It must be ‘write an op/ed for Fairfax about something a political leader said to me’ week. First, Nina Funnell, and now Michael Perusco:
I was in Canberra last week and had the opportunity to ask Opposition Leader Tony Abbott whether a government under his direction would continue with the Rudd government’s goal of halving homelessness by 2020. His answer was no.
In justifying his stance, Abbott quoted from the Gospel of Matthew: ”The poor will always be with us,” he said, and referred to the fact there is little a government can do for people who choose to be homeless.
Perusco, the Chief Executive of Melbourne’s Sacred Heart Mission, goes on to refute Abbott’s claim that homelessness is a choice, and to underline how vital action in this area is.
It’s instructive to compare Abbott’s remarks, which he presumably didn’t think would end up in The Age, with this piece of puffery from Senator George Brandis in The Australian:
To a greater extent than most Liberal leaders have been, Abbott is a communitarian. He does not believe in an atomistic society of isolated individuals in incessant, ruthless competition. The remark attributed to Margaret Thatcher — “There is no such thing as society. There are only individuals” — would be utterly alien to him. He believes in a settled, rooted society of families and citizens living in stable communities bound together by the gossamer threads of voluntary association.
Presumably there are limits to who constitutes Abbott’s imagined communities.
Indeed, though it’s unclear how much Brandis knows about the history and political philosophy of communitarianism, one point of criticism has always been that there’s a heavy dose of authoritarianism and conformism inherent in its construction of community – it’s premised as much on social exclusion as on inclusion. That’s very apparent in many aspects of Third Way politics – from Blair’s Britain to Latham’s vision for Australia. So, too, many of the debates in Anglophone political theory in the 1990s revolved around perceived frictions between its premise of consensual values and norms on one hand and both individual liberty and multiculturalism on the other hand.
Brandis, who celebrates Rhodes Scholar Abbott as both “intensely intellectual” and “the antithesis of the cloistered academic” may, of course, have a different meaning of ‘communitarian’ in mind when thinking of his leader. But as an erstwhile apostle of Malcolm Turnbull as a moderniser, and of the value of the liberal tradition in Liberal-ism, he might also care to consider that there might be as Brutopian a streak in communitarian conservatism as anything to be found in Kevin Rudd’s portrait of neo-liberalism.
Easy to believe that Abbott wants society rooted.
I’m so glad you posted this, Mark. Reading the article was quite a shocking way to start the day. It’s something that Abbott deserves to be hammered on. Homelessness may not be a vote winner and I admire the way that Rudd is doing serious work in building affordable housing.
The Sacred Heat Mission, otherwise known as the Mish, is a fantastic place by the way.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/02/16/tony-abbots-penis-and-the-goblet-of-fire/
I so want this on a t-shirt.
You have to admire though the panache with which conservatives dismiss minorities … it’s all down to personal choice. Being homeless, gay, unemployed and so on: they are all just lifestyle choices. Obviously then the solution – to the extent poor choices are problems requiring any action by the state at all – is to punish the minority groups sufficiently to dissuade others from making similar choices.
Making moral policy is so simple in Conservativeworld.
Just expect this, like Tones’ belief we should use N.Z. as an economic role model, not to make anything more than a small plonk in the news cycle swamp.
There are so many more important issues like…. he rides bike, swims in lifesavers and has crinkly little tool.
Good post, Mark.
I had a piece in mind along similar lines – as a dogwhistling re-positioning of the debate after the disastrous foray into environment issues last week.
More generally, I don’t that even the more ‘intellectual’ liberals have a good grasp of social stratification. Andrew Norton had a post last week on a paper about social mobility based on 800 years of surname data http://andrewnorton.info/2010/02/12/is-there-complete-social-mobility-over-time/ The core claim was “that England over the 800 years from 1200 was without persistent social classes.”
If my recollection of modern intergenerational occupational surveys is anything to go by, the claim probably wouldn’t stand up to closer scrutiny. Moreover, timescales that long are basically meaningless to contemporary politics, where a generation or two is all that really counts.
“Making moral policy is so simple in Conservativeworld.”
No Ken – it’s incredibly complicated.
Homeless? Well simple – let’s supply homes (the Greens suggest)… let’s provide better education…. let’s provide community support networks…. let’s increase welfare payments….. let’s work with disadvantaged families to mitigate family break-ups…. let’s (on and on and on).
Simple heh?
But who’s going to pay for it Ken?
And while we’re at it – who’s going to pay to solve Aboriginal disadvantage? refugee resettlment, Global poverty, climate change (and on and on and on)….
The point Abbott was making is that the world is an an incredibly complicated place and unfortunately he is absolutely right – there will always be homeless people…. just hopefully less and less as a proportion of the country if we get the macro settings right.
The best thing we can do to help the homeless problem is create a strong, vibrant, wealth creating country that allows individuals to make good choices and take their opportunities when they present.
…. oh it must be so nice to be able to see the world in such a simple way where a big group hug would solve the issues.
I wouldn’t know about that – I don’t see the world that way. I doubt that anyone does. But apparently there are still a few people around who are naive enough to believe that as long as everyone, on average, is getting richer then no one’s going to be poor except by choice. For example:
How nice it would be to see the world that way.
“The point Abbott was making is that the world is an an incredibly complicated place”
No, it wasn’t.
Did you read the linked article? Do you realise the biggest cause amongst homelessness is domestic violence? Tell me how increasing wealth helps with that? Tell me what the ‘good choice’ is that bashed up women should be making?
Another large cause is mental illness. Again, tell me what the ‘good choice’ is that mentally ill people should be making?
Are you aware of large number of homeless young people? I want to know about the good choices they should be making as well.
It’s just a matter of good choices? Sweet freakin’ Jesus.
It sounds like classic ‘trickle down’, ‘raise all boats’ stuff – never mind the actuality that housing has become *much more unaffordable* at the same time as national income, wealth and GDP have increased.
Correction – I meant the biggest cause of homelessness amongst women is domestic violence.
Yeah it’s all down to those macro settings – and you call others on over-simplification! Looked in the mirror lately?
Andrew at 7: Would that be like the US? As a country that is supposed to be extremely successful in achieving your ideals, it would not have any poor, of course.
Andrew @ 7 when you want to ‘create a strong, vibrant, wealth creating country that allows individuals to make good choices and take their opportunities when they present’, I take it you mean as opposed to the weak, degenerate, poverty-stricken country we have now where individuals are prevented from making good choices and taking their opportunities? Well if you say so dude.
Even after more than 11 years of Howardism, conservatives still hate Australia.
I hate it when so called comapssionate conservatives use that line out of context.
“The poor will always be with us.” So why bother. Even Jesus said it.
Except…in the context of the passage does it not mean that there is always someone worse off than yourself so there isn’t an excuse for not helping someone less fortunate than you.It’s a call to arms by Jesus for people to get their arses off church pews and go out into the community to feed and help the homeless…yet somehow it’s now warped by those claiming to do God’s bidding to do the exact opposite.
FFS.
OK – where to begin!
” still a few people around who are naive enough to believe that as long as everyone, on average, is getting richer then no one’s going to be poor except by choice”
No I didn’t say that. In fact – I said just about the opposite. There will always be ‘poor’. Just hopefully less and less of them as the average wealth of the country increases. Without going through the detailed stats – I think I’d be on safe ground to state that the pecentage of people living below a globally defined poverty line would be inversely proportional to the GDP/capita of a country.
Fine – yes I get it. I’m not saying homelessness is a choice that an individual would willingly make. I get that domestic violence and mental illness are major causes. I get that we need to provide support networks for people who find themselves in that awful position through no fault of their own. My comments are about mitigating the future problems – ‘it’s the economy stupid’ – This simplistic view that we can solve these social problems by throwing money at them is just that – simplistic. Not one of you answered my central question ‘How do we pay for it’.
JohnL – no the US is miles away from my ideals. Australia has just about got the balance absolutely spot on. We’re pretty close to the ideal. The US doesn’t provide enough support for those who’ve slipped through the cracks. The Australian safety net is pretty good, without constraining the country’s ability to continue to generate wealth. It’s no accident that we’re almost 20 years of continuous economic growth. The goldilocks balance of wealth creation/welfare….. the Libs and ALP both understand that.
