2.08 Income

Key messages

Why is it important?

Adequate and reliable income is a key social determinant of health and wellbeing, supporting access to essentials such as food, housing, healthcare, education and digital services. Higher and more reliable income is associated with better physical and mental health, reduced financial stress, and greater social and economic participation. Inadequate household income can constrain these opportunities and contribute to food insecurity and other forms of disadvantage, with particular consequences for families with children and people living in remote communities. For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (First Nations) people, socioeconomic disadvantage is also shaped by systemic and historical factors, while the growing importance of digital participation creates additional barriers for people on lower incomes. Reliable income can strengthen financial security, choice and control over life circumstances, supporting self-determination and wellbeing.

Data findings

• The median equivalised gross weekly household income for First Nations adults was $825 per week, compared with $1,141 per week for non-Indigenous adults in 2021.
• First Nations people are over-represented in lower income quintiles. In 2021, 35% (137,600) of First Nations adults lived in households in the lowest income quintile (the bottom 20% of the Australian household income distribution), compared with 20% of non-Indigenous adults. In contrast, 9.9% (39,200) of First Nations adults lived in households in the highest income quintile (the top 20% of the distribution).
• 43% of First Nations adults in 2021 had a personal weekly income of less than $500 per week, compared with 31% of non-Indigenous adults. 
• Household income disparity increased with remoteness. In 2021, median equivalised gross weekly income for First Nations households in Major cities was $982 per week compared with $459 per week in Very remote areas.
• The proportion of First Nations adults living in households in the lowest quintile increased with remoteness, from 26% in Major cities to 69% in Very remote areas. The proportion of First Nations adults living in households in the highest income quintile ranged from 13% in Major cities to 3.0% in Very remote areas.
• Over time, the proportion of First Nations adults living in households with an equivalised income below the 50th percentile (in the lower half of the income distribution) declined from 69% in 2011 to 67% in 2021.
• The gap in the median equivalised gross weekly household income between First Nations and non-Indigenous adults has been narrowing over time – from a gap of $379 per week in 2011, $332 per week in 2016 to $316 per week in 2021.
• In 2022–23, based on the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Survey (NATSIHS), 48% (an estimated 214,800) of First Nations adults were living in households that had experienced days without money for basic living expenses, such as for food, clothing and bills, in the previous 12 months.
• In 2022–23, compared with First Nations adults living in households in the highest income quintiles (4th and 5th), those living in households in the lowest income quintile (1st) were less likely to have completed Year 12 (23% compared with 65%), less likely to have a non-school qualification (42% compared with 84%), and less likely to be employed (14% compared with 95%).
• In 2022–23, compared with First Nations adults living in households in the highest income quintiles (4th and 5th), those living in households in the lowest income quintile (1st) were more likely to report fair or poor self-assessed health (36% compared with 16%, respectively), have 3 or more chronic conditions (18% compared with 8.3%), and have diabetes or high blood sugar levels (17% compared with 7.1%). 

Why is it important?

Adequate and reliable income supports individuals to live a healthy life, facilitates greater access to nutritious food, housing, health and other services and greater ability to participate in society (AIHW 2024). Higher income and lower financial constraints have well-established associations with better health outcomes such as lower risk of disease and better mental health; as well as reduced stress in meeting the costs of living; and greater choices, access and opportunities that enhance health and social participation (AIHW 2025). 

Research indicates that inadequate income support payments have led Australians to skip meals and cut food intake (ACOSS 2024). Inadequate household income can have significant impacts on families with young children because adequate income underpins access to food, housing, healthcare and other resources that support healthy child development (AIHW 2022). Food security is associated with nutritional imbalances and some chronic conditions, including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, hypertension, and mental and behavioural conditions (Weaver and Fasel 2018). In 2022–23, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (First Nations) households on lower income were more likely to experience food insecurity than higher income households, with the lowest income households being around 8 times as likely to experience food insecurity (66%) as those in the highest income households (8.4%). In 2022–23, around 41% of First Nations households experienced food insecurity due to a lack of money for food at some time in the 12 months prior to survey (ABS 2024). This issue is particularly acute in remote communities, where high food costs and unreliable supply chains further limit access to nutritious food, contributing to poor nutrition. The National Strategy for Food Security in Remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities 2025–2035 highlights the urgent need to improve access to affordable, nutritious food as a foundation for health equity.

