Media Release - 14 July 2004

Australian Churches have received the recent Federal Government's announcement about TPV holders with cautious optimism. They welcome any policy change that helps relieve the suffering of refugee and asylum seekers. They are concerned, however, that whatever their motivation these changes do not go far enough, and that Australia will continue to treat people who are not criminals as though they were.

"It's good news that TPV holders can apply for migration visas and be granted 18-month ‘return-pending visas' if they have no further need of protection," said the Rev John Henderson, General Secretary of the National Council of Churches (NCCA). "We hope that the government will continue to adjust its policies to deal more humanely with people who arrive here seeking sanctuary. Building relationships of trust in our region and with the global community will do as much, if not more, to make Australia secure than building ever stronger fences to keep people out," he said.

Leaders of the NCCA's 15 member churches heard news of the Minister's announcement while they met in Adelaide for the Council's triennial National Forum.

"We accept that the government has the responsibility to manage Australia's migration policies," said Henderson, "but we ask that this be done in a way that respects the dignity and rights of each person. It is our moral responsibility as a nation, and in our best interests, not to demean, dehumanise, or cause unnecessary suffering and uncertainty to people who have already suffered great trauma."

James Thomson, of the Council's refugee programme, said; "We were concerned that recognised refugees judged to have no further need of protection might be re-detained and forcibly deported. At least now they'll have 18 months to prepare. Allowing TPV refugees to apply for migration visas will also come as welcome news, particularly to refugees who have become a vital part of the rural workforce, but most of the 9,500 refugees with TPVs applying for ongoing protection in Australia are unlikely to qualify.

"On their own, however, these measures are not enough" said Mr. Thomson. "The strict criteria preventing refugees from obtaining permanent protection visas in the first place remains, and refugees who receive TPVs are still being denied permanent residence, family reunion and settlement services."

Australia is the only country in the world that grants recognised refugees temporary protection. Usually, it is only used when a crisis overwhelms a state's ability to cope. Australia's system of mandatory, indefinite detention for every, man woman and child seeking asylum without a visa is also unique. Additionally, there are still up to 1,000 asylum seekers in the community who are forced to survive off charity because they have been denied work rights, Medicare and income support.
For more information contact: James Thomson on (02) 92992215 or 0402 67 55 44

By Nicholas Kerr, who was part of a Christian World Service delegation to Kenya in August to visit Sudanese refugees.

Rev Gregor Henderson has seen refugee camps before. But he was profoundly shocked by what he saw in Kakuma Refugee Camp in Kenya.

There are refugees from eight African nations in the camp but most are from Sudan.

Mr Henderson led a small delegation from Christian World Service, the aid and development arm of the National Council of Churches in Australia, to find out more about the situation of Sudanese refugees in Africa.

We spent 24 hours in Kakuma. We slept in one of the refugee camp huts. Like the refugees we were without food for 24 hours.

"I’m going home with a pretty awful feeling," Mr Henderson said just before we left Kenya.

"My overriding reaction is one of distress.

"I’m distressed at the circumstances that face these Sudanese people. They’re living in such dreadful circumstances in Kakuma.

"I’m distressed that it has gone on for so many years.

"And I’m distressed that we in Australia are not doing more for them, as churches and as a nation."

As well as distress, Mr Henderson feels admiration for the way in which the people of Kakuma seem to cope with their circumstances.

"We saw so many expressions of hope in God," he said. "We saw so many acts of friendship with us, without any sense of resentment towards us, who have so much when they have so little.

"We even saw their ability to celebrate their culture and their Christian faith in the midst all this poverty, hardship and suffering and heartrending stories.

"In such uncertainty we saw people who seemed to be able to find hope from deep down.

"I’m distressed that people have been there eight, nine, 10 years - and a few even longer than that.

"They’ve had no useful employment in that time. They’ve lived grindingly on one meal a day. There’s a sense of the world passing them by and leaving them largely uncared for."

Mr Henderson left Kenya determined to do what he can to try to improve the conditions in Kakuma.

"We can’t just leave it there," he said. "We can’t just tell their story and leave it at that. We have to do something more active - as a church and as a nation - to respond to their needs."

Sudan’s future is uncertain. There is the tragedy of Darfur. A similar tragedy is looming in the east. And the peace talks between the north and the south have stalled yet again.

There could soon be fighting on three fronts between the Arab north and the Africans in the west, south and east.

Mr Henderson said there is a great deal of uncertainty about the peace process between the Arab, Muslim north and the African, Christian south.

"We got such mixed messages about it," he said. "The people from the church agencies seem to be much more optimistic than the people on the ground and the refugees themselves.

"If there is a peace agreement within the next few months, that will create a whole raft of new needs. And the people will be highly vulnerable as they seek to re-establish themselves in their own homelands with all the difficulties they will face there, not only in the initial few months but also in the months to come."

Mr Henderson said he is proud that the churches around the world are trying help these people.

"I’m sure that the suffering Sudanese would be even worse off if it weren’t for the churches," he said.

"Their own churches are obviously doing a tremendous job in the camp, holding them together and seeking to provide what little support for them that they can.

"The wider church community, including the Australian churches through Christian World Service, is offering them some assistance and offering to walk with them."

Mr Henderson wants the Australian churches to look at how we can provide more help to refugees who have been approved for resettlement in Australia to get here more quickly.

Too many refugees get visas to Australian only to find that the Sudanese in Australia can’t afford to pay their air fares. So their hopes are dashed and they go back to refugee camps.

Mr Henderson said Australian churches have been making statements that congregations would be willing to support asylum seekers to live in the community, rather than in detention centres, while their cases are dealt with.

"We should be able to help Sudanese refugees to get a new start in life," he said.

"Could churches supply no-interest loans for those the Australian Government has accepted as genuine refugees so they can come sooner, rather than later, and not have to depend on the Sudanese community in Australia to muster the money for their fares?"

He also hoped Australia can generate some concern about the paucity of rations for the people in Kakuma.

"Apparently all they are receiving is three kilograms of maize, with a little salt and cooking oil, per person per fortnight, with occasional lentils thrown in," he said.

"Surely the international community can do better than that. Surely they’re entitled to more than one small meal a day and a bit more nourishment for them and their children."

Refugees asked the delegation to take up three points with the Australian Government. They would like Australia:

• To increase the number of refugees.

