On Q&A tonight, the defence from John Roskam of Tony Abbott’s remarks on homelessness and the government’s social housing strategy at the Catholic Social Service Association’s national conference appeared to be that it wasn’t clear what he’d said. [It's worth noting that Roskam did agree that homelessness being halved was a worthwhile goal.]
That assumption seemed to be shared by the panel. It surprised me, because Christopher Pearson reproduced a transcript of Abbott’s remarks in his column in The Australian on Sunday.
The part about “the poor will always be with us” is indicated, rather than quoted, perhaps because (as often occurs) it was a question from the floor and the recording wasn’t clear. Sometimes when a session is transcribed, the speaker’s comments are also omitted if a question can’t be accurately redacted. But the substance of Abbott’s remarks, mostly verbatim, is in fact on the public record.
It’s John Roskam not Roxam. Anyway, I’m also surprised nobody pulled him up on it. As I mentioned on Twitter when he said it, you can’t change the public record. He’s a Liberal Party hack though and wanted to run in Higgins so what do you expect.
Thanks! I’ll fix up his name in the post.
I cannot understand why Roskam gets all the media time he does. He’s such a light-weight. Be more at home at Catallaxy.
Balance?
The problem with the Bible is that it can be used to justify either a right-wing or a left-wing stance on social issues like poverty. Besides the verse Mark quoted, Jesus was also made to say, “For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath.” This verse could also have been used to justify the widening gap between rich and poor.
Jesus is also ambiguously portrayed in the gospels as promoting both violence and non-violence.
But that saying has nothing to do with material wealth, silkworm, unless you want to read it through a crude ‘Prosperity Gospel’ lens, which has absolutely nothing to do with the way the Catholic Church and exegetes familiar with the literary and historical contexts of these tropes interpet it. It’s a parable – in other words, the text itself resists a surface reading of the story. For a good reading of the text Abbott cited, see:
http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=19455
Though I don’t particularly want, on this thread, to debate New Testament exegesis for the sake of it.
…I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
That was Christ’s way of saying that robust property rights and a flat tax rate are the best entry tickets to paradiso.
You are missing my point, which was that it is possible to pick quotes from the Bible to suit one’s political persuasion. As to your implication that Catholic exegesis is socialist while Protestant exegesis is wealth-oriented, I find that rather bigoted, and disproven by the simple fact that Tony Abbott himself has chosen the wealth-oriented interpretation of these verses.
Although I am an atheist now, I had a bog-standard Protestant Sunday School upbringing, and my teachers emphasized the socialist sayings of Jesus.
silkworm, Mark is factually correct that the doctrine labelled as “Prosperity Gospel” does not originate from the Catholic Church. That does not mean that it is thus a mainstream Protestant exegesis, and he claimed no such thing, so slow down on the bigotry claims.
“Prosperity Gospel” teachings arise from a very particular strain of conservative evangelicalism in the USA which originated in fundamentalist Protestant circles such as Oral Roberts and the Pentacostalists within the Southern Baptist Convention (closest equivalents here would be Hillsong and Assemblies of God churches).
There are plenty of other Protestant groups which wouldn’t touch Prosperity Gospel teachings with a barge pole, but the doctrines resonate with social and fiscal conservatives such as Abbott even when they aren’t Protestants.
Exactly, tigtog. The whole point here is that Abbott, in the eyes of many Catholics, is not speaking in this instance from a Catholic point of view.
It is nice to get some correction about what Abbott said, and it’s nice to see LP plugged in the Australian. It’s also a relief to hear that Abbott’s views on homelessness aren’t as despicable as they were painted.
However, if he said this:
Then I don’t think he’s aware of what the States and Commonwealth are actually doing around homelessness. Government-run and NGO supported accommodation services are actually extremely effective at addressing people’s chronic problems. State public housing is, in most cases, very good at addressing need. The task of addressing people’s individual problems, whether it’s debt or a mental health issue or domestic violence, is often done by NGOs and services that don’t look like homelessness services, but prevent it.
Homelessness is a very big—in terms of policy—issue, but it’s not true to say that Governments can’t or aren’t doing anything. And it’s not true to say that we can’t halve homelessnes.
As a lifelong atheist (no Sunday school even) I made a point of at least studying and reading about the major and numerous minor faith based religions. I guess that Abbott’s comments could mean a great deal to Christians and Catholics in particular. Pearson’s pompous textual interpretations of Christ’s intentions within a context of a discussion over public policy merely strikes me as odd. These are strange days indeed when a formally secular democracy discusses homelessness with reference to Christ rather than with reference to the purposes of a liberal democracy.
