DOCSLIB.ORG

Submission to the Senate Inquiry Into Poverty and Financial Hardship

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Submission to the Senate Inquiry Into Poverty and Financial Hardship The Bare Necessities: Poverty and Deprivation in Australia Today Submission to the Senate Inquiry into Poverty and Financial Hardship Australian Council of Social Service March 2003 Australian Council of Social Service Locked Bag 4777 Strawberry Hills 2012 Ph (02) 9310 4844 Fax (02) 9310 4822 email: [email protected] www.acoss.org.au Contents Executive summary................................................................................................................................. 5 Recommendations....................................................................................................................... 18 1. A commitment to reduce poverty................................................................................................26 1.1 Anti-poverty strategies: the European experience...................................................... 26 1.2 A strategy to reduce poverty............................................................................................ 30 1.3 Structures to support anti-poverty strategies .............................................................. 31 2. What is poverty?............................................................................................................................... 33 2.1 Understanding poverty in Australia .............................................................................. 33 2.2 Poor people lack key necessities...................................................................................... 38 2.3 The lack of necessities is socially defined...................................................................... 41 2.4 The lack of necessities is caused by a limited command over resources ............... 42 2.5 Poverty and low income.................................................................................................... 43 2.6 The persistence of poverty................................................................................................ 44 2.7 Inequality and poverty...................................................................................................... 44 2.8 Poverty at the international level .................................................................................... 44 2.9 Four poverty concepts ....................................................................................................... 47 3. How can we measure poverty?..................................................................................................... 49 3.1 Income-based poverty lines.............................................................................................. 50 3.2 Budget standards................................................................................................................ 55 3.3 Living standards studies................................................................................................... 56 3.4 A possible approach to measuring and understanding poverty............................. 61 4. The extent of poverty in Australia today .................................................................................. 65 4.1 The extent of income poverty in Australia ................................................................... 65 4.2 Trends in overall income poverty levels over time..................................................... 67 4.3 International comparisons................................................................................................ 71 4.4 Groups most at risk of poverty........................................................................................ 73 5. Causes and dimensions of poverty............................................................................................. 89 5.1 The dynamics of poverty .................................................................................................. 90 5.2 A "culture of poverty"?......................................................................................................98 5.3 Structural causes of poverty in Australia....................................................................101 5.4 Joblessness and insecure employment.........................................................................104 5.5 Low wages .........................................................................................................................115 5.6 Education and skills.........................................................................................................118 5.7 Level of income support..................................................................................................124 5.8 Family pressures and family formation ......................................................................135 5.9 Ill health and disability....................................................................................................138 5.10 Unaffordable and unstable housing.............................................................................143 5.11 Indigenous disadvantage................................................................................................148 5.12 Place, capacity and access to services...........................................................................150 References .............................................................................................................................................157 Table of figures Fig. 1. Four poverty benchmarks (2002) $ per week (disposable income)..........................................8 Fig. 2. Extent of poverty in Australia in 2000 NATSEM/Smith Family estimates..........................10 Fig. 3. Henderson and alternative poverty benchmarks (dollars per week in 2002) ......................53 Fig. 4. Poverty lines compared