• To support education for refugees in Africa.

• To be ready to help in the reconstruction of Southern Sudan when a comprehensive peace agreement is eventually signed.

"There’s plenty for us to speak to the Government about - and there’s plenty we can consider as further assistance from the church," he said.

Mr Henderson said he was very glad that the delegation had been invited to share the refugees’ conditions for 24 hours.

"I’m pleased we accepted the invitation of the Presbyterian community to live with them for 24 hours as they have to live," he said.

"Knowing that we were there for only a night and a day meant it was no great sacrifice on our part. But I’m please we made that act of solidarity. We probably gained in credibility because of that.

"Even that taste says to us that they have one very poor meal each day, and each of those meals is the same - what you could call maize porridge - day after day, year after year.

"Eating would be no pleasure. Your body must accommodate to it somewhat. You would go to bed hungry each night and wake up hungry every morning."

The delegation slept in a mud hut with very little ventilation.

"We were sleeping only two to a room. They sleep eight, or 10, or even 15 to a room. I can’t imagine that being anything but unbearable, night after night.

"There’s a complete lack of privacy and the sanitation provisions are so primitive. So are the cooking facilities.

"And the heat - and we were at the cool time of the year!

"This small taste we had of life in Kakuma makes me admire the spirit of the people.

"They seem so uncomplaining about their lot. If I had to do it for three or four days in a row I’d be at my wit’s end.

"You wonder what it must do to your long term health. Many of them, of course, said they feel sick. That probably speaks of malnutrition and various infections.

"We weren’t given mosquito nets - and we were blessed that there weren’t many mosquitoes."

Mr Henderson said there is a high incidence of malaria and digestive infections. "The level of medical care is very basic," he said.

"We saw people who had had broken limbs that had never been properly set. We met people who needed operations for bladder and other problems. They can’t have them because the facilities just aren’t there.

"So the taste of their life was depressing. It makes you marvel that they can cope with it.

"We heard that every week children die because of inadequate facilities and lack of nutrition.

"I’ve been in refugee camps in the Middle East and Sri Lanka. These are the worst I’ve seen in terms of provisions and facilities.

"There’s no way that people can grow anything for themselves with that climate and the lack of water.

"The welcome we were given, as members of the fellowship and family of Christ, was extraordinary. We weren’t bringing any solution for them.

"I’m pleased we were able to share their conditions, rather than go off at night to somewhere a little better than where they were sleeping.

"It was a solidarity visit, not a spectator visit.

"The grinding hopeless of it all is terrible. It really turns your heart over. It’s appalling. It shouldn’t be."

• Rev Gregor Henderson, of Canberra, is chairperson of Christian World Service, the aid and development arm of the National Council of Churches in Australia. He is also national president-elect of the Uniting Church in Australia.

It is appropriate that I should begin with an acknowledgement of land because our alienation from this land lies at the spiritual roots of our present difficulties. When, in the sixth century before our present era, the Hebrew people were in exile in Babylon, one of their poets commented on their alienation from their land. Having been asked by their captors to perform their traditional songs and dances, the poet said on behalf of the people

How can we sing the Lord's song
in a strange land?1

This heartfelt cry seems to me to apply both to Indigenous Australians, whose dispossession from their land is manifest and to non-Indigenous Australians, whose presence here is based on long standing wrongs. I interpose here a reference to that other situation that has been referred to in this conference, the treatment of asylum seekers. On any rational analysis, asylum seekers landing on Australia's shores cannot be the threat that they are made out to be. To characterise them as a major threat to our national sovereignty and security, as has been done, with the subsequent dehumanising references is to exceed any reasonable action. What is the attraction of this patently unreasonable activity? Why do Australians find themselves overwhelmed by it? Why does it appeal to our worst qualities and tempt us to turn our backs on 200 years of welcoming newcomers to the country? I suggest that our failure to resolve the question of sovereignty imposes such a burden on non-Indigenous Australia that the asylum seekers, who appear to threaten that which we hold by the merest thread, make the ideal scapegoats. It is no accident that a government that refuses to apologise to Indigenous Australians for the theft of their land also promotes asylum seekers as the solution to our territorial insecurity.

Eventually the exile ended and the people returned home. A poet captured the joy of this with the words:

When the Lord turned again the fortunes of Zion
then were we like those restored to life.2

Unless we can turn our fortunes again and come home, we will forever live in a land from which we are alienated.

For Australia to be at home in the land, we need a specific change event, a focus that we are now calling a treaty. One of the criticisms of the move towards a treaty is that it presupposes two nations in Australia, given that there must be parties to such a document and that they must have the same status. It may be that the idea of ‘covenant' would serve us better, in spirit even if not used as a term.

‘Covenant' is a term that features heavily in Christian theology where it expresses a relationship with God. Covenant ‘is more than formal agreements or legal duties; it is about the dynamics of relationship'.3 Covenant does not presuppose two entirely distinct sides. One party can covenant without reciprocity. One can covenant with oneself. Thus this term helps to overcome the argument that there cannot be a treaty within a national entity. Covenant can survive failure or differential compliance.

Covenant implies a sharing of pains and sorrows, pleasures and celebrations. This aspect of covenant is important when the parties have a long and conflicted history, where they inhabit the same space and where the mutual sharing of stories is paramount.

This is important because it takes only a little thought to envisage a scenario where a debate about treaty continues and even deepens the divisions within Australian society rather than resolving them. Indeed, it is possible that the most important thing about a treaty will be the successful management of the process of achieving it. Nobody can imagine that the whole population will automatically and openly receive the idea of a treaty in its legal and formal sense. Within both Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities there will be differing positions, some of them openly hostile to the idea. It would be a tragedy if a successfully negotiated treaty left behind it significant disaffected groups. I do not argue that unanimity is a prerequisite. That would be to make the treaty a hostage to willful refusal. I do argue that the process of achieving a treaty is at least as important as the treaty itself.

The name for the principal barrier to a treaty is, we may say, ‘terra nullius'. It is commonly believed that this doctrine, narrowly conceived as a kind of historical legal error, has been expunged by the Mabo decision. The Christian churches are very familiar with the self-deception of thinking that formal decisions have an inevitable power. The great councils of Christendom, from Nicaea in 325CE onwards, have seemingly resolved complex questions that have had a habit of resurfacing from time to time in a different guise. This is because they dealt with deep-rooted issues. ‘Terra nullius' is like that for Australia. Far from being only a discredited legal doctrine, it is a way of thought that encourages a form of national blindness. It comes close to being a form of national sin.

