You can email him from here:

http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/Email.htm?e=zlCXYaiuZ23rigxbxUKk3%2bJXiXqouixO%2fOceWN9PyuH5&n=zlCXYaiuaW3rigxbxUI%3d

Dear Sir,

I read with some concern your comments on NZAid as reported in the NZ Herald (March 4).

I have just returned from a fact-finding trip to the Philippines, visiting development projects delivered by local NGOs supported by TEAR fund, some of which were partly funded by NZAid.
We visited a wide range of projects from Micro-credit programmes in Manila to community and economic development in rural communities.

The quality of planning, implementation, effectiveness and accountability of these projects was outstanding as was the competence and commitment of the NGOs. I saw no evidence of a culture of handouts, let alone of ‘hundred dollar notes pushed out the window of a helicopter’. I saw highly effective and well audited development assistance giving these, our neighbours, the chance to build their own economic security.

NZAid’s model of economic and social development funding delivery is highly regarded internationally – and rightly so. Its strategic planning, criteria for funding and auditing processes are rigorous and well grounded in best development practice.

I would strongly urge you to ensure that any review of NZAid is undertaken with an open mind and with broad consultation with those parties who have knowledge and experience of delivering the effective aid that New Zealand has become known for. The independence afforded NZAid by its current structure is a valuable part of the way our aid is deployed. I would not want to see this compromised without strong and well debated evidence for a change.

I believe that poverty elimination is not too broad a goal – the problem is broad and so must the response be. Poverty elimination and economic development are not competing interests – they are rather two sides of the same coin.

As a taxpayer and voter, I desire that my contribution to global development through New Zealand overseas development assistance is delivered in the most effective way possible and in a way that reaches the poorest of our neighbours. I believe that this is the mark of a compassionate society – and that is what I want this country to be known for.

Yours faithfully,
Chris Mason-Battley

Any effort to talk to politicians would be great.

Also something that I forgot to add as I trailed off somewhere else then came back

[quote]Bringing in a greater focus on our neighbours in the pacific could be a good thing.[/quote]

But this shouldn’t be made expecting something in return, nothing should be forced upon for this aid. But I’m sure that basis is covered, but the more you give the more they feel indebted I guess, as long as its there own feeling that’s okay I guess

Your statement:

And at an extreme, educating a child is no use if they have no healthcare and die.
Can our aid be considered to broad?
Bringing in a greater focus on our neighbours in the pacific could be a good thing.

NZAid funds are focused in the Pacific. 53% focused in one area is significant. In terms of breadth where it may refer to the points within a community that it deals with, yes, this is broad since good community development engages as many points of need. You’re right, if a child gets to go to a school, but there is no development in any other area, it is a waste of time – currently, any money used in development and aid from New Zealand tax payers takes that into account.

To answer the first query, no, the whole fund is not administered through New Zealand NGO’s. There are specific funds that fit that purpose – KOHA and HAF. They are part of the budget.

Hopefully that helps a little, Benjamin.

Now since I don’t know much about the structure of NZAid and how it was in the ministry of trade and how it is now.
I won’t really comment on that.

But I am interested in his comment on giving more to the Pacific.
53% currently of NZ’s aid goes to the pacific.
To quote him directly “Mr McCully said New Zealand’s aid policy would shift from NZAid’s current focus on ‘poverty elimination’ to one closer to the Government’s policy aims, such as economic development in the Pacific.”

I am of the persuasion that the problem is far to big for what is currently going in. And at an extreme, educating a child is no use if they have no healthcare and die.
Can our aid be considered to broad?
Bringing in a greater focus on our neighbours in the pacific could be a good thing.
However it all depends on how Mr McCully defines “economic development”
Totally broad term, as Frank pointed out I would question whether this will give any focus on issues of trade to ensure that money is given and invested where it is needed.

You were missing a link to that article ^.^