International Child Poverty Acts

By Phoebe Lovett, Child Participation Specialist – Valuing Children Initiative

Executive Summary

Child poverty in Australia affects approximately 1 in 6 children, equating to nearly 774,000

young people (Davidson et al., 2020). This statistic has remained stubbornly persistent despite decades of welfare reform. Children experiencing poverty in Australia are significantly more likely to face adverse outcomes in health, education, housing, and social connection, with compounded effects for Indigenous, rural, single-parent, and disabled households (AIHW, 2022; Vera-Toscano & Wilkins, 2020).

Unlike international counterparts such as New Zealand, Finland, and Scotland, Australia lacks a dedicated national strategy or child-specific legislation targeting poverty reduction. Current frameworks are fragmented and primarily address adult poverty or offer indirect support to children through general welfare systems. Meanwhile, other nations have achieved success through legislated accountability, culturally responsive programming, and universal welfare systems. This paper examines these international models to identify pathways Australia may study in developing a cohesive response to child poverty.

Overview of Child Poverty in Australia

Prevalence and Impact

One in six children in Australia live below the poverty line (Davidson et al., 2020; ACOSS,

2020). Children in poverty are: 3.3 times more likely to experience poverty as adults (Vera-

Toscano & Wilkins, 2020); 2.5 times more likely to experience financial stress or live in social

housing (Vera-Toscano & Wilkins, 2020); 50% of Indigenous children live in poverty

(Armstrong, 2023); 29% of children with disabilities live in poverty (AIHW, 2024). A study by

Wong & Zahra (2023) found that children in poverty in Australia have 40% higher rates of

school absenteeism, leading to long-term developmental impacts, even when controlling for

parental education and employment.

Child poverty manifests across three dimensions which consists firstly of material poverty,

referring to insufficient access to food, clothing, housing, or healthcare. Secondly to

opportunistic poverty, referring to limited access to educational, cultural, or developmental

opportunities. Thirdly to relational poverty, referring to weakened social, familial, or

community bonds due to financial stress (Bessell, 2021).

Recent data from the OECD (2024) highlights that Australia ranks 26th out of 38 developed countries in child wellbeing, with deficits in mental health support and educational inequality (OECD, 2024).

Current Legislative and Policy Frameworks

Australia's child poverty response is non-specific, with children receiving indirect benefits

through general policies such as the Social Security Act 1991 (Disability Support Pension,

JobSeeker, Parenting Payments), Child Care Subsidy and Family Tax Benefit, National

Affordable Housing Agreement and the Public education systems (with state-by-state

variance). These mechanisms do not specifically target children or address structural

inequalities such as access to mental health services, dental care, or culturally safe education (Angeles et al., 2023). Additionally, the 2023 Anti-Poverty Commission Bill seeks to provide advice but does not commit to binding targets or accountability structures (Australian Government, 2023).

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has criticised Australia for lacking a coordinated national child strategy and failing to implement the Convention on the

Rights of the Child across all jurisdictions (UN CRC, 2022).

Identified Gaps in Australia’s Approach

There is currently no national strategy or legislative framework focused on child poverty

(Davidson et al., 2020). There is limited data collection and categorisation on child poverty by demographics (AIHW, 2022). There is no targeted response for Indigenous, single-parent, or rural communities. There is a lack of child-specific healthcare access beyond the general

Medicare system (Angeles et al., 2023). Also, there is fragmented governance between federal, state, and local systems impedes coordinated response (Productivity Commission, 2020).

Global Models: Successes and Shortcomings

New Zealand – Child Poverty Reduction Act (2018)

 Introduced measurable 3- and 10-year targets, requiring transparent annual reporting

to Parliament of low income before and after housing costs, material hardship and

persistent poverty. Aims to ensure successive governments maintain focus and make

progress, regardless of changes in administration.

 Expanded free school lunch programs, housing investment, and Working for Families

tax credits.

 Child poverty reduced by 8% since the Act’s introduction (Statistics New Zealand,

2024).

 Shortcoming: Over-reliance on reporting rather than service delivery (Child Poverty

Action Group, 2019).

 Risk: Susceptible to political shifts (Electoral Commission NZ, 2023).

Finland – Child Welfare and Children’s Ombudsman Acts

 Offers universal child benefits, free education, and comprehensive healthcare,

 reducing child poverty to 10.1%—third lowest globally (Dorling, 2024).

 Children’s Ombudsman ensures rights-based oversight to promote and evaluate

 implementation on UN CRC and advocacy.

 Preventative focus reduces long-term harm before crisis occurs (Costello & Uibu,

 2022).

 Shortcoming: High caseloads for professionals and inconsistent service quality across

 regions (Hakkila et al., 2024).

Scotland – Child Poverty (Scotland) Act (2017)

 Requires local delivery plans and targets for poverty reduction.

 Supports access to school meals, childcare, and extracurricular activities.

 Emphasises community collaboration and tailoring to local needs (Greenwood, 2020).

 Shortcoming: Coordination challenges between national and local government.

 Canada – Canada Child Benefit (CCB)

 Monthly tax-free payments scaled by income level.

 Helped lift 300,000 children out of poverty (Government of Canada, 2021).

 Shortcoming: Barriers persist for Indigenous and remote communities due to

 administrative and geographical limitations (Raphael, 2019).

United Kingdom – Child Poverty Act (2010, repealed 2016)

 Initially set statutory targets and transparency mechanisms.

 Repealed by conservative government due to ideological conflict and political pressure

 (House of Commons, 2016).

 Post-repeal, UK child poverty increased by 10% (Social Metrics Commission, 2023).

 Demonstrates risk of legislative fragility if cross-party support is not secured.

References

Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS), 2020. Poverty in Australia 2020 Report.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), 2022, 2024.

Angeles, L. et al., 2023. Access to Healthcare Services among Low-Income Children.

Bessell, S., 2021. Child Poverty and the Capabilities Approach.

Davidson, P. et al., 2020. Poverty in Australia 2020.

Dorling, D., 2024. Global Child Poverty Trends.

Ferguson, M., 2021. New Zealand’s Child Poverty Reduction Act: Five Years On.

Greenwood, M., 2020. Local Authority Strategies and Child Poverty in Scotland.

House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee, 2016.

Lapsiasiavaltuutettu (Office of the Ombudsman for Children, Finland), n.d.

Ministry of Social Development (NZ), 2021.

OECD, 2024. Child Wellbeing Rankings.

Ouellette et al., 2004. Income and Child Outcomes.

Posø, T., 2011. Child Welfare Act in Finland.

Social Metrics Commission (UK), 2023.

Statistics New Zealand, 2018, 2024.

UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), 2022.

Vera-Toscano, E. & Wilkins, R., 2020.

Wong, J. & Zahra, A., 2023. Educational Impacts of Poverty in Australia.