Why social services? -- Għalfejn is-servizzi soċjali?

This question often occurs to me, generally after following some political debate on proposals about some particular service, or a discussion with someone incensed about the number of people trying to avail themselves unjustly from the state’s generosity, or about some particular group (like refugees) which are felt to be undeserving of the service.

 

Many times I conclude that in our minds we’ve lost the original reasoning for the existence of social services, or that the profile of whom we feel deserve them has changed substantially.

 

Australia is a rich country, with abundant natural resources, advanced industry, lots and lots of land and a relatively small and young population that is increasing rapidly.  This does not mean that everyone is rich, in fact this country is considered to have high inequality, higher than the mean of countries in the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development).

 

To give you some figures, someone in the group of the 20% with the highest income, earns five times as much as a person in the lowest 20%.  Furthermore, a person in the group of 20% with the highest wealth has seventy times a person in the group of the lowest 20%.1

 

The Encyclopædia Brittannica defines social services as those provided by public or private entities to help those persons or groups considered to be disadvantaged, vulnerable or in a state of difficulty.  In my mind, the clearest image of this I retain from childhood is the parable of the Good Samaritan, who stopped on his way to help a man (from the context you’d take it to be a Jew, a group not on good terms with the Samaritans) who had been attacked by thieves, robbed and left for dead.  This Samaritan took care of the man, took him for further help and prepaid for it.2

 

The organisation with the best means of helping people in need is government, and the Federal Government in Australia has the power given in the Constitution to provide, amongst others, pensions, payments for maternity, joblessness, health benefits, families etc.3, from its income (primarily taxes in their various forms).

 

There are many social services one can read about on the Department of Social Services’ website, but in fact are these services being targeted at those who are in need?  I feel that the definition of who is in need is being stretched like elastic.

 

Just take the amended benefit that will soon be given by government from next month to parents taking their kids to child care.  These payments decline on a sliding scale the higher the income received by parents, but ceases completely only when the income is $350,000 (€225,000) a year.4  In Malta, there is even no income limit to be eligible for this benefit.

 

You tell me, do those having even half of this level of income a need for a social benefit to send their kids to these centres?

 

Another example is the benefit called Family Tax Benefit A, show income limit before being lost completely, for those having 3 kids elder than 13 years, is more than $200,000 (€125,000).  These are excessively high limits in my opinion.

 

There has been a recent comment by the Liberal member of parliament Lucy Gichuhi whose seat is in the Federal Senate.  She stated that her salary of $200,000 “is not a lot of money”.5  Just think about a person in Australia working full-time on the minimum wage of $35,000 a year.6  I think this senator’s comment goes a long way to explain the current government’s thinking of who are the people in need of social services.

 

I have to add that the level of minimum wage in Australia is higher than that of several other countries, however one needs to be careful when comparing with other countries, as each country has its own level of the cost of living, prices for goods and services, price of real estate etc.7

 

It is clear to me that the definition of who needs social services has changed quite a bit, and that authorities are more interested in providing benefits to a higher number of their own constituents, than helping those that are most in need.  Naturally there is a price for all this, there’d be less money to help those who really need it, spending would be higher than necessary and the sustainability of this spending is reduced.  Long live the deficit!

 

------------------------------------

 

Kultant tiġini din il-mistoqsija f’moħħi, ġeneralment wara li nkun segwejt xi dibattitu politiku fuq proposti dwar xi servizz partikulari, jew diskussjoni ma’ xi ħadd inkurlat fuq kemm hawn nies li jippruvaw japprofittaw inġustament mill-ġenerożità tal-istat, jew fuq xi grupp partikulari (bħar-refuġjati) li jidhirlu m’għandux jibbenefika mis-servizz.

 

Ħafna drabi nasal nikkonkludi li tlifna minn moħħna l-iskop għalfejn suppost li jeżistu s-servizzi soċjali, jew li l-profil ta’ dawk li naħsbu li għandhom jirċevuhom inbidel u mhux ftit.

 

L-Awstralja hu pajjiż sinjur, b’riżorsi naturali abbundanti, industriji avvanzati, ħafna u ħafna art, u popolazzjoni relattivament żgħira u żagħżugħa li qiegħda tiżdied b’pass mgħaġġel.  Dan ma jfissirx li kulħadd huwa sinjur., fil-fatt dan il-pajjiż huwa meqjus li għandu inugwaljanza kbira, iktar għolja mill-medja fil-pajjiżi tal-OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development).