Pearson makes absolutely no mention of any of the principles that have informed the development of democratic social policy over the previous two hundred years. I would have thought that a political journalist ought to know how the development of modern democracy was in fact rooted in the experience of poverty and powerlessness that preceded the French revolution. Never mind. But that is mere modern history. What gets Pearson all hot and bothered in a funny, churchy kind of way, of all things, is an absolutely dead letter debate about Christ’s intentions and the role of wealth.
Not, of course, that Christians were particpants and supporters of revolutionary change. I took me about ten minutes to locate the following account on the tubes of how “…on November 4th, 1789, the Protestant minister, Richard Price (1723-1791), stood at the pulpit at the Meeting-House in the Old Jewry in London. He was about to address a crowd of about fifty members of the “Society for the Commemoration of the Revolution in Great Britain.” His address was, A Discourse on the Love of Our Country, and it was intended as the keynote address of the Society’s celebration of the one hundredth anniversary of the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Here is an excerpt from Price’s address:
What an eventful period this is! I am thankful that I have lived to see it; and I could almost say, Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, for mine eyes have seen thy salvation. I have lived to see a diffusion of knowledge, which has undermined superstition and error — I have lived to see the rights of men better understood than ever; and nations panting for liberty, which seem to have lost the idea of it. I have lived to see 30 MILLIONS of people, indignant and resolute, spurning at slavery, and demanding liberty with an irresistible voice; their king led in triumph, and an arbitrary monarch surrendering himself to his subjects. — After sharing in the benefits of one revolution, I have been spared to be witness to two other revolutions, both glorious. And now methinks I see the love for liberty catching and spreading, a general amendment beginning in human affairs; the dominion of kings changed for the dominion of laws, and the dominion of priests giving way to the dominion of reason and conscience.”
“the dominion of kings changed for the dominion of laws, and the dominion of priests giving way to the dominion of reason and conscience”. I like that bit and it seems apposite to the discussion.
On to the point in which Pearson cites Abbott:
“But we can’t just stop people from being homeless if that’s their choice or if their situation is such that it is just impossible to look after them in certain circumstances.”
Some people are just in the too hard basket is what that says to me. It appears to my eyes that this is a common enough response from people of no experience in human services or any type of welfare or caring role. There are people who, for whatever reason, have never and will never lead the sort of life that Abbott and presumably Pearson as well see as rewarding and proper. Maybe they failed to make worship of the Paraclete their outstanding virtue. That does not, however, justify failing to attempt to ameliorate their conditions or soothe their suffering.
My understanding of Christianity is that humility is regarded as a virtue. I see none of that from either Abbott or Pearson.
Correction: that ought to read “Not, of course, that Christians were NOT particpants and supporters of revolutionary change.”
silkworm, you are absolutely correct that someone could pick out a couple of verses from the Bible suggesting ambivalence about peoverty, or even support for what we now refer to as the ‘prosperity gospel’ (although it comes from the Hebrew Scriptures).
But to do that you would have to ignore the 2000+ verses that make it crystal clear what God demands for those who would claim allegiance to Her/Him.
Back to Mark’s post, it’s interesting that Pearson gives a full transcript except for the bit about the ‘poor alweays with you’. Why is that? And it was nice of him to give LP a plug!
John Roskam isn’t lightweight, he makes Tony Abbott look positively enlightened. As the master puppeteer he was reinterpreting what Tony Abbott said.
Tony Abbott is a politician and his audience on the stage with him heard and understood him to say that “there is nothing that can be done about homelessness”.
I can understand a minder reinterpreting the thoughts of a computer nerd but a politician’s stock in trade is his communication, networking skills and ability to harness other people.
There is no excuse for Tony Abbott’s comments on homelessness.
“There is no excuse for Tony Abbott
’s comments on homelessness.”There, I fixed that for you, billie.
I take it transcripts of Kevin Rudd’s remarks will now be printed in The Australian whenever he is quoted out of context. But then, The Australian would be a much thinner paper if they suddenly developed scruples about reporting Labor politicans fairly.
On the substance, halving homelessness seems to me an utterly realistic goal. The fact that Abbott would want to quibble with it shows there’s no issue he’s willing to agree with the government over – none. Pathetic.