Tony Abbott is marking out the battlelines.
sell Medibank Private – Joe Hockey
local control of hospitals Tony Abbott
local control of schools Tony Abbott
reduce funds spent on aged pensions – Business Council of Australia
reduce funds spent on unemployment benefits – Business Council of Australia
reduce funds spent on sickness benefits – Business Council of Australia
reduce funds spent on family benefits – Business Council of Australia
reduce funds spent on pharmaceutical benefits – Business Council of Australia
The meek shall inherit the earth, but in Tony Abbott’s Australia they will have to look after themselves.
Ken Lovell said “Even after more than 11 years of Howardism, conservatives still hate Australia.”
Oh good lord!!!! How funny!! It’s completely the opposite mate! Australia is fantastic – the best country on earth – freedom, opportunity, world class education, great job oportunities, tolerance, etc etc etc
Australia is great mate – decades of centre left/centre right democratic governance under Hawke/Keating/Howard have truly made us the lucky country (and not in the original way that phrase was used).
It never ceases to amaze me how the left fringes of our society continue to bitch and moan about how bad things are here. Don’t mess with what aint broken I say. IF you don’t like our particular brand of Western Liberal Democracy then head off to somewhere that fits the way you want to live. You probably won’t find a more tolerant, compassionate and free society than ours anywhere in the globe
Andrew, here’s another question. How can we not afford to pay for it? No, you don’t get it.
In reference to Abbott’s remarks; nowhere does he speak about economic settings. What he spoke about in the article is that you can’t help people who choose to be homelsss. You may not think that, but he does.
You know the best way to help a homeless person make a good choice? Give them stable, affordable, long-term housing. Then they can work, study, do volunteer work and contribute to the tax base. You’re only looking at the cost of supplying housing, not the economic value it brings.
Some homeless people need a lot of support. Others just need the housing, because it’s very hard to access work or education without a stable home.
LEFT HYPOCRACY
In criticising Abbott for stating that “the poor will always be with us”, Mark overlooks the point that the Left have institutionalised this view by supporting a measure of poverty based on relativities; not absolute living standards. The CIS pointed out the flaws in the current poverty measure a few years back, but of course the welfare industry reflexively shouted them down. After all, were there no poor with us, there would be no little need for welfare. So, Mark, is Abbott right, or is the welfare industry wrong?
For a start, Tom, the quote doesn’t mean what Abbott takes it to mean, as tssk rightly points out @15.
Secondly, all you appear to me to be arguing is that poverty can be abolished by redefining it away as limited prosperity or something. It’s axiomatic that poverty is always a comparative term, because it’s a concept that’s inseparable from a continuum the other end of which is wealth.
But, to be honest, I don’t have much interest in whatever theological quibbling the CIS wants to indulge itself in to soften the blow and obfuscate its anti-social security stance.
Andrew consistency appears not to be your strong point: @ 7 you were calling for the creation of a strong etc etc country, implying that Australia needs a wholesale makeover, but now you say Australia’s already ‘just about got the balance absolutely spot on’. Wish you’d make up your mind.
You do however appear to agree with Abbott that there’s no need to do anything about the homeless that isn’t being done already, which kind of supports my point that conservatives find public policy a doddle. Don’t Change Anything.
Fine – there’s three ways we could pay for it….
1. Cut spending in other areas
2. Raise taxes
3. Grow the economy so that there’s more money to spread around.
Hands up for higher taxes?????
My 60+ sister in law was homeless for a while in her 50s.
She was suffering an untreated mental breakdown caused by the stress of being forced out of her low paid clerical job in Kennett’s rationalised Victoria. She didn’t smoke, drink, fornicate and was and is quite timid.
Fortunately a catholic charity found her and housed her in a residential village built for the elderly – along with other homeless women. A decade later she was in low paid work in a sheltered environment where her damaged psyche is supported.
‘Don’t Change Anything’ @22.
Sorry, should have added ‘apart from cutting taxes and Being Tougher on Crime and National Security’.
Andrew, I’m not sure that many on this site would think that money is enough to solve homelessness. The housing problems relating to domestic violence, drug addiction, mental illness and the shortage of low-cost housing in some parts of the country are complicated and require targeted policies. Of course, targeted programmes will cost some money, but proportionate to our expenditure on other social (and not so social) programmes the cost wouldn’t be that high. Now, those programmes won’t eliminate homelessness but it doesn’t seem unreasonable to want to actively reduce it.
Now, there are legitimate questions about whether targets such as the governments’2020 target are a good idea when the programmes put in place are unlikely to be enough to do the job. One could also raise questions as to whether the targets are another symbolic gesture that the government will never really be held accountable for.
However, denying the problem is a one that might be able to be alleviated through collective action seems ureasonable to me. The excuse that we can’t afford it is just downright wrong. Australia is a low-tax country. If we think there are social problems that are amenable to policy solutions then it is a choice not to raise additional revenue to pay for such programmes. In that sense, we are choosing to have higher rates of homelessness than are necessary.
Well said, LO.
That’s the actual choice involved in the equation – not some purported individual choice to be homeless, but the social choice a la Abbott to do nothing much about it.
Think this thread might have a minor infestation of Greenfly.
What happened to aspirational politics. Wanting to help your fellow man ?, Make society a little better for everyone ? What happened to compassion ?
It may be impossible, but shouldn’t wanting to end homelessness be a noble goal that governments and society at large should strive for.
Adam Curtis is right, It is certainly the Century of the Self.
Excellent points @ 9, Fine.
billie
But by the standards used to mesure poverty there is a great chance your sister in law has been, and always will be classified as poor.
Fine.
“..You know the best way to help a homeless person make a good choice? Give them stable, affordable, long-term housing. Then they can work, study, do volunteer work and contribute to the tax base. You’re only looking at the cost of supplying housing, not the economic value it brings…”
Thats nice in Fine world, but what if your homeless person is refusing to abide by the rules of your assissted care accomodation? Is violent, drunk, or just plain doesnt want to be there?
Id be greatly interested to see just how many times the average long term homeless person has been offered some form of housing or community assistance. Id be willing to bet it would be numerous times.
There are those (probably the majority, Id hope so) whom assistance is what is needed to get their lives back on track. Excellent. Now would those pontificating about Abbots heartlessness define the following.
At what stage are the homeless/poor to be forced into care?
At what stage are they removed from assistance?
Is there a ceiling you think should be placed on the cost of this programme, if so how much?
If all poverty is relative then how would you define Rudds inititives as successful (if and hopefully when) they bear fruit?
Of course “the ‘poor’ will always be with us” – but not for the reasons old Tone thinks.
Whoever this ‘Jesus’ fella was, he was absolutely right one this one.
This insight alone makes ‘him’ a remarkably astute reader of people.
And the reason is also obvious.
The poor will always be with us because there appears to be no end in sight of those absurd animals, commonly known as: the ‘rich’.
Without the avarice of that incredably small percentage of people who often consider it a ‘god’ given ‘right’ to take as much as they can – and by definition, amounts extending way over what they can possibly consume or actually use or need (surely a psychotic condition if ever there was one!); often extracting it with as much damage, to as many other living creatures as possible (often to the point of revenge I suspect – again evidence of a serious psychiatric problem); and who require more and more countries, civilizations and environments, in order to keep the feeding frenzy going (including racing to other planets to be able to continue this obsessive destruction and meglamania) – without these over-arching and self righteous people, there may be enough to feed and clothe and house all the world’s people to a humane standard.
At least to make “freedom of choice” an actuality.
The subtlety of the biblical quote is just wonderful!
But people like the Opposition Leader don’t see it in these terms, it’s way easier to be complacent if you can flick responsibility to those so obviously beneath you.
For them, thinking that “I’m alright Jack – cause ‘the poor are always with us’”, is a justification for positioning themselves at the service of those who demand for themselves excessive amounts of whatever takes their fancy – now reaching the point of the criminal destruction of the biosphere.
Perhaps we need to discuss where on the spectrum we need to position ourselves to make some sort of humanity and sustainability of a way of life for all – regardless of our personal demons that might drive us from our friends and family.
