There’s much talk of women’s equality being at the heart of the Albanese Government with some good budget measures announced on Tuesday to support this. But the spending falls short of the rhetoric.
And more transparency is needed regarding what the promised “gender-responsive budgeting” involves.
We trawled through the papers on Tuesday afternoon from Parliament House, including the 80-page 2023 Women’s Budget Statement, which takes prominence in the bundle of budget papers supplied during the lockup. We also examined the rest of the budget including those items we believe are most relevant to women that don’t sit within the women’s statement, highlighting the wins but also where things fall short, in a comprehensive piece here.
This year’s Women’s Budget Statement is the second such document provided by the Albanese Government, following the first in October 2022. It remains somewhat of an encouraging novelty given the lack interest in women from previous governments.
Once again, the Statement details the gaps confronting women, and importantly the much wider gaps for First Nations women, women with disability and older women. It also explores how such gaps impact areas like safety and economic security, and it aims to address core themes within economic equality, safety, representation and health.
However, while respecting the clear need to balance responsibility with relief in this budget, the spending outlined falls short of addressing some of the most concerning data the Statement outlined. We would also like to see more detail regarding which proposals receive gender impact assessments, what such assessments involve and how this process will be undertaken in the future, given the outlined commitment to extend this in the next budget.
As many advocacy groups have stated in their immediate response, this budget marks a good start on the road to addressing women’s economic equality, but there is much more to do.
On the positive side, significant changes to the single parenting payment were addressed, one of the key recommendations from the Women’s Economic Equality Taskforce.
Also positive, is the $11.3 billion enabling a 15 per cent pay rise for aged care workers, a sector that is majority female, the $72 million outlined to support training and development for early childhood educators, and funding outlined for a First Nations action plan on addressing domestic and family violence.
The $14.6 billion cost of living package also carries incentives to benefit those most vulnerable: a 15 per cent increase in rent assistance, energy bill relief and more bulk billing for GP visits. It should be said that these measures come in addition to October 2022 announced initiatives, including a significant childcare package and an extension to paid parental leave, commencing from July this year.
However, examining the Statement and the key data it outlines regarding the challenges and gaps facing women, it’s difficult to go past what is not being funded, or only receiving limited funding.
A good example of this is in the Statement’s published data point highlighting how dementia was the leading cause of death for women in 2021. But then nothing was outlined to consider how this could be addressed, in terms of research, advocacy or even simple awareness campaigns.
The Statement also outlines alarming data regarding the rates of domestic and family violence, as well as sexual violence. An additional half a billion in funding allocated for women’s safety over the next four years doesn’t go far enough. While it does come in addition to the $1.7 billion committed over four years in October 2022, advocacy groups have been calling for $1 billion a year in funding for addressing domestic and family violence – especially if the Albanese Government wants to get anywhere close to ending violence within a generation, as is its stated goal.
Funding for women’s health also falls short.
One of the headlines includes the $26.4 million to continue and strengthen the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health, including establishing a First Nations data access strategy and governance mechanism and increasing the diversity of participants.
Expanding this study is certainly beneficial. It’s the longest-running such study in the world, and has for decades been providing valuable data on women’s health that has not been provided elsewhere. But the incredible data uncovered from this research has been buried; where is the funding to ensure it’s being translated into initiatives that support better health outcomes for women?
Also allocated is $2.8 million to extend mental health support for Australians living with eating disorders and their families. This allocation follows extensive lobbying from parents and advocacy groups, noting services are struggling under surging demand. This funding is welcome but is too small to make a significant dent on the challenge now and expected ahead.
Minister for Women, Senator Katy Gallagher opened her press release on the Women’s Economic Statement with the line that: “Labor is backing Australian women with the most significant single year investment in women’s equality in at least the last 40 years.”
She said equality for women “isn’t an add-on or a nice to have. It’s crucial for our prosperity.”
It’s excellent to see such strong language and support for acknowledging the role of women’s equality in a prosperous Australia.
We were unable to get immediate answers on how that single-year investment is calculated during the lockup on Tuesday, but will pursue this further.
What we can say from our own reporting is that this past year certainly breaks records on previous years for spending and marks a turning point on putting us on a path to addressing women’s equality. However, we need to know what the Albanese Government classifies as “investments for women”. Is for instance, the $11.3 billion allocated for aged care workers included? Is that reasonable, if so? This investment comes as a result of a Fair Work Commission decision.
We are also seeking more answers on gender-responsive budgeting and believe that more transparency should be expected here.
Labor has long committed to gender-responsive budgeting, a welcome shift on what successive Coalition Governments have offered and also a return to the late Susan Ryan AO’s work, who pioneered gender-responsive budgeting in the Hawke Government’s 1984/85 budget.
Now two budgets in, are the gender impact assessments that are being done, enough? Are there adequate resources in place to make it happen?
And what more can we expect from this budget’s stated promise to provide such assessments across more areas over the next period?
What more will be done to help enable more transparency on the gender impact assessments, including how comprehensive the process is, which measures are actually assessed, and then further what applying a “gender lens” to proposals actually means.
There is no published list sharing which proposals have had the full gender impact assessment. In asking the Office for Women during the budget Lockup on Tuesday, we learned that two proposals received this assessment. Asked how proposals are selected for gender assessment, we were told the Minister for Women selects such proposals, and that this year the Minister was particularly interested in gender assessments on areas including aged care, the care sector generally and housing.
With just a tiny number of areas even considered for gender assessment, that leaves an entire budget full of other proposals in dire need of such analysis – including across defence, renewable energy and climate change, small business and health.
As such, we hope to see more on this in the next budget.
Imagine what gender-responsive budgeting could bring to some of the bigger spending initiatives, like the nuclear-powered submarine program? There will be $127.3 million allocated over the next four years for an additional 4,000 additional Commonwealth-supported places at universities and other higher education providers to support the skill requirements. What if this merely further expands the gap in women and men studying STEM careers, gaps that have already been acknowledged elsewhere by this government?
This budget also outlines more on the plan for Australia to become a “renewable energy superpower”. What if such a plan merely sees gender pay and leadership gaps widen further, with thousands of new jobs opening up to already male-dominated workforces? What happens with no real analysis or plan to address the potential gender implications (including the risks and opportunities) of the green transition ahead.
Meanwhile, there is $125.7 million allocated over five years to uplift the capacity of the National Emergency Management Agency to support Australia during and following disasters. What if this fails to address real and pressing issues affecting women following disasters, like reported upticks in family and domestic violence and difficulties accessing reproductive health needs?
Gender-responsive budgeting presents huge opportunities for Australia. Two budgets in, we’re seeing a good start and a commitment to do more. But the process must be transparent and cover a far wider range of spending initiatives.