Chair's Additional Comments and Recommendations

Introduction

1.1Next year marks fifty years since the release of the Henderson Inquiry’s first main report. This report provided groundbreaking evidence about the extent and nature of poverty in Australia and produced a series of important recommendations on poverty reduction. Importantly, and at the heart of the final recommendations, was the call for a guaranteed minimum income scheme and significant reform to the income support system.[1]

1.2Like the Henderson Inquiry, this Senate inquiry investigated poverty at a national level and gathered significant evidence from people, organisations and communities across the country about the current state of poverty in Australia. What was revealed by inquiry participants was that in the nearly half a century since the Henderson Inquiry report, successive government policy failures and overall inaction have left Australia plunging further into a poverty crisis.

1.3Evidence presented to the committee made clear that while there were many complex and intersecting structural drivers of poverty in Australia, the current crisis is largely reflective of the failures of the social security system to adequately support people. Urgent reform of the social security system must be a priority to meaningfully address rates and impacts of poverty.

1.4As Chair of the committee, I have put forward a suite of recommendations that will effectively transform the social security system, target entrenched disadvantage and build upon the work of the Henderson Inquiry. These include measures to significantly increase the rate and accessibility of income support payments and allowances, review the provision of social security by government agencies, abolish all punitive measures of the income support system, return the provision of employment services to the commonwealth, and ensure poverty alleviation, including measuring poverty, is a key responsibility of the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee.

1.5These recommendations and comments are in addition to the report and recommendations agreed to by the committee.

1.6Before the election, Prime Minister Albanese made a promise to leave no one behind and hold no one back.[2]Since Labor came into government we have seen them implement a series of centre-right policies that prioritise corporate profits and leave people living below the poverty line.

1.7This inquiry has laid bare the depth and breadth of the poverty crisis in Australia. The Labor government cannot dismiss this evidence as they, and so many governments before them, have done with the Henderson Inquiry. Australians can’t afford another fifty years of meaningless rhetoric and policies that trap people in poverty. The Labor government must implement the committee and Chair’s recommendations in the upcoming Federal Budget.

Broken and punitive: Australia’s social security system

1.8Australia’s social security system should provide people with a social safety net. It should ensure that no one is living in poverty and everyone has the opportunity to live with dignity.

1.9Yet, in hearings across the country, the committee heard personal and devastating testimonies from individuals who have been failed by Australia’s social security system and are trapped in poverty due to the inadequate rates of income support.

1.10The failures of Australia’s social security system to adequately support people out of and in poverty were also expressed by multiple organisations.

1.11For example, in their submission, the Low Income Action Group, Adelaide South explained:

We feel the systems that are supposed to support Australians, as a “social security safety net” are failing them to an extreme degree. People feel like the Government just doesn't listen, and when people complain, the Government and its agencies and representatives, are great at pretending to care, and appearing to take the correct actions, when in effect, it has no intention to help alleviate suffering, or change the status quo.[3]

1.12Mr Oxton-White, the National Liaison for the Anti-Poverty Network Queensland (APNQ) similarly said:

The welfare system, as it's currently structured, is traumatising to people dependent on it. It is intentionally difficult to navigate and arbitrarily punitive so that people don't access the support they need and are entitled to. As a baseline, the payments themselves are not enough to live on.[4]

1.13The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) submitted ‘currently, Australia’s social security system tends to perpetuate poverty and social exclusion, rather than protect against it’.[5]

1.14The Accountable Income Management Network (AIMN) said:

The Australian social security system is premised on a fundamental distrust and devaluing of people requiring income support, rather than oriented towards promoting their general welfare. Such an approach to the delivery of social security has tangible effects: bar a temporary increase via the $550 Coronavirus Supplement in 2020, rates of payment have been allowed to stagnate well below the poverty line. This has left people on social security incomes in sustained economic hardship, with associated detrimental impacts on health, wellbeing and social participation.[6]

1.15AIMN’s concerns about the rate of income support payments were shared by an overwhelming majority of inquiry participants. It was made clear to the committee that the current rate of payments are completely inadequate and act as a structural driver of poverty.

1.16The importance of adequate income support in alleviating poverty was also highlighted in the inquiry’s interim report and the government’s interim Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee’s (EIAC) report. This report was published three weeks before the 2023-24 Federal Budget and recommended the government raise the rate of the Jobseeker payment as a priority action.[7]

1.17In response to this recommendation and calls from advocates, social security organisations and the broader community in the lead-up to the Federal Budget, the Labor government announced an increase to Jobseeker and other working-age payments by around $4 a day, including indexation.

