Australians could be forgiven for thinking pensioners are the only poverty stricken group in the country given media coverage in the last week.
Media Monitors recorded 7283 mentions of pensioners between September 12 and 19.
It might come as a surprise to hear that the Catholic Church — who provide a major role in assisting and supporting needy Australians — did not name pensioners in their annual report, which by comparison only received 500 mentions.
The 2008 Australian Catholic Social Justice Statement was released on Wednesday, identifying the greatest social justice issue facing our country right now as poverty — but not poverty amongst pensioners.
The statement names indigenous Australians; the working poor — particularly single parents; refugees and asylum seekers; the homeless – especially the young, mentally ill, and recently released prisoners as key groups in need of assistance.
The statement said:
However we define “poverty” or “disadvantage”, there are some clear indicators that Australia’s care for the less fortunate has not kept pace with the economic growth we have enjoyed over the last 15 years. It was found that, in 2006, according to the most stringent definitions of poverty accepted by international research, 2,210,000 Australians, or 11.1 per cent of the population, were living below the poverty line. This figure included 412,000 children.
A quick look at a single parent’s online forum provides a snapshot of the strategies adopted by poor Australians to survive on Centrelink payments.
One single parent said:
Nothing’s getting better, but it’s not continuing to get worse like it was under the Howard Regime … The Rudd government has continued with the untenable legislation and policies brought in by the Howard government. The situation is desperate and there is no way out for many families.
And that’s if you have an address — which is necessary to receive Centrelink payments. The social justice statement emphasises that homelessness, particularly for young Australians and the mentally ill, needs urgent addressing: “It is unacceptable that amid the affluence of this nation 100, 000 people are homeless. Over 6, 500 families and 10, 000 children under the age of 12 are among this number.”
Mission Australia’s chief executive Toby Hall says that while youth homelessness has actually gone down in recent years, the housing crisis has led to an increase in domestic violence and rising instances of homeless families — up 20% from 2001.
“There are 105, 000 homeless people in Australia – up 6,000 from 2001,” Hall said, “Our request for the white paper [the Rudd government’s Which Way Home] is an increased focus on early intervention, not just on crisis management.”
The Social Justice Statement also calls for attention to the plight of asylum seekers: “Many people in this situation have been denied social security payments and services or the right to work, leaving them reliant on assistance from welfare agencies and charities.”
Kate Gauthier from A Just Australia agreed, “At a minimum the government needs to provide them with the right to work.”
“The irony is that this would cost them nothing, and we’ve been asking them to spend less in the last year. It costs $13, 000 to keep someone in detention and $56 a day to keep them in the community.”
Refugee Council of Australia CEO Paul Power told Crikey there needed to be greater settlement support for asylum seekers, and less of a focus on detention.
Power said, “They are amongst the most disadvantaged people in Australia.”
Power acknowledged that approaches by both the former Howard government and the Rudd government have improved steadily since the Cornelia Rau affair in 2005.
“The number of people now in detention is about 200, in 2001 it was something like 3,000.”
“There are constructive, more positive and cheaper alternatives to detention that have worked. It is important that every effort is made to ensure alternatives to detention are offered and reviewed.”
I am always mystified, to say the least, to see the Left commentariat quote the Australian Catholic Social Justice Commission’s documents in matters related to poverty, alienation and refugees but steadfastly repudiate the same Catholic assessments of the crucial role of family, the nature of marriage and , of course, the rights of the unborn and other vulnerable members of the human family.
Doesn’t it never occur to Crikey that the Church contends that there is an unbreakable link between public policy that attacks the unborn, marriage and the family and the poverty the Left laments?
Certainly, judging by the public documents and statements published, the Church is in no doubt about the foolishness of such a separation. The late Dom Helder Camarra touched on this schizophrenic mind set with his famous quote,” When I feed the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they’re poor, they call me a communist”
John James has obviously ‘overlooked’ the opportunity of being bamboozled by yet another typical Jonathan Green Crikey ‘editorial’ masterclass in hypocrisy on this very topic……
John; no, not even close. Certainly family is, or can be important. However, an unwanted child, while a terrible burden to bear, may mean htat women need access to abortion – it’s not an easy decision, and it is not for us men to judge. An unbearable marriage should be able to be gotten out of – faultless divorce is much better than (pay a fortune and get an) annulment? Certainly, the causes of poverty should be assessed, and the Church is to be praised for an honest and searching document.
But removing decisions through short sighted ideologies is not the right way to go…
You could not have asked for a better illustration of the enormous chasm that separates genuine concern for the diadvantaged and marginalised and the charade to which that the Left liberal establishment cling, than Davo’s posting.
There is of course the obvious contradiction, to which I alluded above, in the notion that the Church has produced an “honest and searching” document but proposes ” short sighted ideologies” as solutions when precisely the same people are bringing the same powers of analysis to bear in both, informed by the same Christian anthropology.
But it is in those classic phrases ” unwanted child” and “unbearable marriage” that we see the Left liberal mindset revealed in all its ignominy. If a child or spouse/partner is “unwanted” I can just walk away. Its my choice. They are disposable. Translate that ethic to the commercial world, the political world, the world of international realtions. Most especially it is a world where those with power destroy those who have none, telling them all the while that they are “unwanted”
The streets are full of “unwanted”. Mentally ill, alcoholics, drug addicts, business failures , people abandoned by family, and society . If I can dispose of spouse or unborn child because they’re “unwanted” what is the basis for the appeal to shoulder the burdens of the homeless.
The Henderson report years ago talked about the “feminisation of poverty”, referring to the increasing phenomenon of women with children abandoned by husbands, presumably husbands who decided their particular situation was “unbearable”
Public policy which recognises only RIGHTS and denies any RESPONSIBILITIES will wreak havoc and we are seeing it now.
The political Left, to be opposed and defeated, for the sake of the vulnerable and the powerless.