Another criticism of a treaty is that it will encourage litigation in attempts to ensure its enforcement, in other words, division will continue beyond the treaty. Dr Rowan Williams, recently appointed to be the next Archbishop of Canterbury, has noted as a problem the tendency in rights based discourse to require people to continue to identify themselves as victims, even to compete with others for the title of victim. He says:

"The challenge is to do with imagination: with imagining relations other than those of master and slave, advantaged and disadvantaged, and imagining a definition of my or our interest and identity that would require the presence and welfare of others with whom I was not forced constantly to struggle for precedence."4

We need to be committed to this kind of outcome. For this reason we will need to be clear where our commitment lies. If we have a commitment to a treaty that is contingent on the resolution of certain issues, whatever they are, those issues will inevitably become barriers to the successful completion of the process. If we have a commitment to a treaty that is prior to the resolution of issues, the resolution itself becomes possible.

Does our commitment then lie on this side or on the other side of the resolution of specific issues? Only if it is on this side can we have a successful process.

How then can we achieve such a commitment? Widespread support from significant organisations within the community is essential. Significant individuals also have a role to play. Without national leadership at the highest level, however, such commitment may possibly elude us.

Progress will be enhanced by an acknowledgement of the plurality that exists within both Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australia. In particular, the diversity of Indigenous groups means that within any national treaty there will need to be individual treaties on a more local level. Those agreements will take place between people in a local government area, a town or a village. In principle they need not wait on the conclusion of a national process but can proceed at their own pace. If such smaller agreements can be encouraged, they will inevitably contribute to the successful completion of the larger scale process.

But I turn now to the involvement of the churches themselves. The churches of Australia have had an ambiguous relationship with Indigenous Australians. From the beginning of colonisation the churches have insisted that Indigenous Australians are children of God, that is, truly human over against those who regarded them as sub-human or animal. At the same time they regarded Indigenous Australians as human children, incapable of an independent existence. Later they supported equality before the law and the possession of the full array of civil rights. They placed this support, however, within the mistaken policy of assimilation, neglecting the essentials of Indigenous culture and spirituality. They participated in the policies that led to the Stolen Generations with apparently good motives, but were unable to prevent abuses or subject that policy to necessary criticism.

The churches of Australia have encompassed both champions of Indigenous Australians and oppressors. The churches of Australia have been on the same journey as the rest of the community in resolving the issues that have led to this conference.

The churches have a responsibility to undertake a vigorous educational program amongst their members about a treaty and its possible contents. They should do this as a matter of their own integrity and as a contribution to the nation itself. The members of the churches have a responsibility individually to continue to participate in community activities around a treaty and in other ways.

Fundamental to any resolution of the issues around a treaty is recognition of how much of our social compact is based on historical and present violence. We live in a nation that was established with violence, both towards the majority of the first colonists and certainly towards the original inhabitants of the land. That violence has caused violence must also be recognised. The NCCA is committed to the process of self-examination that the overcoming of violence involves. A treaty, with its formal recognition of the status of Indigenous Australians can set the spiritual, psychological and organisational context for the recognition of violence in our midst and thus commence its elimination.

I return now to where I began. Australia lives in a context of alienation from itself, its land and its history. If we ask ourselves what kind of song we can sing in this land, we receive no harmony, only a discord or, rather, no music at all. If our fortunes are turned we can be as those restored to life and thus able to sing our song.

1 Psalm 137
2 Psalm 126
3 Peter Lewis, National Director-Covenanting, Uniting Church in Australia, ‘Covenant and Treaty - an exploration', http://www.covenanting.unitinged.org.au/
Resources/th_covenant_treaty.doc
4 Rowan Williams, Lost Icons, Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 2000, pp. 85-86.

Message from the National Council of Churches in Australia
(Adopted by the Executive of the NCCA at its meeting in June 2003)

In a world so full of fear and distrust, it is timely that Social Justice Sunday 2003 addresses issues of racism.

Christians believe that all human beings are created in the image of God. In Jesus Christ the divisions that separate people from each other are broken down - people are reconciled and a new unity is created among us.

Racism separates us from God and from each other and is incompatible with the Christian gospel. Together with Christians all over the world, we affirm that racism is a sin.

It is a sad fact that racism has been part of Australia's history. It is evident in the life of individuals, communities and churches, and in government policies. Responses to recent events throughout the world indicate that we have not rid ourselves of the racism which has defined so much of our history. Racism has always been a form of violence, damaging the lives of those who experience it and violating their human rights.

In seeking to understand how racism works we need to listen to the experiences of others and reflect on differing perspectives. We need to consider what is happening to Indigenous Australians, how authentic our multicultural identity really is, the assumptions that underlie our resort to warfare in recent times, and the lack of safety which people of some religious and ethnic groups experience everyday. We need to examine what is happening in sport, the workplace, politics, the media and in our own congregations and churches.

While racism may at times be subtle and well disguised, it is always a powerful force of oppression and injustice. We condemn the continuing racism in our country which is evident in the behaviour of individuals and communities and which is still evident in our churches. We condemn the racism which is hidden in the systems and structures of our society.

We believe that the cultural and racial diversity in Australia today is a reflection of God's gift of diversity in creation. It is to be treasured and nurtured, regarded as a blessing for us all.

We call for racial justice - an acknowledgement in word and deed that all people are created equal and that the lives of all people are equally valuable. We seek a community in which strangers are welcomed and differences are celebrated; we seek a society where the systems, structures and policies of governments and institutions are racially inclusive; and we seek a country in which all people are valued and can worship according to their own faith tradition.

We encourage members of our churches to use the opportunity provided by Social Justice Sunday 2003 to reflect on our own lives and the lives of our churches; to seek God's transformation of our lives and healing of our communities; and to work for racial justice so that we may be faithful agents of God's transforming mission in our society.

***********

POVERTY EQUALS PAIN: CHURCHES SAY NATIONAL STRATEGY NEEDED

Statement released 10 September 2003

The peak body representing most of Australia's Churches, the National Council of Churches in Australia (NCCA) today urged the Australian Government to demonstrate serious commitment in tackling the unacceptable level of poverty in Australia.

