My Blog

Category: Law, Society & Culture

Research branch

  • When the Show Cannot Go On: Rebooting Australia’s Arts & Entertainment Sector After COVID-19

    When the Show Cannot Go On: Rebooting Australia’s Arts & Entertainment Sector After COVID-19

    Share

    New research from the Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work, written by Senior Economist Alison Pennington and Monash University’s Ben Eltham, reveals the ongoing, devastating impact of COVID-19 on Australia’s arts and entertainment sector and provides a series of recommendations to government that would reboot the creative sector following the crisis.

    Key Findings:

    • The arts and entertainment sector is a significant employer in Australia that makes a substantial contribution to the economy.
    • More people work in broad cultural industries (over 350,000) than many other areas of the economy that are receiving greater policy supports, including aviation (40,500) and coal mining (48,900).
    • Despite years of significant funding pressures and policy neglect, the arts and entertainment sector contributed $17 billion in GDP to the Australian economy in 2018-19.
    • However, due to their disproportionately insecure and precarious labour market conditions, arts and entertainment sector workers are experiencing significant ruptures in their employment arrangements due to COVID-19 and the federal government has not adequately responded to the scale and severity of the crisis.
    • Looking ahead, adequate support to rebuild the sector should include: expanding funding to community arts organisations and artists; introducing a new Commonwealth creative fellowships program; creating a whole-of-Australia public streaming platform; introducing an Australian content quota on all services, including international streaming platforms; introducing a digital platforms levy to fund a merged-content production fund; better coordinating cultural policy between federal, state and local government levels, especially during the COVID-19 recovery; and strengthening pay and conditions for arts and entertainment sector workers.

    Quotes attributable to Ben Eltham, School of Media, Film and Journalism, Monash University: 

    “COVID-19 has badly damaged Australia’s arts and cultural sector. Rolling lockdowns and health restrictions have devastated the live entertainment sector. Around the world, millions of artists and cultural workers have been thrown out of work by the pandemic,” Eltham said.

    “Tens of thousands of artists now face lockdowns across major cities without adequate protections for their jobs, incomes and productions.

    “The Morrison government’s policy response to the crisis has been late and inadequate. The Morrison government’s attacks on universities, the ABC and local production quotas are all bad news for the future of Australian culture.

    “The pandemic has changed the way we think about creativity and culture. Australians have turned to the arts in their time of need, embracing cultural pastimes during extended lockdowns. We have rediscovered the value of culture, even as the pandemic has spread.

    “Old arguments about government spending have been turned on their head. For many artists, JobKeeper was the first time they had been able to draw a steady, liveable income from their craft. The massive cash injection shows that Australians can afford a better society and culture if we want.”

    Quotes attributable to Alison Pennington, Senior Economist, Centre for Future Work at the Australia Institute: 

    “Destructive market-first policies eroded the richness and diversity of arts and culture in Australia long-before COVID-19 hit. Endless short-term grant cycles and philanthropic dependency is not a place the arts and culture sector should “snap back” to,” Pennington said.

    “Australia needs a total public-led reboot of the arts. This cultural reconstruction must ensure that the sector does not just survive the pandemic, but stands ready to flourish on the other side. It must lay the groundwork for a sustainable, vibrant future for the arts and culture, built through ambitious public investment and planning across many sectors of our cultural economy.

    “Australia’s arts and cultural sector needs an ambitious public investment program to provide reliable funding for arts organisations from the grassroots-up, provide arts education to all children, and rebuild cultural labour markets to ensure that artists and cultural workers earn decent, living incomes.”


    Related research



    Creativity in Crisis: Rebooting Australia’s Arts and Entertainment Sector After COVID



    Full report

  • Creativity in Crisis: Rebooting Australia’s Arts and Entertainment Sector After COVID

    COVID-19, Industry & Sector Policies

    Creativity in Crisis: Rebooting Australia’s Arts and Entertainment Sector After COVID

    by Alison Pennington and Ben Eltham

    Authors

    Alison Pennington

    Senior Economist

    Ben Eltham

    Media release



    When the Show Cannot Go On: Rebooting Australia’s Arts & Entertainment Sector After COVID-19

    Culture is an inescapable part of what it means to be human. We can no more imagine a life without the arts than we can imagine a life without language, custom, or ritual. Australia is home to the oldest continuing cultural traditions on the planet, and some of the world’s most renowned actors, musicians and artists. But while we have a proud story to tell, the future of Australian culture looks increasingly uncertain.

