Emancipating Australian Women from Gender-Based Poverty using Human Rights Based Approach to Develop

EM A NCI PA TI NG A USTRA LI A N WOM EN FROM GENDER-BA SED POV ERTY

Edi tori al Ex ecuti v e Edi tor Sabin Muzaffar Edi tor-at-Large Melanie Bublyk Contact Us media@anankemag.com www.anankemag.com 411, Blue Tower Sheikh Zayed Road, Dubai, UAE

Copyi ng & Pl agi ari sm i s stri ctl y proh i bi ted. For use of any content, contact us on th e gi v en emai l .

I N THI S I SSUE Dissertation on Emancipating Australian Women from Gender-Based Poverty using Human Rights Based Approach to Development

By Melanie Bublyk

A CK NOWLEDGEM ENTS I acknowledge the Traditional Custodians of the land on which I was born, work and live, and recognise their continuing connection to land, water and community. I pay respect to Elders past, present and emergingfor they hold the memories, the traditions, the culture and hopes of Indigenous Australia.

I would like to acknowledge my supervisor Denise Brown who I am forever indebted to for her guidance, knowledge, advice and patience. To my mentor, colleague and friend Sabin Muzaffar, who has always been there for me when I felt like giving up. To the team at UN Women?s Empower Women for the opportunity to work with inspirational gender equality advocates. To my family, friends and colleagues for their support throughout my studies, it has been the inspiration to keep going.

Melanie Bublyk

DEDI CA TI ON To my mother for her unconditional love. To my daughters, may you grow up knowing your place in this world and be empowered to reach for great heights. To the women who know struggle and never give up trying to make this world a better place for all. To the men who understand.

Ch apter 1 I ntroducti on

1.1 Introduction

A rights-based approach to development describes situations not simply in terms of human needs, or of development requirements, but in terms of society's obligations to respond to the inalienable rights of individuals, empowers people to demand justice as a right, not a charity, and gives communities a moral basis from which to claim international assistance when needed. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, (1998).

A lens on gender and development underpins the language of women?s human

rights.

Analysis of the economic, social and cultural norms within societies is central to improving the lives of women and girls. Women?s subordinate position within the systems and structures of society including economic institutions lead to the denial of women?s rights as human rights and can be a barrier to women claiming their social and economic rights. Economic and social change is hindered through the powerlessness of women living in poverty and entrenched inequality.Gender-based poverty is created and maintained through unequal power relations and the disparities in participation of the decision-making process between men and women.

Women who live in resource rich nations that experience substantial economic growth are not immune from experiencing deprivations of their social and economic rights. Australia is one of only 16 countries in the world with no constitutional protection for economic, social and cultural rights, and without a bill of rights in a single document to protect its citizens and therefore domestic human rights avenues to address human

A bstract The unequal power relations that exist within the systems and structures of Australian society, undermine women?s human rights.

Women?s subordination and the undervalued and unrecognised labour they undertake is a symptom of the patriarchal norms that have a significant discriminatory impact on women. Economic inequality has an impact on all Australian women but is starker among sole parents and older single women. This leads to a range of issues including housing and food insecurity, debt accumulation, violence and abuse and health issues. Those who wield power must be made accountable and is an essential principle of human rights.

Human rights-based approaches to development helps address gender-based poverty by facilitating visibility. An analysis of the normative principles that underpin the language of women?s human rights offers a comprehensive understanding of women?s vulnerability through harmful stereotypes, cultural norms and attitudes that hinder women?s ability to enforce their rights on the same basis as men.Women in developed nations are not immune from deprivations of their fundamental human rights. Australia is signatory to international conventions that are intended to safeguard women?s human rights such as theConvention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Feminist inquiry focuses much of its attention on the feminisation of poverty, neoliberal ideology and the care economy.

Neo-liberal policies have created a disabling environment for women to enjoy their fundamental human rights. For Australian women to have full participation in a democratic society, the violations of their economic and social rights must be addressed.

FEM I NI STS HA V E M A DE PROGRESS rights violations is inadequate for Australian citizens (Goldblatt(c), 2017, p. 267). Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston notes that, the dignity and agency of all individuals is central to the language of rights and that safeguarding collective well-being and the rights of an individual should be central to the design of programmes using a human rights framework (Human Rights Council(b), 2016, p. 6).

Whilst feminists have made some progress in advocating for gender equality, women?s gendered role persists, and, over time successive policies have led to a regression of gender equality and harmed women?s human rights (Summers, 2003, p. 171). Although women, may not necessarily accept their gendered role within society, women are influenced by it and comply with it because women?s subordination is deeply entrenched within society. Therefore, this compliance to the status quo is a driving force of their financial disadvantage (Hartman, 2013, p. 361). What lies at the heart of women?s subordination must be addressed. Equality for women must be transformative, and entails a redistribution of power and resources, as well as challenging and changing the institutional structures that perpetuate women?s subordination (Fredman(a), 2014, p. 4). It is imperative that women?s rights are not merely an end in themselves, but rather

a means to achieve better outcomes for reducing economic marginalisation.

Therefore, socio-economic justice, needs to be addressed (The World Bank, 2013, p.

5). The structural causes of gender-based poverty can be overlooked under the auspices of neoliberal ideology, and when the focus is placed on personal failings as the driving force of an individual?s impoverishment.

The root causes of gender-based poverty are a multifaceted phenomenon and as this research suggests, an array of socio-economic factors contribute to women?s economic disadvantage. The barriers and disadvantage women face are exacerbated by the intersections of race, ethnicity, age, disability and sexual orientation.

An analysis of intersectionality is necessary as it is linked to the psychological dimensions of living in poverty. The nature and meaning of equality and non-discrimination has given rise to new analysis about the characteristics of people and how that should be responded to by member states, therefore questions have arisen as to what happens when discrimination arises in relation to two or more grounds (Goldblatt(b), 2015, p. 48). An analysis of the psychological security of women in poverty is imperative because gender-based poverty profoundly compromises health and well-being.

Disempowerment and powerlessness are significant effects of gender-based poverty and has serious implications for gender equality and women?s human rights.

The number of women living under economic stress and in poverty is at unprecedented levels in Australia.

Australia ranks 62nd in the world for income security on the Global Age Index with 33% of citizens experiencing poverty in old age. Women are more likely to

experience financial insecurity and poverty (AHRC(b), 2009, p. 3; HelpAge International, 2015, p.

19; Radermacher, 2016, p. 10). An increase in female headed sole parent families and the number of older women who have very little economic support, or are ineligible for the aged pension, or lack of superannuation savings has contributed to gender-based poverty (Summers, 2003, p. 3). The interplay of social, economic and cultural factors perpetuates women?s financial disadvantage in Australia, and nowhere is the extent of gender

inequality more starkly revealed than in the disparity between the lifetime earnings and superannuation savings of Australian men and women (Cameron, 2013, p. 2). Research suggests that gendered analysis and disaggregation of large data sets by age and gender is absent from much of the literature, therefore this has resulted in substantial gaps in research (Radermacher, 2016, p. 14).

The research undertaken for this dissertation, strongly suggests that focusing on women?s economic and social rights are a matter of urgency for Australian women and therefore

DI SPA RI TY EX I STS I N LI FE TI M E EA RNI NGS OF M EN & WOM EN

WOM EN'S SOCI A L & ECONOM I C RI GHTS A RE A M A TTER OF URGENCY

it is critical to advocate for a human rights-based approach to address gender-based poverty in Australia because by focusing on gender inequality and women?s human rights puts a spotlight on women's subordination.

Women?s subordination has significant relevance the challenges women face in their everyday lives , including women?s vulnerability to violence (Bunch, 1990, p. 20).

1.2 Literature Review Much of the feminist literature and analysis regarding gender-based poverty focuses on the punishing policies under neoliberal structuring, these policies lead to regression of women?s human rights (Goldblatt(c), 2017, p. 261; Moghadam, 2005, p. 1). In turn, this regression weakens women?s full participation in a democratic society and paralyses their social and economic empowerment.

Discrimination and condemnation result in substantial economic, social and psychological costs with sole parents bearing the burden (Brush, 2002, p. 171; Lister, 1997, p. 194; Millar, 1992, p. 149). Gender-based

poverty and economic and financial deprivation has a strong link to food insecurity (McKay, 2017, p.

37).

Gender-based poverty has adverse effects on psychological security with much empirical research noting that stress and anxiety is increased amongst sole parents (Peden, 2005, p.

18; Loxton, 2006, p. 268; McKay, 2017, p. 44). 81.8% of sole parent families in Australia (ABS, 2018)are headed by women, and one in five families are sole parent families and dependent children spend most time with their mother, therefore putting a spotlight on the way sole parents are treated by society is an important aspect of gender-based poverty analysis, because this analysis can be an indication of domestic policy toward women (Goldberg, 2009; McKay, 2017, p. 36). Analysis on what drives gender-based poverty shows there is a clear link between the feminisation of poverty, neo-liberal economic policies and the care economy, which is further exasperated by the gendered-roles that remain entrenched within society (Haynes, 2017, p. 113;

Moghadam, 2005, p. 31; Parisi(b), 2017, p. 14). This is starker among sole parents, older single women and single women who are solely responsible for the financial affairs of their household.

Economic disadvantage manifests in the senior years of life and hits single women particularly hardest (Warren, 2015). This is underpinned by women moving in and out the workforce, the unpaid caring responsibilities they undertake and low paid work when engaged in the workforce, this results in the accumulation of lower levels of superannuation, and therefore women are accruing poverty over the life course (AHRC(b), 2009, p. 1). Older single women are one of the fastest growing cohorts of people living in poverty, and single women are more likely to rely solely on an aged pension (AHRC(b), 2009, p.

1; Cameron, 2013, p. 2; The Senate Economics References Committee, 2016, p.

13).

Earlier experiences of gender inequality become more stark and obvious as women age. The literature

on older single women is by and large an under researched area, even though current trends point to a looming problem for this cohort with half a million older Australian women living in income poverty and for whom the key issues are housing

affordability, balancing work and family, the changing nature of family and thepersistence and accumulation of inequality and disadvantage (Hartman, 2013, p. 348; Radermacher, 2016, p. 6). It is an imperative to consider the effects of workplace

participation, economic and social circumstances over the lifecycle to get to the heart of the key disadvantages faced by older women (Radermacher, 2016, p. 10). When older women are vulnerable, they are highly likely to become invisible, which is exemplified by those women who are at risk of becoming homeless, because they strive to stay hidden, to protect themselves from violence (Hartman, 2013, p. 364).

An analysis of gender-based poverty among sole parents and single older women over the lifecycle reveals that gender-based poverty is caused by low level of workforce participation which results in economic disadvantage (AHRC(b), 2009, p. 13). CEDAW (1979)has made numerous references to gender-based poverty because human rights violations are inherent to those subjected to gender-based poverty and because women are disproportionately disadvantaged by poverty in both developed and developing countries (Campbell, 2018, p. 140).

Addressing the inequities of gender-based poverty, generous income transfer policies and employment

supports or other robust policies are crucial to safeguarding women from financial disadvantage.

Acknowledging thetransformative potential of substantive equality would require States to introduce measures that target women?s disadvantage by providing special access to benefits and services that are needed to support women to participate fully in society (Elson(a), 2006, p. 141; Fredman(a), 2014, p.

39; Christopher, 2002, p. 236).

Whilst the number of women in the workforce has increased, this increased participation has not been accompanied by substantial improvements in women?s incomes or their ability to exercise power (Calkin, 2015, p. 298). An agenda for addressing gender-based poverty should have at its heart, recognition of family and the private sphere to alleviate gender-based poverty (Chant(c), 2008, p.

189).

Historically, human rights instruments had been not so well equipped to protect women?s human rights as human rights and this has resulted in exclusion, constraints and abuse of women?s fundamental human rights (Parisi(a), 1998, p. 132).

ECONOM I C I NJUSTI CE Because women and girls are vulnerable to a myriad of economic and social injustices, women and girls become entrenched in a cycle of poverty (Campbell, 2018, p. 3). Parisi argues that theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) were not so well equipped for the protection of women?s rights as they favour the rights of men and therefore do little to free women from masculine dominance and the structural violence it creates and perpetuates against women (1998, p. 147).

