The Federal Government’s Women’s Safety Summit indicates a keen interest in doing more to keep women safe; however, social security settings were not a focus of the agenda, despite the central role that financial security plays in securing women’s safety and agency. In today’s analysis, Lily Gardener and Policy Whisperer Susan Maury of Good Shepherd Australia New Zealand (@GoodAdvocacy), and Frances Davies of the National Foundation for Australian Women (NFAW) argue that the JobSeeker Payment, originally designed for younger unemployed men, is disproportionately exacerbating poverty for women. This analysis is part of the NFAW (@NFAWomen) Gender Lens on the Budget series, drawing on the income support analysis. This is a companion piece to Explainer: Why JobSeeker is below the poverty line, and why it matters for gender equality.

The social security experience is differentiated by gender

Social security and welfare expenditure in 2020–21 is estimated to represented 33.9 per cent of the Australian Government’s total expenditure – nearly 22% higher than what was forecast in the 2019–20 Budget. This is primarily due to COVID-19 response measures and an increase in the number of people receiving income support payments.

Social security and welfare outlays can play a critical role in addressing poverty and reducing inequality. This became evident when the Federal government introduced the Coronavirus Payment to some (not all) working age payments. This change effectively doubled income for many who rely on income support and it had the effect of temporarily reducing poverty in Australia by an astounding 33% in consequence.

The disproportionate amount of unpaid work, particularly caring work, that women engage in mean they are more reliant on income support payments such as JobSeeker. Photo by Josh Willink from Pexels — The disproportionate amount of unpaid work, particularly caring work, that women engage in mean they are more reliant on income support payments such as JobSeeker. Photo by **Josh Willink** from **Pexels**

Yet, little attention has been paid to how social security and welfare systems and structures are embedded with gender inequalities, exacerbating poverty for women. Structural gender bias is currently hidden by ‘neutral’ social security and welfare policy. It obscures the different ways women experience inequality, including on the basis of race, disability, class, age, sexuality and/or geographic location.

Inequality between Australian women and men is demonstrated across a range of areas, including for example workforce participation, pay, unpaid labour, retirement incomes, housing, access to financial services and land, and the impacts of gendered violence. It is therefore perhaps not surprising that the latest data released by the Department of Social Services (June 2021) shows that women make up 58% of all payment recipients in Australia. There are only three payments in which men make up the majority of recipients – the Disability Support Pension (53%), Youth Allowance (Other) (51%) and the JobSeeker Payment (52%). While each payment reflects gendered differences, this analysis highlights the JobSeeker Payment, to demonstrate how differences across the life course between men and women lead to gendered outcomes in Australia’s unemployment payment.

Despite their under-representation in the JobSeeker Payment, making up 48% of all recipients, we argue that the Federal Government’s deliberate strategy to keep the payment below the poverty line is a gendered issue. Women are more likely to have been moved off other, more appropriate, payments and onto JobSeeker. Women receiving the JobSeeker Payment are much less likely to be ‘job ready’ than men and are also much more likely to use JobSeeker to ‘top up’ low wages from part-time, contract or precarious employment. It is worth noting that this meant, despite being disproportionately impacted by COVID, many women were excluded from the original COVID Disaster Payments.

The changing demographics of JobSeeker recipients

Historically there has been a close relationship between unemployment levels and unemployment benefits. However, policy changes in recent decades has changed the profile and demographics of JobSeeker recipients substantially over time, with women and men now making up almost equal shares of JobSeeker (previously NewStart) recipients.

While there have been significant changes to Australia’s economy over this time, and the population is ageing, policy changes have significantly impacted the demographics of JobSeeker recipients. The graph below (found here, p. 13) shows the number of women who are on JobSeeker far outweigh those who are counted as unemployed, while the reverse is true for men. At this point in time, the largest demographic on JobSeeker are older women.

Changes to social security payments have affected every age cohort of female recipients and reconfigured the demographic profile of recipients. These changes included increasing the Age Pension qualifying age for women; movement of grandfathered parenting payment recipients onto JobSeeker; tightening of access to the Disability Support Pension (DSP); and the closure and phase-out of the wife payment, Widow B Pension, Partners Allowance and Widows Allowance.

