The government is making a monumental effort to appeal to women voters in this year’s budget — though struggles to separate women’s issues from problems that affect families, and frames reducing cancer rates as a win for a single sex rather than of a win for society.
The 2021 Women’s Budget Statement — this time released at the same time as the budget and in the same formatting, unlike last year’s women’s economic security statement — outlines advancements in women’s health, domestic violence, and family planning.
But framing many of these initiatives as addressing women’s issues is at best patronising and at worst horribly sexist. Women make up the slight majority of Australians — women’s healthcare should not be an anomoly and childcare should not be our sole burden. Pregnancy is largely a joint venture and support for families leads to support for both men and women.
Much of the government’s funding announcements were made on Mothers Day, reinforcing the idea that gender equity is a gift to be thankful for.
Sprucing the cabinet reshuffle
The cabinet reshuffle in March was necessary to address allegations of parliamentary rape and Linda Renolds’ mishandling of Brittany Higgins’ allegations. Yet in the budget, the Coalition attempts to frame this as a win, with the reshuffle showing women “in visible positions of leadership” which maintained the “record representation of women”.
It’s spin at its worst.
New roles were announced, including appointing prominent anti-abortion activist Amanda Stoker to the position of assistant minister for women. But the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet has failed to put its money where its mouth is: funding for the Office for Women — an organisation meant to deliver “policies and programs to advance gender equality and improve the lives of Australian women” — has been cut from $25.9 million last year to $18.8 million this year.
Framing child safety and equitable health as a win
The budget includes $354 million to address women’s health initiatives, nearly a third of which will go to improving cervical and breast cancer screening programs. While a welcome initiative, this is more of a correction to previously underfunded medical services.
The women’s health package also includes genetic embryo testing, along with funding for new medication to prevent women going into premature labour, assisted reproductive technology, and long-term reversible contraceptives.
But are these “women’s problems”? Excuse me if my high school sex education classes failed me, but last time I checked it takes two to tango. In a healthy heterosexual relationship, I would hope the father is just as excited to have a healthy baby as the mother.
Framing childcare subsidies — which don’t come into play until next year — as a win for women is also a problem. Rhetoric that childcare is women’s work is not only backward, it reinforces harmful stereotypes. There’s also nothing to attract more people to work in low-paid childcare centres, which again are roles predominantly taken up by women.
Construction was once again a key focus for economic recovery in the budget. This does little to increase women’s participation in the workforce. Investing in education would boost job creation for women at 10 times the rate of construction.
Look, it is an improvement
Credit should be given where credit is due: this is a huge improvement from last year’s budget, which was deemed a “blue budget for a pink recession”.
Last year it took Treasurer Josh Frydenberg 20 minutes to even mention women in his budget speech, whereas this year women were mentioned a little less than halfway through (after he covered employment, the economy, tax relief, housing and small businesses).
Substantial initiatives targeting women were finally implemented — in stark comparison to last year, when Morrison said women should be happy with the budget because we too benefit from road upgrades.
But let’s not forget that many of these key initiatives don’t come into play immediately, are ad-hoc measures, and support pilot programs more than they than commit to real, long-term changes. For example, more cash has been allocated for data collection on women than on emergency housing for domestc violence victims.
While the monumental effort to appear women-friendly is noted, for many of us it’s too late — the government has well and truly lost our trust.
This article seems to go to some length turning every positive into a negative, presumably to ensure the call to be enraged can be sustained.
I think we all need to swing these concepts and realities around our heads a few more times to really get a handle barriers and solutions to enable a less hostile society to appear globally. We’re all.human 1st.
As a recent subscriber to Crikey, I have been enjoying the perspectives from various jurnos, however I am mystified by this ‘overly’ negative review of the budget’s impacts for women by @ambershultz? I think my comments may evoke a defensive response (as I am a white older guy etc etc), however the shifting of the goal posts is evident in this para
“Framing childcare subsidies — which don’t come into play until next year — as a win for women is also a problem. Rhetoric that childcare is women’s work is not only backward, it reinforces harmful stereotypes. There’s also nothing to attract more people to work in low-paid childcare centres, which again are roles predominantly taken up by women.”
One question – are the majority of childcare responsibilities carried out by women? (Not right and backward, I agree, but nevertheless correct?) So just imagine if there was a budget cash splash directed at attracting & paying more for childcare workers, supposedly positively impacting “roles that are predominantly taken up by women” in that sector, would @ambershultz classify that as reinforcing harmful stereotypes and a get a negative report card?
Keep up the good work, but please be balanced!
I agree its a bizarre line to take. One minute the womens movement demands more child care support to allow women to maintain their careers (a good thing) and then when the gov agrees to this, the claims of stereotyping women are trotted out.
Equally bizarre is Crikey’s reporting that this budget is just a ploy to win the next two elections. Um, isnt pleasing the constituency how democracy is meant to work? Sounds like a primary school kid reaction to getting what they asked for from somebody they hate.
Sounds like someone is grasping at straws worried that their boogey man might end up being less hateworthy.
Any excuse to bash the LNP. Im also a white older male who doesn’t vote LNP, but I can acknowledge when they SAY something worthwhile. Whether they follow thru on the promises is another story.
Good article, very fair.
The rooster throws the hens a few crumbs to stop them disturbing the peace of his dung hill.
Oh, and if you start an egg, you’ve got to finish it.
Cock-a-doodle-doo!
I must have budget fever; so sorry.
I’m an old white male myself and I support Amber here. The LNP still dont get get it. I am sure they will expect undying gratitude for this feeble and misguided attempt but we will wait a long time for substantial change from this corrupt bunch of drongos. Dont vote LNP.
Michael, I agree with you…in general the LNP still don’t get it on womens’ issues, they don’t get it on Climate Change and they don’t get it on Quarrantine & returning Aussies…don’t get me started!! But this specific budget article by Amber is hypocritic (on the budget allocation) and makes it harder for us (old white males) to understand womens issues, that’s all I’m calling out!