Chapter 4Child poverty
Poverty has an all-encompassing negative effect on children. It undermines every aspect of a child’s life and development, including the sense of stability, safety and routine that is vital for children to thrive. Poverty robs children of their childhood.
4.1This chapter outlines the rates of child poverty in Australia, and details the confronting and wide-ranging impacts that poverty has on Australian children and young people. It highlights the hardships and deprivations that children in poverty face across all facets of their life including on their health, development, relationships, education, social participation and other opportunities.
4.2It also explores some of the drivers of child poverty and how it impacts on intergenerational disadvantage and contributes to the cycle of poverty.
4.3This chapter also considers the solutions proposed by inquiry participants about how best to address the impacts of poverty on Australian children and young people and concludes with the committee’s view.
What is child poverty?
4.4Save the Children and 54 Reasons, a global organisation focused on children’s rights, explained what child poverty means:
Children can be said to be living in poverty when they do not have enough to meet their fundamental needs for a standard of living that every child in Australia should expect. This extends well beyond basic material needs such as food and shelter and includes the broader wellbeing, development, participation, connection and inclusion needs that are integral to children’s life opportunities and outcomes.
4.5The Children’s Policy Centre at the Australian National University which undertakes rights-based and inter-disciplinary research with children on a range of children’s policy issues, outlined that child poverty impacts on children’s future outcomes, has broad social implications, and damages and sometimes destroys children’s childhoods.
4.6The Children’s Policy Centre also explained that poverty shuts down opportunities for play, participation, education and learning, and development for children, and that it puts relationships – particularly within families – under enormous and unreasonable pressure. Overall, it noted that child poverty creates deeply unequal experiences that impact every aspect of children’s lives.
4.7In the context of child poverty, several submitters highlighted the importance of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The United Nations Association Australia (Western Australia Division) explained the convention and its functions:
The UN Convention on the Right of the Child protects children’s right to a safe life and sets out their economic, health, educational, social and political rights. Australia as a party to this treaty is obliged to protect children from poverty as it denies them of those rights.
4.8The Child Poverty Centre submitted that ‘child poverty is a fundamental breach of children’s human rights’ and Save the Children and 54 Reasons provided a quote from Yanghee Lee, former chairperson of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, which outlines the inextricable link between poverty and child rights:
Child poverty must be understood as the denial of the range of rights laid out in the CRC [Convention on the Rights of the Child] … Almost all of the articles in the CRC, either directly or indirectly, address the issue of poverty.
4.9The South Australian Commissioner for Children and Young People highlighted that children and young people ‘firmly believe that poverty is not an inevitability’, and that they want decision makers to listen and act upon the voices of people with lived experience of poverty, including children and young people, to achieve the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal to ‘end poverty in all its forms’.
Rates of child poverty in Australia
4.10The Commissioner for Children and Young People Western Australia noted that there is no national approach to reporting on child poverty and that data is varied and contested.
4.11In terms of poverty rates amongst youth, the Melbourne Institute highlighted that ‘measuring the experience of poverty for young people is not straightforward.’ It explained that when measuring poverty in this group, many rely on parental income data. However, it also wrote that student poverty rates are unreliable using this method because most data does not allow for observation of parental income for students who do not live with their families.
4.12Despite the absence of an official measure of child poverty, many inquiry participants referenced figures from the Poverty and Inequality Partnership between the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) and the University of New South Wales (UNSW) (the ACOSS & UNSW Partnership) when discussing child poverty.
4.13According to the ACOSS & UNSW Partnership, latest data from the ABS Survey of Income and Housing, indicates that in 2019–20, one in six children (16.6percent) in Australia lived below the poverty line after taking account of their housing costs, equating to 761 000 Australian children.
4.14For context, and as flagged earlier in Chapter 1, a total of one in eight people (13.4percent) in Australia lived below the poverty line after taking into account of housing costs, equating to over threemillion (3 319 000) Australians living in poverty.
4.15In absence of an official measure of child poverty, some other submitters referred to different rates and measures. For example:
The Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) submitted that data from its longitudinal study suggests that one in 10 children aged zero to 12 years live in relative poverty.
The Committee for Economic Development of Australia submitted that 17.7 per cent of children under the age of 15 are living in poverty.
4.16The Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA) flagged that if current trends in child poverty are repeated for children expected to be born over the next decade, a further 280 000 to 550 000 young Australians will encounter child poverty in the future. However, CEDA pointed out that ‘this outcome is not inevitable’ and that ‘we can and should choose to fundamentally change the way we support people in disadvantage’ and that we must act earlier to prevent it being entrenched across generations.
4.17Mr Tony Pietropiccolo AM, Director of Centrecare emphasised that it should be remembered that a child sits behind every one of these statistics:
Behind every one of those statistics is a child, each with their own hopes and dreams, their favourite TV show and their favourite ice cream. They have their best friends, and they love to play their favourite sport or dance to their favourite song. Each child wants to feel safe, loved and accepted.
The impact of poverty on Australian children and young people
4.18Several inquiry participants described the wide-raging impacts that poverty can have across every aspect of a child’s life.
4.19Amongst other submitters, Save the Children and 54 Reasons highlighted that children have distinct experiences of poverty that are different to those of adults. It also submitted that any meaningful attempt to address child poverty, must be strongly informed by children’s direct perspectives and experiences.
4.20The Australian Human Rights Commission similarly expressed that whilst many impacts of poverty on children mirror those of adults, children also have unique experiences of poverty that ‘need to be understood by policymakers so that their basic needs can be met’.
4.21Save the Children and 54 Reasons emphasised children’s direct perspectives regarding their experiences of poverty:
From children we work with at 54 reasons, we hear words like “embarrassed”, “ashamed”, “isolated”, “alone”, “anxious” and “stressed” when describing their experiences of poverty and its effects, and phrases like “I can’t go to school when I don’t have what I need”.
4.22Ben, a 12-year-old who provided a submission to the inquiry, told the committee that ‘those that already have enough get more, those who don’t have enough don’t get enough to survive’. He added:
… there is nothing fair about this, but it is the way this country works.
Our economy is fueled [sic] by exploitation of the poorest people for the benefit of those who are already doing really well.
4.23Ben also described his desire to get a good education, but how the cost of education, and his need to earn an income, may impede his ability to reach his educational goals and broader potential:
Education is my ticket out of poverty, but I cant [sic] afford the fare. Education and particularly high school and tertiary education can help me get a better, higher paying job where I can meet my potential.
… In NSW after I turn 15 and once I finish year 10, I can work full time. Before these conditions are met, I may be able to work part time with certain restrictions, I [will] be commensing [sic] full time work as soon as I am legally able to. This is out of necessity to survive, it will [disrupt] and possibly permenantly [sic] derail my education, as the immediate need for basic necessities is more important than long term goals.
4.24Some other direct reflections of children’s experiences of poverty received by the committee are provided below.
Source: South Australian Commissioner for Children and Young People, Submission 109, p. 8.
Source: South Australian Commissioner for Children and Young People, Submission 109, p. 3.
Figure 4.3Reflection three
Source: South Australian Commissioner for Children and Young People, Submission 109, p. 8.
Figure 4.4Reflection four
Source: South Australian Commissioner for Children and Young People, Submission 109, p. 3.
Figure 4.5Reflection five
Source: Children’s Policy Centre, Submission 38, p. 11.
Source: Children’s Policy Centre, Submission 38, p. 12.
Figure 4.7Reflection seven
Source: Children’s Policy Centre, Submission 38, p. 12.