Therefore, ICESCR and CEDAW are viewed as the two key human rights instruments which provide a forum for demanding the realisation of women?s human rights (INESCR & IWRAWAP, 2013, p. 4). ICESCR goes to the heart of poverty and inequality and CEDAW focuses on the elimination of discrimination against women.

ICESCR with its commitment to social integration, solidarity and equality, including tackling the issue of income distribution. Most of the substantive provisions in CEDAW are based on equality and non-discrimination (Campbell, 2018, p. 5).

The adoption of austerity measures by some developed nations, including Australia, for economic and ideological reasons have created conditional welfare programmes that impose conditions on women with children who receive income support payments (Fredman(a), 2014, p.

42). Government budgeting can be scrutinized by using the CEDAW as an analytical framework because the declaration positions women as autonomous citizens who bear their own rights and mandates both substantive and formal equality (Elson(a), 2006, p. 31). The enforcement of conditional welfare can involve measures that penalize recipients and the use of close surveillance and monitoring can be harmful to women?s dignity and autonomy (Fredman(a), 2014, p. 45).

Studies have made links between the poor mental health and psychological issues among sole parents and the imposition of conditional welfare support and austerity measures.

These studies suggest that psychological security is already compromised when women with children live in poverty and that conditional welfare polices increased conflict and reduced control, which has the potential to lead to negative impacts on mental health (Campbell, 2016, p. 9; Moran, 1997, p. 27; Arch, 2017). Much research suggests that allocating resources to women without conditions attached has better outcomes for the empowerment of women

(Fredman(a), 2014, p. 45).

Chapter Two analyses the language of women?s human rights, the normative statements of international human rights law. Using RBA to address gender-based poverty recognizes the structural causes of poverty and that poverty can be a symptom of government inaction. That the absence of a bill of rights within Australia?s constitution is a barrier for its citizens to challenge laws that undermine human rights. It acknowledges that social and legal entitlements address loss of dignity and respect because of the deprivations that arise from poverty. Women who live in poverty are faced with significant obstacles in overcoming poverty.

Chapter Three analyses the relationship between neoliberalism, the care economy and the feminisation of poverty. The chapter sheds light on how these issues are all connected and part of a bigger picture that requires rethinking how women?s role is perceived in society. I argue that structural reform is needed to advance women?s human rights in Australia and that women?s economic empowerment is diminished because of neoliberal

structuring and the unpaid labour women undertake contributes to gender-based poverty, and therefore leads to women?s human rights violations.

Chapter Four analyzes intersectionality theory and how it?s application helps to unpack the multiple layers of discrimination that women experience through the intersections of race, ethnicity, disability, age and sexual identity and to show how when combined with gender discrimination, it further marginalizes and disadvantages women. This chapter also sheds light

on the psychological dimensions of gender-based poverty and the manifestation of gender-based poverty into old age occur because of the discriminatory practices that undermine women?s human rights.

Chapter Five looks at Poverty as Powerlessness and advancing women?s social, economic and cultural empowerment, it considers the importance of RBA in accountability measures by seeing women as not merely beneficiaries of charity but rights holders who can make claim to entitlements by scrutinising harmful policies and

practices.

The chapter concludes by offering some solutions using a RBA to address gender-based poverty.

Gender-based poverty is a violation of fundamental human rights.

Structural inequality and imbalances of power are serious barriers for women, in their ability to access economic resources and become empowered.

My motivation for writing on this topic is to engender cultural change within Australian society that recognises the contributions women make to their communities and society at large. The lack of recognition for unpaid care work, austerity and draconian welfare policies inspired by neoliberal ideology, profoundly impact on women?s social, economic and psychological well-being.

This has led to a feminisation of poverty within Australian society and therefore economic marginalisation and poverty among women is at an unprecedented level.

The full enjoyment of women?s human rights through national laws and policies that are firmly secured in the international human rights treaties that

Australia is party to would eliminate discrimination, inequalities, and practices that negatively affect women?s rights.

Ch apter 2 Women, Pov erty and Human Ri gh ts 1.1 Introduction Advocating for a RBA to gender and development requires an understanding of the language of women?s human rights.

Women?s subordinate position within key economic institutions is a barrier for women to claim their economic and social rights and therefore undermines women?s fundamental human rights. A comparative analysis of Australian domestic law and the international norms and standards of ICESCR and CEDAW, is imperative when advocating for the protection of women?s rights.

Deprivation of economic and social rights are often a challenge to redress because of women?s subordinate position within economic institutions and is a hinderance to women?s empowerment.

Women?s subordinate position compromises their fundamental human rights and leads to oppression and abuse. An analysis of the normative principles that underpin the language of women?s human rights offers a comprehensive understanding of women?s vulnerability through harmful stereotypes, cultural norms

UNDERSTA NDI NG WOM EN'S V ULNERA BI LI TI ES and attitudes that hinder women?s ability to enforce their rights on the same basis as men. This chapter analyses gender-based poverty in Australia in relation to Australian domestic law and the international legal framework found in human rights

instruments that are concerned with women?s rights.

1.2 The Language of Women?s Human Rights The language of women?s human rights is underpinned by a lens on gender and

development. According to Gideon, economic and social analysis conducted by many women?s organisations and advocates found that analysis of key international covenants offer considerable potential for improving the context of many women?s lives (2004, p. 136).

Rights are frequently denied to women living in povertyand claiming economic and social rights is a challenge due to women?s subordinate position within key economic institutions. The Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR) explains that there are limited pathways to seek remedy for those who experience privation of their economic and social rights.

The absence of adequate support, resources and tools hinders meaningful economic and social change through human rights norms and therefore explicit standards in international norms can scrutinise the economic and social policies of states and other actors (2018).Economic, social and cultural rights are particularly significant for women, TheInternational Network of Economic Social and Cultural Rights asserts that this is because they go to the heart of issues related to poverty and inequality, women

are aware of the obstacles they face in their everyday lives that lead to vulnerabilities in their ability to access to adequate housing, that they retire with less money and importantly that poverty and inequality have a profound impact on their everyday lives (2013, p.

8). There is a wide range of research literature that indicates the vulnerabilities and multiple oppressions are present in every aspect of women lives. Rao argues that all aspects of society are complicit in sustaining gender oppression and therefore the whole of society must change so that women?s rights violations can be addressed (1996, p. 242). Parisi and Peterson argue that there are limits to women?s ability to claim their rights because their identification as reproducers and housewives limits their claims to socio-economic rights and because patriarchal systems and structures view men as breadwinners and the relegation of women to the private sphere reduces their public agency (1998, p. 148).

Female subordination is deeply entrenched, and, as Bunch argues women?s lack of agency is still viewed as inevitable or natural, rather than as a politically

HOSTI LI TY OF LA W? constructed reality maintained by patriarchal interests, ideology, and institutions (1990, p.

491). Furthermore,Rao suggests that feminist theorists have long argued that human rights discourse suffers from the failure to recognise the need to characterise the subordination of women as a human rights violation (1996, p.

243). Women?s subordination and oppression in Australia remains entrenched due to Australia?s lack of commitment to gender equality and human rights standards for its citizens (Goldblatt(c), 2017, p. 267).

The Australian Human Rights Commission, Castan and Joseph and Goldblatt (2006; 2006, p.

479; 2017, p. 262)note that, Australia is unique from most other liberal democracies as its constitution does not have a bill of rights to protect human rights in a single document.

Historically, Australian common law has been hostile towards human rights legal protection to the point thatAustralia is now the only common law country without a Bill of Rights, thereforethe absence of a constitutionally recognised bill of rights has conveyed to Australian public law and including constitutionallaw.

This has consequences for accountability mechanisms using the international legal framework as Australian domestic law remains resistant and unaffected by the rapid growth in international and comparative human rights law (Joseph, 2006, p. 479). Challenging laws or government

action is hampered by the absence of constitutional human rights protections (Goldblatt(c), 2017, p. 267). In CEDAW?s concluding observations in its eighth periodic report on Australia?s commitment to human rights, noted that the absence of a Charter of Human Rights means the Constitution of the State party does not contain a guarantee of equality of women and men or a general prohibition of discrimination against women (2018, p. 3).The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights(OHCHR) explains that the way poor people are forced to live often violates their human rights and that a RBA to poverty reduction is increasingly being recognised internationally. A RBA is grounded in normative rules and can help shape the way economists and policy makers alike, base their work in moral standards (2004, p. iii).

Campbell argues that to conceptualise women?s poverty as an issue of human rights, women living in poverty are not passive recipients of charity or aid but are empowered rights-holders who can draw on human rights standards to hold the duty-bearer accountable (2018,

p. 4). Although there is advocacy to improve the economic and social position of Australian women by improving policies, it is seldom formulated using human rights standards (Goldblatt(c), 2017, p. 268). As one of the 188 countries that have ratified CEDAW, Australia has committed to advancing gender equality by confronting any distinction, exclusion, or restriction, based on sex which impairs the enjoyment or exercise by women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms (The World Bank Group, 2014, p. xv).

The United Nations (UN) framework does not accurately define gender-based poverty, however, according to Campbell the creation of significant obstacles for women in poverty in realising their fundamental human rights are underpinned by limited access to economic resources, by gender norms and by participation harm (2018, p. 18). It is important to note that poverty itself does not discriminate solely along gendered lines, however the root causes of poverty vary widely and differ for women and men. Campbell notes that gender-based poverty is

defined as the redistribution wrongs of not having access to material resources connected with the recognition and participation harms that exclude and devalue women (2018, p. 28).

Qureshi suggests that the issue of women?s human rights is not solely a legal phenomenon and includes deeply entrenched social issues which requires inquiry from other fields (2015, p.

634). Gendered issues that profoundly impact upon women?s economic security in Australia are distinct and include homelessness, violence against women, lower levels of workforce participation, lower levels of pay, higher levels of financial stress and reduced retirement savings (Corrie, 2016, p. 10). McBeth et al. argue that ICESCR is significant for women because women are vulnerable to violations of these rights when they are out of the public eye and their voices are diminished (2013, p. 153). Although ICESCR was intended to protect economic, social and cultural rights, Parisi argues that they are second generation rights, rendering women secondary and

therefore theireconomic, social and cultural rights are not significant or valued (1998, p. 147). CEDAW?s central focus is eliminating discrimination and Gideon and Elson suggest that for this reason it is not so well-equipped as the ICESCR to provide a basis for resistance to the erosion of living standards in neoliberal economic restructuring (2004, p. 138). However, Campbell argues that over the course of the last 40 years, there has been recognition that gender-based poverty is an obstacle to women?s rights, meaning it is time to explore openly how to use CEDAW to tackle this pressing issue.

The harms of gender-based poverty can be incorporated by the interpretation of equality and non-discrimination that is spread throughout CEDAW (2018, p.

55).The incorporation of CEDAW and ICESCR would achieve better protection of women?s rights and better outcomes for women because their principle of substantive equality is integral to claiming women?s economic, social and cultural rights. It is an immediate obligation of

States parties under ICESCR to ensure that women can enjoy their right to equality in relation to economic, social and cultural rights and CEDAW explicitly conveys the meaning of gender equality (Elson(a), 2006, p.

31; Fredman(a), 2014, p. 2).

1.3 Conclusion Gender and development lies at the heart of the language of women?s human rights and serves as important normative analysis when conceptualising how women?s lives can be improved when their economic and social rights are compromised and undermined. Gender-based poverty often undermines women?s rights and their subordinate position can be a barrier to effectively claiming their rights.

Patriarchal structures entrench the status quo that compromises women?s fundamental human rights.

The absence of a Bill of Rights in Australian constitution leads to a resilience against accountability mechanisms and does not guarantee gender equality. Australia has distinct issues that profoundly impact on

women and include homelessness, violence against women, gender pay gap and equal participation. Gender-based poverty has profound consequences for women?s economic, social and cultural rights and often there is little redress, however ICESCR and CEDAW are important international conventions that can help remedy the erosion of women?s economic, social and cultural rights. The next chapter looks at the structural issues that drive gender-based poverty.

Ch apter 3 Structural Di scri mi nati on as a Dri v er of Gender-Based Pov erty

prejudices and stereotypes about the role and value of women and girls within society is deeply entrenched.Whilst there has been some progress for women through the adoption of conventions such as CEDAW, commitments to human rights remain superficial and laws continue to favor patriarchal norms and culture. This chapter analyzes neoliberal structuring, the care economy and the feminization of poverty and looks at the structural issues that entrench women into poverty throughout their stages of life.