    New research from the Centre for Future Work, by Senior Economist Alison Pennington and Monash University’s Ben Eltham, reveals the ongoing, devastating impact of COVID-19 on Australia’s arts and entertainment sector and provides a series of recommendations to government that would reboot the creative sector after the crisis.



    Full report

    Share

  • The Broken Bargain: Australia’s Growing Wages Crisis with Sally McManus

    The Broken Bargain: Australia’s Growing Wages Crisis with Sally McManus

    by Dan Nahum

    Share

    In this episode from The Australia Institute’s webinar series, ACTU Secretary Sally McManus outlines the political and legal reasons why wage growth is so low in Australia.

    Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, wage growth in Australia was anemic.

    Historically, a working class with power to organise and bargain, and a broad commitment to the social wage ensured Australia’s wealth was shared. But the last 30 years have seen a dramatic shift of the share of Australia’s prosperity going to profit and away from working people.The shift in the distribution of GDP from the mid-1970s to today has transferred 10% of GDP directly from workers to corporate profits. That’s more than $200 billion – or almost $20,000 per waged worker – per year.

    Australians are facing a wages crisis, and Government actions and inactions are making this problem worse.

    In conversation with Australia Institute Deputy Director Ebony Bennett, and Centre for Future Work Director Jim Stanford, Sally McManus outlines the reasons why wage growth is so poor, and the way back for working people to once again be at the heart of a strong economy.

    Recorded live on 14 July 2021, as part of the Australia Institute’s 2021 webinar series. A transcript of Sally McManus’s speech is available below.


    Related documents



    Transcript

    You might also like

  • If You Thought Employers Were Exploiting Workers With Too Many Insecure Jobs Before The Pandemic, Wait Till You See The Figures Now

    If You Thought Employers Were Exploiting Workers With Too Many Insecure Jobs Before The Pandemic, Wait Till You See The Figures Now

    by Dan Nahum

    Dan Nahum

    Economist

    Share

    Australia paid a big price for the over reliance on insecure jobs prior to the pandemic. But as our economy recovers, insecure jobs account for about two out of every three new positions. In this commentary, originally published on New Matilda, Economist Dan Nahum explains why that’s a very bad thing – especially in front-line, human services roles. In the context of COVID-19, the effects of insecure work in these sectors, in particular, reverberate across the whole community with dangerous and tragic consequences.

    COVID-19 has been reintroduced into multiple aged care homes in Victoria, in part via staff who worked in multiple locations. We have been here before, but this time, the Commonwealth government should have prevented this channel of contagion.

    The poorly-managed vaccine rollout, including inexplicable delays in vaccinating aged care residents and staff, has played a key role in the current outbreak. But there is another policy factor at play as well: multi-site, insecure, and precarious work in Australia’s aged care sector.

    There has been a dramatic expansion of insecure work in this sector: including more than doubling the share of part-time jobs in the last generation, a huge shift toward lower-qualified, frequently precarious personal care positions (rather than qualified and registered health workers), and the widespread use of labour hire and agencies to provide short-term labour (rather than creating permanent, stable jobs).

    The recent report of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety identified these precarious staffing practices as a major risk to the quality and safety of care. The Commissioners criticised the over-use of temporary or agency work, and emphasised the inextricable linkage between ‘the quality of care and the quality of jobs.’ They recommended that permanent, more stable jobs are most compatible with ‘developing a skilled, career-based, stable and engaged workforce providing high quality aged care’.

    It’s not just in aged care facilities that insecure work has accelerated the spread, and magnified the consequences, of COVID-19. In fact, insecure work has generally weakened Australia’s resistance to the virus, and undermined both our health and economic responses. In aged care and beyond, precarious work enhances risks that the virus is transmitted.

    Precarious jobs do not provide the training and stability to ensure that rigorous infection control measures are implemented and followed. Workers in those jobs have low and unstable incomes, and generally lack paid sick leave: the resulting economic desperation compels many of them to work, when they should be isolating. Another tragic example of the overlap between insecure work and COVID-19 contagion was the tragic failures in hotel quarantine – where a perfect storm of poor training, low wages, and insecure work clearly contributed to the virus’s escape into the community.

    Precarious work is more than just casual work – it includes part-time (especially with unpredictable hours), casual, labour hire, sham contracting, and gig work. Around half of all Australian jobs embody one or more of those dimensions of insecurity.