 

Biex intikom ftit figuri, persuna fil-grupp tal-20% li l-iktar għandhom dħul, jaqla’ ħames darbiet daqs persuna li jinsab fl-20% tal-qiegħ.  Ukoll, persuna fil-grupp tal-20% li l-iktar li għandhom ġid, għandu sebgħin darba daqs persuna fil-grupp ta’ 20% li għandhom l-inqas.1

 

L-Encyclopædia Brittannica tiddefinixxi lil-servizzi soċjali bħala servizzi pprovduti minn entitajiet pubbliċi jew privati biex jgħinu lil dawk il-persuni jew gruppi li huma żvantaġġjati, vulnerabbli jew fi stat ta’ diffikultà.  Ngħid għalija, l-ewwel xbiha ċara ta’ dan li daħlitli f’moħħi f’tfuliti kienet il-parabbola tas-Samaritan it-Tajjeb, li waqaf minn triqtu biex jgħin lil raġel (li mill-kuntest teħodha li kien Lhudi, grupp li ma kienx jinġieb mas-Samaritani) li kien attakkat mill-ħallelin, misruq u mħolli għall-mewt.  Dan is-Samaritan ħa ħsiebu, ħadu għall-għajnuna u ħallas għaliha bil-quddiem.2

 

L-organizzazzjoni li l-iktar li għandha mezzi biex tgħin lil min hu batut hija l-gvern, u fl-Awstralja dak federali li għandu l-poter mogħti mill-Kostituzzjoni tiegħu biex jipprovdi, fost l-oħrajn, pensjonijiet, ħlasijiet għall-maternità, nuqqas ta’ xogħol, benefiċċji tas-saħħa, ħlasijiet għall-familji eċċ.3, mid-dħul tagħha (primarjament it-taxxi fil-forom diversi tagħhom).

 

Servizzi soċjali hemm ħafna li wieħed jista’ jaqra fuqhom fuq il-websajt tad-Dipartiment tas-Servizzi Soċjali, imma fil-fatt dawn is-servizzi huma intenzjonati għal min hu batut?  Jien jidhirli li qiegħdin inġebbdu d-definizzjoni ta’ min hu batut qisha lasktu.

 

Ħu l-ħlas mibdul bħala benefiċċju li se jibda jagħti l-gvern mix-xahar li ġej għall-ġenituri li jieħdu lit-tfal tagħhom f’xi ċentru għall-kura tat-tfal (child care).  Il-ħlas jonqos iktar mal-ġenituri għandhom dħul minn tagħhom, imma jinqata kompletament biss meta d-dħul ikun ta’ $350,000 (€225,000) fis-sena.4  F’Malta, saħansitra m’hemmx limitu ta’ dħul biex tkun eliġibbli għal dan il-benefiċċji.

 

Għiduli intom, min għandu anke nofs dak il-livell ta’ dħul, għandu bżonn benefiċċju soċjali biex jibgħat lit-tfal f’ċentru bħal dan?

 

Eżempju ieħor huwa benefiċċju msejjaħ Family Tax Benefit A, li l-limitu ta’ dħul qabel ma’ jintilef kompletament, għal min għandu tlett itfal ta’ iktar minn tlettax-il sena huwa ta’ iktar minn $200,000 (€125,000).  Dawn huma limit għoljin ferm fil-fehma tiegħi.

 

Kien hemm kumment riċenti mill-membru parlamentari Liberali Lucy Gichuhi li qiegħda fis-Senat Federali.  Din stqarret li s-salarju ta’ $200,000 tagħha “mhumiex ħafna flus”.5  Dan meta l-paga minima fl-Awstralja għal min jaħdem full-time hija ta’ $35,000 fis-sena.6  Naħseb li dan il-kumment ta’ din is-Senatur jispjega tajjeb kif jaħsibha l-gvern tal-ġurnata fuq min huma n-nies il-batuti li għandhom bżonn l-għajnuna soċjali.

