From the desk of Roland Rocchiccioli – 27 June

In a truly democratic, capitalist society, those who have prospered have a moral and ethical obligation to support those for whom the journey has been less successful.

It is an honourable theory. Should the child of less successful parents be denied the opportunities available to his more affluent contemporaries? Obviously, the answer is no.

In a country as rich as Australian there should be no underclass. It is a blight on both our society and the system of government. The social welfare scheme should be capable of supporting all those in need, regardless.

Like many from a solid working-class background, I have a strong sense of social justice. One wonders, and dreads to think, how many fine minds have slipped through the net because of a lack of resources and opportunities?

My father sold his only asset, a house, for 250-pounds to send me away to boarding school. I am not unaware of the degree of difficulty and the sacrifices which sometimes are demanded of us. Life is not easy, for anyone.

A recent newsletter from Federal Member for Ballarat, Catherine King explained Labor’s plan to create a $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund to build social and affordable housing. Homelessness in Australia is a social obscenity.

However, in recent times, I have become less empathetic to the societal imbalance, in particular to some, and I repeat, ‘some’, of those who live in state housing. That is to say: houses which are owned and rented by The Crown to those who qualify. The houses are paid for from the public purse and should not be regarded as a sheltered workshop.

My cottage shares two boundary fences with a street of state housing homes. My residency has been for 12-months, and were I better informed about the neighbours, I would have considered the move.

The blatant and unremitting recalcitrance is indefensible, and despite several telephone calls to the Department of Human Services, and a most strident and articulate elucidation of the problems, nothing, but nothing, has changed!

That is not to suggest the staff of Ballarat DHS is tardy, or failing to confront the issue. Quite the contrary. The problem is the system, and the dogged implacability of the tenants; although, I was informed they are not referred to as tenants. A check of which the Shorter Oxford was unequivocal:  Tenant – noun. A person who pays rent for the use of a room, building, land, etc. They are tenants, by definition.

Following one DHS telephone discussion with the tenant the situation worsened, unbearably, for two-days.

One tenant owns a most glorious dog, which, given the opportunity, I would metaphorically steal. The most glorious of creatures, he is the size of Shetland pony with a bark to match, and is by any reasonable standard of care, emotionally neglected. He lives, every day, alone, in a pocket-handkerchief sized backyard. He is bored rigid; barks persistently, and has done so for almost a year. He has become anti-social, and unusually, and despite my best efforts, I cannot make friends. Occasionally, he is joined by two smaller dogs and the noise becomes unbearable.

I have heard, shouted from inside the house: “Shuddup ya f****n’ dumb animal!” In my opinion it is not the dog which is the dumb animal…

Curiously, the rangers from the council were irritatingly perfunctory. Pointedly, the onus of responsibility is mine! The attitude seems to be: You prove there is a problem and we will investigate!

Grass is growing through the Colorbond fence at shoulder height, and I stand six-feet-tall. It is unacceptable. Hubristic abrogation should result in loss, regardless!

Clearly, it is time for someone to read them the riot act. To be part of mainstream society you have to behave responsibly. You can manipulate the system for only so long.

In the real world, you would be evicted!

Roland can be heard with Brett Macdonald each Monday at 10.45am Radio 3BA and contacted via [email protected].