    Sick pay is unavailable in most of these roles: casual and self-employed workers have none, while even permanent part-timers accumulate only partial credits. When the pandemic hit, 37% of all employed Australians (including self-employed) had no paid sick leave entitlement. Unwell workers thus faced the economic compulsion to work when they should have stayed home.

    Workers in insecure jobs experienced the lion’s share of initial job loss in the early days of the pandemic, cruelly concentrating the costs of the downturn on those who could least afford it. Casual workers lost employment eight times faster than those in permanent jobs. Part-time workers lost work three times faster than full-time workers, and insecure self-employed workers (those without incorporation or without any employees) lost work four times faster than those in more stable small businesses.

    Now, however, the rebound of employment since the initial lockdowns is being dominated by a surge in insecure jobs. Casual jobs account for almost 60% of all waged jobs created since the trough of the recession. Part-time work accounts for almost two-thirds of all new jobs. And very insecure positions (including own-account contractors and ‘gigs’) account for most of the rebound in self-employment.

    So without measures to improve job stability, the post-COVID labour market will clearly be dominated by insecure work – setting us up for future economic, social, and public health risks in the future.

    Multiple job-holding provides further evidence that the labour market, for many people, provides only fractured, incomplete, precarious opportunity. In the December quarter of 2020, there were over a million ‘secondary jobs’ in Australia (where a person is working that job in addition to another role) – the highest in history. Secondary jobs surged by 27% from June through December 2020 (alongside other types of insecure work).

    These jobs now account for 7.2% of all employment in Australia – also the highest in history. As we have tragically been reminded, multiple job holding poses enormous risks: not just on workers forced to juggle multiple positions to make ends meet, but for quality of care and public health.

    Finally, the broader social and familial stresses unleashed by the pandemic have also been exacerbated by insecure work. This problem has a particularly gendered slant: women do most of the unpaid work in our society, and carrying this burden of unpaid work is made even more difficult when paid work is precarious and unreliable. Family demands do not suddenly disappear when there is an opportunity to pick up a casual shift. And for the worker, the consequences of turning down that shift can be damaging and long-term – likely leading to fewer hours subsequently offered by that employer.

    Avoidable outbreaks of COVID-19 provide further proof that Australia needs to roll back precarious work, and ensure all workers have basic security, stability and entitlements.

    Australia has among the highest reliance on insecure work arrangements of any industrial country. That precarity is not natural or inevitable, it is the result of deliberate policy choices. And in the wake of COVID-19, Australia should be making different ones.


    You might also like

    Dutton’s nuclear push will cost renewable jobs

    by Charlie Joyce

    Dutton’s nuclear push will cost renewable jobs As Australia’s federal election campaign has finally begun, opposition leader Peter Dutton’s proposal to spend hundreds of billions in public money to build seven nuclear power plants across the country has been carefully scrutinized. The technological unfeasibility, staggering cost, and scant detail of the Coalition’s nuclear proposal have

  • Industrial Policy-Making After COVID-19: Manufacturing, Innovation and Sustainability

    COVID-19, Industry & Sector Policies

    Industrial Policy-Making After COVID-19: Manufacturing, Innovation and Sustainability

    by Mark Dean, Al Rainnie, Jim Stanford and Dan Nahum

    Authors

    Mark Dean

    Laurie Carmichael Distinguished Research Fellow

    Al Rainnie

    Jim Stanford

    Dan Nahum

    Economist

    As Treasurer during the 1980s, Paul Keating lamented that Australian governments had for decades been allowing the country’s sophisticated industrial base to fall apart as unsophisticated raw materials came to dominate the nation’s exports and as a result, its economy slipped into developing-world status. Keating’s famous warning of Australia’s looming ‘banana republic’ status spurred the Hawke and subsequent Keating Labor governments into action on economic restructuring, which included considering a range of industry policy intervention options to put Australia on a track to advanced, industrial status, as had been the aim of post-war nation-building that helped to institute an advanced manufacturing industrial base in Australia.

    But since the 1990s, the ‘default’ economic and industry policy setting of government has ultimately been to favour resource extraction as our national strength. Even despite the growing threat of climate change and global economic crises that make a shift to ‘green’ industrial transformation a pathway pursued by many other nations, current Coalition government policy continues to reflect deliberate, calculated emphasis on the extraction and export of raw materials. Australia risks cementing its developing-world economic status if we do not consider important industry policy challenges.