Child poverty is multi-dimensional
4.25The Children’s Policy Centre at the Australian National University which conducts research with children in middle childhood and adolescence to understand their experiences of poverty, explained that it has developed a three‑dimensional framework to understand how poverty impacts on children’s lives. These dimensions include material basics, opportunities and relationships.
4.26The Children’s Policy Centre further defined the framework as follows:
Material Deprivation:
Insufficient money and material resources to meet basic needs.
Inadequate and inaccessible essential infrastructure.
Opportunity Deprivation:
Inadequate and inaccessible child-friendly, quality services.
The absence of meaningful activities that contribute to participation and ongoing development.
Relational Deprivation:
Severe pressure on relationships as a result of poverty.
Social and economic structures and systems that fail to support strong and supportive relationships for children.
4.27Several other submitters also referred to this framework in their evidence to the committee and it is used below to outline the vast and confronting impacts of poverty on Australian children as highlighted by inquiry participants.
Material deprivation
4.28The Children’s Policy Centre noted that the material deprivation dimension of poverty plays out in children’s lives in a multitude of ways. It outlined that children have described the effects of poverty in terms of insufficient medicines, being cold due to inadequate clothing, not having electricity, not having pillows or blankets, being hungry, or not having a permanent or secure place to live.
4.29Save the Children and 54 Reasons explained that material deprivation is grounded in income poverty and is a core element of the experience of child poverty. It stated that when children are unable to access the material basics such as food, shelter, clothing and transport, their most fundamental needs are undermined, including safety, health and even survival.
4.30The South Australian Commissioner for Children and Young People explained how material deprivation can affect children’s learning and broader experiences at school:
Not having clothes, toys, digital devices or access to the internet or period products, sets [children] apart from their peers and are significant barriers to their participation at school, in social outings and extracurricular activities.
4.31The Children’s Policy Centre also detailed how material deprivation, including hunger and food insecurity, can play out for children at school:
Children have told us of the shame of having no food at school or having very little in their lunch box. Children have explained their strategies for dealing with the absence of school lunch. Some children have friends who share food with them; others ensure they are alone at lunchtime and recess so other children won’t know they have nothing; some children skip school when there is no lunch to take.
4.32It also explained that housing insecurity and homelessness creates stress in children’s lives, including fear of becoming homeless and fear of having to move. When housing insecurity results in multiple house moves, the sense of safety and connectedness that is essential for children’s wellbeing is undermined and ‘sometimes shattered’.
4.33The Children’s Policy Centre also told the committee that children with experiences of homelessness have described deep feelings of shame, fear, and insecurity and that homelessness leaves children feeling disconnected and sends the message that society does not care about them.
Opportunity deprivation
4.34The South Australian Commissioner for Children and Young People provided the following quotes from young people which highlight how poverty can impact young people’s opportunities and aspirations:
Living in poverty can make a young person give up because they don’t think they belong. – 14 year old.
… Not having enough money can prevent you from participating in the things you want to do outside of school. – 15 year old.
4.35The Children’s Policy Centre submitted that poverty impacts directly on children’s opportunities, including on their educational experiences and outcomes, on their health and ability to access healthcare, and opportunities to participate in society, both now and into the future.
4.36The Children’s Policy Centre explained that in its research, children have described exclusion from a range of activities that they would like to participate in, and that they understand that asking to engage in activities they are interested is not always not possible. It highlighted one particular example, and noted this strategy was also used by other children to various extents:
This girl said that she tried never to ask for anything, including permission to go on school excursions, to play sport or to engage in other activities, to participate in holiday activities. All of these things cost money that she knew her mother did not have – and so … she stayed [quiet].
4.37The Salvation Army also described how disadvantage can greatly limit children’s and young people’s opportunities and potential and how these impacts can flow on into adulthood:
Disadvantage reduces the opportunities for young people to realise their full potential as individuals and participate in the broader community. We know that growing up in poverty can limit children’s chances of thriving at school, which in turn affects their ability to reach their full potential and limits their overall life outcomes, continuing the cycle of disadvantage. Young people who do not complete their education, enter the labour market, or receive support to recover from past trauma, can suffer long-term psychological, social, and economic harm. Appropriate intervention is critical to avoid these long-term harms. They have a greater likelihood of continuing to live on low incomes into adulthood and suffer poor mental health. This is also how intergenerational disadvantage can manifest.
4.38Mr Tony Pietropiccolo AM, Director of Centrecare expressed similar sentiments about how poverty can limit children’s potential:
Due to poverty, many children have developed, and continue to develop, far from their full potential. As a result of child poverty, it is likely that we have foregone the benefits of many doctors, engineers, artists, leaders, inventors and individuals who could have solved climate change or cancer, and inspired generations of Australians if only they were given the opportunity to maximise their potential rather than being constrained by their experience of poverty.
4.39FamilyCare, a child and family service provider in the Goulburn Valley region of Victoria, summarised that poverty undermines children’s health, wellbeing and development, and that it robs children of these aspirations and their opportunity to enjoy childhood. It concluded with the following quote from a survey conducted by the Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare:
Children are the ones paying the price for the lack of access to quality food, participation in fun social and sporting activities. Their social skills and mental health is [sic] in decline from the lack of joy in their lives.
4.40Mr Shane Maddocks, Chief Executive Officer of Anglican Community Care Inc, further expanded on the challenges these experiences presented for full participation in schooling and education, highlighting:
In some of our communities, for example, in Mount Gambier, a quarter of our five-year-olds are arriving at school not ready to learn. That's significantly contributed by poverty. These are children who, because of the lottery of life, are born into poverty. We can't blame them. We can't blame them for not having a job or just because of the circumstance of where they're born. These children don't keep up, and then they don't catch up. Our school system is not designed to cope with a quarter of the children in every class who don't have the health or social support they need or the early parenting, first teachers for the first five years of their lives, and the school system is not able to catch them up.
Relational deprivation
4.41The Children’s Policy Centre explained that relationships are at the centre of children’s lives and are essential to feelings of safety, self-worth, connectedness and wellbeing.
4.42The Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare shared one quote which describes how children can take on the emotional stress of poverty, and how it can impact on a range of opportunities for social connection:
They are often dealing with insecure housing, and the family's inability to travel to visit extended family. They hide their hopes for gifts or a birthday party or to go on a camp or have a new pair of sandals/sneakers. This evidence of children taking on some of the emotional strain of poverty is distressing, as are reports of them being teased at school and excluded from social and sports activities.
4.43The Children’s Policy Centre explained how factors relating to poverty can negatively impact children’s relationship with their parents:
Many children have described the ways in which insufficient money, insecure jobs, welfare conditionality and fear of losing benefits, a lack of support, and untreated health issues put pressure on their parents, making them inattentive and grumpy. Children often describe understanding why their parents are angry or distracted, but also describe their own feelings of frustration.
4.44The Australian Human Rights Commission similarly described these impacts:
One of the main impacts that children describe in this research relate to the impact on relationships. Children spoke about how lack of employment and lack of income made their parents grumpy and sad. They explained how lack of income and efforts to earn money impacted on what they value most— connection and time with their parents.
4.45Further, the South Australian Commissioner for Children and Young People also reported that it has heard children and young people describing how the pressures of having no food, water, electricity or gas can lead to ‘less connection with their family’, due to parents being stressed or needing to work constantly. It also noted that these factors affect friendships, with children being too embarrassed to have friends over due to the state of their home.
4.46The South Australian Commissioner for Children and Young People also highlighted how ‘poverty stigma’ can impact young people’s relationships and affect how they are treated and perceived by people in the community:
Young people also describe the impact of ‘poverty stigma’ when people make assumptions about their family and poverty that make them feel judged, blamed or embarrassed. This extends to how they are treated by their friends’ parents, by teachers, coaches and other community members, including health professionals, police or others in the justice system.