3.2 Neoliberalism

3.1 Introduction For women?s equality and rights to be realised, it is imperative that presumptions are shifted about women and their contributions to their communities. Feminist inquiry provides an analysis of economic and social issues to highlight what an equal society might look like. Theoretical discourse leads to differences in how equality might be realised.Feminist inquiry does not render men who live in poverty as irrelevant, but the reality is that women?s experience of poverty is unique. This is because the sociocultural attitudes,

According to Moghadam,neoliberal economic policy induces poverty and therefore has dire effects on women and girls by placing a heavy burden on women wage earners, mothers of small children, and women with family responsibilities (2005, p. 31).Haynes argues that inequality is structured along gendered lines through the unequal distribution of power, property and wealth that is deep rooted in modern capitalist societies (2017, p.

113). Male power is protected, while the private realm of women's reproductive work is obscured, and this contributes to the cycle of women's

marginalization and exploitation (Parisi(a), 1998, p.

148). Because the capitalist system is driven by profits and capital accumulation, women?s economic opportunity is hindered. This is because they undertake most of the underpaid and unpaid labor.

Therefore, it contributes to gender inequality(Parisi(b), 2017, p. 14). Calkin argues that the neoliberal economic policy agenda which is underpinned by market fundamentalism, deregulation and corporate led development is closely linked to the analysis of gender equality policy (2015, p. 296).

The problems women experience because of the imbalances in economic power alienates them from being able to advocate for solutions and access resources. Women who are marginalized economically are also marginalized politically (Veeran, 2000, p. 10).

Australia has endured a sharp regression of women?s political empowerment and economic participation and opportunity over the course of eleven years. Data from The World Economic Forum?s Global Gender Gap report indicates that Australia is ranked 35th on the global gender gap report in 2017, a decline of twenty places from a high point of

15th in the world in 2006.

Australia ranked 48th in terms of female political representation in 2017 declining 16 places from a high of 32nd in 2006. Economic participation and opportunity ranks Australia at 42nd globally, declining thirty places from a high point of 12th in 2006 (2017, p. 68). The key findings in a study undertaken by Cruwys et al, revealed that a much higher proportion of women than men live in marginalized circumstances and that those women were likely to remain marginalized with the proportion of women increasing from 67 percent to 75 percent over the course of a decade. The study also notes that sole parents were at high risk of remaining marginalized (2013, p.

4).

Research undertaken by the Australian Council Of Social Services (ACOSS) indicates that almost a third of sole parent households, of which the clear majority are women live below the poverty line (2016).

Neoliberal ideology favors repealing public support for the marginalized and vulnerable, and according to Brown, complex and persistent gender inequality is attributed to sexual difference, an effect

that neoliberalism takes for a cause, In turn, this has profound consequences on sole parents who are framed to fail in the project of becoming a ?responsiblized? neoliberal subject (2015, p. 107).

Goldblatt argues that it is impossible for sole parents to become economically engaged while raising children and that many intersecting factors hinder their full participation, including under-employment, limited and costly child care, lower pay and high costs of living (2017, p. 263).

Brown argues that new forms of gender subordination are born

through the logic of neoliberal ideology and the freedoms that is espouses. It relegates women to the onus of being principal providers of unremunerated and under supported care work outside the labour market and are increasingly dependent on solo income streams for themselves and their families (2015, p. 107). Calkin argues that neoliberalism has a tendency to address politico-economic issues with a one size fits all approach and for this reason, it is essential to carefully unpack the concept and employ precise conceptual tools to

map its features (2015, p. 296).

Austerity is a feature of neoliberalism.

Austerity measures impact on class, gender, race, age and ethnic groups in differential ways.

This is because the capitalist and patriarchal welfare state is located and structured by the intersectionalities of class, gender, race, age and ethnic groups (Steans, 2016, p. 319).

Folbre argues that income inequality has increased in virtually all affluent countries, accompanied by effort to reduce public spending on social programs (2014, p. 3).

Elson argues that austerity policies hit women's incomes harder than men's and that sole parents whom are one of the poorest groups of women particularly feel the impact (2013, p. 132). As women have the dilemma of synergising family responsibilities and paid work they become disheartened resulting in a decline in labour force participation. One example of this is care work, which is viewed as a private matter by neoliberal supporters and Elson argues that care is viewed as individual choice and that social and economic structures are not an embodiment of care (2017, p.

54). A study undertaken by

Robison indicates that there is little doubt there is an increased risk of disadvantage for sole parent families because employment opportunities, housing, income and social participation are diminished.

The study suggests that sole parents are far greater risk of housing stress than singles or couples with or without children (2009, p. 48).

In absolute terms and compared to two parent families, disadvantage is much higher for sole parent families.

Maury argues that welfare reform measures consider vulnerable populations a liability to the bottom line and are deliberately targeted to be moved off welfare and their primary method to accomplish this appears to be to make receiving welfare as traumatic as possible, based on the causes and effects of conditional welfare policies.

She concedes that these policies may fit the definition of economic abuse and contradict the government?s own statements in support of reducing all forms of domestic and family violence (2018). For many women who are reliant on welfare support, this list may reflect not only their prior experiences with an abusive

partner, but also their interactions with the welfare system, which is contrary to the legal landscape and the government?s own statements concerning economic abuse (Maury, 2018). Australia is devoid of gendered data and therefore it is difficult to determine the gendered nature of welfare policy, however Maury argues that it is likely that more women than men are reliant on welfare payments and this is because of a range of issues including the gender pay gap, more time spent on unpaid caring duties and housework, higher rates of precarious employment, lower superannuation balances and retirement funds, higher levels of poor health and compromised mental health, double the rates of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), increasingly higher rates of accessing homeless services and a higher percentage (81%) of women managing single parent households(ABS, 2018; Maury, 2018). And, importantly, women experience higher rates of domestic and family violence (OurWatch, 2018).

Forty percent of sole parent

households are currently living below the poverty line in Australia and The National Council for Single Mothers and their Children (NCSMC) have been inundated by distressed mothers who slide into greater financial hardship when they are forced from a modest parenting payment to an unemployment benefit (Remeikis, 2017). A study undertaken by Bronstein and McPhee suggest that economic gains are marginal for the majority of sole parents who transition from welfare to work and that the labour market contributes to economic disadvantage because it does not provide adequate jobs, sufficient income, or supporting benefits to enable women to provide for their families on a consistent basis (2003, p. 36).

Bronstein and McPhee argue that serving women and children living in poverty will require the social services sector to genuinely embrace empowerment as a practice ideal and reacquaint themselves with the values of social justice, the skills of political advocacy, and the power of social action so that engaging with the political process. Addressing gaps in

public policy that make it unrealistic for the majority of women to escape poverty and attain economic independence is imperative for the promotion of social justice and realisation of women?s human rights (2003, p. 47). In an Australian context, because Australia does not have a Bill of Rights, this marginal group is powerless to approach the courts over the issue and therefore this makes it easier for the state to coerce and control powerless women in the form of economic abuse.

Maury argues that for women escaping domestic and family violence the apparent goal of traumatizing people who are on welfare mean that these women particularly find themselves in a near-identical position with the State (2018).Branigan and Keebaugh argue that single mothers and their children experience of poverty is concealed because public focus has been on father ?s poverty due to their child support responsibilities.

They argue that the father ?s poverty is generally quite low, and this focus only complicates the real reasons that underpin women?s and

CA RE ECONOM Y men?s lived experience of poverty. (2005, p. 9).

Calkin suggests that anti-capitalist feminists are hindered in their resistance to neoliberal economic policies because the invisibility of social reproduction is aggravated by narratives that legitimise harmful neoliberal economic policies and empower corporate actors in the governance process (2015, p. 305).

3.3 The Care Economy The care economy is an important aspect of the discourse in feminist economics and an analysis of the exploitation of unwaged and unpaid care work in the home or in communities is crucial when examining gender-based poverty (Dowling, 2018). Gender stereotypes mean that women perform most of the unpaid care work and Fredman et al argue that this prevents them from engaging in empowering opportunities such as education and formal employment (2016, p. 179). For this reason, the care economy is a part of the discourse.

Australian feminists have long argued that economic remuneration is a right for women who work within the home and that being denied an income deprives them of independence and freedom. Child endowment was introduced in 1941 however this legislation was more about the needs of children than the rights of women (Lake, 1999, p. 107). According to Page, Australian women contribute 77% of

paid care work and 66% of unpaid care work in the care economy and are the primary unpaid care providers with 42% of women not in the labour force citing family reasons and caring for children as key factor (2012, p. v). A new vision of economic life that is inclusive of counting women?s care work in statistics and integrates the care economy into policy is imperative to gender equality and women?s economic well-being and according to Adams, feminists have long argued for this recognition (2010, p. 1). The Care Sector is a single sector that underpins a State?s human infrastructure and Albelda et al. argue that building an empirical foundation makes a case for the human and economic impact of the care sector and contributes to building on framing a broader vision of care policy (2013, p. 145). It is argued that in some nation states, the government may depend on women?s and girls? unpaid work or underpaid domestic workers to deliver, or even replace, public services as they seek to reduce the economic burden on the State (ILO, 2018). Those who care for others are often put at a disadvantage because the pursuit of individual self-interest is leveraged within patriarchal capitalism with its offers of rich financial rewards to those that conform to marketplace logic (Folbre, 2014, p.

2).

Caring roles which heavily fall on women, result in significant lost earnings that accrue over the lifetime (Aggarwal, 2015, p. 22).

Unpaid care work undertaken and other forms of labour requires recognition of women?s contribution as a disadvantaged group (Goldblatt(a), 2014, p. 472). Radical and socialist feminists have long argued that parenthood is a social contribution that deserves recognition insomuch as the unpaid labour undertaken by women is heavily relied upon by men as much as women rely upon men as breadwinners (Brenner, 1987, p. 451).

Dowling argues that without women?s labour in the care economy human life could not be sustained, let alone the capitalist economy be

supplied with labour power (2018, p. 333). The lack of a male breadwinner as experienced by sole parents gives them justifiable claims for state support, and the feminisation of poverty discourse has used this argument as a campaign strategy in an attempt to rectify men's failure to provide for their ex-spouse and children through refusal of child and spousal support (in the case of divorced women) or through lack of life insurance (in the case of widows) (Brenner, 1987, p.

451). Within the capitalist economy, unpaid work and unpaid care work reproduces labour power that is undervalued and unrecognised, therefore it is imperative that analytical attention is given to the gendered, sexualised and racialised nature of this labour (Dowling, 2018, p. 341).

Combining unpaid and paid work is a challenge for female headed households and many sole parents struggle most to find well paid, secure work, and together with the adverse impacts of austerity highlights how economic dependency and a withdrawal of state provision and support to core services can also expose

women and children to much greater risk of violence (Steans, 2016, p. 317). Some critics argue that sole parents who depend on state support are getting something for nothing however Folbre suggests that the value of the care that sole parents provide for their children is discounted and devalued (2014, p. 7). Care work is rendered invisible as it unpaid and is one example of the many ways in which economic institutions, both public and private are gendered because they operate according to norms that reflect men?s lives (Gideon, 2004, p. 146).

Research undertaken by Page and Hoening highlights that there is a significant negative impact on women?s income and retirement savings because they bear the bulk of the care load (2012, p. v).

Neoliberalism pays much attention to goods and services as a productive means of economic worth however Adams argues that gender equality and women?s economic well-beingrequiresinnovative solutions to the way care work is perceived so that their care work counts in the statistics.

An explanation of the role care

as well as commodities and the integration of the care economy into budgeting (2010, p. 1). Unpaid care work has been overlooked as an important and inherent part of the economy by both public and private economic institutions and Gideon and Elson argue that this had led to the marginalization of women as workers, beneficiaries, and clients and treats the household as if it were an integrated harmonious unit (2004, p. 146). When analyzing the care economy, it is important to consider that those who face barriers to securing employment are often faced with inadequate funding for the allocation of job training. Providers of Customized Assistance are discouraged from providing substantial help to assist clients overcome the barriers they have in obtaining employment because of the uncertain returns on their investment because of the care responsibilities their clients have (Adams, 2010, p.

