Chapter 5Policy mechanisms to reduce poverty

Poverty is a policy decision, not an inevitable fact of life. What happens to individuals and families who have little power is directly related to the decisions of government and politicians, who have much. Inequality… is effectively set at the level the government of the day is content with.[1]

5.1This chapter explores the evidence received on a range of existing policy mechanisms and proposed new policies to address rates of poverty and reduce disadvantage.

National policy mechanisms

5.2This section first covers current initiatives and policy mechanisms aimed at addressing disadvantage. It also outlines proposals from submitters, which would embed in national policy targets and measures to address and eradicate poverty.

Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee (EIAC)

5.3The Interim Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee (EIAC) was announced and established in November 2022 to ’provide non-binding written advice on economic inclusion, including policy settings, systems and structures, and the adequacy, effectiveness, and sustainability of income support payments ahead of every Budget’.[2]

5.4While legislation has been introduced into Parliament to formally establish the EIAC at the time of this writing,[3] an Interim EIAC provided an initial report in April 2023 to inform the 2023–24 Budget. It made 37 recommendations across the following five themes:

improving the adequacy of income support and rent assistance;

supporting more Australians to participate in the economy through commitment to a broader full employment objective;

addressing disadvantage in the places it is concentrated;

removing barriers to economic inclusion for families with children; and

proposing legislated measures on economic inclusion and poverty reduction.[4]

5.5In making these recommendations, the Interim EIAC explained that it focussed on the needs of people on JobSeeker, Youth Allowance, and related working age payments because they are ‘the largest number of Australians experiencing poverty and disadvantage today’.[5]

5.6At a public hearing in Canberra, Professor Peter Whiteford, a member of the Interim EIAC, explained that:

… [EIAC’s work] on the adequacy of social security payments is essentially extremely similar to the same sorts of questions and issues and research that you have to do to look at poverty, because, while there are some distinctions to be made between what makes a social security payment adequate and what constitutes a poverty line, the issues are extremely similar.[6]

5.7Inquiry participants expressed support for the work and recommendations made by the Interim EIAC.[7] For example, Ms Jennifer Kirkaldy from the Salvation Army considered the EIAC has ‘a good mandate’ and that it would ‘move us closer to being able to both measure and actually have some accountability about addressing poverty’.[8] Ms Kirkaldy added that there should be a Minister and a commitment to eradicate poverty.[9]

5.8Similarly, Dr Cassandra Goldie from the Australian Council for Social Service (ACOSS) ‘warmly welcomed the establishment of the Interim EIAC’ and expressed their vision that it would:

provide independent, transparent, and expert advice to governments and to the public about how to secure the adequacies of incomes for people who have been seriously left behind.[10]

5.9Centrecare stated they were pleased to see EIAC’s work focused on exploring legislated measures and ‘formalising the role of the Treasury portfolio in leading economic inclusion and poverty reduction’.[11] They also strongly agreed with the Interim EIAC’s recommendations for the Australian Government to adopt a multi-dimensional poverty index, and to use the Measuring What Matters framework and Intergenerational Report to highlight and track disadvantage.[12]

5.10The Central Land Council were supportive of the establishment of the EIAC and urged it to focus on ‘improving the economic inclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in remote Australia’.[13]

5.11On 23 November 2023, the Community Affairs Legislation Committee completed its inquiry into the legislation for the EIAC. Most submitters provided a number of recommendations to strengthen the bill, including the inclusion of an explicit reference to ending poverty within the EIAC’s remit.[14]

Measuring What Matters wellbeing framework

5.12As part of the 2023–24 Budget, the Treasurer released the government’s wellbeing framework called Measuring What Matters (MWM) and its first statement outlining indicators of Australia’s wellbeing that complement traditional economic metrics.

5.13Although there are no poverty indicators contained in the MWM, the statement includes five wellbeing themes: healthy, secure, sustainable, cohesive, and prosperous. There are also ‘cross-cutting’ dimensions of inclusion, equity, and fairness, reflecting the need to ensure that wellbeing outcomes are ‘fairly shared amongst the population’.[15]

5.14Underneath the headline themes, there are 50 key indicators across different categories that cover wellbeing. Some examples of categories and indicators that could be relevant to poverty are:

Having financial security and access to housing – including indicators such as: making ends meet, homelessness, and housing serviceability;

Broad opportunities for employment and well-paid, secure jobs – including indicators such as: job opportunities, broadening access to work, and secure jobs;

Equitable access to quality health and care services including indicators such as: access to health services, and access to care and support services; and

Access to education, skills development and learning throughout life – including indicators such as: childhood development, literacy and numeracy skills at school, and skills development.[16]

5.15Submitters and witnesses noted the potential to embed poverty measures and targets in the MWM framework.[17]