4.47Barnardos Australia, a not-for-profit children's social care organisation, concerningly highlighted how poverty can be a direct causal factor of child abuse and neglect, which brings children to the attention of statutory child protection systems in Australia and increases risk of children being separated from their family and entering out-of-home care (OOHC). It expanded on how placement in OOHC can severely impact children’s relationships:
Children who are placed in OOHC for any period of time are consistently reported to have poorer functioning in socio-economic circumstances, family formation and relationships, and living arrangements in later life…
4.48The Children’s Policy Centre noted that in its research, it hears some children’s accounts of parental behaviour that is unacceptable and damaging to children, and it pointed out that poverty is not a justification for this behaviour. However, it also highlighted that throughout its research, most children talk about their parents’ love and care in contexts of deep hardship. The stories that it hears from children describe the ways in which poverty undermines relationships through ‘unbearably high levels of stress, anxiety, anger and frustration’. It concluded:
These are not stories of ‘bad parenting’, they are stories of unequal and unjust social and economic structures, of broken systems, and of punitive measures imposed on people experiencing economic hardship.
Impacts on adolescents and youth
4.49The committee also heard about the specific impacts of poverty experienced by adolescents and young people.
4.50The Department of Social Services (the department) defined ‘youth’ as people aged 15 to 24, a cohort of 2.3 million people (or 16 per cent of the labour force) that:
… tends to bear the brunt of economic downturns and experience higher levels of unemployment, as they are generally less experienced than older workers and are often marginally attached to the labour force.
4.51Mrs Lorilee Gale, Senior Policy Officer representing the Commissioner for Children and Young People, Western Australia, provided some direct reflections from young people about their experiences of financial hardship:
From a 13-year-old: “I have nothing else to say except that my family is low on money and I'm suffering from not eating or sleeping much. And I'm extremely stressed about schoolwork”.
From a 14-year-old: “Sometimes I get a little stressed when it comes to paying for class trips that are expensive because my mum is a single parent and she gets stressed with having to pay everything, and I feel bad for wanting to go”.
From a 15-year-old: “We need more places for teenagers to go. For example, there used to be a bowling alley when I was a little kid that isn't there anymore. It feels like there is nothing for us to do in town other than go to the beach and walk around shops, and that's especially hard when you don't have any money and can only look”.
4.52Many of these issues faced by young people were also described by other submitters. For example, the Melbourne Institute highlighted the critical experience of young peoples’ transition into adulthood, and how this can be impacted by poverty:
The transition at the end of high school is critical in shaping one’s future. Choices made will impact education and employment pathways, which can have long-lasting consequences. Young adults affected by poverty or other forms of disadvantage may be impeded in their ability to make optimal choices.
4.53The Youth Affairs Council of South Australia noted that young people in Australia today are experiencing ‘a vastly different economic situation to older generations’ and outlined how poverty can impact young people, particularly regarding education and employment opportunities:
Poverty effects young people’s ability to look for work as they struggle to cover costs of transport, clothing, and training. Poverty can also affect young people’s transition from education or training to employment, putting young people at greater risk of social and economic exclusion.
4.54The Youth Affairs Council of South Australia also described how poverty can impact young peoples’ mental, social and physical wellbeing:
Living in poverty has significant impacts by increasing the risk of depression, experiences of psychological distress, and most concerningly increasing risks of self-harm and suicide, with cost of living pressures recently reported to be the highest risk factor for suicide.
… Poverty forces young people into social exclusion which contributes to low wellbeing, high levels of stress, and experiences of other mental health-related issues like depression and anxiety.
… Young people in Australia are living without essential items and have reported delaying medical treatment, discontinuing required medications, and avoiding optometric and dental healthcare due to the cost.
4.55Orygen informed the committee that the association between poverty and mental ill-health may disproportionately impact young people. It explained:
Young people aged 16-25 years old have the highest prevalence of mental ill-health, with most instances of mental ill-health occurring before the age of 25.
4.56A submission from the Multicultural Youth Advocacy Network, focused on young people aged 12 to 24 from refugee and migrant backgrounds, highlighted that for these young people, economic shocks and structural barriers to economic participation ‘impair healthy adolescent development, disrupts settlement, and risk[s] individual long-term financial exclusion and disadvantage’.
Box 4.1 Case study – Burnie, Tasmania As part of the inquiry, the committee visited Burnie and Wynyard in North-West Tasmania. The site visit included hearing from local community organisations – Burnie Community House, Burnie Works, Loaves and Fishes Tasmania, and Big hART – and Wynyard High School. Committee members heard that young school students in this region are frequently taking up part time jobs during high school to help support their families financially. Community members that spoke to the committee raised concerns about how this is affecting students’ education participation and performance, as well as their long-term prospects. It was explained that students are coming to school exhausted from working late shifts on school nights and are unable to concentrate and engage fully in the classroom. |
Drivers of child poverty
4.57There are a range of complex and multifaceted factors that drive poverty in Australia – including structural drivers listed below and as discussed in the committee’s interim report for this inquiry:
Economic factors (including fiscal policies, inflation and cost of living pressures)
Labour force factors (including employment and education opportunities)
Housing factors (including rental affordability and home ownership opportunities)
Social factors (including intergenerational disadvantage and family violence).
4.58The committee also heard how some factors can drive child poverty in particular. Save the Children and 54 Reasons submitted that where child poverty exists in Australia, it is due to systemic and structural forces. It continued:
In particular, the common assumption that poverty is the fault of the child’s parents and they have the power to ‘fix’ it is simply untrue. Poverty by definition is a result of the operation of structural economic and social forces. Poverty will not be ended by pointing the finger at individual families who are struggling due to structural disadvantage that has been inherited over generations.
4.59A joint submission from the financial counselling sector, provided by Financial Counselling Australia, also highlighted how structural factors can drive child poverty:
… structural issues, such as lack of access to basic resources, for example the money required to participate fully in education, to enjoy decent diets and live in adequate and stable housing, exacerbate an already precarious position for at least 17 per cent of our young people.
4.60AIFS highlighted that in its Longitudinal Study of Australian Children from 2004 to 2012, 11 to 14 per cent of children aged between zero to 12 experience relative income poverty. AIFS explained some of the drivers of these outcomes, including that many of these families depended on government supports as their main source of income, with such dependence being particularly prevalent in the very early years of childhood.
Single-parent families
4.61Several submitters highlighted that children in single-parent families are at a greater risk of poverty.
4.62For example, AIFS explained that children living in single-parent families were at a higher risk of poverty or financial disadvantage, with the poverty rates for these families ranging from 29 to 41 per cent.
4.63Further, the Children’s Policy Centre reported that children living in families where the main income earner is female are more than twice as likely to grow up in poverty; and that 44 per cent of sole parent families live in poverty, with sole mother families especially vulnerable.
4.64Centrecare provided similar evidence, and particularly highlighted the gender disparity in terms of poverty rates in single-mother families, compared to single‑father families:
Families with children where the main income earner is female are more than twice as likely to be in poverty compared to families where the main income earner is male (23% compared to 10%). Poverty in sole-parent families is 35.2% overall however there is a clear gender disparity in this demographic too; in female-led sole-parent families, the poverty rate is 37% compared with 18% for male-led sole-parent families. For children living in single-parent families, the poverty rate is 44%.
4.65FamilyCare also pointed out that the vast majority of single-parent families, 81.8percent, are headed by a single mother.