The NCCA is calling for a national strategy to eliminate poverty in Australia.

The President of the Council, the Revd Professor James Haire said, "Thirteen percent (2.4 million) of Australians have insufficient money to cover the basic costs of food, clothing and shelter.

"This is a tragic figure for our nation.

"We urge the government to take a leadership role by making the issue of poverty reduction a first order priority for the nation.

"It is time to take politics out of poverty, and bring all state and territory governments together in a partnership and produce a national strategy for poverty elimination in Australia.

"So the NCCA calls on the Australian government to exercise leadership in governing for the benefit of all Australians ensuring that individual, families and communities have access to the social opportunities and basic goods required to participate fully in every day life.

"We believe it is paramount that poverty indicators and targets to measure the effectiveness of strategies to improve the well being of the poorest groups be put in place. (See background notes below)

****** 

NCCA Poverty Background Notes

WHAT IS POVERTY?

· Poverty is having insufficient resources to meet one's basic needs as well as having insufficient resources to participate in the community in which one lives.
· Poverty means not only having a low income, but also being unable to access or having limited access to essential services such as education, health and welfare, being unable to actively participate in decision-making affecting one's own life, and being marginalised out of mainstream society. The experience of exclusion, the sense of difference, and the loss of control and capacity to create one's future are some of the threads that link financial hardship and low material well-being to personal and social well-being.
· Poverty may be viewed as ‘capacity deprivation' (Amartya Sen) - a lack of freedom to develop to one's potential.

POVERTY AND FAITH

· The Church considers the world is a community in which all members are responsible for each other and the strongest have a special responsibility for the vulnerable. Christianity teaches that all humanity will be judged by its attitude to neighbours, visitors and strangers. This attitude should be marked by solidarity, compassion, generosity and love. Christians believe that Australians should show concern for the suffering because Christ first loved us (1 John 4:11).
· Christian beliefs share with the human rights tradition a concern for the well-being of all people and recognition of the dignity of the human person, and also the compassion and care required to seek the fulfilment of that well-being.
· The Australian churches believe that a society in which there are substantial inequalities is bad for all Australians. This belief arises from our Christian understanding that one person's pain or suffering diminishes us all.

WHAT IS POVERTY LIKE?

-To be poor is to be vulnerable - eg unexpected illness or expense can be disastrous.
· For people living in poverty, both access to education and educational outcomes are likely to be less favourable
· Groups particularly vulnerable to poverty include:
o Ageing
o Those living in rural and remote areas and other ‘disadvantaged' areas
o Long-term unemployed and underemployed
o Migrants and refugees
o Indigenous peoples
o People with long-term illness (including mental illness) or disability
o Sole parents
o People leaving prison
o Refugees and asylum seekers
o Working poor
o Homeless...

HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS

· Almost 90 000 low-income Australians are paying more than 50% of their income in rent (1) .
· Over 702 000 Australian households spend more than 30% of their income on housing (ie 10% of households)(2) .
· There has been a significant decline in real terms in Federal and State government's investment in public housing (3) .
· There is currently a national shortage of 150 000 units of affordable housing - contributing to the number of homeless Australians (4).
· According to the last census data published in 1999, there were approx. 105 300 people experiencing homelessness on census night - only 12% were using the service system that is dedicated to homelessness - that is SAAP (Supported Accommodation Assistance Program)(5) .

INEQUALITY

· There is a widening gap between rich and poor Australians. The wealthiest 10% of households hold 45% of the wealth whilst half of Australia's households own only 7% of the nation's wealth(6) ; the top 20% receive 50% of total income, whilst the bottom 20% earn 5% (7).
· There is a marked and growing divide between families that are ‘work rich', with two parents in paid employment, and those families which are ‘work poor', with no parent in paid employment or only having part-time employment.
· Not just income level but employment, workplace, housing, environment, transport, medical services and opportunities for children are all important to take into account when inequality is analysed(8) .
· Evidence shows that societies with a substantial social and economic distance between members exhibit lower overall levels of health and well-being than societies where these differences are less pronounced. These socio-economic differences show up particularly starkly in the health outcomes of poorer sections of populations. This so-called ‘gradient effect' applies not only to physical and mental health but also for a wide range of other developmental outcomes, including behavioural adjustment and literacy and numeracy levels(9).
· Inequality also undermines social cohesion.

CHILDREN

· The Smith Family estimates that 15% of Australian children - 750 000 - are living in poverty (10).
· More than this, 850 000 children are living in families where no adult has a paid job (11).
· Other estimates of child poverty include:
· 17.9% (12)
· The UNICEF Report on child poverty identified 17% of Australian children as living below the poverty line (this rate places Australia fifth highest among the 25 industrialised nations considered in the report)(13).
· Poverty exacts a heavy toll on children and families. We now know that early intervention reduces the negative impact of poverty on children's intellectual and emotional development over the whole of their life.
· The experience of poverty from an early age combined with low educational attainment and limited opportunity for social inclusion can also impair a person's ability to understand how systems work, influencing their capacity for decision making and sense of control over their own lives.
· Lack of education contributes to entrenchment of inequality across generations (14).
· Children are our country's greatest resource - we cannot afford to deny them the opportunity to develop to their full potential.

REGIONAL POVERTY

. Poverty is being increasingly concentrated in certain neighbourhoods(15).
· Location affects matters such as the availability of jobs, low-cost adequate housing, and access to public transport, hospitals, schools and childcare as well as support networks.
· Census data suggests that that those from low income neighbourhoods are increasingly experiencing unemployment (16).
· 6.7 million (27%) Australians live outside metropolitan areas(17); 33 out of 37 poorest electorates in Australia are in rural areas(18); 9 out of the ten regions with the highest unemployment in Australia are outside metropolitan areas (19) .

