'Do you want to risk violence now, or poverty in 20 years?'

Kelly O’Dwyer this week announced a raft of measures to improve women’s economic security. As my colleague Jenna Price has already pointed out, acting in women’s interest is more than we’ve had from any recent ministers for women.

One of the measures announced by Ms O’Dwyer is that women will be able to access their superannuation if they need money to escape family violence.

Women smashing into their super to help them flee violence will set them up for poverty later.

Women smashing into their super to help them flee violence will set them up for poverty later.

A government and a minister that claim to take family violence “very seriously” have just announced that women fleeing violence have to sacrifice future economic security to stay safe today.

There’s an insidious, unspoken victim-blaming underpinning a policy like this. The victim doesn’t get help, she’s told to sacrifice her future and be grateful she’s allowed to do so while the man who chose to use violence against her doesn’t get a mention in this part of the policy.

Do you want to risk violence and death this week, or poverty and homelessness in 20 years time?

These are the options given by a government that has already proven that men’s violence is only a priority when the perpetrators aren’t attacking their own family. ]

Twenty-six years after superannuation contributions became compulsory, women are still often retiring with at least half the super balance of men – and that’s the most optimistic way of looking at it.

Dismantling this critical safety net will further entrench the gender inequality that put them at risk of family violence in the first place

According to the 2017 HILDA report, the median superannuation balance for men was almost three times higher than it was for women ($325,200 compared to $110,952).  To put this in perspective, industry estimates suggest a single person in Australia needs a balance of around $500,000 for a “comfortable retirement”.

Single women are in serious financial trouble as they get older, even if they haven’t had to deal with family violence. As I have written before,  more than 330,000 single women over 45 in Australia are living in conditions of serious economic stress. And their prospects are not good.

Their wages are likely to go down, not up, as they get older. Their superannuation will not be enough to support them after they retire. If they don't own their own home by now, it's highly unlikely they ever will.

Around one per cent of rental housing available in April this year was affordable for a single person on the minimum wage, and 45 per cent of women over 45 earn minimum wage or less, compared to only 25 per cent of men.

Kelly O’Dwyer presented the idea of women digging into their superannuation to escape family violence as a great step forward for women. She should (and almost certainly does) know better.

Women are already in economic danger. Nothing about this improves women’s financial security or physical safety if their only option to escape violence is to put themselves at risk of even more financial stress in old age.

Alison Macdonald, Policy Manager for Domestic Violence Victoria (DV Vic) says her organisation has opposed this measure since it was first proposed.

“DV Vic welcomes Minister O’Dwyer’s announcement of an economic security package for women,” she said.

“It recognises that money is often a barrier for a woman considering leaving a violent relationship, particularly if she has been financially dependent on the person who has been abusing and controlling her.

“We are, however, concerned about the announcement that women will be able to access their superannuation early.

"Women are already disadvantaged in post-retirement savings and allowing the dismantling of this critical safety net will further entrench the gender inequality that put them at risk of family violence in the first place.”

Forcing women to sacrifice their retirement income to fund their escape from violence is not the only option the federal government has. In Victoria, after the Royal Commission into Family Violence, the state government funded a program called Family Violence Flexible Support Packages.

Women in danger can apply for crisis support to help them move to a safe house, get their children set up in new schools with uniforms and textbooks, and ensure they have the basics needed to survive.

They funded this program for around the same amount the federal government is spending on a memorial for Captain Cook.

It’s certainly a good thing that we have a federal minister for women who actually recognises that women are disproportionately financially disadvantaged and that merit alone is not enough to change this.

Surely we should be able to expect something better than a standard of “not completely and utterly terrible” from the member of the government responsible for issues that affect half the population of this country.

Source: Read Full Article