29). A challenge in finding solutions is evident as women entering the workforce are faced with the responsibilities of caring for their children and their aging parents, and globally care work continues to

be an unrecognized part of the economy, with absence of benefits and protections and void of compensation. Health and wellbeing deteriorates among carers and therefore it is crucial that flexible work arrangements for employees that provide care in the home and coupled with adequate community support services are a priority. Transformation of the terms and conditions of care work and the nature and provisions of care policies are a relevant aspect of addressing gender-based poverty(Adams, 2010, p. 68; ILO, 2018). The struggle for women?s rights and equality has not been won and the development occurring today is not the development that was envisioned, because social justice has been overshadowed by the market, the care economy holding no value and women have been emancipated as sex objects rather than fully realized human beings (Elson(b), 2011, p. 2).

3.4 The Poverty

Feminisation

of

As a vulnerable group, women are faced with the reality of overcoming significant barriers to lift themselves out of poverty. Pearce first coined the term, the feminization of

poverty, in 1978, based on the argument that there was decline in the economic well-being of female headed households during the 1970?s in the USA due to austerity measures and recession.According to Pearce poverty can be analysed as a gendered issue because women were hit hardest by the measures (1978, p. 28). Chant (2006, p. 53; Costa, 2010, p. 99; Moghadam, 2005, p. 1)describe the feminization of poverty as the differences in poverty levels of men and women and an increase in the difference in the levels of poverty among female

headed households and among male and coupled headed households, which are underscored by intra-household inequalities, bias against women and girls and neoliberal economic policies. At the global level there is wide acknowledgment that women experience poverty at higher levels than men (Boyne, 2011, p. 65).

According to Chant and Moghadam (2003, p. 3; 2005, p. 1)macro level data and micro social research are the foundation for a growing body of literature that challenges the argument that female headed

households are the poorest of the poor, but they assert that the link between female headed households and the feminisation of poverty is by no means groundless and that the disadvantaged position of women is incontestable.

Much of the literature on the feminization of poverty considers it to be a symptom of the unequal power relations that exist within the systems and structures of society.

Campbell and Gimenez (2018, p. 3; 1999, p. 342)argue that poverty, like violence, is a gendered phenomenon and it is the profound structural changes experienced through neoliberalism that have resulted in economic impoverishment of the working class. As female headed households are more likely to have lower labor force participation which reduces household income significantly, Pressman suggests that this has major impact on female poverty and is major cause of the gender poverty gap (2003, p. 360).

Chant argues that lack of appropriate sex-disaggregated panel data makes it impossible to establish how many women are poorer than men and, how much poorer they are, not to

mention how gendered gaps in income are evolving over time (2008, p. 187). Research undertaken by ACOSS suggests that sole parent families in Australia are among those who mainly rely on government support and therefore are more likely to be in to the lowest 20% income group. This is in part due to their lower employment levels and caring responsibilities, and partly to the level of social security payments (2018, p. 36).

Moghadam explains that in the United States there is strong evidence that the feminization of poverty is associated with the proliferation of female-headed households among low-income women and inadequate social supports (2005, p. 30). Social support has declined for sole parent families in Australia and ACOSS notes that 110,000 single parents have been ineligible for Parenting Payment Single due to changes in legislation in 2013. This means that they were placed on the substantially lower rate of Newstart when their youngest child turns eight and therefore they have struggled to keep the lights on and put food on the table. A succession of family payment cuts has hindered the ability of single

parents to feed their children and give them the best start in life (ACOSS(b), 2018) (McKay, 2017, p. 37). Carson and Kerr suggest that this change in legislation will see a rise in the feminization of poverty (2014, p. 152). Kelly and McLanahan suggest the feminization of poverty can be avoided by keeping the gender/poverty ratio low, establishing a high-income floor and if the welfare state does not allow anyone to be poor, regardless of family status or employment situation (2006, p. 144).

The unequal distribution of resources, due to neoliberal policy, exacerbates women?s subordination. To address the disparities, dealing with women?s poverty and fighting for women?s rights should have at its heart a focus on women?s empowerment and the recognition of women?s human rights as human rights (Moghadam, 2005, p.

32). Understanding the issue of gender-based poverty and its relevance to neoliberal discourse can help strengthen important ideological and social underpinnings of women?s subordination (Brenner, 1987, p.

447).

Market liberalisation adopted from neoliberalism has, for some women been a contributing aspect of their passage to economic empowerment.

However, some of the more potentially liberating elements of neoliberalism may have become suffocated by appeals to tradition and the dampening normativity of highly conservative religious institutions.

Therefore, destabilising patriarchy and patriarchal social structures rooted in pre-capitalist social formations is imperative (Cornwall, 2008, p. 2). The feminization of poverty is not just an issue of economic hardship. It includes an underlying assumption that the deprivation that arises from economic exclusion is detrimental to the well-being of those who are subjected to it. It calls for an analysis into the definition of poverty and an understanding of the way it is experienced by women (Veeran, 2000, p. 2).

Gimenez (1999, p. 336)notes that poverty of women is reflected in the poverty of children, and in Australia in 2016 there were 731,300 children under the age of 15 (17.4% of all children) who were living below the poverty line (ACOSS(a), 2016, p. 8).

3.5 Conclusion This chapter has discussed, neoliberalism, the care economy and the feminization of poverty.

These structural issues profoundly impact on women?s economic, social and cultural rights.

Neoliberal economic policies are underpinned by personal responsibility and favor scaling back social welfare programs. This drives income inequality and ignores important aspects of society that foster well-being. This in evident in the care economy where gendered roles, see women predominately undertake the bulk of unpaid care work. This manifests over the life course with women entering the senior years with significant disparities in earnings and superannuation savings.

Gender-based poverty is rooted in neoliberal structuring and recognition of the unpaid care economy as an inevitable aspect of women?s role through deeply embedded gendered norms.

The feminization of poverty is underpinned by a decline in economic well-being among female headed households.

Research suggest that sole parents are among the lowest twenty percent income group.

Economic exclusion can profoundly impact on well-being and the next chapter makes an analysis of intersectionality theory, the psychological impact of gender-based poverty and the manifestation of gender-based poverty in the senior years of women?s lives.

Ch apter 4 Pol i ti cal , Soci al and Economi c I nj usti ces: Compromi si ng Heal th and Wel l Bei ng

4.1 Introduction The research presented has focused its attention on sole parents and older single women.The psychological security of sole parents is profoundly compromised when they live in poverty.

Feminist approaches seek to address issues such as health and wellbeing and empower women to overcome barriers. The accumulation of poverty in the senior years can be linked to the economic and social events of women during the child bearing years. Whilst this dissertation has focused on these two marginalised groups, it acknowledges the barriers women face through the intersections of gender and other forms of discrimination such as race, ethnicity, disability, sexuality,

and age. This chapter begins with an analysis of intersectionality theory.

Intersectionality is linked to psychological dimensions of living in poverty and being poor. It then looks at the psychological impact for sole parents living in poverty and the manifestation of poverty into the senior years of life.

4.2 Intersectionality An analysis of intersectionality theory is important to the discourse because different forms of discrimination arise at the intersection of traditional grounds of discrimination (Goldblatt(b), 2015, p. 48).

The term was first coined by Crenshaw in 1989, who argued that a single-axis framework erased Black women in the conceptualization, identification and remediation of race and sex discrimination by limiting inquiry to the experiences of otherwise privileged members of the group (1989, p. 140). Applying it to law goes beyond looking primarily at race and gender as grounds for discrimination and considers other categories that intersect and interweave in determining a woman?s prospects. Research undertaken by ACOSS indicates that intersectionality can be a barrier to workforce participation, and the

characters of analysis that intersect can give an understanding of why some people find it more difficult to obtain employment. Their research suggests that the most economically disadvantaged Australians consist of 49% being 45 years and over, 16% are principal carers of children, including sole parents, 17% are from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, 11% identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and 24% have disabilities (2018, p. 7). Missing from the research is gender disaggregated data. Elson notes thatholding governments to account for their allocation and use of public expenditure are hampered by lack of information, especially sex-disaggregated information (2006, p. 151).

Golblatt argues that disempowerment, discrimination and stigma are some of the factors that complicate, deepen and entrench poverty (2015, p.

50).

What makes intersectionality so important is that all the issues that feminist inquiry is concerned with are underpinned by significant exclusions and intersectionality seeks to redress the differences between women, with a focus of the marginalization of women in poverty and women of colour within

I NTERSECTI ONA LI TY:

GENDER RA CE CLA SS A GE DI SA BI LI TY white, Western feminist theory (Davis, 2009, p.

70).

Analysis of intersectionality theory helps us to understand that social injustice can be underpinned by a multitude of characteristics.

The intersecting categories of race, class, age, disability and gender allows us to understand how each of these categories manifests itself within a given social context and in relation to each other (Guittar, 2015, p. 657). It offers an innovative link between critical feminist theory on the effects of sexism, class and racism, and serves as critical methodology inspired by postmodern feminist theory (Davis, 2009, p. 73).

Guittar argues that people have layered identities rooted in privilege and oppression, and these identities contribute to disparate social outcomes and unequal access to valued resources (2015, p. 662). Goldblatt argues that the close connection between poverty and inequality requires human rights responses that are able to engage with the complex forces that shape social and economic disadvantage and therefore intersectionality theory can serve as a viable response to this challenge (2015, p. 50).

An effective feminist theory should offer a critique that considers the struggles of all women and intersectionality demonstrates that.

It fosters complexity, encourages creativity, and avoids underdeveloped closure, provokes feminist scholars to raise new questions and

explore uncharted territory (Davis, 2009, p.

79).

There are certain groups within Australian society who have less access to benefits, such as people with disabilities, Indigenous Australians and sole parents, and therefore experience exclusion and disadvantage that undermine the democratic process (Goldblatt(c), 2017, p. 261). Psychologists are increasingly concerned with the effects of race/ethnicity, gender, social class, and sexuality on outcomes such as health and wellbeing, personal and social identities, and political views and participation (Cole, 2009, p.

170). The idea that grounds of discrimination can expand, and change introduces the space for a more flexible approach to addressing discrimination. It opens the space for a fuller awareness of intersectionality (Goldblatt(b), 2015, p.

64).

The scholarship on intersectionality creates complex pictures of identity and the structure of discrimination.

For example, employment discrimination against women of color may not be simply a matter of race-plus or sex-plus, but a phenomenon of interaction between these and possibly other categories (Smith, 2017).Most women experience abuse on the grounds of sex, race, class, nation, age, sexual preference, and politics as interrelated, and little benefit comes from separating them as competing claims (Bunch, 1990, p. 497). The intersectional discrimination faced by older women, sole parents (who are predominately women), Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, women with disabilities and culturally and linguistically diverse women, is a significant barrier to the realisation of economic, social and cultural rights and therefore gender inequality and intersectionality needs to be captured effectively within data to give an accurate account of the progress of human rights and gender equality (Parisi(b), 2017).

4.3 Psychological Impact of Living in Poverty As described by Narayan et al,psychological security focuses on theemotional, psychological sense of belonging to a social group, whereby strong psychological dimensions emerge among the poor and are underpinned by a sense of not knowing, lack of control and an inability to take defensive action (2000, p.

153). The environment that living in poverty creates has profound consequences on women?s wellbeing and lead to psychological, social and legal issues (Caldwell, 2012, p. 824). Studies suggest that sole parents are more likely to suffer from depression than married mothers and that those with low self-esteem and low social support are at greater risk of developing depression, and that there is also a strong link between socio-economic factors and poorer health among sole parents (Peden, 2005, p. 18; Loxton, 2006, p.

268). A study undertaken by UK based Women?s Budget Group on the psychological impact of sole parents living in poverty reveals that sole parents feel they face stigma because they feel judgement

within their communities, experience low self-esteem, lack confidence and feel powerless (2008).

Participants felt that poverty profoundly impacted their ability to be good parents and they expressed anguish at not being able to provide even the smallest of luxuries or treats for their children.Focusing on mental health is imperative and Peden et al argue that improving the mental health of low-income single mothers benefits not only the woman but also her family (2005, p.

