Poverty I
The Howard government stands condemned for its callous dismissal of the Senate committee's report on poverty in Australia. The government's cynical response displays contempt for the two-year inquiry process and for the 260 organisations which contributed written submissions and gave evidence during the 17 public hearings.
If the prime minister believes current economic policy is working, he should ask someone who isn't. A Newstart payment at least $100 a week below the Henderson poverty line, an effective marginal tax rate of 87% on casual earnings, and arbitrary fines of up to $1540 for minor breaches of Centrelink's rules. This is the government's welfare "reform" package that guarantees unemployment is a passport to poverty, the so-called safety net is full of people-sized holes.
A huge body of credible evidence confirms that despite economic growth, poverty and disadvantage continue to grow at an alarming rate. There is no shortage of funds provided by successive budget surpluses, it's the deficit of political will that fails to address the issue. Enough talk, it's time for positive action. The first step is a government commitment to a national strategy to reduce poverty and a return to a policy of full employment. It's not a question of definitions, ideology or funding. Poverty is a situation Australia can't afford.
Ron Baker
Deputy director
Australian Organisation of the Unemployed
South Brisbane
Poverty II
It's official: the PM believes it is acceptable for some Australians to live in poverty. Responding to a major Senate report, John Howard has declared that, of course, there are people living in poverty. Yet he added: "It's not that there has been an inadequacy of support at the bottom." In other words, the limited nature of government aid still leaves some people in poverty — but no additional assistance is required.
There is not substantial absolute poverty in Australia; but a high proportion of individuals sustained overwhelmingly by social security payments live in relative poverty.
Lower unemployment is certainly welcome. But even if unemployment were permanently at, say, 4%, many hundreds of thousands would remain on low incomes due to age, poor health, caring responsibilities, study commitments, unemployment and serious under-employment.
Until social security payments are increased relative to average incomes there will not be justice for the lowest-income 20% of Australians.
Brent Howard
Rydalmere, NSW
Iraq I
The recent attack on the Mount Lebanon Hotel in Baghdad only highlights the risk to those foreigners who come to Iraq with dollar signs in their eyes. The Iraqi resistance struck at this hotel because foreigners who want to cash in on reconstruction frequent it. Only a week prior to this attack the Pentagon announced that $7 billion worth of reconstruction contracts had been awarded to US and British companies.
The Iraqi resistance has every right to target both occupying forces and those who collaborate with them. The US and its allies invaded Iraq without justification. They killed and maimed thousands of innocent Iraqis and now they hand out reconstruction contracts to their own companies. The old cliche "to the victor goes the spoils" has been elevated to a new height. Instead of Iraqi families being paid compensation for the loss of their loved ones, they have to stand by and watch US dollars flowing back to US and British companies.
The attack on the Mount Lebanon hotel is a warning to foreigners — don't come to Iraq in order to cash in on reconstruction. Iraq is still in a state of war. Reconstruction cannot commence until the US-led occupation is ended and Iraqis are in the driving seat of their own political and economic destiny. Those economic mercenaries who travel to Iraq with US dollar signs in their eyes are as detested as the occupation forces.
Adam Bonner
Meroo Meadow NSW
Iraq II
Terrorist massacres produce much talk of "counter-terrorism" but no mention of "counter-war" and yet who would deny that war is terrorism? William Blum reflects this when he says that a terrorist "is someone with a bomb but who does not have an airforce".
The governments of Australia, Britain and Spain enthusiastically enlisted in the Coalition of the Willing, against popular opinion. They used every trick in the book to justify the unjustifiable and the people saw through their lies, half truths and dissimulations. The Aznar government sensed that if al Qaeda was behind the Madrid bombing then it would bear the brunt of popular anger. Blaming the Basque separatist movement ETA for the bombings only compounded the disgust and anger of the people who took their revenge at the ballot box.
Unsurprisingly, John Howard is running scared that he too will be ousted for his uncritical, even blind, support for US adventurism in Iraq. This is why he denies al Qaeda involvement in Madrid and denies that his policies continue to place Australians in jeopardy. The end is coming soon for him and for all the other participants in the Coalition of the Willing.
[Egyptian] President Mubarak remarked at the commencement of the war that for Arab nations it would mean "the opening of the gates of hell" but events have drawn us all into this awful prospect.
The only good that can result from acts of bloody terrorism is the realisation that Clauswitz was wrong. War/terrorism is not "nothing but the continuation of politics by other means".
Gareth Smith
Byron Bay, NSW
Bombastic arrogance
Federal opposition homeland security spokesman (or should that be shadow minister for jackboots?) Robert McClelland has been reported as saying that a bombastic arrogance is attached to Peter Costello (ABC News Radio, March 7). This comment should not be taken lightly — it takes one to know one.
Col Friel
Alawa NT
Irreversible
I disagree strongly with Lachlan Malloch's review in GLW #576 of Gaspar Noe's French language film Irreversible. To say that it was railing against the treatment of women would be taking it too far, and the evidence Malloch provides was not convincing for those who have seen the film.
I also did not get any sense of the film's condemnation of the world of pimping and whores through the film. The character of the pimp, Le Tenia, was not explored at all, except as a scumbag who raped a woman in a subway tunnel and who happened to hang out at a gay disco one night.
I also take exception to Malloch's use of the term "gay fuck club" and that it was a "depraved place". By doing so, he simply buys into the film's characterisation of gay sex, and those who engage in it, as sordid. Due to the reverse narrative structure, the violent head-bashing exercise early in the film seemed to be some form of gay bashing, until further disclosures later on.
In contrast, the main loving (heterosexual) relationship in the film was depicted as happy, idyllic and yet capable of being shattered by elements of the streets intruding on the couple's middle-class existence.
The nine-minute depiction of rape was tortuous and almost graphic. As a woman, it was utterly distressing for me to watch (as was the bashing in the gay club).
The only highlight for me was the acting of Vincent Cassel, star of La Haine, the 1995 film about disaffected youth living on a Paris housing estate. As Marcus, he was first a loving partner, then a crazed, violent man out to avenge Alex's rape. But regrettably, Marcus' display of homophobia, racism and degrading treatment towards the sex workers was justified by the film by showing what an idyllic life he and Alex had had before the rape.
I thought it was another film attempt at social commentary by the French, but not as hard-hitting as Malloch would suggest. And certainly some aspects of it were politically questionable.
Vannessa Hearman
Coburg, Vic
From 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ Weekly, March 31, 2004.
Visit the