    The COVID-19 pandemic has drawn attention to opportunities for Australia to not only rebuild, but reconstruct our economy in a way that capitalises on our national manufacturing potential and their ability to contribute to a sustainable recovery from the economic and social crisis that has culminated in lockdowns and recession. The future development of Australia’s manufacturing industry must focus on the opportunities presented by renewable energy to drive innovation, industrial transformation and a green future shaped by a skilled manufacturing workforce.

    Researchers from the Centre for Future Work, Mark Dean, Al Rainnie (Centre for Future Work Associate), Jim Stanford and Dan Nahum, have co-authored a new scholarly paper which will be published in the academic journal, the Economic and Labour Relations Review and is currently available as an online-first publication at their website.

    The article analyses Australia’s opportunities to revitalise its strategically important manufacturing secor in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, considering Australia’s industry policy options with reference to both advances in the theory of industrial policy and recent policy proposals in the Australian context.

    To examine the prospects for the renewal of Australian manufacturing in a post-pandemic economy, the article draws on recent work from The Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work – specifically, Dan Nahum’s research into manufacturing and sustainability in Powering Onwards and Jim Stanford’s research on post-COVID-19 manufacturing renewal and Australia’s record on robotics adoption, in synthesis with analyses from published and forthcoming research from Al Rainnie and Mark Dean relating to critical evaluations of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and its implications for the Australian economy.

    The aim of the article is to contribute to and further develop the debate about the future of government intervention in manufacturing and industry policy in Australia. Crucially, the argument links the future development of Australian manufacturing with a focus on renewable energy. The purpose of this article has been to interpret the decline of manufacturing in Australia over the last generation and to identify the core principles and policy levers that would facilitate a revitalisation of our domestic manufacturing capabilities. The paper considers the history of half-hearted attempts by Australian governments and industry to spark a recovery: these attempts have largely lacked any critical consideration of the structural factors that inhibit a full-scale transformation of Australian industry. Such a transformation would in fact require consistent and systematic policy settings.

    The Coalition government’s evolving policy framework – focused on tax cuts for high-income households and companies, subsidies for further fossil fuel use, and further interventions to weaken industrial relations practices – reflects its attempt to use the pandemic as an opportunity to reinforce its previous commitment to a business-dominated economic strategy. But Australia can, and must, do better than this. The article analyses the possibilities and the challenges of developing a new industrial policy that is informed by modern understandings of technology, sustainability and social cohesion.

    A modern, sustainable industry policy is not a catch-all solution to addressing climate change, economic crisis and pandemic recovery – but it does hold great potential to help redirect Australia’s lurch further towards the banana republic status first identified nearly forty years ago.

    You can access a pre-publication version of this article below and those with access can read the article publication on the Economic and Labour Relations Review website.



    Full report

    Share

  • Australia’s Electricity Infrastructure Undermined by $1 Billion Per Year Under Investment

    Australia’s Electricity Infrastructure Undermined by $1 Billion Per Year Under Investment

    Share

    The resilience of Australia’s electricity infrastructure is being undermined by a chronic pattern of underinvestment in maintenance and upkeep, the result of rent-seeking by private electricity producers and a deeply flawed regulatory system.

    That is the conclusion of a detailed review of empirical and qualitative data on the transmission and distribution system contained in a new report from the Australia Institute.

    Key findings:

    • The electricity grid is facing increasing challenges: including increased severe weather events, bushfires, and the need to reliably integrate new renewable energy generation into the system. But years of underinvestment in capital and maintenance have left the system vulnerable to disruptions, failures, and disasters.
    • The report shows that maintenance and operating costs across the system should be increased by at least $1 billion per year, to match historical levels of real spending per electricity customer.Real per capita operating and maintenance expenditures have been slashed by 28% (in distribution) and 33% (in transmission) compared to 2006 levels.
    • The electricity industry is allocating just 15% of its revenues to capital spending, despite the needs for new capacity and upgrading – down from 25% in 2007.
    • Within this shrunken envelope of operating and maintenance costs, the industry’s focus has shifted away from hands-on upkeep of the grid in favour of managers, sales staff, financial experts, and other overhead functions. There are now 40% more office managers and professionals working in the industry (mostly in finance and sales) than electricians.
    • With this expansion of unproductive corporate bureaucracies, productivity in electricity has performed worse than any other sector in Australia’s economy: real output per hour worked has fallen one-third since 2007. This trend is worsened by chronic underinvestment in hands-on maintenance and upkeep, causing greater vulnerability to outages, accidents, and shut-downs.
    • A perverse pattern of behaviour has emerged in the regulatory system, whereby transmission and distribution companies submit requests for operating expenses which the AER seemingly rolls back – only to have those artificial budgets underspent by the companies, who are allowed to keep some of the savings. This artificial process has padded already-rich profits of energy companies, while ignoring the real needs of the grid for improved equipment and reliability.
    • The statistical analysis in the report is supplemented by evidence gathered from 25 front-line power industry workers, who attest to their personal experiences with underinvestment, poor maintenance, safety hazards, and environmental damage.
    • The report makes 7 recommendations for regulatory reforms that would allocate more resources to the real work of maintaining and upgrading the grid (so it is better prepared for future challenges like climate change and growing renewable generation), while reducing the waste of unproductive financial and speculative activities.