Mole, if you have a look at the debates over the implementation of Rudd’s goal closely, you’ll find all those questions anticipated. One of the problems is that it’s relatively easy to build social housing, but there tends to be inequality and diversity within the homeless population itself, which makes it more accessible and viable for some than others. But there are a stack of other solutions which have been trialled successfully and whose application people working in the field believe can be made more general. But, if the implication of your comment is that it’s all too hard, or whatever Abbott’s sentiment translates to, then you’re wrong on the facts.
I’m with Fine – this is one of the best things the Rudd government has done, and I’m horrified that Abbott would so carelessly decide to throw it away.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2010/02/16/the-poor-will-always-be-with-us-abbotts-brutopia/#comment-858301
Someone needs to get out more …
As Marx said ‘History always repeats itself – the second time as farce’. So I suppose we had to have this farcical ‘Howard reincarnate’
The Commenter Formerly Known as Andrew @31
Just no interested enough to do any research of your own on the subject before
trollingcommenting, obviously.Ahhh I get it, the Malicious Monk will help the homeless through the ‘trickle down’ effect. That has worked really well in the USA hey, the working poor must love those crumbs.
It don’t work and I amazed that people still hold to the trickle down, lets look after the country and the country will look after the poor. That is frog shit writ large across my windscreen.
Mr Abbott would feel quite at home in the 1930s. They knew how to keep the minorities in their place back then.
Id strongly advise reading this, no its not a call to do absolutely nothing, but it is a realistic look at what you are dealing with.
http://www.amazon.com/Life-Bottom-Worldview-Makes-Underclass/dp/1566635055
By all means help those who can be helped and assist the rest so they may (if they ever can) have some sort of future if they decide to stop self destructing.
I do strongly feel there does need to be a division between “deserving” and “undeserving” poor though.
The mum whos victim of domestic violence, the bloke whos just gone through a breakdown from divorce/losing his job, deserving.
Some people wont submit to your assisted accomodation, or follow the rules, or love the booze/needle too much, what “carrot and stick” will you use for them?
I wonder if Tone is acquainted with the concept of “homo eroticism”.
He seems more interested in dressing in lycra and enduring punishing feats of physical endurance with the lads than participating in politics.
Then there are the emerging insights into his bullying behaviour at St. Ignatius.
And the obsession with boxing, the typical “amore greco” personality begins to take shape.
Gummo Trotsky
From speaking with a lady who runs one of the Accomodation centres in Kalgoorlie for “long grassers” I could say somewhere around twice a week.
But Im sure thats way higher than the Australian average due to the high visibility of her clients and the fact shes Aboriginal herself, so seen as a much more friendly figure then a Salvo or social worker would to a 14 year old runaway in Sydney.
So please take your rather low class snark elsewhere mmmkay?
Or are you trying to insinuate that no assistance is offered to these people at the moment?
LEFT STILL CONFUSING POVERTY WITH INEQUALITY
Mark@21 says:
Yet according to Wiki: “Poverty refers to the condition of not having the means to afford basic human needs such as clean water, nutrition, health care, clothing and shelter.” And dictionary.com defines it as: “the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support”. In other words, poverty is an absolute concept, not a relative one.
Of course, Mark may be happy to sacrifice rigour for effect, but let’s not pretend that the welfare industry in Australia and people like Mark are doing anything other than misusing the concept of poverty to pursue their own political ends.
Breakfast politics was not a good look if Abbot were trying to challenge the idea that he is an uncaring conservative. See: Abbot – I’ll scrap dismissal laws and <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/abbott-targeted-on-work-choices-20100215-o2vl.html"Abbot on work choices for example. Keep in mind too that he was trying to justify cutting back on Rudd’s action for the homeless, not replacing it with something he considers to be better.
The Mad Abbott’s Trickle-Down Effect
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_hA7FHu0ykF8/SWOcCTF1uVI/AAAAAAAABB4/1x8MX0XJ2RQ/s400/trickle+down.jpg
Mole – the term you are looking for is compassion. Traditionally, its a Christian virtue associated with the selfless love of Christ which is, by its very nature, distinct from material outcomes. Presumably this is something the Abbot is familiar with as a former priest and ‘practising Christian.
Heh, I know you think you’re entering this debate from a position of strength or rationality against the terrible statist Leftards you think dominate here, but everytime you guys have to appropriate the legacy of Bob`n’Paul to reinforce what Howard may or may not have achieved, then, well, Larvatus Prodeo wins.
I’m not kidding. M. Bahnisch himself is a Keating loyalist, so are a bunch of other leftwingers here, leftwingers I inevitably find myself sparring with. (And as for the late Donald Horne, take a wild guess who his favourite political leader was.)
I know this sounds like a ‘who’s-got-the-biggest-dick-competition’, but I’ve been thinking alot about the relative success of the competing ideological projects in this country of recent years, particularly since I heard the Monk invoke the Responsible Hawke Keating Legacy as part of his rhetoric against the stimulus. Well, the problem there for Oz conservatism is self-evident, no?
Oh, and this new Abbott quote sounds very much like a paraphrase of a paraphrase of something Reagan said: “What we have found in this country, and maybe we’re more aware of it now, is one problem that we’ve had, even in the best of times, and that is the people who are sleeping on the grates, the homeless, you might say, by choice.” For some reason I know that became his ‘the homeless will always be with us’ speech (I read a throwaway reference to it in ‘Mad’ magazine as kid, IIRC), which makes me think that Tony Abbott absolutely knows he is making a reference to a line that was itself a distortion by US liberal Democrats to attack 1980s free market conservatism. That’s not exactly full of political win, even if it wasn’t said for public consumption.
See, Mole/Andrew @ 38 is at one with Abbott: ‘they’ have to ‘decide to stop self destructing’. Suggesting that despite all the bluster, my comment @ 4 was spot-on.
Mole, there is a whole world of literature on why it makes more sense to define poverty in relative terms in industrialised countries. Perhaps you should read up on it before criticising others for lack of rigour.
Let’s also remember that Abbott wasn’t criticising attempts to end all homelessness, just a target cut of 50%. The extremely small number of people who, on an uncharitable/heartless/completely misinformed reading, ‘choose to be homeless’, are not the ones covered in the target anyway.
It also would have cost Abbott nothing to agree to continue the government policy if elected. It’s standard practice with policy like this. Abbott has gone out of his way to show he (a) doesn’t have any compassion for the most vulnerable people in this country, and (b) does not understand the point of Jesus’ comment that “the poor will always be among you”.
Abbott’s mistake was not so much saying no, but in quoting Jesus back to a CEO of a organisation created by a Catholic Priest in order to live what Jesus asked all humanity to do.
Politically, it would have been much better if Abbott had just told Perusco “the goal is bullshit, we can’t afford it, and we’re so far away from knowing what to do that 2020 is much too soon. It’s Rudd’s ‘by 1990 no child will be living in poverty’ moment, and I won’t be that foolish”.
As someone who has had some experience with the policy area and the locality, I can say that Perusco is your run-of-the-mill not-for-profit CEO, gives the same pep talks/begging sermons in church about every three months (while being invisible in church the rest of the time), and the Mission is loved greatly in the area for attacking a particularly ignored area of need (middle aged male homelessness, which rates pretty high on the solution degree of difficulty scale).
I also know the only way you treat homelessness is by recognising it as a symptom and not an illness. Mental health, drug dependence, unemployment and relationship breakdown are all massive factors contributing to the final result of having nowhere to live.
But the problem is too expensive (remember it involves housing) and not a vote changer so nothing meaningful on a adequate scale will ever get done. And that is a shame.
Mole, I reject completely the idea of the deserving and undeserving poor. People and their lives are way more complex than that.
But Howard, homelessness can be halved. The way Rudd’s initiatives in housing are going – in cooperation with state Housing departments – it probably will be halved by 2020, unless Abbott gets elected. The fed govt is actually kicking goals in this area.
I’m aware of some Sydney-based homeless that have million(s) of dollars in their bank account.
So that’s either indicative of having chosen to be homeless or alternatively a mental illness.
Tom N @ 41 – I think thats why the use of the term “absolute poverty” for poverty in developing countries is being used more often now by charities looking for donations. To distinguish between poverty which is common in developed countries who live in conditions which those in absolute poverty would think are huge increase in quality of life over what they have.