 

Irrid inżid li l-livell tal-paga minima fl-Awstralja hija iktar għolja minn dik ta’ diversi pajjiżi oħra, imma wieħed irid joqgħod attent meta jqabbel ma’ pajjiżi oħra, għax kull pajjiż għandu l-livell tiegħu tal-għoli tal-ħajja, il-prezzjijiet tal-prodotti u s-servizzi, prezz tal-proprjetà eċċ.7

 

Huwa ċar għalija li d-definizzjoni ta’ min għandu bżonn l-għajnuna soċjali nbidlet bil-kif, u jidhirli l-awtoritajiet iktar qiegħdin iħarsu lejn kif se jaġevolaw lil numru ikbar ta’ kostitwenti, milli jgħinu lil dawk li l-iktar li huma fil-bżonn.  Naturalment hemm prezz għal dan kollu, għax min għandu verament bżonn jkun jista’ jiġi megħjun inqas, l-infiq ikun iktar għoli milli jkun hemm bżonn, u s-sostenibbiltà ta’ dan l-infiq ibati.  Viva d-defiċit!

 

 

1Inequality in Australia – A nation divided; Australian Council of Social Service; 2015; p. 10

2Lk 10:25-37

3The Australian Constitution; Chapter 51 xxiii-xxiiiA

4The New Child Care Package; Australian Government

5https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jun/18/lucy-gichuhi-says-200000-senators-salary-is-not-a-lot-of-money, retrieved 19/6/2018

6http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-31/minimum-wage-how-does-australia-compare/7461794, retrieved 19/6/2018

7http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-31/minimum-wage-how-does-australia-compare/7461794, retrieved 19/6/2018

1Inequality in Australia – A nation divided; Australian Council of Social Service; 2015; p. 10

2Lk 10:25-37

3The Australian Constitution; Chapter 51 xxiii-xxiiiA

4The New Child Care Package; Australian Government

5https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jun/18/lucy-gichuhi-says-200000-senators-salary-is-not-a-lot-of-money, retrieved 19/6/2018

6http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-31/minimum-wage-how-does-australia-compare/7461794, retrieved 19/6/2018

7http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-31/minimum-wage-how-does-australia-compare/7461794, retrieved 19/6/2018

Sin atonement -- It-tpattija tad-dnubiet

Lately there have been some incidents that have caused me to think of subjects such as tolerance, begging for mercy and the proportionality of punishment to an offending act.  Those who know me would probably be surprised that the context of all this isn’t criminal justice.

 

One of these incidents involved a conservative comedian, Roseanne Burr, who had a regular comedy programme called Roseann on public TV in the US, the American ABC and was also broadcast on the Australian TV station Network TEN.

 

It wasn’t the first time that Barr had passed offensive comments, generally against figures on the ‘left’ of the American political scene.1  This latest iteration was a message on Twitter where she compared a consultant to the ex-American President Barack Obama, Valerie Jassett, who is black and born in Iran to American parents, as a cross between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Planet of the Apes.

 

The American ABC immedicately decided to cancel her program, and declaredthat the comment was abhorrent, repulsive and inconsistent with the values of the organisation.  Network TEN in Australia also cancelled the programme.  It was no use for Bar to make desperate apologies, not all entirely convincing, as the programme was gone and with it all those employed in its production.2

 

There is no doubt that the comment was racist and very ugly, abhorrent and the rest of it.  However I say, is it right or the only possible outcome for her programme to be terminated?  Is it right for the livelihood of many people be lost due to the irresponsible actions of one person?  Couldn’t an agreed apology have been broadcast at the start of the next scheduled episode where it could be explained why a racist action was not acceptable?

 

Racist people exist in this world, as many as you like, probably too many.  That the door is slammed in their face will not convince them to stop being racist, but will actually increase their anger at being discriminated against.

 

In my opinion, if there is a (small, probably even tiny) chance of someone racist in future becoming not so, this is only when the racism is confronted with a dialogue where the prejudices that lead to this racism are discussed, where the actions of a minority is shown to be simply that of a minority and not the majority, etc.  In other words, racism be fought through education, not by intolerance.

 

Racist people are also people.  They have an opinion (that one might not agree with) and a vote in elections which is worth not less than yours or mine.  If we slam doors in their faces, this will only result in the only occasion they have to talk to those they disagree with, is taken away.  What then would be the chances of redemption?

 

Another case occured in the sporting world, where the Australian rugby player Israel Folau, asked what was God’s plan for homosexuals, stated on Instagram that these were going to hell unless they repented.  This comment triggered outrage, and difficulties to the rugby organisation which is doing all it can to create an environment where those who are homosexual feel welcome in the sport.