Ongoing socioeconomic disadvantage for First Nations people is influenced by systemic factors, including the historical exclusion from government policy development and policy approaches that emphasise individual responsibility while overlooking systemic inequality and the impacts of historical policies (Briggs 2022). Consistent with these broader socioeconomic challenges, First Nations people have relatively low average weekly incomes and are under-represented in the highest income bracket. Moreover, many First Nations people rely on a government pension or allowance as their primary source of income.

Income is increasingly linked to digital participation, as the ability to access, afford and effectively use digital services is a requirement for full participation in contemporary social, economic and civic life. Digital inclusion increases with income and that gap between low- and high-income groups has widened in recent years. As digital services become ever more embedded in social, economic and cultural life, the costs of connectivity and devices can present major barriers to education, work, and vital services, compounding existing inequalities for people on lower incomes (Thomas et al. 2023).

For First Nations people, having a reliable income supports pathways to self‑determination and improved wellbeing by enabling greater financial security, decision‑making power, and control over life circumstances (AIHW 2025; Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs 2024). For more information on related socioeconomic measures see 2.01 Housing, 2.04 Literacy and numeracy, 2.05 Education outcomes for young people, 2.06 Educational participation and attainment of adults, 2.07 Employment, 2.09 Socioeconomic indexes, and 2.19 Dietary behaviour. 

Household income quintiles

Data from the 2021 Census of Population and Housing show that just over 1 in 3 (35%, or 137,600) First Nations adults (aged 18 and over) were living in households in the lowest income quintile (the bottom 20% of the household income distribution for all Australian adults). One in 10 (9.9%, or 39,200) First Nations adults were living in households in the highest income quintile (the top 20% of the household income distribution for all Australian adults) (Table D2.08.15). 

A higher proportion of First Nations adult females (37%) lived in households in the lowest income quintile than First Nations adult males (31%) (Table D2.08.14, Figure 2.08.1).

Figure 2.08.1: Proportion of First Nations people aged 18 and over in each equivalised gross weekly household income quintile, by sex, 2021

Source: Table D2.08.14. ABS Census of Population and Housing, data provided by the ABS, customised report, 2023. 

The proportion of First Nations adults living in households in the lowest income quintile ranged from 17% (840 adults) in the Australian Capital Territory to 66% (19,500 adults) in the Northern Territory. The proportion of First Nations adults living in the highest income quintile ranged from 6% (1,800 adults) in the Northern Territory to 29% (1,400 adults) in the Australian Capital Territory (Table D2.08.15, Figure 2.08.2). 

Figure 2.08.2: Proportion of First Nations adults in each equivalised gross weekly household income quintile, by jurisdiction, 2021

Source: Table D2.08.15. ABS Census of Population and Housing, data provided by the ABS, customised report, 2023. 

Across remoteness areas, the proportion of First Nations adults living in households in the lowest equivalised gross weekly income quintile increased with remoteness: 26% (48,800 adults) in Major cities compared with 69% (30,500 adults) in Very remote areas. The proportion of First Nations adults living in households in the highest income quintile ranged from 13% (25,200 adults) in Major cities to 3% (1,300 adults) in Very remote areas (Table D2.08.17, Figure 2.08.3).

Figure 2.08.3: Proportion of First Nations adults in each equivalised gross weekly household income quintile, by remoteness, 2021

Source: Table D2.08.17. ABS Census of Population and Housing, data provided by the ABS, customised report, 2023.

Average household income

The 2021 Census reports that the median equivalised gross weekly household income of First Nations adults (aged 18 and over) was $825. The mean equivalised gross weekly household income for First Nations adults was $1,005. 

Across jurisdictions, the median equivalised gross weekly household income of First Nations adults ranged from $465 per week in the Northern Territory to $1,425 per week in the Australian Capital Territory (Table D2.08.11, Figure 2.08.4).

