In preparation for Tuesday night’s budget, I have been revisiting ghosts of women’s budget statements and women’s economic security statements past, particularly the last two years. And gee, it’s been a bit of a wild ride.
Remember the 2020 budget: a “blokefest”, hi-vis, hard hat spectacular delivered at the height of a Covid-induced recession that disproportionately affected women, so much so it was called a “she-cession”. Just $240m of funding (out of about $500bn overall spend) was put towards the women’s economic security statement, as it was then called.
And those who called it out, like the executive director of The Parenthood, Georgie Dent, were told “no one credible” was making that argument and the budget “wasn’t gendered”. The then social services minister, Anne Ruston, took to the airways to say women would enjoy driving on all those roads the Coalition was building.
A year later, the Coalition delivered a women’s budget statement, as it was now called, after a series of scandals that saw it very much on the back foot with female voters. Yes, the budget was now “gendered”. Progress! Sort of. Except it was revealed in Senate estimates that the 2021 women’s budget statement was hastily cobbled together in less than a month, and it showed. It was effectively a laundry list of anything the government thought it could credibly claim was “for women”.
And that brings us to the Coalition’s swan song March 2022 women’s budget statement, which I likened to a #GirlBoss budget in what I call “care feminist” times. There was $348.5m for various #GirlBoss initiatives to “train”, “boost”, “revive”, “support” and “checkpoint” women into leadership positions in “better paid” male-dominated industries and entrepreneurship (because it’s really women who need to be fixed, not systems or structures). But there was nothing to tackle the undervaluing of women’s work in female-dominated caring professions, an insultingly small initiative to tackle the childcare crisis, and a parental leave policy “reform” that most experts said would actually cause more harm than good.
The principal reason I have cantered through this recent history is because I think it is important to understand where we’ve come from into order to fully appreciate the magnitude of where we landed last night – and the promise of change Labor’s first women’s budget statement represents.
I will touch on what the budget “delivered” for women – and what it didn’t. But the starting point for my women’s budget statement analysis is the extent to which it leads to a paradigm shift in the way we understand the drivers of gender inequality – and what can be done to address it.
Here’s the headline: That paradigm shift is huge. HUGE!
As the chair of the government’s independent women’s economic equality taskforce, Sam Mostyn, told me, it is “profound”. “The scale and commitment to this major paradigm shift is significant and reflected in the clarity of the statements of the minister for women, the treasurer, and the prime minister,” Mostyn said. “Gender equality is described as essential to Australia’s prosperity, and at the centre of actions and investments.” I don’t disagree.
The forward to the women’s budget statement states that the goal is to make Australia “one of the most gender-equal countries in the world”. And it maps out some of the key structures the Albanese government will develop to ensure that in all future budgets this remains a central and guiding principle. They include the women’s economic equality taskforce; a forthcoming national strategy to achieve gender equality; and the introduction of something called “gender responsive budgeting”.
Women are no longer “enjoying driving on roads”, or seeing their calls for change dismissed as lacking “credibility”. They are central to the future economic prosperity of this country. Good.
Moving on the specific measures for women in this budget, it was a mixed bag.
Investments in childcare (or as I prefer to call it, early years education and care) and paid parental leave were welcome: key measures that will increase women’s workforce participation and boost productivity. The focus on boosting wages for women in female-dominated professions, particularly the care economy, was essential. It even warranted a mention in the treasurer’s speech. “We choose to pay better wages for those giving care,” Jim Chalmers said. The housing announcement was also welcome. We know that women are increasingly the face of homelessness, particularly older women over the age of 55 and those fleeing family violence.
Disappointments include the lack of significant additional investment to make reality the vague ambition to end violence against women and children “within a generation” contained in the national plan launched last week. The sector has consistently said $1bn a year is needed, and the $1.7bn over five years falls well short of that. The women of Australia deserve more than spin when it comes to their safety; they need funding to back that promise.
Coming a week after anti-poverty week, it was also deeply disappointing to see that the budget did not comprehensively address the circumstances of women living in poverty.
This passage in the forward to the women’s budget statement however was a welcome dose of humility and an indication of a willingness to engage and listen, especially to those asking for more: “The Albanese government is at the beginning of our commitments to gender responsive budgeting and gender equality, but it is not the end. We will listen to feedback.”
I’m heartened to know my and others “feedback” will be heard. We are driving on a different kind of road now to a new destination.
• Kristine Ziwica’s new book, Leaning Out: A Fairer Future for Women at Work in Australia is out now from Hardie Grant. She tweets @KZiwica
