The Federal Government’s War on Mothers & Children

It’s been quietly breaking my heart to have to face the realisation, once again, that the Gillard government hate women as much as the Liberal National Party do. Around the same time Prime Minister Julia Gillard was making the world famous Misogyny Speech, which brought a tear of joy to my eye, the Gillard government and Abbot’s opposition, united to pass the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Fair Incentives to Work) Bill 2012. They also timed it to coincide, more or less, with Anti Poverty Week. Cute. The bill, one of the most significant examples of claw-back policy to date, was passed in order to force single mothers from one social security payment to another lower payment once their youngest child turns 8 years – from Parenting Payment Single to Newstart, which is not actually a payment, but an unemployment allowance. It’s about $266.50 a week, maximum.

The use of the word “fair” in the new legislation is Orwellian. There is nothing fair about it. In a nut shell it means that single mothers who rely on the government to help them raise their families will now get less money. Quite a bit less. Reports of just how much less depend on the different circumstances of women’s social security arrangements.

Most women will lose their Health Care card because this supplement is not a part of the Newstart Allowance, which will result in poorer health for women and children. Variables such as having a child with a disability will be managed on a case by case basis and will depend a lot on who the woman happens to speak to on the day she makes an enquiry, what kind of mood they were in and how well they know the legislation. My personal and professional experience of Centrelink informs me that many Centrelink workers do not know their jobs very well at all. Quite often I had to inform them about my entitlements and requirements, and I am an able-bodied white woman who speaks fluent english. Many women will not have the social capital, language skills or self-advocacy skills to negotiate with Centrelink staff. Many will not push the point for fear of retribution or fear that the worker will report them to Community Services if they disclose domestic violence, for example. Most Centrelink workers wield power and privilege against women carelessly and insensitively.

Women will also lose the opportunity to study as a way of enhancing their income-earning capacity in the future as the Pensioner Education Supplement will now only be paid to women who were already studying when the legislation went live, and then only for the duration of the course they are currently undertaking. So too bad if your big picture plan was to complete a Tafe course or your HSC equivalent in order to be eligible for a university degree. Your capacity to engage in tertiary education while juggling child-raising, domestic labour and menial pink collar paid work outside the home, was just reduced even further. I have to wonder how this aspect of the legislation will impact on women who had already enrolled in courses for this year, but were technically not studying when the legislation went live.

Many women will, right now, be experiencing high levels of anxiety. Women who are already just scraping by because they thought they had their situation assessed and their strategies to keep their families out of poverty worked out. These women were told by the government that they could stay on the Parenting Payment until their youngest child turned 16 years. Now that the government has pulled the rug out from underneath them their long term plans have been smashed. Their chances of avoiding poor health, homelessness, and avoiding or escaping men’s violence have been greatly reduced. Social security payments for single mothers originally gave many women a degree of economic independence and enhanced capacity for self-determination, benefits which have now almost completely been eroded away by forces of economic rationalism and principles of workfarism, and have forced women into institutional dependency on the state. They have exchanged dependence on one male, private patriarchy, to dependence on the collective male, public patriarchy. This change to social security arrangements seems a bit at odds with the government’s previous statements about violence against women. “The great silent crime of our age” said Kevin Rudd when the government launched the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women. Violence which the same government also recognises as the “major driver of homelessness” in this country, as stated in the White Paper on homelessness.

It is also unclear just whether or not the issue of social security debt has been factored into this. Many women accrue Centrelink debt due to reporting requirements being so damned complicated, or because provision of information regarding reporting minor changes to circumstances is extremely unclear, even for able-bodied, english-speaking women. For example, will a woman’s debt repayments be reduced when she moves onto the Newstart Allowance? Many women do not even know the process for appealing a Centrelink debt, or just how easy it is, because the anxiety produced by Centrelink interactions is so great that women often only go there or pick up the phone (if they have one) when they absolutely have to.

It is also becoming apparent that many women have not been provided with adequate information about how the changes to the legislation will affect them or what they need to do. The Dept of Human Services website states that women whose youngest child has already turned 8 years will receive a phone call advising them of how to access payments after January 1, 2013. However, I know many women who did not receive a phone call, some because they have no access to a phone. Of the women who did receive one, many of them were not told clearly that the transition was not automatic. That is, that their Parenting Payment would suddenly be cut off after January 1, 2013, and that they would have to actually submit a new application for the Newstart Allowance. Remaining on a Centrelink payment is hard work at the best of times, and time-consuming. Women who are already over-extended through raising children, through the constant effort of just providing basic needs for children, and all the other unpaid work that women do, now have to negotiate an entirely new hurdle – right in the middle of the Christmas school holidays.

