Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter


People & Ideas

Oct 15, 2012

What is 'poor'? Finding the bread line in an affluent Australia

A new ACOSS report point to high levels of poverty -- but is this calculated in a meaningful way? A look at the Council's prior work on defining poverty may paint a more accurate picture.

User login status :


It was an easy headline, especially given the report was released on a Sunday. “One in eight Australians live in poverty,” said the ABC. “More than two million Australians in poverty,” ran the AAP copy. Fairfax ran some profiles of people struggling to make ends meet off the back of the Australian Council of Social Services’ new report on the extent of poverty in Australia.

Few bothered to look into the basis for ACOSS’s numbers, beyond that it was an internationally-accepted poverty benchmark. ACOSS used the OECD’s poverty definition, which is 50% of median disposable income. It also provided data for another, less austere benchmark, 60% of median disposable income. On the basis of the lower OECD definition, which ACOSS prefers, 2.265 million Australians are living in poverty. Using the 60% definition, 3.7 million Australians are.

Fifty per cent of median disposable income is $358 a week for a single adult and $752 for a couple with two children.

Neither sum is easy to live on. But they’re the product of an arbitrary benchmark: there will always be a substantial proportion of the population identified as “living in poverty” if you define poverty in relation to median income.

But deprivation-based measures of poverty allow us to move away from arbitrary benchmarks and consider how many people are actually in financial circumstances where they’re unable to afford basics most of us consider essential. And some high-quality work on this has already been done, including by ACOSS.

Earlier this year ACOSS published a report, “Who is missing out? Material deprivation and income support payments“, based on a study by Professor Peter Saunders and Melissa Wong of UNSW. The study, which used data from the 2010 “Poverty and exclusion in modern Australia” (PEMA) survey, looked at how many households displayed “deprivation indicators” based on a range of indicators widely agreed to be “essential” for households.

For example, 99% — or more — of people agreed warm clothes and bedding, medical treatment, ability to afford prescription medicines, and a substantial meal at least once a day were essential. Over 90% agreed up-to-date schoolbooks, the ability for kids to participate in school activities and outings, a decent and secure home, and regular social contact were essential. The only survey indicator that appears to have been widely disputed as “essential” was “a week’s holiday away from home”, which was identified as essential by 54%.

Using median income as a measure of poverty allows us to capture the sense of “relative poverty”, which is important in a prosperous Western country. But the PEMA approach also enables a comparative element. For example, 72% of PEMA respondents agree computer skills are “essential”, even if they would not fit into any meaningful definition of absolute poverty.

Using the PEMA data, Saunders and Wong provided us with an alternative take on poverty in Australia. But the result isn’t one to fill us with complacency: 15.3% of households reported lacking at least 3 of the “essential” indicators.

This included 18.5% who couldn’t afford a week’s holiday; indicators at the other end of the scale are much lower: inability to buy prescribed medicines was 2.9%; inability to afford children’s participation in school activities 2.6%. But 20.7% reported not having $500 in emergency savings; nearly 12% reported being unable to pay a utility bill at least once a year.

The most at-risk group for lacking “essential” items is, unsurprisingly, Newstart-recipient households; 61% reported lacking at least three indicators, although the sample size is too small to provide reliable figures. Households reliant on the disability support pension or parenting payments also featured strongly in households reporting deprivation indicators; age pension recipient households featured much less prominently; indeed, had a lower rate of lacking at least three essential indicators than the community as a whole; it was age pension recipients who didn’t own their own homes who were overrepresented.

This returns us to the debate over whether to increase the level of Newstart assistance. In August, even the Centre for Independent Studies, a serial participant in the “poverty wars”, argued there may be a case for an increase in Newstart for the long-term unemployed, provided it came with stronger requirements for recipients to search for work. This would be cheaper than an across-the-board rise that would simply represent a windfall for the majority of Newstart recipients who only receive it temporarily while between jobs.

And however arbitrary, the weekend report from ACOSS does put a human face on poverty. It’s worth examining to see who else is overrepresented: people in poverty are more likely to be female, more likely to be kids or older people, more likely to be single or lone parents, more likely to be from a non-English speaking country. But the difference between metropolitan and regional/rural poverty is quite low: 12.6% of people in cities and 13.1% of people in regional areas.

Bernard Keane — Politics Editor

Bernard Keane

Politics Editor

Bernard Keane is Crikey’s political editor. Before that he was Crikey’s Canberra press gallery correspondent, covering politics, national security and economics.

Get a free trial to post comments
More from Bernard Keane


We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola


Leave a comment

14 thoughts on “What is ‘poor’? Finding the bread line in an affluent Australia

  1. blackdog

    I read an excellent article about aggregates and what this does to representations of reality…World Bank likes the aggregates where it can support drops in poverty, while grassroots community welfare workers prefer disaggregated views because this highlights where the real experiences of poverty exist…often the places the grassroots workers have to run programs have seen literal increases in poverty or experiences of distress even when overall the aggreagate paints a better picture of less poverty.

    for eg – income-expenditure measures don’t include losses in public services so if people must pay for services that were once publically available, or if a bus servivce is cut and a person’s QOL is negatively affected – this won’t show up as a measure of the population’s wellbeing…or the long term impact of a poor region losing teachers and school books…and is a great concern considering neoliberal policies prefer lower national social spending, thus the impacts of social services do not show up as contributing to QOL and a healthy society

    and 2nd eg – in Mexico 1990-94 there was a national drop in poverty but the drop was in urban areas with an increase in rural areas…a concern if this eliminates accountability for bad policies or rejecting improvement programs

    a 3rd eg – the incidence of poverty is different than the absolute number of poor – something to do with increases in population

    Aggregates could fuzz the line about farmers’ nd their families experiences too…if there are other industries in the same areas such as mining or tourism, the reality of real people’s situations, needs and crises will not be identitfied, measured or acknowkedged

  2. blackdog

    The current situation has many problems that need resolving and yes, probably higher taxation would solve most of those issues if funds are utilised in constructive programs. The statistics for many areas to do with QOL are most impressive in the scandinavian countries. Why aren’t we considering our own restructurings towards something similar to their approaches?

    The pressing question is how to structure policies to create the most just and positive society with least disadvantage and exclusion that we can. It is time to ditch the neoliberal policies – they don’t work, they need “readjustment” themselves! More resources can build a better society for everyone…even when the poorest sectors are cared for better, everyone benefits via lower crime (areas with high unemployment/poverty often experience increases in rates of violence, crime, gangs, domestic violence, vandalism, lower schol retention and education outcomes).

    welfare creates so many problems of segregation, exclusion, marginalisation, hopelessness, us vs them, mostly because gradually our politicians on both sides have made welfare/disadvantage and crises life situations to be ashamed of and force people into refined eligibility pigeonassholes. This is dehumanising and sets groups in society apart. These people are already down on their luck and the last thing they need is a kick in the guts from their “representatives” – oh that’s right – as if politicians represent EVERYONE – ie the poor – they DON’T represent these people, that’s part of the problem – and they sideline the organisations that DO represent our most disadvantaged groups.

    The people at the helm of our national and global economies have stuffed up big-time and continue to use public funds to help themselves OUT and to force “austerity measures” on the bulk of populations. Read the 2012 UN World Economic Situations and Prospects and you can see that these people don’t know what they’re doing. Their policies only help themselves ie considering the widening gapo between the richest and poorest around the globe.

    We need to start standing up and demanding systemic change towards the good of ALL rather than a tiny minority who have now proven where their behaviour, values and motivations lie…ie their own backpockets.

Leave a comment