This statistic depicts the share of individuals living below the poverty line in Australia in the financial year 2016. That financial year, **** percent of individuals aged 15 years and under and **** percent of those aged between 25 and 64 were deemed to have been living in poverty. Of those aged 65 years and older, **** percent who were living in rented accommodation were below the poverty line, compared to **** percent of those that were not renting.

In 2022, ** percent of respondents receiving assistance from the Salvation Army and whose main income source was Centrelink payments were living below the poverty line in Australia. Around ** percent of respondents in full-time employment were living below the poverty line in the same year.

The most common poverty measures, including that used by the OECD, focus on income based approaches. One of the most common measures of income poverty is the proportion of households with income less than half median equivalised disposable household income (which is set as the poverty line); this is a relative income poverty measure as poverty is measured by reference to the income of others rather than in some absolute sense. Australia has one of the highest household disposable incomes in the world, which means that an Australian relative income poverty line is set at a high level of income compared to most other countries.

OECD statistics on Australian poverty 2015-16 (based on ABS Survey of Income and Housing data and applying a poverty line of 50% of median income) determined the Australian poverty rate was over 25% before taxes and transfers, but falls around 12% after taxes and transfers. Though measuring poverty through application of solely an income measure is not considered comprehensive for an Australian context, however, it does demonstrate that the Australian welfare system more than halves the number of Australians that would otherwise be considered as at risk of living in poverty under that measure.
It is important to consider a range of indicators of persistent disadvantage to understand poverty and hardship and its multidimensional nature. Different indicators point to different dimensions of poverty. While transient poverty is a problem, the experience of persistent poverty is of deeper concern, particularly where families experience intergenerational disadvantage and long-term welfare reliance. HILDA data from the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research shows the Distribution of number of years in poverty 2001–2015. The figure focuses on the longer term experience of working age adults and shows that while people do fall into poverty, only a small proportion of people are persistently poor.

Australia Poverty Headcount Ratio at Societal Poverty Lines: % of Population data was reported at 12.700 % in 2018. This records an increase from the previous number of 12.200 % for 2016. Australia Poverty Headcount Ratio at Societal Poverty Lines: % of Population data is updated yearly, averaging 12.200 % from Dec 1981 (Median) to 2018, with 12 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 13.200 % in 1989 and a record low of 11.200 % in 2014. Australia Poverty Headcount Ratio at Societal Poverty Lines: % of Population data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Australia – Table AU.World Bank.WDI: Social: Poverty and Inequality. The poverty headcount ratio at societal poverty line is the percentage of a population living in poverty according to the World Bank's Societal Poverty Line. The Societal Poverty Line is expressed in purchasing power adjusted 2017 U.S. dollars and defined as max($2.15, $1.15 + 0.5*Median). This means that when the national median is sufficiently low, the Societal Poverty line is equivalent to the extreme poverty line, $2.15. For countries with a sufficiently high national median, the Societal Poverty Line grows as countries’ median income grows.;World Bank, Poverty and Inequality Platform. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are mostly from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see http://pip.worldbank.org.;;The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than 2000 household surveys across 169 countries. See the Poverty and Inequality Platform (PIP) for details (www.pip.worldbank.org).

Poverty rate of Australia shot up by 42.76% from 0.3 % in 2010 to 0.5 % in 2014. Since the 27.65% drop in 2008, poverty rate soared by 38.00% in 2014. Population below $1.90 a day is the percentage of the population living on less than $1.90 a day at 2011 international prices.

Australia: Poverty ratio, percent living on less than 1.90 USD a day: The latest value from 2018 is 0.5 percent, unchanged from 0.5 percent in 2016. In comparison, the world average is 5.22 percent, based on data from 91 countries. Historically, the average for Australia from 1981 to 2018 is 0.67 percent. The minimum value, 0.3 percent, was reached in 2010 while the maximum of 1 percent was recorded in 1981.

AU: Income Share Held by Lowest 10% data was reported at 2.700 % in 2018. This records a decrease from the previous number of 2.800 % for 2016. AU: Income Share Held by Lowest 10% data is updated yearly, averaging 2.750 % from Dec 1981 (Median) to 2018, with 12 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 3.000 % in 2004 and a record low of 2.600 % in 1989. AU: Income Share Held by Lowest 10% data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Australia – Table AU.World Bank.WDI: Social: Poverty and Inequality. Percentage share of income or consumption is the share that accrues to subgroups of population indicated by deciles or quintiles.;World Bank, Poverty and Inequality Platform. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are mostly from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see http://pip.worldbank.org.;;The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than 2000 household surveys across 169 countries. See the Poverty and Inequality Platform (PIP) for details (www.pip.worldbank.org).

