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