24). The barriers that sole parent families endure should be recognised, their dignity respected, and they should be empowered to convey resilience in the face of hardship. For female headed households to become economically empowered, there is an urgency to recognise the challenges for these families on their path to improving their prospects (Robinson, 2009, p. 51).

conditional welfare is often at odds with care responsibilities, and that mental health declines with increased levels of stress, fatigue and depression through poorly paid and precarious labour.

Their findings suggest that harsh welfare regimes result in powerlessness and decreased control and possible adverse effects on mental health. Therefore, adequate social support is imperative in the harm done by welfare to work policies on the mental health of sole parents (2016, p. 1). Welfare to work obligations have the potential to be counterproductive to health and wellbeing because the demands of parenting and employment are often in direct conflict. Sole parents are often denied control over major life decisions and everyday routines by welfare to work obligations (Campbell, 2016, p. 9).

According to Arch from the United Sole Parents Network, Extensive research there are many adverse undertaken by Campbell et effects of punitive welfare on vulnerable al. of Welfare to Work programs policies in high income groups such as sole parents, countries including the USA, including housing insecurity, Canada, UK, Australia, and limitations to mobility, debt New Zealand, revealed that accumulation, poor mental

and physical health, disability and low levels of social support (2017). Research undertaken by ACOSS on compliance and conditional welfare indicates that participants in their research experience psychological distress, and some participants articulated that they experienced feeling frustrated, humiliated and depressed.

Some had suicidal thoughts and felt that they were denied the same rights that people in paid employed are protected by. The research suggests that compliance and conditional welfare results in high levels of anxiety.

Women were over-represented in the research and there was an over-representation of sole parents (2018, p.

14).

Exclusion leads to low levels of human and social capital because sole parents are caught between giving attention to both the household and the labour force, which leads to a gender gaps in wages and to them facing more disadvantage with the absence of partnerships that provide accumulation of assets and the higher pay levels of a male partner

(Gibson-Davis, 2016, p. 420).

Women face discrimination in the labour force and are put at an economic disadvantage with what is known as the motherhood penalty. A study undertaken

by Correll et al. found that mothers were penalised on a host of measures, including perceived competence and recommended starting salary and that mothers were discriminated against by some employers, whereas fathers were not and were rewarded for being a parent and void of penalties (2007, p. 1297).

Feminist approaches are imperative because deeply entrenched discrimination profoundly effects women?s economic empowerment and comprises mental health. A pro-feminist approach can empower sole parents and their children, by fostering the attention and redress that they need to empower their lives (Keebaugh, 2005, p. 10). Broussard et al. and Peden et al. (2010, p. 191; 2005, p. 18)argue that as vulnerable group, sole parents experience mental and physical disorders at a much higher rate than women who are married or partnered. Brown and Moran

argue that the commencement of psychological disorders can be informed through the lived experiences of sole parent?s feelings of humiliation and entrapment (1997, p. 27). Broussard et al. argue that female headed households tend to receive attention on individual characteristics and are dogged with stigma.

However, the relationship between poverty and structural forces must be acknowledged (2010, p. 210).

Branigan and Keebaugh argue that a feminist approach to the economic disadvantage sole parents and their children face helps to give them visibility and address the barriers they face (2005, p. 10) Sole parent households are extremely vulnerable to material deprivation and psychological stress when living costs rise such as housing and when austerity measures are implemented due to economic crises.

Therefore, it is crucial that their well-being is nurtured (Robinson, 2009, p. 50). The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights report on austerity notes that for women to be

EM A NCI PA TI ON FROM POV ERTY emancipated from poverty and the potential issues of abusive environments, crowded living conditions and psychological strain. It is imperative that they have opportunity to improve their livelihood in the form of paid work or social protection which results in a degree of independence (2013, p. 14).

The World Health Organisation argues that responding to gender-based discrimination and other social detriments that have a significant impact on women?s health can be underpinned by providing a human rights-based framework.Women?s ill-health is the direct result of violation of the principle of non-discrimination based on sex and of many other fundamental human rights (2007, p. 30).

4.4 Accumulation of Poverty into the Senior Years Sole parents are among the most vulnerable group of Australians to experience economic disadvantage, however economic disadvantage manifests into the senior years and according to theSenate Economics References Committee, insecurity in retirement is a reality for many Australian women and that in practice this means that single women in particular, are at greater risk of experiencing poverty, housing stress and homelessness in retirement (2016, p. xi).

Gender discrimination is a reality for women regardless of their age, however age discrimination intensifies gender discrimination. The UNHCHR notes that CEDAW, in its general recommendation No. 27 on older women and protection of their human rights, details the discrimination that older women face and that gender-based discrimination throughout a woman?s life has a cumulative effect in old age, leading to disproportionally low incomes and a low or even no pension, compared to men (2013, p. 14). This makes it

difficult for women attempting to reenter the workforce after a period of unpaid care work which profoundly impacts on retirement savings (AHRC(b), 2009, p. 19).

Gendered analysis is absent from key Australian government reports as well as in the broader academic literature that addresses older women?s differential employment experiences and opportunities (Radermacher, 2016, p. 28).

The AHRC suggest that the current system does not serve women well, leaving a gender gap in retirement incomes and raising concerns about poverty and financial hardship for women in retirement (2009, p.

1).

At the heart of this disadvantage is two key factors, firstly, the predominate role that women play in care responsibilities which leaves them susceptible to prolonged periods out of the workforce and secondly being that when women are employed in work, their work is often low paid and women generally earn less than men.

The AHRC explains that instead of accumulating wealth through the retirement income system as intended, due to experiences of inequality over the lifecycle, women are more

likely to be accumulating poverty (2009, p.

1).

According to theNational Foundation for Australian Women (NFAW), the year 2015-16 saw a 17.5% increase in the number of women over the age of 55 seeking assistance from homelessness services. This is twice the rate of growth for the general homelessness services population (2017, p.

43). Despite the importance of the rights of women and female-headed households, women still disproportionally lack security of tenure (UNHCOHR, 2014, p. 62).

Feldman and Rademacher estimate that more than half million older Australian women live in income poverty and that as women grow older the gender inequality they may have experienced at earlier stages of their lives become sharper and more visible (2016, p.

5&10). The SECR referral of the matter of economic security for women in retirement found through their inquiry that many women do face insecurity in retirement because of their gender (2016, p. 1).

and independence is often linked to poor physical and mental health outcomes for older women and therefore, socio-economic factors have significance in relation to women?s health behaviours, psychological well-being and safety (AWHN, 2012, p. 17; Radermacher, 2016, p. 18). It is estimated that there are currently 330,000 single women aged 45 and over who are experiencing economic hardship (Gilmour, 2017).

Women are conditioned by the belief that unpaid care work is more important than their economic security later in life despite it having no economic value. Hartman suggests that as women age their earning capacity declines and multiplies when women are single because of the general disadvantages along gendered lines within a patriarchal society (2013, p.

356). To improve the lives of single older women and their economic well-being it is imperative that any research program have at its heart the well-being of older single women and aim to influence relevant policy settings (Hartman, 2013, p. 364).

Psychological security is profoundly affected by changing and stressful life circumstances, and research findings suggest the threat to affordable and secure housing, financial security

4.5 Conclusion When considering the language of women?s human rights, intersectionality theory is an important aspect of the discourse because the different layers of

discrimination can exacerbate women?s vulnerabilities and further marginalise them within society. The complex layers of women?s disadvantage must be addressed by applying RBA to gender-based poverty. As has been examined throughout the literature, empirical studies point to exclusion and deprivations imposed on those who have intersecting layers of characteristics which deny them access to resources and economic empowerment. Psychologists hold concern that intersections profoundly impact on well-being and social inclusion. There is a wide array of research that suggests that the psychological security of sole parents is compromised when they live in poverty.

The manifestation of gender-based poverty into the senior years of life also has adverse on the health and well-being of single women in this demographic.

Ch apter 5 A dv anci ng Women?s Soci al and Economi c Empow erment

5.1 Introduction Sole parents have been a target of welfare policy reforms which have resulted in higher prevalence of poverty for these women and their children. Compliance and conditional welfare leads to a range of social issues and women become entrenched in poverty. These policies can have serious ramifications for women?s fundamental human rights

and undermine women as autonomous agents.

Ensuring life is sustained with dignity is fundamental in the language of human of rights. This chapter examines gender-based poverty as a source of powerlessness when women are subjected to human rights violations and concludes by framing RBA as a means of transforming powerlessness into empowerment.

5.2 Poverty Powerlessness

and

Extensive research undertaken the lived experience of living in poverty established that powerlessness and voicelessness is a distinguishing feature amongst the poor and that poverty is multidimensional with non-economic dimensions and always specific to a social group (Narayan(a), 2000, p. 19).

Economic poverty is identified as the most devastating aspect of women?s lives.

Research undertaken by Bailey et al (2000)on the lived experience of women in poverty reveals that participants

acknowledge the combined lack of money and powerlessness as the basic problem, however they felt that the impact of powerlessness, the emotional fallout, as the hardest aspect of poverty to cope with (p. 5). Those who are marginalised are acutely aware of their voicelessness, powerlessness and lack of independence. In Australia, economic disadvantage is more prevalent among women than men, and this remains consistent throughout a woman?s life course (Corrie, 2016, p. 10).

Australian women are more likely to be sole parents, vulnerable to homelessness and subjected to domestic violence and abuse. These issues all have an impact on employment opportunities and income (Goldblatt(c), 2017, p. 261). Studies have shown that persistent poverty is a great risk to elderly female households because of the inequality in the retirement system with one in three women remaining in poverty in retirement (AHRC(b), 2009, p.

3) In many countries, it is evident that autonomy, empowerment and inclusion in decision making processes

are not always achieved when poor women work to boost their household incomes (Narayan(b), 2000, p. 20). Media depiction of the unemployed presents a stereotypical image however ACOSS argues that the reality is that those dependent on state support are people from diverse backgrounds and age demographics, and that these groups face significant barriers to securing employment in the formal economy, underpinned by disabilities, caring roles and employer discrimination (2018, p. 4). The unemployment benefit in Australia is one of the

lowest paid in the OECD and employment assistance spending in Australia is half of the OECD average.

The unemployment benefit is $277 per week (ACOSS(c), 2018, p. 5). The caring role of sole parents is no longer a basis for receiving income support, therefore sole parents are expected to display personal responsibility by obtaining work in the labour market as a means of financial independence. Therefore, sole parents must navigate the continued needs of their families in a changing welfare environment (McKay, 2017, p. 37). Human services

minister Alan Tudge, spoke at a $300 per head luncheon articulating that the fundamental principle guiding the Coalition?s policies was the best form of welfare is a job.

He spoke about a demerit points-style compliance regime for jobseekers who fail to meet their mutual obligation requirements, a further expansion of the cashless welfare card, drug tests for welfare recipients, compliance, and reducing government expenditure on welfare.Despite the significant barriers that sole parents experience when trying to secure paid employment (Knaus, 2017). Prime Minister Scott Morrison (2018)when he was Treasurer articulated that Newstart is not intended to be a payment you live on, but rather it supports you while you get yourself back into work, however lifting oneself out from economic disadvantage can be hindered further by causal employment in low skilled jobs in which, Australia has the second highest rate of casual employment in the OECD at 25% in 2016 (Gilfillan, 2018).Poverty has the tendency to expose people to humiliation, rudeness, and inhumane treatment by public

and private agents of service (Veeran, 2000).

Government policy can be harmful to the most disadvantaged in society, because conditional compliance policies for those dependent on state support can exacerbate economic disadvantage. Welfare to work policies were introduced during the Howard Coalition government and continued and accelerated under the Gillard Labor government with the aim of getting sole parents into the workforce, however there has been no shift in the number of sole parents entering the workforce but this change shifted sole parents from poverty level payments to well below poverty level payments (Carbonell, 2015).

The entrenched poverty sole parents experience, and the vulnerabilities of homelessness can be a consequence of conditional compliance because they are forced to work flexible, insecure and low paying jobs without a viable career pathway (Rostant, 2017). The right to social security as articulated by CESCR, is underpinned by the right to access and maintain benefits, whether in cash or in kind, without discrimination in order

to secure protection, inter alia, from (a) lack of work-related income caused by sickness, disability, maternity, employment injury, unemployment, old age, or death of a family member; (b) unaffordable access to health care; (c) insufficient family support, particularly for children and adult dependents (2008, p. 2). Despite the conventions articulation that those in need of social support should be accessed without discrimination, which Australia is a party to, research undertaken by ACOSS on conditional social support revealed a contrasting story.

