In last year’s encyclical, Fratelli Tutti, Pope Francis spent time drawing on the well-worn parable of the Good Samaritan. He suggested its regular retelling is a function of its simplicity and its universality. We have all encountered a person suffering, and we have all had to decide what action we’ll take. Francis suggests this frames the key decision for our lives: will we be like the priest and Levite in the parable who walk by, or the Samaritan who shows compassion, and acts?
The parable expands the definition of neighbour. It urgently asks us to look to those at risk, even those we might not want to see. Today, our neighbour includes the nearly one million Australians relying on JobSeeker who risk being left at the side of the road if their payment reverts to the pre-pandemic $40 a day on 31 March. Some, like Federal Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, seem to be walking by. Others, like Reserve Bank Governor Philip Lowe, seem willing to stop and show compassion. Lowe suggests ‘a wide consensus in the community that the previous [unemployment payment] should be increased permanently.’
Maybe this consensus has formed because we recognise the problem of inequality in our society. A report from the Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS) at the end of last year confirms the depth and extent of the inequity we live with. It uses pre-pandemic numbers and is the more sobering for it.
The size and spread of government payments in past 12 months has held steady, and to some extent, improved the circumstances of many on low incomes or government support. The withdrawal of that support risks returning many to payments that do not provide for basic human needs.
The ACOSS report shows that, pre-pandemic, half of those on Jobseeker were likely to be in households in poverty, and those who weren’t suffered rental stress and were stymied by a lack of financial reserves. Without the coronavirus supplement the average after-tax income of these households in the bottom 10 per cent of income earners is $592 per week. This contrasts with the $6,796 per week taken home after tax by those in the top 5 per cent. The household wealth of this top 5 per cent is five times that of even a middle-income household.
There’s no surprise in the range of incomes across households; difference is to be expected in a regulated but free labour market. But if the range becomes too great, serious social consequences follow. The gamut of Australian household income is clearly at this unsustainable level, and we have recently witnessed what happens when a society stands on such a precipice for too long. The violent unrest in a divided United States is a reminder of what’s at stake for us.
'It’s only when people have their basic needs met — when they are not living in poverty and can access transport and the internet — can they present in a way that gives them a chance for employment.'
According to the ACOSS report, unequal wage distribution is the dominant reason for income inequality, largely due to unequal access to full time employment. Access to full time work is the defining differential in an increasingly divided society. Only 27 per cent of households in the lowest 20 per cent have at least one full-time wage earner, whereas 82 per cent of the middle 20 per cent of households do. Income gaps come to have cumulative effects on the wealth held by households. The bottom 60 per cent of households have just 16 per cent of the wealth held in Australian households.
Catholic Social Teaching is attuned to the problem of wealth and poverty intersecting in society, acting against the ideal of economic development occurring in systems of solidarity. It is also clear about the right to work and the benefit of work for human dignity.
A recent report by Catholic Social Services Australia (CSSA) highlights these commitments in the context of Australian inequality. Recognising the critical problems of un-and under-employment, job insecurity and sluggish wage growth, its key recommendation is that Australia’s economic policy levers should be set to bring about a full employment economy.
Since deregulation begun in the 1980s, Australia’s policy settings have accepted a rate of unemployment as the price for wage growth. But that wage growth is slowing, and there are insufficient hours of work available for those with jobs, let alone those completely unemployed. The problem of unemployment and under-employment, even pre-pandemic, is not predominantly one of people unwilling to work. There’s a scarcity of appropriate jobs for those who want them.
The CSSA report suggests that the community health, aged and disability care sectors provide the basis for government seeking full employment in combination with employment programs and a Job Guarantee. This is work we know needs to be done thanks to multiple Royal Commissions showing the inadequacy of staffing levels in a range of care environments. It makes sense to allow people who might otherwise be receiving government support to earn income, in steady employment, through work that benefits the community.
The push for full employment doesn’t alleviate the need for an adequate unemployment payment. Nor is there evidence that the payment of a living income by government is an impediment to people seeking paid work. It’s only when people have their basic needs met — when they are not living in poverty and can access transport and the internet — can they present in a way that gives them a chance for employment. Those who hold that ‘wide consensus’ of the need to increase JobSeeker want to give all Australians that chance. It’s incumbent on the Federal Treasurer, and the Prime Minister, not avert their gaze and walk by.
Julian Butler SJ is a Jesuit undertaking formation for Catholic priesthood. He previously practiced law, and also has degrees in commerce and philosophy. Julian is a contributor at Jesuit Communications, a chaplain at Xavier College, and a board member at Jesuit Social Services.
Main image: Der barmherzige Samariter painting (Paula Modersohn-Becker/Wikimedia Commons)