    “The stresses on Australia’s electricity grid are becoming more severe – including climate change, bushfires, and integrating renewable energy. We should be investing more in the quality and safety of the grid, not less. But the combination of energy company greed and deeply flawed regulatory practices is producing systematic underinvestment in this vital piece of electrical infrastructure,” said Dr. Jim Stanford, director of the Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work.

    “Australia’s fragmented, irrational electricity system has produced soaring prices for consumers, shaky reliability, but soaring profits. It’s time to rethink the fundamental priorities of the regulatory system – starting with channeling more needed investment into the power grid,” Dr Stanford said.

    “Over the past 15 years, high-vis maintenance and transmission workers have been replaced by telemarketers, spin-doctors and banking spivs. This has done nothing for network reliability, but has left us unprepared for the challenge of extreme weather and the incorporation of renewables to our energy supply,” said Michael Wright, Assistant National Secretary of the Electrical Trades Union.

    “Substantial investment is needed to retool for an unpredictable future. Energy generation and distribution is the backbone of industry and jobs and privatisation has simply cost consumers and jobs. Governments must stop inviting private sector financial parasites to feast on our energy system and instead focus on the mammoth task of preparing for climate change,” Mr Wright said.


    Related research



    Missing a Stitch in Time:



    Full report

  • Rage & Optimism as an Activist Economist

    Rage & Optimism as an Activist Economist

    by Alison Pennington in Crikey

    Alison Pennington

    Senior Economist

    Share

    Originally published in Crikey on April 23, 2021

    Crikey is reclaiming the “angry woman” trope in a new column about what women achieve through rage, passion and determination. In this inspiring and poetic feature with our Senior Economist Alison Pennington, Alison explains how rage about how the economy works (or doesn’t work) powers her forceful work as an activist economist.

    We are pleased to share the article by Amber Schultz, with kind permission from Crikey media.

    Belittled for being angry, Alison Pennington is breaking the mould of boring economists

    Centre for Future Work senior economist Alison Pennington makes no apologies for harnessed rage.

    By Amber Schultz

    April 23, 2021

    Alison Pennington

    Anger is an emotion we’re rarely told to express. Passionate women and people of colour are often framed as overly outspoken, enraged, shrill or resentful. Their fights are discredited the second they raise their voice.

    But regardless of how it’s framed, anger gets results. When directed in the right way, rage can inspire change. It pulls people out of their homes, it causes them to rally outside Parliament, call out bullshit and fight for what they believe in.

    This week Crikey spoke with Alison Pennington, a senior economist with the Centre for Future Work, about what’s got her riled up this week — and how anger has worked in her favour.

    Crikey: When has rage worked in your favour?

    Alison Pennington: My analysis has force because I feel plenty of rage, and the immediacy of every moment. Being passionate is about giving a shit. “Giving a shit” suggests you have a moral code. I make no apologies for harnessed rage.

    My rage is harnessed as a slow-burning force. I want to dismantle the logic of those creating harm and inequality and establish better systems and processes. That requires equal parts rage and optimism.

    Crikey: Have you ever been called out for being angry?

    I have had years of experience of being belittled or seen as not serious, or as capable, because I give a shit.

    I worked in budget at the Department of Finance. When policies hit my desk for review, I could envision how they impacted working Australia on the ground. I’d suggest additional assessments of clearly damaging, non-transparent government proposals. I was routinely told that caring was getting in the way of efficient rubber-stamping. “Just let it wash over you.” I was also told I was “a bit of a bogan”!

    Crikey: Do you fit the mould of a typical economist?

    Most economists are men in corporate jobs who are actually paid to maintain this air of authority, objectivity and distance from emotion. Bringing your humanity to the table every day is much harder than hiding silos of self-congratulatory authority, which is the way that economics is consistently being taught.