Domestic and family violence
4.66The committee also heard that domestic and family violence is a significant factor in relation to child poverty. The Paul Ramsay Foundation explained:
It is well-documented that exposure to domestic and family violence at a young age affects children’s physical and mental wellbeing, development and schooling, and is the leading cause of children’s homelessness in Australia.
4.67Save the Children and 54 Reasons also outlined the harmful impacts of domestic and family violence on children and their mothers and explained how it can reinforce poverty:
There is a vicious cycle between poverty and domestic and family violence. When families are under financial pressure and stress, violence increases. At the same time, domestic and family violence itself is a major cause of poverty – overwhelmingly for women and children.
Children are the hidden victims and survivors of domestic and family violence. While their experiences of domestic and family violence are complex and varied, the harm done to them by such violence is clear.
4.68The St Vincent de Paul Society National Council of Australia also highlighted the inextricable link between poverty and domestic violence, and noted that in 2016, there were an estimated 185 700 women who had experienced violence by a partner in a relationship, now living as single mothers with children.
First 1000 days
4.69The committee heard compelling evidence that the first 1000 or 2000 days of a child’s life are of crucial importance to children’s long-term development and outcomes. For example, the Salvation Army outlined there is a strong correlation between poverty in the first thousand days of a child’s life and adverse health and wellbeing outcomes in later life including poor educational and employment outcomes.
4.70Centrecare also explained that research demonstrates that children are more vulnerable to adverse experiences in the first 1000 days, and that significant adversity in these early years can have lifelong impacts.
4.71The Centre for Community Child Health also explained the significance of the first 2000 days of life (birth to five years):
Our submission recognises that the conditions in which a child is born and grows have significant impacts on their lifelong health, development, wellbeing, and educational outcomes. Poverty is a fundamental social determinant of child and family health and development, which can cause lifelong and intergenerational harm.
Other at-risk groups
4.72As canvassed in the committee’s interim report for this inquiry, as well as throughout this report, particular cohorts across the community, through no fault of their own, are more likely to experience poverty.
4.73At a broad level, and noting that these cohorts are not mutually exclusive and often intersect, the committee heard that these cohorts include:
people living with disability;
people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (particularly
refugees and asylum seekers);
people living in rural and remote communities;
people on income support payments; and
First Nations people.
4.74Evidently, children and young people form parts of these cohorts and are particularly vulnerable to the layered forms of disadvantage experienced by these groups. Some submitters highlighted the distinct and overlapping effects of poverty on these children.
Children and young people with disability
4.75Children and Young People with Disability Australia explained that young people with disability face additional vulnerability due to unique experiences of oppression and discrimination. The South Australian Commissioner for Children and Young People also outlined the disproportionate impacts of poverty on children and young people living with disability:
Where systems fail to support children with disability and their families, this exacerbates poverty and increases the likelihood of crisis situations and a need for more services. The hoops that families must go through to get their child support through the [National Disability Insurance Scheme] or state services is also often a hurdle, and many families cannot afford the cost of a formal diagnosis…
4.76The South Australian Commissioner for Children and Young People also explained the disproportionate impacts of poverty on young people leaving care and children and young people with caring responsibilities.
Children and young people from migrant and refugee backgrounds
4.77The Multicultural Youth Advocacy Network advised that young people from migrant and refugee backgrounds face particular challenges and structural barriers in accessing educational and employment opportunities and are at a heightened risk of economic exclusion. It added:
The confluence of age, the life stage of adolescence, the migration experience, and structural access and equity barriers mean that this group of young people are at heightened risk of economic exclusion… While the implications of poverty for Australia's youth population are significant, young people from migrant and refugee backgrounds, particularly asylum seekers and more recently arrived refugees are at heightened risk of financial hardship and the multiple negative impacts of poverty given pre-existing access and equity barriers.
First Nations children
4.78As outlined in Chapter 3, First Nations people are at a much greater risk of experiencing poverty, with inquiry participants highlighting that poverty experienced by First Nations people, is primarily a result of the history and ‘enduring process’ of colonisation, dispossession, trauma, racism, and policy‑driven disadvantage and social exclusion.
4.79The Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency (VACCA) noted that whilst Aboriginal families are already facing compounding pressures and inequalities, financial hardship can also have flow on effects for Aboriginal children, including increased risk of child poverty, child protection involvement, rates of family violence, as well as poor health, wellbeing and education.
4.80Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory (APO NT) similarly outlined that poverty impacts many aspects of First Nations children’s lives, from physical and mental health, educational outcomes, and access to healthcare.
4.81APO NT also reported that poverty, socioeconomic disadvantage and exclusion are the primary causal factors for the shockingly high rates of Aboriginal children in OOHC and youth detention. It added:
For far too many of our families, multiple forms of discrimination and inequalities, systemic racism and intergenerational trauma have a corrosive effect on our cultural and social fabric. These issues combine and compound and form the conditions for the high prevalence of family violence, drug and alcohol dependence, abuse and childhood trauma. All of these issues have become key factors in community fragmentation and driving contact with child protection and the youth justice system.
4.82VACCA noted that connection to culture is a protective factor which helps to alleviate the risk factors that contribute to poverty and its impact on First Nations people and communities. Specifically, it highlighted that connection to culture and community is fundamental for First Nations children and young people’s wellbeing, including ‘being strong in their identity and knowing who their mob and who their family is'.
4.83The Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth outlined that for First Nations children, young people and families, the impacts of poverty are deepened and exacerbated by entrenched racism, the impacts of colonialism and intergenerational trauma. It emphasised that progress lies in self-determination and investment in solutions co-designed and delivered by First Nations communities and organisations.
4.84Save the Children and 54 Reasons similarly noted that for First Nations children and families, experiences of poverty are inseparable from the continuing effect of historical and present-day colonisation, dispossession, violence and systemic racism.
4.85Broader discussion regarding the impacts of poverty on educational experiences and outcomes for First Nations children is contained in Chapter 3.
Intergenerational impacts of child poverty
4.86Numerous inquiry participants highlighted that children growing up in poverty have a much greater risk of remaining in poverty as an adult.
4.87Amongst several other submitters, the Australian Human Rights Commission referenced findings from the Melbourne Institute’s Breaking Down Barriers research, which found that experiencing just a single year of poverty during childhood is associated with poorer socio-economic outcomes in terms of educational attainment, labour market performance and even overall life satisfaction in early adulthood.
4.88Submitters highlighted another key finding of this research, that children from poor households are 3.3 times more likely to suffer adult poverty than those who grew up in ‘never poor’ households. The report also concluded that the longer the period of time you are in poverty as a child, the poorer the outcomes in adulthood.
4.89The St Vincent de Paul Society National Council of Australia detailed the lifelong effects of child poverty and disadvantage, and how these impacts extend into adulthood:
Childhood poverty causes significant individual lifelong harm, including childhood developmental delay and an increased likelihood of experiencing disadvantage later in life. It causes significant social and economic harm, including increased costs in justice, health and welfare. Financial stress is also the biggest cause of relationship breakdown in Australia, with major flow on effects for children and their parents.
4.90Several submitters highlighted the importance of addressing child poverty to break the cycle of disadvantage going forward. For example, Save the Children and 54 Reasons submitted:
Children who experience poverty are far more likely to also be poor as adults, as are their own children, entrenching poverty intergenerationally. Ending child poverty is the key to ending poverty. It should be a social and political priority of the highest order.
4.91Similarly, Centrecare stated that given the intergenerational nature of poverty, ‘the importance of addressing child poverty cannot be overstated if we are to successfully reduce overall poverty rates in Australia’.