The most common poverty measures, including that used by the OECD, focus on income based approaches. One of the most common measures of income poverty is the proportion of households with income …Show full descriptionThe most common poverty measures, including that used by the OECD, focus on income based approaches. One of the most common measures of income poverty is the proportion of households with income less than half median equivalised disposable household income (which is set as the poverty line); this is a relative income poverty measure as poverty is measured by reference to the income of others rather than in some absolute sense. Australia has one of the highest household disposable incomes in the world, which means that an Australian relative income poverty line is set at a high level of income compared to most other countries. OECD statistics on Australian poverty 2015-16 (based on ABS Survey of Income and Housing data and applying a poverty line of 50% of median income) determined the Australian poverty rate was over 25% before taxes and transfers, but falls around 12% after taxes and transfers. Though measuring poverty through application of solely an income measure is not considered comprehensive for an Australian context, however, it does demonstrate that the Australian welfare system more than halves the number of Australians that would otherwise be considered as at risk of living in poverty under that measure. It is important to consider a range of indicators of persistent disadvantage to understand poverty and hardship and its multidimensional nature. Different indicators point to different dimensions of poverty. While transient poverty is a problem, the experience of persistent poverty is of deeper concern, particularly where families experience intergenerational disadvantage and long-term welfare reliance. HILDA data from the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research shows the Distribution of number of years in poverty 2001–2015. The figure focuses on the longer term experience of working age adults and shows that while people do fall into poverty, only a small proportion of people are persistently poor.

AU: Number of People Spending More Than 10% of Household Consumption or Income on Out-of-Pocket Health Care Expenditure data was reported at 816,000.000 Person in 2010. AU: Number of People Spending More Than 10% of Household Consumption or Income on Out-of-Pocket Health Care Expenditure data is updated yearly, averaging 816,000.000 Person from Dec 2010 (Median) to 2010, with 1 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 816,000.000 Person in 2010 and a record low of 816,000.000 Person in 2010. AU: Number of People Spending More Than 10% of Household Consumption or Income on Out-of-Pocket Health Care Expenditure data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Australia – Table AU.World Bank.WDI: Social: Poverty and Inequality. Number of people spending more than 10% of household consumption or income on out-of-pocket health care expenditure. Out-of-pocket health expenditure is defined as any spending incurred by a household when any member uses a health good or service to receive any type of care (preventive, curative, rehabilitative, long-term or palliative care); provided by any type of provider; for any type of disease, illness or health condition; in any type of setting (outpatient, inpatient, at home).;Global Health Observatory. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2023. (https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/topics/financial-protection);Sum;This indicator is related to Sustainable Development Goal 3.8.2 [https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/].

Contains data from the World Bank's data portal covering the following topics which also exist as individual datasets on HDX: Agriculture and Rural Development, Aid Effectiveness, Economy and Growth, Education, Energy and Mining, Environment, Financial Sector, Health, Infrastructure, Social Protection and Labor, Poverty, Private Sector, Public Sector, Science and Technology, Social Development, Urban Development, Gender, Millenium development goals, Climate Change, External Debt, Trade.

Australia Multidimensional Poverty Headcount Ratio: World Bank: % of total population data was reported at 2.200 % in 2018. This records an increase from the previous number of 2.000 % for 2016. Australia Multidimensional Poverty Headcount Ratio: World Bank: % of total population data is updated yearly, averaging 2.400 % from Dec 2010 (Median) to 2018, with 4 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 3.100 % in 2010 and a record low of 2.000 % in 2016. Australia Multidimensional Poverty Headcount Ratio: World Bank: % of total population data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Australia – Table AU.World Bank.WDI: Social: Poverty and Inequality. The multidimensional poverty headcount ratio (World Bank) is the percentage of a population living in poverty according to the World Bank's Multidimensional Poverty Measure. The Multidimensional Poverty Measure includes three dimensions – monetary poverty, education, and basic infrastructure services – to capture a more complete picture of poverty.;World Bank, Poverty and Inequality Platform. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are mostly from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see http://pip.worldbank.org.;;The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than 2000 household surveys across 169 countries. See the Poverty and Inequality Platform (PIP) for details (www.pip.worldbank.org).

This dataset contains estimates of the prevalence of homelessness on Census night 2016, derived from the Census of Population and Housing using the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) definition of homelessness. Prevalence is an estimate of how many people experienced homelessness at a particular point-in-time. Data is by LGA 2016 boundaries. Periodicity: 5 yearly. For more information visit the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Australia Proportion of Population Pushed Below the 50% Median Consumption Poverty Line By Out-of-Pocket Health Care Expenditure: % data was reported at 0.869 % in 2010. Australia Proportion of Population Pushed Below the 50% Median Consumption Poverty Line By Out-of-Pocket Health Care Expenditure: % data is updated yearly, averaging 0.869 % from Dec 2010 (Median) to 2010, with 1 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 0.869 % in 2010 and a record low of 0.869 % in 2010. Australia Proportion of Population Pushed Below the 50% Median Consumption Poverty Line By Out-of-Pocket Health Care Expenditure: % data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Australia – Table AU.World Bank.WDI: Social: Poverty and Inequality. Proportion of population pushed below the 50% median consumption poverty line by out-of-pocket health care expenditure, expressed as a percentage of a total population of a country; ; Wagstaff et al. Progress on Impoverishing Health Spending: Results for 122 Countries. A Retrospective Observational Study, Lancet Global Health 2017; Weighted Average;

A survey conducted from March to April 2022 among professionals in the music and live performing arts industries in Australia revealed that over one-third of the respondents earned less than 30 thousand Australian dollars per year from their line of work. According to the source, this was bellow the poverty line in Australia.

