Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am going to talk to the House about the issue of poverty. Most people associate poverty with being a global issue somewhat removed from day-to-day life in Australia. However, poverty is an issue that we must acknowledge at a global and a domestic level. Globally, new estimates by the World Bank show that about 1.4 billion people live below the international poverty line of US$1.25 per day, which is equivalent to over one-fourth of the developing world’s population.

The Australian people have always felt a strong moral obligation to help reduce international poverty. In 2005 when John Howard went to New York for the Millennium Development Goals Summit, he announced that aid levels would increase to around 0.35 per cent GNI by 2010. I was pleased to note that the Labor government has matched this commitment and has said that aid will grow to 0.5 per cent by 2015. However, we can and must do more.

One of the ways that Australia can assist is by helping countries to embrace GM technology. Trials in India have shown an outstanding potential for the integration of genetically modified crops. Genetically modified crops increase yields for farmers, are more resistant to pests and diseases and are more resilient in drought conditions. Higher crop yields provide more income to farmers to give their families a better quality of life. An increased supply of food on local markets will put downward pressure on prices, making food more available. People may object to GM crops on ethical grounds but it is difficult to object on moral and financial grounds. Rigorous trials must take place to ensure the safety of the crops. This is an area that the Australian government can contribute to and it is an effective method of eradicating poverty.

Reducing poverty in our nation must be a priority of the Parliament of Australia. Peter Saunders of the University of New South Wales suggests:

Poverty is a cause of considerable community concern, but the term is now rarely used in government circles in Australia. As a consequence, developing strategies and programs that address the causes and consequences of poverty are not on the policy agenda.

In addition to bringing the language of poverty into Australian politics, we must develop an index which measures this policy. Only then can we judge the performance of governments in reducing poverty. At the moment, the methods used are not endorsed by governments. The method we have been using is the poverty lines approach, a relative measure of poverty.

Poverty lines are income levels designated for various types of income units. They are based on a benchmark income of $62.70 set in the September quarter of 1973. The Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research has updated the poverty line for Australia to the March quarter of 2008. Inclusive of housing costs, the poverty line is a single income of $710.14 per week for a family comprising two adults and two dependent children. The index is based on estimates of the household disposable income and population provided by the ABS. Because the index is based on estimates, the poverty lines themselves are estimates. The logic is dated and it is rarely referred to in parliament. It is clearly time for a new poverty indicator that accurately reflects the cost of living in modern Australia. Governments do not like talking about this indicator, because most benefit payments fall below the poverty line.

Poverty is also a problem in my electorate of Swan. In my electorate, the 2001 statistics of the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling indicated that a total of 10,604 people, or 9.4 per cent of the people in my electorate, were in poverty. There is clearly a problem in my electorate. To address this we need to consider the underlying causes of poverty in Australia. The link between employment status and poverty is well established. This is why the Howard government strongly targeted employment generation as its key method of poverty alleviation. The Howard government’s Welfare to Work program was also designed with this in mind.

Other causes of poverty in my electorate include the housing affordability crisis. The unacceptably high waiting list for public housing in Western Australia—over 17,000 households—accompanied by a shortage of affordable rental accommodation has meant that people have been left with nowhere to live. This is real poverty. Disability is also associated with poverty, and the disabled face difficulties in starting their own businesses, as they have to sacrifice all benefits immediately when applying to the New Enterprise Incentive Scheme. Low educational attainment is associated with poverty as well. We need to have a headline poverty indicator that takes this into account so we can judge the performance of governments in reducing poverty.

In conclusion, poverty is an issue relevant to Australians at a global and a domestic level. I would like to take this opportunity to recognise the efforts of groups such as Micah and all groups in Australia that aim to reduce worldwide poverty. I also thank all the small-scale community groups in my electorate that help people who certainly suffer from poverty.