Their research suggests that participants felt that change was needed for the punitive approach to benefit compliance, better recognition of special needs (including illness and disability or caring roles), more personalised service and interviews, and more help with training and job referrals, whereas the current system is too heavily focused on compliance and conditions (2018, p. 6).

Goldblatt suggests that because Australian women are habitually denied equal rights and entitlements, their full participation in society is

hindered which limits opportunities for them (2017, p. 262). The 2nd Universal Periodic Review of Australia, undertaken by the Human Rights Council in 2015 made recommendations that Australia address the gender pay gap, improve women?s economic position, and address violence against women with support services, housing and education (2016).The recommendations made by the Human Rights council, indicates the acknowledgment of the issues that exist regarding Australian women?s economic and social rights with some countries expressing concern about the increasing number of incidents of violence against women and growing poverty and homelessness, especially of women, the elderly and children (Human Rights Council(b), 2016).

It is important to recognize the interaction between poverty and gender can result in severe human rights violations (Campbell, 2018, p. 4). The Australian Non-Government Organisation Coalition noted in their submission to the 2nd UPR that because of the intersection of gender and another aspect of their lived experience, many women in

Australia experience human rights violations (2015, p. 7).

5.3 From Powerlessness to Empowerment

Empowerment as defined by Alsop et al. andChakravarti (2005, p. 120; 2008, p. 14)isthe process of enhancing an individual?s or group?s capacity to make choices and transform those choices into desired actions and outcomes.

Empowerment entails the individual?s ability to define the change for themselves, negotiate change, understand and challenge injustice and inequity, and to act towards the achievement of strategic goals that address issues of women?s status/position.

Research undertaken by the feminist educational organisationNirantar, found that participants view empowerment as not merely about individual choices but is also achieved by addressing the structural factors that perpetuate inequalities (2007, p. 11). Gender equality and international development is a well recognised goal of sustainable development and therefore, women and girls have become the faces of global development across a

range of institutions in policy and public documentation (Calkin, 2015, p. 295). RBA is focused on six underlying principles, namely, universality and inalienability of human rights, equality and non-discrimination, indivisibility and inter-dependence of human rights, participation and inclusion, accountability and rule of law (The World Bank, 2013). Campbell suggests that gender-based poverty underpins women?s lack of participation in public life (civil and political rights) and their low position in the labour market (socioeconomic rights) (2018, p. 6).

Eradicating poverty is not enough alone, sustaining a life lived with dignity also requires access to resources and support and is an important aspect of economic security. Ensuring a life is sustained with dignity requires addressing recognised harms such as harassment, prejudice, stereotypes, stigmas, negative cultural attitudes and humiliation (Corrie, 2016, p.

11; Fredman(b), 2016, p. 180).

A RBA examines whether states are providing policies and programs that realize the right to social security and if it is being provided equally

(Fredman(a), 2014, p. 43).

Campbell et al. suggest that at the international level there is recognition of the need to develop effective interventions that increase awareness of the detrimental impacts of conditional welfare support for sole parents. There should be recognition of the negative impacts on health and well-being because of the antagonism of trying to work whilst raising children alone.

Fredman and Goldblatt argue that conditions that are attached to welfare programmes have resulted in limitations to women?s choice and agency (2016, p. 9; 2014, p. 45). Sole parent?s ability to work outside the home is underpinned by the care work they undertake and this constrains their choices.

Methods of support such as outreach service provision or work from home options are very real ways in which sole parents can be supported (Robinson, 2009, p. 49).

Moghadam suggests that regardless of a male- headed or female-headed household, the enhancement of women?s capabilities and entitlements should be at the heart of an effective long term anti-poverty strategy (2005, p.

32).

In a study undertaken by UK based, Women?s Budget Group, using participatory research methods they created a space for women to express their individual experiences living in poverty, learn more about the policy making process, develop proposals for improving their situation and importantly present their ideas in a conversation with policy makers (2008). The findings from the study revealed that poverty is understood as a human rights issue, that stigma and mental health issues have far reaching consequences that lead to social isolation, that poverty is felt most acutely when parents are unable to provide the most basic needs to their children.

Sustaining your own and your family?s well-being on meagre resources, while being stigmatized for circumstances beyond your control, exacerbates this difficult task and impacts on their mental and physical health (WBG(a), 2008). Narayan et al. asserts that to have control or influence in the decision making process, those living in poverty view participation as being included, being heard and actively being engaged in the process (2000, p. 183).

Caldwell argues that enhancing jurisprudence proficiency in professional skills to achieve effective representation should entail the incorporation of some of the best practices from social work (2012, p.

846). Studies suggest that conditional welfare programmes have taken away women?s autonomy by requiring them to behave in defined ways or lose their benefits (Fredman(a), 2014, p. 45). According to UN Women, addressing gender bias and discrimination requires gender responsive budgeting.

Gender responsive budgeting seeks

to ensure that the collection and allocation of public resources is carried out in ways that are effective and contribute to advancing gender equality and women?s empowerment. They assert that it should be based on in-depth analysis that identifies effective interventions for implementing policies and laws that advance women?s rights (UN Women, 2018).

As structural inequality remains a significant barrier to women?s economic empowerment throughout every stage of their life, policies can impact on men and women

differently.

For example, austerity measures can place women in precarious situations as they may be forced on the street or approach family and friends for support. This potentially results in loss of dignity and exposure to violence and abuse (Fredman(a), 2014, p.

47). Because women spend a lot of time undertaking unpaid work, the provision of some public services that reduce the amount of unpaid work that women do, can enhance women?s opportunities and employment (WBG(b), 2018, p.

6). Elson suggests that the two areas of government budgets and human rights activity are usually considered separately (2006, p. 9). Human rights are relevant to budget formation and implementation, no matter how the domestic legal system is set up to incorporate human rights law (Elson(a), 2006, p. 12). Those who are undervalued, experience discrimination, disadvantage and exclusion can leverage legal obligations by asserting their human rights. Leveraging legal obligations can facilitate a RBA to government budgets and therefore women can lay claim to what is rightfully theirs (Elson(a), 2006, p. 12). It is important to note that

gender inequalities and harms are not always addressed because the social, economic and cultural structures do not change even if scrutiny, recommendations and legal changes have occurred.

Therefore, often human rights approaches fail to reach the women they are intended to (Fredman(a), 2014, p. 40).

Human rights law can help address human rights violations, by arguing state parties are obliged to protect and fulfill human rights. As a vulnerable group, women are more likely to be living in poverty and accumulating lower levels of wealth throughout their life and therefore are less likely to benefit from cuts to income tax than men, and more likely to benefit from public spending on public services or cash transfers/welfare benefits (WBG(b), 2018, p. 7). CEDAW is an opportunity to support Member States in designing and implementing policies and programmes that can contribute to the elimination of discrimination and to improving the health and well-being of all women and girls (WHO, 2007, p. 30). There is more likelihood of achieving women?s empowerment when the allocation of resources is

not attached with conditions that compromise psychological security and entrench poverty (Fredman(a), 2014, p. 45).

Incorporating a human rights perspective into public sector management ensures that there is transparency, accountability and participation.

In doing so,human rights law requires that the systems be non-discriminatory and that they advance substantive equality (Elson(a), 2006, p.

127). Fredman and Goldblatt argue that to address unequal gender relations, poverty should be addressed by providing good quality services and that imposing conditions is harmful to substantive equality (2014, p. 46). During the 1970?s in Australia, the women?s movement had pioneered the development of women?s policy machinery and therefore Australia was revolutionary in policy responses to women?s issues.

This lead to much recognition from the UN, who drew on Australia?s model as an example of good practice (Sawer, 2007, p. 20; Sharp, 2011, p. 3). By the 1990?s there had been a decline of the feminist agenda.

The neoliberal agenda had framed feminists as a self-interested

elite and delegitimized the advocacy work of public interest groups (Sawer, 2007, p. 39; Sharp, 2011, p. 4). Sawer argues that the decline in the strength of women?s representation in government highlights the significance of vulnerabilities in women?s gains within reformed states (2007, p. 39).

Article 7 of CEDAW (1979)specifically mentions that women have the right to participate equally in the formulation of government policy and its implementation and to hold public office and perform all public functions.

Therefore, governments are obliged to take steps to ensure that women participate on equal terms with men in decision-making about the budgets (Elson(a), 2006, p.

137). The 2018-2019 Australian government budget was void of measures to address women?s long-term and structural economic disadvantage (Australian Labor Party, 2018, p. 5). Government budgets are meant to be gender neutral but in fact they are largely gender biased because they do not assess how policies affect women (NFAW(b), 2018, p. 16). Elson notes that CEDAW requires

I N THI S I SSUE

that all government measures must be non-discriminatory and ensure the achievement of substantive equality between women and men, as autonomous possessors of all human rights, civil and political, and economic, social and cultural (2006, p. 141). Substantive equality has four dimensions and Fredman and Golblatt note that they are underpinned by redressing disadvantage, countering stigma, prejudice, humiliation and violence, to transform social and institutional structures and to facilitate

participation, both in the form of political participation and social inclusion (2014, p. 5).

Some solutions to addressing gender inequality in budgets include increasing the presence and capacity of women and reforming budget decision-making processes to make them more transparent and participatory. To fully achieve the advancement of women as set out in CEDAW will require the collective mobilization of women to actively use CEDAW and gender budgeting initiatives (Elson(a), 2006, p. 151). Whilst change won?t occur overnight, adopting human rights approaches would be positive steps in addressing the regression of Australian women?s social and economic empowerment.

5.4 Conclusion Overcoming poverty is a challenge for women because they face many obstacles to lift themselves out of poverty.

Feelings of powerlessness are experienced by many women living in poverty.

Harsh compliance regimes and conditional welfare programmes that impose unrealistic onus on sole parents along with austerity

measures can be harmful to dignity and autonomy.

Therefore, this can compromise psychological security and health and well-being. Women in poverty are not merely beneficiaries of charity but rights holders who can make legitimate claims to hold duty bearers to account.

By adopting rights-based approaches, those who make legitimate claims to fundamental rights can be empowered. It serves as a powerful tool for women in precarious positions to hold those who wield power to account. As rights holders, women can make claim to their entitlements and equitable allocation of resources by holding those responsible to account.

Equality lies at the heart of progress, addressing gender-based poverty by improving the effectiveness of poverty reduction can be realised by the adoption of rights-based approaches.

Ch apter 6 Concl usi on Women?s economic and social injustice can be addressed with an analysis of the language of women?s human rights and this lies at the heart of gender and development.

Women?s subordinate position is a barrier to claiming their social and economic rights. In Australia there is resilience to international accountability mechanisms because of the absence of a Bill of Rights within Australia?s constitution, therefore gender equality is not guaranteed. There are key issues in Australia that undermine women?s human rights and include homelessness, violence against women, gender pay gap and equal participation.

There is little redress when women?s economic, social and cultural rights are violated.Gender-based poverty has profound consequences for women.ICESCR and CEDAW are important international conventions that can help remedy the erosion of women?s economic, social and cultural rights. A human rights-based approach can inform economics and policy in poverty reduction programs.

A feminist analysist seeks to redress women?s subordinate position within key economic

institutions that undermine economic and social rights.

Gender-based poverty creates significant barriers for women which compromises their enjoyment of fundamental human rights. ICESCR and CEDAW offer explicit standards through which to remedy disadvantage and deprivation of rights that underpin gender-based poverty.

Much of the feminist literature articulates that women?s traditional gendered role in society contributes to their invisibility and economic vulnerability.

Women?s disadvantage under the harsh economic policies of neoliberalism is undeniable.

The impact is starker among sole parents and older women.

Australia has had a steady decline in women?s economic participation and opportunity over the past eleven years with political empowerment also declining steadily.Over time successive policies have led to regression of gender equality and harmed women?s human rights in Australia. Successive policy changes have the potential to lead to a feminisation of poverty. State support is reduced under neoliberalism?s harsh policies and this profoundly impacts on the lives of women who undertake most of the unpaid care work and accumulate poverty over the life course.