    People don’t want to see impersonal suits wearing economists as authorities and people telling them what their life is like and what it should be like. They want to see someone who talks like them, and thinks like them, or is as angry as them and as concerned as them.

    Crikey: What’s got you riled up this week?

    There was an agricultural worker of 15 years. She provides 14 years of blemish free loyal service as a mushroom picker and then gets injured, and then suddenly, in the six months after that, there’s four disciplinary warnings against her. Finally, the employer finds “the evidence” that she can be sacked because she put her mushroom picking knife on the wrong hook.

    The Morison government has gone about increasing the power of employers in our industrial nations laws to screw over workers in the workplace, and that was just a story that really highlighted the difference between rhetoric and reality.

    Prime Minister Scott Morrison and the government can say that they care about women’s work opportunities and making sure women have opportunities to work and close the gender pay gap and all that but like this is what it looks like on the ground.


    You might also like

  • Expansion of Employer Power to Use Casual Work Hurts Women Most

    Expansion of Employer Power to Use Casual Work Hurts Women Most

    by Alison Pennington in Michael West Media

    Alison Pennington

    Senior Economist

    Share

    Originally published in Michael West Media on March 24, 2021

    As women lead mobilisations against workplace gendered violence, the federal government passed legislation expanding employer power to use insecure, casual labour in its IR bill – laws that will disproportionately impact the pay and security of women’s jobs.

    In this commentary, Senior Economist Alison Pennington explains how new casuals measures and the government’s wider economic policies – including in industrial relations, childcare, welfare, and fiscal spending – significantly undermine the economic security of women, entrench pay inequality, and ultimately, increase their vulnerability to gendered violence.

    This commentary was originally published in Michael West Media.

    Crocodile tears no mask for Coalition’s economic war on women

    Well may Scott Morrison tear up as he relates how his daughters, wife and widowed mother drive his every decision. The facts are that every move of the Coalition government ensures women are poorer, more insecure at work and more vulnerable to violence on the job. The Industrial Relations bill pushed through last week is a final nail in the coffin for women. Alison Pennington reports.

    After a month of anger from women around the country about sexual harassment and the treatment of women in the workplace, federal parliament passed legislation last week that will strike a massive, lasting blow to women’s job quality and pay, entrenching pay inequality and exacerbating women’s economic insecurity.

    The mainstream media has mainly focused on the fact that most of the Industrial Relations bill didn’t pass. But the cornerstone of the legislation – and the primary reason for its inception, pre-pandemic, by business lobbyists – did.

    A new legal definition of casual work will allow employers to call any job a casual one. Jobs can now look and smell like permanent jobs, except that employers can legally engage you as a casual, stripping away your legal entitlements at will.

    So-called “permanency conversion” rights in the legislation are so weak that employers will easily craft employment arrangements to lock in casual jobs long-term.

    Employers will simply vary rosters

    Employers will vary rosters sufficiently to ensure that employees will never reach the benchmarks of six and 12 months of regular schedules that should lead to permanency. In any case, employers will be allowed to refuse offers on “reasonable grounds”. And small businesses, which employ a huge 44% of all private sector employees, are exempted entirely.

    The federal government’s new casual laws will expand the incidence of casual work. Women will disproportionately suffer in a labour market with diminishing opportunities to obtain secure, decent jobs because women are more likely to be in casual roles (filling 54% of all casual positions). And women’s vulnerability to casualisation is growing. Women accounted for 62% of all new casual jobs created in the period from May to November 2020.

    Casual workers are not compensated

    Despite claims from employers that casual workers are compensated for the loss of entitlements and lack of predictability in rosters and tenure, nothing could be further from the truth.

    Casual workers are, on average, paid far less than employees in permanent roles. Median weekly earnings of full-time casuals were 23% lower ($1080 per week) than those in permanent roles ($1400 per week), and 45% lower for casual part-time workers ($390 per week) compared with permanent part-time workers on $720 per week.

    The expansion of the power of employers to use casual work in a jobs market awash with many hungry mouths desperate for paid work means more women in lower-paying, insecure jobs.

    The government’s decision to subject the unemployed to a below-poverty JobSeeker rate means more women reliant on employers to survive. At every move the Liberal National party government is making Australian women poorer, more insecure and more vulnerable to violence on the job.

    Women return to lower quality jobs

    Treasurer Josh Frydenberg celebrates the recent fall in the unemployment rate to 5.8 per cent, claiming the recovery is well under way. But the detailed job quality data tell a very different story for women.