Level of poverty as currently measured is a very useful tool, but I don’t think it should override measures of how the population is in absolute terms (eg health outcomes, ability to buy basic goods and services etc).
Unfortunately I think you’re right. What is frustrating is that some things are easy to fix with little to no money – like was highlighted by last year’s Four Corner’s episode. For example why do they force families to in emergency accomodation pack up *everything* once a week, check out of the accomodation, personally travel to a government office only to be allocated more emergency accomodation at another place which may be nowhere near where they were in the first place. This is often people who have access to no private transport at all. Its just plain stupid.
Well, a lot of people with mental illness *claim* to have millions in the bank, Senexx
What exactly does ‘I’m aware’ mean?
I heard from a mate who heard it from a relative down the road who read it somewhere.
OR
I’ve seen this person’s bank accoount statement and it contains millions of dollars.
Abbott alludes to Matthew 26 which contrasts the poor being “with us” with us not always having god, so here he is cherrypicking his own refernce document to make it seem as if indifference is OK.
He could have referred to Deuteronomy 15:11 of course, but that would not have helped
Yes, I started conscious life as a Catholic …
Oh good senexx. I’m glad to know homelessness isn’t a problem then.
I find it odd that both the comments here and the original article fail to mention that in addition to victims of housing stress and domestic violence, a rather high proportion of the homeless are war vets.
Tony Abbott hates the troops *shrug*
It seems that Liberal Party heartlessness knows no bounds. I’m still in shock at this one and shaking with a feeling of overwhelming disgust even after a day. Surely one of the main functions of modern day government is to look after those who, for any multitude of reasons, can’t look after themselves.
Message to Tony Abbott: a great many Australians are not, repeat, not money-obsessed, swingining dick capitalists. In fact a lot of Aussies don’t want to be swinginging dick capos who get a kick out of punishing ourselves as well as other people.
And : – Jesus was a revolutionary. He would’ve lashed you out of the temple.
I have to stop now lest I descend into a cacophony of four letter words worthy of right wing libertarians in my attempt to clarify my thoughts about the Mad Monk.
I can understand how you feel about Abbott, Paul, but what concerns me even more is the free pass that he’s been given by most of the media on this and other matters.
Mole: The reports suggest that Abbot wasn’t interested in helping your “deserving homeless” either. Any suggestions re how you are going to separate the deserving from the undeserving?
Left E @ 50. That’s true. I live in local government area where the Council tries to do a lot about homelessness. And with the help of government funding I can see a real difference that it’s made locally.
Just one anecdotal example. A friend’s brother with a long term alcohol abuse problem was living in a really dreadful, unsafe boarding house. A local housing worker placed him in a new, secure quite lovely studio flat and I’ve seen him go to from strength to strength. The new stability in his life has meant he’s coping much better with his substance abuse problem. It’s minimised now and he’s starting to earn a living as a musician. But you can’t do those sorts of things if you don’t have decent accommodation. People who say ‘what about the cost’, don’t seem to count the cost of doing nothing.
Nickws,
You said “Heh, I know you think you’re entering this debate from a position of strength or rationality against the terrible statist Leftards you think dominate here, but everytime you guys have to appropriate the legacy of Bob`n’Paul to reinforce what Howard may or may not have achieved, then, well, Larvatus Prodeo wins”.
No Nick – that’s not why I use Hawke/Keating/Howard in the same breath. It’s because they were all midle of the road politicians who may have had differing ideals – but when push came to shove came to policy were largely indistinguishable. In fact – you can add Rudd to that list as well.
I include them together because it continues a long held view of mine (made a few times on this site) that most commentators on this site have trouble distinguishing the nuances of policy approach from any groups to the right of them on the political spectrum.
I’ll add a perspective on the relative v absolute poverty debate that appears to have broken out. The problem with using relative poverty is where we draw the regional boundaries – it all gets a bit nonsensical.
you hear some commentators saying somthing along the lines of “xx% of Australians are living in poverty” when using a relative poverty measure against the broader Australian population. But try changing the word ‘Australian’ in that sentence to something else;
‘Queenslanders’
‘Brisbanites’
‘Ascot/Clayfield residents’
‘Smith St residents’
‘My family’
The only useful measure of poverty when talking about helping the needy is an absolute measure. Unless of course you’re real agenda is reducing inequality – which is a whole separate topic.
And by the way Gummo and Ken – I have no idea who Mole is – no we’re not the same person. Interesting that you’d assume that anyone with a different view is one and the same (sort of reinforces my first point) – and also interesting that you’d suggest that anyone with a different point of view is ‘trolling’. Would you really prefer that only opinions that match yours are posted on this site?
Thankfully tssk and Fran Barlow posted what I wanted to say: Abbott has that verse completely out of context. In such a bad way too.
Rhodes scholar my arse. It is a terribly misdirected view to hold (when supposedly a biblically informed one) and certainly a few religious conservatives should be pegging him down for it, if they too, are not “cherry picking their own reference document.” Truthfulness is next to godliness on the list of things Abbott’s not interested in today.
Hmm, has the site had a bit of a problem or has my computor being playing up? From the look of the comments the latter….
There is no arguement for attempting to help those who can be helped, but denying some people wont/cant be helped in any long term way until they cease destructive behaviour is niaeve.
Id also invite the mods to have a gander at the IP adresses of both myself and Andrew, as it appears an accusation of sock puppetry is in the air. Id prefer it dispelled if you please could.
Mole and Andrew I accepted that you were the same person on the basis of an earlier comment by someone who I believed had access to the email addresses of posters. I apologise for my misconception, however it arose.
Gummo I suggest that you, as an occasional poster here, should be more careful with your comments.
Yep, Fine, the feeback Im getting from mates who work in the QLD Dept of Housing (where I once worked) is: “hey…this is actually working”.
Thanks Ken.
Andrew seems very confused. On the one hand he chastises us for wanting to try and mitigate a range of social issues (“who’s going to pay for it”, “bitching lefties” etc). Yet at the same time he hails Australia as a near perfect example of a country that is solving the problems of social inequity. This came at a cost Andrew, we have paid for it and will continue to do so if we want to enjoy the utopia you are so fond of. Yet I sense that Andrew really wants to let his conservative bliss out. Well do so Andrew and at the same time tell how Mr Abbott’s approach to the problem will further enhance the social nirvana that is 21st century Australia.
@23
“1. Cut spending in other areas”
Yep, let’s start with defence eh Andrew. Bloody JSP and M1 tanks are a total waste of money wouldn’t you agree?
Chris @52: “To distinguish between poverty which is common in developed countries who live in conditions which those in absolute poverty would think are huge increase in quality of life over what they have.”
Just a small remark about relative poverty, if I may. When we were moving interstate some years back, we rang a local charity that was advertising vigorously for household effects to give to the poor. We assumed that there must be some urgent current need, and decided it was time to help. They came around with a removal van, and scrutinised everything carefully. They ended up only taking some of the furniture. We plan to use the remainder for our holiday home.
For example: They did’t want the leather lounge suite, because one of the armchairs had worn leather. They also didn’t want the 3-drawer study desk, because one leg was slightly wobbly (we had been using it quite happily until then, and we are not calling ourselves “poor”). I said it just needed a hammer and nail or a replacement screw, but the man said they “didn’t take stuff that needed any repairs”. And so it went…
It was not as if we were offering things that we didn’t use ourselves. I was left feeling used and abused, rather than appreciated. We now just put things in the skip if we don’t need them.
It seems that the poor that this charity supported had aspirations to new leather suites, new study desks, etc. I have a new concept of Australia’s “poor” after that.
Elise, I think you may have encountered the plague that is “public liability”.
I think that they will not take stuff that needs repairing because they probably don’t have repair facilities and there would be liability issues if something happens to a non-repaired item. This can probably be a bit inflexible at times and probably means useful material gets sent to the tip but I’m fairly sure that’s the reason why.
Elise are you sure they said they wanted to give the furniture directly to the poor or did you perhaps assume that? Some charities collect goods for resale, and they know what will sell and what won’t. My understanding is that most charities have an oversupply of donations in kind and an under-supply of hard cash, and try to convert the former into the latter at every opportunity. Money is fungible; leather lounge suites, not so much.
Howard @71 and dj @72, no doubt you are right.