5.16For example, the Brotherhood of St Laurence said the new framework is an ‘enormously positive step’ and advocated for poverty measures to be added to the framework.[18] Brotherhood of St Laurence submitted that the framework should adopt a multi-dimensional approach to poverty reduction including consideration of economic equity, a suitable poverty index, and systems that ‘constrain people’s capability to save money and avoid debt’.[19] Brotherhood of St Laurence also argued that the EIAC could:

be responsible for working with DSS and Treasury to develop measures for poverty reduction that align with the Measuring What Matters framework and that the Treasurer be the responsible minister for setting targets and reporting against these measures.[20]

5.17Other witnesses supported the inclusion of poverty measures in the wellbeing framework[21] and recommended it to include overall poverty and distributional measures.[22]

5.18Conversely, Professor Sharon Bessell from the Children’s Policy Centre said there are ‘some gaps around children broadly’, and contended that with:

wellbeing frameworks we need to be very careful that we don't end with an upward, middle-class or better-off gaze and that we ensure that those wellbeing approaches are supporting all Australians. That means thinking about poverty as the scaffold.[23]

5.19The committee heard from Treasury that this is ‘only the first iteration’ and there would be further consultation with interest groups for further versions of the wellbeing statement.[24]

5.20Ms Kristy Baker, Assistant Secretary, Social Policy Division at Treasury also advised that they have been liaising with the Interim EIAC on the wellbeing framework, including how its indicators and metrics relate to poverty and how to ‘shine light on the areas of poverty that can really inform policy development going forward’.[25]

Setting targets to end poverty

5.21Submitters told the committee that legislating and setting up objectives and targets were important and recommended the Australian Government set explicit targets and measures to reduce poverty.[26]

5.22For example, at a public hearing in Canberra, Professor Whiteford stressed the importance of setting targets to achieve progress and change:

If you want to hit a target, you have to know what the target is. So you have to have an objective. […] in the past there was a lot of criticism of the Hawke government promising to end child poverty by 1990 because, of course, they didn't. But, in fact, in that period of the late eighties-early nineties, that government reduced child poverty by more than any other OECD country through the initiatives that they had in increasing family payments, in particular.[27]

5.23Further, Professor Whiteford stated:

I think to make progress you have to have an objective and a target, and it has to be something concrete; it can't just be an aspiration of 'we'll make things better', because we want to measure progress against a target.[28]

5.24Save the Children and 54 Reasons supported ‘legislated targets to end child poverty’, suggesting targets should be ‘supported with clear accountability and reporting arrangements including through the annual budget process’.[29] They go on to express the view that targets would align with global consensus on what is needed to achieve real change in poverty, citing the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 1 requiring a ‘national target for each country’.[30]

5.25Similarly, the Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA) considered setting targets is a good way to reaffirm Australia’s commitment to meeting the SDGs and highlighted Australia’s current lack of ‘intermediate targets, milestones, reform actions, or reporting framework’.[31]

5.26As outlined in Chapter 4, some submitters recommended passing legislation to set objectives, citing, for example, setting the objective to halve child poverty by 2030 with measurable targets and actions.[32]

5.27For example, Mr Tony Pietropiccolo AM from Centrecare gave an example of New Zealand’s Child Poverty Reduction Act 2018, which provides a long-term legislative basis and commitment to ending poverty. It includes four primary and six supplementary measures for addressing child poverty and requires the relevant minister to set three- and ten-year targets for each measure and to report annually to New Zealand Parliament. This also provides a mechanism to prioritise poverty reduction in annual budget processes.[33]

5.28At a public hearing in Canberra, Mr Pietropiccolo stated that the legislative approach:

… sent a strong message to the community to take child poverty seriously. The New Zealand model, in our view, is the best model currently operating to end child poverty and, therefore, all poverty.[34]

5.29Similarly, Anti-Poverty Week urged ‘all parliamentarians to pass legislation to halve child poverty by 2030, with measurable targets and actions to achieve this goal’, citing the success of the New Zealand legislation. Referencing New Zealand’s experience, Anti-Poverty Week stated that:

The Bill was passed in December 2019 with overwhelming support across the Parliament… Child poverty advocates say it was one of the major achievements – enshrining and to a great extent depoliticising - action to reduce child poverty.[35]

5.30Anti-Poverty Week highlighted how legislation provides permanency for the poverty reduction targets and that a new government ‘would need to repeal legislation to undo this commitment.’[36]

5.31In support of this, the Commissioner for Children and Young People SA also supported the legislative approach and highlighted the success of New Zealand’s legislation in driving a range of policies across affordable housing, child support payments, and other social programs to achieve its poverty reduction targets.[37]

5.32Inquiry participants recommended various other overarching policy mechanisms, such as a national anti-poverty strategy addressing all portfolio areas and setting targets[38] or a ‘National Poverty Commission’ tasked with strategy development, research, and advice.[39]