Figure 2.08.4: Median equivalised gross weekly household income of First Nations adults, by jurisdiction, 2021

Source: Table D2.08.11. ABS Census of Population and Housing, data provided by the ABS, customised report, 2023. 

By remoteness, the 2021 median equivalised gross weekly household income for First Nations adults ranged from $982 per week in Major cities to $459 per week in Very remote areas (Table D2.08.12, Figure 2.08.5). 

Figure 2.08.5: Median equivalised gross weekly household income of First Nations adults, by remoteness, 2021

Source: Table D2.08.12. ABS Census of Population and Housing, data provided by the ABS, customised report, 2023.

Personal income

Personal income data from the 2021 Census shows that the median weekly personal income for First Nations people aged 15 and over was $540 per week in 2021 (ABS 2022a). In 2021, 43% (197,300) of First Nations adults had a gross weekly income of less than $500, 27% (125,800) earned $500–$999, 15% (70,000) earned $1,000–$1,499, and the remaining 15% (70,000) earned $1,500 or more (Table D2.08.18, Figure 2.08.6).

Figure 2.08.6: Gross weekly personal income of First Nations adults, 2021

Source: Table D2.08.18. AIHW analysis of ABS Census of Population and Housing.

For First Nations people aged 15 and over in 2021, the median personal income was $581 per week for males and $518 per week for females (AIHW analysis of ABS Census, 2021, TableBuilder) (ABS 2022b).

Source of income

Data from the 2022–23 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Survey (NATSIHS) provide latest information on the main source of income for First Nations people that is not available from Census data. Population counts reported in this section are estimates derived from survey responses.

Data from the 2022–23 NATSIHS show that the main sources of income for First Nations people aged 18–64 were employee income (52%, or an estimated 281,100 people) and government pensions or allowances (37%; 198,700) (Table D2.08.4).

In 2022–23, among First Nations adults, females were more likely than males to receive a government pension or allowance (54% or an estimated 168,000 females compared with 41% or 121,000 males) (Table D2.08.5).

Financial stress

In 2022–23, based on the NATSIHS, 48% (an estimated 214,800) of First Nations adults lived in households that had experienced days without money for basic living expenses, such as for food, clothing and bills, in the previous 12 months (Table D2.08.7).

About half (49%, or an estimated 466,900) of First Nations people were living in households that would not be able to raise $2,000 within a week for an emergency (an indicator of financial stress). This was more likely for households in remote areas (69%, or 95,600 people) than for those in non-remote areas (46%, or 371,400 people) (Table D2.08.6).

Income, education and employment

Data from the 2022–23 NATSIHS showed associations between income and educational attainment and employment. Compared with First Nations adults living in households in the 2 highest income quintiles (4th and 5th), those living in households in the lowest income quintile (1st) were less likely to:

• have completed Year 12 (23% compared with 65%)
• have a non-school qualification (42% compared with 84%)
• be employed (14% compared with 95%) (Table D2.08.7).

Income and health

Data from the 2022–23 NATSIHS showed an association between low income and poorer health. Compared with First Nations adults living in households in the highest income quintiles (4th and 5th), those living in households in the lowest income quintile (1st) were more likely to report:

• fair or poor self-assessed health (36% compared with 16%)
• having 3 or more chronic conditions (18% compared with 8.3%)
• having diabetes or high blood sugar levels (17% compared with 7.1%) (Table D2.08.9).

Comparisons with non-Indigenous Australians

Data from the 2021 Census show that First Nations people are over-represented in the lower household income distributions, with 35% of First Nations adults living in households in the lowest income quintile (bottom 20% of the household income distribution) compared with 20% of non-Indigenous adults.

A higher proportion of females than males lived in households in the lowest income quintile among both the First Nations and non-Indigenous adults. The proportion was 37% for First Nations adult females compared with 31% for First Nations males, and 21% for non-Indigenous females compared with 18% for non-Indigenous males (Table D2.08.14).

The median equivalised gross weekly household income for First Nations adults was $825 per week compared with $1,141 per week for non-Indigenous adults. Across jurisdictions, the largest gap in median equivalised gross weekly household income between First Nations and non-Indigenous adults was in the Northern Territory, where First Nations adults received less than a third of the amount of non-Indigenous adults ($465 and $1,485 per week, respectively) (Table D2.08.11).