So it seems that being keen to help the poor does not extend to hiring a handyman for minor repairs? And the poor would think to hold a charity liable, if they were given a desk with a wobbly leg? Not such a desperate situation, apparently.
Too bad then. The tip is just fine by me.
Elise @ 70 – I think Howard and dj are right – it is unfortunately due to liability and resource issues rather than people not wanting them. For example very few charities are able to accept electrical appliances even in very good condition because they don’t have anyone qualified to do a safety check on them. Rejecting a couch due to worn leather is a bit odd though.
Ken @73: “My understanding is that most charities have an oversupply of donations in kind and an under-supply of hard cash, and try to convert the former into the latter…”
You may well be correct. They already had a used clothes outlet, selling people’s donations.
However, their advertised request, both in the window at the local shopping centre and in the newspaper, was specifically for furniture.
“Not such a desperate situation, apparently.”
I don’t see how this conclusion arises from the comments to which you refer. The implication from your conclusion is that this is somehow a fault of the undeserving poor where the comments clearly indicate that it is not a result of the goods not being wanted.
You seem to have a pre-conceived view regarding the poor, and are using an isolated incident to support this view.
Adrian @77, not “pre-conceived” but post-conceived, Adrian.
I just think Elise has a firm belief in the maxim “beggars can’t be choosers”. If only it were that simple.
Maybe people like electricians and other tradespeople need to donate time, but that still opens charities up to claims which they cannot afford to defend, so therefore, as a risk minimisation strategy, only taking the good stuff is the most effective.
It’s the same reason a lot of food gets thrown out instead of being donated to charity.
Elise @ 74 – I’ve had some success getting rid of stuff I don’t want through freecycle (just google for freecycle and the city you live in). People just post to a mailing list what they have to give away or what they need. I figure its better to give it away if its not too much hassle (biggest problem is people not turning up after they say they want something) rather than send it to the tip.
Howard @79: “I just think Elise has a firm belief in the maxim “beggars can’t be choosers”.
Excuse me Howard. We weren’t offering crap furniture. And we are not beggars.
We don’t assume that others would want something we wouldn’t use ourselves. We mainly toss things because we are upgrading, not because they are poor quality or dysfunctional.
Incidentally, people take the most amazing things from the kerb on council pickup week. Things you wouldn’t have expected others to want. Perhaps some charities are missing the point?
@59
Just saw today’s OO in the coffee shop. Headlines proclaims Abbott has seen the light on IR. Front page story with photo about a nurse who is worse off under Gillard’s IR regime. I hasten to add that, in the interests of balance, the editors of the OO will no doubt endorse the ALP come election time. They are after all a collection of sages such as the world has never seen before in living memory the likes thereof.
Yep, I’ve always loathed communitarianism precisely because it is at its core a soft fascism. I once told Mark Latham that what the Old Left, the Tories, and the Third-Wayers all had in common was the fervent desire to tell others how they should live.
Tom N. @20 should know that the dire leftist who first defined poverty in relative rather than absolute terms was Adam Smith (refer to Book 5 Chapter 2 of the Wealth of Nations). Plus he should learn to spell.
I’m pretty sure Howard meant the recipients of the furniture, not the givers. However in the spirit of the comments policy perhaps it could get a bit less personal now?
Elise, I never accused you of being a beggar.
Charities have standards, and they probably have them for a good reason. Those standards may actually be higher than we would have for ourselves, but then we cannot sue ourselves. Unless you are Stig out of the Rutles.
If charities were given some sort of indemnity to go along with their special taxation status, then that may help, but then things may go too far the other way.
Geez Elise @ 81. I think you’ll find the phrase ‘beggers can’t be choosers’ refers to the recipients, not the donors.
“We mainly toss things because we are upgrading, not because they are poor quality or dysfunctional.”
Sorry OT, but I’ve often wondered about this – why ‘upgrade’ when what you have already is functional and of good quality?
The environmental consequences of this attitude writ large are particularly damaging when you consider that most of the functional and good quality items end up as landfill.
Howard @85: “Those standards may actually be higher than we would have for ourselves…”
Indeed. So it would seem. Good luck to them, then.
Howard @85 and Adrian @86: I perfectly realised that Howard wasn’t accusing me of being a beggar, but “just” accusing me of offering crap to others. We can equally reverse the comment – you are suggesting we are using crap, so we must be by your logic “beggars”.
“The environmental consequences of this attitude writ large are particularly damaging when you consider that most of the functional and good quality items end up as landfill.”
Exactly. Soo, everyone should always keep old stuff, because the charities don’t want it and they are worried about landfill. Right. Good luck with that concept.
To stop everyone from piling onto Elise…and to add my two cents…the liability thing is something that’s not understood by the general public.
Also a lot of charities won’t take old matresses due to the risk of passing on lice or other parasites or because the matress would be worse than sleeping on the ground. (Let’s be honest here, most of us use matresses well beyound their use by date.)
I’ve given away the odd thing that needed some repairs before. I repaired it first. Let’s be honest, if it’s only a five minute repair job why not do it yourself? (Unless it isn’t.)
The lounge thing is odd though.
If charities were given some sort of indemnity to go along with their special taxation status, then that may help,
Excellent idea.
As a slightly (I hope) out of date story. My Auntie worked in a small chrity shop which claimed to be collecting for a certain disabled group in Perth.
The owner/manager of the charity, his wife and both his daughters were all paid large sallaries from their shop. Yert they would still come through and help themselves to donated goods whenever they wanted. It sickened my rellie to see less than 5 cents in every dollar raised through sales went anywhere other than in their pockets.
Fortunately the government tightened the laws considerably (I think it was about 12 years ago?)which saw them shut up shop.
Sorry JSP should have been JSF although both are Java templating technologies so I have an excuse.
PatrickB “Andrew seems very confused. On the one hand he chastises us for wanting to try and mitigate a range of social issues (“who’s going to pay for it”, “bitching lefties” etc). Yet at the same time he hails Australia as a near perfect example of a country that is solving the problems of social inequity. This came at a cost Andrew, we have paid for it and will continue to do so if we want to enjoy the utopia you are so fond of. Yet I sense that Andrew really wants to let his conservative bliss out.”
Ah Hah! The heart of the problem – I’m afraid it’s you who is confused PatrickB. My point is that Australia is damn near perfect already – we’ve got the balance just about exactly right under decades of centre left/centre right governance. I’m not the one wanting to change anything – I like things just the way they are.
I’m not the one asking for more hand outs. Heaven help us if the Greens and Green supporters are ever given the keys to the kingdom.
I think it’s probably one of those weird human nature things Elise. If you put the lounge on the roadside then someone would take it and feel like they picked up a great piece of furniture, but if someone gave it to them they would wonder why they were getting a slightly worn lounge.
Charities generally won’t take or sell electrical goods either, I gather. Though there is one in Armidale/Uralla that repairs old computers and give them away. (I think they’re still operating.)
Abbott’s a ball-sack showboating brute alright.
BTW, I was very impressed w/ Paul Howes today. His speech in defence of the Workers of Australia at the National Press Club went off. Passionate fella.
As stated on the NPR web site:
Howes is National Secretary of the 135,000 member Australian Workers’ Union, one of the fastest growing unions in this country, he is also a national vice-president of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. He serves on a number of Boards, including as a director of the nation’s largest superannuation fund AustralianSuper. Paul is married to Lucy with two children, Sam and Zoe – and a third on the way.
————-
Gotta tell ya, this fella doesn’t mince words when it comes to Abbott, Joyce & the rest of the ‘Champions of Workchoices’.
I watched the speech on SKY (summed up nicely by Ashleigh Gillon) and recorded it on the ABC for later perusal….
ya can see a repeat of it on ABC TV at 3.25 am…worth recording.
Very impressive. Kick arse stuff!
N’
Tssk @88: “Let’s be honest, if it’s only a five minute repair job why not do it yourself? (Unless it isn’t.)”
Ahh, tssk, have you ever been in the situation of being the trailing partner, trying to pack the house, close down accounts, ship the car, arrange transport and care for the cat and dog, arrange for the house to be rented or sold, interviewing estate agents, etc, etc, in the space of a couple of weeks, because better half has been asked “How soon can you start? We need you now.”