4.92The Children’s Policy Centre also emphasised that investing in child poverty is key to improving adult outcomes later in life:
There is overwhelming evidence that investing in children, including investment to end child poverty, enhances adult outcomes across most aspects of life – from education and earning attainment to better health and reduced participation in crime have been attributed to early childhood experiences.
Advocacy for change and suggested solutions
4.93The following sections canvas a range of measures put forward by inquiry participants to address child poverty in Australia.
Increasing and reforming income support to alleviate the impacts of poverty on children and young people
4.94Whilst Chapter 2 of this report broadly discusses the adequacy of JobSeeker and other working age payments, this section specifically highlights how increasing and reforming various income supports will benefit the lives of children and young people in poverty in particular.
4.95Several inquiry participants considered that increasing income support payments would help address the impacts of poverty on children and young people.
4.96For example, the South Australian Commissioner for Children and Young People specifically advocated for income support to be raised above the povertyline to keep children, young people and families out of poverty. It also suggested that consideration should be given to how payments can be targeted to keep children, young people and families out of poverty, and to recognise the additional costs of single parenthood.
4.97The South Australian Commissioner for Children and Young People also provided direct observations from young people regarding the inadequacy of income support payments:
A 17-year-old male stated: “One thing I would like to change is the centrelink [sic] money so my [mum] can be able to take better health care for me”.
A 15-year-old stated: “Prices of housing education etc. continue to increase. Government funding is not sufficient enough to support individuals living in poverty”.
4.98The St Vincent de Paul Society National Council of Australia considered that policies that increase the disposable incomes of low-income households have a significant impact on addressing the adverse consequences of child poverty. The Commissioner for Children and Young People Western Australia similarly advocated for increasing income support to help lift children out of poverty:
There is little doubt that increasing income support and urgently addressing housing supply and affordability will lift many families – including children – out of poverty. These changes are urgently needed, and I support the national and state-driven campaigns that have been calling for them.
4.99Professor Sharon Bessell, Director of the Children's Policy Centre considered that increasing working age benefits across the board would have an immediate positive impact on poverty broadly, and a ‘clear positive impact on children’ in particular. She explained how the temporary increase of income support payments during COVID-19 lifted children and their families out of poverty and that children were able to go to the dentist, get healthcare and other things children need to have ‘a minimally decent life’.
4.100Other submitters also highlighted how boosted income supports during the COVID‑19 pandemic reduced the burden of poverty in children and young people. For example, Save the Children and 54 Reasons outlined that the boosts to income support during the early stages of the pandemic ‘made a massive difference in lifting families and children out of poverty’. It also noted that their later withdrawal had the opposite effect, ‘plunging many thousands of children into worsening poverty’.
4.101FamilyCare provided similar reflections. It submitted that the provision of the Coronavirus supplement of $550 per fortnight to Australians receiving income support payments, including JobSeeker and the Parenting Payment, was immediately impactful, with many households with dependent children lifted out of short-term poverty as soon as the payments commenced.
4.102FamilyCare noted that research by Swinburne University and the Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare indicated that children were primary beneficiaries of the increased payments. It also provided the following reflection from one research participant, which highlights the various positive impacts on children:
“It has made me feel like a good parent being able to actually care for my children and buy them clothes and shoes and send them to outings with their friends when normally they miss out because they know we don’t have any money”.
4.103Evidence from the Commissioner for Children and Young People Western Australia and AIFS noted that whilst additional financial assistance to low-income families is important, such measures alone will not completely overcome the impacts of child poverty.
4.104Other submitters specifically called for increases to the Parenting Payment, Youth Allowance and Austudy payments. These views are canvassed in the sections below.
Parenting Payment reforms
4.105As outlined earlier in this chapter, the committee heard that poverty is experienced at a higher rate amongst single-parent families – with families headed by a single-mother, at particular risk.
4.106Submitters including the National Council of Single Mothers & their Children (now Single Mother Families Australia) and the Australian Human Rights Commission advocated for the Parenting Payment rates to be increased.
4.107Similarly, Anglicare Australia outlined that the current Parenting Payment rate is insufficient, leaving single parents and their children particularly vulnerable:
While the Parenting Payment is more than JobSeeker, it comes nowhere near the true cost of providing children with a good start in life and leaves single parents, and their children, particularly vulnerable.
4.108These concerns were echoed by the Paul Ramsay Foundation, who particularly noted the insufficient rate and coverage of Parenting Payment (Single). The Paul Ramsay Foundation also described how an increased rate would help support single mothers and their children escaping violence:
For single mothers leaving violence, an adequate Parenting Payment Single (PPS) would support their and their children’s transition to safety, and buffer early child development from the negative effects of sustained financial stress. Increasing the PPS rate to the single age pension rate of $1,026.50 and expanding coverage of the payments so single parents can remain eligible until their youngest child leaves school, would reduce the rate and depth of poverty experienced by single parents and their children.
4.109VACCA and the St Vincent de Paul Society National Council of Australia recommended a review of the Parenting Payment (Single) allowance and eligibility to better support women who have experienced family violence.
4.110Further, several submitters called for expanded coverage of the Parenting Payment (Single), so that single parents can remain eligible for this payment beyond their child’s eighth birthday. Some called for eligibility to be expanded until the youngest child turns 16, while others advocated for the cut off to be age 18. The committee notes after submissions to this inquiry closed, the Australian Government announced changes to the eligibility criteria for the Parenting Payment (Single), raising the cut off age from 8 to 14, from 20 September 2023. This reform means that from 20 September 2023, single parents will continue to receive a higher rate of payment until their youngest child turns 14.
4.111Finally, Good Shepherd recommended the immediate removal of mutual obligation requirements for Parenting Payment (Single) and ‘ending the practice of suspending payments for non-compliance (or because of administrative error) to Parenting Payment Single recipients and people subject to ParentsNext’.
4.112Other submitters also raised concerns regarding the ParentsNext program.
4.113The committee notes that in May 2023, the Australian Government committed to abolishing the ParentsNext by 1 July 2024, and to replace it with a new voluntary program designed in consultation with parents and stakeholders from across the community. The committee also understands that from May 5 2023, all compulsory requirements for participants in ParentsNext were paused.
Income supports for young people
4.114The committee heard about the inadequacies of income support for young people. Uniting Vic Tas provided an overview of these issues:
It is becoming increasingly apparent that social security and youth income support is no longer a protective measure against poverty for young people. In 2022, analysis showed that zero per cent of rental listings were affordable for young people on youth allowance.
4.115Uniting Vic Tas considered that ‘Australia's young people deserve better’ and recommended that the rate of income supports for young people must be raised to keep young people out of poverty. It continued:
… no one should spend their teenage years worrying about if they can afford groceries or unable to begin employment due to the cost of a uniform. It is critical that Youth Allowance payments are changed to reflect the increased cost of living using the same principle applied to adults on JobSeeker and other forms of income support.
Youth Allowance
4.116Amongst several other submitters, the Salvation Army called for Youth Allowance be raised. It recommended:
The Commonwealth Government increase the rate of Youth Allowance to be equal with the JobSeeker Payment, recognising the cost of living is the same irrespective of age and ensure that recipients are able to live with dignity.
Student payments
4.117Some also advocated for the rates of student payments including Austudy and ABSTUDY to be raised. Centrecare was amongst these calls, and also suggested that eligibility criteria be expanded:
Raise the rate of Austudy to be at least as high as JobSeeker (and preferably bring the rate of JobSeeker in line with pensions). Make Austudy available to independent young people under 21.