Personal income data show that, similar to household incomes, First Nations adults were over-represented in lower income bands and under-represented in higher income bands. In 2021, 43% of First Nations adults had a gross weekly income of less than $500, compared with 31% of non-Indigenous adults. At the other end of the income distribution, 7% of First Nations adults earned $2,000 or more per week, compared with 14% of non-Indigenous adults (Table D2.08.18).

Change over time

Household income quintiles

Census data show that the proportion of First Nations adults living in households in the lowest equivalised household income quintile (the bottom 20% of the household income distribution) increased from 31% in 2011 to 37% in 2016, before declining slightly to 35% in 2021 (Table D2.08.16).

The proportion of First Nations adults living in households with an equivalised gross weekly household income below the 50th percentile (the lower half of the income distribution) declined slightly, from 69% in 2011 to 67% in 2021 (Table D2.08.16, Figure 2.08.7).

Figure 2.08.7: Proportion of First Nations adults living in households with equivalised gross weekly household income below the 20th and 50th percentiles, 2011, 2016 and 2021

Source: Table D2.08.16. ABS Census of Population and Housing, data provided by the ABS, customised report, 2023.

Median household income

In 2021, the median equivalised gross weekly household income for First Nations adults was $825 per week, up from $691 per week in 2016 and $619 per week in 2011, after adjusting for inflation. The gap in the median equivalised gross weekly household income between First Nations and non-Indigenous adults was $316 per week in 2021, down from $332 per week in 2016 and $379 per week in 2011 (Table D2.08.13, Figure 2.08.8). 

Figure 2.08.8: Median equivalised gross weekly household income of persons aged 18 and over, by Indigenous status, 2011, 2016 and 2021

Note: All median income figures have been adjusted for inflation using ABS CPI data and are presented in 2021 dollars.
Source: Table D2.08.13. ABS Census of Population and Housing, data provided by the ABS, customised report, 2023.

A study found that Indigenous Australians had lower total personal incomes than non-Indigenous Australians across all labour force categories, particularly for those who were employed full-time (Howlett et al. 2015). This was partly due to lower wages (around 18% lower for Indigenous men), which can be explained by lower levels of education, poorer access to ’good’ jobs and fewer weeks worked per year on average. This paper found that Indigenous Australians had considerably less income from other private sources (business and investment income) than non-Indigenous Australians. A higher proportion of Indigenous incomes come from government payments.

Many factors can be attributed to explaining how income affects socioeconomic status and the reason why low income contributes to poor health. Examples include the capacity to afford nutritious food and quality housing; cost barriers to accessing health care, including health insurance; risk behaviours, including substance use and social participation; and access to education and employment (Marmot 2016; WHO 2017).

However, the relationship between health and income is complex and intertwined. Both aspects of health and income can be an outcome or a determinant (Bhattacharya et al. 2013; World Health Organisation 2014). For example, people with higher incomes may have better health outcomes because they have better access to health services, while people with poorer health may have lower incomes due to work limitations caused by their health conditions (AIHW 2015).

Socioeconomic variables (such as weekly cash income, source of cash income, and years of schooling) can explain between one-third and one-half of the gap in self-assessed health status between Indigenous Australians and non-Indigenous Australians (Booth & Carroll 2008). However, several studies that examined health status found a positive relationship with education, labour force status and home ownership, but the evidence for household income was weaker (Chikritzhs & Brady 2006; Cunningham et al. 1997; Gray et al. 2004; Shepherd et al. 2012; Trewin 2006).

International research has shown the level of income inequality within a society is associated with societal function, for example rates of violence, incarceration, communal trust, feelings of exclusion, stress, and educational performance. The effect on health outcomes is not entirely explained by income inequality, rather it is also impacted by those societal conditions (Marmot 2016; Wilkinson & Pickett 2009; Wolfson et al. 1999).

Children’s health is affected by household income from a young age, and the effects accumulate as they age—the older the child, the more profound the effect (Case et al. 2002). There is, however, limited direct evidence for Indigenous children, although one proxy indicator—low birthweight (see measure 1.01 Low birthweight)—highlights the early impact socioeconomic disadvantage can have on health for many Indigenous children (AIHW 2016).