    Women workers are “snapping back” to a world of paid work on inferior terms compared with men – fewer hours, less pay and less security.

    Casual jobs accounted for 64.3% of the total growth in women’s employment from May to November last year.

    Alarmingly, more than half of all the growth in women’s employment over the six-month period was in both low-hours and insecure work, with 52.4% of total growth in employees in part-time casual jobs.

    Traditional full-time permanent jobs with normal entitlements (such as paid sick leave, holidays and superannuation) represented a dismal 10.4% of female employment growth from May through November.

    It’s a crude fact that as women’s casual jobs were booming, business lobbyists were pushing for passage of the IR Bill on the basis that employers “lacked confidence” to hire casuals due to legal “uncertainty”. Australia was simultaneously experiencing the largest and fastest increase in casual employment in its history.

    More fuel for gender pay gap fire

    The consequences of an employment recovery overwhelmingly concentrated in part-time and casual jobs for women is more fuel for the gender pay gap fire.

    The gender pay gap is most often measured by comparing the earnings of men and women in full-time jobs. But women face persistent barriers to workforce participation – including unaffordable childcare, lack of family-friendly work arrangements, and workplace discrimination. Consequently, almost half (45.1%) of all employed women are in part-time work.

    Measuring the gender pay gap using total average earnings data (including both full-time and part-time workers, and bonuses and overtime as well as ordinary time wages) indicates that the gender pay gap is 31% across all jobs – a more dire, but more accurate, measure of the pay gap.

    Ironically, the gender pay gap narrowed in the early stages of pandemic and recession. From late-2019 to May 2020, the gap between male and female total wage incomes declined from 31.4% to 29.6% – down by 1.8 percentage points.

    But this did not represent “progress” in pay equality. The gap only closed because more than 300,000 women in low-paid casual roles lost their jobs, which increased the average earnings of those women who were able to stay connected to the workforce.

    How good’s “snap back”?

    As the economy recovered from May last year, an influx of women’s lower-paying jobs widened the gender pay gap again, just as quickly. How good’s “snap back”?

    Instead of improving the quantity and quality of jobs for women, governments have actively pursued policies that will exacerbate pay inequality this year and into the future.

    In addition to casual work changes pushed through in the IR bill, two other policies create higher barriers to women’s participation in paid work, and suppress their pay once they get on the job.

    The federal government and all states and territories (bar Tasmania and Victoria) have imposed punitive and counterproductive public sector wage freezes and caps on their workforces. This suppression of public sector pay hurts women most because they account for 61.7% of all public sector jobs.

    The failure of government to provide affordable, quality childcare presents another major barrier to women’s paid work opportunities. After dangling free childcare in front of families early in the pandemic, the federal government cut supports and reintroduced fees after just three months.

    The return of full-fee, high-cost childcare prices women out of paid work. More than half of women with young children outside the workforce list childcare costs as a key factor in their decision not to work. A childcare system that lets a small number of profit-driven providers determine access denies families and their children access to critical developmental education and much-needed community bonds as people emerge from pandemic-era isolation.

    Rebuilding women’s economic security requires a very different approach from the bankrupt austerity agenda of government. Women need more and better quality jobs, free childcare, a superannuation system that provides genuine income security and an employment relations system that works to lift the quality, pay and safety of their jobs, not undermine it.


    You might also like

    Dutton’s nuclear push will cost renewable jobs

    by Charlie Joyce

    Dutton’s nuclear push will cost renewable jobs As Australia’s federal election campaign has finally begun, opposition leader Peter Dutton’s proposal to spend hundreds of billions in public money to build seven nuclear power plants across the country has been carefully scrutinized. The technological unfeasibility, staggering cost, and scant detail of the Coalition’s nuclear proposal have

    Australia’s Gas Use On The Slide

    by Ketan Joshi

    The Federal Government has released a new report that includes projections of how much gas Australia is set to use over the coming decades. There is no ambiguity in its message: Australia reached peak gas years ago, and it’s all downhill from here:

  • Wrecking superannuation, not protecting women, is the government’s priority

    Wrecking superannuation, not protecting women, is the government’s priority

    by Alison Pennington in The New Daily

    Alison Pennington

    Senior Economist

    Share

    Originally published in The New Daily on March 20, 2021

    It doesn’t matter what the crisis, when it comes to the Morrison government the message is clear: you’re on your own.