1.18While these budget measures were welcomed, witnesses overwhelmingly felt these modest changes were inadequate and would have little to no impact on poverty reduction. Additionally, many witnesses compared the increase and its impacts to the Coronavirus supplement which, at the time, increased the base rate of Jobseeker to above the Henderson Poverty Line.[8]

1.19For example, when asked about these budget measures, Ms Robson from the Consumer Action Law Centre blatantly told the committee:

It wasn't enough. It's not enough. The increase to welfare payments during COVID was enough to pull people out of poverty for that period. $4 a day isn't touching the sides.[9]

1.20Dr McLeod, Director of the Brotherhood of St Laurence (BSL) similarly said:

I don't think we can underestimate the significance of lifting those base rates to a more adequate standard. Our research into energy stress, which was released last year and called Power Pain, found that energy stress fell by 15 per cent in 2020, when the coronavirus supplement was introduced. Generally, households with someone relying on income support have double the rates of energy stress. That's why we said it was a welcome increase but that more would need to be done and a time frame needed to be set for those payments to reach an adequate level.[10]

1.21Ms Kirkaldy, General Manager of The Salvation Army stated:

When people are living on so little, literally every dollar counts. So, in that sense, any increase is going to be welcome. But $56 a fortnight—which doesn't even come in until 20 September [2023]—will very quickly, in our experience of looking at the budgets of people who come to us, get swallowed up by the increases to the cost of living that we've experienced so far and also the fact that people have been living on such a low level of income that they've had to go into debt. So, like I said, every dollar is welcome, but, no, the increase that we've seen is not actually going to be enough to lift people out of poverty and allow them to live with dignity…[11]

1.22She went on to say:

Actually, when we go into the greater detail of how much people are spending and we compare how much people are spending on JobSeeker versus other payments, they're actually spending less on groceries and less on everything—all of those essentials—than people on any other payment. The reality is that they are already cutting corners, even on those essentials, and still going backwards. The $4 a day that they're talking about isn't going to go to anything other than essentials and servicing debt.[12]

1.23Small, piecemeal increases in income support are clearly failing to meet the rising cost of living. The Labor government must stop tinkering around the edges of the income support system and listen to unemployed advocates, organisations and the broader community and significantly raise the rate of all income support payments in the upcoming budget. The evidence makes it clear that this is the simplest, most effective and most urgent step to lift people out of poverty.

1.24The Chair believes that lifting the rate of all income support payments to $88 a day will provide income support recipients with an adequate basic income to properly support them in their day-to-day life and cover essential items, as evidenced during the Coronavirus supplement, which was a comparable rate of payment.

1.25The Australian Government lift the base rate of all income support payments to $88 a day.

1.26The committee repeatedly heard that despite being created to support disabled people financially, the Disability Support Pension (DSP) is frequently inaccessible and almost always inadequate.

1.27Issues with the DSP were investigated in the 2021-22 Senate Community Affairs References inquiry into the purpose, intent and adequacy of the Disability Support Pension. The inquiry made important recommendations to improve access and adequacy of the payment. Notably, these included recommendations for the government to improve access by removing the criteria to be ‘fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised;’ and reviewing the impairment tables. The committee also recommended the government consider making the program of support voluntary and reviewing the income test to better support disabled people entering the workforce.

1.28Despite supporting the recommendations at the time, the Labor government has not officially responded to the report and has largely failed to act on its recommendations.

1.29In 2022 the Labor government did, however, undertake a review of the impairment tables which led to the removal of the condition for applicants of the DSP to be ‘fully’ diagnosed, treated and stabilised and replaced it with the condition of ‘diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised.’ While these changes were welcomed and important, they failed to holistically address the full remit of issues associated with the DSP including adequacy, problematic interaction with workforce participation and the program of support.

1.30People with disabilities currently experience high levels of disadvantage compared to those without disabilities. For example, it is estimated that working age people with disability are more than twice as likely to be in financial stress compared to those without.[13]

1.31More needs to be done by the Labor government to ensure people with disabilities are not living in poverty. As Chair, I urge the government to implement the recommendations of the Community Affairs Committee Inquiry into the purpose, intent and adequacy of the DSP.