The Rudd Government has devoted serious resources to making this happen. It’s a mystery to me why the Rudd Government hasn’t gotten more credit for this from their own side. We should be over the moon. Tanya Plibersek should be a heroine to the Left.
Have tradition Left concerns like homelessness and affordable housing just become boring to large sections of the Left? Too “old Labor” and not trendy “Green”, perhaps? What gives comrades?
Ginja, Rudd and Labor bashing is becoming a national pastime, so large sections of whatever the left is these days are adopting their usual defensive attitute and joining in.
Hey, it’s easier to embrace the media narrative than actually remember what Rudd has done or do a little bit of research.
Honestly Rudd pisses me off sometimes (My Schools website for eg) but I can’t understand the hostlity.
Ginja – agreed. I think it just slips out of people’s minds because (until now) it’s rarely in the media spotlight.
I think viz Abbott it’s also worth noting the easy option was to say yes – Turnbull did, and most social policy strategies do continue across parties, despite what the media might make you think. Also he was at a Catholic Social Services conference, not the best place to walk away from the current govt policy. So the fact that he did anyway is much more significant in telling us about his priorities IMHO.
Having read the entirety of what Tony Abbott said I feel vindicated in my position in the other thread.
Thanks Josh and Adrian. Rudd has poured stimulus money into social housing (20,000-odd thousand dwellings), renovated existing public housing so more homes can be brought back into use, created large incentives for the private sector to create affordable housing. There was a time when the Left would get excited over things like this.
But, then, I just read a piece by Gerard Henderson than sounded eerily like my rant (unsurprisingly, Henderson says the Left, uniquely among the various shades of political opinion in this country, should never have any influence on policy), so I take it back.
Ginja, some on the Left aren’t too thrilled about the mandatory internet filter and nation wide welfare quarantining for all single parents & unemployed (kids or no kids). I won’t make the mistake of voting for this ‘Labor’ government again.
Ginja @ 17 “What gives comrades?”
Adrian @ 18 “I can’t understand the hostility.”
I have been as puzzled as you both by how down the Left commentariat is on Rudd. When I first heard ALP insiders in the west muttering about him I read it at first as part of their chagrin over the loss of government and then resentment as Rudd inevitably had to be on civil terms with the new Liberal state government.
As we’ve seen on this site, however, it’s not confined to W.A. it’s across the board and coming from party members or those on the lefty grapevine who claim first second or third hand knowledge of his nastiness and hollowness. They seem to want to colour in the broad caricatures we get from Abbott and Co. with their own innuendos and knowing nods.
With the electorate at large he is still more popular than PMs of the past at this stage of the electoral cycle. But the gap is narrowing and it will do so further if they help along the cult of Iron Man Tony by belittling their own hard working less charismatic leader.
So who cares if he’s nerd, a policy wonk and not matey enough and he hasn’t done
the hard yards as a Union official or Party organiser? He’s run a good government with almost no scandals and carried us unscathed through a massive world wide crisis. He pulled off the last election didn’t he? He can do it again if people on his own side will get off his back and stop talking about how ‘disappointed’ they are. If dog whistling, demagogue Abbott gets in or even gains more ground in this country then they’ll really know what disappointment’s all about.
“What gives comrades?”
Conroy’s filter. Macklin’s intervention. Rudd’s attitude to marriage equality. Wong’s ETS which deliver little in actual emissions reduction, even if they could get it through the senate.
Ginja @ 17 “What gives comrades?”
Adrian @ 18 “I can’t understand the hostility.”
I have been as puzzled as you both by how down the left commentariat is on Rudd as well as some in the party who should know better. When I first heard ALP insiders in the west muttering about him I read it at first as part of their chagrin over the loss of government and then resentment as Rudd inevitably had to be on civil terms with the new Liberal state government.
As we’ve seen on this site, however, it’s not confined to W.A. it’s across the board and coming from party members or those on the lefty grapevine who claim first second or third hand knowledge of his nastiness and hollowness. They seem to want to colour in the broad caricatures we get from Abbott and Co. with their own innuendos and knowing nods. As if all former ALP leaders were saints without personal blemish. If well over half the population trust him as their preferred PM then he’s our man and we should get behind him.
With the electorate at large he is still more popular than PMs of the past at this stage of the electoral cycle. But the gap is narrowing and it will do so further if they help along the cult of colorful Iron Man Tony by belittling their own hard working less charismatic leader.