4.118The issue of income support eligibility criteria for young people was also raised by Lee Jia-Yi Carnie, Executive Director at the Foundation for Young Australians. Lee Jia-Yi outlined that currently, Centrelink provides essential income support for people over 22, but that hundreds of thousands of 18- to 21-year-olds are not eligible for financial support. They continued:
Most people in Australia are seen as adults when they turn 18—it's compulsory to vote, you can drive unsupervised, you can buy alcohol and cigarettes, and you're required to pay taxes. But when it comes to income support, the age of independence considers young people dependent until the age of 22, not 18, except in exceptional circumstances. Even students who have moved out of their family's home to attend university can be denied access to income support based on a parent or partner's income.
4.119Ms Bailey Riley, President of the National Union of Students, echoed concerns around payment rates and eligibility requirements of income supports for young Australians, and explained how this can affect students’ educational outcomes:
I think it's very clear that the low-income support payments and the age of independence, which locks out over 400,000 students, really impact on students' ability to study. It's just a very, very terrible system for students to live in where they have to choose between full-time study and completing their degrees in a timely manner and having to live in poverty and study part-time and get less income support. It's an all-round bad experience for them.
Child support reforms
4.120A submission from the department explained the scope an operation of Australia’s child support system:
In the 2021-22 financial year (as at June 2022), the Child Support scheme supported 1.34 million parents/carers with 1.1 million children. The Child Support scheme assessed and transferred $3.71 billion in child support. Around 50 per cent of child support cases are agency collect (ServicesAustralia collect child support from the paying parent and pay it to the receiving parent), and 50 per cent of cases were privately managed.
Since the Child Support scheme was introduced in 1988, around 95 per cent of all child support assessed in agency collect cases had been paid, and $1.69 billion in unpaid child support has accrued.
4.121The committee heard evidence around various issues and inadequacies of this scheme.
4.122The Council of Single Mothers and their Children raised issues around the rate and enforcement of child support payments. It called for the child support system to be reformed urgently, ‘so that assessments are based on real costs of raising children and payments are made in full and on time’.
4.123Ms Terese Edwards, Chief Executive Officer of the Single Mother Families Australia and Ms Jenny Davidson Chief Executive Officer of the Council of Single Mothers and their Children, also raised concerns around the inadequacy of the current child support rate. Ms Davidson told the committee:
We need child support to be paid to cover the costs that women have. The child support formula no longer has a portion for the person who's raising the children primarily. That isn't included; it is just the basic costs of raising children. Children are expensive. We know that. The child support formula doesn't really provide enough to help women who have the carriage of these costs and the subsequent opportunity costs of not being able to work. That's a big barrier.
4.124Financial Counselling Australia explained that financial counsellors often see issues with the payment of child support to the primary care giver (normally the mother). It considered it ‘a flawed system’ where it is difficult for the primary care giver to enforce the appropriate payment. It further explained:
… as the onus to act sits with the primary care giver, rather than an impartial agency, it can be cumbersome, frustrating and ineffectual. For some primary care givers this can be adversarial and potentially dangerous, where family violence is involved.
4.125Financial Counselling Australia called for the child system to be ‘rethought’ to ensure that primary care givers are not disadvantaged by the way it operates. It also expressed support for the recommendations set out in the In the Best Interests of the Children – Reforming the Child Support Scheme Taskforce on Child Support report to increase the enforcement powers of the Child Support Agency, noting child support is now administered by Services Australia.
4.126Further, Legal Aid NSW outlined there are various aspects of the administration of the scheme that undermine its objectives, as laid out in its establishing legislation. It considered that these factors commonly affect eligible carers, placing them and their children at risk of financial hardship. The key issues included unpaid child support, a lack of enforcement, and foregoing child support due to family violence.
4.127Legal Aid NSW proposed various recommendations to review, reform and improve the scheme, including:
… To protect the integrity of the scheme, and achieve greater general deterrence, Services Australia Child Support should implement an expanded, and well targeted litigation program to enforce unpaid child support.
Consideration should be given to reforming superannuation laws so that superannuation funds can be more easily accessed and [garnished] in cases of unpaid child support…
The scheme should be reviewed to ensure that it adequately [addresses] the needs of victims of domestic violence…
4.128Other submitters also called for review and reforms to Australia’s current child support scheme.
4.129To improve the child support scheme over the longer-term, the government has committed $5.1 million over 5 years to implement key recommendations made by the Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Family Law System:
establish a Child Support Stakeholder Consultation Group to provide a strong voice to government on issues impacting families;
commission expert research on the costs of raising children in Australia and consider whether changes are needed to the child support formula to ensure child support payments provide children with an adequate level of financial support;
review compliance in the child support scheme, with a focus on collection and enforcement;
review the interaction between the child support scheme and Family Tax Benefit to ensure vulnerable single parent families are financially supported after separation; and
undertake an evaluation of separated families to understand what can be done to support parents with caring responsibilities where private collect arrangements have broken down.
Early childhood education and care
4.130The committee heard evidence of the importance of access to early childhood education and care, especially noting its significance in early childhood development and the potential adverse impacts for children unable to receive early childhood care as a result of poverty.
4.131Dr Cassandra Goldie, Chief Executive Officer of ACOSS, emphasized:
We know that families experiencing poverty are more disadvantaged when it comes to getting access to those early learning services, if I can put it that way, so the kids are at a greater disadvantage.
4.132Further, Mrs Kristen Manson, General Manager Community Development at the Rural City of Murray Bridge explained:
Early childhood services are obviously critical, as Shane was saying. If children are reaching school age and not having the skills that they need to enter school and start their learning journey—their learning journey needs to have started much earlier than that. For many reasons, people can't get to and from kindies, they can't afford child care, they're not accessing playgroups and so on.
4.133The committee acknowledges the work being undertaken by the Australian Government in this domain through the development of the whole-of-Commonwealth Early Years Strategy. According to the Department of Social Services, the strategy will:
… improve coordination between Government programs, funding and frameworks impacting early childhood development. It will aim to maximise the outcomes of the Government’s investment in the critical early years, which can have long-term impacts on reducing disadvantages in later life.
Early intervention and place-based initiatives
4.134As outlined in the section above regarding the intergenerational impacts of child poverty, several submitters highlighted the importance of early intervention to help address child poverty and break the cycle of disadvantage.
4.135For example, the Paul Ramsay Foundation broadly observed that early intervention strategies across the domains of employment, education and justice and safety, and place-based programs are key tools at governments’ disposal to break intergenerational cycles of disadvantage.
4.136Save the Children and 54 Reasons submitted that due to the ‘extraordinary harm’ that child poverty does to children, this is in itself ample reason why ending child poverty ‘should be a social and policy priority of the highest order’. However, it also highlighted the importance of early intervention and explained that ending child poverty, is key to ending all poverty, and breaking its intergenerational cycle:
Child poverty does lifelong harm, so focusing on child poverty can prevent future harm, including the harmful effects of adult poverty and the intergenerational transmission of poverty.
… Effectively addressing child poverty is a paradigm example of the benefits of early intervention in preventing future harm to individuals and to broader society.
4.137Some submitters also outlined the economic benefits of early intervention initiatives. For example, the Australian Human Rights Commission called for investment in prevention and early intervention measures that address the underlying causes and cycles of poverty, stating that this a more effective and cost-efficient approach. It noted that Anne Hollands, now Australia’s National Children’s Commissioner, has previously stated:
Intervening early is not only more effective, it is also more cost efficient … If we as a society fail to invest more in prevention and early action, we are signing a blank cheque for much higher costs to society in the future.