Well, if you have, then you will realise that (a) I was chronically short of time, juggling a lot of competing items, and (b) better half’s tool collection had already been packed, by the time the slightly (repeat slightly) wobbly leg was discovered.
Anyway, I think I have made the point clearly enough by now. That charity probably wasn’t looking for well-made furniture which could serve a poor and needy family. However, they may have been looking to make a profit from the highest quality freebies they could lay their hands on.
Truth in advertising? Perhaps a bit like those rouges that have been profiting from people’s generosity towards the Haitian crisis, to line their own pockets?
“I’m not the one wanting to change anything – I like things just the way they are.’
That could be because you’re not homeless Andrew.
And Elise, we get it. You’re pissed off with the charity. Enough already, please.
Elise, why blame the poor for your bad experience with a single charity?
Ah but Fine @ 96 Andrew has CHOSEN not to be homeless … it’s all a matter of will.
Josh, that’s he point I was trying to make that Elsie resolutely refuses to engage with. But as Fine said, enough already.
“I’m not the one asking for more hand outs.”
No, I’m sure you’ve got just as many as you want right now as the probable recipient of Howard’s middle class welfare rorts.
This just in:
Abbott in near collision in Victoria
I wonder who was reponsible, in Abbott’s opinion. The road funders, surely …
Of course, travelling with a media circus wouldn’t increase the risk would it?
That makes more sense. If you weren’t so short of time you’d have time to repair the item yourself or ring another charity that was less fussy or more genuine.
I wouldn’t give up on donating to the poor though.
When we were kids we went through several stretches of poverty. The worst involved us near Christmas having to ask around charities for food.
One came through with the goods, with a box that contained not only food but a couple of books for Christmas. A simple thing but at the time I was really grateful and almost reduced to tears because of the generousity of these volunteers.
You had one bad experience. I don’t blame you for being turned off. But trust me, as a recipient of goods and food from welfare agencies in the past, those bits that do get through were gold to us.
Wait, you want to throw Rudd into the mix, when all you’ve done on this thread is support Tony Abbott’s strawman argument about Rudd’s housing policy somehow being pointless and unsustainable? Hell, why not, `strawman’ and ‘grasping at straws’ sound to be closely related.
I’m not a responsible centrist, my mind just can’t contort that much.
(Wait for inevitable response about how KRudd is playing ACOSS et al for suckers, because that is the responsible thing for a sound centrist PM to do.)
Nick – in the words of Douglas Adams, Rudd is ‘mostly harmless’…. he’ll keep the status quo ticking along. There will be no sudden leaps to the left – he knows that mainstream Australia would kick him out if that happened. He’s not the idealistic fool that Whitlam was.
We voted Rudd in because we’d grown tired of 11 years of Howard, and were getting worried that with control of the Senate, Howard was shifting just a slightly bit too far to the centre right. Workchoices was the step too far. I voted ALP at the last election, I voted for Howard in the previous election. All pretty safe really.
A word of advice – don’t mock centrism too loudly in public – it’ll expose you as loony fringe dweller!
Andrew, low info lurkers should be careful what stones they throw at more regular posters on blogs.
Just google ‘Nickws’ plus any combination of ‘Guy Rundle’ ‘Cold War Left’ ‘Revolutionary Left’ ‘Industrial Democracy’ and, to a lesser extent, `Paul Norton’.
I’m not putting my amateurish commenting forward as if it’s somehow a body of work, but this is the easiest way to state my defence against your throwaway strawman bit. Words mean things, yadda yadda yadda.
Just to add my two bob’s worth re the op-shop and donated furniture. The people who pick up stuff for op-shops have sussed out over many years what will sell and what won’t. Unfortunately a worn leather couch, albeit that it’s only just run in, imo, probably would be hard to shift.
They can’t sell second hand mattresses because of health issues, but second hand clothes are OK. Go figure.
And fast food outlets can’t give the homeless what’s left over at closing time because of health issues, presumably. But it’s fine for the homeless to raid rubbish bins for food, apparently. No health issues there.
On the matter of homelessness, I have 2 sons who under certain circumstances could quite possibly wind up homeless, because they both have disabilities, to wit a severe language disorder, coupled with an intellectual disability, the other with a mild intellectual disability. Either way their ability to earn enough to put a roof over their heads and food on the table is limited.
I can only hope they never have to rely on the Mad Monk’s magnanimous and compassionate social policy.
Tssk @101, that was my original “pre-conceived idea”; namely that some people did indeed need things at times, and could make use of stuff that others with too much could easily spare.
Tssk @88: “Also a lot of charities won’t take old matresses due to the risk of passing on lice or other parasites or because the matress would be worse than sleeping on the ground. (Let’s be honest here, most of us use matresses well beyound their use by date.)”
Just to be clear, we weren’t offering our mattresses. They are not old, nor cheap, and they are certainly not parasite-ridden.
Incidentally, I presume by extension, one should also worry about this parasite problem whenever renting a fully-furnished holiday apartment, holiday cottage, or even staying in a motel/hotel? Those would be USED mattresses, AND used by a lot of people of unknown background.
Good grief. We should take up a petition demanding new mattresses in all hotels, motels, holiday flats, etc. You never know what kind of grotty, flea-bitten former clients or holiday makers stayed there before you, eh? Totally shocking concept! Good job those charities have alerted us all to this problem before it got any worse.
This practicing Christian is mightily annoyed at Abbott — not that I didn’t find him mightily annoying already. He’s certainly
forgottenchosen to forget whatever they taught him at seminary.Re why-won’t-they-take-it: sofas with wobbly legs aren’t necessarily that easy to fix and can be a sign that the frame is going. It’s significantly less effort for a charity to turn down anything remotely dodgy, rather than spend time and effort to move around something that might not last (imagine how you’d feel as the recipient of a ‘charity’ lounge that collapses).
A lot of charities are overwhelmed by people dumping rubbish on them, which is why some of them are now stricter than we’d be ourselves. For example, our church stall is frequently given “gifts” of stained clothing and damaged household goods, presumably on the basis that the people who shop there won’t mind or don’t deserve better (we get both kinds of poor at this here stall).
There’s more to that, Chookie. If he had of been listening, when they were talking about the words attributed to Francis Xavier….
“Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man”
…. he might have ended up a convicted politician rather than just a conviction one.
I love op shops whichever charity runs them and I love the people who work in them. They’re so tolerant of us all, rich, poor and in-between. There they are out the back sorting out piles of clothes and cutlery and lampshades and books and CD’s and shoes(!). And there we are in the shop picking over their neat piles of books and messing up their carefully sized dress racks arranged and re-arranged just before we came in.
I’ve been every kind of customer the Op shop sees. The very first time early in WWII as a child without shoes and even the few pennies that could buy them there I was bought in and sat down by a Red Cross shop lady who’d found me outside. Someone found some darned socks for my chilblained little feet over which some of the other ladies came to tut-tut and shake their heads before I was sent off comfortably shod with a biscuit in newly mittened hands.
Later as a scholarship girl at the local grammar school I was able to find in the same shop things like the right shaped sports bag and the hockey stick I needed to hold my own with other fifteen year olds whose families were much better off.
As a London university student in rooms I joined forays into charity shops on the Finchley Rd near Hampstead digging around for mugs and kettles and dented saucepans for boiling milk on our gas rings for late night cocoa after long hours of swot. Not long after in my first job at the BBC in Bush House I recall a crowd of us furnishing our first shared flat almost entirely from an Oxfam store, from formica topped kitchen table to beds and thin sheets, blankets and lumpy pillows.
With my hard earned degree, good job and ultimately a husband I don’t think I could ever imagine myself having to use charity shops after that. But I did, some ten years later as a single parent with two kids, albeit on a teacher’s wage. I could never have managed without the Salvation Army shop on Murray Street in Perth here in WA. For almost a decade the three of us were always well dressed and for a song, until my teenagers rebelled and wanted new clothes like their friends. Things were easier by then and I gave in, for them at least because there certainly wasn’t enough cash around to buy high fashion for me.
I could go on and on about op shops I have loved and frequented particularly those a few years ago in Lane Cove in Sydney where the wealthy donors in the area ensured that there was an Aladdin’s cave of bargains available any day one cared to drop in. Not that clothes interested me much by then, but records, CDs and books were there in abundance often near new. These days Fremantle’s Salvo stores and Save the Children shop keep me supplied with books, puzzles and games for my grandchildren.
