So much for independence
"The independence of the Australian woman is now official", declared the Sydney Morning Herald on May 5. And how do we know? According to the government's white paper, women may now receive their unemployment benefit or parenting allowance into their own bank account.
Until now, joint payments have been made to married and de facto couples at a rate which is substantially less than two single dole payments. Except under special circumstances, the payment was made into the bank account of the male partner.
This has, for a long time, meant women were discriminated against in the social security system. They were dependent on their male partner to withdraw the money and give them what they and their children needed to live on. And they were not recognised as being independently in receipt of the benefit.
If either of the two got a job, their eligibility for further social security payments was assessed on the basis of joint income.
Criticism of this system focused both on the dependency of women on their male partners to provide them with money which is rightfully theirs and on the lower payment for a couple.
The white paper outlines new proposals. Couples, whether married or de facto, may receive their payments separately. The person deemed to be the primary carer of the child[ren] will receive the family allowance supplement on top of their half of the married rate of the unemployment benefit. Many women will thus have direct access to their own money, without having to rely on their male partner.
As was previously the case, if either gets a job, their joint income will still provide the basis for an assessment of eligibility for further payments — no significant change. There is also no change in the fact that married rates remain significantly lower than benefits for two single people.
The way these changes have been posed, however, is that they allow greater freedom for women. That is, if women choose to remain at home to care for children, they will receive any social security benefits to which they are entitled in their name, instead of having to ask their male partner for the money. Fair enough.
But the announcement has been accompanied by a stream of articles which quite blatantly attack women who have fought hard in the past for child-care facilities to be made available for women who do wish to work. Working women have had their share, so the argument goes, now it's time for the women who remain at home to get a slice of the pie.
This kind of attack demands a response. For example, family allowance is cheaper for the government than the provision of child-care. To add to that, this is a recessionary period, when women are a high percentage of the unemployed, underemployed and part-time workers.
This may in fact be a convenient policy which can be used to substitute for real job creation and the creation of publicly funded child-care.
Women who do choose to stay at home to care for children should certainly not be financially penalised for doing so. But at the same time, provision should be made for all women to be able to work if they want to.
So far the coverage has been a re-run of attacks on working mothers. This fits in all too conveniently with the recession and the old "send the women back home as a solution to unemployment" rhetoric. If the Keating government really wants to recognise the independence of the Australian woman, how about real jobs, child-care, more funding for the public health care and education systems for a start? Or is that a bit too independent?
By Kath Gelber