There is an association between income inequality and perceptions of wellbeing (Cooper et al. 2013). Biddle (2015) found a correlation between income and measures of happiness and sadness for Indigenous males living in non-remote areas (Biddle 2015). However, relationships were weaker for females and those living in remote areas.

In 2006 the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs found compelling evidence that governments in several jurisdictions systematically withheld and mismanaged wages and entitlements for Indigenous Australians over many decades from the late 19^th Century through to the 1980s. In addition, there is evidence of Indigenous Australians being underpaid or not paid at all for their work, a practice now referred to as ‘stolen wages’. The ‘stolen wages’ has had intergenerational effects that relates directly to the poverty conditions many Indigenous Australians live in today (Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs 2006). Some governments have since put in place reparation schemes, although the lack of records have made it very difficult to determine the full impact of stolen wages (Stolen Wages Taskforce 2008).

Family structure for Indigenous Australians extends beyond the nuclear family concept commonly seen in non-Indigenous contexts, to encompass extended family and community in a collective system of resource sharing that is a testament to their rich cultural heritage (Studies 1995) . This traditional practice underscores community resilience and unity, though it does present challenges in balancing resources in the face of income disparity, which can lead to financial pressure, highlighting the need for equitable resource distribution and support (Davidson et al. 2018).

Venn and others (2020) examined trends in income support payments and Community Development Employment Project (CDEP) income among Indigenous Australians between 1994 and 2014–15 (Venn et al. 2020). In non-remote areas, receipt of social security payments among Indigenous Australians fell between 1994 and 2008. During this period, falls in receipt of social security and CDEP wages were offset by increases in the proportion of people with non-CDEP wages as their main source of income. From 2008 to 2014–15, the level of social security payments in non-remote areas did not change significantly. In remote areas, trends in social security payments have been greatly influenced by the decline of the CDEP scheme. Overall, the proportion of Indigenous Australians on CDEP wages was lower in 2014–15 than in 1994.

There was strong income growth between 2002 and 2008; however, income was stagnating and falling between 2008 and 2014–15 (Venn et al. 2020). The income growth between 2002 and 2008 may be due to the shift in Indigenous Australian’s primary source of income from CDEP wages to non-CDEP jobs. In contrast, the fall in income growth between 2008 and 2014–15 may be due to the stagnating labour market and the demise of the CDEP.

Venn and others (2020) also observed that there was an increase in the proportion of Indigenous Australians without any source of income (Venn et al. 2020). However, the authors noted that without longitudinal data, they could not definitely say what has happened to former income support recipients once they have moved off benefits and whether their incomes and welfare have increased as a result. Nor could they conclude whether moving from one type to another payment may have resulted in stagnating average income.

There are multiple models of welfare quarantining, where a proportion of a person’s welfare payment is income managed and directed towards meeting basic needs such as food, clothing, housing and utilities.

One example is the Family Responsibilities Commission (FRC), operating in five communities in North Queensland (Mossman Gorge, Coen, Aurukun, Hopevale and Doomadgee). Through the FRC Act, powers and responsibilities of the Crown have been shared with Indigenous Australians, so they hold formal decision-making powers enabling them to respond to the needs of individuals and families in their own communities. The FRC provides community-based, community-led intervention and support – outside of and preferably before – potentially more serious state interventions are taken by the justice, child protection, education, or housing services.         

The FRC’s income management model is an agile, highly nuanced approach. Under the FRC Act, income management can either be voluntary, where community members can approach the FRC entirely of their own accord to seek Voluntary Income Management (VIM), or by way of Conditional Income Management (CIM). The period of income management is time limited ranging from three to 12 months, and the percentage of a person’s welfare payment protected by income management can vary from 60%, 75% and 90% for the duration of the CIM or VIM.

CIM orders are only made by the FRC after the opportunity has been provided to attend a conference with Local Commissioners – Elders or respected persons from the community. In these circumstances income management is only applied by the FRC as a matter of last resort, to the least intrusive extent where it is warranted based on the individual’s circumstances.