with alternative indicators for a (2002) ..........................................54 Fig. 5. Low income Budget Standards (dollars per week in 2002).....................................................55 Fig. 6. Extent of poverty in Australia in 2000, NATSEM/Smith Family estimates.........................66 Fig. 7. Poverty gaps in 2000 (below 50% average household income)..............................................66 Fig. 8. Risk of poverty by location in 2000.............................................................................................67 Fig. 9. Indexing poverty lines: underlying principles and implications...........................................68 Fig. 10. Trends in income poverty ..........................................................................................................69 Fig. 11. Poverty in 1973 and 1996............................................................................................................70 Fig. 12. Poverty in OECD countries (mid 1990s) ..................................................................................71 Fig. 13. Child poverty in OECD countries — (mid 1990s) ..................................................................72 Fig. 14. Risk of poverty for Indigenous households compared with all households (1994).........76 Fig. 15. Deprivation among Indigenous households (1994)...............................................................76 Fig. 16. Risk and composition of income poverty by family type NATSEM study (2000) ...........77 Fig. 17. Risk and composition of hardship by family type, ABS Financial stress survey (1999)..78 Fig. 18. Composition of emergency relief applicants by family type ACOSS survey (1999).........78 Fig. 19. Risk of income poverty by age NATSEM-Smith Family study (2000) ................................80 Fig. 20. Risk and composition of hardship by age, ABS Financial stress study (1999)...................80 Fig. 21. Composition of emergency relief applicants ACOSS survey (1999)...................................81 Fig. 22. Risk and composition of poverty by main source of income (2000 .....................................82 Fig. 23. Risk and composition of poverty by main source of income (2000)....................................82 Fig. 24. Risk and composition of income poverty by employment status: NATSEM (1999).........83 Fig. 25. Risk and composition of hardship by employment status: ABS (1999) ..............................84 Fig. 26. Risk and composition of hardship by social security payment: ABS (1999) ......................85 Fig. 27. Deprivation score by DSS payment category..........................................................................86 Fig. 28. Composition of emergency relief applicants by social security: ACOSS (1999) ................86 Fig. 29. Risk and composition of income poverty by housing tenure: (1999) ..................................87 Fig. 30. Risk and composition of hardship by housing tenure: ABS (1999) .....................................88 Fig. 31. The persistence of income poverty in the OECD (mid 1990s) .............................................91 Fig. 32. Patterns of receipt of social security payments — 1996 to 1999 ...........................................94 Fig. 33. Persistent receipt of social security payments among young people..................................97 Fig. 34. Unemployment benefit replacement rates (July 2000).........................................................100 Fig. 35. Unemployment and long-term unemployment ...................................................................105 Fig. 36. Unemployment benefit recipients...........................................................................................106 Fig. 37. Child poverty and jobless families (mid 1990s)...................................................................108
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reflecting on the Bushfires and Climate Responses the “Black Summer” Bushfires Destroyed Thousands of Homes and Left Communities and Natural Ecosystems Barren
    January-February 2020 Welcome to our first issue of ResearchPress for 2020. We look at topics including the devastating impacts of the recent bushfires, the welfare of our children and the latest Closing the Gap report. Reflecting on the Bushfires and Climate Responses The “Black Summer” bushfires destroyed thousands of homes and left communities and natural ecosystems barren. This has caused a significant shift in almost 80% of Australians’ attitudes. The fires have taken climate change off the list of ‘buzz words’ and placed it firmly on the social and political agenda. The staggering outpour of support and urgent calls from a number of fronts culminated in the Prime Minister announcing a Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements. The Federal Government will also invest $2 billion initially to establish a National Bushfire Recovery Agency. This major disaster has brought to light just how vulnerable many facets of our socioeconomic sphere and priority population groups are: Economic impacts from extreme climate events are projected to be globally destabilising. Climate change inaction is estimated to cost the Australian economy at least $29 billion a year. Regional and remote communities. Climate poses a very real threat to outback economies and communities, which are already struggling with drought and poorer outcomes. Domestic violence is shown to spike during natural disasters, by amplifying existing trauma and putting relationships under pressure. Families relying on welfare can spiral deeper into crisis; analysis confirms natural disasters increase inequality for low-income earners. Community groups have called for immediate action, such as greater food relief funding. The government has confirmed a range of supports for bushfire affected regions.
    [Show full text]
  • Does Poverty in Childhood Beget Poverty in Adulthood in Australia?
