Monday, January 11, 2010

Priorities

“The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.”
Last speech of Hubert Humphrey 1 Nov 1977

A close friend of mine reminded me of these fine words of the US Vice President and Senator, Hubert Humphrey. Humphrey retired after this speech from the last of an impressive list of public offices he had held during his long career in public life. I get the sense that this reflection, only months before his death, was the synthesis of the creed he had lived by rather than simply musings on regrets for things left undone.

I had been expressing to my friend my own thoughts about how we measure the success of our society. Should it be by the number of stadiums we have, by the new hospitals we build, by the achievements of our sporting stars or by way of a ‘triple A’ credit rating? Should it be by the regular ranking of ‘league tables’ that score each state and city in the Commonwealth by its liveability?

Paraphrasing Humphrey, surely the only true measure of a just society is about how we treat those in or midst that live at the margins; that experience poverty, dysfunction, disability, loneliness and fear. All other achievements, no matter how grand, come to nothing if we cannot protect and support the vulnerable; answering their need and ensuring, as far as is possible, that they enjoy access to the benefits of our modern society in equal measure with everyone else.

Folks, in SA we fail this test. There remain in this State, pockets of significant disadvantage where, amongst other social ills, children may have never seen someone in their household go off to work. Having no positive modelling, a lack of hope and sense of purpose is a breeding ground for all manner of social dysfunction.

We know well that Families SA social workers are overworked and under resourced. If we’re to protect children properly, to support families in their needs and to build social cohesion (rather than the current band aid approach) we’ve simply got to resource these frontline workers better and to let them know that their work is valued.

How is it in this State that we have a long waiting list for mobility devices for disabled children? How is it that parents of students with disabilities frequently report that they feel victimized and unwelcomed at their local schools? These are not matters that should be on the government budget ‘wish list’ to be fixed at some future time when the coffers are fatter; these are matters of basic human dignity which should be priority one.

All we’re asking our government to do is simply to draw up their budgets based on human dignity and answering the needs of the marginalized and the disabled. That’s essentially what every family does: we feed and clothe the children, pay the bills and then, with what’s left, maybe plan for a new car, a holiday (stadium, tramline)etc. Is it that difficult, really?

It might seem like a cliché, to say that society as a whole suffers when we do not answer the call of those in need, but it’s true. The reverse is also true: the more care we take for those in need the better our society will be because respect and compassion bear good fruits.

2 comments:

  1. Do we want to maintain in law our long held understanding of the human person, or reject it for a radical anthropology promulgated as 'autonomy'? The logical outcome of choosing the latter is absolutely clear to my mind - a caste system with the oh so very autonomous (privileged, ruthless) at the top. Not recognising their dependence on what created the conditions within which they exercise their liberty, they preserve nothing and give nothing back - and most horrifically are lead in the logical implications of their world view to the support of eugenic laws. Abortion, now potentially euthanasia is evidence of incremental construction of a tyranny. Once forgetting and/or killing the poor and vulnerable is reflected in law and culturally metastasises there will be no going back for Adelaide.

    You have my support.

    Martin Snigg

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks Martin,

    I couldn't agree more: it would be a caste system, not one built on the level of your birth but one, on whether or not you were, in fact born and, two, whether or not you were born with (or aquired)a disability.

    ReplyDelete