As well as pricking the consciences of authorities and individuals, the report underlines the complexity of the problem and the shortcomings of gesture politics.
After the November 2007 election, the first piece of "homework" Kevin Rudd set Labor caucus members was to visit a homeless shelter and report on local housing issues. With absolute sincerity and commitment, Mr Rudd, who was no stranger to rolling up his sleeves and helping out at such centres, which he continued to visit unaccompanied after his election as prime minister, vowed to make homelessness a national priority. He pledged to cut the numbers of homeless Australians by 20 per cent by 2013 and 50 per cent by 2020. Regrettably, the nation and federal Labor have fallen well short of that goal, despite investing $5 billion in services.
The institute's report explains the reasons why, citing financial difficulties, housing affordability, domestic violence, family breakdown, mental health issues, substance abuse, other medical conditions and unemployment among the main reasons homeless people seek help.
No government or charitable organisation, however well resourced, can eliminate such pressures entirely. That said, more effective and pragmatic initiatives are needed to help society's most disadvantaged people become self-supporting and access the services they need. It is appalling, for example, that 48 per cent of people seeking long-term accommodation from dedicated homelessness services in the final quarter of last year were neither accommodated nor referred to another service. The over-representation of Aborigines, especially women, among the homeless -- indigenous people accounted for 21 per cent of those who sought help -- is a sign of how much remains to be done by way of long-term, practical reconciliation solutions to redress disadvantage in health, welfare and housing.
Of the 99,000 people who sought help from specialist homeless agencies in the December quarter last year, more than 24,000 mentioned mental health, substance abuse and other medical problems as a reason for their plight.
Despite funding increases for mental health, the sector urgently needs better resources to deal with the pressures created over recent decades in the rush to close mental institutions and relocate patients back into the community. The misguided policy's impact on many sufferers and their families was intense because of inadequate support services and specialist accommodation.
Just as Bob Hawke's rash promise in 1987 that "by 1990 no Australian child will be living in poverty" proved unrealistic, Mr Rudd's ambitious pledge to cut homelessness substantially was never going to be easy, or cheap. But while the number of homeless people remains high, finding solutions must be a priority. As Wesley Mission chief Keith Garner said yesterday, there is no quick fix. Homelessness demands a comprehensive, long-term approach from governments and the community.
Carbon tax policy confusion
It was, he said, also an environmental challenge, an economic challenge and a challenge of national security. Today, it seems climate change is no longer about the economy, the environment or national security, let alone the moral imperative of our national politics. As ministers fanned out across the nation this week to argue the case for the carbon tax, voters could be forgiven for thinking it was simply an elaborate way to fund cash handouts, tax cuts and pension increases. Few are talking about the purpose of the carbon tax: to force a structural change in the economy and pivot towards a low carbon future. If the purpose appears lost amid song-and-dance routines, ministers eager to show no price impact at supermarkets and claims that Whyalla will or won't be "wiped off the map," the government is being advised to remove or lower the $15 floor price when transitioning to an emissions trading scheme in 2015.
Independent MP Rob Oakeshott has called on the government to remove the floor price, which is yet to be legislated. Greens leader Christine Milne acknowledges some green energy companies would also like to see it abolished. This newspaper has argued that an emissions trading scheme is an efficient and effective way to reduce carbon emissions. The problem is that Australia is edging ahead of the rest of the world which is undermining public support for the scheme. The failure of the Copenhagen talks in 2009, where no global agreement was reached, left Australia at risk of losing its competitive economic advantages. Australia is saddled with an inflated fixed carbon price of $23 a tonne. This week, New Zealand announced changes to its carbon pricing scheme to soften the impact on households and businesses. With the government rarely talking about the need for a clean energy future, the carbon tax has become merely an instrument to redistribute money to ease cost of living pressures in the electorate. Rethinking the fundamental design of the carbon tax is sound but it should have been contemplated months ago, not just days after it was introduced. Such talk only entrenches opposition to the tax.
The real public interest test
But when it is pushed by a government that has never put its plans to the electorate, is so lacking in self-confidence that it has produced two leadership contests, and blames some media for its record lows in the polls, we are entitled to be especially alarmed. The Gillard government's media regulation proposals deserve to be opposed by voters, of all political leanings, who want to see our imperfect but robust democracy protected.
No matter how benign the intention, government regulation of news media content is an incursion on free speech because it opens up the potential for political pressure at the expense of the public's right to know. The news media must be fearless in its scrutiny of our political system, and other facets of society. The threat of sanction from a government-funded authority, on top of the constraints that already exist through defamation and vilification laws, can only stifle news reporting and impede the scrutiny of government.
At The Australian we have been transparent about our pursuit of issues that have been embarrassing for governments, and have led to a degree of accountability that otherwise would not have transpired. Whether it has been the exposure of the children overboard deceptions, the Australian Wheat Board scandal, the BER waste or the leadership tensions within the former Rudd government, we stand by our diligence, objectivity and primary focus on exposing the truth. Whether this embarrasses government or opposition, Liberal or Labor, should not be our concern. Our compact is with readers. The public is free to choose what media to use or buy, based on the organisation's reputation. That is a far better discipline than a government-funded authority ruling on what is or isn't acceptable on any given issue.
Governments are not renowned for telling us all we need to know. We learn today that Communications Minister Stephen Conroy's justification for a public interest test on media ownership is disingenuous. He cites Productivity Commission support for adding such a test. In fact, the commission only backed the test as an alternative restriction to current ownership rules. Only a free media can be relied upon to correct such unfortunate oversights in our political debate.
0 comments:
Post a Comment