Mechanisms to report on progress

5.33Submitters stressed the importance of having mechanisms to track poverty and measure progress against any poverty reduction goals, including reporting requirements, responsibilities and accountabilities within the Australian Government, and links to other policy work that could help set the scene to guide action on poverty reduction.[40]

5.34For example, CEDA submitted on the importance of the reporting and evaluation framework and suggested tracking of not only overall poverty rates but also ‘rates of poverty for by cohort, age, and location’. They argued this would ‘guide better policy and hold decision makers to account’.[41]

5.35The Salvation Army recommended the Australian Government should demonstrate its commitment to ending poverty by ‘establishing a clear body or Cabinet position with accountability for progress toward ending poverty’.[42]In a similar vein, Centrecare supported ‘formalising the role of the Treasury portfolio in leading economic inclusion and poverty reduction’.[43]

5.36Centrecare also highlighted the importance of linking reporting on progress with other policy mechanisms, including their support for the EIAC’s recommendation for:

an expansion of the Intergenerational Report to include forecasting, benchmarking, tracking and modelling of savings from the alleviation of disadvantage, with a specific focus on outcomes in places of persistent disadvantage.[44]

5.37The Salvation Army also referenced other mechanisms, recommending the Productivity Commission should be instructed to provide a ‘report on the economic cost of poverty and the likely benefits that would accrue in Australia if disadvantage and financial hardship were addressed’.[45] This would then represent a business case and a ‘blueprint for all governments and stakeholders to work together’ on poverty reduction.[46]

Definition of poverty

5.38As outlined in the committee’s interim report, a significant number of submitters to the inquiry recommended the Australian Government adopt a nationally agreed definition of poverty to measure poverty levels and track progress in reducing poverty over time.[47]

5.39Organisations such as the ACOSS and University of NSW Partnership, the Melbourne Institute, and Per Capita supported a national definition that would allow the Australian Government to consider policy choices and funding allocations to tackle poverty.[48]

5.40Anglicare Southern Queensland suggested a definition was necessary as currently ‘there is no definitive way to determine the scale of the problem, or the progress made (or not) in addressing it’.[49]

5.41In support of this, Professor Whiteford from the Interim EIAC explained how their work in considering the adequacy of income support payments necessarily included a comparison of commonly used relative poverty measures across high-income countries.[50]

5.42Agreeing with the need for a definition of poverty, Professor A. Abigail Payne from the Melbourne Institute also argued that:

it's important because it's important for us to have some comparability to be able to measure over time to identify opportunities, to identify deficits and to recognise successes.[51]

5.43However, there were different views on what the precise definition should be.[52] For example, the Melbourne Institute highlighted the longstanding use of the Henderson poverty line and the useful ability to compare internationally using a 50 per cent of median income measure. They advocated for an adoption of an ‘easily measured definition of poverty for Australia’, and that they should be calculated at a sub-national level to allow for benchmarking in areas of concern.[53]

5.44Other submitters highlighted the limitations of certain definitions, including how income-based measures did not consider the importance of wealth[54] and how a multi-dimensional approach to defining poverty was preferred.[55] The Department of Social Services outlined that ‘[p]overty is a multifaceted issue, and there is no single measure that can summarise every dimension of poverty and disadvantage’.[56] Further, the Department emphasised that:

… a range of indicators can be used to assess poverty and disadvantage. The various approaches to poverty measurements, as well as the data used, tend to give different answers about the extent of poverty, and even who suffers from poverty in Australia. This information is valuable as it facilitates seeing a more holistic picture of the incidence and the extent of poverty from a range of perspectives that cannot be encapsulated in a single statistic. Acknowledging the complexity of poverty and disadvantage, the Government uses a range of metrics and indicators and does not consider any single indicator in isolation.[57]

5.45Discussion around the case for a specific definition of child poverty is canvassed in Chapter 4 of this report.

Policy interventions and programs

5.46This section looks at policy initiatives and programs in key areas that can influence poverty rates, including income support payments, housing, education, and employment services.

5.47Chapter 2 discussed the role of income support payments and recommendations for the Australian Government to increase these payments to reduce poverty rates in Australia. Chapters 3 and 4 covered interventions specific to First Nations people and communities and child poverty respectively. Chapter 4 also captured initiatives and programs related to education.