VIM is becoming an increasingly popular tool for those wishing to self-refer to the FRC and where the community member decides for him or herself, the portion of their welfare payments to be protected by income management and the duration of the income management agreement.

A review of the Cape York Welfare Reform income management model found that there is some evidence that income management has contributed to a reduction in alcohol consumption and drug use (Scott et al. 2018). The review also suggests that children’s overall health and wellbeing, and engagement in school outcomes have improved. Income management has been a helpful tool for providing respite from daily living problems (e.g., paying rent, buying food and clothing) and stabilising households in crisis. It also is an effective lever to encourage behavioural change, alleviate financial hardship and a helpful tool for financial management.

The Australian Government provides long- and short-term income support payments to people who cannot fully support themselves. For many disadvantaged Australians, including Indigenous Australians, income assistance is key in ensuring economic and social wellbeing.

The disparity in incomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians has important implications for health. These implications include reduced capacity to access goods and services required to lead a healthy lifestyle, such as adequate nutritious food, housing, transport and health care.

Other factors that may exacerbate the situation faced by low income households include resource commitments to extended families and visitors (Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision 2007). Income discrepancies may reflect uneven access to education and employment opportunities. Geographic location, health conditions, disability and caring responsibilities also contribute to disadvantage. Furthermore,  there is evidence that labour market discrimination against Indigenous Australians exists, that is, wage and employment differentials, which cannot be explained by educational gaps or other factors (Committee for Economic Development of Australia 2015).

It is also important to note that Indigenous women often take on unpaid care responsibilities within their communities which can have an adverse impact on workforce participation and ability to earn an income. Flexible working arrangements that accommodate these caring roles may facilitate more Indigenous women attaining paid, secure work (Brown et al. 2020).

More detailed longitudinal analysis is required. Previous analyses mainly sought to explain the health gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Less is known about the role of socioeconomic factors in explaining differences in the health status among Indigenous Australians, including the health status of specific subgroups, such as Indigenous Australians with a disability (AIHW 2016).

There exists a large gap in understanding the implications of income support and its association with health, despite 45% of Indigenous Australians aged 18–64 receiving income support as their primary source of income in 2018–19. Further research is required to understand: the level and adequacy of income support; the characteristics of recipients who leave or remain on income support and their reasons for transitioning out of income support; other sources of income when recipients leave income support; and intergenerational effects (AIHW 2019; Venn et al. 2020).

References

• ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (2021) Equivalised total household income (weekly) (HIED), accessed 10 February 2025. 
• ABS (2022a) 2021 Australia, Census Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people QuickStats, ABS website, accessed April 2023. 
• ABS (2022b) 2021 Census - counting persons, place of usual residence [Census TableBuilder Pro], accessed 21 April 2026.
• ABS (2022c) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people: Census, 4 June 2025.

• ABS (2023) Customised report on household income in 2011–2021.

• ABS (2024) National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Survey 2022–23, ABS, Australian Government.

• ACOSS (Australian Council of Social Service) (2024) Raise the Rate Survey 2024 "I wouldn't wish this life on anyone.", ACOSS.

• AIHW (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare) (2015) The health and welfare of Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples 2015, AIHW, Australian Government, doi:10.25816/5ebcbd26fa7e4. 

• AIHW (2016) Australia's health 2016, AIHW.

• AIHW (2019) 'Income support among working-age Indigenous Australians', in Australia’s welfare 2019 data insights, AIHW, Australian Government, doi:10.25816/5d5e14e6778df. 

• AIHW (2022) Australia's children, AIHW, Australian Government, accessed 27 August 2026, doi:10.25816/5ebca4d0fa7dd. 

• AIHW (2024) Social determinants of health, AIHW, Australian Government.

• AIHW (2025) Income and finance of First Nations people, AIHW, Australian Government, accessed 27 March 2026. 

• Bhattacharya J, Hyde T and Tu P (2013) Health economics, Macmillan International Higher Education.

• Biddle N (2015) 'Indigenous Income, Wellbeing and Behaviour: Some Policy Complications', Economic Papers: A Journal of Applied Economics and Policy, 34(3):139–149, doi:10.1111/1759-3441.12109. 