INDIGENOUS POVERTY

· The incidence of poverty is much higher amongst Indigenous Australians than the general population: estimates indicate that Indigenous Australians are likely to have less formal education and earn less than other Australians. They are more likely than non-Indigenous Australians to die earlier, to live in crowded conditions, to be unemployed, sick and imprisoned.
· For the 1998-2000 period, estimated life expectancy for Indigenous males was 21 years less than for all Australian males and 20 years less for Indigenous females than for all Australian females(20).
· Indigenous infant death rates were 3 times higher than for other Australian infants in 1998-2000 (21) .
· Long-term health problems are evident in one-third of Indigenous households in both low and high-income groups. Many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, especially those living in remote communities, do not have access to adequate housing, reliable supplies of water and electricity or adequate sewerage systems.
· Indigenous Australians are more likely than other Australians to be hospitalised for and to die from mental disorders such as depression, psychosis, self-harm and substance misuse.
· In 1996, the median income of Indigenous Australians was 65% of the median income of all Australians(22).
· There is a direct association between the removal of Aboriginal people from their natural families and the likelihood of criminalisation and ill-health.
· The over-representation of Indigenous people within the criminal justice system is recognised as the major contributing factor to continuing Indigenous deaths in custody.
· In 1994, one in five Indigenous people aged 13 and over reported having been arrested in the preceding five years. Nearly half (46%) of males aged 18-24 years have been arrested with 32% having been arrested more than once. Unemployment was the strongest predictor of arrest over the previous five years(23).
· While Indigenous men face unacceptably high rates of incarceration, the rate for Indigenous women is significantly higher and is rising at a faster rate. For the June 2002 quarter, Indigenous women were over-represented at 19.6 times the non-Indigenous rate compared with Indigenous men at 15.2 times. The imprisonment of Indigenous women exposes the children of the community to risk of neglect, abuse, hunger and homelessness. The rate of recidivism for Indigenous women is high (24).

EMPLOYMENT

· Labour market changes in Australia over the last decade have had a substantial social and economic impact. These changes include increasing casualisation, a move from full-time employment to part-time employment, a shift to a greater number of lower-paid jobs and significant unemployment despite improved economic performance.
· In February 2003, 614,400 Australians were officially unemployed (6.3%) - (all people working an hour or more a fortnight are officially classified as being employed).
· Unemployment produces erosion of self-esteem and confidence, atrophying of work skills, boredom, shame and stigma, increased stress, anxiety and depression, social isolation, family breakdown, deterioration of family health, loss of access to resources and personal supports, severe financial hardship and poverty, increased personal debt (25).
· 150 000 Australians (22.4% of those looking for work) are now considered to be long-term unemployed, having been unable to find work for more than a year (26).
· 380,000 Australians have been on unemployment benefits for more than 12 months (27).
· The continuing high number of long-term unemployed is particularly disturbing in light of research showing that 80% are likely to experience poverty compared with around 15% of short-term unemployed (28) .
· The poverty rate for jobless couples with no children is greater than 50%, but rises to more than 70% for those with children (29) .
· Unemployment is being increasingly concentrated in low-income households (30).
· The industries with the lowest wages: cafes, restaurants, cultural and recreation services are also amongst the industries with the highest growth in employment (31).
· The low level of security offered by casual employment increases the level of stress suffered by families and individuals
· In some areas of the labour force, such as the home-based textile, clothing and footwear industry, adequate pay and conditions are still not enforced.

INCOME SUPPORT

· The Church believes that a fair and equitable social security system will be founded on an understanding of the intrinsic value of all Australian citizens and the need for all to have an adequate, secure income. Social support services need to be underpinned by compassion and understanding and the welfare system must be appropriately resourced, in accordance with the human rights obligations of governments and nations.
· The Church is strongly concerned about the emphasis on compulsion, punitive measures and strenuous activity testing for those in situations of extreme financial hardship and stress.
· The Church is concerned that there are significant disincentives to returning to full-time low-paid low- and semi-skilled work.

HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE LIVING IN POVERTY?

· Although there is considerable debate about how poverty should be measured, a recent estimate puts 13% of Australians (1 in 8) living in income poverty (32).

WHAT CAN BE DONE?

· The churches call upon the Federal Government to exercise leadership in governing for the benefit of all Australians and building a just and compassionate society in which all Australians have access to the social opportunities and basic goods required to participate fully in everyday life.
· The churches believe that an overarching anti-poverty strategy should be adopted to address key themes and features of poverty in the Australian setting within specific areas - eg employment and income, housing and homelessness, health care, education, childcare and aged care, disability, Indigenous poverty, regional poverty, industrial relations.
· This strategy should include the development of agreed definitions, targets and indicators of poverty - setting the right parameters, standards, indicators and measurement structures in the Australian context requires ongoing engagement with all the relevant communities of interest. Targets adopted should address the most disadvantaged groups and take account of their experience of poverty.
· The development and implementation of a strategy will be best achieved with partnerships between all levels of government, local communities, business, the community and research sectors and by listening closely to the experiences of those living in poverty.
· Addressing the growing divide in Australia between the advantaged and disadvantaged requires sustained commitment that must begin now.