 

Folau wrote a well thought out article, even balanced (in my view), where he explained where his position was coming from (his Christian faith and the Bible) and offered to leave his rugby contract if his situation was deemed untenable.3  The organisation Rugby Australia announced it would not take action against Folau for his comments, as it wanted to provide space for both homosexual communities and those with religiously-inspired views4, which I think is a mature attitude.  The door wasn’t closed.

 

Folau’s position is not different to that of many other Christians (not all naturally), who look at the Bible as the literal word of God.  Therefore for example, in a quotation identified by Folau, since St Paul said that homosexuals are one of a group of people who will not enter the kingdom of God,5 this then is the will of God.  Full stop.

 

In our society, we need to leave space for those who disagree with us to be able to speak.  We need to let them speak, listen to them attentively, understand and find out whether there are points with which we agree, not less than we’d like them to do with us.  Then we can have a discussion based on respect.

 

Freedom of expression doesn’t occur when two sides of an argument are able to say (or shout) their position without listening to the other side, with both surviving until the next time.  And this is neither the definition of tolerance.

 

--------------------------------

 

Dan l-aħħar ġraw xi avvenimenti li ġegħluni naħseb mhux ftit fuq suġġetti bħat-tolleranza, it-talbiet għall-maħfra, u l-proporzjonalità ta’ kastig ma’ att offensiv.  Min jafni forsi jkun sorpriż li l-kuntest ta’ dan kollu mhux il-ġustizzja kriminali.

 

Waħda minnhom bdiet minn kummidjanta konservattiva Amerikana, Roseanne Burr, li kellha programm regolari tad-daħk jismu Roseann fuq it-televiżjoni pubblika tal-Istati Uniti, l-ABC Amerikana li kien ukoll imxandar fuq l-istazzjoni televisiv Awstraljan Network Ten.

 

Barr mhix l-ewwel darba li għaddiet kummenti offensivi, ġeneralment kontra persunaġġi fuq ix-’xellug’ tax-xena politika Amerikana1.  Tal-aħħar tagħha kienet messaġġ fuq Twitter fejn qabblet lil konsulent tal-ex-President Amerikan Barack Obama, Valerie Jassett, li hija sewda u twieldet l-Iran minn ġenituri Amerikani, bħala l-wild tax-Xirka tal-Musulmani (Muslim Brotherhood) u l-pjaneta tax-xadini (Planet of the Apes).

 

L-ABC Amerikana mallewwel iddeċidiet li tikkanċella l-programm, u stqarret li l-kumment kien aborrenti, jumbuttak u inkonsistenti mal-valuri tal-organizzazzjoni.  Network Ten fl-Awstralja ukoll ikkanċella l-programm.  Għalxejn Barr għamlet apoloġiji ddisprati, li mhux kollha kienu konvinċenti, għax il-programm telaq u miegħu dawk kollha impjegati fil-produzzjoni tiegħu.2

 

Bla dubju li l-kumment kien wieħed razzist u ikrah għall-aħħar, aborrenti u l-bqija.  Imma ngħid jien, huwa tajjeb jew l-uniku riżultat possibbli li twaqqaf il-programm tagħha?  Tajjeb li l-għixien ta’ ħafna nies jintilef mill-aġir irresponsabbli ta’ persuna waħda?  Ma setatx ixxandret apoloġija maqbula fil-bidu tal-programm ta’ wara fejn l-aġir razzist jiġi spjegat għalfejn mhux aċċettabbli?

Nies razzisti fid-dinja hawn kemm trid.  Li wieħed jagħlqilhom il-bieb f’wiċċhom mhux se jikkonvinċihom biex ma jibqgħux razzisti, anzi jżidilhom ir-rabja li qiegħdin jiġu ddiskriminati kontra.

 

Fl-opinjoni tiegħi, jekk hemm ċans (żgħir, u probabbli żgħir ħafna) li min hu razzist ma jibqax tali, dan jiġi meta r-razziżmu jiġi affrontat bi djalogu fejn il-preġudizzji li jwasslu għal dan ir-razziżmu jiġu diskussi, fejn l-aġir ta’ minoranza tiġi murija li hija biss aġir ta’ minoranza u mhux dik tal-maġġoranza, eċċ.  Fi kliem ieħor, ir-razziżmu jiġi miġġieled bl-edukazzjoni, u mhux bl-intolleranza.