Out of all OECD countries, Cost Rica had the highest poverty rate as of 2022, at over 20 percent. The country with the second highest poverty rate was the United States, with 18 percent. On the other end of the scale, Czechia had the lowest poverty rate at 6.4 percent, followed by Denmark.

The significance of the OECD

The OECD, or the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, was founded in 1948 and is made up of 38 member countries. It seeks to improve the economic and social well-being of countries and their populations. The OECD looks at issues that impact people’s everyday lives and proposes policies that can help to improve the quality of life.

Poverty in the United States

In 2022, there were nearly 38 million people living below the poverty line in the U.S.. About one fourth of the Native American population lived in poverty in 2022, the most out of any ethnicity. In addition, the rate was higher among young women than young men. It is clear that poverty in the United States is a complex, multi-faceted issue that affects millions of people and is even more complex to solve.

This dataset contains estimates of the prevalence of homelessness on Census night 2016, derived from the Census of Population and Housing using the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) definition of homelessness. Prevalence is an estimate of how many people experienced homelessness at a particular point-in-time. The ABS uses six homeless operational groups to present the estimates of homelessness. Estimates are also presented for selected groups of people who may be marginally housed and whose living arrangements are close to the statistical boundary of homelessness and who may be at risk of homelessness. Data is by SA4 2016 boundaries. Periodicity: 5 yearly. For more information visit the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Australia Poverty Headcount Ratio at National Poverty Lines: % of Population data was reported at 13.400 % in 2020. This records a decrease from the previous number of 13.600 % for 2018. Australia Poverty Headcount Ratio at National Poverty Lines: % of Population data is updated yearly, averaging 13.500 % from Dec 2018 (Median) to 2020, with 2 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 13.600 % in 2018 and a record low of 13.400 % in 2020. Australia Poverty Headcount Ratio at National Poverty Lines: % of Population data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Australia – Table AU.World Bank.WDI: Social: Poverty and Inequality. National poverty headcount ratio is the percentage of the population living below the national poverty line(s). National estimates are based on population-weighted subgroup estimates from household surveys. For economies for which the data are from EU-SILC, the reported year is the income reference year, which is the year before the survey year.;World Bank, Poverty and Inequality Platform. Data are compiled from official government sources or are computed by World Bank staff using national (i.e. country–specific) poverty lines.;;This series only includes estimates that to the best of our knowledge are reasonably comparable over time for a country. Due to differences in estimation methodologies and poverty lines, estimates should not be compared across countries.

The most common poverty measures, including that used by the OECD, focus on income based approaches. One of the most common measures of income poverty is the proportion of households with income less than half median equivalised disposable household income (which is set as the poverty line); this is a relative income poverty measure as poverty is measured by reference to the income of others rather than in some absolute sense. Australia has one of the highest household disposable incomes in the world, which means that an Australian relative income poverty line is set at a high level of income compared to most other countries. \r \r OECD statistics on Australian poverty 2015-16 (based on ABS Survey of Income and Housing data and applying a poverty line of 50% of median income) determined the Australian poverty rate was over 25% before taxes and transfers, but falls around 12% after taxes and transfers. Though measuring poverty through application of solely an income measure is not considered comprehensive for an Australian context, however, it does demonstrate that the Australian welfare system more than halves the number of Australians that would otherwise be considered as at risk of living in poverty under that measure. \r It is important to consider a range of indicators of persistent disadvantage to understand poverty and hardship and its multidimensional nature. Different indicators point to different dimensions of poverty. \r While transient poverty is a problem, the experience of persistent poverty is of deeper concern, particularly where families experience intergenerational disadvantage and long-term welfare reliance. HILDA data from the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research shows the Distribution of number of years in poverty 2001–2015. The figure focuses on the longer term experience of working age adults and shows that while people do fall into poverty, only a small proportion of people are persistently poor.\r

This dataset contains estimates of the prevalence of homelessness on Census night 2016, derived from the Census of Population and Housing using the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) definition of homelessness. Prevalence is an estimate of how many people experienced homelessness at a particular point-in-time. Data is by SA2 2016 boundaries. Periodicity: 5 yearly. For more information visit the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Charities play an increasingly important role in helping people experiencing poverty. However, institutionalized charity shifts the burden of poverty reduction away from the state and exposes recipients to stress and stigma. In this paper, we examine whether the need for institutionalized charity can be offset through enhanced state support. As in other countries, the Australian government responded to the COVID-19 pandemic by substantially increasing the level of income support to citizens through several temporary payments. We draw on this natural experiment and time-series data from the two largest charity organizations in Queensland, Australia to examine how these payments altered the demand for institutionalized charity. We model these data using difference-in-difference regression models to approximate causal effects. By exploiting the timing and varying amounts of the payments, our analyses yield evidence that more generous income support reduces reliance on charity. Halving the demand for charity requires raising pre-pandemic income-support by AUD$42/day, with supplements of approximately AUD$18/day yielding the greatest return on investment.