I do not buy the workfare rhetoric of “helping” women to move into paid employment. Most of these women are already doing paid employment along with everything else that they have to do to survive. The new arrangements will mean that the threshold for extra income will be lowered once women are on Newstart. So women who were on the Parenting Payment Single actually had more incentive to work outside the home than they will once they are on Newstart. On the Parenting Payment, a woman could earn up to $176 a fortnight, plus an extra $24 for each extra child she has, before her payment would be reduced by 40c in the dollar. Now she will only be able to earn $62 a fortnight, with apparently no consideration of how many children she has, before her payment will be reduced by 40c in the dollar. So like what the actual fuck, Gillard Government? Your statements about “helping” people into the workforce are lies. Filthy fucking lies. This so called “fair” legislation even seems at odds with the government’s stated economic aim of saving itself money. The costs will arise in other social service areas such as increased pressure on housing and health services.

British Social Worker, Lena Dominelli, has talked about the paradigm of the welfare state in relation to women (Feminist social work theory and practice, Palgrave, 2002). She talks about the ways Social Workers who are mostly women working to help other women, are just another sub-class of women who are dependent on the state for their income. Seeing as Social Workers get paid very little compared to people in male dominated professions, despite the requirement of a four year degree, and the great show made by the Gillard government of implementing the Equal Pay Case recommendations last month, it appears to this cynical radical feminist that divisions between women have been exploited once again. I wonder if the Equal Pay Case came at the expense of the women we seek to help. Overall it appears to be a very short term, but very vicious solution to the issue of the need to deliver a budget surplus in an election year – at the expense of women and children. What a surprise.

Edit: For people wanting more information about the changes I would suggest the Welfare Rights Network as a good starting point:

https://www.welfarerights.org.au/

13 thoughts on “The Federal Government’s War on Mothers & Children

  1. Colette says:

    Thank you so much Linda, I have been despairing of the lack of commentary in some quarters and in the papers on this issue. Gillard gave her misogyny speech one day and tossed this legislation through parliament the next with devastatingly little opposition.

    Most single parents who are mostly mothers would prefer to work at least part time but they need to have the SBP as an option when and if they need it and for as long as they feel they need it. They are the best judges of what is right for them and I am quite at a loss as to how this has happened. And reducing support for study…..just takes my breath away.
    Once again thanks for your well written and heartfelt post.

  2. Linda Radfem says:

    Hi Colette, you’re welcome. It’s an issue that resonates strongly with me because as a single mum I relied on Centrelink for several years. Then I spent four years at university to become qualified to help other women.

    I agree women know what’s best for themselves and their families, and this policy shift is punitive and patronising, and will leave many many families much much worse off.

    I was saying to my friend who is already affected by it that I wish I could rally women to march angrily in the street, but these are our most vulnerable people, who depend on the goodwill of the government, the people who can least afford to fight back. It’s shameful.

  3. elenorjean says:

    Single parents are not just women. I find it annoying that people continue to equate parenthood with being female. if we want things to change, we need to change that mistaken belief.

  4. Linda Radfem says:

    Elenorjean and onemanrme,

    The vast majority of people affected by this change ARE women and their children; the vast majority of people living in poverty ARE women and their children; most single fathers do NOT rely on Centrelink and do not experience all of the other forces I have spoken about, that shape women’s lives. This is NOT a gender-neutral issue.

    As you may have surmised, this blog only concerns itself with women. If you are reading this now then you have the resources to write a blog post about single fathers, yourself. Go for it. Please also read the comments policy before commenting further. I’m not kidding.

    • elenorjean says:

      Even if most single parents are women, that does not make it correct to equate single parent issues as strictly women’s issues. It’s a fallacy. The logical construct goes like this. Parenting is not something that is just done by women. Therefore, parenting is not an issue only addressable as a feminist one.
      Yes, this blog does concern itself only with women – fine. That doesn’t mean its posts aren’t open to criticism does it? Or does it? If so, then that’s a rather scathing indictment of the lack of courage you have in your convictions.
      And if you only allow comments that support your stance then that’s just weak.
      Can’t even find your comments policy btw, so I can’t read it.