1.32The Australian Government implement the recommendations of the Community Affairs Committee Inquiry into the purpose, intent and adequacy of the Disability Support Pension.

1.33Commonwealth Rent Assistance (CRA) is one mechanism the Federal Government uses to relieve income support recipients of rent stress. However, many inquiry participants highlighted the failure of this assistance payment to keep up with current housing costs.

1.34For example, Homelessness Australia submitted:

Commonwealth Rent Assistance (CRA) is one way that the Federal Government relieves cost of living impacts on people with low incomes, but the value of the payment has fallen well behind the cost of rents. In 2021, 45.7 per cent of all people who received CRA were still in rent stress after receiving the payment, but 65 per cent of those receiving JobSeeker payments and 72 per cent of people receiving Youth Allowance were still rent stressed.[14]

1.35While the Labor government increased the rate of CRA in the 2023-24 Federal Budget, this increase did not meet the recommendations of some inquiry participants.[15]

1.36The committee also received evidence from some submitters who, while supporting an increase in the rate, argued that CRA is not the most effective mechanism for relieving rental stress for income support recipients.[16]

1.37Adequate rates of income support can be an effective mechanism to help people secure and maintain housing. This is supported by the accounts of income support recipients whose rental stress was reduced as a result of the coronavirus supplements to income support payments.[17]

1.38While the Chair supports calls to boost the rate of CRA, it is clear that in the current rental crisis, this allowance is failing to support income support recipients to maintain and find suitable housing. The Labor government urgently needs to conduct a review into the most effective mechanism for relieving housing stress for people on the lowest incomes.

1.39The Australian Government undertake a review of the Commonwealth Rent Assistance program, including eligibility criteria to investigate the most effective payments and mechanisms to improve rental affordability.

1.40Many submitters and witnesses condemned mutual obligations and the current employment service system as being harmful, needlessly punitive and ineffective.

1.41For example, the Antipoverty Centre submitted:

Unemployment cops are the antithesis of “employment services” and the “mutual” obligations regime on this continent are one of the most egregious examples of state violence against people who rely on welfare. The system has done nothing but transfer billions of dollars to poverty profiteers while trapping unemployed people in the system by making it harder to get a job.

In a survey we conducted of hundreds of people with “mutual” obligations, 34.8% of respondents reported a safety incident or injury while doing unpaid forced labour at their Work for the Dole site. In 59.4% of these cases the respondent had themselves been injured. The remaining respondents observed safety incidents affecting other participants or an employee.

“Mutual” obligations force people into deeper poverty because they cost money to attend, but also dealing with health issues that arise because of them.[18]

1.42Mr Oxton-White from Anti-Poverty Network Queensland (APNQ) similarly said:

Mutual obligations are burdensome and exploitatively compensated. Job agencies are finally incentivised to cut people off their payments for the most arbitrary reasons. On top of this, people in regional and impoverished areas have had their agency completely overwritten through forced income practices such as the BasicsCard and the now gone cashless welfare card.[19]

1.43Dr McLeod from BSL noted:

… our employment services system nationally doesn't work for disadvantaged jobseekers in the places and situations they find themselves in. There's a once-in-a-generation opportunity with unemployment nationally at 3½ per cent to reform that employment services system so that it works better in those communities and much more effectively with employers… we can't boost pathways for economic or social participation without fundamentally reforming our employment services system and how it supports those who have historically been marginalised in the labour market …[20]

1.44Mutual obligations and a privatised employment service system are antagonistic to the right to social security. It is clear that together they cause income support recipients immense distress and act as a barrier to finding meaningful employment. Coupled with the inadequate rate of income support, these punitive elements of the social security system are blocking people from the support they deserve and in many cases, acting as a structural driver of poverty.

1.45While as Chair, I recognise the work and recommendations of the Select Committee on Workforce Australia, I am of the firm belief that reforming and reviewing mutual obligations and the privatised model of the employment service system does not go far enough. Evidence provided to this committee has made clear that transformative change is needed to ensure income support recipients aren’t locked out of support and trapped in poverty.

1.46The Chair supports the calls from many inquiry participants to abolish all mutual obligations. The Chair also believes that the employment service system should be returned to the Commonwealth to ensure people’s best interests are served over profit.

1.47The Australian Government immediately abolish mutual obligations.

1.48The Australian Government return the delivery of employment services to the Commonwealth and fund not-for-profit providers to provide specialist and intensive wrap-around services for people needing extra support.

