Social Action Office - Newsletter Archives

INFORM-A^CTION

Issue Number 38 - June 2001

Fair Go - Fair Share
or the Prospect of "Two Australias"

One of the prevailing images of the reporting of the recent corporate collapses of HIH and OneTel has been the focus on the homes of the directors and chief executives - luxurious homes that only someone with millions can afford. This is not an exercise in "upward envy". This is raised simply to highlight the contrast in housing that exists in Australia. At the same time as these corporate collapses were happening, a caravan park on the southside of Brisbane was closing down and the tenants, including single mothers with children, were required to move on to other low-cost accommodation - something which is in serious short supply. The conspicuous wealth of some contrasted sharply with the conspicuous poverty of others in the media reports. Another interesting convergence with these events was the release of a report by the Society of St Vincent de Paul on poverty and inequality. In this, the Society has warned of the real possibility of "two Australias - one for the rich and one for the rest".

As part of the Fair Go Fair Share campaign, the SAO and others are now engaging actively with the candidates of the two major political parties on issues which we believe give shape to the growing inequality in Australia - income, health and housing. The responses from Coalition candidates has been predictable. (No word yet from ALP candidates!) The Coalition lists a range of budget and program initiatives which they believe are addressing the concerns raised. While some of these initiatives are positive they do not go far enough. Further, the list of initiatives can also disguise the profound depth of inequality that exists. Some of these issues are discussed as follows:

Income

As is known, the Commonwealth does not accept that there has been a change in the equality of income distribution since 1994-95 due to income transfers like family support payments and rent assistance under welfare programs - they dispute a growing income gap arguing that the incomes of low-income groups have increased in this period. While this may be technically true, it cannot be disputed that the increases at the bottom of the income scale have been far less than for those at the top of the income scale. It is a well documented fact that increases in incomes are heavily and unfairly skewed in favour of the wealthy. The point is that a growing number of individuals and families are living in households where incomes are low - one estimate is that 40% of Australian households are living on $27,000 or less, far less for many who rely on government income support. If the poor are not getting poorer they are becoming more numerous and their poverty is becoming more entrenched.

Further, there has been a real growth in the "working poor" and those living on the edge of poverty. These would be counted among the 40% identified above. The recent St Vincent de Paul report (p.11) cited that a family with four children would need around $48,000 per annum to live adequately - much more than $27,000 per annum. The Commonwealth may boast that there are fewer people reliant on income support as a result of their welfare reforms but it does not fill out the picture of the growth of the "working poor".

Housing

The Commonwealth does provide money for social housing via the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement (CSHA) but this has declined in recent years with the result that government public housing has declined. ABS figures show a 23% decrease in government housing in the last five years forcing more and more low-income people into the unregulated private rental market. While rent assistance is designed to assist such people in this housing market, the fact is that it often does not keep pace with the cost of private rental accommodation. State Governments are the providers of government housing and must do more on this front too. However, it has been the Commonwealth that has taken the lead in cutting back funds to the CSHA.

Adequacy of Income Support

The Commonwealth has been attentive to the struggle of older Australians in recent times and the recent Budget has assisted aged pensioners and self-funded retirees. Older people also have access to a range of con-cessions from all levels of government to "top up" their incomes. Notwithstanding this, the indexation of pensions and benefits need to be linked to a higher basic living standard than that of Male Total Average Weekly Earnings (MTAWE) - at present pegged to at least 25% of MTAWE. Other benchmarks have been canvassed which would more accurately flow on to adequate income levels. Apart from older Australians, other population groups who are reliant on income support have not fared well. The unemployed are still on incomes below the poverty line and the work for the dole scheme has been extended to other groups under the banner of 'mutual obligation'. Centrelink breaching continues to be a concern, with the extension of mutual obligation to single parents and disability pensioners. There is a real concern that breaching is likely to increase and that the incomes of the poorest will be eroded further.

Unemployment Figures

Unemployment figures do not always reflect the reality of unemploy-ment and under-employment. For example, they do not include the hidden unemployed - those who are seeking jobs but who are not qualified to register as unemployed or those who have given up completely. Further, the figures disguise levels and degrees of part-time work, notably the under-employment of many who are deemed to be employed even if their hours are very part-time.

To date, neither of the major political parties has taken hold of the growing inequality in Australia and addressed it in any comprehensive way. They have displayed timidity in this regard. As our faith asks of us, we continue to address the direct needs of the most vulnerable through support services but we also engage with the political and corporate powers to effect changes that will prevent the further class division in Australian society. Hopefully, our efforts will be one contribution to arresting the trend towards TWO AUSTRALIAS.

The St Vincent de Paul report Two Australias - Addressing Inequality and Poverty is on their website: http://www.vinnies.org.au/.

