Budget 2014-15 through a gender lens

We received an email this week from the Women and Work Research Group at The University of Sydney. The content doesn’t come as a huge surprise, given the media coverage recently on the likes of Women’s Agenda and the Sydney Morning Herald. However, the 39-page report they were distributing – a look at Budget 2014 through a gender lens – was compelling enough grab our attention and pass it on to you – the women it affects.

The National Foundation for Australian Women (NFAW) conducted the analysis that highlights the implications to women and their families. When you look at the facts it’s nothing short of astonishing just how unbalanced this budget is.

Here are some highlights you may find interesting/concerning…

Budget 2014: How the NFAW - an organisation leading the way in gender equality - see it

According to Ms Marie Coleman chair, NFAW Social Policy Committee, “This is a Budget that will hurt practically every woman – whether a single parent, unemployed, in the workforce, studying or a homemaker. Very few will remain unscathed.

And it’s not just women who will pay the price for this poorly conceived Budget. These issues all feed into declining workforce productivity and the looming crisis around women’s retirement savings. Women in the 21st century are a major contributor to the broader economy and these facts simply cannot be overlooked.

“Despite the rhetoric emanating from the corridors of power in Canberra, the country is not broke. Many of the country’s leading economists agree that the Australian economy is sound, pointing to the fact that the country has an AAA credit rating. Yet despite that, the OECD reported that relative poverty (14 per cent of the population) in Australia is higher than the OECD average.

The NFAW does not see an economic crisis. What we do see is a gross imbalance. Women, particularly poor women, are doing the heavy lifting and that is neither fair nor equitable,” Ms Coleman concluded.

The NFAW also noted in a media release: It has been the practice for over thirty years for Federal Governments to produce a Women’s Budget Statement as one element of the official Budget Papers. In 2014 this practice ceased without explanation from the Government.

Biggest Losers of Budget 2014 - Why Women?

The biggest losers from the 2014 Federal Budget are women from virtually all walks of life, a detailed and disturbing analysis of the implications of the 2014-2015 Budget has found. NFAW found that:

• An unemployed single mother with one eight-year-old child loses $54 per week or 12 per cent their disposable income.
• Single mothers earning around two-thirds of the average wage lose between 5.6 per cent and 7 per cent of their disposable income.
• A single-income couple with two school-age children and average earnings loses $82 a week or 6 per cent of their disposable income.
• For employed women using Family Day Care an immediate price rise in the order of $30+ per week per child is likely.
• The increase in child care fees for parents on JET (Jobs, Education & Training) Child Care Fee Assistance and reduction in hours of JET subsidised care available will discourage participation in work and training.
• Changes to university funding and housing security are likely to impact on women disproportionately.

Paid Parental Leave Scheme

The Government has committed to the introduction of a new paid parental leave scheme but no funds are appropriated in the Budget for the proposed new scheme. Reporting suggests that provision has been made in the Contingency Reserve, although this cannot be verified, nor can the source of the additional funding.

Funding has been appropriated to continue the current scheme, pending introduction of the proposed scheme. The current scheme, introduced by Labor, will therefore operate to June 30 2015.

The Government argues their new scheme will encourage female workforce attachment. But paid parental leave is just one policy needed to facilitate mother’s workforce engagement.

OECD data25 show that while Australian women’s employment rate at 74 per cent is just above the OECD average of 73 per cent for women with children 6-14 years of age, Australia’s rate of 49 per cent for women with children less than 5 years of age is lower than the OECD average of 66 per cent. Adequate and affordable childcare for pre-school age children is essential and on this matter the budget does not provide for adequate funding or for integrated policies.

The details of the proposed new paid parental leave scheme will not be known until legislation is introduced. Government announcements to date confirm that the scheme will pay new mothers up to $50,000 for 26 weeks.

The cost of the proposed scheme will be partially met by a 1.5% levy on big business. But this will be offset by the 1.5% reduction in company tax announced in the Budget. There is therefore no real contribution from business.

Why a Gender Lens?

There is an average gap of 17 per cent between the incomes of men and women. This gap is not decreasing. Women take time out of the work force for child bearing, child rearing, and for care responsibilities for extended family members to a much greater extent than do men. As a consequence women have lower rates of savings for retirement, and most women will eventually become wholly or partially dependent on the Age Pension. Women are also underrepresented in the well-paying occupations and over represented in the feminised industries that are lower paid. Their career progression and therefore representation in the senior executive levels is often interrupted by the periods of unpaid care work and consequently women continue to be underrepresented on boards and other senior positions in the workforce. Many older women have not had an extensive history of work-force attachment, and are unlikely to be good prospects for working until age 70. Housing security is markedly worse for mature women than for men.

Click 'A Gender Lens' for the full report.   

Source: Women and Work Research Group