1.49The committee also heard evidence about the inadequacy of the current social security system provision and how this acts as a further barrier to gaining support.

1.50Submitters and witnesses discussed the complexities of the Social Security Act itself in addition to the lack of adequate support for people engaging in the system. For example, in their submission, Economic Justice Australia discussed how a lack of staffing at Centrelink, particularly social workers, meant that many people escaping domestic violence and in a crisis were having to wait days before they could access the support they needed.[21]

1.51The experience of many people engaging with the social security system was summarised by Mr Oxton-White, from APNQ:

Getting onto payments is unnecessarily complicated and is an intentionally lengthy process where promised deadlines and time frames provided by Services Australia are routinely massively exceeded. The application requirements are an interrogation and restrictively complicated and difficult to understand. It often forces people into dishonesty through lack of nuance and its questions and accepted responses, and punishes people with debts in the thousands which they are not provided the support to understand or challenge even when the debt was incurred through Centrelink error … Access to trained staff to help navigate this system has been chipped away over decades and often outsourced to underprepared agencies. The result is slight access to in person support, phone support wait times that often leave people on hold for four hours or more and escalated removal of agency for Services Australia workers to make decisions and provide support to the people who they are directly helping.[22]

1.52Evidence was also received about the inappropriateness of the debt recovery mechanisms by Services Australia and the Department of Social Services. The committee heard how these mechanisms, including the Robodebt scheme and income apportionment, increased stigmatisation of income support recipients and had devastating impacts on people’s financial, emotional and physical wellbeing.

1.53It is completely unacceptable that when people engage with the social security system they are met with complex and confusing information and inadequate services. It is also incomprehensible that people on the lowest incomes in Australia are being punished for incorrect debt created by government agencies and departments meant to support them. Given this, the Chair calls on the government to conduct a review of Services Australia and the Department of Social Services.

1.54The Australian Government conduct a review into the adequacy, effectiveness and culture of Services Australia & Department of Social Services.

First Nations people and communities

1.55The committee heard and received evidence about the extremely high and growing rate of poverty amongst First Nations people in remote communities. While inquiry participants noted the many intersecting and historical factors contributing to First Nations experiences of poverty, two key issues raised with regard to remote poverty were the lack of employment opportunities and the high cost associated with living in these areas.

1.56The Chair supports the recommendation from the committee calling on the Australian Government to commit to principles of First Nations-led co-design of all First Nations employment services and accelerate reforms to the Community Development Program. This is an important step towards reducing the disproportionate impact of poverty on First Nations people and communities.

1.57Many inquiry participants discussed how income support payments, including the Remote Area Allowance (RAA), are failing to keep up with the rising costs of living in remote areas. To support income support recipients, particularly First Nations recipients, in remote communities out of poverty, Dr Francis Markham,[23] the Central Land Council (CLC)[24]and the Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory (APO NT)[25] recommended the government increase the rate of the RAA to reflect the higher cost of living in remote areas and index the payment with either wage growth or the price of basic goods. With First Nations poverty rapidly increasing, the Chair believes an immediate increase to the RAA must go hand in hand with a review of the payment.

1.58The Australian Government increase the rate of the Remote Area Allowance by an amount commensurate to the higher cost of living in remote communities, and the Remote Area Allowance be indexed to the prices of these basic goods.

1.59In their submissions, the CLC,[26] Dr Francis Markham[27] and the AHRC[28] raised issues with the lack of face-to-face Services Australia centres in remote communities. The CLC pointed out there are only five service centres across the vast region they cover in the Northern Territory. Due to issues with technology and phone reception, language and literacy barriers, and the complexity of social security requirements, not having access to in-person services can act as a barrier to First Nations people in remote areas who are accessing income support, seeking support or challenging social security decisions. The Labor government must urgently remedy this situation and listen to the calls of First Nations-controlled organisations to increase access to Service Australia centres in remote Australia.

1.60The Australian Government expand access to face-to-face Services Australia service provision, including increasing the number of staffed Service Centres, in remote Australia.