----------------------------------------

(1) Housing Justice Roundtable (2002) Housing for all. Melbourne (Low income refers to the bottom 40% of income earners) quoted in Anglicare Victoria submission.
(2) Ibid.
(3) ACOSS (2002) Public and Community Housing: a rescue package needed. (figures from Dept. of Family and Community Services) quoted in Anglicare Victoria submission.
(4) Yates, J. and Wulff, M. (2000) "W(h)ither low cost private rental housing?" Urban Policy and Research, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 56-7 quoted in Brotherhood of St Laurence submission.
(5) Council to Homeless Persons (2001) Parity quoted in The Salvation Army - Australian Southern Territory submission.
(6) Kelly, S. (2001) "Trends in Wealth - New Estimates for the 1990s" 30th Annual Conference of Economists, University of WA, quoted in Anglicare Break the Cycle Campaign material.
(7) ACOSS (2000) Info 211 - available via www.acoss.org.au.
(8) Travers (2001) "Inequality and the future of our children" In Fincher, R. and Saunders, P. (eds) Creating Unequal Futures? Rethinking Poverty, Inequality and Disadvantage. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin, pp 102-129 quoted in Jesuit Social Services submission.
(9) Simons, R. (2002) "Social Innovation for Social Inclusion", ACOSS Congress 2002, 28 Nov., Hobart.
(10) Harding, Lloyd and Greenwell (2001) "Financial Disadvantage in Australia 1990-2000" The Smith Family, Camperdown.
(11) McClelland, A. (2000) Our children - our future, child poverty in Australia, Brotherhood of St Laurence, Melbourne.
(12) Derived from ABS, Australian Social Trends 2002: Population; National Summaries and Family - National Summary Tables quoted in A Fair Society? Common Wealth for the Common Good: Ten Years On p18.
(13) Bradbury & Jantti (1999) Child Poverty Across Industialized Nations, Innocenti Occasional Papers, Economic and Social Policy Series No. 71, UNICEF International Child Development Centre, Florence, quoted in the Jesuit Social Services Centre submission.
(14) Vinson, T. (1999) "Unequal in Life. The distribution of social disadvantage in Victoria and New South Wales" Melbourne: The Ignatius Centre for Social Policy and Research. Jesuit Social Services quoted in Jesuit Social Services submission.
(15) Gregory, R.G. and Hunter, B. (1995) The Macro Economy and the Growth of Ghettos and Urban Poverty in Australia. In The Australian National University Centre for Economic Policy Research, Discussion Paper Series No. 235.
(16) Ibid.
(17) National Farmers' Federation website quoted in Anglicare Victoria submission.
(18) Alston, M. (2000) "Rural Poverty" Australian Social Work Vol. 53 No. 1. Position paper of the National Rural Health Alliance (2000) sourced from www.ruralhealth.org.au quoted in Anglicare Victoria submission.
(19) National Farmers' Federation news release 26/02/2003, sourced from www.nff.org.au quoted in Anglicare Victoria submission.
(20) ABS (2002) Australian Social Trends, p.86.
(21) Anglicare Break the Cycle campaign material.
(22) ABS, Year book Australia 1999: Population Special Article - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australia: A Statistical profile from the 1996 Census.
(23) Mukherjee et al. (1998) Occasional paper ? and justice issues, Indigenous Australians (ABS, Canberra).
(24) Press Statement by Dr William Jonas, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner - Social Justice Report 2002 and Native Title Report 2002.
(25) The Salvation Army - Australian Southern Territory submission.
(26) ABS (2003) Catalogue no 1301.0.
(27) www.acoss.org.au/media/2002/mr0218.htm
28) Ferguson, J. (2001) "Long-term unemployment and the employment services system: Value adding or a trade in damaged stock?" Economic and Labour Relations Review, Vol. 12 (supplement), pp.117-30 quoted in Brotherhood of St Laurence submission.
(29) Saunders, "The impact of unemployment on poverty, inequality and social exclusion" in Saunders and Taylor (2002) pp. 182-83 quoted in A Fair Society? Common Wealth for the Common Good: Ten Years On.
(30) Saunders in Saunders and Taylor (2002) p 179 quoted in A Fair Society? Common Wealth for the Common Good: Ten Years On p18.
(31) Eardley, Tony, "Working but Poor?, SPRC Paper 91.
(32) Harding, A., Lloyd, R. & Greenwell, H. (2001) "Financial Disadvantage in Australia 1990-2000", The Smith Family, Camperdown, NATSEM) - these researchers used a before-housing half average income poverty line with Henderson equivalence scale.

* * * *

Representatives of the following churches were present at the adoption of the Statement:
Anglican Church of Australia
Antiochian Orthodox Church
Armenian Apostolic Church
Assyrian Church of the East
Churches of Christ in Australia
Coptic Orthodox Church
Religious Society of Friends
Roman Catholic Church
Salvation Army
Uniting Church in Australia

A Housing Strategy to End Homelessness

Australia's Housing Crisis

1987 was the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless (IYSH). During that year the Australian Government committed itself to gaining a better understanding of the nature and causes of homelessness, and implementing policies and programs which would effectively meet the needs of homeless persons. It was acknowledged there were 40,000 people in Australia who were homeless, and a further 60,000 at risk of homelessness. Ten years have now elapsed since IYSH and it is timely to consider our nations progress in addressing the problem of homelessness.

Unfortunately, despite significant initiatives to enhance crisis and supported accommodation services for homeless persons and increase rent assistance for low income renters, the blight of homelessness continues to exist in our affluent community. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare estimates there were between 48,000 and 61,000 homeless persons in
1995. However, this is only the tip of the iceberg. There are 575000 private renters who are poor after paying their housing costs and are at risk of becoming homeless. Consequently, public housing waiting lists across the county grew by 48 per cent to approximately 250000.

In the ten years since IYSH, however, there has been a substantial reduction in expenditure on additional public housing. Commonwealth and State funds under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement have declined in real terms by approximately 25 per cent ($419 million) since 1992-93. This has meant that the number of net additions to public housing has been reduced from a high of over 15,000 in 1986-87 to a low of approximately 3,000 1996-97.

The Churches are concerned that the declining commitment of Commonwealth and State governments to public housing is resulting in more people remaining in housing related poverty and hence at risk of homelessness. Already over 70 per cent of low income private renters pay more than 30 per cent of their income on housing costs.

During 1996-97 rents increased significantly (8-12 percent), particularly in capital cities, as the property market began to rise.

Despite improvements in some programs for homeless persons, governments have not yet recognised the obvious link between homelessness and the supply of appropriate, secure and affordable rental housing. Their confidence in private market solutions does not match the daily experience of church welfare agencies who are called upon to provide assistance to the majority of homeless persons. These agencies are finding it increasingly difficult to assist low income individuals and families to secure affordable rental housing.

The Human Cost of Housing Poverty

We have not solved the problem of homelessness in Australia over the last decade. Housing problems persist and the Churches are concerned about the human cost of housing poverty. The experience of the Churches' welfare sector has brought us to the conclusion that:
§ inadequate, substandard significantly to
§ overcrowded and housing contributes poor health;
§ the stress of high rents and low security places great strain upon family relationships;
§ the transience which arises from lack of security in the private rental market contributes to poor educational outcomes for children;
§ the concentration of low income and disadvantaged persons in particular regions locks them into a cycle of poverty and limits their opportunities;
§ the failure to co-ordinate housing policy with labour market programs can seriously disadvantage workers' attempts to secure employment.

The human costs of homelessness and housing poverty will ultimately be reflected in social and economic costs to the whole community. The Churches call upon Commonwealth and State governments to implement policies which recognise the importance of an appropriate, secure and affordable place to live as the foundation of human dignity and social stability.

A National Affordable Housing Strategy

In November 1996 the heads of Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish and Islamic faith communities in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane called on the Commonwealth and State governments to implement a National Affordable Housing Strategy. This call was made in the context of discussions between the governments on reforms to housing assistance arrangements.