Health

5.48The committee’s interim report described the impacts of poverty on physical health and mental health.[58] For example, submitters outlined the negative health impacts associated with poverty, including high suicide rates[59] and impacts on growth and development such as poor brain growth and increased risk of mental illness and chronic disease.[60] Further, other submitters outlined that poverty leads to poor physical and mental health outcomes and, as such, contended that poor health and mental illness can increase one’s susceptibility to experiencing poverty.[61]

5.49There were calls to increase affordable healthcare support such as general practice bulkbilling incentives and reducing out of pocket costs, additional subsidies for those dependent on medication (such as expanding the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme), dental care, multidisciplinary clinics and services, and accessible primary healthcare for those on low incomes regardless of location.[62]

5.50For example, Cohealth advocated for increased investment in health and social support services that provide care for people experiencing disadvantage, submitting that:

Many of the services and supports that people need to stay healthy and well are too expensive for people who experience poverty. Too many people are unable to access bulk billing GPs, dental care is unaffordable and public specialist care can have long wait times. We need to ensure people can access the health and social support services they need to keep them well. Our health system needs to prioritise the needs of people who experience disadvantage, and greater investment is needed in the primary health services that provide the integrated, wrap around care they need.[63]

5.51Others argued for increased support for mental health services (including bulkbilling incentives) and greater coordination and awareness across government of the impacts of socioeconomic hardship on mental distress, suicidal behaviour, and self-harm.[64] For example, Lifeline Australia recommended a ‘suicide prevention decision-making tool to embed suicide prevention into targeted initiatives, service planning, design, implementation and evaluation across sectors and government portfolios’.[65]

5.52Similarly, Orygen, a youth mental health organisation, submitted that:

Investment in youth mental health services may address and reduce poverty through early intervention, connection to broader services and the provision of vocational support. Given the association between poverty and mental ill-health, links between youth mental health services and social services are a critical support mechanism. The development and maintenance of relationships between services provide referral pathways that connect young people to the services they need.[66]

5.53There were also calls for greater support for those in financial distress including for specialised health services and community-based financial literacy and counselling services.[67]

5.54The Centre for Community Child Health viewed an increase in income support payments as a preventative investment strategy in children’s health and development.[68] They also recommend targeting financial wellbeing services using early years health services, such as antenatal care, child and family health nursing, early childhood education and care.[69]

Housing

5.55The committee’s interim report detailed the strong link between housing policy and poverty, including the experiences of homelessness, housing insecurity, and housing unaffordability.[70]

5.56Submitters called for a national housing and homelessness strategy and measures to address the shortfall in supply of social and affordable housing.[71] For example, ACOSS and the University of NSW partnership recommended:

… sustained, increased investment in social and affordable housing over the long term, including in deeply subsidized housing as well as appropriately targeted affordable housing programs, to boost affordable and social housing stock and reduce housing costs for people on low incomes.[72]

5.57Some submitters specifically recommended a 25 000 dwelling per year housing package to reduce homelessness.[73] ACOSS also recommended a new affordable rental investment scheme, boosting First Nations community housing stock, and partnerships with the states and territories on social and affordable housing targets.[74] St Vincent de Paul Society called for more private market incentives[75] while the Antipoverty Centre recommended taking measures to return housing to its primary purpose of providing shelter rather than wealth creation.[76]

5.58Submitters recommended a focus on homelessness services where an immediate boost to funding specialists services is needed to acknowledge the interconnections between poverty, homelessness, incarceration, and family violence.[77] For example, Uniting Victoria and Tasmania recommended Commonwealth and state and territory governments should partner to construct purpose-built crisis accommodation to address underlying issues for those experiencing homelessness, such as links to mental health treatments, alcohol and other drugs treatments, financial counselling, medical care, and employment and legal services.[78]

5.59Submitters also commented on improving conditions for renters who are more likely to be on lower incomes. For example, there were calls for minimum energy efficiency and health and safety standards for rental homes;[79] ending no-grounds evictions and capping rental increases;[80] and modernised Residential Tenancies Acts and independent bond boards.[81]

5.60Recognising the issues around housing and renting, National Cabinet met in August 2023 to discuss these issues and committed to:

The National Planning Reform Blueprint – including updates to state, regional, and local strategic plans to reflect housing supply targets, promotion of medium to high density housing well serviced areas, and streamlining approval pathways; and

A Better Deal for Renters – including a nationally consistent framework for reasonable grounds evictions, bans on rent bidding, minimum quality standards, improving rental applications processes, and improved considerations for tenants experiencing domestic and family violence.[82]

5.61Further, the Australian Government has also recently implemented its $10billion Housing Australia Future Fund to support the states and territories deliver social and affordable homes, including the delivery of a National Housing and Homelessness Plan to establish a clear national housing strategy.[83]

5.62The committee’s inquiry into the worsening rental crisis in Australia was exploring these acute issues in greater detail, particularly the challenges for those experiencing housing or rental stress who spend a significant portion of their income on housing.

