Poverty in Australia: We've never been richer, so why hasn't the poverty rate budged?

ABC News
October 29 2016


Australia has made no progress in the fight against poverty over a decade, in fact, the percentage of Australians living in poverty actually increased according to a recently released report.   

In 2003-04, 11.8 per cent of Australians lived in poverty, according to statistics cited by the Social Policy Research Centre. By 2014, that number had crept up to 12.6 per cent.

Despite a run of 25 years of uninterrupted economic growth — almost unmatched in the Western world — the poverty rate has not budged.

"It's everywhere really. And it's getting worse," says Maria Dowling, a volunteer with the St Vincent de Paul Society in Melbourne.   

She and her husband John are part of the Home Visitation program, which provides food and assistance for low income households.

"Their need is just so great," Ms Dowling says.

"That gap is just huge out there."

Peter Ryan, who lives with his four children in public housing in Melbourne, is thankful for the "Vinnies" visits.

"It doesn't seem like a lot to a lot of people. But when you're on the pension, it actually all adds up," he says.

"You find in the next week, you haven't got money for food. And if you haven't got money for food, the kids are hungry, and they yell at dad."


The 61-year-old stopped working years ago after suffering shoulder and hip injuries.

Most of his pension goes to pay his rent; the family has about $520 a fortnight for all expenses aside from utilities.

    "Truthfully, it's bloody hard. I think it's actually got harder," he says.   

There are about 320,000 public housing dwellings in Australia.

Many of the residents are feeling the effects of one of the most often identified causes of poverty: the reduction of social welfare payments, such as Newstart, the parenting payment, and the Disability Support Pension.
Eight-year wait to get into public housing for one family

Vanessa Carpani is what statisticians refer to as a "lone parent", caring for her two children Jade Gangi, 10, and Jene Gangi, 17.
Below the poverty line:

    Vanessa Carpani receives $414 in welfare payments a week
    Her subsidised public housing rent is $114 a week
    That leaves her with $300 for income for food, utilities and all other expenses
    According the OECD the poverty level for a lone parent with two children is $548.74 per week
    She is $248.74 below the poverty line per week


Her only income is from partial payments from Newstart, and a parenting payment. She also lives in public housing.

"I couldn't afford private rental," she says.

"We waited eight years in transitional housing to get housed here."

Even with subsidised rent, and income from two social welfare payments, Ms Ryan's family has fallen far below the poverty line.   

For a lone parent with two children, OECD guidelines set the poverty line at $548.74 per week after housing costs.

After paying her rent, Ms Ryan is left with only about $300 per week. That's $248 per week below the poverty line.

Still, Ms Ryan says without public housing, her family's situation would be much worse.

"There are less fortunate people out there that are living on the streets still," she says.
Living standards improving for low income families: IPA

The recent report on poverty from the Social Policy Research Centre is not without its critics.

Some, like the free-market think tank the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), believe contrary to the report's central conclusion, that living standards are improving for Australia's poorest citizens.

"We've got to focus on: 'Are people's lives better than they were 10 years ago, 20 years ago?" says Simon Breheny, director of policy for the IPA.

"Things like fridges, microwaves, cars, televisions, X-boxes, all of these things are available to people who are on even the lowest incomes in our community. That's a terrific thing."

Mr Breheny argues because the poverty rate is based on taking 50 per cent of the median income, as that income rises, so do the relative living standards of people living above and below the poverty line.

Zowie Mactavish lives just below the poverty line with her daughter Tiffany van Klaveren, aged 15.
Zowie Mactavish lives just below poverty line
Photo: Public housing has been vital for Zowie Mactavish (left) and her family. (ABC News: Norman Hermant)

She does not know where they would be if they were not in public housing.

"If we hadn't been offered this property, we were about to be out on street," she says.

Ms Mactavish has income from three sources: partial payments from the Family Tax Benefit and Newstart, and some part-time work. Still, after housing costs, her $465 weekly income is just below the poverty line — $514. 44 per week.

Public housing has been a vital backstop for her family. But governments across Australia have failed provide enough to meet demand.   

There are more than 150,00 applicants on waiting lists for public housing across the country.

"Without public housing it'd just be crazy, chaos," Ms Mactavish says.

You can't fight poverty with 1990s-level welfare payment rates.

Especially by trying to drag them back to 1980s-levels.

And you can't force people into jobs which don't exist.

Kat wrote on Oct 29^th, 2016 at 8:19am:

Firstly, it's not "welfare", it's "social security". Calling it "welfare" is the discredited right-wing mentality of the deserving poor.

The problem isn't social security payment rates. It's a lack of jobs that forces people into involuntary unemployment. And make no mistake - most unemployment is involuntary. We need to cut unemployment by more than 90% to get the unemployment rate below 1% and then keep it there. When we do that there would be a lot less poverty.

BigOl64 wrote on Oct 29^th, 2016 at 8:24am:


That's bullshit.

People are unemployed because other people are not willing to offer them jobs and brainless unemployable slobs like you keep poisoning the well. The sooner you learn that the better.

Bam wrote on Oct 29^th, 2016 at 8:30am:

offer them jobs

Offer forf/s  go out AND FIND ONE   

FRED. wrote on Oct 29^th, 2016 at 8:37am:


Should they take a number and wait or just push to the front of the line for a two hour a week checkout job?

Rain Man Hockey might have been able to carry it off :-

"800,000 jobs... no wait... uh-huh... 120,000 jobs divided by 800,000 unemployed.. yeah.. uh-huh.. that's ten jobs per applicant... wait, wait... ahhhh..ahhhhh ...get my underpants at Wal-Mart... eight fish fingers means one two-handed fish..so eight people out of work fit into one/eighth of a job each.... and one fish each....teach a man to fish and he catches cold... poor people don't use colds....."

Bam wrote on Oct 29^th, 2016 at 8:30am:



Yeah, I have a job mostly to do with the fact that I am employable and have been for a very long time.


You could throw jobs and money at the poor and in a short while they will be back exactly where they started; it is who they are, and will always be.


Why do you think that 4% unemployment is considered as 'full' employment?

That 4% ain't going nowhere and never will, and not because I have single-handedly willed it. 

Bam wrote on Oct 29^th, 2016 at 8:26am:


Totally agree, and generally use the correct terminology elsewhere in a bid to educate and inform.

But I didn't want to confuse this mob too much with technicalities.

And yes - more jobs are the real answer.