Tēnā koutou katoa. Greetings to you all. Thanks very much for the opportunity to speak to you today. Thanks also to the Otago University Centre for Theology and Public Issues for organising this meeting.

Because I'm Catholic, and therefore have some expertise in guilt, I'd like to start with a confession: I was under the impression that I was asked to speak tonight on poverty and inequality. Andrew Bradstock persuaded me that these issues fitted with the paper on alcohol and advertising, which I read while drinking a glass of wine. Which just goes to prove that important decisions shouldn't be made under the influence of alcohol.

I've been at the odd meeting over the past few years where different Church representatives for whom alcohol law reform has been a burning issue have thought it would be just great for the Catholics to front the issue, since everyone knows that we drink more than other Christians. I've heard that we are regarded as being somewhat over-enthusiastic about Jesus' first public miracle turning water into wine, and of having a suspiciously good understanding of AA's 12 step programme and the Serenity Prayer.

But I'm afraid that I haven't a great knowledge of the current policy debates on alcohol reform, as the closest I've got to discussing alcohol with a Select Committee was arguing that Catholic prison chaplains should be allowed to take communion wine into prisons.

However, what I can talk about from first-hand knowledge is how in New Zealand's poorest suburbs, even though affordable food is rarely available within walking distance, there always seems to be easy, immediate access to four of the terrible scourges of poor communities - bottle stores, fast food outlets, pokie machines and loan sharks. There's plenty of places in New Zealand where it is far easier to buy beer than a cauliflower.

For myself, when I was living on a benefit and then working for wages that couldn't begin to cover my childcare costs, the mind-altering substance to which I was most addicted, and which was also the greatest temptation for those around me, was not so much alcohol as the instant gratification fix of hot chips. Like many of my neighbours, despite a totally inadequate food budget, we regularly committed the unspeakable crime of buying take-aways on benefit or pay day - usually Fish and Chips without the Fish. It's hard to describe the desperate longing to feel full just one day a week, or the soporific sense of comfort that follows overindulgence by hungry people of a large feed of potatoes, fat and salt.

Such an acknowledgement, I know, runs the risk of justifying the arguments that the poor in New Zealand live impoverished lives not because of totally inadequate benefit or wage levels, but because we make Poor Choices. One of the hardships the poor have to bear is the tut-tutting from the better off suburbs over the consumer choices we make; and the lectures that we are obliged to endure that of course we would live in prosperity if we only budgeted better, cooked healthy stews from dog bones, grew our own strawberries, darned our own socks and made our raincoats from plastic rubbish bags.

So while I was asked to speak about alcohol, advertising and consumerism, I want to beg your indulgence in turning our attention away from the purchasing choices of the poor, to a brief look at our gaps in income and social wellbeing in a country which still prides itself on its egalitarian values.

Many New Zealanders have failed to notice that we are no longer an equal society because many of us do not move very much out of our own comfort zones, and we assume most other people are living very much like we are. When we advertise to the world that we are a clean, green country, with great race relations, and a classless society, we frequently fall for our own propaganda.

There are facts that contradict our sense of being a fair and equal society, and there are also stories, and I'd like to share a few of each.

Firstly, it is important to recognise that New Zealand had the highest growth in inequality in the OECD between the mid-1980s and 2000. This growth in inequality resulted from economic and social policies introduced and followed by both major political parties.

Secondly, many people do not realise that the negative consequences of this income inequality are not just felt at the extremes of society, but affect us all. Between 1982 and 1998, 80 percent of New Zealanders experienced a fall in their incomes, while only the top 20 per cent of incomes rose.

While this did level off somewhat in the past decade, the inequalities have now become entrenched. The wealthiest 10 per cent of the population now hold over 50 per cent of the wealth, while the bottom 50 per cent of the population share only 5.2 per cent of the country's wealth.

What does inequality look like? Here's a few snapshots from my experience: I've spent many years working with beneficiaries and low-income people, and for some of that time I supported that work by playing string quartets at rich people's parties.

So I've seen the champagne flowing at parties on the same day as I've tried to help a family of six get a Work and Income food grant after a week living on boiled potatoes. I've seen that family still having to race desperately for the foodbank at the end of the day when it was clear that WINZ wasn't going to help.

I've played at a private home where the spare bedroom allotted for the musicians' gear was larger than the entire living space of a family of fourteen sharing a two bedroom flat. And then helped them to move into a four-bedroomed state house, only to then grieve as the newborn baby died unnecessarily of a respiratory infection in the cold, uninsulated, unheated home.

And I've heard people complaining about the laziness of the poor while dropping crumbs from hor-d'oevres on a carpet that would be cleaned at 4.00am the following morning by a cleaner whose shifts mean that she is never at home when her children are awake.

There's much more I could say, but behind the political rhetoric about cutting down tall poppies and hampering wealth creation, or about welfare dependency, we have a deeply and increasingly divided society. The worst of it is that there are New Zealanders who not only have no idea, but cannot imagine how others live.

Our religious tradition calls us to a very different way of seeing our neighbours. Our Biblical tradition shows that concern for the poorest members of society was a constant message of the prophets. In the Gospels we see clearly Christ's compassion for the poor. As Christians we look out for the good of all our neighbours, not just what suits us best. We do this, not just because it is better for them, but because a fair society is better for everyone.

Bringing this back for a moment to my given topic, alcohol is actually only one of the many substances we consume which blunt our perception of reality and break down our relationships. They affect our sense of responsibility for ourselves and other people.

It is true, that some people under the influence of alcohol behave violently and carelessly towards people they love. It is true that some people under the influence of cannabis become dull and lethargic. It is true that some people, under the influence of advertising, believe that they are entitled to the things they have been told over and over again are essential to be a cool person.

It is also true, that some people under the influence of cocktail parties become immune to the desperation of people with empty cupboards. It is also true that some people under the influence of expensive cars forget what it is like to wait for a bus in the rain. And that some people, under the influence of air conditioners and central heating, lose any sense of what it means to depend on our climate and our environment for our survival. And some people, under the influence of individualism, lose a sense of solidarity with the most poor and vulnerable members of society.

In their election statement, the New Zealand Catholic Bishops ask us to use our vote as an ethical and moral decision. Our Catholic tradition gives priority to human life and dignity, the preferential protection for the poor and vulnerable, the common good of all, and our responsibility as stewards of God's creation. Above all, they ask us not to think about what election choices are "better for me" but what election choices are "better for us".

Think about it - but drink water while you do it. Important decisions shouldn't be made under the influence of alcohol. Instead, make your decision on how to use your vote under the influence of love.

0 Comments