The Forum > Article Comments > When poverty means not having enough to eat > Comments
When poverty means not having enough to eat : Comments
By Sally Babbington, Sue King and Christine Ratnasingham, published 30/4/2007The debate about poverty definitions and measurement needs to be grounded in the actual experiences of people who are going without.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
-
- All
Posted by vivy, Monday, 30 April 2007 11:26:53 AM
| |
The image of the Aussie Battler still looms large among many older Australians. Many remember childhoods in simpler times and parents who worked hard to provide basics. To such people the Welfare system is anathema and recipients are designated as bludgers, no-hopers, lazy, immoral and shiftless, while single mothers are either calculating schemers or products of the demonised feminist movement who are getting their just deserts. In all cases these people are seen to have brought their troubles upon themselves and suggestions for their betterment are bandied around with all the moral aggrandizement of sanctimonious ignorance.
Thousands of those living in poverty in Australia are thus denigrated and disregarded and details of their lives, being too uncomfortable to contemplate, are met with defensive invective and sermonising. It is really uncomfortable to contemplate that many of us do in fact go hungry and suffer from the effects of malnutrition. But there are other unpleasant facts of poverty as well: when each cent is accounted for before it is spent an irregular menstrual cycle (often brought about through inadequate food and stress) can upset the weeks budget: tampons or milk for the kids? Kids coming home from school with nits is a disaster when treatments are not subsidised on medicare and can use up the entire food budget for a week. A bright kid chosen to take part in a competition and "only" needing fares can mean a parent going without food literally for days. A hole in a pair of shoes or a growth spurt can lead to days off school and more hunger. Unfortunately the poor do not have a voice in Australia, and those individuals who do speak out are very easy to discredit with absurd counter-waffle from the moral majority. Posted by Romany, Monday, 30 April 2007 11:47:36 AM
| |
" Some still question whether poverty in Australia is a serious issue."
It's amazing that anyone believes there is any real poverty in Australia - compared with real poverty in other countries. "Relative poverty" should be totally ignored as a concept in Australia. If some Australians don't have the basic needs, it is their fault. Not having everything rich people have is NOT poverty. Have a look at starving kids in Africa. That's poverty! If there is no standard method of measuring poverty in Australia (the authors claim, although academics in the past have put forward standards that I understood were being used) then it is because such a standard is not necessary where safety nets protect anyone who needs them and applies for them - if people want to live on the streets and scrounge and beg rather than embracing the system, they can't be helped or included in any discussion on poverty. Who says a "significant proportion of people in Australia do not have access to to adequate food"? Ah, sorry. The 119 "clients" surveyed. Do the authors seriously believe these people? Did they ask them to look into their budgeting methods to see why they might not have had enough to eat? Unlikely! Budgeting is a dirty word among people who would rather blame governments and "rich" people for their problems. I know the likes of these authors have to talk nonsense to justify their existence in useless, non-productive jobs. But, they should be aware that few, apart from left-wing agitators and bleeding heart liberals, take the idea of genuine poverty in Australia seriously. There will always be no-hopers in society irrespective of how much money or practical help is wasted on them Posted by Leigh, Monday, 30 April 2007 12:01:47 PM
| |
Your right
Due to its the upper class that has the only right to represent you in government. Yes its stu from The Australian Peoples Party a low to middle class person trying to buck the system. The upper class dictating to us in all walks of life and why because we let them well enough is enough. it time to stand or its time for all you wingers to sh#t up www.tapp.org.au Posted by tapp, Monday, 30 April 2007 12:02:33 PM
| |
Here is the transcript of an archived ABC TV program, Sunday- Spectrum, of 23 Februrary 2003:
http://www.abc.net.au/sundayspectrum/s793121.htm It seems to resonate with me. Posted by clink, Monday, 30 April 2007 12:03:36 PM
| |
If you have a modest mortgage say $150,000 to put a roof over your head, pay utilities, pay rates, transport yourself, clothe and clean yourself and your house you need about $550 net per week.
If this is all you earn you have to find savings to feed yourself. If you have dependants these costs all go up (acknowledging you will get some form of income support). So it is easy to see how people go hungry when unforseen events happen, but with easy credit those car repairs can go on the credit card until its maxed out. Then you bank will tell you you are a good customer and increase your limit making it even harder to buy food. Not an extreme example, I can think of many a worse case than this. Leigh what planet are you living on. It must be blame the victim ville. Posted by ruawake, Monday, 30 April 2007 1:59:16 PM
|
I think that Christian social services need to look at themselves and their own attitudes towards those who are seeking material aid. The attitude that "food relief, vouchers, soup kitchen's and the like, are socially unacceptable means of accessing aid" is often a view held by volunteers and staff in the organisations providing the aid. Blaming the victim mentalities; envy of the poor (i.e the belief that the recipients of aid are lucky to have gotten away with getting something for nothing); and unashamed anger towards the poor (treating them as pests and nuisances who are a burden to be endured)are beliefs expressed by the very people who are supposed to be providing the help.
Often these so called charity organisations impose administrative systems which encourage staff to develop hostile attitudes towards their clients - such as scrutinising concession cards and monitoring individuals who seek aid by developing performance related case files, trading the provision of food for information (as is often perceived by individuals seeking assistance that are "case managed") and insisting that staff account for their material distribution decisions (in terms which can only be interpreted as identification of the "deserving and un deserving") HOW aid is provided is often more important than WHY and to WHOM. The methods and manner of relief provision can determine the difference between wether an individual in need ever comes back again and wether they will ever need to come back again