So, please, keep giving to the charity shops and buy from them too. Every dollar helps. There’s nothing to stop you from making a donation every time you buy which I’m glad to do. And those ladies really appreciate that. I wish I could do more for them, but I know I wouldn’t have their patience!
Just woke up realising what it was about Op shops that reminded of how I felt about Tony Abbott’s crass comments on the poor.
My poor is always with me
No shoes on chilblained feet
It’s not the cold she’s feeling
But indifference on the street
My poor is always with me
She hides from fights and noise
With a dog eared book for company
And a few dilapidated toys.
My poor is always with me
Even now in happier days
Reminding me that babies
Cannot “change their ways”
My poor is always with me
Reminding me to give
And do my bit to change a world
Where still unhappy children live.
Chookie @107: “Re why-won’t-they-take-it: sofas with wobbly legs aren’t necessarily that easy to fix and can be a sign that the frame is going…imagine how you’d feel as the recipient of a ‘charity’ lounge that collapses. ”
Bollocks, Chookie.
I was referring to a study table with a loose screw on one leg.
Which wasn’t noticeable until you tried to move the table. And it wasn’t in danger of collapsing. Other than the loose screw, the table was not damaged or poorly built in any way.
The big, hairy, tattooed removalists thought a loose screw was too hard to fix? Get out of it!!!
This entire discussion clearly illustrates that we have a specific form of relative poverty in Australia.
Incidentally, the Op shops in Scandinavia must be smarter than the Aussie ones. They cut up and sell any stained or damaged clothes for cleaning rags, to maintenance workshops and offshore oil rigs. As such, they act as a gathering point for these items which would otherwise be landfill.
In Australia, the Op shops would rather you put damaged clothing in the rubbish for landfill. Of course, our labour costs must be much higher than in Scandinavia, so we can’t arrange to sell cleaning rags???
Elise, I don’t think the op-shops have made the ruling re used mattresses, more likely the state governments. However, I think if you saw the state of some of the mattresses proffered, you’d be pretty pleased they’re knocked back.
Accommodation providers have to use mattress protectors and as their beds are stripped and made pretty much every day, any damage like blood and other stains, is dealt with very quickly.
I donate things to our local op-shop fairly regularly, but I don’t give them stuff they can’t use. Our local shop sells bags of rags, which are very handy for paint clean-ups and cleaning grout and tile adhesive off tiles.
Elise, what has this got to do with the issue of homelessness? Who really cares whether that charity thought your furniture was suitable or not? Such a boring derail
Oh look! The real Elise aggenda is starting to show.
You are right Fine. The most boring thread derail ever.
Elise simply ignores anything that doesn’t fit in with her agenda.
Ah, but adrian, hasn’t Elise done a superb job at drawing attention away from Tone, man of heart?
“Ah, but adrian, hasn’t Elise done a superb job at drawing attention away from Tone, man of heart?”
Exactly.
And it’s obvious that Emo-Man would have been up at 3am and down to the depot of his local Bro-hood o’ St Larry, tightening screws and making sure all the LPs have proper polythene sleeves.
Fine, joe2 and Adrian, YOU are the guys with the agenda.
I simply gave an illustration of how the poor in Australia are apparently not like the poor of some other countries.
You then all piled in with the attacks, on the gross assumption (without direct evidence) that we had offered crappy furniture. So I defended myself.
YOU derailed the thread, yourselves. You clearly have an agenda yourselves, in the need to pursue me on the topic, like a pack of dogs.
Yes, basically poverty doesn’t exist here because a charity wouldn’t take my couch.
Hi guys, best idea is to move on, but before you do, my little girl is crying for attention. I normally wouldn’t ask, but I’m serious for once.
Yes, it must be shocking to be accused of having crappy furniture. I’m sure you only have very nice furniture, Elise.
Hi guys, best thing is to ignore and move on. Before you, do my little girl is crying for attention. For real.
Sorry! How did that happen? I guess she’s really determined.
“Tony Abbott might have sounded unsympathetic to the homeless in a speech last week but they seem to have done pretty well out of him. Kevin Rudd yesterday decided to try to show up the Opposition Leader by announcing $10 million for the mentally disturbed homeless. That’s the tit-for-tat politics of election year.”
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/pm-rattled-in-psychological-battle-20100217-odx2.html
This is the best Michelle Grattan, senior journalist from Fairfax, can come up with on the issue of homelessness and the Abbott response to it. Bloody hopeless , I reckon.
No no joe2, we all know that any and every political event is a reactive response to the polls and/or the latest MSM story du jour and can only be understood in that light. Journalists are the centre of the political universe and everything else revolves around their inane blather.
Inane blather alright. Is Michelle Grattan as stupid as she sounds?
And gross assumption = accusation of offering crappy furniture. Now who would have guessed you poor dear.
Time for apologies all round.
According to the edition prepared for Prince James, Matthew wrote:
For I was hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it to the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
*****
Alle menschen werden Brueder!
I’d like to apologise Elise for any misunderstanding. When I was talking about dirty matresses et al I wasn’t refering to your furniture but reading back through it I can see how the mistake was made. I can also understand your frustration, you are moving in a hurry, you take time out to donate your furniture rather than hiring a skip and some of it is refused by the man in the van. Ergo given the limited feedback you assumed the poor can’t be that poor if they are that choosy.
Of course I wasn’t there and can’t speak for the man in the van. I’d like to make the following points, this doesn’t invalidate your response…as always everyone’s mileage may vary.
1. Different charirites have different guidelines as to what they will take vs what they won’t. Some people have of late used them as a cheap garbage collection service (note: I’m not accussing you of this, some charities though have had goods that you simply would not give to the poor due to health issues or safety issiues or issues of liability.)
2. Despite this it is possible that the guy who came to pick up your stuff either assessed it’s usefuleness incorrectly or might have even been too lazy or too tired to pick it up. I’ve worked in logistics in the past (the art of moving crap around) and I’ve dealt with logistics people and sometimes there are some slackers who will turn up, complain that it’s unsuitable, too heavy, not packed properly, do their paperwork and toddle down to the pub for an hour.
3. These were not the poor you were dealing with but a middle agency. That bedstand…back when we were poor kids I would have loved something like that for my mum and would have had the time to pull out the screwdriver and do the repair. Just because it was knocked back by one agency doesn’t mean no one wanted it.
Don’t be down on the poor or deny their existance because of one tosser is my advice Elise.
I totally understand your attitude. I have a mate who used to give up his seat on public transport to women, the elderly, the sick etc. And one day on offering his seat to a young woman he got a lecture by some nutter about what a chauvinest pig he was. Nowadays he gives up his seat for noone and if someone calls him on it he folds his arms and says “you women wanted equality, deal with it.”
Once bitten twice shy, but really life’s too short to feel like that isn’t it?
Geez, glad we cleared that up.
Good response from John Falzon (CEO of Vinnies) in Eureka Street:
“The deeply offensive aspect of Abbott’s comments is that he blames people for being left out or pushed out. Nothing could be further from the truth. Choices are constrained for those who have been systematically locked out of the nation’s prosperity. There’s not much choice between a rock and a hard place. But of course, such a world view lets governments off the hook. It denies the reality of the social.”
http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=19442
He also nicely links the comments to income quarantining.
Personally, all this talk about blame is a process story, and we don’t talk about the real issue, which is especially more the real issue if you are a Christian.
We are called on to help people because it is the right thing to do.
It is all well and good to call Jesus a revolutionary, and make comparisons between the people in the temple and Tony Abbott, but the fact is Jesus said “render to Caesar those things that belong to Caesar”.
He call on all humanity to help the poor because it is right, and brings us closer to the Almighty.
This is the reason I get a nagging feeling that I want to stick a shiv in my ear whenever I hear my (now former) parish priest talk about social justice. As if any form of justice isn’t just a human construct.
Jesus didn’t call on humanity to change the system, or level the playing field. He just asked us to help those less fortunate. St Paul called it charity, and we were happy with that term until about fifteen years ago, but for some reason, not anymore.
Those on the outside we need to try to include, because it is right. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, in reality or metaphorically, we have been called to offer the other cheek. It’s tough, but then it’s supposed to be.