    Report series Melbourne Institute research into understanding and overcoming disadvantage Does poverty in childhood beget poverty in adulthood in Australia? Authors Dr Esperanza Vera-Toscano & Professor Roger Wilkins Published October 2020 Supported by Report Series 03 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to appreciate feedback and comments from Table of Contents Professor A. Abigail Payne and Dr Rajeev Samarage. We thank staff at the Paul Ramsay Foundation for their comments and suggestions on the first and second drafts, namely Alex Fischer and Junho Executive Summary 5 4. The inheritance of poverty Hyun-Sack. All errors and omissions are the responsibility of the across generations 48 authors of this report. 1. Motivation and overview of report 6 4.1. Other factors affecting poverty 1.1. The intergenerational transmission of status in adulthood 51 poverty and its policy relevance 8 Melbourne Institute: Applied Economic & Social Research 4.2. Recap of the main 1.2. Recent research on intergenerational Faculty of Business and Economics results of this section 63 poverty transitions in Australia 10 Level 5, 111 Barry Street FBE Building 1.3. The importance of the HILDA Survey 15 The University of Melbourne 1.4. Outline of the remainder of this report 17 5. Summary and Conclusions 66 Victoria 3010 Australia Tel: +61 3 8344 2100 Fax: +61 3 8344 2111 Web: https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/research/reports/ 2. Data, samples and definitions 18 REFERENCES 70 breaking-down-barriers 2.1 Samples for the analysis 20 © The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute: Applied 2.2. The definition of an individual’s income 22 Economic & Social Research, 2020 2.3.
    [Show full text]
  • POVERTY in AUSTRALIA 2020 PART 2: WHO IS AFFECTED? ACOSS Partners
    ACOSS AND UNSW SYDNEY POVERTY IN AUSTRALIA 2020 PART 2: WHO IS AFFECTED? ACOSS Partners ISSN: 1326 7124 B B & A MILLER ISBN: 978 0 85871 068 9 FOUNDATION Poverty in Australia 2020: Part 2 - Who is affected? is published by the Australian Council of Social Service, in partnership with the University of New South Wales Locked Bag 4777 Strawberry Hills, NSW 2012 Australia DAVID MORAWETZ’S Email: [email protected] SOCIAL JUSTICE FUND Website: www.acoss.org.au © 2020, ACOSS and UNSW Sydney This publication is copyright. Apart from fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part may be reproduced by any process without written permission. Enquiries should be directed to the Publications Officer, Australian Council of Social Service. Copies are available from the address above. This report is the latest in the Poverty in Australia series, part of the Poverty and Inequality Partnership between ACOSS and UNSW Sydney. Find out more at http://povertyandinequality.acoss.org.au It was drafted by Dr Peter Davidson from needtoknow consulting, based on analysis by Associate Professor Bruce Bradbury, Dr Trish Hill and Dr Melissa Wong. This report should be referenced (or cited) as follows: Davidson, P., Bradbury, B., Hill, T., and Wong, M. (2020), Poverty in Australia 2020: Part 2, Who is affected? ACOSS/UNSW Poverty and Inequality Partnership Report No. 4, Sydney: ACOSS. ACOSS and UNSW Sydney would like to thank those individuals who generously shared their stories for this report. HART LINE AND RAETTVISA All photos © Austockphotos (except those on p.7) SUB-FUNDS OF All photos are representative only, except for those of Dr Cassandra Goldie and Professor Carla Treloar.
    [Show full text]
  • Finding Ways to Improve Australia's Food Security Situation
    Agriculture 2015, 5, 286-312; doi:10.3390/agriculture5020286 OPEN ACCESS agriculture ISSN 2077-0472 www.mdpi.com/journal/agriculture Discussion Finding Ways to Improve Australia’s Food Security Situation Quentin Farmar-Bowers 17 The Grange, East Malvern, Victoria 3145, Australia; E-Mail: [email protected]; Tel.:+61-432-717-084 Academic Editor: Stephen J. Herbert Received: 27 February 2015 / Accepted: 27 April 2015 / Published: 27 May 2015 Abstract: Although Australia exports more than half of its agricultural production, there are food security problems as the current food supply systems in Australia fail to deliver healthy diets to all Australians and fail to protect the natural resources on which they depend. In addition, the food systems create “collateral damage” to the natural environment including biodiversity loss. In coming decades, Australia’s food supply systems will be increasingly challenged by resource price inflation and falling yields due to climate change. Government and business are aiming to increase production and agricultural exports. This will increase pressure on agricultural resources and exacerbate “collateral” damage to the environment. The Australian public has an ongoing interest in issues associated with the food systems including the environment, education, health and sustainability. A health-giving diet is essential for a full life and over a life-time people need food security. Currently economy development and social planning is undertaken through the pragmatic application of a set of ideas, such as relying on markets and deregulation, collectively referred to as neoliberalism. This paper contends that the neoliberal approach is not solving the current and developing problems in food security and agriculture more generally and suggests that more emphasis should be given to alternatives approaches.