So who cares if he’s nerd, a policy wonk and not matey enough and he hasn’t done
the hard yards as a Union official or Party organiser? He’s run a good government with almost no scandals and carried us unscathed through a massive world wide crisis. He pulled off the last election didn’t he? He can do it again if people on his own side will get off his back and stop talking about how ‘disappointed’ they are. If dog whistling, demagogue Abbott gets in or even gains more ground in this country then they’ll really know what disappointment is.
And as I’ve said before, all most single parents will be asked to do is occasionally provide evidence that their children are attending school. Unemployed people will be granted an exemption from any quarantining of their payments if they have a previous work history. Hardly draconian stuff. It will be introduced so the government complies with anti-discrimination laws. And Labor has, for instance, made changes to the Howard Government’s policy of automatically breaching people on Newstart.
So Rudd doesn’t get any points for avoiding mass unemployment with the stimulus? Or significantly increaing the base rate of the age pension, especially for singles who tend to be the most disadvantaged? Or soon introducing a paid maternity scheme?
I guess these social justice issues pale into insignificance when weighed against access to internet smut.
Ginja, out of curiosity, are you on the payroll of the ALP?
The snark is getting kind of tedious but I’ll respond in kind. I notice you ignore an adequate response to climate change as an issue of social justice – so, are you naive or just stupid?.
You might consider reading the comments policy, St Furious of Ikea.
My apologies Mark.
The “what gives comrades?” questions was asked, and answered in the spirit of it being a genuine question..the response….”I guess these social justice issues pale into insignificance when weighed against access to internet smut.”…is simply snark.
There is a political party in this country that has social justice policies; respects marriage equality and civil liberties; and has a policy to reduce carbon emissions, which is the single most important issue if we are to live in a more just and equitable world.
Patricia, Ginja and others who are wondering why the Left is belting Rudd around the head, I haven’t voted Labor since Hawke’s first term, when the Labor Party stopped being the Labor Party. I doubt if I’m unique.
The best thing that can be said about Rudd is that he isn’t Howard, which is the only reason Labor got anywhere near my second preference last election. (As Paul Burns has said, the worst Labor govt is better than any Liberal govt, although IMO sometimes it’s a close run thing.)
@28, thanks, Saint Furious.
But I’d add that I think this discussion has strayed some distance from the topic of the post.
Sorry for straying off the topic, Mark. Let me get one more word in.
Saint Furious of Ikea, I’m not on the payroll of the ALP – I defend the ALP because precious few others do. Interesting that anyone who defends the ALP is automatically suspected of being on the payroll.
I’ve said many times before, whether it’s blogs or the MSM, unlike the Libs there is nobody – nobody – who defends the ALP. What’s so awful about acknowledging that the Rudd Government has made a serious effort on homelessness?
David Irving: c’mon, so you don’t see a significant difference between Fair Work Australia and Work Choices?
Ginja, yes there’s a significant difference, as there is on the homeless policy. (After all, the Libs don’t do policy except for tax cuts, subsidies for business, and draconian workplace laws.) I don’t reckon the Rudd govt is anywhere near the worst ALP govt I’ve seen. (NSW, otoh … )
The CPRS is certainly a dog’s breakfast and a big minus for Rudd. The internet filter is clearly unpopular for the left. I don’t know what Rudd’s attitude to marriage equality is, other than it’s really bad politics (which is sadly true). And income quarantining for everyone as a way to deal with the Anti Descrimination Act is completely arse-about (not to mention a galling exception to Rudd’s “evidence based policy”).
None of those things are a good reason not to laud the achievements that have been made in less than one term of government. That’s what I was hearing from Ginja.
Just because Labor is not as pure as some of us would like doesn’t mean we should ignore the good things they have done, many of which (like tackling homelessness) won’t win any votes but are the right thing to do.
I’m sorry but kicking the shit out of the poorest on welfare and sucking up to the extreme Christian Right with a mandatory internet filter (as opposed to voluntary) are the exact kind of things Mike Rann would do if he could. I have no doubt Labor will smash Abbott and the Libs comfortably this year but some of you will really start to see how much of a ‘Labor’ government they really are in the future.
It’s the Rann strategy all over again (no secret that Rudd looks up to Rann and had him in the bunker for the ’07 fed election). Move to the right to marginalise the Libs. The Libs then have to either become far-right or left of the Labor party. Brilliant strategy for keeping and holding on to power but shits all over the party and it’s ideals and traditions. Eventually all this will blow up in the ALP’s faces as the party that stands for nothing but power.