So we can accuse Elise of blaming poor people for being poor (as if some people aren’t poor because of some of the choices they made), but it doesn’t really matter. We just need to be determined to help people, because it is right.
Which brings us back nicely to Tony Abbott, who despite being trained in these things, doesn’t seem to understand what you have stated so clearly Howard.
Elise – have been there too. When I asked why, they said they didn’t have anyone who needed what we had right then, and they had no capacity to store it for the future.
WTF does Tony Abbott want on the campaign trail? Groupies?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/19/2824522.htm
Conservatives don’t believe in giving choice: they believe in crushing the unlucky who have not much choice into having less and less choice… this was talked about in Michael Moores movie SICKO!
The Libs straw decreases every day and personalites such as Abbott make you think that the inevitable name change is around the corner. How can you smoke crack and still vote for this like you’re a true Aussie?!!?
The protest vote will be in I’m sure!
http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=19455 : interesting!
Ah Howard, justice is mentioned quite a few times in the Bible.
Not sure what you’re trying to say there really.
Also I reckon “breaking free the bonds of the oppressor” and “proclaiming the year of Jubilee [i.e. the cancellation of all debts]” count as Jesus trying to change the system!
@Lefty E
OK perhaps I was a little broad. I know for a fact that one particular homeless person in Sydney has millions
@Adrian
The latter.
@Fine
At no point did I suggest homelessness wasn’t a problem.
Howard @131, being a good Jew, I think Jesus well understood, and well-taught, the unreconstructed Jewish traditions of social justice that had been handed down to him.
Yes, systemised social justice. Leaving the gleanings from the harvest for the poor, and all that: the practice pre-dated the life of Jesus by a good millenium or so.
Josh @ 136 take note: the jubilee and systemised remission of debts were established in Torah a thousand years before Jesus was born. Torah even has a tale or two about breaking free from oppressors, you know.
It was our justice before it was your justice
Just sayin’ 
As for Abbott, Jesus would probably tell him to go and study Torah before opening his fool mouth one more time.
Good post Mervyn
Of course “the ‘poor’ will always be with us” – but not for the reasons old Tone thinks. Whoever this ‘Jesus’ fella was, he was absolutely right on this one. This insight alone makes ‘him’ a remarkably astute reader of people. And the reason is so obvious.
The poor will always be with us because there appears to be no end in sight of those commonly known as: the ‘rich’. You know- the ones that he said “to get to heaven have to pass through the eye of a needle.”
The subtlety of the biblical quote is just wonderful! Just like the poor, the rich, who are always with us, require more and more countries, civilizations and environments to consume, in order to keep the feeding frenzy going. Without these over-arching and self righteous people, there may be enough to feed and clothe and house all the world’s people to a humane standard.
In India, the reign of the Great Mughals dynasty had been an era of unprecedented prosperity until they were conquered by the British Empire about 1800. Jawaharlal Nehru claimed that “A significant fact which stands out is that those parts of India which have been longest under British rule are the poorest today.” Under the British Empire the Indian economy was purposely and severely de-industrialized (especially in the areas of textiles and metal-working) through colonial regulations, tariffs on manufactured or refined Indian goods, taxes, and direct seizures. In 1830, India accounted for 17.6% of industrial production against Britain’s 9.5%, but by 1900 India’s share was down to 1.7% against Britain’s 18.5%.
British policies and domination in India removed peasants from their lands and concentrated them in urban slums. Community grain banks were forcibly disabled, land was converted from food crops for local consumption to cotton, opium for the Chinese trade, tea and grain to export as animal feed.
Today our big rich corporations sell modified seeds that cant be re-sown and need their own pestacides and chemicals that the poor cant afford.
In South America the manipulation of the rich by the undeserving poor has always been a serious problem. Latin America in the last decade has transferred some $150 billion to the industrial West in addition to $100 billion of capital flight, amounting to twenty-five times the total value of the Alliance for Progress and fifteen times the Marshall Plan.
Merc – absolutely agree (he was quoting Isaiah after all).
Still, I reckon it counts as “changing the system” ‘cos those rules were not exactly being respected at the time
I am reminded of Desmond Tutu saying the Bible is the most incendiary book an oppressed people can read!
Don at #139 -
“In South America the manipulation of the rich by the undeserving poor has always been a serious problem.”
I take it you’re being ironic – or did you mean “manipulation by the rich of the ‘undeserving’ poor”?
Someone or other has done an analysis of the poorest areas of Africa (sorry but my investigative skills aren’t up to finding the link) and they are the regions most devestated by the slave catchers. So up to 600 years later, the people there are still paying the price.
Just this last week I read a quote saying that the rivers of the Congo used to be so chocked with bodies that the slave ships often couldn’t navigate.
Thes are the sort of reasons we will always have the “poor” – the “rich” will rip your forests apart to make rubber and leather, they’ll rip your boots off and stand on your feet – anything – rather than part with something they call “standard of living” / “lifestyle” / “our way of life”.
I wonder what Saint Mary McKillop would think of Tony Abbot and his views on the poor, women and life in general. I think she’d line up with us gals on the left, don’t you, Casey?
The rich will always be with us.
Haven’t read the whole thread but I do have to agree with Elise in regard to used furniture. We tried to donate some perfectly good wooden furniture to a charity and they said they *might* come around in 6 weeks if we were lucky. I ended up chopping it up and putting it in the rubbish over a period of months. We also tried to give away a very nice double bed mattress but no one would take it. Funnily enough when my wife and I were first living together we bought an old mattress from a charity and had it on the floor for years. It was *way* worse than what we were giving away. Health hazards my arse – we also own a furnished unit and the mattress in it is at least 15 years old and has had 10 different people sleep on it – no one has ever said it was old or dirty.
My dad also used to sponsor a child through the Salvos. Over the years though the requests for money for this child became ever more ridiculous with requests for music lessons, money for school trips to the Gold Coast and that sort of thing. The poor dear would apparently have been scarred for life missing out on a trip to the Amusement Parks if my dad didn’t pay up. He promptly cancelled his support.
I have also decided now to never give any money to charities. They are mostly a rip off and a scam.
Patricia WA @109 you are a darling. And so sensible.
The Age today said that 4.5% of housing in Australia is social housing. About 20% of housing stock in UK, Denmark and Sweden is social housing.
So only 4.5% of the population’s rent is tied to 25% of their income every one else pays market rent. Its amazing more people aren’t homeless. Could be underquoting statistics – tends to happen when census collectors don’t count or survey homeless people
Bad experiences with a charity, or two, does not mean that need has gone away.
It beats me how a personal or relative’s slight or two can be used to justify walking away from poverty and donating, haughtily blaming the poor for not being needy enough or attempting to derail a thread about a prospective P.M., who likewise, appears to have no understanding of the real issues either.
Well said, joe2. Another factor about rejects of good quality stuff is that there’s so much of it around these days. We change decor, furniture, bedding, appliances and the like simply to upgrade. As well with so much more disposable income plus the availability of reasonably priced replacements people moving house are happy to travel light and re-furnish later. Freight and removal charges are huge these days.
It’s nice to think of our charities being able to be a bit more choosy about what they are prepared to give to the poor! Look it at from the charities’ point of view. Why should they be used as cheap removalists for people unable or unwilling to dispose of things they no longer want elsewhere, arrange transport to the tip or put up with it cluttering the house until the next council white goods pick up?
Apart from the income generated through their stores these charities do a great job of training and employing the disadvantaged. So collection, sorting, storage, and what restoration they do choose to do all provide jobs. There are some like Samaritans which train and employ special groups for shop front positions. And they train them very well indeed. Service at Good Sammy is excellent.
Op shops – there should be more of them!
Of course the poor should always be with us. If we finally hit The Road, we’ll find ‘em low in fat and high in fibre. Post-apocalyptic muesli. And certainly tastier than Donald Trump. “Shit, it’s all basically one big combover. Where’s the beef? And what’s left is all full of artificial preservatives anyway. Let’s stalk and fillet a Central Banker instead.”
Yeah, yeah Zoe, I haven’t forgotten about the cannibalism piece for ProgDins. Busy doing surprisingly complicated practical research on it now. All those pettifogging laws.