There is one topic which will get very little attention in this upcoming federal election – poverty. Poverty lurks in our society, often unseen and usually affecting others. It does untold damage to those it afflicts, unleashing emotional and financial misery on families and communities. If you happen to be indigenous, an older single woman, or someone reliant on welfare; then the data shows poverty maybe closer than you think.
What most fail to understand is that poverty is only one event, one accident away from impacting anyone of us. Yet we rarely see our politicians have any meaningful and deliberative discussions about it.
Political parties tend to focus their attention on issues which impact the majority of the electorate; cost of living, safety and security, health and such like. Few if any polls will show poverty as being an issue for the Australian electorate. However, issues such as family violence, job losses, housing insecurity and the affordability of basic goods and services do, and all of these are known to be pathways into poverty.
There are in reality three major drivers of poverty; systemic, event-based and personal decision-making. They deliver the same outcome, though the road into and out of poverty will differ.
Systemic drivers of poverty are pernicious. They reflect the hardwiring of societal biases for certain actions that can drive and hold people in poverty. This is no more apparent when we consider the interaction between the wellbeing of the economy and that of society.
When the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) lifts interest rates, it is a deliberate calculation designed to take demand out of the economy and get inflation under control. In doing so, the RBA board understands that one of the consequences of a slowing economy is an increase in the number of people without jobs or looking for more hours of work.
The RBA board is cognisant of the impacts of a slowing economy on those who lose their jobs, but it relies, in part, on the Government’s welfare safety net to help soften the worst of those impacts. The problem is that despite having a welfare safety net – the JobSeeker payment - it is inadequate and poses a risk of long-term social and financial harm to those in receipt of it. The current rate for a single person in receipt of JobSeeker is less than 20 percent of the average weekly wage. Despite the current cost of living issues affecting the middle class, the glaring inadequacy of Australia’s unemployment payment continues to be unaddressed.
'We need to acknowledge that most of us are susceptible to falling into poverty. With anti-poverty week soon upon us, it may be time to reflect on how we would like to be treated should we fall on hard times. That little bit of self-reflection might be enough to encourage us to demand more from those who have the power to do better when it comes to addressing poverty in Australia.'
As serious as the inadequacy of the JobSeeker payment is, a more fundamental problem with our welfare system is that it has been designed with an inbuilt bias against making claims on it. Nothing exemplifies this more than the infamous Robodebt scheme. This scheme was designed and administered on a flawed assumption that people who access welfare wilfully or inadvertently claimed payments for which they were not entitled. It was a scheme designed to reduce the cost of welfare and send a signal to the Australian population that you seek support from the government with caution. While some will argue Robodebt was an aberration, it is not. There continues to be a range of measures within our welfare system, such as the Liquid Asset Waiting Period designed to delay or dissuade Australians from seeking support from the welfare system, the consequence of which leaves people even more exposed to financial uncertainty and poverty.
Events or circumstances be they natural disasters, illness, injury or familial breakdown are also significant drivers of poverty. The loss of possessions and or the capacity to earn income causes significant personal and financial trauma to those impacted. This suffering is further exacerbated when the support services are difficult to obtain because of limited funding or system design which makes access difficult for those without agency. People need help when they ask for it not when it might be available. Delays in receiving the proper supports to deal with these events will cause some affected people to spiral, making it harder for them to avoid falling into poverty.
Of course, there is also the reality that few want to acknowledge but many believe to be true, that poverty can occur because of the bad decisions some people make. People make bad decisions, however for some, those decisions have dramatic consequences which can impact their lives forever.
As a society we seem to have much more empathy towards those in poverty, where their path there was not of their own making. For those others we seem all too willing to judge and demonise them wondering how and why they did that to themselves. When we do that, we effectively cast aside those individuals deciding then and there that they don’t deserve support to get back on their feet. We should not offer our hand of support with condition. Instead, our focus should be on assisting each and every person escape poverty regardless of how they got there.
So, what to do?
We as a society need to be comfortable in walking and chewing gum at the same time. That requires a laser-focus on those systemic drivers of poverty, ensuring that they are eradicated entirely or countered by a more humane approach to welfare and its administration. For example, if we accept that job losses are a reality of our market-based economy, at the very least we should ensure that the level of payment for those without a job is sufficient to enable individuals to live with dignity while they try to re-enter the workforce.
Further, when people fall into poverty, however that has occurred, we must have the programs in place to help individuals find their feet. That will require better collaboration between the Commonwealth and State/Territory governments, including agreement to properly fund the services to support those in need. It will require coordination and simplicity of access to services so that people without agency are not lost in an eternal loop of unhelpfulness as they are passed between providers, government instrumentalities because that individual’s needs do not fit some funding service template.
Finally, we need to acknowledge that most of us are susceptible to falling into poverty. With anti-poverty week soon upon us, it may be time to reflect on how we would like to be treated should we fall on hard times. That little bit of self-reflection might be enough to encourage us to demand more from those who have the power to do better when it comes to addressing poverty in Australia.
Joe Zabar is the Chair of Mercy Works Ltd and a Visiting Fellow with the Tax and Transfer Policy Institute, ANU