The Churches are concerned that those discussions have broken down and there appears little will by either level of government to tackle Australia's difficult housing problems. The inevitable losers will be the homeless and those low income private renters who are living in poverty.

In 1998 Commonwealth and State governments will address the future of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement which expires on June 30, 1999. The Churches reiterate our call for a National Affordable Housing Strategy as the basis of a new Commonwealth-State agreement on housing policy. The Churches proposed National Affordable Housing Strategy is based on three assumptions:
§ Commonwealth and State governments must cooperate in the development and implementation of housing policy. There is a important continuing role for a Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement which includes specific targets for reducing the incidence of housing related poverty.
§ Housing assistance policy must include both rent assistance and affordable rental housing sup ply measures. Commonwealth and State governments must reach agreement on strategies to improve rent assistance programs so that low income renters have sufficient income after paying their rent to meet such basic needs as food, clothing and education and ensure access to appropriate and affordable rental housing.
§ An effective National Affordable Housing Strategy cannot be implemented without additional expenditure on housing assistance. Commonwealth and State Governments must be prepared to commit additional funds to housing assistance if the goal of reducing housing poverty is to be achieved.

Key Elements of the Strategy

The Churches believe that our proposed National Affordable Housing Strategy provides the most appropriate response to the 10th anniversary of the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless and basis of a new Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. The three key elements of the strategy are:

(i) the restructure of the Rent Assistance Program to ensure that the after-housing income of all public and community housing tenants is above the poverty line, while the after-housing income of all private tenants is lifted to at least 90 per cent of the poverty line;
(ii) the continuation of capital funding for public and community housing to ensure the net addition of at least 8,500 units each year (thus maintaining social housing at the current level of 6 per cent of national housing stock) to provide access to appropriate, secure and affordable housing for the most disadvantaged;
(iii) implementation of a national mechanism which provides incentives for institutional and private investors to invest in affordable rental housing which is provided to low income households and which is appropriate to their needs.

Ecumenical Housing, a Commission of the Victorian Council of Churches, has spelt out the detail of these policies in National Housing Policy: Reform and Social Justice. They estimate these goals can be achieved with a modest 6.6 per cent increase on the $3,008 million of overall housing assistance expenditure in 1994-5.

The Churches now call upon Commonwealth and State governments to renew their discussions on housing reform and commit themselves to a new Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement from July 1, 1999. The new CSHA should implement a National Affordable Housing Strategy at an additional estimated cost of $400 million on anticipated expenditure in 1998-99.

Implementing policies to address the affordability, accessibility and supply of rental housing for low income households is the most constructive and effective way to confront the problem of homelessness and housing relating poverty.

The Commitment of the Churches

In the meantime, national church community service agencies and ecumenical housing organisations met in conference in September this year and agreed to:

(i) review the assets of the Churches which may be made available to the provision of affordable rental housing for low income Australians;
(ii) work co-operatively with Commonwealth and State governments to develop more effective mechanisms for implementing community housing joint venture projects;
(iii) work co-operatively with each other and governments to identify and implement the best structures for ensuring high standard community housing services are delivered by church agencies;
(i) investigate alternative sources of housing finance to enable church agencies to invest in community housing projects.

We believe this demonstrates our willingness to work collaboratively with Governments to tackle one of our nation's most pressing social problems. We ask the Prime Minister to meet representatives of the Churches to discuss these proposals prior to the next meeting of Commonwealth and State Housing Ministers.

A Statement of the National Council of Churches in Australia (July 2000)

Introduction

Gambling is the seeking of gain at the expense of others, based solely on chance. Inevitably some gain while others lose.  In most cases a third party in the form of the promoter of the activity is the significant beneficiary.  Thus gambling is not simply an innocent pastime.  It has the potential to divert significant resources from other and more useful activities.  It opens the way for some to profit from the weakness of others.  These characteristics of gambling have made it a long-standing concern of the churches.

Gambling is a human activity with a very long history.  People gamble on a small scale in raffles and similar community pastimes.  People also gamble as part of a highly organised and well-promoted industry.  Historically, some churches have opposed gambling in principle, while others have been more concerned about its abuse.  This statement springs from the perception that, regardless of the principle behind gambling, its present state in the Australian community occasions great harm both to individuals and the community at large.  At the same time the Council recognises that gambling is a source of enjoyment for many people, who gamble without damage to themselves or others.

The Nature of the Council's Concerns

The following well attested facts demonstrate the nature of the Council's concerns about gambling.

• The last two decades have witnessed an expansion of gambling facilities in all the States of Australia.  This expansion has been in the availability of gambling at local, centralised and electronic venues.  The local expansions have been mostly in places of entertainment such as hotels and licensed clubs.  The centralised locations are in the form of casinos, while the electronic venues occur through the Internet.
• Significant commercial interests have entered the gambling industry and increased its economic and political power.
• The licensing of gambling venues has increased the income of State governments to such an extent that they now rely on it for a significant proportion of their budgets.
• The availability and promotion of gambling has diverted resources from other uses, particularly from families.
• Persons susceptible to problem gambling (2.1% of Australians and 15% of regular gamblers) have increased availability and encouragement.
• Controls on the involvement of criminals in the gambling industry remain inadequate.

These developments have been demonstrated in a number of government and non-government reports, including that of the Productivity Commission in November 1999. 

As a result of these features of the growth of gambling, a number of subsequent concerns arise.  They include:

The nature of advertising and promotion

• Advertising for gambling invariably emphasises the possibility of winning without setting out the realistic probabilities. 
• Gamblers are represented in ideal terms as young, attractive and happy.  They do not represent the norm of actual gamblers.
• Promotion may target cultural tendencies in ethnic communities towards belief in fate and chance.

Protection of problem gamblers

• Advertising and promotional material fails to warn problem gamblers or to indicate where help can be obtained.  This lack compares unfavourably with the compulsory warnings on tobacco products.

Conflict of interest

• Government dependence on gambling revenue conflicts with its regulatory and consumer protection responsibilities.
• Government dependence on gambling revenue acts as a barrier to its duty to promote responsible taxation as a civic duty.

Regulation 

Apart from a dependence on gambling income, governments are compromised by the commercial and political power of the large players in the gambling industry.  Such interests are prone to exploit their position as apparently legitimate interests and their diverse corporate power.  Regulation thus becomes a politically risky activity.

