Child Sponsorship in Australia

It has been three years since I last visited Australia and 25 years since I last lived in Australia. A lot has changed. One of the changes is that this time there were a lot of ads on TV for child sponsorship schemes. Now these, in one form or another, have existed on Australian TV for a long time. What is different this time is the target recipients – they are Australian children.

Several different charities in Australia are seeking donations or monthly sponsorship to help Australian children living in poverty. One charity focuses on children who are living on the streets. Another shows a child and mother living in a car as they escape from domestic violence. A third shows a child who is unable to afford the correct uniform and other school staples (including, one would imagine, staples).

Child Poverty in Australia 2025 (https://cms.vinnies.org.au/media/3v3p0qsf/bcecplusvcipluschildpluspovertyplusreportplus2025plusfinal.pdf) is a report by The Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre and the Valuing Children Initiative that talks about rising child poverty in Australia.

“The national rate of child poverty has risen by 0.6 percentage points in two years, from 15 per cent in 2023 to 15.6 per cent in 2025.”

“Australia’s child poverty count is estimated to have risen from 868,350 children in 2023 to over 950,100 children in 2025, an increase of 81,750 in two years.”

I find these numbers shocking.

It is hard to compare this data with data in other countries because different countries use different measures and different definitions within those measures. What is the cut off for poverty? Is it household income / parental income / asset value / etc? Is it adapted for the number of children in the household? What is the age of a child?

It is also quite hard to compare poverty in two different contexts. Is a child who is unable to have a new party outfit more or less poor than a child who is unable to participate in an after-school club, or a child who eats the same basic food every day, or a child who has a library membership but few books of their own, or a child who has to engage in paid work outside of school, or a child who is unable to attend school at all, or a child who can’t afford a bike, or a child who has to use a bike because the family has no other way of getting the child to school, etc.

In any case, it is a scandal that children live in poverty. Any children. In any context. In any country. For any measure. And while charitable giving is a very good thing (in most cases) and charitable organisations should be lauded (in most cases) for the work they do, I can’t help but think that children living in Australia (one of the richest countries in the world) should be supported by the government. This goes for poor children in the UK, the USA, and other wealthy nations too.

Some of the roles of a government should include: ensuring essential services are free at point of use; ensuring the availability of jobs that pay a decent living wage; providing training courses for those who want to upskill; providing early-stage interventions to help families with young children get set up strongly; providing benefits that are fair for those in need. And I think all of this should happen before children should be reliant on charity.

Comments

2 responses to “Child Sponsorship in Australia”

  1. Samantha Nightingale avatar
    Samantha Nightingale

    I can’t talk for Australian government but I think the U.K. government would say that there are systems in place that do all the things you list. Maybe not to the level / quality required but there is an attempt to pay, train, support. And yet we still have child poverty. So is it more than just providing the service / product / benefit; is it about how government helps people access the service / product / benefit? Especially those that find it hard to advocate for themselves?

    1. kath@kathmcguire.co.uk avatar

      I agree. And yes, I think there is a lot about who can access the service and how.

      There’s also something about where tax money comes from. When the ultra rich don’t pay a fair amount of tax then it is the poor to somewhat rich who pay tax. And government services are funded from tax revenue. So this is a redistribution from the somewhat rich (and below) to the very poor. And this is great. But it doesn’t help with redistribution from the very very rich. (Redistribution to the very rich is exactly the point of the system so there’s no problem with that.) This was one point that Abhijeet Bannerjee made at the Kerala Literary Festival. I’ll oversimplify and paraphrase him: if you want to solve poverty, tax the rich (people and corporations).

      And of course there are other things the government can do make it easier for people to start small businesses, for people to access quality childcare, for working people to be paid a fair wage etc. And yes, there’s a lot more they can do to ensure the most marginalised are seen and supported.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *