Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This week is Anti-Poverty Week. My question is to the Minister for Families and Social Services, Senator Ruston. Minister, why doesn't Australia have a national definition of poverty?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Siewert for her question and acknowledge too that it is national Anti-Poverty Week. I want to assure this chamber and assure Senator Siewert that the government takes poverty very seriously. We, obviously, want to make sure that all Australian families enjoy a high quality of life and that's why we're so focused on jobs and economic growth.

But in relation to the specific question that the senator raised in relation to a measure of poverty, the government actively monitors trends and debates around poverty and inequality. Evidence brought forward recently by the Productivity Commission shows that those most at risk of poverty are people in jobless households. So rather than measuring poverty by assessing households against other households we believe poverty needs to be assessed against a household's minimum needs. We think it's very important to target programs so that people who find themselves in poverty—because, as I said, according to the Productivity Commission and many other research programs we have seen and reports that have been returned, people who are jobless are more likely to suffer financial stress and be at risk of poverty than those people where the families have jobs. Therefore, whilst we believe it is absolutely imperative that we support people who are suffering financial distress and poverty and fund them through our very targeted welfare system, the most important thing we can do to move people out of poverty—

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order: I was really clear about my question. There was no preamble. It was basically just: why we don't have a definition of poverty. The information the minister has given us is really interesting but it doesn't actually answer the question.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have reminded the minister of the specific nature of your question. She has 22 seconds remaining to answer.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In specific response to your question, again, the government does not have a specific definition of poverty, because we believe the most important thing we can do to assess financial distress, difficulty and poverty is to assess the needs of the individuals that find themselves in that situation. An assessment defining poverty by comparing it to other people's incomes serves no purpose. (Time expired)

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert, a supplementary question?

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Under the Sustainable Development Goals, Australia has committed to halving poverty by 2030 according to national definitions. How is Australia meant to meet its goal to halve poverty if we don't actually have a national definition of poverty?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Senator Siewert. As I have mentioned in my previous answer, we accept the fact that people who find themselves unemployed or without a job are far more likely to find themselves in financial distress and, eventually, possibly even in poverty. That is why our welfare system is very targeted on two very clear things: firstly, we want people who find themselves without a job to have the jobs, have the pathways and break down the barriers to enable them to get a job, because we know that is the best way of relieving poverty; but, secondly, through our targeted welfare system we are also very focused on providing assistance to those people that need it. As an example, every year we provide $2 billion worth of grants to over 2½ thousand organisations to provide direct and specific services to people who find themselves in need of assistance.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert, a final supplementary question?

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given this is Anti-Poverty Week, it is an ideal opportunity for the government to do something about the appalling rate of Newstart. Will the government announce this week that they are going to raise Newstart?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much to Senator Siewert for her ongoing questioning. The government is absolutely focused not only on making sure people who do not have a job have a job to go to—by the creation of jobs; the 1.4 million jobs created over the term of this government and a plan to create just as many going forward—but also on creating the pathways through a number of programs to make sure people who don't have a job have a pathway to get those jobs as they are created by virtue of a strong economy. But the most important thing we do is seek to break down the individual barriers that individual cohorts find for themselves in getting a job, through programs like the Try, Test and Learn program. I met with people on this program last Friday in Adelaide. Of the 19 migrant women who are going through this particular program, 18 now have jobs. That is the kind of success this government is determined to achieve in breaking the poverty cycle.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.