5.63The HAFF provides that $500 million will be disbursed each financial year to 2028–29, indexed to CPI. The Australian Government intends to deliver 30 000 social and affordable homes through the HAFF over the first five years as follows:

20 000 homes for social housing (of which 4000 would be for ‘women and children leaving or experiencing domestic and family violence and older women on low incomes who are at risk of homelessness’); and

10 000 ‘affordable homes for frontline workers like police, nurses and cleaners’.[84]

Employment

5.64The interim report showed how poverty is a barrier to employment and how unemployment, underemployment, and low wages are a driver of deprivation.[85]

5.65The EIAC and ACOSS both recommended a full employment objective[86] which was subsequently explored by the Australian Government’s White Paper on Jobs and Opportunities.[87] ACOSS submitted this full employment objective should be aligned cross economic, fiscal, and monetary policy settings, and thus should be explicitly agreed between the Australian Government and the Reserve Bank of Australia.[88]

5.66Submitters also stressed the importance of workplace protections. For example, the Australian Human Rights Commission argued for adequate minimum wages for people with disability, protections against sexual harassment, and culturally safe workplaces.[89]

5.67Carers NSW highlighted the challenges facing carers in balancing work and care responsibilities, recommending improved workplace conditions and protections to enable economic participation that is conducive to the wellbeing of carers.[90]

5.68Ms Deborah Fewster from the Victorian Council of Social Service pointed out that current low unemployment rates are ‘masking the fact that there are some workers who are living in poverty’ and that their participation in the gig economy was a ‘forced choice’.[91] Going further, some submitters suggested a need to address insecure work such as the gig economy that reduces access to fair work safety nets and work entitlements (such as leave and superannuation).[92]

5.69In support of workplace inclusion and diversity, MS Australia supported a national campaign to improve awareness of the value of employing people with disability, recognising the additional diversity and uniqueness of their perspectives and skills.[93]

Place-based strategies and programs

5.70Alongside the traditional government portfolio approaches discussed above, inquiry participants noted that geography is an important factor in the experience of poverty across Australia, including the accessibility of support services, and that solutions to address poverty should consider the location of interventions, programs, and services.[94]

5.71In relation to addressing concentrated poverty, the Interim EIAC recommended place-based strategies to ‘rewire investment in areas where the biggest lift in economic inclusion can be achieved’, including long-term funding and a whole-of-government policy and investment framework, strong coordination and shared decision-making between different jurisdictions, and monitoring and evaluation.[95]

5.72Illustrating this, the Melbourne Institute provided the below figure which demonstrates the concentration of poverty in specific areas around the country and the need to consider this in policy and program design.

Source: Melbourne Institute, additional information received 8 November 2023, [p. 15].

5.73To implement this in the context of poverty reduction, the Life Course Centre highlighted the importance of place-based approaches as an effective way to address the complex nature of disadvantage by ‘looking at [the] physical and social environment’ and local service systems.[96] This allows for sub-population level analysis and targeting resources to tackle poverty, inequality, and unemployment at regional and local levels.[97]

5.74The Life Course Centre also raised housing policy and delivery as an example of where all governments should be ‘more joined up.[98] They argue that cooperation in housing requires the Australian Government to work with states and territories and local governments to ‘align local community needs, services and infrastructure’, and consider ‘state based rental subsidies and land use planning systems’.[99]

5.75The Paul Ramsay Foundation’s submission also focused on place-based approaches, and recommended place-based, early intervention strategies to break the cycle of disadvantage ‘in place’ and to minimise developmental vulnerabilities for children and young people.[100]

5.76With similar focus on geography, state or territory-based organisations advocated for tailored consideration for policies and programs for their specific areas. For example, organisations recommended funding for housing and homelessness should be based on need rather than population share in the Northern Territory and should be based on tripartite agreements between different levels of government.[101]

5.77As part of their calls for increased funding for the care economy, The Benevolent Society called for prioritising innovative services and funding models for regional and rural areas so that ‘support is readily available for clients and care work is financially viable for workers and providers’.[102]

5.78Further distinction was made to consider remote and very remote regions. For example, the Interim EIAC suggested placed-based approaches resonate strongly with the Closing the Gap agenda and actions to improve outcomes for First Nations people and communities.[103] Chapter 3 discusses the challenges of remoteness faced by First Nations communities.

5.79Finally, some submitters advocated specifically for their own local areas, raising their local histories and efforts to alleviate poverty. They advocated for long-term funding of place-based community development, low-cost food programs, emergency relief, and health services to address the local social determinants of poverty.[104]

Place-based approaches in health

5.80Additionally, there was consideration of differences between urban and rural settings. For example, Disability Advocacy NSW recognised the challenges facing those seeking health services in non-urban settings in NSW and recommended focus on thin markets in those areas such as incentives to build GP and allied health presence.[105]

5.81Similarly, the National Rural Health Alliance recommends rural-led and located research into place-based approaches, investment in rural communications infrastructure to address digital inclusion, increase access to Medicare for out-of-hospital services in rural areas, and rural multi-disciplinary health services.[106]

Committee view

Place-based approaches

5.82The committee received strong evidence that place-based approaches can have tangible impacts and be effective in breaking the cycle of disadvantage in local communities.

5.83The committee acknowledges that location is one of the factors that drives the extent and nature of poverty and disadvantage across Australia. It heard about differences across states and territories, urban and non-urban settings, and remote and very remote areas. The evidence also highlighted how local organisations delivering services in specific locations are best placed to understand local characteristics and identify the needs of disadvantaged groups – needs that often cross between the different traditional government portfolios.

