoid public scrutiny. So at a time when it might have expected no one to notice, the State Government has announced a 32-storey residential tower at Chatswood, to be built with two other towers, one of 12 storeys and the third probably of 18. The approval, by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, and not the minister, Craig Knowles, comes despite lengthy opposition to the plans.

The Government has been seeking to lift population density around railway stations to boost railway patronage and to help fund spending on the rail network, mostly on station redevelopment and upgrades. As a general policy, that is unexceptionable. However, a building of 32 floors on top of the Chatswood station is out of all proportion to the surrounding area, as well as being a huge bonus for the developer.

The development is needed to fund a station upgrade because of the approaching completion of the line to Epping as the first leg of the Chatswood-Parramatta rail link. The cost of the development has been estimated at more than $500 million, making it one of the largest public-private partnerships, which use private money to fund the construction of public facilities. The Government insists that "heritage conditions" will apply to the designs "to minimise overshadowing and visual impact" of the residential buildings, although it is clear that a 32-storey building will cast a lengthy shadow over the surrounds, no matter how elegant the design.

Like many urban centres, Chatswood has far outgrown its original confines, with cars and buses jostling for the very limited access to the area around the train station. A three-tower complex built directly above the station will add to the congestion, because it will bring at least another 2000 people into the immediate area, with hundreds of extra cars trying to get in and out.

The Government has gone the wrong way about funding the redevelopment of the area, adding to the congestion rather than easing it and, at the same time, sending a clear message to developers about the sort of accommodating deals it is willing to do for other railway stations.