How can we learn from the past to prevent poverty in the future?
A new joint Brotherhood/Melbourne Institute book explores how we can shape a future social security system that enables people to thrive and escape poverty rather than be caught in a safety net.
Finding solutions to prevent and alleviate poverty is the bread and butter work of the Brotherhood.
Australia’s economic and social landscape has changed profoundly since the 1970s when the last major review of poverty and our social security system took place.
Now a new joint Brotherhood/Melbourne Institute book explores how we can shape a future social security system that enables people to thrive and escape poverty rather than be caught in a safety net.
Revisiting Henderson poverty, society security and basic income brings together chapters from leading social security researchers who have deep knowledge of the relationship between poverty and social security and issues such as Indigenous people, disability, children, changes to family structures and the labour market.
The book reflects the enduring influence of the 1975 findings of the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty led by Professor Ronald Henderson. While many factors have changed the way poverty is experienced, it is still measured according to the methodology devised by Henderson.*
Revisiting Henderson, edited by Peter Saunders, is published by Melbourne University Press.
The Henderson Poverty line defined by the Inquiry is still used. It was initially based on the income required to support the basic needs of a family of two adults and two dependent children. This poverty line is updated quarterly by the Melbourne Institute according to increases in average incomes.
For Helena Jayne, a fashion blogger getting a bargain is always a thrill. ‘I’ve just started thrift shopping, and I saw this leather jacket the other day. Am so pleased I got it for a good price.’
Graeme has lived in Mt Waverley for 57 years and is a regular shopper. ‘I come here for the science fiction books. I used to get jigsaws and we would return them again to do a bit of recycling.’