Recommendations

For these reasons the Executive of the National Council of Churches in Australia makes the following statement:

• The Executive supports the moves of the Commonwealth Government to seek a greater regulation of Internet gambling.  It endorses the proposed moratorium on new licenses.  It rejects the claims by some State governments that, since people will gamble, the income should stay at home.
• The Executive supports moves that will decrease the accessibility of gambling.  These moves include, but are not limited to:
  • the reduction in the number of gambling venues and gambling machines;
  • increased information about the risks of problem gambling;
  • the removal of ATMs and credit facilities from gambling venues;
  • increased publicity at gambling venues about the winning odds of specific methods of gaming, particularly gaming machines;
  • increased provisions for community control.
• The Executive supports moves to increase and monitor the resources available for the counselling and other treatment of problem gamblers.
• The Executive supports increased measure to encourage persons to exclude themselves from gambling venues.
• The Executive supports moves that would increase public knowledge about the gambling industry, its benefits and disadvantages.
• The Executive supports the imposition of controls on the advertising of gambling that would ensure a more realistic presentation of its essential characteristics.
• The Executive supports those policy and practice changes that would reduce criminal involvement in the gambling industry.
• The Executive urges governments to consider seriously the extent to which their dependence on revenue from gambling inhibits their capacity to act responsibly in its control.

A statement of the National Council of Churches in Australia to the governments of Australia

Following the Earth Summit, and Social Justice Sunday 2002, which had the theme Sustaining Creation, we write on behalf of the National Executive of the National Council of Churches - a body comprised of fifteen churches across Australia.

The environment is one of the key issues of our time! We believe that Christian faith can and should be a major force for change towards sustainable development, sustainable communities and a healthy environment.

All of us are aware that our planet's health and vitality are decaying. In the twentieth century, the human impact on the earth increased enormously. In the last thirty years alone, human activity has destroyed many of the planet's natural resources. Climate change, flooding, salination, habitat destruction, desertification, pollution, urban expansion, and famine have all played their part. A large number of species have become extinct. Many more are in danger of extinction. One billion people now suffer from a shortage of fresh water. Scientists have said the web of life is unravelling.

Every problem facing the world community is interrelated. Exploitation and greed, the consequent poverty of human communities, displacement of people, environmental degradation all impact on each other. It is not possible to tackle one without attempting to tackle another.

Certainly, these matters are political issues. They are economic issues. But at a deeper level, they are much more. At their core, they constitute a spiritual and moral crisis, touching all that we hold sacred.

We desperately need a change of spirit and attitude. Sustainable development is one of the most urgent moral tasks of our time. An appropriate response begins from sustainable values that recognise the inter-relatedness of all life.

Development is not su-stainable if it steals from present and future generations. Poverty and environmental degradation are interwoven, and it is the poor who suffer most from this degradation. Sustainable development cannot be defined in economic terms alone, but must begin in a commitment to care for the poor, the marginalised, and the voiceless. We seek a sustainable community.

Our Christian faith shapes our attitudes towards and concerns for the community and environment in which we live. Speaking out of these concerns, we:

1. call upon the Australian Government

• to take action in solidarity with people most affected by climate change by ratifying the Kyoto Protocol as a matter of urgency
• to recognise the need for subsequent stronger efforts, such as setting new targets and timetables for increased use of renewable energies
• to continue to address the intolerable burden of unpayable debt on the world's poorest nations.

2. call upon the Australian Government and state governments:

• to work together for peace, justice and economic prosperity within a context of ecological stability
• to adopt environmental policies that do not steal from present and future generations, recognizing that poverty and environmental degradation are interwoven, and that it is the poor who suffer most from this degradation
• to adopt policies that enhance the quality of the rivers and the land, the sea and the air and protect endangered species and all forms of life.

3. encourage the whole community

• to act consistently in ways that affirm the intrinsic worth of the whole creation, recognising that all its resources are entrusted to human beings to be handed on responsibly and faithfully to future generations
• to demonstrate simplicity of lifestyle rather than over-consumption and greed.
• to be thoughtful about the use of resources in all places where we live, work and relax, especially in regard to the use of recyclable goods and the disposal of refuse.

We undertake to do all in our power through the Churches to act in ways that will assist in the achievement of these goals.

We believe that a better, more holistic, understanding of the Earth, which recognises that human beings are part of the created order and not separate from it, will make a major contribution to the transforming change that is essential for the well-being of the Planet in the third millennium.

The Revd John Henderson
General Secretary - National Council of Churches in Australia

On behalf of the 15 member churches of the National Council of Churches in Australia:-
The Anglican Church of Australia
The Lutheran Church of Australia
The Antiochian Orthodox Church
The Religious Society of Friends
The Armenian Apostolic Church
The Roman Catholic Church
The Assyrian Church of the East
The Romanian Orthodox Church
The Churches of Christ
The Salvation Army
The Congregational Federation of Australia
The Syrian Orthodox Church
The Coptic Orthodox Church
The Uniting Church in Australia
The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia

The evangelistic witness will also speak to the structures of this world; its economic, political and social institutions...We must re-learn the patristic lesson that the Church is the mouth and voice of the poor and the oppressed in the presence of the powers that be. "Ecumenical convictions on mission and evangelism" in BRIA I (ed.) Go forth in peace: Orthodox perspectives on mission Geneva: WCC 1986 page 78, quoting Confessing Christ today, pages 10 and 13.

We cannot accept a situation which excludes large numbers from full participation in the life of their own country...There are commentators who would tell us that a long-term pool of unemployed is good for the economy. We cannot accept that. (Australian Catholic Bishops Conference - taken from its statement on unemployment in 1991)

...the laws of supply and demand, and all the rest of the excuses by which those who stand on firm ground salve their conscience when they let their brother sink...often enough are responsible for his disaster. Coffin ships are a direct result of the wretched policy of non-interference with the legitimate operations of commerce (William Booth)

 A COVENANT FOR EMPLOYMENT - A position paper of the NCCA - September 1999

The third Safe as Churches? Consultation was held from the 1st to the 3rd of March 2007.

•  Keynote One: Sue Foley
•  Keynote Two: Geoffery Robertson
•  Keynote Three: Tim Dyer