Governments that prioritize decency for all citizens must track whether people are living in poverty and understand its extent. Opting not to measure poverty suggests that eliminating it is not on the government’s agenda.
This reluctance is not unique to the current administration; both major political parties have avoided this “brave” commitment.
As the website Johnmenadue.com writes, he current Treasurer, who believes wealthy nations can’t fund every good idea, is unlikely to support such measures.
Globally, there is a consensus on the importance of ending poverty. All 191 UN member states have pledged to achieve this goal by 2030, as stated in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDGs).
The first commitment in UNSDGs is to “end poverty in all its forms everywhere.”
In Australia, most people agree that no child should live in poverty. According to a survey, 81% of Australians believe that support payments should be high enough to prevent child poverty.
While there is agreement that poverty should be abolished, there is debate on whether it is financially feasible. Governments recognize that preventing child poverty also means lifting entire families out of poverty, which they have viewed as a significant financial challenge.
Recent research, however, indicates that Australia can afford to end poverty without harming those not currently in poverty.
With the right structure, solutions to poverty can benefit everyone financially and have a positive impact on the federal budget and the overall economy.
A potential solution involves moving from a targeted welfare payments system to a Universal Basic Income (UBI). This change focuses on preventing poverty by ensuring everyone has a fair start in life and equal opportunities.
Targeted welfare systems often only provide support to those identified as in need, which perpetuates poverty due to inadequate funding.
A UBI system works differently. It aims to give everyone an equal opportunity from the start and throughout their lives, effectively preventing poverty before it becomes an issue.
This approach is more about cost-effective prevention than addressing problems after they arise. To be effective, a UBI must be set at or above the poverty level, making poverty measurements vital.
Despite the lack of government-established measures, civil society groups and statisticians have been tracking poverty in Australia for years. The most common measure, used by ACOSS and UNSW, is 50% of the median income after deducting housing costs.
This data can assist in designing a new income security system that ends poverty for more than 3 million Australians. This would counter the argument that adequate income security is fiscally irresponsible.
Research by various UBI advocates, summarized by Australian Community Futures Planning (ACFP), shows that a UBI at the poverty level is beneficial for Australia’s economy. It can:
- Be fairer than targeted welfare systems.
- Make everyone financially better off.
- Be financed without federal budget deficits or debt.
The Treasurer’s commitment to improving Australians’ wellbeing responsibly suggests that the issue is not about the feasibility of eliminating poverty, but about the political sales effort.
A well-designed UBI, as outlined by ACFP, has the potential to gain political traction and support.
There is a pressing need to reconsider the approach to ending poverty. A UBI offers a simple and effective solution that could be surprisingly welcome.
Choosing this path now is crucial, especially before the cost of living crisis deepens, pushing more Australians into poverty.
