The economic effects on women

Introduction

For the wife of Special Air Service Regiment (SAS) Sergeant Andrew Russell, the issue of compensation became a reality almost overnight. Her husband was killed in 2001, when his vehicle hit a landmine while he was serving in Afghanistan. In reality, no amount of money will ever change the emotional losses of Sergeant Russell's wife and those of their infant daughter who will grow up never knowing her father. Ms Russell, however, was almost offended when she learnt that the amount she was entitled to was supposed to even come close to supporting her and her daughter, let alone financially compensating the life of her husband who died while serving the nation as a member of Australia's elite forces. Sergeant Russell's service at the time of his death was not deemed 'warlike' so Ms Russell was offered a choice between a lump sum of $187 000 or a tax-free pension of $13 000 per year for life. This amount was nowhere near enough to pay off the family mortgage or for Ms Russell to raise their daughter as a single parent.

So has compensation for returned service personnel and their dependants changed all that much since it was first introduced in 1914?

The Introduction of Compensation- War Pensions Act 1914

When Britain declared war on Germany on 4 August 1914 and Australia immediately pledged her support, the Australian public was overwhelmed with enthusiasm. Many believed that the War would be over in a matter of weeks and that the Germans would easily be overpowered by the British Empire. Nobody could have known of the 215 585 casualties that Australia would experience over the four years of the War, the repercussions of which would include thousands of widows, wives with severely injured husbands, and a vast number of children without fathers.

See Image 1

At the outbreak of World War I, the Labor Government did recognise, however, that Australia had not yet established her own national compensation scheme for returned servicemen and their dependants. This was due to the fact that prior to Australia's Federation in 1901 no national Defence Force existed for which a national scheme could be devised. Each Australian colony (now known as a state) had its own separate army from which they sent troops to fight. Australia, a colony of Britain, was required to be provided for by the British Government. This included Britain compensating the incapacitated returned servicemen and in the event of their death, their dependents. Since World War I was the first war that Australian soldiers were going to be involved in, united as the Commonwealth of Australia, there was a growing necessity for a scheme to be implemented.

See Image 1

The Gallipoli Campaign, which was marked by the ANZACs landing at Anzac Cove on 25 April, 1915, was the first major fighting in which Australian troops were involved. It was also the first major loss of life that Australia experienced. At this time, the War Pensions Act 1914 had already been introduced. This Act, modelled on the British compensation system, provided financial compensation for men who were disabled or killed as a result of active service, including on board a ship, outside of Australia. For those who were physically or mentally impaired, disfigured, had a lower standard of health and general wellbeing, or were simply unable to earn an income or lead a regular life due to disease or injury sustained while on active service overseas, the 1914 Act covered them under the term, 'disabled.' Compensation could be paid out to an incapacitated ex-serviceman, as long as his condition was received while he was actively serving overseas. In the event of a serviceman's death during foreign active service, compensation was paid to beneficiaries, including his widow, children and some other dependants.

Financial Support for Women while their husbands were away

Most of the men who enlisted in World War I belonged to the working class of Australian society. This often meant that the wives of these men were left at home to look after their children, without the financial support of their husband who had always provided the family's primary source of income. Providing that their husband nominated them as their next of kin, women were entitled to receive the full (or part) daily pay of their husband's wages while they were away on service. For a private, the lowest-ranking soldier, in addition to the food, clothing and accommodation which were provided for by the army, his annual salary was £104. At almost £3 per week, it was thought that the soldier's wages seemed reasonably decent for 1914. Assuming that they had a wife and only two children (although the actual number of offspring was likely to be much more) it is estimated that the cost of living in Sydney for the family would have been around £2 and 8 shillings per week. For the harsh and dangerous conditions that the soldiers had to survive, their rate of pay was grossly inadequate.

See Image 2

A deferred pay, which accumulated in addition to the soldier's daily pay and was dependent upon their military rank, could be collected when the men had completed their service. In the event of their death, the amount was paid to their next of kin.

Aside from this, no other form of government welfare was paid to the women during the time that their husbands were away serving the nation. Many had to rely on charities and donations to clothe their children. A number of women fell pregnant just before their partners went away to the War and were faced with having to raise an infant alone. Those mothers who had children old enough to look after themselves often found that they had to take up work to try to compensate for the loss of their husband's income. At a time when women's wages were around fifty percent less than men's wages and the standard working week in most Australian industries at the turn of the century was 48 hours, life for the working woman was very tough.

For the few upper and middle class wives and mothers whose male financial providers were serving overseas, the lack of government support did not have much of an impact on their lives.

See Image 3

Women's Entitlement to Compensation

While the introduction of the Act in 1914 meant that women whose husbands were killed or injured in Gallipoli were covered, it did not necessarily put an end to their financial concerns. The War Pensions Act was a compensation for war loss, not an income support payment. Furthermore, the government was concerned that if they used a worker's average weekly earnings to determine the rates of payment for those who could be paid under the Act, it would prove far too costly for them. As a result, the war widow's pension was not means tested. This was a problem for the widowed working class women. It meant that a working class widow who was struggling to feed and clothe her own children received the same amount of money from this scheme as an upper class widow who had immediate access to money and other assets.

See Animation 1

While life was difficult for the women who lost their husbands during the War, it was probably more difficult for those whose husbands returned but for some medical reason were unable to work ever again. These men, under the 1914 Act, were only entitled to £52 per year. In comparison, a widow without a husband was allocated £78 per annum. This made life difficult for a woman who did not have the time to work because she had to care for her many children and her disabled husband who was only bringing in £52 per year. A woman who had lost her husband at war and was receiving £78 per annum from the government could also earn a wage from employment without it limiting her compensation payments.

This compensation figure was also dependent upon an assessment of each individual's degree of total incapacity. An ex-serviceman who was considered to have fifty percent total capacity was only awarded fifty percent of the full compensation payment. Furthermore, compensation was also dependent upon one's military rank. Many of the men who enlisted, particularly those from the working class, belonged to the lowly rank of private and their compensation was paid accordingly.

When the Act was introduced in 1914, it did not include compensation to be paid to widows who were not financially dependent on their husbands at the time of their death or incapacity. De facto widows were also omitted from payment at this time. Furthermore, if a war widow remarried, under this legislation she was no longer entitled to the pension. This was amended in 1916 to allow a war widow who remarried to be able to receive the pension but only for two years from the date that she remarried. This was in accordance with the belief that once a woman was married she became the responsibility of her husband.

Life was difficult for widowed women who were entitled to the payment through the War Pensions Act. The payment was not enough to live on, particularly with the added frustration of the cost of living in Sydney going up by one-third at the end of World War I. Life was even more of a struggle for the wives of men who could not work and who received a lower rate of compensation. Perhaps the most challenged were the group of women who did not meet the requirements of the Act and received no compensation for their loss at all.

Compensation has always been a confusing system and that remains that way today. The belief that the Australian government does not do enough in terms of compensation to acknowledge the service of Australia's men and women, who fought for their country, also continues to be shared by the likes of Ms Russell and many others into the 21st Century.