4.138Centrecare put forward a similar case for prevention and early intervention initiatives, particularly that focus on children’s first 1000 days:
Adding to the case to focus on children is research that demonstrates that children are more vulnerable to adverse experiences in the first 1000 days and that significant adversity in the early years can have lifelong impacts. Also, preventative action or early intervention during these 1000 days is much more effective than intervening later in life. The money you invest at age zero gives you infinite returns. The money you invest at age 28, when you’ve already got someone who is self-harming, homeless and unable to hold down a job, is very high cost, much smaller return.
4.139Centrecare specifically recommended the prioritisation of, and increased funding for, prevention and early intervention programs for educationally at‑risk young children and their families, such as the federally funded Communities for Children program.
4.140Ms Jennifer Kirkaldy, General Manager of Policy and Advocacy at the Salvation Army also outlined the benefits of the Communities for Children program as having national reach, but localised solutions:
Communities for Children program … [is] having some fantastic outcomes, not just for individuals who access the service but for their families, their connections and their whole community. So that combination of having a national infrastructure with that very locally focused solution is already showing some great outcomes and is a model that we could replicate with other services.
4.141The Centre for Community Child Health similarly recommended that the Australian Government prioritise the reduction of childhood poverty by implementing and committing to policies and programs that directly reduce the impact poverty for children and their families in the first 2000 days of life. It also suggested that Australia’s existing universal early years services could be used to identify and connect families experiencing, or at risk of poverty, to financial wellbeing services.
4.142In the context of First Nations communities and children, VACCA called for governments to invest in ‘Aboriginal-led, early help, family support and early intervention systems that support families in addressing the causes of poverty.’ It specifically made the following recommendation:
VACCA recommends for the Federal Government to … coordinate with all jurisdictions to invest in Aboriginal-led, early help, family support and early intervention systems that support families in addressing the causes of poverty and are aligned to the National Agreement on Closing the Gap.
4.143APO NT similarly called for First Nations-led, prevention and early intervention supports to address the drivers of child protection experienced by these communities:
To address the drivers of child protection requires transformative systemic change, grounded in the strengths of culture, and led by Aboriginal people. Governments must live up to their commitments in Closing the Gap, the National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children (2021–2031) and provide Aboriginal Community-Controlled Organisations with the resources and decision-making power to provide family preservation and reunification, and other prevention and early intervention supports for our families.
4.144Uniting Vic Tas highlighted that it is well evidenced that early intervention is most effective when combined with other interventions that seek to address the complex and interconnected issues that children and families living in poverty face.
4.145Finally, the Children’s Policy Centre also agreed that investment to end child poverty, enhances adult outcomes across most aspects of life but it pointed out that recent research indicates that ‘early investments are essential but not sufficient’ noting that there are also opportunities to improve outcomes at later points in the life cycle, crucially in adolescence and middle childhood.
4.146Chapter 5 of this report includes further discussion on the importance of place-based initiatives.
Calls for an official measure and monitoring of child poverty
4.147Some inquiry participants called for an official measure of poverty for children and young people in Australia. For example, Professor Sharon Bessell, Director of the Children’s Policy Centre, considered that ‘we need a child‑centred way of defining and assessing child poverty, across all its dimensions’.
4.148The Commissioner for Children and Young People Western Australia considered that defining, outlining and agreeing on a means of measuring child poverty ‘is a critical first step’. It expanded:
This measure should incorporate the different aspects of child poverty, such as access to income, material basics, healthcare, education and housing. In addition, a child poverty measure should consider some of the systemic barriers that impede participation, learning and development.
4.149As discussed earlier in this chapter, the Melbourne Institute highlighted current difficulties in measuring the experiences of poverty for young people. It emphasised the need to measure and understand the causes of poverty for this group, as ‘the transition at the end of high school is critical in shaping one’s future’.
4.150The Centre for Community Child Health also called for child poverty to be measured and monitored. It argued that this would allow governments, services and programs to monitor the impact of policy decisions for reducing childhood poverty and adapt and respond accordingly, both now and for future generations.
4.151The Centre for Community Child Health also pointed out the particular need for improved data pertaining to child poverty experienced within diverse demographics and communities in Australia. It explained:
… there is a lack of information on the experience of childhood poverty to a range of demographic groups and communities. More reliable data would enable more precision policy responses to preventing childhood poverty and lift children out of poverty.
4.152The Committee for Economic Development of Australia proposed that the ‘greatest opportunity to get ahead of disadvantage right now is better using data, integrated data sets and data analytics to identify those most at risk of experiencing deep disadvantage’. It explained there are opportunities to bring together key data sets, such as from Medicare, the Australian Tax Office and the Australian Bureau of Statistics at the federal level, with state and territory data from the health, child protection and education systems.
4.153It suggested that linked administrative data could be used for a variety of research, policy and evaluation purposes and pointed out linked data provides information on pathways from childhood through to adulthood, ‘allowing the design and implementation of programs that disrupt disadvantage at critical points’.
4.154The Australian Human Rights Commission emphasised that in order to understand and measure child poverty, ‘researchers and policy-makers need to include and consider children’s knowledge, experiences and priorities’.
A national commitment to reduce child poverty
4.155Several inquiry participants called for a national commitment to reduce child poverty. For example, Professor Sharon Bessell told the committee that ‘we need a political commitment from all sides of parliament to reduce child poverty in this very wealthy country’.
4.156Centrecare also argued that when governments commit to prioritising the reduction of poverty, then poverty can be reduced. It provided the following examples:
For example, in Australia, Hawke’s government reduced child poverty by 30% in three years. There are international examples too. Canada has a strategy to halve poverty by 2030 and it’s working. In 2022 the percentage of people living in poverty in Canada was 6.4%, down from 10.3% in 2019 and 14.5% in 2015. Similarly in New Zealand, a strong and clear commitment by the government to reduce child poverty is working with all child poverty measures trending downwards over the last three years.
4.157Several other inquiry participants also referred to former Prime Minister BobHawke’s 1987 commitment to end child poverty by 1990, and outlined the some of the successes that followed.
4.158For example, Professor Whiteford, Member of the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, noted that whilst there was a lot of criticism surrounding the Hawke government’s failure to achieve this pledge, he pointed out that in that period of late eighties-early nineties, the Hawke government reduced child poverty by more than any other OECD country.
4.159The St Vincent de Paul Society National Council of Australia specifically recommended that a target to halve child poverty by 2030 should be set as a benchmark, along with appropriate policy and funding levels to enable the target to be reached. Finally, the Centre for Community Child Health noted that as a signatory to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, Australia has already committed to reduce by half, the proportion of children of all ages living in poverty.
A national framework to reduce child poverty
4.160Inquiry participants proposed various versions of ‘national frameworks’ to reduce child poverty.
4.161One example, included the Centre for Community Child Health’s call for the Australian Government to commit to an ‘Australian Childhood Guarantee’. It envisaged that this guarantee ‘would ensure every child in Australia at risk of poverty has access to the most basic rights, prioritising Australia’s response to childhood poverty and reducing the intergenerational experience of poverty’. It pointed out that the European Commission is leading the way in this area, and explained how their model operates:
As part of the European Child Guarantee, member states have developed national action plans on how they will implement the child guarantee, including key targets and timelines, enabling countries to re-focus efforts to reduce child poverty and monitor progress.
4.162However, a key proposal that was suggested by several inquiry participants, was a Child Poverty Reduction Act. Many referred to New Zealand’s recent introduction of its Child Poverty Reduction Act and called for a similar measure in Australia.