5.84The committee is of the view that there should be a suitable mechanism in place that allows for place-based investments to reduce poverty.

5.85The committee recommends the Australian Government, in consultation with stakeholders, continue developing funding of longer-term place-based initiatives aimed at reducing poverty and disadvantage.

A national policy framework for poverty reduction

5.86The committee acknowledges the evidence the inquiry received suggesting the need for an overarching policy framework for poverty, including targets and clear measures on poverty.

5.87The committee is of the view that the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee (EIAC) is best placed to progress any work towards this as required.

5.88The committee notes comments from submitters that poverty reduction measures and targets should be embedded into the Measuring What Matters framework. The committee encourages Treasury to further broadly consult stakeholders, including people with direct experience of poverty, on the framework.

5.89The committee acknowledges the importance of strengthening and developing and investing in programs in all portfolios to contribute to reducing poverty.

Footnotes

[1]Anglicare Southern Queensland, Submission 30, p. 2.

[2]Interim Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, 2023–24 Report to the Australian Government, April 2023, p. 90.

[3]Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee Bill 2023, First Reading, 19 October 2023.

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

[5]Interim Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, 2023–24 Report to the Australian Government, April 2023, p. 4.

[6]Professor Peter Whiteford, Member, Interim Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, Committee Hansard, 31 October 2023, p. 40.

[7]See, for example, Central Land Council, Submission 119, p. 13;Mr Tony Pietropiccolo AM, Director, Centrecare, Committee Hansard, 15 August 2023, pp. 15-16; and Professor Sharon Bessell, Director Children’s Policy Centre, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University, Committee Hansard, 15 August 2023, p. 24.

[8]Ms Jennifer Kirkaldy, General Manager, Policy and Advocacy, The Salvation Army, Committee Hansard, 15 August 2023, p. 6.

[9]Ms Jennifer Kirkaldy, General Manager, Policy and Advocacy, The Salvation Army, Committee Hansard, 15 August 2023, p. 5.

[10]Dr Cassandra Goldie, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS), Committee Hansard, 10 November 2023, p. 8.

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

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

[13]Central Land Council, Submission 119, p. 22.

[14]Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Economic Inclusion Advisory Bill 2023 [Provisions]Report, 22 November 2023. A full copy of the committee’s report is available at: www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/EconomicInclusion/Report.

[15]Treasury, Measuring what matters, https://treasury.gov.au/policy-topics/measuring-what-matters (accessed 2 November 2023).

[16]Treasury, Measuring what matters, https://treasury.gov.au/policy-topics/measuring-what-matters (accessed 2 November 2023).

[17]See, for example, Dr Cassandra Goldie, Chief Executive Officer, ACOSS, Committee Hansard, 27February 2023, p. 21; Ms Taryn Harvey, Chief Executive Officer, Western Australian Association for Mental Health, Committee Hansard, 15 August 2023, p. 21; Ms Cara Nolan, Senior Advisor, Brotherhood of St Laurence, Committee Hansard, 10 November 2023, p. 8.

[18]Dr Travers McLeod, Executive Director, Brotherhood of St Laurence, Committee Hansard, 15 August 2023, p. 5.

[19]Brotherhood of St Laurence, Submission 21, pp. 3, 14.

[20]Ms Cara Nolan, Senior Advisor, Brotherhood of St Laurence, Committee Hansard, 10 November 2023, p. 8.

[21]See, for example, Professor Peter Whiteford, Member, Interim Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, Committee Hansard, 31 October 2023, p. 42; Centre for Community Child Health, Submission 10, pp. 8 and 9; Dr Cassandra Goldie, Chief Executive Officer, ACOSS, Committee Hansard, 27 February 2023, p. 21; Professor A. Abigail Payne, Director, The Melbourne Institute: Applied Economic & Social Research, Committee Hansard, 31 October 2023, p. 37; and Professor Kylie Valentine, Director, Social Policy Research Centre, University of NSW, Committee Hansard, 31 October 2023, p. 37.

[22]ACOSS, Submission 21, pp. 2 and 3.

[23]Professor Sharon Bessell, Director, Children's Policy Centre, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University, Committee Hansard, 15 August 2023, p. 26.

[24]Ms Khanh Hoang, Assistant Secretary, Department of the Treasury, Committee Hansard, 15 August 2023, p. 64.

[25]Ms Kristy Baker, Assistant Secretary, Social Policy Division, Department of the Treasury, Committee Community Affairs Legislation Committee Hansard, 10 November 2023, pp. 17 and 18.