 

In-nies razzisti huma nies ukoll.  Għandhom opinjoni (li wieħed jista’ ma jaqbilx magħha) u vot fl-elezzjoni li jiswa mhux inqas minn tiegħi u tiegħek.  Jekk nagħlqulhom il-bibien, dan jirriżulta biss li l-unika ċans li għandhom biex jitkellmu ma min ma jaqbilx magħhom, ikun itteħdilhom.  Imbagħad x’ċans jibqa’ ta’ fidwa?

 

Każ ieħor seħħ fid-dinja sportiva, fejn il-plejer Awstraljan tar-ragbi Israel Folau, meta mistoqsi x’kien il-pjan t’Alla għall-omosesswali, stqarr fuq Instagram li dawn kienu sejrin l-infern sakemm ma jindmux.  Dan il-kumment qajjem kjass sħiħ, u diffikultajiet lill-organizzazzjoni tar-ragbi li qed tagħmel minn kollox biex tikkreja ambjent fejn dawk li huma omosesswali iħossuhom milqugħin mill-isport.

 

Folau kiteb artiklu rraġunat, u anke bbilanċjat (fl-opinjoni tiegħi), fejn spjega minn fejn ġejja l-pożizzjoni tiegħu (il-fidi Nisranija u l-Bibbja) u offra li jekk is-sitwazzjoni tiegħu ma titqiesx tenibbli, kien lest li jitlaq mill-kuntratt tar-ragbi tiegħu.3  L-organizzazzjoni Rugby Australia ħabbret li mhix se tikkastiga lil Folau għall-kummenti tiegħu, għax trid tipprovdi spazju kemm għall-komunitajiet tal-omosesswali u għal dawk b’veduti reliġjużi4, li għalija hija attitudni matura.  Il-bieb ma ngħalaqx.

 

Il-pożizzjoni ta’ Folau mhix differenti minn dik ta’ tant Insara oħra (mhux kollha naturalment), li jħarsu lejn il-Bibbja bħala litteralment il-kelma t’Alla.  Għalhekk per eżempju f’kwotazzjoni li semma Folau, ladarba San Pawl jgħid li l-omosesswali huma wieħed mill-gruppi ta’ nies li mhumiex se jidħlu fis-saltna t’Alla,5 din hija r-rieda t’Alla.  Punt.

 

Hemm bżonn li fis-soċjetà tagħna, inħallu spazju għal min ma jaqbilx magħna biex ikun jista’ jitkellem.  Irridu nħalluh jitkellem, nisimgħuh b’attenzjoni, nifhmuh u ngħarblu jekk għandux punti li nistgħu naqblu magħhom, xejn inqas milli nixtiequ li hu jagħmel magħna.  Imbagħad nistgħu ikollna diskussjoni abbażi tar-rispett.

 

Il-libertà tal-espressjoni ma ssirx meta żewġ naħat ta’ argument ikunu jistgħu jgħidu (jew jgħajtu) l-pożizzjoni tagħhom mingħajr ma jisimgħu l-oħra u li t-tnejn jibqgħu ħajjin sad-darba ta’ wara.  U din lanqas mhi d-definizzjoni tat-tolleranza.

 

 

1http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-30/roseannes-twitter-history/9814728, retrieved 4/5/2018

2https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/01/entertainment/roseanne-barr-begged-abc-apology/index.html, retrieved 4/5/2018

3https://www.playersvoice.com.au/israel-folau-im-a-sinner-too/#DprDD8UsuM5CQUtC.97, retrieved 4/6/2018

4https://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/rugby-australia-ceo-raelene-castle-says-israel-folau-is-walking-the-line-after-latest-controversy/news-story/00a79c74fa8436230dc6533b929f9ec0, retrieved 4/6/2018

51 Cor 6:9-10

1http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-30/roseannes-twitter-history/9814728, retrieved 4/5/2018

2https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/01/entertainment/roseanne-barr-begged-abc-apology/index.html, retrieved 4/5/2018

3https://www.playersvoice.com.au/israel-folau-im-a-sinner-too/#DprDD8UsuM5CQUtC.97, retrieved 4/6/2018

4https://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/rugby-australia-ceo-raelene-castle-says-israel-folau-is-walking-the-line-after-latest-controversy/news-story/00a79c74fa8436230dc6533b929f9ec0, retrieved 4/6/2018

51 Cor 6:9-10