    [Show full text]
  • COST of LIVING INDICATORS for TASMANIA: Final Report
    COST OF LIVING INDICATORS FOR TASMANIA: Final Report JUNE 2011 PREPARED BY Yogi Vidyattama, Matthew Taylor and Robert Tanton, PREPARED FOR Tasmanian Department of Premier and Cabinet COST OF LIVING INDICATORS FOR TASMANIA: Final Report ABOUT NATSEM The National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling was established on 1 January 1993, and supports its activities through research grants, commissioned research and longer term contracts for model maintenance and development. NATSEM aims to be a key contributor to social and economic policy debate and analysis by developing models of the highest quality, undertaking independent and impartial research, and supplying valued consultancy services. Policy changes often have to be made without sufficient information about either the current environment or the consequences of change. NATSEM specialises in analysing data and producing models so that decision makers have the best possible quantitative information on which to base their decisions. NATSEM has an international reputation as a centre of excellence for analysing microdata and constructing microsimulation models. Such data and models commence with the records of real (but unidentifiable) Australians. Analysis typically begins by looking at either the characteristics or the impact of a policy change on an individual household, building up to the bigger picture by looking at many individual cases through the use of large datasets. It must be emphasised that NATSEM does not have views on policy. All opinions are the authors’ own and are not necessarily shared by NATSEM. © NATSEM, University of Canberra 2011 All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior permission in writing of the publisher.
    [Show full text]
  • Poverty in Rural & Remote Australia
    FACT SHEET - NOVEMBER 2017 POVERTY IN RURAL & REMOTE AUSTRALIA ...good health and wellbeing in rural and remote Australia Poverty and deprivation are among the adverse social and economic determinants of health experienced by people who live in rural and remote areas. In Australia today, all the population groups at higher risk of poverty are present in greater proportion in rural and remote parts of the country. People living in rural and remote Australia have lower incomes and net household worth in comparison to those living in metropolitan areas. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, of whom around 65 per cent live outside the major cities, are disproportionately affected by poverty. Defining and measuring poverty Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, of whom around 65 per cent live outside the major cities, are Poverty is a relative concept. The word is used to describe disproportionately affected by poverty. Median real the situation where people in a particular society cannot equivalised gross weekly household income for Indigenous afford the essentials that most people in that society take people was $465 in 2012-13, compared with $869 for for granted. While many Australians juggle the payment of non-Indigenous people.5 bills, people categorised as living in poverty regularly have to make difficult choices – such as skipping a meal to pay for Table 1. Mean income and wealth in Australia (2015-16) a child’s textbook. In Australia and elsewhere, poverty is measured using In capital Outside of Percentage ‘poverty lines’, which specify a particular income judged to cities capital cities difference be the minimum for family groups of particular sizes to have Disposable household $1,072 $880 18% command over a basket of necessary goods and services.