4.163The Australian Human Rights Commission explained that in 2018, NewZealand passed the Child Poverty Reduction Act 2018 (NZ), that requires the government of the day to:
set long-term (10 year) and intermediate (3 year) targets on a defined set of child poverty measures;
report annually on the set of child poverty measures;
report each Budget Day on how the Budget will reduce child poverty and how the government is progressing towards its targets; and
report on child poverty related indicators.
4.164The Australian Human Rights Commission also highlighted New Zealand’s early indicators of successes of this measure, with the latest figures for 2020–21 showing:
rates on all nine income and material hardship measures that are specified in the Child Poverty Reduction Act 2018 (NZ) are trending downwards; and
the NZ Government has achieved two out of three of the first three-year targets and made significant progress against the third target.
4.165It also noted that Australia’s National Children’s Commissioner has ‘highlighted the need for a similar strong commitment in Australia’ which includes ‘clear actions, indicators and targets for reducing child poverty nationally’.
4.166Mr Tony Pietropiccolo AM, Director of Centrecare, considered that the NewZealand model is the best model currently operating to end child poverty and, therefore, all poverty.
4.167Dr Travers McLeod, Executive Director of the Brotherhood of St Laurence outlined his support for legislated poverty measures and pointed to NewZealand’s success, including improved data and monitoring of child poverty. Dr McLeod also proposed that legislated measures would be ‘a natural next step’ for the government’s Measuring What Matters framework:
… as a country, we should have legislated measures on poverty reduction and economic inclusion... New Zealand have done this very effectively with their four legislated measures for child poverty reduction and the indicators that they follow to support those measures. It's enabled not just a reduction in the first wave of reporting but a more sophisticated data and evaluation strategy so they can track how they're going as a country in reducing child poverty. We think that's a natural next step from the Measuring what matters framework.
Committee view
4.168The committeebelieves that all children and young people in Australia should have every opportunity to thrive. It is deeply concerned to hear about the devasting impacts that poverty can have across every aspect of children’s lives, including their health, education, wellbeing and development, as well as on their family and social relationships and broader opportunities in life.
4.169The committee recommends that all levels of government invest significantly to ensure that children, especially those from disadvantaged or vulnerable backgrounds, have access to high quality early education and care.
4.170The committee is particularly concerned about the layered and intersecting challenges faced by children and young people from First Nations communities, migrant and refugee communities, as well as children living with disability.
4.171The committee understands that to address child poverty, the experience of children themselves must be at the centre of policies, rather than them being treated as an extension to adults. The committee also understands that addressing child poverty would result in major long-term reduction in rates of poverty overall, by breaking the intergenerational cycle that is seen far too often, and experienced by so many Australians.
Income support measures
4.172In addition to the broader calls for income support payments to be lifted as outlined in Chapter 2, the committee heard evidence that lifting the rates of income support payments would specifically help alleviate the effects of poverty on children and young people. Further, the committee understands that single-parent families are at greater risk of poverty and financial disadvantage, and notes that the overwhelming proportion of single-parent families are headed by women. It therefore reiterates Recommendation 1 of this report.
Youth Allowance and student payments
4.173Submitters also highlighted particular concerns around the adequacy of income supports for young people, including the Youth Allowance, Austudy and ABSTUDY payments.
4.174The committee notes that the rate of Youth Allowance is lower than Jobseeker. The committee also notes evidence from some submitters that cost of living is the same irrespective of age. The committee believes that like all Australians, young people should have access to a level of income that allows them to meet their basic daily needs, obtain safe and affordable housing, and thrive in their education.
4.175The committee understands that under current settings, young people are considered as ‘dependent’ until the age of 22. The committee heard concerns from several submitters that this deems a significant proportion of independent young Australian’s aged 18 to 21 as ineligible for Youth Allowance, Austudy and ABSTUDY.
4.176Therefore, the committee encourages the Australian Government to review the age of independence at which students can automatically access Youth Allowance, Austudy and ABSTUDY, alongside other features of the payment to ensure those most in need of support are able to access it.
4.177The committee recommends the Australian Government review all student payments, giving consideration to the work of the University Accord panel.
Child support
4.178The committee was concerned to hear the range of issues regarding Australia’s child support system that were raised by inquiry participants, including how these issues particularly impact single mothers and their children.
4.179The committee understands that key child support system issues that need to be addressed include the adequacy of the current child support formula and rate; a lack of enforcement of unpaid child support payments; and that the current system does not appropriately meets the needs of women and children experiencing or escaping domestic and family violence.
4.180The committee recommends the Australian Government conduct a review of Australia’s child support scheme, which specifically considers:
the adequacy of the current child support formula and rates;
improving and increasing the enforcement of unpaid child support payments;
ensuring the system adequately addresses the needs of victim-survivors of domestic and family violence; and
improving the overall administration of the scheme.
Early intervention and place-based initiatives
4.181The committee heard compelling evidence regarding the effectiveness and wide-ranging benefits of early intervention, and place-based initiatives aimed at targeting and alleviating the impacts of child poverty in Australia.
4.182Whilst place-based initiatives are discussed in more depth in Chapter 5, the committee notes here that it heard about the benefits of localised, place-based strategies and solutions to address child poverty and financial disadvantage in particular.
4.183The committee agrees that investment in early intervention initiatives will not only assist in immediately addressing the impacts of poverty on Australian children, but that such initiatives are key to breaking the intergenerational cycle of poverty, and reducing the rates of poverty in the future.
4.184The committee also understands that First Nations submitters broadly supported prevention and early intervention initiatives to support families, and the committee is acutely aware that such initiatives must be First Nations-led and aligned with the Government’s existing commitments under the National Agreement on Closing the Gap.
4.185Overall, the committee believes it is far more preferable to invest in, and address the impacts of poverty when people are young, before living in poverty becomes entrenched into their adulthood and across generations. Similarly, the committee agrees that prevention and early intervention measures are also more cost-efficient, and can result in significant savings in terms of broader economic and social costs going into the future. The committee also recognises the specific benefits associated with access to early education and care and the potential for enhanced educational outcomes for children experiencing poverty.
4.186The committee acknowledges the $199.8 million dollar investment the government made in the Targeting Entrenched Disadvantage Package. This focuses on place-based community led initiatives, including the establishment of the Investment Dialogue for Australia’s Children that will support co-investment in early years initiatives in communities and in partnership with First Nations peoples. The committee considers that ongoing investment in programs such as these, is essential going forward.
4.187The committee recommends the Australian Government continue to invest, and consider increasing investment, in early intervention and place-based initiatives to address child poverty.Any initiatives aimed at supporting FirstNations families and children must be led by and co-designed with FirstNations people, and support existing commitments under the National Agreement on Closing the Gap.
An official measure of child poverty
4.188The committee notes that there is not an agreed definition of child poverty in Australia. The committee recognises the evidence received of the value of measuring child poverty that would help governments, policy makers and the public alike, to better understand and address the wide-ranging aspects of and impacts of child poverty.
A national commitment and legislated framework to reduce child poverty
4.189The committee received a substantive amount of evidence which strongly advocated for a national commitment, and a legislated national framework to reduce child poverty.
4.190The committee agrees that further action is required to send a strong and clear message that reducing child poverty is a social and political priority, and that child poverty is not acceptable in a country like Australia.
4.191The committee also notes and agrees with numerous inquiry participants, that a national legislative framework such as the model adopted by New Zealand in 2018, was key to driving down the rates and impacts of child poverty in New Zealand and may warrant further consideration in Australia.
4.192The case for a broader national poverty reduction framework is discussed in the final chapter of this report. The committee is of the view that this framework should contain explicit definitions, targets and measures relating to child poverty.
4.193The committee recommends the Australian Government takes action to reduce child poverty.