I was recently given a copy of The Dignity and Rights of Labour by Cardinal Henry Edward Manning. It contained a handwritten note:
1942
Sixth Grade
First Place Christian Doctrine
Barry Fitzpatrick
Cardinal Manning (pictured) was a dominant figure in the 19th century English Church, partly because of his support for the poor and his commitment to social justice. His mediation of a successful conclusion to the famous London Dock Strike of 1889 demonstrated his practical touch.
The fact that his book was given to a grade six student reflected a time when the Catholic Church in Australia was a prominent advocate for social justice and, in particular, the rights of workers and their families. It was based on a deep conviction about the dignity and rights of labour.
Cardinal Manning also influenced the drafting of Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum, promulgated on 15 May 1891. The Encyclical was the origin of modern Catholic social teaching, articulating clearly the importance of work and of workers' rights.
At the time the Australian colonies were debating key issues about the powers of the proposed Commonwealth. The Encylical influenced, and bolstered the arguments of, Henry Bourne Higgins, a leading proponent of federal power to settle industrial disputes by conciliation and arbitration. Higgins was the judge who later decided the Harvester Case that established the concept of the Living Wage.
The 120th anniversary of Rerum Novarum occurs the day before the hearing of final submissions in Fair Work Australia's Annual Wage Review 2011. It is timely to ask what its principles might mean in a century that could never have been imagined by Leo XIII and Cardinal Manning.
Poor and vulnerable workers are still with us, and in increasing numbers. Wage-setting has failed low income workers and their families. By any accepted measure of poverty, a family with children that is dependent on the National Minimum Wage (now $569.90 per week) is living in poverty. Family payments do not cover the poverty gap.
We also have an underclass of people who are not employed in any substantial work. Irregular casual and part time work is not a way out of poverty. Many are young, often with children, in dysfunctional domestic arrangements. They will never enter the mainstream of society through engagement in work which pays a decent wage and recognises their innate dignity.
The road, if any, to a decent life for the unemployed and workers who have a marginal connection with work will be complex and expensive. Neither side of politics shows any commitment to the task or to the resources necessary to support them in their transition to productive work.
Much is spoken about social inclusion, but little is done if it costs more than the expenses of policy advisors, bureaucrats and publicists. A pre-condition for social inclusion is a decent wage. That should be a major priority of any program concerned with social inclusion.
It is particularly worrying that marginal and vulnerable people are not considered relevant to the economic process or to the economic wellbeing of most Australians. Full employment is now seen as something above four per cent and a significant level of unemployment is seen as a means of macroeconomic management.
This level of institutionalised unemployment necessarily carries huge personal and social costs, which are exacerbated by the fact that entrenched and long term unemployed families are paid poverty benefits. The children are most unlikely to find their way out of poverty.
Catholics in Australia generally lack conviction that Catholic social teaching can add to the debate and provide direction. This is ignorance. Its relevance can be seen in the statement of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, which drew on Catholic social teaching, in opposition to parts of the then Work Choices legislation. The statement declared:
Workers are entitled to a wage that allows them to live a fulfilling life and to meet their family obligations. We are concerned that the legislation does not give sufficient emphasis to the objective of fairness in the setting of wages; the provision of a fair safety net by reference to the living standards generally prevailing in Australia; the needs of employees and their families; and the proper assessment of the impact of taxes and welfare support payments.
In our view, changes should be made to the proposed legislation to take into account these concerns.
The Bishops' statement was vindicated by subsequent events.
Despite the extensive welfare activities by many Catholic organisations, Catholics have made only a modest contribution to public debate about the economic foundations of family life. This is curious because the Australian institution that is most associated in the public mind with 'pro-family' policies is the Catholic Church.
A modern and effective campaign for policies that promote the economic foundations of family life and the dignity and rights of labour requires rigorous advocacy, drawing on aspects of social research, public finance (taxation and transfer payments), macroeconomics, microeconomics and industrial relations. Unfortunately, too little has been done.
The Church's perceived position has changed since Barry Fitzpatrick received Cardinal Manning's book. The social mobility of Catholics may explain some of this change. Many Catholics have lost touch with the realities of life for the poor and vulnerable. Catholics are also more politically diverse.
The Church's social teaching extends well beyond workplace relations and minimum wages. But if there is any basis for common ground among Catholics of diverse political affiliations (and Catholic politicians on both sides of Parliament), it must be on the fundamental principles and values articulated in Rerum Novarum.
If we there is no commitment on these issues from Catholics across the political spectrum, we are most unlikely to see a consensus and action in other areas.
Rerum Novarum still tests church and society 120 years later. 
Brian Lawrence is Chairman of the Australian Catholic Council for Employment Relations.