1.61Evidence presented at this inquiry reinforced a long history of evidence showing that compulsory income management (CIM) schemes are racist, ineffective and incompatible with human rights.[29]

1.62For example, Mr Giffis Chief Executive Officer of the First People Disability Network stated:

Income management from a disability perspective is completely inappropriate. I can't possibly support it on any grounds. As I said before, our organisation does not support it whatsoever. It's not only discriminatory in a racial sense; we would also say it's ableist. As I said before, having a disability is inherently expensive. You might need access to other supports that most people don't necessarily need. They could range from incontinence pads to particular medications. How you access that when you've got no cash—yes, that's something we have to spend a significant amount of our time on as an organisation. We've got a fortunate relationship with a major company. We've got a storage cage, if you like, in Sydney, stacked full of incontinence pads, which get donated to us. We have to take them out into community because people can't afford to buy them.[30]

1.63Similarly, Ms Krakouer Director, the National Suicide Prevention and Trauma Recovery Project Krakouer said:

In terms of income management, I've seen how it's been rolled out in Kalgoorlie in so many respects, it's had a very draconian, disastrous impact on a lot of the families that are forced to use it. The way forward is not about penalising the family. It's not about demonising the families. It's about providing that support, that love, that kindness, that respect and giving opportunities that every single Australian brother and sister is entitled to. Not by any means do I support income management, because I know that there are other ways—and it's called kindness.[31]

1.64AHRC wrote in their submission:

The Commission has expressed that the Stronger Futures and Social Security laws, which provide the legal basis for the Basics Card and Cashless Debit Card respectively, place unjustified limitations on participants’ rights to a private life and social security, and that these laws may also be in breach of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), given that First Nations people are generally overrepresented in the areas where the cashless cards have been in operation. Furthermore, studies evaluating the effectiveness of welfare cards have had methodological limitations and findings have been mixed. As such, to date, there exists no clear and compelling evidence that the cards have delivered on their objectives.[32]

1.65There is no evidentiary basis for CIM and all schemes must be immediately abolished.

1.66The Australian Government immediately abolish all forms of compulsory income management and fund place-based, community-driven support services developed in collaboration with First Nations-controlled organisations and people.

Child Poverty

1.67The Chair supports the recommendations by the committee calling on the government to review Australia’s child support scheme and to continue investing in early intervention and place-based initiatives to address child poverty.

1.68The committee heard significant evidence about the negative impact of the income support system on children. Personal and compelling testimonies were shared by parents about the devastating impact inadequate income support payments were having on their children and families. The need to raise income support was also echoed as a critical measure to reduce child poverty by many organisations. The Chair therefore reinforces the need for the Labor government to implement Recommendation 1 of the Chair’s Recommendations to raise the rate of all income support payments to $88 a day.

1.69As Australian Lawyers for Human Rights (ALHR) pointed out in their submission, sole-parent families have the highest poverty rates among different family types in Australia and children in these families are more than three times as likely to live in poverty as children in couple families.[33]

1.70A key mechanism to address the disproportionate impact of poverty on single-parent families is through the Parenting Payment. However, many submitters highlighted how the current rate of the Parenting Payment Single is completely inadequate to support single parents, particularly those escaping domestic violence. Further, multiple inquiry participants called for eligibility for the payment to be expanded until their youngest child turns sixteen.

1.71The Australian Government:

Undertake a review of Parenting Payment (single), with a view of increasing the allowance and improving eligibility to better support single-parent families and children, particularly those experiencing domestic and family violence; and

Expand coverage of the Parenting Payment (Single), so that eligible single parents remain eligible for the payment until their youngest child’s 16th birthday.

1.72Despite being established to support young Australians, many are locked out of Youth Allowance, Austudy and ABSTUDY due to the current age of independence.

1.73As Lee Jia-Yi Carnie, Executive Director of Advocacy and Programs for the Foundation for Young Australians explained:

Right now, Centrelink provides essential income support for people over 22, but we know that there are hundreds of thousands of 18- to 21-year-olds who are locked out of financial support and struggling to get by. 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. Youth Allowance payments are lower than other Centrelink payments, like the age pension, DSP or JobSeeker, and far below the poverty line. Even including jobs assistance, students receive less than 60 per cent of the amount needed to survive at the poverty line.[34]

1.74The impact of this policy and the inadequate rate of income support on young people was summarised by Ms Riley, President of the National Union of Students:

Our Centrelink in Australia report on student poverty showed that more than 450,000 students aged 18 to 21 are locked out of our social security system, and another 110,000 students are paid at a rate of less than $28 per day. Every day, we hear from these students that they're experiencing the negative impact of living below the poverty line. We're constantly hearing from members and students that this is affecting their wellbeing a lot, whether it be their mental health, their experiences with the education system or a general inability to escape unsafe living situations. Students deserve better than this, I believe.