The emphasis placed on individual choice under

neoliberalism leads to subordination and oppression and the care economy is intrinsically linked to the structural issues of gender-based poverty through the unrecognized and unpaid labour that women undertake.

The impacts of patriarchal norms, neoliberalism and the care economy manifest into the senior years of life with significant numbers of single women aged 45 and over living in economic hardship.

Empirical evidence suggests that poverty is becoming a gendered phenomenon in Australia that disproportionately affects women. The feminization of poverty leads to deprivations including food insecurity, affordable housing, lack of superannuation savings in retirement and therefore excludes women from being fully integrated members of society. Intersectionality theory provides important discussion to the discourse insofar as that different forms of discrimination inflame and compound marginalisation.

Attention should therefore be paid to the combined aspects to gain better understanding of the barriers women face.

Gender-based poverty does not remain exclusive to the experience of economic disadvantage but can compromise psychological security.

Disempowerment, discrimination and stigma can

subordination such as stereotypes, stigma, harmful cultural attitudes, violence, humiliation and psychological harm and aspires to a life lived with dignity.

Gender-responsive budgeting can help to redress the structural inequalities that Austerity and harsh help drive gender-based compliance regimes can have poverty. devastating effects on women Whilst this research has and children. Gender-based focused on sole parents and poverty and the feminization older women, it acknowledges of poverty leads to that married/partnered powerlessness and women would become voicelessness in asserting both vulnerable to gender-based political and civil rights and poverty, in the event, that they socio-economic rights. Access become single. The high to social support is a prevalence of sole parents and fundamental human right and single older women living in should be void of precarious economic discriminatory and disadvantage legitimizes the unreasonable compliance need to advocate for a human policies. Those who face rights-based approach to barriers in entering the labour address the deeply embedded market, usually experience norms, structures and systems multiple forms of that result in women?s discrimination and compliance vulnerability. To render their and conditions can undermine marginalization as insignificant human rights and one?s is to ignore what lies at the dignity. This can result in heart of the human rights multiple forms of abuse norms and standards. directed toward vulnerable Universality and inalienability. members of society including equality and sole parents and older women. non-discrimination, Women and girls have rapidly indivisibility and become the faces of global inter-dependence, development and the participation and inclusion, sustainable development goals accountability and rule of law place gender equality as an are what underpins human important goal.

Human RBA to development, with its rights-based approach to central focus on ensuring development help address every person has every abuses that occur through opportunity to live a good life. discrimination, oppression and lower self-esteem and self-worth that lead to vulnerabilities on one?s mental health. Social protection helps shield women from abuse and should be underpinned by a human rights-based framework.

The neoliberal agenda has resulted in a decline of the success of the women?s movement during 1970?s Australia.

Australian Government budgeting no longer includes a Women?s Budget Statement.

Nondiscrimination and advancing substantive equality is a requirement under human rights law.

CEDAW sets out standards for governments to safeguard its citizens against gendered bias. The lack of women?s political representation has had significant negative impacts for women?s social and economic empowerment.

Change won?t occur overnight, however adopting human rights-based approaches are positive steps to ensuring women?s social and economic empowerment.

Substantive equality is a principle of the standards set out in CEDAW. To achieve substantive equality is to address disadvantage, stigma, prejudice, humiliation and violence and to transform social and institutional structures and to facilitate participation, both in the form of political participation and social inclusion.

Many Australian women

face significant barriers and overcoming poverty is a challenge. Women remain a vulnerable group in which their economic empowerment is hindered through gendered roles, motherhood and labour force disparities. Welfare that imposes harsh compliance regimes and conditional welfare policies with unrealistic expectations has a disempowering effect.

Workforce participation can be hindered through different layers of discrimination, making it a challenge for older women to obtain employment. Women in poverty are not merely recipients of charity but rights

holders who can make legitimate claims to hold duty bearers to account. By placing focus on a RBA, can be an empowering process for those who make legitimate claims to fundamental rights. It acts as powerful tool for women in precarious positions to hold those who wield power accountable. As rights holders, exercising their entitlements holds those responsible for harmful policies to account.

Equality lies at the heart of progress, addressing gender-based poverty by improving the effectiveness of poverty reduction can be realised through human rights-based approach.

Ref erences

HelpAge International, Available at: [Accessed 19 July 2018].

ABS, Available

2015.

Global AgeWatch Index 2015 Insight Report.

[Online] http://reports.helpage.org/global-agewatch-index-2015-insight-report.pdf

2018.

2016

Census

QuickStats.

[Online] at:

http://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/036#familycomposition [Accessed 29 July 2018].

ACOSS(a), 2016. Poverty in Australia 2016, Strawberry Hills: Australian Council of Social Services.

ACOSS(b), 2018. ACOSS, Welcomes Social Security Commission Bill and Single Parent Review. [Online] Available at: https://www.acoss.org.au/media_release/acoss-welcomes-social-security-commission-bill-and-single-parent-review/ [Accessed 20 August 2018].

ACOSS(c), 2018. Faces of the Unemployed, Strawberry Hills: Australian Council of Social Service.

ACOSS(d), 2018. Voices of the Unemployed, Strawberry Hills: Australian Council of Social Services.

Adams, V., 2010. Scoping the Australian Care Economy: A Gender Equity Perspective , North Sydney: Security4Women .

Aggarwal, A., 2015. Women's Economic Social and Cultural Rights in Australia. Human Rights Defender, 24(3), pp. 21-24.

AHRC(a), 2006.

How are Human Rights Protected in Australian Law?.

[Online] Available at: https://www.humanrights.gov.au/how-are-human-rights-protected-australian-law [Accessed 16 July 2018].

AHRC(b), 2009. Accumulating Poverty? Women?s Experiences of Poverty over the Lifecycle. Sydney: Australian Human Rights Commission.

Albelda, M. &. C. &. R., 2013. Counting Care Work: The Empirical and Policy Applications of Care Theory.

Social Problems, 60(2), pp. 145-167.

Alsop, N. H. &. A. S. &. R., 2005. Measuring Empowerment: An Analytic Framework. In: R. Alsop, ed.

Power, Rights, and Poverty: Concepts and Connections. Washington: The World Bank, pp. 120-125.

Arch, K., 2017. Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill 2017 Submission 57.

[Online] Available at: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/OmnibusSavingsReform [Accessed 19 July 2018].

Australian

Labor

Party,

2018.

Women's

Budget

Statement

2018.

[Online]

Available

at: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/tanyaplibersek/pages/1359/attachments/original/1525911514/2018_ALP_WBS_low_res_.pdf?1525911514 [Accessed 30 July 2018].

Australian NGO Coalition, 2015. Joint NGO Submission to Australia?s 2nd Universal Periodic Review. [Online] Available at: http://www.wlsnsw.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Final-UPR-NGO-Submission1.pdf [Accessed 20 July 2018].

AWHN, 2012. Women and Mental Health, Drysdale: Australian Women?s Health Network.

Boyne, K., 2011. UN Women: Jumping the Hurdles to Overcoming Gender Inequality, or Falling Short of Expectations. Cardozo Journal of Law and Gender, Volume 17, pp. 683-716.

Brenner, J., 1987. Feminist Political Discourses: Radical versus Liberal Approaches to the Feminization of Poverty and Comparable Worth. Gender and Society, 1(4), pp. 447-465.

Bronstein, D. M. M. &. L. R., 2003. The Journey From Welfare to Work: Learning From Women Living in Poverty. Affilia, 18(1), pp. 34-48.

Broussard, A. J. &. M. T. &. A., 2010. Research Regarding Low-Income Single Mothers' Mental and Physical Health: A Decade in Review. Journal of Poverty, 14(4), pp. 443-451.

Brown, W., 2015. Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism's Stealth Revolution. New York: Zone Books.

Brush, L. D., 2002. Changing the Subject: Gender and Welfare Regime Studies. Social Politics, Volume 9, pp. 161-186.

Bunch, C., 1990. Women's Rights as Human Rights: Toward a ReVision of Human Rights. Human RIghts Quarterly, 12(4), pp. 486-498.

Caldwell, B., 2012. Addressing Intersectionality in the Lives of Women in Poverty: Incorporating Core Components of a Social Work Program into Legal Education. The American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, 20(4), pp. 823-846.

Calkin, S., 2015. Feminism, interrupted? Gender and Development in the era of Smart Economics.

Progress in Development Studies, 15(4), p. 295?307.

Cameron, P., 2013. What?s Choice Got to Do With it? Women?s Lifetime Financial Disadvantage and the Superannuation Gender Pay Gap, Canberra: The Australia Institute.

Campbell, C. F. &. M. G. &. H. T. &. M., 2016. Lone Parents, Health, Wellbeing and Welfare to Work: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies. BMC Public Health, 16(188), pp. 1-10.

Campbell, M., 2018. Women, Poverty and Equality: The Role of CEDAW. London: Bloomsbury Publishing PLC. Carbonell, R., 2015.

The Welfare-to-Work Trap.

[Online] Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/the-welfare-to-work-trap/6795072 [Accessed 10 July 2018].

CEDAW, 2018.

Available

Concluding Observations on the Eighth Periodic Report

of

Australia. [Online] at:

https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CEDAW/C/AUS/CO/8&Lang=En [Accessed 23 July 2018].

CESCR, 2008.

E/C.12/GC/19.

[Online] Available at: https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=E/C.12/GC/19&Lang=en [Accessed 20 July 2018].

CESR, 2018.

Available [Accessed 11 July 2018].

Rights at:

Claiming and Accountability.

[Online] http://www.cesr.org/rights-claiming-and-accountability

Chakravarti, U., 2008. Beyond the Mantra of Empowerment: Time to Return to Poverty, Violence and Struggle. IDS Bulletin, 39(6), pp. 10-17.

Chant(a), S., 2003. Female Household Headship and the Feminisation of Poverty: Facts, Fictions and Forward Strategies. London: LSE Research Online.

Chant(b), S., 2006. Poverty Begins at Home? Questioning some (mis)Conceptions about Children, Poverty and Privation in Female-Headed Households. New York: UNICEF. Chant(c), S., 2008. The ?Feminisation of Poverty? and the ?Feminisation? of Anti-Poverty Programmes: Room for Revision?. The Journal of Development Studies, 44(2), pp. 165-197.

Christopher, P. E. &. T. M. S. &. K. R. P. &. K., 2002. The Gender Gap in Poverty in Modern Nations: Single

Motherhood, The Market, and the State. Sociological Perspectives, 45(3), pp. 219-242.

Cole, E. R., 2009. Intersectionality and Research in Psychology. American Psychologist, 64(3), p. 170?180.

Cornwall, J. G. &. K. W. &. A., 2008. Introduction: Reclaiming Feminism:Gender and Neoliberalism. IDS Bulletin, 39(6), pp. 1-9.

Corrie, T., 2016. Economic Security for Survivors of Domestic and Family Violence: Understanding and Measuring the Impact, Abbotsford: Good Shepherd Australia New Zealand.

Costa, M. M. &. J., 2010. The Feminisation of Poverty: A Widespread Phenonemon?. In: S. Chant, ed. The International Handbook of Gender and Poverty : Concepts, Research, Policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, pp. 95-100.

Crenshaw, K., 1989. Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: a Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 8(1), pp. 139-167.

Cruwys, T. B. H. C. R. D. A. O. L. S. B. &. D. G., 2013. Marginalised Australians: Characteristics and Predictors of Exit over Ten years 2001-2010,Canberra: University of Canberra.

Davis, K., 2009. Intersectionality as Buzzword: A Sociology of Science Perspective on What Makes a Feminist Theory Successful. Feminist Theory, 9(1), pp. 67-85.

Dowling, E., 2018. Confronting Capital?s Care Fix: Care Through the Lens of Democracy. Equality,Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 37(4), pp. 332-346.

Dwivedi, S. K. P. &. J. S. &. A., 2007. Examining Empowerment, Poverty Alleviation, Education Within Self Help Groups: A Qualitative Study, Delhi: Nirantar.

Elson(a), D., 2006. Budgeting for Women?s Rights: Monitoring Government Budgets for Compliance with CEDAW. New York: United Nations Development Fund For Women(UNIFEM).

Elson(b), D., 2011. Economics for a Post-crisis World: Putting Social Justice First. In: D. E. a. D. Jain, ed.

