The latest thought bubble on superannuation has been put forward by the minister for superannuation, Jane Hume, this week. It is the idea that women fleeing domestic violence should be allowed to draw up to $10,000 from their super to help them escape. My first response to this was to wonder whether Hume’s title should not be changed to the minister against superannuation. Allow me to explain.
It goes without saying that this most neoliberal of Liberal governments is uncomfortable with compulsory superannuation. The party that is philosophically committed to choice, the free market and individual enterprise understandably gets itchy about the idea of a compulsory saving-for-retirement scheme that was introduced by a Labor government and, via the industry funds, has benefited the union movement. It doesn’t help that the success and popularity of the industry funds confounds the neoliberal belief that the private sector always outperforms everything else. No wonder that along with Hume, Liberal MP Tim Wilson is also running a campaign proposing people should be able to use their super balances to buy a house.
The second thing that struck me about this idea was how devastating it would be for women who find themselves in a violent and abusive relationship. Far from being helpful, it would virtually guarantee that women fleeing violence would be left much more vulnerable to poverty, particularly as they aged. And fear of poverty is one of the major reasons women don’t leave.
Women already retire with an average of half the superannuation balance of men – and men don’t have enough – and one third of women retire with no super at all. These are pre-Covid statistics, by the way, before the pandemic was used by this government as an excuse to allow people facing economic hardship to draw down on their super. Worryingly, women took out a higher percentage of their super than men.
Women live longer than men, meaning they must make whatever super they have stretch over a longer time. Women are paid less than men (that 14% pay gap is stubborn), are more likely to be casual and part-time, come in and out of the workforce due to caring responsibilities, and leave the workforce for good younger than men. Not by choice either, but because older women are the last hired and the first fired. That’s why those who spend the longest relying on jobseeker are older women, and why the fastest-growing group among the homeless is women over 55.
For all these reasons and more, surely we should be encouraging women to build their super balances, not erode them. I am genuinely frightened that the legacy of Covid, helped along by this hostile-to-superannuation government, will be an even greater level of poverty for generations of women as they age. Do we really want to see a future where our mothers, grandmothers and great aunts are reduced to begging on street corners?
Let’s put aside for a minute, but only a minute, what a dangerous idea this is, and remind ourselves what else it reveals.
Kel Freitas pointed out to me on Twitter just how caught up we all are in the sexist assumption that domestic violence is the victim’s problem, not the perpetrator’s. Why on earth should the woman who is being terrorised and abused take the financial hit? Surely, if we must raid someone’s super to help fund women leaving abusive relationships, it should be the perpetrator’s super not the victims? His balance is likely to be higher, as well.
Of course, using superannuation balances – of anyone, whether they’ve been a good person or not – to fund social services and social welfare is fundamentally a terrible idea. It represents the rock bottom of governments refusing to shoulder their responsibility for adequately funding a fairer society. Frankly, women should not have to sacrifice financial security in their old age for their physical safety now. That is a Faustian pact of the most sinister kind.
Predictably, given how flat-footed it is, there has been a strong backlash from frontline DV services against Hume’s proposal. They pointed out how easily a terrified woman could be coerced by an abusive partner to give him access to any money she draws down. In response, the government and Hume are now making conciliatory noises. They have agreed that if safeguards are not able to be put in place they will not proceed. That still does not explain how we can be so blind to the needs of women, especially those living with violence, that such a policy could be seen as any kind of solution in the first place.
Let’s do the hard work required to unravel that sexism and misogyny, starting with the government working to boost superannuation balances for women, their pay and opportunities, including giving them the financial help they need to flee abusive relationships. Stop fobbing off responsibility for those facing poverty to those most likely to face poverty.
Women have given birth to every taxpayer who has ever lived plus being taxpayers themselves. Why do we begrudge investing some of that money in their safety and future wellbeing?