Next Newsletter Article

Newsletter Index



		INFORM-A^CTION Issue Number 38 - June 2001 Fair Go - Fair Share or the Prospect of "Two Australias" One of the prevailing images of the reporting of the recent corporate collapses of HIH and OneTel has been the focus on the homes of the directors and chief executives - luxurious homes that only someone with millions can afford. This is not an exercise in "upward envy". This is raised simply to highlight the contrast in housing that exists in Australia. At the same time as these corporate collapses were happening, a caravan park on the southside of Brisbane was closing down and the tenants, including single mothers with children, were required to move on to other low-cost accommodation - something which is in serious short supply. The conspicuous wealth of some contrasted sharply with the conspicuous poverty of others in the media reports. Another interesting convergence with these events was the release of a report by the Society of St Vincent de Paul on poverty and inequality. In this, the Society has warned of the real possibility of "two Australias - one for the rich and one for the rest". As part of the Fair Go Fair Share campaign, the SAO and others are now engaging actively with the candidates of the two major political parties on issues which we believe give shape to the growing inequality in Australia - income, health and housing. The responses from Coalition candidates has been predictable. (No word yet from ALP candidates!) The Coalition lists a range of budget and program initiatives which they believe are addressing the concerns raised. While some of these initiatives are positive they do not go far enough. Further, the list of initiatives can also disguise the profound depth of inequality that exists. Some of these issues are discussed as follows: Income As is known, the Commonwealth does not accept that there has been a change in the equality of income distribution since 1994-95 due to income transfers like family support payments and rent assistance under welfare programs - they dispute a growing income gap arguing that the incomes of low-income groups have increased in this period. While this may be technically true, it cannot be disputed that the increases at the bottom of the income scale have been far less than for those at the top of the income scale. It is a well documented fact that increases in incomes are heavily and unfairly skewed in favour of the wealthy. The point is that a growing number of individuals and families are living in households where incomes are low - one estimate is that 40% of Australian households are living on $27,000 or less, far less for many who rely on government income support. If the poor are not getting poorer they are becoming more numerous and their poverty is becoming more entrenched. Further, there has been a real growth in the "working poor" and those living on the edge of poverty. These would be counted among the 40% identified above. The recent St Vincent de Paul report (p.11) cited that a family with four children would need around $48,000 per annum to live adequately - much more than $27,000 per annum. The Commonwealth may boast that there are fewer people reliant on income support as a result of their welfare reforms but it does not fill out the picture of the growth of the "working poor". Housing The Commonwealth does provide money for social housing via the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement (CSHA) but this has declined in recent years with the result that government public housing has declined. ABS figures show a 23% decrease in government housing in the last five years forcing more and more low-income people into the unregulated private rental market. While rent assistance is designed to assist such people in this housing market, the fact is that it often does not keep pace with the cost of private rental accommodation. State Governments are the providers of government housing and must do more on this front too. However, it has been the Commonwealth that has taken the lead in cutting back funds to the CSHA. Adequacy of Income Support The Commonwealth has been attentive to the struggle of older Australians in recent times and the recent Budget has assisted aged pensioners and self-funded retirees. Older people also have access to a range of con-cessions from all levels of government to "top up" their incomes. Notwithstanding this, the indexation of pensions and benefits need to be linked to a higher basic living standard than that of Male Total Average Weekly Earnings (MTAWE) - at present pegged to at least 25% of MTAWE. Other benchmarks have been canvassed which would more accurately flow on to adequate income levels. Apart from older Australians, other population groups who are reliant on income support have not fared well. The unemployed are still on incomes below the poverty line and the work for the dole scheme has been extended to other groups under the banner of 'mutual obligation'. Centrelink breaching continues to be a concern, with the extension of mutual obligation to single parents and disability pensioners. There is a real concern that breaching is likely to increase and that the incomes of the poorest will be eroded further. Unemployment Figures Unemployment figures do not always reflect the reality of unemploy-ment and under-employment. For example, they do not include the hidden unemployed - those who are seeking jobs but who are not qualified to register as unemployed or those who have given up completely. Further, the figures disguise levels and degrees of part-time work, notably the under-employment of many who are deemed to be employed even if their hours are very part-time. To date, neither of the major political parties has taken hold of the growing inequality in Australia and addressed it in any comprehensive way. They have displayed timidity in this regard. As our faith asks of us, we continue to address the direct needs of the most vulnerable through support services but we also engage with the political and corporate powers to effect changes that will prevent the further class division in Australian society. Hopefully, our efforts will be one contribution to arresting the trend towards TWO AUSTRALIAS. The St Vincent de Paul report Two Australias - Addressing Inequality and Poverty is on their website: http://www.vinnies.org.au/. Next Newsletter Article Newsletter Index