Harvesting Feminist Knowledge for Public Policy : Rebuilding Progress. New Dehli: Sage, pp. 1-20.

Elson(c), D., 2013. Austerity Policies Increase Unemployment and Inequality but Don't Reduce Budget Deficits and Government Borrowing. Journal of Australian Political Economy, Volume 71, pp. 130-133.

Elson(d), D., 2017. Recognize, Reduce, and Redistribute Unpaid Care Work: How to Close the Gender Gap. New Labor Forum, 26(2), pp. 52-61.

Folbre, N., 2014. Who Cares? A Feminist Critique of the Care Economy,New York: Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung.

Fredman(a), B. G. Available [Accessed 19 July 2018].

&. at:

S.,

2014.

Gender Equality and Human Rights.

[Online] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UTSLRS/2014/8.pdf

Fredman(b), J. K. &. M. C. &. S., 2016. Transformative Equality: Making the Sustainable Development Goals Work for Women. Ethics & International Affairs, 30(2), pp. 177-187.

Gibson-Davis, C. M., 2016. Single and Cohabiting Parents and Poverty. In: D. B. a. L. M. Burton, ed. The Oxford Handbook of the Social Science of Poverty. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 415-574.

Gideon, D. E. &. J., 2004. Organising for Women's Economic and Social Rights: How Useful is the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights?. Journal of Interdisciplinary Gender Studies, 8(1/2), pp. 133-152.

Gilfillan, G., 2018. Characteristics and Use of Casual Employees in Australia. [Online] Gilligan, N. B. &. M. O. d. B. &. S. D. &. A. L., 2000. First Hand Experience, Second Hand Life: Women and Poverty, Dublin: National Women's Council of Ireland.

Gilmour, J., 2017. Single Women Face a Frightening Future of Homelessness in Australia. [Online] Available at: https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/single-women-face-a-frightening-future-of-homelessness-in-australia-20170808-gxrw3s.html [Accessed 1 July 2018].

Gimenez, M. E., 1999. The Feminization of Poverty: Myth or Reality?. Critical Sociology , 25(2-3), pp.

336-351.

Goldberg, G. S., 2009. The Feminization of Poverty in Cross-National Perspective. In: Poor Women in Rich Countries: The Feminization of Poverty Over the Life Course. New York: Oxoford University Press, pp. 1-32.

Goldblatt(a), B., 2014. Gender, Poverty and the Development of the Right to Social Security. International Journal of Law, 10(4), pp. 460 - 477.

Goldblatt(b), B., 2015. lntersectionality in International Anti-Discrimination Law: Addressing Poverty in its Complexity. Australian Journal of Human Rights, 21(1), pp. 47-70.

Goldblatt(c), B., 2017. Claiming Women's Social and Economic Rights in Australia. Australian Journal of Human Rights, 23(2), pp. 261-283.

Guittar, S. G. G. &. N. A., 2015. Intersectionality. In: J. D. Wright, ed. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. USA: Elsevier, pp. 657-662.

Hartman, S. D. &. Y., 2013. Understanding Single Older Women?s Invisibility in Housing Issues in Australia.

Housing, Theory and Society, 30(4), p. 348?367.

Haynes, K., 2017. Accounting as Gendering and Gendered: A Review of 25 years of Critical Accounting Research on Gender. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Volume 43, pp. 110-124.

Henriques-Gomes, L., 2018. Push to raise Newstart allowance by $75 a week. [Online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/sep/17/push-to-raise-newstart-allowance-by-75-a-week [Accessed 17 September 2018].

Human Rights Council(a), Available at: [Accessed 19 July 2018].

2016.

Universal Periodic Review - Australia A/HRC/31/14. [Online] https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/AUindex.aspx

Human Rights Council(b), 2016. Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights, A/HRC/32/31: April 28.

ILO, 2018.

Available at: [Accessed 25 July 2018].

The Care Economy.

[Online] https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/care-economy/lang--en/index.htm

INESCR & IWRAWAP, 2013. Claiming Women?s Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. New York: International Network for Economic,Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR-Net) & International Women?s Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific.

Joseph, M. C. &. S., 2006. Federal Consitutional Law. 2nd ed. Sydney: Lawbook Co..

Keebaugh, E. B. &. S., 2005. A Feminist Family Agenda: Putting the Mother Back into Sole Parenting. Just Policy, Volume 38, pp. 5-11.

Kelly, S. S. M. &. E. L., 2006. The Feminization of Poverty: Past and Future. In: J. S. Chafetz, ed. Handbook of the Sociology of Gender. Houston: Springer, pp. 127-145.

Kerr, E. C. &. L., 2014. Income Inequality. In: Australian Social Policy and the Human Services. Port Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, pp. 145-169.

Knaus, C., 2017. Welfare Dependency 'Poison' for Jobless, Human Services Minister says. [Online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/may/26/welfare-dependency-poison-for-jobless-human-servic [Accessed 20 July 2018].

Lake, M., 1999. Getting Equal: The History of Australian Feminism. St Leonards: Allen and Unwin.

Lister, R., 1997. Citizenship: Feminist Perspectives. New York: NYU Press.

Loxton, R. M. &. A. F. Y. &. D., 2006. The Psychological Health of Sole Mothers in Australia. Medical Journal of Australia, 184(6), p. 265?268.

Maury, S., Available

2018.

Women,

Welfare

and

a

Policy

of

Economic

Abuse.

[Online] at:

http://www.powertopersuade.org.au/blog/women-welfare-and-a-policy-of-economic-abuse/21/6/2018 [Accessed 30 July 2018].

McBeth, J. N. &. S. R. &. A., 2013. Women. In: V. Rainer, ed. The International Law of Human Rights. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press, pp. 527-551.

McKay, H. J. M. &. F. H., 2017. Food as a Discretionary Item: The Impact of Welfare Payment Changes on Low-Income Single Mother ?s Food Choices and Strategies. Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, 25(1), pp.

35-48.

Millar, J., 1992. Lone Mothers and Poverty. In: C. G. &. J. Millar, ed. Women and poverty in Britain: The 1990s.

Brighton: Harvester/Wheatsheaf, pp. 149-161.

Moghadam, V. M., 2005. The 'Feminisation of Poverty' and Women's Human Rights. France: UNESCO. Moran, G. W. B. &. P. M., 1997. Single Mothers, Poverty and Depression. Psychological Medicine, Volume 27, pp. 21-33.

Narayan(a), D., 2000. Poverty is Powerlessness and Voicelessness. Finance and Development, 37(4), pp.

18-21.

Narayan(b), R. C. &. M. K. S. &. P. P. &. D., 2000. Voices of The Poor: Crying Out for Change. New York: Oxford University Press.

NFAW(a), 2017. Gender Lens on the Budget 2017-2018, Canberra: National Foundation for Australian Women.

NFAW(b), 2018. Gender Lens on the Budget 2018-2019, Canberra: National Foundation for Australian Women.

OHCHR(a), Available at: [Accessed 12 July 2018].

1979.

CEDAW. [Online] https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/cedaw.pdf

OHCHR(b), 2004. Human Rights and Poverty Reduction: A Conceptual Framework. New York and Geneva: United Nations.

OurWatch, 2018.

Available at: [Accessed 19 July 2018].

Facts and figures.

[Online] https://www.ourwatch.org.au/Understanding-Violence/Facts-and-figures

Page, S. H. &. A., 2012. Counting on Care Work in Australia, North Sydney: AECgroup Limited for economic Security4Women.

Paik, S. J. C. &. S. B. &. I., 2007. Getting a Job: Is There a Motherhood Penalty?. American Journal of Sociology, 112(5), pp. 1297-1339.

Parisi(a), V. S. P. &. L., 1998. Are women human? It's not an academic question. In: T. Evans, ed. Human rights fifty years on: a reappraisal.New York: Manchester University Press, pp. 133-160.

Parisi(b), L., 2017.

Feminist Prospectives on Human Rights.

[Online] AvailablePearce, D., 1978. The Feminization of Poverty: Women, Work and Welfare. The Urban and Social Change Review, 11(1&2), pp. 28-36.

Peden, M. K. R. &. L. A. H. &. A. R., 2005. A Community-Based Depression Prevention Intervention With Low-Income Single Mothers. American Psychiatric Nurses Association, 11(1), pp. 18-25.

Pressman, S., 2003. Feminist Explanations for the Feminization of Poverty. Journal of Economic Issues, 37(2), pp. 353-361.

Qureshi, S., 2015. Research Methodology in Law and Its Application to Women?s Human Rights Law. Journal of Political Studies, 22(2), pp. 629-643.

Radermacher, D. S. F. &. D. H., 2016. Time of Our Lives? Building Opportunity and Capacity for the Economic and Social Participation of Older Australian Women, Melbourne: Lord Mayor 's Charitable Foundation.

Rao, A., 1996. Home-Word Bound: Women's Place in the Family of International Human Rights. Global Governance, 2(2), pp. 241-260.

Remeikis, A., 2017. Melbourne Woman Complains to UN, Saying Parenting Cuts are Human Rights Abuse.

[Online] Robinson, E., 2009. Sole-parent Families: Different Needs or a Need for Different Perceptions?. Family Matters, Volume 82, pp. 47-51.

Rostant, J., 2017.

Compliance: Welfare a Road to Destruction.

Available http://www.powertopersuade.org.au/blog/compliance-welfare-a-road-to-destruction/21/9/2017 [Accessed 10 July 2018].

[Online] at:

Sawer, M., 2007. Australia: the Fall of the Femocrat. In: J. K. a. J. Outshoorn, ed. Changing State Feminism.

UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 20-40.

Sharp, M. C. &. R., 2011. Gender-Responsive Budgeting in the Asia-Pacific Region: Commonwealth of Australia.

[Online] Available at: https://www.unisa.edu.au/Documents/EASS/HRI/gender-budgets/australia.pdf [Accessed 19 July 2018].

Smith, L. F. &.

Available at: [Accessed 21 July 2018].

P.,

2017.

Feminist Philosophy of Law. [Online] https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/feminism-law/

Steans, D. T.-B. &. J., 2016. The New Materialism: Reclaiming a Debate from a Feminist Perspective. Capital and Class, 40(2), pp. 303-324.

Summers, A., 2003. The End of Equality: Work, Babies and Women's Choices in 21st Century Australia. Milsons Point: Random House.

The Senate Economics References Committee, 2016. A Husband is Not a Retirement Plan, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

The World Bank Group, 2014. Voice and Agency: Empowering Women and Girls for Shared Prosperity.

Washington: The World Bank Group.

The World Bank, 2013. Report of Gender and Human Rights-Based Approaches in Development, Washington: Nordic Trust Fund.

UN Women, 2018.

Gender Responsive UN, 1998. Yearbook of the United Nations 1998. New York: United Nations.

Budgeting.

[Online]

UNHCHR, 2013. Report on Austerity Measures and Social and Economic Rights. [Online] Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/RightSocialSecurity/Pages/SocialSecurity.aspx [Accessed 1 July 2018].

UNHCOHR, 2014. Women's Rights are Human Rights. New York and Geneva: United Nations.

Veeran, V., 2000. Feminization of Poverty. Montreal, International Conference of the International Association of the Schools of Social Work.

Warren, D., 2015.

Why Single Women are More Likely to Retire Poor.

[Online] Available at: https://theconversation.com/why-single-women-are-more-likely-to-retire-poor-51126 [Accessed 19 July 2018].

WBG(a), 2008. Women and Poverty: Experiences, Empowerment and Engagement, York: York Publishing Services Ltd. WBG(b), 2018. Women Count: A Casebook for Gender Responsive Budgeting Groups. [Online] Available at: https://womencount.wbg.org.uk/ [Accessed 1 July 2018].

WEF, 2017.

The Available at: [Accessed 20 July 2018].

Global Gender Gap Report 2017.

[Online] https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-gender-gap-report-2017

WHO, 2007. Women?s Health and Human Rights: Monitoring the Implementation of CEDAW, Geneva: World Health Organization.

Em an cipat in g Au st r alian Wom en f r om Gen der -Based Pover t y u sin g Hu m an Righ t s Based Appr oach t o Developm en t Dissertation by Melanie Bublyk for

Cu r t in Un iver sit y Cen t r e f or Hu m an Righ t s Edu cat ion

END. w w w .anank emag.com