Why is poverty not a priority for Australia’s major political parties?
In the first week of the 2022 federal election campaign, the Australian Labor Party announced it would not review the rate of the JobSeeker payment – formerly called Newstart – for the unemployed, and was unlikely to raise the rate during a first term in government.
A number of media commentators slammed Labor for allegedly breaking earlier promises to review or increase the rate, but few censured the ruling Liberal-National Party government for also refusing to pledge an increase.
An easy way to alleviate poverty in Australia is to lift the JobSeeker payment. Given that over 3/4 of a MILLION Australian children live in poverty, @AustralianLabor's position is extremely disappointing. #auspol #poverty https://t.co/tTr95SzV01
— Sam (@SamMPigram) April 13, 2022
With some exceptions, there was little critical analysis of the documented connection between the low rate of JobSeeker and the high figures for poverty (including particularly child poverty) in Australia.
The concept that governments should take responsibility for actively preventing poverty and disadvantage in Australia was given relatively limited consideration.
It wasn’t always this way
In contrast to the current disinterest of the major Australian parties, earlier Australian governments identified the reduction of poverty as a major political priority.
Following a longstanding campaign by the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS), a number of churches, and the Labor Party opposition, the then Liberal-National Party Coalition prime minister William McMahon established a Commission of Inquiry into Poverty in August 1972.
The inquiry, which was headed by Professor Ronald Henderson, conducted detailed consultations with broad sections of the Australian community.
The First Main Report, released in September 1975, found that 10.2% of Australians were very poor, and 7.7% were rather poor.
The commission presented multiple recommendations to eliminate poverty, including increases in social security payments, an extension of the minimum wage, and – most contentiously – a guaranteed minimum income scheme.
Most of these proposals were never implemented, but nevertheless the Henderson poverty line remains the most accepted measure for adjudging poverty rates today.
More than a decade after the report, ALP prime minister Bob Hawke, in his campaign speech at the Opera House, promised that:
“By 1990, no Australian child will be living in poverty.”
His commitment was motivated by a concern that one in five Australian children were estimated to be living in poor households, and resulted in substantial reform measures, including large increases in support payments for low-income families.
It was generally agreed that these initiatives significantly enhanced outcomes for this cohort, and reduced levels of child poverty.
A further decade later, a Senate committee headed by the Opposition Labor Party conducted a major inquiry into poverty, which was estimated to afflict 2-3.5 million Australians.
The inquiry recommended a suite of reforms to fight growing poverty and inequality, including a national jobs strategy, strengthened minimum wage, and establishment of a national poverty strategy.
However, the ruling Coalition government rejected the inquiry findings, arguing that poverty had a wide range of causes, including poor education, family breakdown, substance use, gambling, smoking, and illiteracy.
It concluded that “the problems of those affected by poverty” could not be “solved by simply throwing more money at them”.
The Coalition perspective reflected the increasingly prevalent view in mainstream political and media debates that poverty was mostly the result of flawed individual choices and behaviour, rather than broader structural or systemic inequalities.
Keeping poverty on the public policy agenda
Indeed, the neoliberal preference for placing the responsibility for resolving disadvantage on those living in poverty rather than society more generally underpinned the 2019 House of Representatives inquiry led by a Coalition-dominated committee into what was termed “intergenerational welfare dependence”.
That term frames poverty as a form of psychological illness or addiction, rather than the result of inequitable social and economic structures.
To be sure, the final inquiry report mostly used the alternative term “entrenched disadvantage” due to a concern voiced by many welfare advocates that “dependence carries an implication of individual fault”.
Nevertheless, ACOSS and other welfare advocates such as the Anti-Poverty Week coalition have continued to place poverty on the public policy agenda.
ACOSS argues that governments should be taking more active measures to relieve and prevent poverty, including prioritising a raise in the JobSeeker rate above the accepted poverty line (that is, from the current $46 a day to $70 a day).
There are 1.5 million people living in poverty in Australia. @ScottMorrisonMP & @AlboMP please tell us will you raise the rate for good to at least $70/day as $46/day income support is not enough to cover basics as @ACOSS has repeatedly shown. https://t.co/SxoG2FcROP
— Dr Diann Rodgers-Healey (@ACLWDiannRH) April 26, 2022
A recent joint report by ACOSS and the University of NSW examined current poverty statistics. They emphasised that the Coronavirus Supplement introduced by the government in March 2020 significantly reduced the level of poverty – from 11.8% (or 3,018,000) in 2019 to 9.9% (or 2,613,000) in June 2020.
However, conversely, the reduction of that supplement in January 2021 provoked an increase to 14%, or 3,820,000, Australians living in poverty. It was also likely that the final removal of that supplement in April 2021 (despite the legislated $25 a week increase in the JobSeeker Allowance) produced a further increase in poverty.
Additionally, Australian National University research, jointly funded by Social Ventures Australia and the Brotherhood of St Laurence, specifically examined rates for childhood poverty.
The study reported that child poverty within single-parent families reliant on JobSeeker decreased markedly as a result of the Coronavirus Supplement, from 39% to 17% respectively. However, it estimated that the new JobSeeker rates introduced in April 2021 would increase that figure to 41%, and rise even higher for those with children under five years of age.
Poverty and the political divide
Yet, as noted earlier, these equity concerns have had limited impact on the major political parties. The Coalition’s election document makes no reference at all to poverty in its cost-of-living statement.
Elsewhere, the current Minister for Social Services, Senator Anne Ruston, argued that there was no need for an official measure of poverty, or for governments to consider the adequacy of existing social security payment rates in relieving poverty.
The Labor Party identifies a general concern to prevent poverty in its 2021 social security policy statement. However, it makes no specific commitment to increase the rate for JobSeeker or any other payment.
In contrast, the Greens highlighted the reduction of poverty as a key election promise. They released a statement urging the introduction of a liveable income guarantee in order to ensure all Australians live above the poverty line.
These political differences were also evident during the most recent (October 2021) federal parliamentary debate regarding Anti-Poverty Week.
The Greens Senator Janet Rice argued that the high rates of poverty in Australia were “appalling”, and reflected a “political choice” made by the government. She presented a motion demanding that the government raise social security payments above the poverty line. Her Greens colleague, Senator Dorinda Cox, expressed similar sentiments.
The Labor spokesperson, Senator Karen Grogan, argued in favour of greater support for those living below the poverty line, but recommended greater training and employment opportunities rather than higher social security payments.
The Minister, Senator Ruston, emphasised that the government’s priority was enabling the unemployed to move from welfare to work. She refused to endorse any increase in the JobSeeker rate.
Her colleague Senator Hollie Hughes added simply that:
“... the best form of welfare is a job.”
These statements suggest the current government regards poverty as an issue of relatively minor importance. Yet as noted, research studies report that high numbers of Australians, including many families with young children, continue to live well below the poverty line.
Despite the relative indifference of the major parties, welfare advocacy groups and minor political parties such as the Greens are committed to ensuring poverty stays on the policy agenda.
Irrespective of which party is successful in the election, it’s likely that the new government will be confronted with renewed public campaigns to raise the rates of social security payments as a key anti-poverty strategy.