• Booth AL and Carroll N (2008) 'Economic status and the Indigenous/non-Indigenous health gap', Economics Letters, 99(3):604–606.

• Briggs C (2022) 'Australian Government Social Policy- Where are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People Positioned in Policy-making?', Social Work & Policy Studies: Social Justice Practice and Theory, 5(1). 

• Brown C, D’Almada-Remedios R, Gilbert J, O'leary J and Young N (2020) Gari Yala (Speak the Truth): Centreing the experiences of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander Australians at work.

• Case A, Lubotsky D and Paxson C (2002) 'Economic status and health in childhood: The origins of the gradient', The American Economic Review, 92(5):1308–1334.

• Chikritzhs T and Brady M (2006) 'Fact or fiction? a critique of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey 2002', Drug and Alcohol Review, 25(3):277–287.

• Committee for Economic Development of Australia (2015) Addressing entrenched disadvantage in Australia, CEDA.

• Cooper D, McCausland WD and Theodossiou I (2013) 'Income Inequality and Wellbeing: The Plight of the Poor and the Curse of Permanent Inequality', Journal of Economic Issues, 47(4):939–958, doi:10.2753/JEI0021-3624470407. 

• Cunningham J, Sibthorpe B and Anderson I (1997) 'Self-assessed health status, Indigenous Australians, 1994: Occasional paper', Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics and National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health.

• Davidson P, Saunders P, Bradbury B and et al. (2018) Poverty in Australia 2018, Australian Council of Social Service. 

• Gray MC, Hunter B and Taylor J (2004) Health expenditure, income and health status among Indigenous and other Australians, ANU Press.

• Hartley R (1995) Families and cultural diversity in Australia, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Australian Government. 

• Howlett M, Gray M and Hunter B (2015) Unpacking the income of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians: Wages, government payments and other income, CAEPR Working Paper CAEPR.

• Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (2024) Inquiry into economic self-determination and opportunities for First Nations Australians, Parliament of Australia. 

• Marmot M (2016) 2016 Boyer Lectures: Fair Australia: Social Justice and the Health Gap,Australian Broadcasting Corporation website. 

• Scott J, Higginson A, Staines Z, Zhen L, Ryan V and Lauchs M (2018) 'Strategic review of Cape York Income Management'.

• Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision (2007) Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage: Key Indicators 2007 Report, Productivity Commission.

• Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (2006) Unfinished Business, Indigenous Stolen Wages, Commonwealth of Australia.

• Shepherd CC, Li J and Zubrick SR (2012) 'Social gradients in the health of Indigenous Australians', American journal of public health, 102(1):107–117.

• Stolen Wages Taskforce (2008) Reconciling The Past: Government control of Aboriginal monies in Western Australia, 1905-1972. 

• Thomas J, McCosker A, Parkinson S, Hegarty K, Featherstone D, Kennedy J et al. (2023) Measuring Australia's Digital Divide: Australian Digital Inclusion Index: 2023, ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society, RMIT University, Swinburne University of Technology, Telstra. 

• Trewin D (2006) National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Survey, Australia, 2004-05, Australian Bureau of Statistics Canberra.

• Venn D, Biddle N and Sanders W (2020) 'Trends in social security receipt among Indigenous Australians: Evidence from household surveys 1994-2015'.

• Weaver LJ and Fasel CB (2018) 'A Systematic Review of the Literature on the Relationships between Chronic Diseases and Food Insecurity', Food and Nutrition Sciences, 9(519-541), doi:10.4236/fns.2018.95040.

• Wilkinson R and Pickett K (2009) 'Income inequality and social dysfunction', Annual Review of Sociology, 35(1):493–511, doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115926. 

• Wolfson M, Kaplan G, Lynch J, Ross N and Backlund E (1999) 'Relation between income inequality and mortality: empirical demonstration', British Medical Journal, 319(7215):953–955, doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.319.7215.953. 

• WHO (World Health Organisation) (2014) Health for the world’s adolescents: a second chance in the second decade, WHO.

• WHO (2017) The determinants of health, World Health Organization website, accessed 21 Janurary 2017.