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.[35]

1.75Lowering the age of independence to 18 years of age is a simple and effective way to immediately help hundreds of thousands of young people access the support they need.

1.76The Australian Government lower the age of independence at which students can automatically access Youth Allowance, Austudy and ABSTUDY, from 22 to 18 years of age.

1.77Poverty in childhood can have devastating and life-long consequences. Many inquiry participants argued that to eradicate poverty in Australia, the federal government must take a coordinated approach to addressing child poverty.

1.78The AHRC submitted:

To end poverty, Australia needs to address both the root causes and the intergenerational effects of childhood poverty through comprehensive and coordinated national action.[36]

1.79In a hearing, Mr Pietropiccolo AM, Director of Centrecare also explained:

... I think what is also important is that child poverty has generally been unseen and unheard. There are very few Australians who understand or know that there are over 700,000—and, some estimate, even more, depending on what measure you use—children in Australia who are actually living in poverty. When you say to someone, 'We've got three-quarters of a million kids living in poverty,' they're shocked, because they realise that Australia is not a poor country, and, when we have countries in the world that are much poorer than Australia doing much better in relation to child poverty, they wonder, 'What's going on?' I just think that if we had a regular annual report on where child poverty is in this country and what measures we're taking to improve the situation, we would be much better informed as a community and as decision-makers but also have a much better opportunity to do something about it.[37]

1.80Professor Bessell, Director at the Children’s Policy Centre, argued:

We need a political commitment from all sides of parliament to reduce child poverty in this very wealthy country. A child poverty reduction act, already introduced in some countries, including New Zealand, would signal this. Reflecting political commitment and turning commitment to action, we need a child budget statement and we need to move towards thinking about how child poverty impact statements can be developed and used.[38]

1.81The Chair shares the view of these and multiple other inquiry participants and calls upon the government to make a national commitment to reduce child poverty.

1.82The Australian Government make a national commitment to reduce child poverty.

Poverty is a political choice

Poverty in Australia is a political choice, not an inevitability. We advocate for a transformation of the social security system that centres the provision of liveable social security as a basic right, delivered unconditionally and with a focus on the wellbeing and empowerment of recipients. A new system needs to be flexible and adaptive, guided by the needs and concerns of users, and based on empirical evidence.[39]

1.83As laid out in these additional comments and the body of the main report, Australia’s social security system has not contributed to alleviating poverty as it could be capable of doing. Any attempt to reduce poverty in Australia must include a transformation of this system as a priority.

1.84The Chair also supports the view of many inquiry participants that this must go hand in hand with other mechanisms to reduce poverty, like increased investment in place-based initiatives and clear targets for poverty reduction.

1.85The interim report provided extensive detail about the importance of national poverty measures. While there are a range of different measurements of poverty, there were clear recommendations from participants across a range of sectors that the Australian government should immediately establish a national definition of poverty.

1.86The establishment of the permanent Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee (EIAC) was a welcomed step by the Labor government towards reducing disadvantage. However, as expressed by an overwhelming majority of participants in the Senate Community Affairs inquiry into the legislation for the EIAC, it was disappointing to see no mention of poverty reduction in legislation nor any requirement for the body to develop a national measure of poverty reduction.

1.87The Chair believes that the EIAC has a critical role in developing a national poverty measure, recommending targets and mechanisms to measure progress against the objective of ending poverty, which can be adopted by the Australian Government. To ensure the work of the EIAC is properly considered by the government, the Chair also believes that the Australian Government must publicly respond to the committee’s annual report and recommendations.

1.88The Australian Government enshrine in legislation ending poverty as an explicit focus of the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee’s work.

1.89The Australian Government publicly respond every year to the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee’s annual report and recommendations.

1.90The Australian Government ask the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee to develop a national poverty measure or measures, and national poverty targets, which includes specific measures relating to child poverty, with the view to establishing an overarching Poverty Reduction policy framework and legislation.

Senator Janet Rice

Chair

Footnotes

[1]Professor Brian Howe, The Conversation, 13 February 2018, ‘Australians support universal health care, so why not a universal basic income?’, https://theconversation.com/australians-support-universal-health-care-so-why-not-a-universal-basic-income-91572 (accessed 20 February 2023).