Newstart Allowance, Sickness Allowance and Bereavement Allowance were merged to form JobSeeker Payment from 20 March 2020. This has meant the JobSeeker payment now includes people with a disability who do not qualify for the DSP, women who have left domestic violence and are trying to re-establish their financial security and safety while also dealing with their own and their children’s trauma, older Australians who won’t qualify for the pension until they are over the age of 66, and – infamously – single parents whose youngest child is above the age of 8. A review by the Parliamentary Budgetary Office helpfully lays out the problem, reporting that, between 2007 and 2019:

The average JobSeeker recipient is increasingly older, with those aged 45+ increasing from 44% to 56% among females (and a rise for males from 34% to 45%)
Women aged 60+ have also “increased sharply”
Females who are the primary carers of children increased from 7% to 27%.
People with only a partial capacity to work have increased from below 10% to over 40%
The rate of women on JobSeeker for longer than a year has risen from 48% to 71% (for males, 51% to 63%)
Tightening the requirements to receive the DSP means that of those applying for the DSP, only 43% were successful (2011-2014) compared to 63% prior to these changes (2001-2011). Those who are unsuccessful are placed on JobSeeker.

While a significant proportion of the JobSeeker population are young, single and not on income support for long, this is not representative of the majority of people now reliant on the payment. The largest subgroup of people on JobSeeker are women over 50, who also tend to be the longest-term recipients. For many older women, particularly those on income support for several years, the current allowance needs to support them until they qualify for the Age Pension. One of the drivers of poverty for people on the Age Pension is that often older women JobSeeker recipients have been forced to run down any income or assets they may have had – severely impacting their wellbeing in older age.

Gender responsive budgeting would have avoided this crisis

Gender responsive budgeting (GRB) is one way to enable government to better understand the varied and compounding social, cultural and economic factors that create discrimination and disadvantage. Additionally, policy interventions that provide strong support require disaggregated and diversity-responsive data.

Recent budgets clearly failed to address the structural impediments to gender equity. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has disproportionately impacted women, state and Federal governments missed opportunities to invest in solutions that would have supported women out of poverty, boosted female employment, addressed the gender pay gap and created real productivity gains through higher wages in female-dominated industries.

A gendered analysis makes gender equality relevant to all decisions and not simply to the small portion of the decisions aimed at ‘women’. Importantly a budget’s annual occurrence allows the gendered effects of policy outcomes to be tracked and remedied over time. As it is central to the political process, the budget also provides a key entry point for a wider, public, and evidence-based discussion of progress towards gender equality.

If GRB had been applied to the social security and welfare budget the government would have had a clearer picture of the issues facing Australian women and might have responded with appropriate and measured gender equity policy and programs. A few examples would include:

The JobSeeker Payment would be restricted to people who are employment ready.
Indexing would keep payments above the poverty line.
The Social Security Act would make applying an intersectional gender lens mandatory.
Parenting Payment Single would increase the age of the youngest child to at least 13 years together with a supplement payment for sole parents with children over 13 years of age.
Commonwealth Rent Assistance would be substantially increased and indexed to an appropriate indexation regime.
A Carers supplement would be introduced and transitional arrangements to the Age Pension would be introduced.
Women facing domestic and family violence would have a revamped Crisis Payment and Services Australia would receive professional development and training.
The Cashless Debit Card would be abolished, as it is disproportionately applied to women, particularly First Nations women, and is failing in its main aim of keeping children safe.

These changes would have been accompanied by employment services that deal with gender and age discrimination. There would also be significant investments in social housing, childcare, sole parents, CALD women, First Nations women and women’s safety and crisis support payments.

Australia needs to bring a strong intersectional lens to social security and welfare systems and policy, that enables government to better understand the varied and compounding social, cultural and economic factors that create discrimination and disadvantage. It is a fundamental element to achieving greater gender equality and women’s empowerment as well as reducing other inequalities.

Financial security and independence support improved physical and mental health, dignity and meaning. In a post COVID-19 world a fair and accessible social security safety net is needed to support those with a marginal attachment to the labour market.

The Australian social security system must support women and families who face ongoing financial stress and deprivation because of insecure work or inadequate incomes; women without enough money to leave or remain separated from an abusive partner; and women who have been financially devastated by family violence. Ever more, the system must also support older women who do not own their own home and have no superannuation, facing poverty and destitution in retirement.

Read more analysis from NFAW:

Explainer: Why JobSeeker is below the poverty line, and why it matters for gender equality

Working from home: Opportunities but also risks for supporting gender equality

Building Australian infrastructure: What works for women?

Beyond the rhetoric: What will the Federal Budget really mean for gender equality?

This post is part of the Women's Policy Action Tank initiative to analyse government policy using a gendered lens. View our other policy analysis pieces here.

Posted by @SusanMaury