I wonder if the research could include a study of "who" is

identifying "what" as an essential item. For example if the research

subject already has secure accommodation, will they identify this as

an essential item. Could "how" one acquired secure accommodation

influence their views on "what" is an essential item? Are there items

that people take so much for granted that they fail to see how

essential these items are in their lives? What about people who have

experienced a deep loss of items which are not ordinarily considered

materially essential but the grief of that loss has had such a deep

affect on their psychological well being, that they become depressed,

losing their appetite etc (stop seeking to acquire the items

considered essential for healthy living such as food?). And then

there are those who may have what appears to be over and above the

level of material wealth essential for most, but are burdened with

such deep insecurities about possible loss, that they seek to

accumulate material items in order to settle their fears for the

future?

lack of political power leads to lack of economic power. nothing will be done for people who can not reward the doer, and who do not resemble the doer enough to inspire fear of like treatment. hence the position of kooris in australia.

australia is a very backward land, in a state of retarded political evolution. there is much talk of democracy and mateship, fair go and rule of law. but it's empty talk, the talk of children trying to appear grown up while not understanding what the words mean or how they relate to action. it's no use talking of what should be done, if you don't know how to do it. people who do urge action by 'someone' may be well intentioned, or they may just be earning a living by pressing the 'social conscience' button.

instead of talking about poverty up to the point of "something should be done" and then washing your hands of it- tell us who should do something, and what, and most of all- tell us why they should modify their behavior to do it. that's the hard part- any fool of a handwringing do-gooder can cry:" the gummint otta..".

I guess I am curious enough to have wished I had been sent one of those random questionnaires that the author says received some 2700 responses. These are presumeably the people who are not regular clients of the welfare agencies that were co-participants in the survey. However the randomness would not exclude such clients.
For starters I would be interested in the response rate or what was the total number of questionnaires sent out.
It must be reassuring that both groups - the clients and the random responders - coincided in their expressed desires and that those desires fall into the familiar category of food, shelter, warmth etc.
I would hope that the random questionnaire enabled people to expand on their thoughts and not just give a yes/no/don't know response. For those non-clients of the agencies it would be interesting to know why they were so as it must be apparent that these agencies (including St Vincent de Paul - not mentioned as a participant) are well resourced and pretty generous in their ability to give material support. I live next door to such an agency and can vouch for the willingness of that generosity but could also understand why some would not seek it. For example a lack of privacy in fronting the agency.
I would suggest that the recent experience of the Country Women's Association being the conduit for federal drought aid to rural families is revealing. The initial money plus a Woolworths 'days takings' disappeared very quickly and moves are afoot to do a repeat, indicating a severe need for such assistance from folk who would normally not be agency clients.
While I doubt the CWA kept a detailed tally of what people intended using the cash for, nor perhaps if it was so used, the whole exercise might be another contemporary research tool on what constitutes poverty in Australia in 2007

Regrettably such surveys do not reach their target so any interpretation is meaningless. The main reason for this is one of perception. It is impossible for anyone designing such a survey to "define" poverty: it has to be experienced.
I see the interactions between service delivery agencies and their clients; it is a train wreck.
At the street level, sustenance provided is welcome, but it is largely a hollow gesture. The poverty persists and perpetuates itself.

Defining poverty is a relational exercise. Poor compared to what or whom ? Maslow's Hierarchy of needs is useful in understanding the progression of "needs" towards "wants" . It is broadly accepted that not all of one's "needs" for fundamentals must be satisfied for one to start taking an interest in reaching for the next level. And pretty soon that includes wants - but maybe these are actually needs if people are to be effectively nurtured and encouraged to progress independently to where they want (need?) to go. One thing is for certain - where welfare kicks in , it MUST be recognised that mere sustenance of body is not enough - the soul should have attention too! Emotive arguments about children and infirmity are red herrings ...... in this society we are EACH AND ALL eligible for community support through hard times, unless we disqualify ourselves with a bad attitude or lack of intent. A socialist view is that each of us should be able to live as well as possible, through sharing of product and wealth. A liberal (free) view is that we should each be supported in achieving participation that enables a good standard of living. Defining poverty is always a subjective exercise - recognising how poverty occurs and intercepting the individual along the path to poverty is more important. So, John Howard's view that participation (a job) is the key to avoiding poverty is pretty right.

ONCE UPON A TIME, work was simple, and a safety net existed to cushion the inevitable perturbations.
That safety net is now "fixed" above the heads of the unemployed.

Under the WELFARE-TO-WORKCHOICES regime, work is devalued to the point of being a liability.
Work once allowed for the traits of initiative and self discipline. An individual achieved an integrity born of self-worth through personal imperatives.
It is now very much an "obligation", with various vendors, including Mission Australia, encouraged and empowered[Paid] to treat clients as commodities.
It was Mission Australia I think, that conjured up MATHEW 25 as an ethos for their government work. Very different now!
The most generous people I meet are those least able to give.

Howard's prescriptions have an air of condescension that only the poor can understand.