    [Show full text]
  • Poverty in Australia
    FAST FACTS Poverty in Australia What is the poverty line in Australia? In Australia, the poverty line is generally defined as 50% of median household income. This was $457 a week for a single adult, $731 for a sole parent with two children or $960 for a couple More than with two children in 2017-18.1 How many people are living in poverty in Australia? The ACOSS/UNSW Poverty in Australia 20202 report found: • In Australia, there are more than 3.24 million people or 13.6%of Australians are living 13.6% of the population living below the poverty line. That below the poverty line includes 774,000 children or more than 1 in 6. • Many of those affected are living in deep poverty – on average $282 a week below the poverty line. ANU researchers have estimated that the temporary payments introduced in response to the COVID-19 pandemic are estimated to have reduced the number of people in poverty by 13% to 2.6 million. However by December 2020, the reductions in income supports announced in July will increase poverty by one third to 3.5 million.3 What has happened to poverty rates over the last 30 years? Research by the Productivity Commission has found that despite 27 years of uninterrupted economic growth, the proportion of Australians living on very low incomes (9-10%) has not changed. “It has varied a bit throughout that period but today, for 2 million or so people, we are where we were thirty years ago. It is not the same 2 million, as the mobility data shows.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of Globalisation on Poverty in Australia
    GLOBALISATION AND POVERTY IN AUSTRALIA Paper for conference: Towards Opportunity and prosperity University of Melbourne, April 2002 Peter Davidson Senior Policy Officer Australian Council of Social Service My comments on the impact of globalisation on poverty are confined to its impact on poverty in rich countries such as Australia. I make the following points: Wide variations in child poverty among rich countries suggest that national policies may have a greater bearing on poverty in these countries than the forces of international competition alone. Globalisation may, however, have a significant effect on national poverty levels via the medium of Government and corporate policies to "improve competitiveness". Two examples are cited: the effect of international tax competition (especially downward pressure on personal and corporate income tax rates) on public revenues, and the effect of rapid structural adjustment and high labour turnover on joblessness within families. I conclude that: It is not globalisation itself, but how we respond to it that will effect poverty levels in Australia in the long run. A significant cause of Australia's relatively high child poverty levels is systemic weaknesses in those institutions that help absorb the risks associated with economic openness, such as the social security system and employment assistance for jobless people. Others are better placed to comment on the effects of globalisation on developing countries. It is worth noting, however, that a recent World Bank study on this subject has attracted criticism for drawing general conclusions about the benefits of globalisation from strongly positive impacts in a few countries, especially China and India.1 The effects of increasing economic integration are very uneven.
    [Show full text]
  • Measuring Individual Poverty: Correlates and Variation Over Time
    Report 3 series Melbourne Institute research into understanding and overcoming disadvantage Measuring Individual Poverty: Correlates and Variation Over Time Authors Dr Maxim Ananyev, Professor A. Abigail Payne & Dr Rajeev Samarage Published December 2020 Supported by Measuring Individual Poverty 03 Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Executive Summary 05 6. Role of the Community 50 We would like to thank Alasdair Cannon for the early stages of data preparation. We thank staff at the Paul Ramsay Foundation for their comments and suggestions on the early drafts, namely Alex Fischer 1. Introduction 08 7. Concluding Remarks 58 and Junho Hyun-Sack. We thank Talei Parker and the ABS Microdata Team for their help in working with the ABS Census data. All errors and omissions are the responsibility of the authors of this report. 2. Defining Poverty and Data Development 12 References 62 2.1 Australian Census Longitudinal Data 14 Melbourne Institute: Applied Economic & Social Research 2.2 Defining Poverty 15 Faculty of Business and Economics About the Authors 64 Level 5, 111 Barry Street 2.3 Samples Used for Analysis 17 FBE Building The University of Melbourne Victoria 3010 Australia Appendix 1: Sample Restrictions 65 Tel: +61 3 8344 2100 3. Poverty and Socio-Demographic Fax: +61 3 8344 2111 Correlates by Census Year 20 Web: melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/research/reports/breaking- 3.1 Poverty Rates Based on Age 22 Appendix 2: Poverty Rates and down-barriers 3.2 Poverty Rates Based on Socio-Demographic Status 68 © The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute: Educational Attainment 25 Applied Economic & Social Research, 2020 3.3 Poverty Rates Based on Appendix 3: Classification of Family Types 71 ISBN 978 0 7340 5617 7 Employment Status 28 3.4 Poverty Rates by Place of Birth and Suggested citation: Maxim Ananyev, A.
    [Show full text]
  • Deep and Persistent Disadvantage in Australia (2013)
    Deep and Persistent Productivity Commission Disadvantage in Australia Staff Working Paper July 2013 Rosalie McLachlan Geoff Gilfillan Jenny Gordon The views expressed in this paper are those of the staff involved and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Productivity Commission. Commonwealth of Australia 2013 ISBN 978-1-74037-445-3 This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, the work may be reproduced in whole or in part for study or training purposes, subject to the inclusion of an acknowledgment of the source. Reproduction for commercial use or sale requires prior written permission from the Productivity Commission. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to Media and Publications (see below). This publication is available from the Productivity Commission website at www.pc.gov.au. If you require part or all of this publication in a different format, please contact Media and Publications. Publications enquiries: Media and Publications Productivity Commission Locked Bag 2 Collins Street East Melbourne VIC 8003 Tel: (03) 9653 2244 Fax: (03) 9653 2303 Email: [email protected] General enquiries: Tel: (03) 9653 2100 or (02) 6240 3200 An appropriate citation for this paper is: McLachlan, R., Gilfillan, G. and Gordon, J. 2013, Deep and Persistent Disadvantage in Australia, rev., Productivity Commission Staff Working Paper, Canberra. The Productivity Commission The Productivity Commission is the Australian Government’s independent research and advisory body on a range of economic, social and environmental issues affecting the welfare of Australians. Its role, expressed most simply, is to help governments make better policies, in the long term interest of the Australian community.
    [Show full text]
  • 1.6 Persistent Disadvantage in Australia
    Australia’s welfare 2017 1.6 Persistent disadvantage 2017 in Australia: extent, complexity and some key implications Alan Hayes and Andrew Hacker, Family Action Centre, University of Newcastle Australia’s welfare welfare Australia’s Why does disadvantage persist for some but not others? And, what might be done about it? This article describes the extent of persistent disadvantage in Australia, examines a range of complex contributing factors, and discusses some key implications for dealing with persistent disadvantage. Extent of persistent disadvantage in Australia Australia has had a longstanding focus on disadvantage. This focus gained momentum with Henderson’s work on measuring poverty—a distinct but related concept (Commission of Inquiry into Poverty & Henderson 1975; Johnson 1996). Disadvantage is complex, with no universally preferred definition or approach to measurement. Rather, there is a range of approaches to conceptualising it, and various measures can often be complementary (McLachlan et al. 2013). A detailed discussion of each approach is beyond the scope of this article; however, describing some well-established examples may show the difficulties in measuring persistent disadvantage (for more detailed discussions on the different concepts and measures, see McLachlan et al. 2013; Saunders 2011). Absolute and relative poverty measures One common proxy measure for disadvantage is poverty of income, measured in absolute or relative terms (McLachlan et al. 2013). Absolute poverty is commonly defined as not having enough income to cover the cost of a given basket of goods that provides an agreed minimal level of decency (in this sense, the measure is not completely absolute as it is relative to changing views of decency).
    [Show full text]
  • Opportunity Lost: Half a Million Australians in Poverty Without
    Opportunity lost Half a million Australians in poverty without the coronavirus supplement Discussion paper Matt Grudnoff March 2021 ABOUT THE AUSTRALIA INSTITUTE The Australia Institute is an independent public policy think tank based in Canberra. It is funded by donations from philanthropic trusts and individuals and commissioned research. We barrack for ideas, not political parties or candidates. Since its launch in 1994, the Institute has carried out highly influential research on a broad range of economic, social and environmental issues. OUR PHILOSOPHY As we begin the 21st century, new dilemmas confront our society and our planet. Unprecedented levels of consumption co-exist with extreme poverty. Through new technology we are more connected than we have ever been, yet civic engagement is declining. Environmental neglect continues despite heightened ecological awareness. A better balance is urgently needed. The Australia Institute’s directors, staff and supporters represent a broad range of views and priorities. What unites us is a belief that through a combination of research and creativity we can promote new solutions and ways of thinking. OUR PURPOSE – ‘RESEARCH THAT MATTERS’ The Institute publishes research that contributes to a more just, sustainable and peaceful society. Our goal is to gather, interpret and communicate evidence in order to both diagnose the problems we face and propose new solutions to tackle them. The Institute is wholly independent and not affiliated with any other organisation. Donations to its Research Fund are tax deductible for the donor. Anyone wishing to donate can do so via the website at https://www.australiainstitute.org.au or by calling the Institute on 02 6130 0530.
    [Show full text]