[26]See, for example, Professor Peter Whiteford, Member, Interim Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, Committee Hansard, 31 October 2023,p. 41; Dr Travers McLeod, Executive Director, Brotherhood of St Laurence, Committee Hansard, 15 August 2023, p. 2; Save the Children and 54 Reasons, Submission 133, pp. 21 and 22; Committee for Economic Development of Australia, Submission 115, p. 6; St Vincent de Paul’s Society, Submission 27, p. 3;Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission 244, pp. 13 and 14.

[27]Professor Peter Whiteford, Member, Interim Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, Committee Hansard, 31 October 2023,p. 41.

[28]Professor Peter Whiteford, Member, Interim Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, Committee Hansard, 31 October 2023,p. 41.

[29]Save the Children and 54 Reasons, Submission 133, pp. 21 and 22

[30]Save the Children and 54 Reasons, Submission 133, pp. 21 and 22

[31]Committee for Economic Development Australia, Submission 115, p. 6.

[32]See, for example, Anti-Poverty Week, Submission 17, p. 1; Commissioner for Children and Young People SA, Submission 109, p. 2; Commissioner for Children and Young People WA, Submission 109, p. 3; and Families Australia, Submission 88, p. 6.

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

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

[35]Anti-Poverty Week, Submission 17, p. 3.

[36]Anti-Poverty Week, Submission 17, pp. 1 and 3.

[37]Commissioner for Children and Young People SA, Submission 109, pp. 5 and 6.

[38]See, for example, Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission 244, p. 6; National Council of Churches in Australia, Submission 104, p. 5.

[39]Per Capita, Submission 131, p. 7.

[40]See, for example, Committee for Economic Development of Australia, Submission 115, p. 6; The Salvation Army, Submission 20, p. 7 and Answer to Question on Notice, provided on 10 November 2023; and Mr Tony Pietropiccolo AM, Director, Centrecare, Committee Hansard, 15 August 2023, p. 15.

[41]Committee for Economic Development of Australia, Submission 115, p. 6.

[42]The Salvation Army, Submission 20, p. 7 and Answer to Question on Notice, provided on 10 November 2023.

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

[44]Mr Tony Pietropiccolo AM, Director, Centrecare, Committee Hansard, 15 August 2023, p. 15. Note: The Intergenerational Report is released once every five years and projects the outlook of the economy for a 40-year period, including key drivers of economic growth and future forces such as ageing population, climate change, technology demand for services, and geopolitical risks.

[45]The Salvation Army, Submission 20, p. 7.

[46]The Salvation Army, Submission 20, p. 7.

[47]Senate Community Affairs References Committee, The extent and nature of poverty in Australia: Interim Report, May 2023, pp. 8–14.

[48]See, for example, Australian Council of Social Service & University of New South Wales Poverty and Inequality Partnership, Submission 22, p. 3; Per Capita, Submission 131, p. 7; The Melbourne Institute: Applied Economic & Social Research, Submission 39, p. 1.

[49]Anglicare Southern Queensland, Submission 30, pp. 3 and 4.

[50]Professor Peter Whiteford, Member, Interim Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, Committee Hansard, 31 October 2023,p. 41.

[51]Professor A. Abigail Payne, Director, The Melbourne Institute: Applied Economic & Social Research, Committee Hansard, 31 October 2023,p.36.

[52]Senate Community Affairs References Committee, The extent and nature of poverty in Australia: Interim Report, May 2023, pp. 8–14.

[53]The Melbourne Institute: Applied Economic & Social Research, Submission 39, p. 1.

[54]Professor Roger Wilkins, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 27 February 2023, p. 30.

[55]Brotherhood of St Laurence, Submission 21, pp. 5 and 6.

[56]Department of Social Services, Submission 12, p. 43.

[57]Department of Social Services, Submission 12, p. 43.

[58]Senate Community Affairs References Committee, The extent and nature of poverty in Australia: Interim Report, May 2023, pp. 24–30.

[59]Lifeline Australia, Submission 2, pp. 3 and 13.

[60]See, for example, Centre for Community Child Health, Submission 10, p. 2; Cancer Council Australia, Submission 58, p. 4.

[61]See, for example, Cohealth, Submission 28, p. 8; Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Submission 93, [p. 3].

[62]See, for example, Cohealth, Submission 28, pp. 15 and 16; Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, Submission 91, p. 9; Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Submission93, p. [5]; Australian College of Nursing, Submission 92, p. 4; Consumer Health Forum of Australia, Submission 105, pp. 11, 14; Australian Lawyers for Human Rights, Submission 107, p.23; Victorian Aboriginal Controlled Community Organisation (VACCHO), Submission 116, p. 8; Public Health Association of Australia, Submission 144, p. 12; Ozharvest, Submission 5, p. 3; Foodbank, Submission6, p. 27; Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission 244, p. 6;and Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association, Submission 85, pp. 14–16.

[63]Cohealth, Submission 28, pp. 15 and 16.

[64]See, for example, Orygen, Submission 78, p. 4; Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, Submission 91, p. 9; and Lifeline Australia, Submission 2, pp. 16 and 17.

