Executive Summary
This report is the second in the three-part series, Social Security for Women Outside Our Cities.
The first report focused on access to services and service delivery. This report addresses
some of the key limitations of current legislation and policy undermining the effective targeting
of social security support to women in regional, rural, remote and very remote (4R) Australia.
The experiences of women, and the community workers who support them, are framed using
concepts integral to the social security system: women as parents and/or guardians, women with
disability or chronic illness, women who are carers, women who are underemployed or unemployed,
and young women.
The findings contained in this report reflect issues commonly seen by EJA Member Centres, as well
as the more than 100 additional community service workers interviewed for this project. Barriers
associated with geographic isolation and/or distance from large population centres, and ways
in which these stymie access to social security entitlements, are clearly evident. Also evident is
the highly gendered nature of caring responsibilities, both for children and for people who have a
disability or are frail or unwell; the prevalence and consequences of family and domestic violence
against women; and the significant weight of responsibility many women carry for their household
administration and family’s financial security.
Two major issues underpin many of the issues identified in this report. Firstly, there is an
urgent need to raise the rate of working age payments – JobSeeker Payment, Austudy and
Youth Allowance – which have failed to keep up with the cost of living, particularly the soaring cost
of housing. Youth Allowance, in particular, is woefully inadequate. An increase to Rent Assistance
and Remote Area Allowance is also urgently needed, noting Remote Area Allowance has not
increased at all in 20 years.
Secondly, the social security system is too complicated for both those needing to access it and,
we suggest, those responsible for its administration. For example, Disability Support Pension
is known for its complex eligibility criteria and claim process, and issues of access are further
exacerbated by limited access to medical treatment and associated evidence required to establish
DSP eligibility, particularly in 4R areas. It’s a puzzle many cannot solve.
Another example is the multiple payments that target parents and guardians. These are drawn
from two distinct systems, comprising ‘social security’ payments (most commonly, income support
payments) and family assistance payments (including Family Tax Benefit), with myriad eligibility
requirements, reporting obligations, modes of assessment and rates of payment. These two
systems are underpinned by different Acts, different policy tools, and administration by different
branches of Services Australia, with limited data sharing undermining efficiencies.
Simplification of the social security system has the potential to increase access for those who are
already eligible, and decrease the frequency of social security debts. Some of the many areas that
would benefit from simplification are noted throughout this report.
Other specific findings include that:
- ‘Care of children’ rules are a poor fit for many parents, including women losing financial
security when children ‘age out’ of payments, care arrangements being weaponised by
disgruntled and/or abusive ex-partners, First Nations people missing out on payments as
a result of kinship care arrangements, and the loss of payments following child removal
undermining reunification goals.
- Administration of child support undermines social security, including lacklustre collection
of child support arrears, uneven application of Maintenance Action Test exemptions, and a
lack of proactivity applying the disbursement method of child support assessment under the
Maintenance Income Test.
- Access to Disability Support Pension is undermined by the Program of Support requirement,
which disproportionately affects women who cannot work and are unable to secure timely
medical treatment and evidence.
- Rigid carer payment criteria, including those relating to care location and the need for
‘constant care’, prevent some women accessing carer payments despite their caring
responsibilities limiting or preventing paid employment. Some carers remain on payments with
mutual obligations, which are a poor fit with significant caring responsibilities, particularly for
First Nations women balancing traditional caring responsibilities and community obligations.
- Current assessment tools undervalue supervisory care – including care for a person with a
psychiatric condition, cognitive impairment and/or behavioural disorder – and exclude some
carers who provide 24-hour supervisory care from receiving social security support.
- Many women in 4R areas want assistance to find employment but are unable to obtain it
through employment service providers, which administer job plans that are not fit-for-purpose
and prioritise job plan compliance over genuine assistance.
- The siloing of departmental and program responsibilities between the Department of
Employment and Workforce Relations, Department of Social Services and Services Australia,
and poor attention to the principles of administrative review, leave many women unable to
establish who to contact to resolve problems or appeal.
- The mutual obligations system is not yet adequately responsive to natural disasters, extreme
weather and other emergencies, which are occurring with increasing frequency in many 4R
areas.
- The age of ‘independence’ for income support, currently set at 22, is too high and does not
reflect the reality for many young women. This locks them out of payments or leaves them on
lower ‘dependent’ payment rates, despite living independently, including when they have had to
move from a 4R area to study or look for work.
- Alternative pathways to ‘Independence’, such as the ‘Unreasonable to Live at Home’
assessment, are vital — but rigid and complex policy guidelines and assessment processes
create barriers, including for young women experiencing family or domestic violence.
- Parental means test thresholds have been outpaced by living costs, creating genuine financial
hardship for middle-income families, and at times resulting in young women giving up on study,
living in unsafe situations or experiencing homelessness.
- The binary nature of Youth Allowance (student) and Youth Allowance (other) creates a
disincentive to tertiary study for young women who cannot earn enough to meet expenses
while maintaining a full-time study load.
- Young women leaving out-of-home care can fall through jurisdictional gaps between
Commonwealth and state systems, resulting in delays, confusion, and inappropriate debt
recovery during critical periods of transition.
No one should be excluded from social security because of where they live, yet many women
outside Australia’s major cities struggle to access social security payments appropriate to their
situation. The issues outlined in this report demand urgent attention to increase accessibility.
EJA recognises that systemic change will not be achieved through publication of our Social Security
for Women Outside Our Cities reports alone. We will continue to put the evidence outlined in these
reports in front of relevant Ministers and agencies, including the Department of Social Services
and Services Australia. That process has already begun, including advocacy which has resulted in
positive change.
Read the full report here.