    Women deserve so much more than what Jane Hume is proposing, writes Alison Pennington. Photo: AAP

    It doesn’t matter what the crisis, when it comes to the Morrison government the message is clear: you’re on your own.

    As women across Australia lead historic mobilisations demanding government action on gendered violence week, the federal government encouraged women facing domestic abuse to raid their own superannuation accounts.

    Calling superannuation withdrawal measures of up to $10,000 “an important last resort lifeline” for women experiencing domestic violence, Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy Jane Hume later announced the policy would be reviewed following concerns from frontline workers about victim coercion.

    Minister Hume now proposes to strengthen the “integrity” of the scheme with safeguards protecting the free withdrawal of funds. But additional steps for accessing women’s retirement funds do not change the policy’s message: survivors of abuse must fund their own crisis supports. All the while abusers roam free – an addition of intolerable insult to injury.

    Safeguards may stop abusive partners forcing women to raid their retirement savings, but it’s not stopping the federal government. The early-release scheme is entirely consistent with the government’s clear established priorities: dismantling the superannuation system – rain, hail or shine.

    Women marching for economic security and safety are not just ignored by the government. The Coalition’s anti-superannuation crusade to transform the system into an emergency personal bank account actively exploits women’s heightened COVID-era economic vulnerability.

    Women worse off since COVID

    In the initial COVID shutdowns, women experienced greater losses of jobs and hours. Against this backdrop of women’s desperation, the federal government introduced the superannuation early release scheme. Significantly, this was introduced two weeks before the introduction of the Coronavirus Supplement and the JobKeeper wage subsidy.

    Between April and December 2020, 1.5 million women drew down their super, one-quarter of the entire female workforce. $14.9 billion was stripped from women’s already meagre retirement savings. Some 345,000 women completely emptied their accounts. Many more women aged under 20, and also those aged 36-55 (prime working years pre-retirement), withdrew from their superannuation compared to men.

    In 2018, the Coalition announced domestic violence would be added to the list of early release “compassionate grounds”. Frontline domestic violence services voiced concern back then too. Now, pressured by intensifying calls for a proactive government addressing gendered violence, the Coalition suggests “safeguards”.

    The federal government acknowledged heightened gendered violence risks during COVID. But it has still failed to give sufficient funding to the domestic violence sector, lift critical income supports for vulnerable women fleeing abuse, or introduce paid domestic violence leave into minimum labour laws. In fact, $1 million was cut from anti-domestic violence education programs in schools in the 2020 October Budget.

    Early release scheme exacerbates disadvantage

    Women already face systematic disadvantage in the superannuation system and have much lower retirement incomes: they retire with barely half the retirement savings of men. There urgently needs to be targeted reforms to prevent labour market inequalities that reduce women’s career earnings from being baked into the superannuation system as well.

    Abolishing the $450 per month minimum threshold, closing the ‘motherhood gap’ by making super payable for all paid and unpaid care-related absences, and proceeding with the legislated increase in the superannuation guarantee (to 12 per cent) are all important to boosting women’s economic security and safety.

    In the absence of real action on gendered workplace and domestic violence, the government’s superannuation early release scheme for domestic violence victims only exacerbates women’s economic insecurity.

    Women desperate for incomes to survive are more reliant on abusive partners and low-wage casual jobs, more helpless to the threat of ‘handsy’ bosses and colleagues, and below-poverty welfare payments in the future. This latest policy only increases the risks of gendered violence over women’s lifetimes.

    For women experiencing job loss, financial hardship or domestic violence, the message from the federal government is one we are getting sick of hearing: in a crisis, you’re on your own.

    Australian women deserve so much more.


    You might also like

  • Briefing Paper: Women’s Casual Job Surge Widens Gender Pay Gap

    Gender at Work

    Briefing Paper: Women’s Casual Job Surge Widens Gender Pay Gap

    by Alison Pennington

    Author

    Alison Pennington

    Senior Economist

    Media release



    Casual Job Surge Widens Gender Pay Gap

    This briefing note presents data on the gendered composition of the employment recovery since May.

    It shows women’s jobs returned on a more part-time and casualised basis than for men, and that the influx of women’s lower-earning jobs widened the gender pay gap between May and November 2020.

    While women were more likely to lose these same jobs early in the COVID pandemic (and so the return of these jobs is predictable), these statistics demonstrate how the gender pay gap worsens with increases in part-time and casual jobs.

    Finally, the paper describes three major existing and proposed government policies that are likely to widen pay inequality in 2021.



    Full report

    Share