[65]Lifeline Australia, Submission 2, pp. 16 and 17.

[66]Orygen, Submission 78, p. 4.

[67]See, for example, Australian College of Nursing, Submission 82, p. 7; Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Submission 93, p. [4]; Western Australian Association for Mental Health, Submission 129, pp. 27 and 28; and Financial Counselling Australia, Submission 31, p. 7.

[68]Centre for Community Child Health, Submission 10, pp. 7–9.

[69]Centre for Community Child Health, Submission 10, pp. 7–9.

[70]Senate Community Affairs References Committee, The extent and nature of poverty in Australia: Interim Report, May 2023, pp. 21–24.

[71]See, for example, Brotherhood of St Laurence, Submission 21, p. 3; The Salvation Army, Submission 20, p. 7; Consortium of Neighbourhood Centres, Submission 24, p. 2; Anglicare, Submission 7, p. 13; Multicultural Youth Advocacy Network Australia, Submission 69, p. 16; Westjustice, Submission 74, [p. 7]; Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare, Submission 86, p. 7; Committee for Economic Development of Australia, Submission 115, p. 8; Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission 244, p. 6; and Centrecare, Submission 15, p. [21].

[72]See, for example, Australian Council of Social Service and University of NSW partnership, Submission 22, p. 3 and Financial Counselling Australia, Submission 31, p. 7.

[73]See, for example, Australian Council of Social Service and University of NSW partnership, Submission 22, p. 3; and Homelessness Australia, Submission 80, p. 4.

[74]ACTCOSS, Submission 26, p. 7.

[75]St Vincent de Paul Society, Submission 27, p. 4.

[76]Antipoverty Centre, Submission 29, p. 29.

[77]See, for example, Anglicare Southern Queensland, Submission 30, p. 15; Multicultural Australia, Submission 47, p. 21; Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, Submission 91, p.9; Community Legal Centres Tasmania and JusTas, Submission 121, p. 8; and Uniting Victoria and Tasmania, Submission 34, p. 18.

[78]Uniting Victoria and Tasmania, Submission 34, p. 19.

[79]Better Renting, Submission 42, pp. 1, 39.

[80]See, for example, Tenants Union NSW, Submission 98, p. 3; Disability Advocacy NSW, Submission71, p. 8; and Disability Advocacy NSW, Submission 71, p. 7.

[81]NT Shelter, Submission 75, pp. 7 and 8.

[82]The Hon Anthony Albanese MP, Prime Minister of Australia, ‘Meeting of National Cabinet – working together to deliver better housing outcomes’, Media Release, 16 August 2023.

[83]Department of Social Services, Submission 12, pp. 22 and 23.

[84]Revised Explanatory Memorandum, Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023, National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023, Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023, p. 8.

[85]Senate Community Affairs References Committee, The extent and nature of poverty in Australia: Interim Report, May 2023, pp. 32–35.

[86]Interim Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, 2023–24 Report to the Australian Government, April 2023, pp. 8 and 9; ACOSS, Submission 23, p. 6.

[87]The Treasury, Working Future: The Australian Government’s White Paper on Jobs and Opportunities, September 2023.

[88]Australian Council of Social Service, Submission 23, p. 5.

[89]Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission 244, p. 6.

[90]Carers NSW, Submission 99, p. 11.

[91]Ms Deborah Fewster, Director, Policy and Advocacy, Victorian Council of Social Service, Committee Hansard, 20 October 2022, p. 4.

[92]See, for example, Suicide Prevention Australia, Submission 49, p. 3; National Tertiary Education Union, Submission 101, p. 7; Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare, Submission 86, p. 6; and Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney, Submission 65, p. 3.

[93]MS Australia, Submission 43, p. 5.

[94]See, for example, Life Course Centre, Submission 32, p. 15; Good Shepherd, Submission 96, p. 4; DrFrancis Markham, Submission 51, pp. 3 and 4.

[95]Interim Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, 2023–24 Report to the Australian Government, April 2023, pp. 58 and 59.

[96]Life Course Centre, Submission 32, pp. 15–17.

[97]Life Course Centre, Submission 32, pp. 15–17.

[98]Life Course Centre, Submission 32, p. 10.

[99]Life Course Centre, Submission 32, p. 10.

[100]Paul Ramsay Foundation, Submission 125, p. 5.

[101]See, for example, NT Shelter, Submission 75, p. 7; Central Land Council, Submission 119, p. 17.

[102]The Benevolent Society, Submission 83, p. 4.

[103]Interim Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, 2023–24 Report to the Australian Government, April 2023, p. 6.

[104]See, for example, The Hive, Submission 112, p. 8; City of Onkarparinga, Submission 127, p. 5.

[105]Disability Advocacy NSW, Submission 71, pp. 9 and 10.

[106]National Rural Health Alliance, Submission 35, pp. 5 and 6.