Mutual Obligation – a relationship between equals or a means to bully?

The notion of ‘mutual obligation’ sounds like a relationship between equals. Applied to the ‘work for the dole’ scheme, however, nobody could pretend that the relationship between an unemployed person and the government is one of equality. The reality is that that principle functions as a weapon with which government can threaten the sole source of income for a section of society. The attitude expressed in such a use is that the unemployed are unequal citizens who may be bullied to suit the whims, prejudices or ephemeral political needs of the party in power, or of the sectional interests controlling the political agenda.

Other poor and weak groups in our society are subject to similar forms of unequal treatment by government. We have heard the pleas of groups like the St Vincent de Paul to the Senate inquiry into the effects of the proposed tax reforms that the poor will be worse off under the proposals unless the GST on the necessities of life is modified. An important United Nations committee (which oversees observance of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination), recently reported that Australia’s Native Title Amendment Act 1997 conflicted with Australia’s obligations under this Convention.

Christians, of course, agree that all community members have a duty to contribute to the common good as best they can, but this duty arises from their equality as members of that community. The prior value for them is to see that all members have enough, before incentives to make more are provided to those who have plenty. Their recognition of all, including the poor and the weak, as their brothers and sisters will not permit Christians to bully them or treat them as second-class citizens.