[2]Anthony Albanese PM, ‘Labor’s Plan For a Better Future’, https://anthonyalbanese.com.au/media-centre/labors-plan-for-better-future-speech (accessed 21 February 2023).

[3]The Low Action Income Group, Adelaide South, Submission 163, p. 2.

[4]Mr Jayden Oxton-White, National Liaison, Anti-Poverty Network Queensland, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 December 2022, p. 22.

[5]Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission 244, p. 44.

[6]Accountable Income Management Network, Submission 4, p. 3.

[7]Interim Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, 18 April 2023, 2023-24 Report to the Australian Government, p. 4.

[8]Antipoverty Centre, Submission 29, p. 5.

[9]Ms Kristy Robson, Financial Counsellor, Consumer Action Law Centre, Proof Committee Hansard, 15 August 2023, p. 18.

[10]Dr Travers McLeod, Director, Brotherhood of St Laurence, Proof Committee Hansard, 15 August 2023, p. 3.

[11]Ms Jennifer Kirkaldy, General Manager, The Salvation Army, Proof Committee Hansard, 15 August 2023, p. 3.

[12]Ms Jennifer Kirkaldy, General Manager, The Salvation Army, Proof Committee Hansard, 15 August 2023, p. 4.

[13]Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 5 July 2022, People with disability in Australia,https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/disability/people-with-disability-in-australia/contents/income-and-finance/finances (accessed 21 February 2023).

[14]Homelessness Australia, Submission 8, p. 3.

[15]See for example: Homelessness Australia, Submission 8, p. 4; Australian Council of Social Services, Submission 23, p. 4.

[16]See for example: Antipoverty Centre, Submission 29, p. 27; The Salvation Army, Submission 20, p. 50.

[17]Dr Elise Klein, Submission 25, p. 56.

[18]The Antipoverty Centre, Submission 29, p. 6.

[19]Mr Jayden Oxton-White, National Liaison, Anti-Poverty Network Queensland, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 December 2022, p. 22.

[20]Dr Travers McLeod, Director, Brotherhood of St Laurence, Proof Committee Hansard, 15 August 2023, p. 8.

[21]Economic Justice Australia, Submission 16, p. 14.

[22]Mr Jayden Oxton-White, National Liaison, Anti-Poverty Network Queensland, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 December 2022, p. 22.

[23]Dr Francis Markham, Submission 251, p. 10.

[24]Central Land Council, Submission 119, p. 3.

[25]Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory, Submission 118, p. 4.

[26]Central Land Council, Submission 119, p. 11.

[27]Dr Francis Markham, Submission 251, p. 10.

[28]Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission 244, p. 45.

[29]See, for example, Australian Human Rights Commission, Social Justice Report 2007 - Chapter 3: The Northern Territory 'Emergency Response' intervention, https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/social-justice-report-2007-chapter-3-northern-territory-emergency-response-intervention#conclusion, p. 2017; J Rob Bray, Matthew Gray, Kelly Hand and Ilan Katz, Evaluating New Income Management in the Northern Territory: Final Evaluation Report, September 2014, p. Xxii.; Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, 2016 Review of Stronger Futures measures, 16 March 2016, p. 61; Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Human rights scrutiny report: Report 14 of 2020, 26 November 2020, p. 52; Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Human rights scrutiny report 11 of 2023, 18 October 2023, p. 43.

[30]Mr Damianm Griffis, Chief Executive Officer, First Peoples Disability Network, Proof Committee Hansard, 31 October 2023, p. 11.

[31]Ms Megan Krakouer, Director, National Suicide Prevention and Trauma Recovery Project, Proof Committee Hansard, 31 October 2023, p. 12.

[32]Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission 244, p. 46.

[33]Australian Lawyers for Human Rights, Submission 107, p. 20.

[34]Lee Jua-Yi Carnie, Executive Director, Advocacy and Programs, Foundation for Young Australians, Proof Committee Hansard, 31 January 2023, p. 33.

[35]Ms Bailey Riley, President, National Union of Students, Proof Committee Hansard, 31 January 2023, p. 33.

[36]Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission 244, p. 31.

[37]Mr Tony Pietropiccolo AM, Director, Centrecare, Proof Committee Hansard, 15 August 2023, p. 16.

[38]Professor Sharon Bessell, Director, Children’s Policy Centre, Proof Committee Hansard, 15 August 2023, p. 22.

[39]Accountable Income Management Network, Submission 4, p. 5.