Phil GoffHost
Chris FinlaysonHost
But shall I start with where I've, I've, I've just finished off, Chris, which is the, the overseas aid, uh, budget.

But the US aid has now been reduced to 0.09, the wealthiest country in the world, and it, it can't even reach 0.1 of 1% to give in aid to people who are dying unnecessarily of famine, poor health treatment, poor housing, conflict, disaster, um, uh, the relief needs, uh, et cetera.

But, you know, I really do question the morality and the decency of people who think that an easy target is to stop providing assistance, life-saving assistance, to people in, in genuine need.

First of all, Simeon Brown saying, "We are a generous nation." Well, not according to the OECD statistics.

And then Christopher Luxon, who I really say I, I admired for his role as vice chair of the Tia Foundation, picking out some obscure aid project in Patagonia for climate-related agriculture on which we spend a massive sum of 200,000 to prove how wasteful our aid spending is.

So the aid cuts will be from the other 40%, which means there'll be, uh, probably in excess of, um, 25% cuts.

And this is in direct humanitarian crisis relief, so such as the, the aid we give to Gaza and Ukraine.

It's in Southeast Asia where we're working with them partly for political and diplomatic reasons on development assistance, and it's into the core multilateral institutions such as the World Health Organization, High Commission, uh, uh, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and UNESCO.

One, it's immoral, it's a cheap shot, it's a mean, miserable thing to do and people will die because of it.

And secondly- Uh, it does remove our moral authority to speak on any of those matters internationally because after we've cut the aid by a substantial amount, we won't have that authority.

But shall I start with where I've, I've, I've just finished off, Chris, which is the, the overseas aid, uh, budget.

But the US aid has now been reduced to 0.09, the wealthiest country in the world, and it, it can't even reach 0.1 of 1% to give in aid to people who are dying unnecessarily of famine, poor health treatment, poor housing, conflict, disaster, um, uh, the relief needs, uh, et cetera.

But, you know, I really do question the morality and the decency of people who think that an easy target is to stop providing assistance, life-saving assistance, to people in, in genuine need.

First of all, Simeon Brown saying, "We are a generous nation." Well, not according to the OECD statistics.

And then Christopher Luxon, who I really say I, I admired for his role as vice chair of the Tia Foundation, picking out some obscure aid project in Patagonia for climate-related agriculture on which we spend a massive sum of 200,000 to prove how wasteful our aid spending is.

So the aid cuts will be from the other 40%, which means there'll be, uh, probably in excess of, um, 25% cuts.

And this is in direct humanitarian crisis relief, so such as the, the aid we give to Gaza and Ukraine.

It's in Southeast Asia where we're working with them partly for political and diplomatic reasons on development assistance, and it's into the core multilateral institutions such as the World Health Organization, High Commission, uh, uh, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and UNESCO.

One, it's immoral, it's a cheap shot, it's a mean, miserable thing to do and people will die because of it.

And secondly- Uh, it does remove our moral authority to speak on any of those matters internationally because after we've cut the aid by a substantial amount, we won't have that authority.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.