  5. Sandra says:

    But this is not an essay on parenting elenorjean. This is an essay addressing the retrograde change to already piss poor entitlements afforded to sole parents, the overwhelming majority of whom are women. Of course this is a feminist issue!

    Nicely written Linda. I too am feeling increasingly let down by the Gillard government.

  6. Linda Radfem says:

    Thanks Sandra.

    Elenorjean, I think you’re conflating your desired reality with actual reality. You might wish parenting was an equally shared responsibility but it’s not and that is a fact. I don’t have time to argue something that is an accepted fact but a quick google search should set you straight regarding gendered division of labour. This blog does not pander to privileged males, in fact they are denied a voice here. Neither does this blog concern itself with arguing for men to be accorded more rights to access children than they already have. We believe that too many men already have too much access to children, at children’s expense. And you’re right, the comments policy is temporarily AWOL. But basically, commentary from a male-identified perspective is simply not allowed here. That’s what the rest of the world is devoted to but this radical feminist space needs to be safe for radical feminists. You are already being quite rude as well as trying to force a false, male-identified assertion into the thread. So I ask you to instead, post your comments in a more appropriate space where they will be more welcome. Feel free to stay and read all you want.

  7. Kitekat Lee says:

    Well done Linda,
    I for one (as a studying single parent) have had my life turned upside down by this legislation. I had a 2 year plan in place to study and become a lecturer, this is now up in the air, I am no longer sure that I can continue to study as the fees for my courses are now very out of reach. I can not just go out and get a job, I am 54 and have had to raise my children alone after my husband walked out without even a glance back. This traumatized my children and it took a very long time for them to regain self esteem and feel like they were worthy of being alive. My children have mostly grown and left home now, all except my 15yr old who is vision impared, suffers from depression and anxiety and is mild ADHD. I have spent 13yrs guiding him through and building him up and finally thought all was good, and was looking forward to becoming a lecturer and helping others, but this does not look like it will ever happen now…. Newstart does not even cover my rent, let alone give me the money to pay for my course fees. There is no help from any area that I can get with regards to paying the fees. So I am left with a choice…. continue to pay the rent so we have a roof over our heads, or use the rent money to pay the fees so I can get the qualifications I need to get out of the welfare rat trap. I am sure you can guess what choice (not that it is a choice) I have made. I do not see a light at the end of the tunnel, and fight tooth and nail everyday to find a reason to get up of a morning. Thank you so much for this blog and your understanding of the real way this is affecting single parents and their children

  8. Linda Radfem says:

    Hi Kitekat Lee, thanks for your sharing your story; this is so sad and highlights an aspect of the injustice of this policy that has rarely been acknowledged. Our parenting work is highly valuable work, yet in stealing parenting payments from mothers and children the government is saying that it is not even work at all. The Gillard government stated that they understand that teenage children do not magically become financially independent at the age of 16, when they announced measures to better support parents of high school age children. Our older children still need our ongoing support and care and we need to be able to be there to provide it.

    I really hope that you find a way around your dilemma, whether it’s to study part time or by distance. I feel very very fortunate that I chose to study when I did (when my youngest started highschool). I remember at the time thinking I had plenty of time to complete a degree, but if I had say chosen to study part time then, I would have been really in the shit right now. It’s a horribly prejudiced society that allows a government to do this, because of the old “welfare queen” tag that we have never been able to shrug off despite plenty of evidence to refute it. This policy shift has a purpose I believe, to thwart women’s desire for freedom from abusive men by forcing them to cohabit with men in order to survive, so that women’s energies are directed into maintaining men as a class, through domestic servitude. It’s no accident. This is why we need radical feminism now more than ever.

    Thanks for reading my blog.

    Cheers

  9. Linda Radfem says:

    I graduated with Distinction, one of only two students in my cohort to do so, and with a Dean’s Medal. I have been the recipient of a youth social justice award. Yet if I had begun my studies just a year or two later, I would not have had that safety net of the parenting payment (as inadequate as that was), I would not currently be qualified to work in my chosen sector, so I would not be able to support my family and I would not be able to support vulnerable people in the community as well as I do. I don’t think this is an oversight of the government; I think it’s intentional. The government’s purpose is to maintain the status quo – “feminists” who support major parties need to wake the fuck up.

  10. Linda Radfem says:

    I believe the UN has called for the government to reverse this legislation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s